2nd Round of Wednesday, June 6 Afternoon Breakout Sessions 2nd Day
(3) Community Engagement & Releasing Emergency Plans to the Public: Sunshine Week 2007
Jane E. Rovins, MPH, CEM
This session looks at the outcome of Sunshine Week 2007. The panelist included: Debra Gersh Hernandez (Coordinator, Sunshine Week, Arlington, VA); Pete Weitzel (Coordinator, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, Arlington, VA); Joseph A. Davis(Director, Watchdog Project, Society of Environmental Journalists, Bethesda, MD); Valerie Lucus, CEM, CBCP(Emergency Manager, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA;)); and Gordon W. Deno, CEM (Emergency Management Director, WilsonCounty, NC). It was moderated by John Lindsay, Assistant Professor and Chair Department of Applied Disaster and Emergency Services Program, BrandonUniversity, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
Mr. Davis set the stage by telling the story of 1984 Bhopal, India chemical plant explosion and how it led to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986. EPCRA established the public’s right to know about chemical hazards in their communities.
Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Weitzel continued by explaining the genesis of Sunshine Week, its findings, and why it is important. Sunshine Sunday, began in 2002 in Florida, in response to legislative attempts to exempt many records from public record laws. Initially the media ran articles, editorials and news pieces on the importance of public access to records. In 2005, Sunshine Week was launched nationally every mid-March.
Sunshine Week is a non-partisan event, about democracy not politics. It is lead by newspaper editors whose partners include high schools, colleges, League of Women Voters, religious leaders and others. Sunshine Week includes numerous activities, in schools, the media and elsewhere. A key activity is an information audit. It is not an attempt to “get” public officials, or embarrass anyone; it provides a feel for what it is like for an average citizen to request a public document. Auditors (reporters and citizens) do not request anything that is classified, private or otherwise reasonably withheld, including Tier II information. It is meant to help improve the system and provide better public oversight. The document requested changes every year.
This year, auditors asked for the Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan. Under EPCRA this plan is a public document and is required to be available to the public. They are allowed to keep sensitive information out of the Plan and make it part of the Tier II document. Auditors did not explain why they wanted the document, as it would skew the results. 404 audits were conducted in 37 states and Puerto Rica with 44% providing the plan in entirety, 20% provided a partial copy and 36% denied outright. Weitzel noted that the percentage of communities that provided part of or the entire plan was a barely passing grade and very disappointing. Many officials werevery possessive of the document and treated “custodian” as “owner” and would not share. It has been more than 40 years since the Freedom of Information Act became law and many agencies are not complying, at all levels of government. This is especially true at the Federal level and can be seen in the struggle over information sharing amongst federal agencies. This was generally not a problem before the Department of Homeland Security.
Obstacles encountered by auditors included being asked to sign a non-disclosure statement, getting the run around as to the location of the plan, broken copiers (come back another day), officials that were not aware of the plan and fees as high as $1700. In Austin, Texas, an auditor was the focus of an FBI investigation as a result of her request to see the plan. They found that 60% of the auditors were asked for identification and why they wanted the plan. This illegal in most states and is a subtle form of intimidation; it causes citizens to stop asking to see the public documents. These obstacles can be caused by a lack of information or understanding of the federal laws on the part of the official, as most of these are local documents. Many officials believed that terrorism laws prevent them from complying, this is not the case.However, it was noted that many jurisdictions said that no one had ever asked to see the plan previously.
The highlights included 12% of the plans were posted on city or county website while others provided a copy of the plan electronically on cd. Some officials were thankful as they saw it as a way to spread awareness. One went as far as to make an extra copy in case anyone ever asks again.
The outcome of the audit is tri-fold. Officials need more training and information to understand what is public information and what is Tier II information. Mr. Deno concurred that part of the problem may be the confusion over the Tier II information and understanding what is releasable and what is not. The media needs to do a better job of educating the public on the laws and their right to know. Lastly, citizens need to do a better job of exercising due diligence in reviewing the plans and sharing the knowledge. This was evident as Mr. Deno said he has had three requests to see the plan and two were during Sunshine Week. Ms. Lucus concurred as it became a topic of discussion on the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) list serve.
The questions that ensued supported the notion that there is a balance between terrorist concerns and the community’s safety and public’s right to know. General citizenry has a responsibility to prepare themselves; just because the information is available it does not mean citizens are taking advantage of it.