The document summarizes presentations from the PI WORKS 2011 conference. It discusses topics such as the purpose of public involvement, communicating risks of aging infrastructure projects, branding a sewer project, dealing with highly emotional issues, using blogs and forums for citizen engagement, and planning public participation for a transmission line project. Conference participants shared lessons learned and best practices for engaging the public in complex infrastructure projects.

1. PI WORKS 2011
Summary of Presentations
Prepared by conference scholarship students Francesca Patricolo, Elaine Phillips and Claire
Turpel
Jeanne Lawson and Carie Fox
Power of Purpose: Knowing Why and When to do Public Involvement
Jeanne and Carie appeared to really enjoy co-presenting! They began by delivering a
message about the importance of ‘getting clear about the purpose’ of the projects we do
as public participation practitioners. They said that consensus about the purpose needs
to happen before consensus can be reached for a conclusion. Purpose is about getting
the best decision and considers all the values of the community. A quality decision
provides accountability and legitimacy. Jeanne referred to the Magna Carta and U.S.
Constitution to prove that public participation is a fundamental value in western founding
heritage and is as important as religion is to us. We also learned about confirmation
bias which needs diversity to be counter-acted. Confirmation bias is something all
people do and has nothing to do with intelligence. What happens is we make a decision
about something right away and then everything we see after that is seen through a
lens that supports that initial decision.
Carie compared mediation to public participation and asked “What do participants want
to get out of participation?” She said that no studies exist, no one has asked participants
why they participate. The National Academy of Science says that if there were a better
process, there would be a better decision, but that is not true in part because one must
consider why people participate/ what they want to get out of the participation. This
launched an activity of table group conversations about what folks think is the purpose
of their involvement in public participation. Each table was assigned a participant group
role title (such as “public full time advocates”) and asked to discuss two things: what the
role wants to get out of a public participation process, and how they would measure if
they got what they wanted out of the process.
Amy Echols & Erik Peterson
Dam Gates: Communicating risks, actions, and responsibilities
Aging and outdated infrastructure is expensive and takes a lot of time but waiting to do
something about it only makes it worse. ASCE Report Card shows that American
infrastructure is a “D” at nearly all levels. The dams in the Willamette Valley were not
built to provide electricity, they were built to prevent flooding. Failing dams presents a
huge issue for the Southern Willamette Valley. For the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Southern Willamette Valley public had to learn risks and consequences of the aging
infrastructure of the dams they regulate. Public participation on this project was only as
informing.
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 1

2. The challenge was in reaching out to find the public. The Army Corps of Engineers
created an informative video to help people in the community learn about the
infrastructure and its need for improvement. In the informational video, they decided to
give background and context first and then describe the problem. Inform, collaborate,
empower was the mission of the video. Maps in the video helped give people context
and history so that they could be empowered. Separating the video into different parts
was a good idea because it helps to be able to select parts to show people and to allow
people to select the parts of the story they want to see and in the order they would like
to see them. Key messages were important to form because now they can be used over
and over. The wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented every time there is an earthquake
and the same questions arise regarding the aging infrastructure. They did not know
what the public wanted to know so they started out giving a lot of technical data.
Participants in this session discussed the value of establishing a platform for consistent
internal agency and external communication, the challenge of describing a highly
complex flood reduction system, potential risk and engineering concerns to lay
audiences, the advantages and pitfalls of communications planning and implementation
based on evolving engineering and risk assessments, staging outreach to build
government, stakeholder and public understanding of the situation, and the value and
limitation of traditional outreach for a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
Issues include that there was no corporate perspective on the risk so they had to
identify conclusive understanding at the technical level. There was also urgency in
getting out to the public so that they could be on board and don’t end up standing in
water. They had a good relationship with the newspaper reporter, which helped the
process -saved it from getting worse.
Jeff Selby
Meet LOIS: Branding the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Project
Lake Oswego needed to upgrade an interceptor sewer below a privately owned lake
knowing it would be the biggest public works project in the city’s history. To prepare for
public involvement, the City tried to think of a catchy name for the project and a logo.
They found it useful to take a perspective that always looked for ways to find “What’s in
it for them (the private homeowners surrounding the lake that own the lake)?” So they
reminded people this could be an opportunity to do some work on their homes, etc. The
system benefited 80% of the community, not just the homes around the lake.
The city hired a professional documentary filmmaker to film the divers who inspected
the interceptor and pointed out the large cracks, etc. to show the evidence to the public.
This backed up the legitimacy of why the upgrade was needed. Access to the lake was
a challenge and they also had to plan around impacts to the boating season. Now they
are handing out “Thank you” posters and squeeze toys that say “LOIS: On time and
Under budget” as a way to further improve the City’s image of responsibility and
reliability.
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 2

3. In branding, they wanted to be customer-centric, credible, transparent, consistent, and
empathetic. They used opportunities to collaborate with neighbors. One example is a
neighbor who said they do green roofing and worked with the City to put a green roof on
the pump station. They had a LOIS brand promise that included involvement, proactive
and reactive communication tools, good neighbor plans (timeline, noise, hours of work,
and restoration, meet the contractor meetings, consistently updated website, dynamic
emails (My Emma), and social media. The meet the contractor meetings included brief
presentations covering smells, noise, etc., and answering questions. The contractors
understood the importance of public outreach (with some nudging). It was great for both
the public and the contractors! The City Tweeted road closures and important
information on the project. It was free, easy, and allowed people to receive their
information in different ways. They used the the logo, look, and feel over and over in
every way for consistency. They had LOIS stickers for the helmets of contractors.
Very successful project, and a recipient of an IAP2 award!
Penny Mabie & Susan Hanson
Survival Strategies for Highly Emotional Issues
and Moving from Public Anger to Acceptance
The Willamette River Bridge (Oregon City/ West Linn) is 89 years old and has had very
limited work done to maintain it. It is deteriorating and will need to be repaired. People
were angry because the bridge will have to be completely closed for two years. ODOT
went out and told everyone the bridge would be closed for one year but then had to go
back and tell the public that it will really take two years. This caused a lack of trust for
ODOT that was compounded by a general mistrust of government. ODOT was seen as
outsiders who don’t understand the local community’s needs. The community had a lot
of questions about project costs.
Workshop participants brainstormed ways to improve the situation, including getting the
loudest critics involved in a positive way, hiring an outside neutral consultant, and
getting a highly trusted political figure on board as an ally to help rally support. Susan
ended up walking the streets of the community, attending community meetings and
events, getting to be the friendly public face of ODOT to help build trust back. There
was a contract in place that provided penalties to ODOT if they closed the bridge longer
than they said they would so they were accountable for delivering to the public.
The economic impact of closing the bridge was a big issue. The Oregon City downtown
is struggling and the closure would provide a hardship for businesses. There was a bad
economy so businesses were already suffering, drive by visibility was eliminated, a
lawsuit for economic mitigation was filed, and the project was making the Downtown
Manager’s job harder (he’s supposed to attract new businesses). Workshop participants
noted they could make the situation better by working with construction crews about
patronizing the businesses, hiring locals to work on the project, and providing and
distributing coupons. What ODOT did was include the Downtown Manager to turn him
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 3

4. into an ally. ODOT empathized with the downtown merchants and worked on their
behalf. ODOT created special signage for the businesses, gave them money, used the
downtown businesses for their project work needs whenever possible, and included (in
all project updates to the public) a note that the downtown businesses are open.
Another issue was bicycle and pedestrian access since some individuals were quite
impacted. Mitigation ideas include a ferry or shuttle service, a zip line, and allowing only
pedestrians to cross. ODOT actually hired a traffic consultant to create a plan for this.
The most cost-effective solution was to have a shuttle. They convened a group of
stakeholders and they ended up being on board in the end once they were brought into
the planning process and understood all the information at hand. The task force group
ended up being very helpful for the process. The economic fallout was not as bad as
anticipated and the shuttle service has been a huge success. Involving folks in the
planning process was very helpful. Bringing elected officials and media on board early
also helped.
Aurora Bridge in Seattle was built in 1932, has the second rate of highest suicides in the
U.S. Every word matters when working on a project to improve this bridge with suicide
fencing because there is a lot of emotion involved. The issues included opposition to
suicide prevention, opposition to changing the historic bridge (views of the bridge and
from the bridge), opposition to spending money on fences instead of prevention
services, and opponents didn’t feel safe to express their concerns about the project.
What they did was stakeholder interviews, paid attention to key messaging, did tons of
research, sought out what community values exist by having a workshop and a neutral
presentation, had a community design charette and open house, and then a conceptual
design report. This became a safety project instead of a suicide prevention project.
Assessment was critical, reframing of the problem (solution) was key, addressing the
issue by talking about safety instead of suicide helped, and being creative was critical.
ODOT Leaps into the Blogosphere: The Willamette River Bridge Blog:
Presented by:
Jyll Smith, Major Projects Branch Public Affairs, chairs Social Media Working Group at ODOT,
and
Suzanne Roberts , Senior Account Representative at Edelman, a global public relations firm.
It took Jyll Smith more than three years to convince ODOT management that it would be a good
public relations move to start a blog about what the department does. They finally decided to
try it as part of their communications about the Willamette River Bridge replacement project in
Eugene.
The bridge project, which began in 2003 and is scheduled for completion in 2013, is the biggest
federal project for repairing and replacing bridges in the United States and is budgeted at $201
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 4

5. million dollars. It was intended to replace one mile of I-5 that was unable to handle the weight
of freight trucks and will save those trucks 200 miles of detours through central Oregon.
This is a very visible project in a highly engaged community. Near the University of Oregon,
Autzen Stadium, Alton Baker Park and the well used running and bike paths in Eugene, the
public has a front row seat to this project and wants to know what is happening on a regular
basis. This is the ideal situation for a blog which can provide information and a forum for on-
going discussion, questions and answers that will keep the public informed and involved in a
positive way.
The advantages of using a blog to engage the public include creating a new digital pipeline for
information that is not available elsewhere. The blog creates a forum for agency created
content that opens a dialogue with the public. The blog can address controversial issues
quickly, and keeps the Citizen Advisory Group better informed between meetings. ODOT posts
2-3 times per week, and it takes 8-16 hours of staff time to do this. There are no ghost writers;
the managers write the blogs with Cawood Communications, and Jyll moderates the site. There
have been very few problems with inappropriate posts. Edelman oversees the schedule and
tracks each post from initial concept through final posting.
On average there are 90 views per week, and the site has been visited over 11,000 times. Some
of the lessons learned are that the public does look at old blogs, and headings are really helpful
for assisting people in finding what they are looking for.
Citizen Engagement through Applied Community Forums
John Spady of Countywide Community Forums in King County, WA and John Blakinger, Dialog
Host for Civilsay.org, a blog site supported by the City Club of Central Oregon.
John Spady explained that Countywide Community Forum is a public engagement technology
and is the result of an initiative that was sponsored by John’s father Richard, the co-found of
Seattle’s Dick’s Drive-in. Two to four times a year, registered citizen councilors are invited to
meet at a time and place of their choice in homes, libraries or work places throughout King
County to learn more about an issue that matters to them, discuss it with the group and
complete a detailed survey on their views. The survey results are communicated back to
participants, members of the King County Council, other government officials, members of the
media, and the general public. The King County Auditor makes sure this input is balanced for
the King County Council. This is a self-selected process. Like voting—whoever comes is heard.
The way the process works is that small groups gather (or individuals can do this online) and
review materials (often there is a video) and then discuss the issue that is of concern. Everyone
has a chance to give their opinion without interruption in a “round robin” format. After this
there is an open discussion. Lastly, the participants fill out an “opinionnaire” (survey) that will
be made available to the decision-makers (typically, the local elected officials). John had the
group take a survey to understand how easily the “Polll Everywhere” survey tool works. (It’s
free for audiences of less than 30; www.polleverywhere.com ). It can easily be taken with a
cell phone if a computer isn’t available.
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 5

6. Spady and Blakinger took the group through a “world café” discussion as an example of another
format that can be used in a citizen engagement process. It involved setting up several tables
that each had a topic that needed to be discussed. Each table had a host that remained at the
table, while the other participants moved to different tables and had discussions at each for a
set period of time. In this way, everyone became educated about the topic and had a chance to
hear what others had to say about it, enabling them to potentially broaden their
understanding.
BPA’s High Voltage Superhighway
Maryam Asgharian, Public Affairs Specialist, Bonneville Power Administration
Maryam started her presentation by providing a word cloud image of how people think of BPA
and explaining how to use a new tool, Wordle to do this. (Wordle is a toy for generating “word
clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear
more frequently in the source text. You can tweak your clouds with different fonts, layouts, and
color schemes. The images you create with Wordle are yours to use however you like. You can
print them out, or save them to the Wordle gallery. http://www.wordle.net/ )
A year and a half ago, BPA initiated a project to establish the best transmission route from
Castle Rock to Troutdale, a 70 mile stretch. They had to send notice to people along the
corridor about developing the best route, and they needed to begin to plan for buying property
and easements for the project. Because BPA needs time to look at the alternatives, regional
residents were not sure what to expect, or when. EIS and NEPA processes mandate that BPA
looks at all the options.
To help with this, BPA planned a number of public participation events. A primary goal of these
public engagement events was to encourage the public to move away from complaints and
encourage them to suggest ways to mitigate problems. One type of event was a series of open
houses that included local elected officials and provided people with project information. Large
maps were hung and participants had an opportunity find their homes on the maps so that they
could see how they might be personally affected. BPA provided issue briefs and maps to show
what possibilities there are, along with potential access roads and information about the
advantages of one route over another.
These efforts required approximately 50 staff members who answered questions about the
need for transmission lines, the effects on property values, property rights and safety. Some
constituents thought that these lines were being built just to sell more power to California.
(This isn’t accurate; excess energy is sold to California which keeps our rates low, but that’s not
the reason. We want to keep our supply reliable. Having another path [we have one that goes
east to Montana as well] protects us in case something happens.])
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 6

7. EMF’s –electric magnetic fields—are another common concern that troubles many people.
Even when BPA provided facts that denied there would be health problems, the concern wasn’t
alleviated. Realizing this, BPA spent more time explaining how they were addressing EMF to
minimize exposure.
Despite these efforts, citizens began forming interest groups and putting up websites, such as
Yale Valley Coalition, Citizens Against BPA, and A Better Way for BPA,
http://abetterway4bpa.ning.com/ . These groups used bill boards, meetings with decision-
makers and advertising to make a difference. There are complicated trust issues.
Some important lessons learned include:
• BPA didn’t do enough groundwork before the project got started. They should have been doing
this from the launch of the project in 2009 instead of trying to dump a bunch of information on
people as the changes were being made.
• People need more education on transmission in general—because we will continue to need to
build more lines.
• People need more specific information. For example, when BPA began thinking about where to
put the lines, people would automatically say “no” when we asked to look at their property
because they thought this would prevent us from building. But now, with better information
they are saying, “Come look, this won’t work for you for ___ reason,” and that helps the
designers to create better solutions.
• Greater use of internet has changed public engagement for BPA. They started to see shifts in
public acceptance of the need for transmission lines as more information was put out to the
public and the controversy is dropping off as regular updates are provided.
It’s been interesting to note that there hasn’t been much outside influence. As well, most of
media coverage has been pretty fair and balanced. Editorials have been pretty positive about
outreach and public meetings, but letters to the editor have been negative. Mostly the
controversy is now taking place in the comments in the letters to the editor.
Wind being developed in the region, and the jobs and revenue this renewable energy source
can provide, is a big motivation for increasing transmission lines.
The Oregon Kitchen Table
Wendy Willis, Interim Director of the National Policy Consensus Initiative
The Oregon Citizen Cabinet is the Center piece of the Oregon project at NPCI. This is a project
that is being designed to find out what Oregonians think about issues that are important to the
State. Ultimately, 4000 citizens will be participating, with representation down to the house
district level. Participants are being scientifically selected and stratified to ensure that all
Oregonians are represented, and these participants will be available for weekly consultation.
The issues will be framed by the decision-makers about actual decisions that need to be made,
and the participants will receive education on the issues. NPCI will be working with an on-line
tool, similar to the opt in tool Jim Middaugh is using at Oregon Metro.
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 7

8. There are three goals:
• To increase public knowledge and participation.
• To increase civic capacity of Oregon Communities and to give people tools to deal with the
issues that come up.
• To provide high quality information to Oregon decision makers—elected officials, and other
government entities.
Can “the Public” really do this well? Do they really want to? Why are Oregonians so mistrustful
of government?
Many citizens in Oregon (and throughout the United States) believe that government is for big
moneyed interest and this is the biggest reason why they are distrustful of the government.
People who work in government, or agencies that support government work are suspicious of
the public and think of them as being easily influenced, irrational, fickle, apathetic and generally
untrustworthy.
But are people really cynical and apathetic? Research has found that Oregonians tend to be
idealistic and believe in democratic principles. People feel like they are harmed economically
because the government is too influenced by big money and not concerned about the public,
and this is why they are so frustrated and seemingly apathetic. However, when surveyed, 85%
of the public were willing to serve on advisory panels to help elected officials make better
decisions.
Also, the public is not stupid. Given good information (which they usually don’t get) the public
generally makes good decisions in the public interest. Research shows that the wisdom of
crowds generally gets better results than individual “experts” because we are all stupid in
different ways. Surveys have found that the public is also not as polarized as they are made out
to be. The public as a whole would reduce the budget and pretty much along the same lines,
regardless of party.
So the real question is not whether the public is worthy of participating in decision-making, but
rather, how can we engage them more often and more fully.
Morning session, June 9--Summary Notes
Jeanna Hall & Sheri Wantland: “Oureach/Inreach: Is staff on board?”
• Outreach/Inreach: Is staff on board?
• barriers to internal support--group brainstorm
• lack of trust
• lack of time/resources
• “we’re the experts”
• fear of project stalling through public participation
• lack of communication between experts (i.e., different vocabulary)
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 8

9. • internal departmental competition
• lack of staff training
• small side conversation about difference between public involvement and informing the
public
• How to overcome barriers?--group brainstorm
• involve PI people early and often
• understand goals of client
• success testimonials
• advance planning
• make it fun for internal staff
• involvement of more of the staff at more points in the process (don’t isolate them)
• be the “handler” of the client/project manager
• allow the project manager/client to maintain ownership
• handout: Clean Water Services created a “Public Involvement Philosophy” in order to
better engage the public for successful projects
• Additionally, CWS has a “Stakeholder Engagement Process” (STEP) that they use to help
their internal staff better understand public involvement
• handout: “Project Concept Sheet” that CWS uses with their internal staff as a first step to
better visualize what the public involvement process will look like
• Communications Plan
• anything from a simple spreadsheet to emails
• STEP template
• main parts:
• major analytical steps
• key tasks and issues
• timeframe
• stakeholders and level of involvement
• internal staff are considered stakeholders
Lunch session, June 9--Summary Notes
Jim Middaugh: “Metro Hires a Reporter & Other Outreach Innovations”
• Public involvement has a negative frame
• This is why we need to innovate
• Metro does public opinion polling with DHM Research to better understand public motivations
• The public generally thinks that the government isn’t getting anything done
• this fuels public involvement work
• The public is generally uninformed about government
• Check out demos.org research organization
• they discovered that the idea of government isn’t 100% lost on the public
• His office experimented with blogging and “making cool” the work of Metro
• Check out Google Analytics
• The reporter translated the information of what Metro does for the general public (and elected
officials). It was a cool project because it made Metro more relatable.
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 9

10. He made the reporter an ombudsman
• Fostering relationships with other community-based organizations helps Metro and the other
organization reach their target demographics
• Metro is big on transparency: every survey they do is published online
• Opt-in is a group they have for surveys and a way to get public opinion for Metro
• Challenge: other languages besides English
PI Works Summary of Presentations Page 10