FREE SPEECH ZONE | PolyMet, manipulation, and public meetings/hearings
December 10, 2009
On December 8, 2009, the Minneapolis the Star-Tribune ran a story entitled:
"DNR leaves out public debate at mining project meetings"
"The format of public meetings this week on a proposed $600 million copper-nickel mining project in northeastern Minnesota will discourage public discourse, groups say."
FREE SPEECH ZONE The Free Speech Zone offers a space for contributions from readers, without editing by the TC Daily Planet. This is an open forum for articles that otherwise might not find a place for publication, including news articles, opinion columns, announcements and even a few press releases. |
DNR and the Corps are holding two one-night meetings, in Aurora on December 9, and in Blaine on December 10, 2009. PolyMet large numbers of people are expected at the two meetings. (PolyMet is a big deal; among other things it involves grinding up 3.3 million pounds per hour of rock into powder. Air and water pollution would be very significant and probably permanent.)
DNR and the Corps decided not to let members of the public speak publicly. Rather, they hired a bunch of court reporters and plan to have people speak privately and individually to the reporters. A DNR press release calls this an "enhancement." But is it really? DNR spokesperson Colleen Coyne said this meeting format is "new to DNR." Maybe so, but it's not new to agencies and corporations around the US, who have been refining their techniques for creating the appearance of "public involvement" while avoiding the substance of it.
The downside for the public is that people don't get to hear each other, learn from each other, and come together. "'It reflects a sales job rather than a sincere attempt to glean public comments in an orderly and balanced way,' said Diadra Decker, board member of WaterLegacy, an advocacy group that has raised environmental concerns about the project." (Quoted in the Star-Tribune).
The main reason given is lack of time for the expected number of people to speak after the "open house" and presentations. Why not have as many meetings as necessary to accommodate all speakers? It's not clear that this was seriously considered.
More and more, agencies tend to use consultants to structure meetings to get the results they want. The consultant in this case is Mariann Johnson of MT Johnson Associates of Minneapolis. Ms. Johnson works in the field of "conflict resolution." She didn't want to discuss details, but said "we proposed a number of options," and the decision was made by senior DNR leadership.
Maybe the clearest explanation came from Corps. project manager Jon Ahlness: "The purpose of the meetings is for the public to give comments to the agencies, not for the public to give comments to each other." Mr. Ahlness said that as far as he knew: "nobody has voiced any complaints" to the Corps.
At the meetings, Polymet will have a table (and posters?). Will Polymet's opponents have an equal opportunity to present their views? Apparently not.
Do YOU want to complain about this?
Mark Holsten, Commissioner: MN DNR, 651.259.5555, mark.holsten@state.mn.us
Stuart Arkley, EIS Project Manager: MN DNR, 651.259.5089, stuart.arkley@state.mn.us
Tamara Cameron, Chief, Regulatory Branch, USACOE, St. Paul District: 651.290.5197 Tamara.E.Cameron@usace.army.mil
Jon Ahlness, Project Manager, USACOE: 651.290.5381, jon.ahlness@usace.army.min
Alan Muller
Red Wing, MN
Copyright:
Alan Muller The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies. Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
workaround
We're people-powered journalism! Click on story links (below) to see more story information, and then email editor@tcdailyplanet.net if you want to report.
• 
Comments
Friendly advice
Some of us have been fighting this crap for years. I don't believe it does any good to do anything but put in the required appearances & written comments (the latter being far more important than the former), to establish yourselves as interested parties in a lawsuit to stop them.
The public participation process has been rigged against the environmental groups for decades. Savvy, well run groups who know how to defeat a project just raise money for the lawyers, and for the PR campaign.
The groups fighting the mining have to join together, and sue sue sue. Why arent the environmental orgs working with the tribes contesting this, for instance?
I would forget putting time & energy into these bogus things, and put the resources into legal offense & citizen education around the issue in other far more productive ways. Like explaining what this will do to the ground water supply in the Upper Midwest.
Putting resources into "public" hearing scams, especially bringing in expert witnesses, etc is throwing good money at a bad process. That's what they want you to do, so you squander the resources for the lawsuits.
PolyMet, et al will always be able to pack the public hearings with more supporters in the clutch, because they have...incentives? shall we say, to get them out. The state agencies will always rubber stamp the permits. Get over it, and get on with the lawsuits.
Post new comment