EIIP Virtual Forum Presentation — November 28, 2007
"It Takes a Village"
A Group Discussion on Changing Attitudes Towards
Public Engagement in Disaster Management
Gunnar J. Kuepper
Chief of Operations
Emergency & Disaster Management, Inc.
Amy Sebring
EIIP Moderator
The following version of the transcript has been edited for easier reading and comprehension. A raw, unedited transcript is available from our archives. See our home page at http://www.emforum.org
[Welcome / Introduction]
Amy Sebring: Good morning/afternoon everyone and welcome to the EIIP Virtual Forum. Our topic today is "It Takes a Village": A Group Discussion on Changing Attitudes Towards Public Engagement in Disaster Management.
We have pre-posted a list of ten discussion questions, which you can access from today's Background Page at http://www.emforum.org/vforum/071128.htm. We will start off with opening remarks from our guest, and then I will be pasting in the questions one at a time. After each question, our guest today will input his comments, then we will open the floor for YOUR comments. We need everyone to participate to have a lively discussion!
Now it is my pleasure to introduce today's speaker. Gunnar J. Kuepper is Chief of Operations with Emergency & Disaster Management, Inc. in Los Angeles, California. This independent agency advises private, non-profit, and governmental organizations throughout the world in comprehensive emergency/crisis management and business continuity programs.
Much of Gunnar's planning and consulting work takes place within the international aviation industry. He and his team at EDM have analyzed the emergency management procedures and response operations in numerous catastrophic incidents, ranging from transportation accidents, to fires and explosions, to acts of terrorism and ultraviolence.
Welcome Gunnar and thank you for being with us today. I now turn the floor over to you to start us off with your opening remarks.
[Presentation]
Gunnar Kuepper: Good morning from sunny Los Angeles, and thank you very much for inviting me. It is kind of unfortunate that I cannot use my accent today, but the great emperor of California sends his greetings as well.
[Slide 1]
Amy elected a title for today’s presentation that is attributed to the African proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child." Translated into Emergency Management it may mean "It takes the entire village to raise a disaster-resistant community." Today’s topic is not only very important but also as complex as the many people that live in the village. We will talk about public involvement and participation in disaster management. This is in line with Dennis Mileti’s excellent speech at the IAEM conference in Reno, NV last week.
Today’s discussion is about creating disaster resistant communities from the bottom up. Building a disaster resistant community or business requires the participation of all members of a community, the young, the employed, the retirees, the foreign born, even the teenagers.
However, overall we have not been very successful in engaging the public in that effort. One of the reasons may be that governmental messages are oftentimes based on a few, but serious misconceptions.
First: People do not act rationally.
[Slide 2]
If people made decisions based on rationality, the entire advertisement industry would not exist. If we as humans or Americans acted based on reason, the Jerry Springer Show would not have such tremendous ratings. Also, in times of obvious climate changes and fuel prices exceeding US $ 3.50 per gallon, you would expect reasonable people to reduce their fuel consumption. Instead, more and more people, at least in the West, buy large SUVs. The bigger, the better.
Second: People do usually not do what they are told to do. As Dennis Mileti asked in his presentation: How many of you listened to your parents when you were teenagers? Obviously nobody. Now that you have become parents yourselves, how many of you have teenage children that always listen and follow your advice? Again, obviously nobody.
Third: Aside from the political correctness and governmental belief, people are not equal but rather very different. With that people react differently to the same message. Teenagers use different ways of communicating than senior citizens. Rural populations react differently than people in large metropolitan areas. People in the Bible Belt have different beliefs and messaging systems than the lunatics living in California.
Or, in more scientifically correct terms, people differ by their socio-economic status, their incomes, occupational prestige, education, age, gender, race/ethnicity, acculturation, languages, and birth countries. As an example of the latter, the great Governor of California, born in Austria and myself, born in Germany, are a little bit different from those whose ancestors arrived with the Mayflower. People also differ by their roles and responsibilities in family and community, as well as their experiences.
Fourth, and most importantly: To quote Dennis Mileti again with his Axiom of Communication: It’s Not What You "Say" that Matters, It’s What People "Hear."
[Slide 3]
This doctrine is constantly neglected, by many of us in the public and private sector that are not advertising or marketing specialists.
We as Emergency Management Professionals have a very important and valuable product: the tool for the survival of people, community, and society, as well as the protection of property, assets and the environment. Unfortunately, we package this precious product in one of the most unattractive ways possible: a message from the government bureaucracy. Therefore, we should not be surprised that nobody cares.
In today’s world we compete with 24 hour TV on 500 channels, MP 3 players, the Internet, all kinds of around the clock entertainment, and a global advertisement industry with an annual budget of US $ 400 billion.
What needs to change? First of all, our well-intended approach to disaster relief, developed in the last 50 years has to change. We have told and showed the public over and over, in any disaster the government and charitable organizations will come to your rescue, are supposed to cover all your losses, and rebuild your houses.
We told the public sit still and wait and we, the disaster professionals, will take care for everything. And, if you are not fully satisfied with the governmental response and recovery services, please feel free to sue and probably receive a six-digit settlement.
Emergency Management is still described as an exclusive function of the government. I believe this approach is fundamentally flawed. Emergency Management, which means preventing, mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from any kind of disastrous situation is the responsibility of the entire society and not the government alone.
The new term must be personal accountability. People need to understand that negligence or stupidity will have consequences for them, and cannot by default be covered by the society. As example, people have to learn to insure their property and assets against obvious risks.
It is not the taxpayer’s responsibility to cover their losses, if they decided to buy a new flat screen TV instead of proper insurance. The government must also stop promoting imprudent behavior and waste.
[Slide 4]
As example, Dauphin Island is a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico near Mobile, Alabama. It is filled with more than 1.700 structures, many of them rather expansive vacation homes. The bridge to the mainland was opened in 1955 and subsequently destroyed by Hurricane Frederic in 1979. In 1985 and 1997 Hurricanes Elena and Danny, respectively, caused extensive wind and flooding damage on the island. In 1998 Hurricane Georges destroyed 41 houses.
In 2004, Hurricane Ivan caused nearly one-fourth of the island to be covered with approximately two feet of water. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused again extensive damage and more than 30% of the homes on the west end of the island were destroyed. Each time, Federal money--that is, money from taxpayers--has encouraged people to rebuild. This repeated consumption of public funds for rebuilding does not only defy common sense, it discourages people from preventing or mitigating disaster losses. Where is any incentive, if the government continues to pays for a new home in a disaster-prone area?
Second, people need to understand environmental hazards and potential consequences. If you live in Chicago you expect misery in the summer in form of very hot and humid days. You expect misery in the winter in form of blizzards and weeks of below-zero temperatures. If you choose to live in pleasant Southern California you need to understand that your house may be destroyed by wildfires, especially if you live in the urban-rural interface, the foothills or the canyon areas of Malibu. Or, if it is not the wildfire, your house may be destroyed by a 7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault.
Third, messages related to disaster management and preparedness, hazard education and personal responsibility have to be communicated using a wide range of professional advertisement concepts. Winning advertisement includes information-, influence-, emotions-, and mere exposure strategies and uses tactical principles that focus on:
- reducing resistance
- gaining acceptance
- crafting the message
- attracting attention.
It is, however, important to recognize that the government is NOT in the business of advertisement and has usually not been very successful in this arena. Just remember how many people watch C-SPAN and how many people watch HBO. Therefore, statewide or national campaigns should be conducted by professional advertisement companies that have proven their effectiveness. I am thinking about the very successful campaigns for Toyota, Mercedes, Budweiser, McDonalds, etc.
I have personally witnessed some very impressive Disaster Management and Homeland Security campaigns in Singapore. The government in Singapore brought their Comprehensive Disaster Preparedness Campaign titled "Total Defense" to the people. The multi-media exhibition appeared where people in metropolitan areas mostly gather; in the shopping malls, at public sports or music events, universities, etc.
Finally, we have to communicate the concept of self-preparedness and survival strategies to today’s teenagers who will be the decision makers of tomorrow. If they become engaged in emergency management the next generation may be one step closer to effectively dealing with future threats.
That concludes my introduction and I am looking forward to our discussion. I now turn the floor back over to our Moderator to start us off.
Amy Sebring: Thank you very much Gunnar, and now we will move to our first discussion question.
[Discussion]
Moderator:
Question 1. What are the obstacles to greater involvement of the general public in all phases of emergency management?
Gunnar Kuepper: The general attitude of the US public, particularly in the metropolitan areas, is that disaster management is a service provided by the government and already paid for by our taxes. FEMA and most other disaster relief authorities do not involve the public but rather require the citizenry to sit and wait for permission to act in case of a major disaster. A radical change in attitude is needed to engage the public.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: Our experience in Pinellas is that we're immune from disasters since we haven't seen a storm since 1921. We've found that active public engagement is the way to go on this.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: Obstacles I've seen in the hospital/healthcare sector are funding, top-down appreciation for preparedness, and collaboration on the local and regional levels.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: My perception is that one of the obstacles is a general lack of staff to support this kind of effort. EMCs are currently occupied with fulfilling other federal mandates.
Moderator:
Question 2. How can these obstacles be overcome?
Gunnar Kuepper: First, the public, which includes citizens, the private sector, neighborhood groups, etc., must be accepted and welcomed as equal partner in all five phases of emergency management. Second, we have to attract the citizenry through professional advertisement campaigns.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: The funding model of always finding $$ for recovery yet insufficient $$ for preparedness needs to change. I think if we put more into preparedness and mitigation we'd need less for recovery. Programs like CERT need to be better marketed to engage more of the citizenry.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: We've found that it's much more effective to reason with the public. Yes, it actually works. We used a storm surge banner that we brought to specific locations that showed actually storm surge values. That got their attention and made them think about what they needed to do
Gunnar Kuepper: Ric, Tom, absolutely correct.
Comment:
Jean Randolph: I think asking them to be involved might be a unique idea. Bet Tom's town asked for help?
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: Mr Kuepper I think your right about getting citizens involved, but the problem we experience is that Emergency Managers want the public out of the way.
Comment:
Colette Whelan: I agree with Melanie, Emergency Managers do not want the public involved.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: Are you familiar with Lori Peek (Colorado State) and the work she is doing at the National and International level by preparing our "teenagers" for disasters and encompassing them into our planning efforts? Oklahoma has a similar program and prior to retiring from the California system we were working with teen programs to include their input into the disaster response system. Are you familiar with any of these working groups?
Gunnar Kuepper: I am familiar with Lori, but not with this program.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: Since I'm not a true 'emergency manager' but more of a communications person, it was easier for me to wrap my mind around it.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: Two things: apathy and their time. It won't happen to my thinking. Conflicting messages turn people off too. And people are bombarded with daily activities of living. Doing so many things today. Their time is precious. Tune out, turn off.
Comment:
Virginia Morgan: Engage other agencies such as cooperative extension service. We have access to lots of different audiences in a variety of settings.
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: Perhaps the engagement level should start at the secondary school level.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: How about focus groups to develop community models for involvement? Involve those most directly impacted.
Comment:
Randy Solly: Concerning the education of today's teenager's, what about incorporating disaster preparedness into the curriculum?
Comment:
Michael Coons: Building on what Gunnar stated, we need to become very familiar to our community through frequent/continual advertisement. A presenter at the IAEM conference mentioned Coca Cola. Gentle pressure relentlessly applied.
Comment:
Norris Beren: Gunnar - Norris Beren, Emergency Preparedness Institute - I interviewed you about two months ago for "The Preparedness Report" and we talked about the use of humor as a way to get people thinking and involved in the process. Do you know any groups other groups using the "Lighter Side of Preparedness" as an approach?
Gunnar Kuepper: No. Most government agencies take themselves too serious for humor. And humor always comes with the risk that somebody feels offended.
Comment:
Mark Miller: I don't think all teenagers or the public are apathetic or too busy. We need to make sure they can focus.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: Focus groups are very valuable. What works? What doesn't? Straight from the public's mouth. VERy valuable!
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: I work for a volunteer organization that works specifically with volunteers in disaster; I actually coordinate the Southeast Nebraska Medical Reserve Corps. We try to get citizens active but emergency managers see them sometimes as a hindrance.
Comment:
Colette Whelan: I think exercises work too to get people thinking. In our recent TOPOFF exercise in Portland, parents actually started thinking seriously about the implications of a dirty bomb and having their kids sheltered in place and not being able to get to them. It brought up a lot of questions for them
Gunnar Kuepper: Teenagers and students are a tremendous resource if we give them proper guidance.
Moderator:
Question 3. How can we gauge public expectations and make policy decisions as to what expectations are reasonable or unreasonable? To what extent are expectations influenced by local conditions? The question refers to Gunnar's part of the presentation about folks expecting the government to do everything. Or, for example, expecting that your homeowner's policy covers flooding.
Gunnar Kuepper: People need to understand the risk that their environments provide. Again, if you live in Chicago you expect misery in the summer in form of very hot and humid days. You expect misery in the winter in form of blizzards and weeks of below zero temperatures.
If you choose to live in Southern California you need to understand that your house may be destroyed by wildfires, especially if you like the rural foothill and canyon areas of Malibu. Or your house may be destroyed by a 7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: I think most folks understand the idea of risk. However, they may underestimate the level of risk they are living under. There will be those who refuse to evacuate, even with storm surge in their living rooms.
Comment:
Michael Coons: Gunnar, I'm not sure it is a matter of the citizens understanding the risk. It has more to do with their state of denial.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: Do we need formal longitudinal studies of public attitudes over time, broader in focus than just asking if their family has a personal plan and kit?
Gunnar Kuepper: I think education about the risk is one of the keys. And with young people is where education starts and is most successful.
Comment:
Colette Whelan: I think there is little accountability out there among the public, and like Gunnar mentioned, I think it's the government's fault for making people think they will be rescued and cared for. It leaves little motivation for people to take some responsibility for themselves; even trying to get people to prepare a 72 hour kit is a huge task it seems
Comment:
Norris Beren: The public expects government to be the primary source of support but we have seen that that is to a large extent foolish. We need more community involvement and gentle peer pressure, as in condo associations, to motivate people to do the right things for the right reasons
Comment:
Alix Stayton: I'm in agreement about their state of denial, Michael. I find that denial is the main reason people are not willing to do the work of preparation.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: There was a fire here in a motel, and one occupant refused to leave despite the flames. Goes to show every one reacts differently in different circumstances.
Comment:
Randy Solly: I'd agree. We spent weeks pumping basements and cleanup for people affected by the flooding along the Delaware River in '05, a year after we did the same thing in '04.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: We have folks here who believe that when the surge comes in, the Coast Guard will air lift them off their roofs. I doubt we'll ever get 100% compliance with attitudes like that out there.
Comment:
Norris Beren: We tell people your family’s safety is your responsibility, not government. Everyone needs to become their own first responder and let government be the official responders
Comment:
Colette Whelan: The one thing we preach at our county government level is that "you will be on your own for a few days so be prepared," and in the case of a pandemic, you will be on your own for much longer as everyone across the country will be in the same boat.
Moderator:
Question 4. What are some examples of successful model frameworks for involving stakeholders? Do the FEMA national and regional advisory councils provide good models in your opinion?
Gunnar Kuepper: At this point in time I am not too impressed by the FEMA advisory councils. It seems that most of those elected to serve on those councils represent either public sector agencies or bureaucracies. The general public is barely or not all represented.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: There's an old saying that all politics is local politics. Just as with that, all preparedness is local preparedness.
Comment:
Ford Johnson: Ham radio and FCC.
Comment:
Norris Beren: Lot's of criticism about the selection process and the final makeup of the council, and that’s too bad.
Comment:
Ford Johnson: The amateur radio groups seem to be good at getting themselves integrated in Public Safety activities PRIOR to disasters, so they know how to "fit in" with emergencies services. People using cell phones to call in traffic conditions is another example of successful DAILY participation in responding to disruptions.
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: In Toronto we are trying to form a cross-functional group across business and the various levels of government to identify how we can better work together in a widespread incident.
Comment:
Virginia Morgan: Local public forums
Comment:
Dominick Urso: At a minimum your State Emergency Manager should be on one of those councils, so speak to them and get your points across.
Comment:
Michael Coons: Depending on how one defines success, consider CERT programs, Amateur Radio Emergency Services, the Boy Scouts of America. There are pockets of folks who "get it".
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I believe a formal advisory panel should be mandated as a grant condition; however, I do not believe the current composition of the FEMA councils are broad enough to represent the necessary stakeholders.
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: Where I am, storm spotters and HAMs are positioned within our EOC.
Moderator:
Question 5. To what extent are local issues and attitudes toward public involvement different from issues and attitudes at the state and federal level?
Gunnar Kuepper: It seems that the smaller the village, the more the community is involved. Public involvement works on the local level, becomes more and more diluted in metropolitan areas and on state levels, and is totally lost on the federal level.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: I was told the other day Governments are not to be trusted.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: or ENtrusted with our local response and protection!
Comment:
Tom Iovino: Back to my earlier point about all preparedness being local preparedness. IF you can convince a condo association to take matters into their own hands, you are winning the war.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: My experience has been that at the federal level, there is typically a one size fits all approach. Does that work?
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: The state/ provincial level and the federal levels need to use existing links to work together, and then work that down to the municipal level. They all need to be saying the same thing.
Comment:
Alix Stayton: One thing I think makes public involvement difficult here in the US is how often we move, and how disconnected we've become from our local meeting opportunities, like neighborhood councils. People may not even know how to get involved in a new place.
Comment:
Colette Whelan: I think the local levels have more reason to be involved. It's their jurisdiction, their lives that are impacted. As you move up through State and Federal levels you are getting further removed from the direct consequences, so it loses its intensity
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: I think nationally 'backed' programs like the MRC help to facilitate issues at the local level.
Comment:
Randy Solly: One size usually doesn't fit anyone.
Comment:
Marilyn Wright: Local are more interested in their personal survival; feds are more interested in mass survival. Good of the smaller is not necessarily the same as good of the larger.
Comment:
Tom Iovino: No way. Pinnellas County residents have a totally different set of concerns than Orange County residents in the middle of the state.
Comment:
Dominick Urso: Response and recovery from disasters are the responsibility of the locals first, then the states, and as a last resort the federal government. Never expect the federal government to have all the answers to local issues.
Comment:
Michael Coons: Gunnar's comment suggests that we should have a bottom up approach. Perhaps the expectation at the bottom is the other way around. Can we change that attitude through an advertisement campaign? I think yes.
Comment:
Norris Beren: We need more businesses and their employees involved. When a CEO talks, their employees listen. Office Depot in Florida is a good example of a community that works. Their employees and the employer are heavily involved in preparedness and their local issues, and it flows out to their store location communities and ultimately to their customers
Comment:
Eduardo Fuentecilla: What is the role of cultural networking in disaster preparedness? Other groups seem to survive heat wave better than the general public.
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: The decrease in Citizen Corps funding from the federal level does not help on the local level.
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: I'm with Norris. I push my clients to take a leadership role with their employees on personal emergency preparedness.
Moderator:
Question 6. Policy issues in response and recovery are frequently not addressed until the disaster happens, and then local leaders must make policy decisions under intense pressure. Can these issues be identified in advance, and would some type of local policy document provide guidance for staff and continuity between administrations?
Gunnar Kuepper: The NFPA 1600 standard on Disaster Management is THE guideline for emergency management programs in the public and private sector. The standard requires communication, cooperation and involvement of all stakeholders in the planning process. It also requires the entity to have response, continuity of operations and recovery strategies determined and planned prior to an event.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: Gunnar, rhetorical question, how many LOCAL jurisdictions do you know that have adopted NFPA 1600? What we are asking about here is policy issues like those that affect mitigation and other phases.
Gunnar Kuepper: It becomes more and more. The challenge for the users is to apply the document correctly.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I don't even see these policy issues being addressed with political and government leaders until it hits the fan, although there is an abundance of research on what the issues will be, during recovery especially.
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: If there were more auditing against NFPA 1600 and CSAz1600 it would drive the message out more. There is a lack of accountability frameworks.
Comment:
Norris Beren: Good argument for more disaster preparedness exercises, table top or otherwise to identify issues and ask lots of ‘what if’ questions to create needed decisions and policies in advance.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: How many of your government leaders in a position to make policy participate in exercises? My experience is few to none.
Comment:
Michael Coons: NFPA 1600 also expects a meaningful exercise program that includes an after action review and improvement plan. Enough practice helps to alleviate some of the decision-making pressure. Our university has adopted the standard.
Comment:
Marilyn Wright: How far down the local line should there be familiarity with the NFPA 1600?
Gunnar Kuepper: NFPA 1600 would work in a neighborhood, a Condo-Association, etc., from very small to large entities.
Moderator:
Question 7. Should we consider creating plans for the preparedness/operational readiness phase that lays out local objectives for improvement over time and measures progress towards well defined goals? That is, should we build in more accountability?
Gunnar Kuepper: Absolutely, different people and communities will have different goals and objectives for preparedness, response and recovery.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: This question is along the lines of the National Preparedness Goal. Again, is this a one size fits all approach?
Comment:
Marilyn Wright: Measurement should be built in to any plan. From condos to WHO programs.
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: If there was some kind of federal level issued preparedness "thermometer" and municipalities had to publish their score that would be pretty interesting.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: Funded exercises should carry a requirement from the funding agency that future funding will be based on accountability of implementing Lessons Learned into the plan.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: Accountability is so fluid. People don't want to sign and be accountable. People come and people go.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: If we don't define our priorities at the local level for program improvement, it is going to be done for us I fear and may not reflect our unique needs.
Comment:
Michael Coons: How do we involve the citizenry of the local community? It goes back to buy-in. We need to change the culture or we'll continue to experience 20% or less participation.
Comment:
Alix Stayton: Who exactly is accountable? Aren't we talking about private citizens within and outside local groups? I think there's more of a need to emphasize these groups so that there is some institutional memory within them. No matter who is in the group, it has documented history with standard procedures
Moderator:
Question 8. Should all plans be made readily available for public review? Should proposed revisions be made available for public review and comment?
Gunnar Kuepper: All emergency management plans and activities must be made public and always available for public review and comment. Even more the public, citizens, private sector, non-profit and civic organizations, universities must be involved in the planning process, as required by NFPA 1600. How can you serve the public if you do not include the public?
Comment:
Amy Sebring: You may recall this was a big issue in the Sunshine Week. A lot of folks asked to produce their plans could not even find them!
Comment:
Eduardo Fuentecilla: Disaster preparedness is the responsibility of everyone and such plans/policies should be available to affect an efficient response.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: YES! How else are you going to know?
Comment:
Alix Stayton: It's the easiest way to find out who is not being served by the plan. They will quickly self-identify.
Comment:
Jean Randolph: If the public is not involved on the front end, their insight into the review will be limited.
Comment:
Stephanie Poore: So few state or local EOPs address community preparedness or volunteers. Most don't involve nongovernmental organizations in the planning process.
Comment:
Melanie Hooks: Most Citizens don't know who their Emergency Managers are; let alone what they do. You almost have to teach the public about what emergency management is.
Moderator:
Question 9. What changes are needed nationally to make progress toward implementing a community-wide approach to disaster response and recovery?
Gunnar Kuepper: Responsibility, and with that accountability, for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery must be handed back to the earliest form of government, the village, the neighborhood, the community.
A nationwide professional advertisement campaign has to be initiated that promotes local emergency management activities. Such a movement needs to endorse individual responsibilities for disaster preparedness.
The efforts of volunteer organizations have to be supported and not hindered by politics. Individuals serving in local volunteer organizations have to be adequately trained and equipped, comparable to those serving in the military.
Comment:
Michael Coons: While I agree with the public review of plans, Gunnar's comment should be qualified. Issues of security suggest some information should not be made public. Publishing floor plans or tunnel plans are good examples.
Comment:
Jean Randolph: One of the programs I have seen across the nation is Neighborhood Watch. It includes some information, but maybe that would be a way to start people thinking of preparedness in their community?
Moderator:
Question 10. What role should professional associations play in re-orienting our approach to disaster response, and not only associations like IAEM and NEMA, but also associations like ICMA, NACo, National League of Cities and the like?
Gunnar Kuepper: Public sector organizations and their membership should understand that Emergency Management is not an exclusive function of the government but rather a comprehensive undertaking of the entire community or society.
Comment:
Virginia Morgan: Once volunteers are trained, it would be helpful to continue to involve them in activities that will keep the new skills honed. It would also be helpful to make sure the first responder groups know they can depend on the volunteers for specific support
Comment:
Ann Wyganowski: Professional associations are a great way to reach out to many individuals and businesses.
Comment:
Dominick Urso: It should be considered as a horizontal to all those organizations. Available and helping each one.
Comment:
Alix Stayton: Defining the food chain and roles for the general public. To reiterate someone else's comment, individuals need to be getting the same message from everyone in emergency management about who does what and when.
[Closing]
Amy Sebring: Let's wrap it up for today as we are running out of time. Thank you very much Gunnar for an excellent job and thanks to all our participants today.
Gunnar Kuepper: Thank you for your excellent comments and suggestions. Outstanding discussion. Excellent moderation. Thank you very much Amy.
Amy Sebring: Please stand by a moment while we make a couple of quick announcements. If you are not on our mailing list and would like to get notices of future sessions and availability of transcripts, just go to our home page to subscribe. If your organization is interested in becoming an EIIP Partner, please see the link on our homepage.
We are pleased to announce two new partners today. Infinite Contingencies Group International (ICGI); URL: http://www.icgi.us; POC: Robert J. Coullahan, CEM, CPP, Senior Executive Vice President.
"ICGI is a veteran-owned small business that brings together expertise to provide integrated services to ensure operational readiness, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and medical disaster preparedness, critical infrastructure protection, enterprise resilience, and advanced technology integration."
And, National Incident Dispatcher Association (NIDA); URL: http://www.incidentdispatch.net; POC: Charles M. Berdan, President
"NIDA has been created to serve as a resource depository and standards setting organization to assist interested agencies in developing and managing incident dispatcher teams and to assist individuals in developing personal skills and standards relative to incident dispatch."
Thanks to everyone for participating today in a lively discussion. For first-timers, we hope you enjoyed the program and will come again. We stand adjourned but before you go, please help me show our appreciation to Gunnar for a fine job.