"Public Relations (PR) Nightmare”
By Vince DelaRosa
UPDATED ARTICLE
April 13, 2011
UPDATED ARTICLE
April 13, 2011
Green Bay, WI – I wanted to note, on February of 2011 I authored the article below expressing some concerns about a biomass project that the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) is considering building.
Ironically, this project came up for discussion at a General Tribal Council (GTC) agenda meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011. I also just recently posted a chat on this issue, I hope to get some answers on just a few of these questions that I raised in my chat. Here is a link to my chat, TOUCH HERE.
I want to make sure that we do not damage our relations locally, because our casino relies heavily on said relations. I'd hate to see us pursue a project to create 40 jobs, if we damage relations and endanger hundreds of jobs at the casino. The opponent's of the OSGC Biomass Project are concerned around the science of the project, the question for us is, should we be concerned? GTC was not able to get to a lot of these technical questions at Monday, April 11, 2011 GTC meeting. Should we be concerned or do the locals and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (GHEJ) have it all wrong?
Here is a link which was recently posted by GHEJ, is this just the concerns of people who oppose us and our project, as we've been told, or do they have valid health and technology concerns? Here is the link, TOUCH HERE.
HERE IS MY ARTICLE FROM FEBRUARY
Green Bay, WI - In history there are moments in time that are sometimes captured by people and passed on as a legacy. This can sometimes be either a positive or a negative Public Relations (PR) situation, much depends on what actually happened. For Oneida, we largely have a good history when it comes to most PR. Yes there have been a few scrapes and missteps along the way but we have done ok.
Ironically, this project came up for discussion at a General Tribal Council (GTC) agenda meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011. I also just recently posted a chat on this issue, I hope to get some answers on just a few of these questions that I raised in my chat. Here is a link to my chat, TOUCH HERE.
I want to make sure that we do not damage our relations locally, because our casino relies heavily on said relations. I'd hate to see us pursue a project to create 40 jobs, if we damage relations and endanger hundreds of jobs at the casino. The opponent's of the OSGC Biomass Project are concerned around the science of the project, the question for us is, should we be concerned? GTC was not able to get to a lot of these technical questions at Monday, April 11, 2011 GTC meeting. Should we be concerned or do the locals and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (GHEJ) have it all wrong?
Here is a link which was recently posted by GHEJ, is this just the concerns of people who oppose us and our project, as we've been told, or do they have valid health and technology concerns? Here is the link, TOUCH HERE.
HERE IS MY ARTICLE FROM FEBRUARY
Green Bay, WI - In history there are moments in time that are sometimes captured by people and passed on as a legacy. This can sometimes be either a positive or a negative Public Relations (PR) situation, much depends on what actually happened. For Oneida, we largely have a good history when it comes to most PR. Yes there have been a few scrapes and missteps along the way but we have done ok.
The recent BP Oil spill comes to mind as the worst of the PR disasters, the affects of BP’s missteps may be felt for years by BP's operations. But more importantly, the potential environmental damage maybe something which has a longer legacy then the actual PR hit.
Now companies and organization need to tread very careful to avoid public scorn on matters relating to their operations. Clearly PR missteps can be very costly when PR disasters blow up in your face. Oneida has recently taken a PR hit and we need to be very careful here for a variety of reasons.
Recently, the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC), which the Oneida Tribe owns, has been working to develop a proposed waste-to-energy facility. This type of an operation is also known as a biomass power plant. We are proposing through OSGC to build a 5-megawatt, 60,000-square-foot power plant on an industrial piece of property in Ashwaubenon, WI. As a sovereign nation, we understand that on property that we own that is on federal trust land, we can do as we please, generally speaking. We do have to follow environmental laws (EPA) and our own laws, but most business activity is done as we see fit.
I also understand that on this project, the Village of Ashwaubenon does not have any oversight. However, what is important when trying to develop a project like this is getting local support, feedback and opinions, while also managing local opposition! Preferably this work should be done on the front-end so we avoid problems on the back-end. I am not sure how this biomass project has been rolled out. I understand there has been an open house to discuss the project, but the results have been nothing short of a local PR disaster for us. This plan has run into strong local opposition and no local office holders support the project.
Here are just a few of the local voices who are in opposition to the project:
I also understand that on this project, the Village of Ashwaubenon does not have any oversight. However, what is important when trying to develop a project like this is getting local support, feedback and opinions, while also managing local opposition! Preferably this work should be done on the front-end so we avoid problems on the back-end. I am not sure how this biomass project has been rolled out. I understand there has been an open house to discuss the project, but the results have been nothing short of a local PR disaster for us. This plan has run into strong local opposition and no local office holders support the project.
Here are just a few of the local voices who are in opposition to the project:
This is a scheme.
1. 1
Its a scheme to incinerate trash. Garbage in, garbage out. Neither the proposed builder (Alliance) nor the proposed operator (7 Generations) has ANY experience whatsoever in this field (and no, attending a few seminars didn't make Mr. Cornelius an expert any more than sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express does). Its too bad they are so desperate for respectability that they are willing to play this especially reckless version Russian Roulette with lives and property. It'll be quite the class action lawsuit against the Oneidas for damages. These incinerators were the big things in the 60s and 70s, but had to be shut down because the particulates polluted everything. History repeats itself, first as farce then as tragedy.
2. No Bio-mass
2
Why would 7 Gens and the Oneida Nation (who claims to be the "Stewards of the Land") build this medical and environmental atrocity in an area where 975 parcels of land within a one mile radius, out of 1322 parcels, or 74%, are residential? This is, by their own admission, a first of it's kind facility--a controversial plant--no kinks worked out--no long term health or environmental history!!! The project manager in a Fox 11 online article stated, he has not studied the long term health effects of the plant...yet they are moving on! Above he states that the local opinion of the facility is important!!! Well the local opinion is that we HATE this disaster being forced upon us taking away our health, the health of the environment and our quality of life!
3. No To Toxins
3
There is not an incinerator of any type in the world, that can control all of it's emissions! The remaining are lethal no matter how small the amount! The amount of toxins depends on how well the facility is regulated and who does the oversight. Who will over see this site? What about the toxic "FLY" ash to be hauled away? To where and who will oversee that site? By the way, the ash is toxic, containing more than carbon and zinc. It contains deadly trace metals that haven't been filtered out! Why is it always about the "almighty dollar" instead of about people? If the Oneidas claim to be good neighbors, they will put an end to this disaster in the making!
4. Karl Wittmann
4
Who do I contact in regards to this plants equipment requirements. Please send contact to: karlw@airprofan.com
5. Resident
5
"...but the local opinion of the facility is still important, according to Pete King, project manager." Really? The Ashwaubenon public hates this incinerator and has repeatedly asked 7 Generations not to build it. What a sick joke to build an EXPERIMENTAL incinerator on the edge of residential neighborhoods filled with playgrounds and schools.
6. concerned citizen
6
This issue brings me back to what I learned in middle school science concerning "states of matter". Garbage that is incinerated is bound to go from solid matter (plastics, paper, used diapers, wood, etc., etc.) into charred solid matter and gases and most probably some liquids involved in the plant process. These gases will escape in the form of nanoparticles that we will all breathe and take into our bodies. There will also be solid matter to dispose of somewhere. Where? Why the Oneida Tribe would want to do this to their people I can not understand? I know they are chasing stimulus money but this is a short-sighted plan. I am very disappointed in the Oneida Tribal leadership.
7. Bio-Incineration Opponent
7
Thank God the Packers are going to the Super Bowl THIS year! If this project isn't stopped in its tracks, next year Rodgers, Driver, Matthews, Clifton, Raji and the gang...whill go WHEEZING/COUGHING down the field with lungs filled with lovely nanoparticulare toxins, courtesy of Seven Generations. Not too many folks will be walking through the Oneida Nation Entrance at Lambeau with big smiles on their face next year. And the non-tribal consumer base you enjoy will probably walk away from other tribal operations as well. Note to Seven Generations: Perhaps you could produce a list for the public to see all the other businesses you've opened/failed over the past few years. That will surely give the public all the confidence they need, right? And how many tax dollars went into those previous business failures?
8. Concerned
8
You'd think if tribal leadership was going to fulfill its mission of protecting the earth, they would generate power with wind turbines for 1/3 the cost of the incinerator. Turbines are a proven technology, won't pollute the entire surrounding area with nano-particulate garbage particles (both tribal and non-tribal), and would win them acclaim for abandoning a deeply unpopular incinerator scheme. Then, their property along Packerland could be put to better use instead of being abandoned when the incinerator shuts down because it was too expensive to operate and they couldn't obtain the fuel.
9. Concerned Citizen
9
This is the third proposed site for this experimental facility. The second site was located in the Town of Oneida and tribal people did not want this facitity in their town. I attended the open house on December 16 and asked questions and did not get many answers other than this is new technology and there is no prior history with this type of facility. The "experts" that the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation brought in acted like they were briefed that afternoon. They did not have any answers. The Oneida Seven Generations Corporation did not listen to the concerns of the 170 plus residents that attended the open house. From the research I did I found out that this type of facility will cause the same type of environmental problems associated with mass burn incinerators including air and water polution. The area around this site is zoned light commercial and residential by the Village of Ashwaubenon. This simply is not a good location for this facility.
10. Opposed to Biomass Plant
10
The Green Bay Press-Gazette article from Dec. 8 relative to Brown County providing waste materials to fuel the proposed OSGC biomass plant, reported that "negotiations broke down in November after the corporation was told they would have to answer the Brown County Board's questions regarding the regulation, operation and location of the facility." Why would OSGC not want to answer the board's questions? Is it hiding something? OSGC approached Brown County because according to the project manager, Peter King, "It just makes sense because there's 600 tons coming through the reservation every day (from the county), so it seemed like it would be the best fit, so that's why we went down that road." I would venture that the county option was more cost effective as well otherwise why approach them to begin with? So OSGC ditches "Plan A" because they don't want to answer questions. Instead, OSGC falls back on "Plan B" i.e., "other waste streams". According to Peter King, "There's private haulers, there's other municipalities, there's other people with waste streams." Apparently, these other providers don't ask questions. To recap, "Plan A" is the "best fit" and "makes sense" but go with "Plan B" no questions asked ... hmmm. Be suspicious of deals shrouded in secrecy. If the project makes sense then OSGC should welcome the opportunity to make a convincing case of it.
curmudgeon1 wrote:
The idea as stated has merit but the location seems very questionable. The tribe seems to have taken on this 'tough if you don't like it'. That would be one of their bigger mistakes. Are they sure they want to start a push and shove contest? What happened to the 'can't we just get alone?'
Those are just a few of the local people that are in opposition to this plan. We have created a public image issue here with this proposal. Likewise, I have seen responses OSGC on this matter, but I am not sure on the technology side of this issue; there seems to be too many loose ends.
One of the main questions as we go forward is, does the risk out weight the gain? It is worth doing this project if we're not sure of the science? Further, do we overlook local opposition, chalk it up as local radicals - or those who oppose us thinking - or do we think twice about stirring the waters in a market that we heavily rely on to support our gaming and other retail and leisure operations? Is this all worth the risk?
This situation is particularly troubling for a variety of reasons. The first and most important reason is our casino. The casino is our main revenue source and with a PR disaster like this, it can spell big trouble for our gaming, hotels and numerous retail operations.
Those are just a few of the local people that are in opposition to this plan. We have created a public image issue here with this proposal. Likewise, I have seen responses OSGC on this matter, but I am not sure on the technology side of this issue; there seems to be too many loose ends.
One of the main questions as we go forward is, does the risk out weight the gain? It is worth doing this project if we're not sure of the science? Further, do we overlook local opposition, chalk it up as local radicals - or those who oppose us thinking - or do we think twice about stirring the waters in a market that we heavily rely on to support our gaming and other retail and leisure operations? Is this all worth the risk?
This situation is particularly troubling for a variety of reasons. The first and most important reason is our casino. The casino is our main revenue source and with a PR disaster like this, it can spell big trouble for our gaming, hotels and numerous retail operations.
The Oneida Casino and retail operations are not on an island insulated from the opinions of locals. In fact, we are very reliant on these same local people to come and support our gaming and retail operations. I might suggest that we have to tread lightly here.
If we desire to open a controversial biomass operation in the future, we better do a much better job, on the front-end, we have to make sure we have a large local support base. This particular project seems doomed locally and the science questions need some level or response from an independent and reputable third party.
I would suggest we take the money that has been designated for the project and put it towards building homes for our people. I would also note, I am not an expert on biomass projects, but biomass incineration appears to be a very controversial way to create energy.
Here is what some organization are saying about these types of projects:
Medical and Health Associations Opposed to Biomass
Biomass Incineration has "Unacceptable Health Risks" and Drives Up Health Care Costs (Compilation of Anti-Biomass Statements from Medical and Health Associations)
North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians (April 2010)
Letter expressing concern about proposed poultry litter incinerators.
Physicians for Social Responsibility / Pioneer Valley (MA) (Feb 2010)"the biomass power plants being proposed for several Pioneer Valley locations would contribute to particulate air pollution emissions in a region that already has pollution problems, and therefore we oppose the construction and operation of such plants"
Massachusetts Medical Society (Feb 2010)"Massachusetts Medical Society believes that biomass combustion electricity generation plants pose an unacceptable public health risk..."
Florida Medical Association (Dec 2009)"the Florida Medical Association urges state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and construction of new incinerators including mass-burn, gasification, plasma, pyrolysis, biomass, refuse-derived fuel and other incinerator technologies, and to develop a plan to retire existing outdated incinerators"
American Lung Association (MA) (Nov 2009)Letter opposing renewable energy credits or any other preferential treatment for biomass in energy or climate legislation.
Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (Nov 2009)Testimony in Opposition to the Building of a Construction and Demolition Wood Waste Incinerator in Springfield, MA
American Lung Association (June 2009)"The Lung Association urges that the [climate] legislation not promote the combustion of biomass."
Based on my research, generally biomass incineration is considered the worst category of biomass. It destroys resources (some of which are best recycled or composted), and can turn these products into toxic ash and toxic air emissions. Waste that cannot be reused, recycled or composted cleanly can be stabilized through degradation, then landfilled rather than incinerated.
What makes waste dangerous is not its volume, but its toxicity. People can become ill from exposure to toxic constituents of biomass waste. This waste can also cause all sorts of health and environmental problems. When waste is incinerated, their toxic constituents can go into the breathable air emissions and the toxic ash can contaminate groundwater. The ash that is left has a higher surface area and is more dangerous in a landfill, where rainwater can leach out the toxins more readily than if the waste is left unburned.
Now on the OSGC biomass project, I am not sure how the project intended to handle the ash from the proposed operation, but that may be an issue, aside from the lack of any meaningful local support.
Now on the OSGC biomass project, I am not sure how the project intended to handle the ash from the proposed operation, but that may be an issue, aside from the lack of any meaningful local support.
Incinerator ash has been promoted for such applications as ingredients in cement, fill for reclaiming mines, fertilizer, biochar11 (charcoal), industrial tile and road base. Many believe these are more dangerous than landfilling, because it brings contamination closer to where it can harm people.
In summary, I am not sure about how vital or well thought out the OSGC biomass project is. I do not speak to the vitality of the proposal, but I am concerned with the negative local opposition and the potential health risk. Likewise, the PR fallout resulting from the mere thought of the project has been negative. Moreover, the potential future PR fallout could be even more devastating if we bull-rush ahead, despite local opposition.
The OSGC has to be very careful about businesses that they propose to engage in, because this one has cost us some goodwill locally and that is unfortunate. Especially considering that these local people are consumers of our major revenue generating operation, the casino.
The OSGC has to be very careful about businesses that they propose to engage in, because this one has cost us some goodwill locally and that is unfortunate. Especially considering that these local people are consumers of our major revenue generating operation, the casino.
I believe this project needs to be further discussed with the General Tribal Council to decide if these operations are to be further considered as a development project for the OSGC. This is important because this is not some isolated OSGC project, there is some fallout occurring here. This fallout, or local opposition, can unwittingly impact the tribe in a variety of manners, economically being one of the biggest impacts. Likewise, I also think a full-blown PR plan should be unveiled around this project.
It is important to always protect the tribe’s image and advance clear reasoning around projects that we’re working on. We never want to pursue a project that can cause harm to our relations with our neighbors, or impact our pocket books! Hopefully, we can pursue a good PR plan to communicate to the locals, our neighbors. We have to deliver some coherent explanations regarding what our next steps are. We must repair the PR nightmare that has become a part of this project. We really need to think this one through.
***** UPDATE ***** Friday, February 11,2011
***** UPDATE ***** Friday, February 11,2011
Blog Update
By Vince DelaRosa
Green Bay, WI - I have had a chance to read the informational piece that was authored in the tribal newspaper by OSGC. It was an informative piece, makes me almost want to believe that this is a good step for us to consider, a project worth the risk.
Nonetheless, I still have concerns with pursuing a biomass project which has no local support. If this was the only business we had to go with economically, I would be more inclined to give deference on this matter. However, with this project comes a potential economic hit on our other revenue streams which we have invested heavily in, those being gaming, hotel, golf course and retail outlets. We cannot risk having inflamed locals while we also advertise to try and get these same locals to come out and play & stay with us.
This type of a project, in that location on Packerland Drive, will be a dark cloud looming over us and it will have a negative impact on our businesses. If locals do not support our business activities around this biomass project they are surely not going to be utilizing our gaming, hotel and other retail facilities. All of our long-standing business interest will be put at risk so we can enter into a biomass project, not a smart move.
I have included an actual opposition web-site here so we can see what the other side is saying. Here is the site: http://www.biomass.ashwaubenon.com/ The video contained on the site is silly and is not technically astute or compelling around these matters. In terms of the web-site itself, it’s obviously a biased site and I do not hold any of their information to be more compelling than OSGC information. Information wise, it’s a coin flip, we say this, and they say that.
Once again, the problem that I have with this project is entering into conflict with people (our neighbors) whom we rely on to support other facets of our business operations. We cannot be so narrowly focused here. This might have a different spin if this was a diamond mine and billions of dollars in yearly revenue were going to be hitting our balance sheets. That scenario would hold out a massive economic upside which would dwarf what we’re earning with other businesses, some of which are already losing money. So, that type of trade-off might be acceptable if all the environmental information checked out. However, those factors are not present here and a tussle with the locals on this biomass project seems short-sided.
I know we all want a business win, a victory. Something that is making money would be welcomed, but we have to weigh out the risk here and make the best decisions for all our operations, not just this newly proposed biomass project.
I still support this biomass project going before the GTC for a final decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment