Event: EcoGovLab meeting with Jill Harrison and Jill Harrison’s ‘From the Inside Out’ talk at UCI Law
Date: 3-9-2023
Location: SBSG windowless conference room/UCI Law School
Speaker: Jill Harrison, Associate Professor, University of Colorado Boulder, Jill Lindsey Harrison | Geography | University of Colorado Boulder
EcoGovLab Meeting:
Her book has become an agent of change in od itself within the government agencies that it analyzes. The book makes it easier for agency staff to explain their thoughts and show how they view themselves.
Jill currently serves on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC).
How does the lived experience (as it relates to being exposed to environmental injustices) compare to the official EJ training that is done in institutions? How can we leverage each one and how do we mix them together?
The D.C. agency EJ training conference isn't associated with Jill.
“California isn’t immune to the negative EJ culture that exists in other state/ federal agencies.” - Jill
It seems like our government’s inability to intentionally listen to communities is rooted in their lack of belief in the broader ‘American Mission’, the mission that they’re supposed to be executing! They have to realize that they (agency staff) aren’t just clocking in and out for their ‘job’. They're meant to be doing something greater (service). This is the culture they’re missing despite identifying as ‘public servants’ (according to Jill many of them identify with this title).
Agency culture according to Jill: ‘Here’s what we do, not what needs to be done.’
This is pretty accurate based on my limited interactions with government workers. It seems like the law does this to them and forces them to be very binary in what they do. For the most part the laws that dictate the agencies are pretty straightforward and tell them exactly what their responsibilities are. This isn’t always the case and really only applies to agencies, not just environmental ones. This doesn’t apply for example to broader states/federal governments. The Constitution is a law that determines government responsibilities but it is extremely vague in many ways, this allows for flexibility and enables the government to evolve as needed to respond to new concerns as needed. These agencies don’t have that same flexibility and are more on the ground than other pieces of the government. They are forced to be binary and limited in scope due to the nature of their work and the laws that tell them what to do. How is AB 617 for example limiting in ways that other laws that direct the government are or aren't (how can the Constitution be tied into this, it seems like a good comparison since it's considered to be the golden standard for laws that dictate government responsibility/ethics.
In my conversation with an R9 RMP regulator I brought up that the RMP program underestimated the real impact certain chemical accidents could have and he agreed with me. “Unfortunately the law is limited in that aspect.” That was the end of that. I’m not saying he's done anything wrong it's just important to see that this is the thought process.
“We are also the agencies’ biggest fans” (Kim). I 100% agree with this statement. I’m optimistic with the government and believe that they are the path to positive change.
“California is a leader in hiring advocates from EJ organizations.” (Jill). She’s trying to figure out what specifically these advocates are bringing to these agencies.
“You need to figure out if the cost is too great for you as an individual to try and make change within these institutions.” (Jill). I like this statement because it reads like a challenge.
Different ideas of justice within an agency can hinder the staff's ability to accept EJ policies in their respective agencies.
Jill mentioned something called ‘utilitarian constructs of justice’. I don’t fully get it.
These agencies need to understand that achieving ‘Justice for All’ is a part of their work and mission as a public servant and as a productive member of our society (citizen). This is a piece of the solution.
From the Inside Out, Talk:
I wonder how much of Jill’s work was done during the Trump admin and how much (if at all) EPA culture shifted during that time.
‘EJ Tenets’ - How would you define these?
Colonist extractive projects, examples include oil pipelines. I’ve never heard of anything called this before, it's interesting. Not sure how colonialism is connected, that seems to be thrown around loosely recently.
Book: ‘Climate Change from the Streets’
“Retreating to the halls of the institution.” (Jill). I really love this quote, it's the exact thing you need to fend off.
In 1994 through executive order Clinton told agencies to implement EJ policies. This seems like an important historical event that I somehow missed. I thought the Biden admin’s recent EJ initiatives were the first of its kind.
Her book is continuously useful to her in many ways but one of the ways that stuck out was the fact that the book attracts new agency staff or her to interview.
‘Our hands are tied.’ - Excuse agencies can use to limit implementation of EJ policies. These constraints can include limited resources, regulatory authority, and poor analytical tools. These are real limitations but also shouldnt entirely stop an agency from doing good work.
The reality is that staff has the agency to choose how they do their jobs.
They say (in interviews) that they make sacrifices for their jobs
Some just plainly reject their agency's EJ reforms because it doesn't align with their ideas of what good environmental governance is.
You have to convince people to do the EJ work rather than tell them to do it.
What is politically acceptable within gov agencies and how does this influence their decisions?
Work in these agencies gets done through staff’s interpretation of their leadership's body language, what they say, and what they don't say.
How do you identify what the popular ideas of ‘good’ regulatory practice is within government entities?
How do the agencies interpret fairness?
They say EJ violates their agency's impartiality.
Some staff say that EJ initiatives constitute reverse racism.
Color blindness: “This is a lens in America” (Jill). How do you combat this? Seems difficult.
Agency staff were able to halt an EJ training program by filing a civil rights complaint against their fellow staffers. This was able to put things on hold and effectively killed the program. (This is an example of James’ static idea)
“EJ reforms are unnecessary because we are doing the same thing for people regardless of who they are.” - EPA manager.
You can’t just look at law, regulations, and mandates. You have to look at their culture to understand how they see and operate.
Must diversify the agency staff! EJ doesn't mean the same thing to different people.
What is AB 12818?
Mike Fortun mentioned Chief Justice Roberts' idea of fairness in relation to the student loan forgiveness initiative and said it was related to the agency staff’s interpretation of fairness. This is a really good point. Fairness is a good point to press when trying to understand interpretation.
Heterogeneity of thought within the government is a poison. However, at the same time you also want people to share values and a common cause. What’s the balance here?
It's clear after listening to all of this that you need to ensure you don't lose the people within these agencies that are believers in the EJ cause. These are the people finding creative ways to implement EJ police within these agencies.
Source Metadata
English