Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 82
82 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations
· For small airports, hire community/public relations staff for the noise program. Small airports
need community/public relations staff more than they need technical people. The aviation side
of noise can be learned, but it is hard to teach an aviation expert community relations.
Communication Techniques OSU Chose to Avoid in the future
· Don't use airport staff as facilitators at controversial public meetings.
· Don't react defensively to unreasonable public accusations.
Summary
OSU was selected as a case study airport because it is representative of many small general avia-
tion airports that have seen their missions evolve over time, or hope to grow in the future by grow-
ing corporate aviation traffic. The introduction of new very light jets will introduce jet noise into
many more airports that have not previously experienced such events. Communities will react to
their introduction. The lessons learned at OSU Airport are applicable to any smaller airport that
faces such growth challenges either on the airport or by encroaching land uses. Further infor-
mation and reference materials for OSU can be found among the best practices referenced in
Chapter 4 and in the bibliography (located in the Toolkit), as well as on the airport's noise man-
agement website at www.osuairport.org/NoiseManagement/.
Education Industry--Crisis in the College/University Relationship
with the Community: A Case Study (14)
Airports often face the same issues as other institutions and can learn from their mistakes. A
2006 paper entitled, "Crisis in the College/University Relationship with the Community: A Case
Study" (14) by Kathie A. Leeper and Roy V. Leeper is an illustration of a university experience
similar to what airports that develop master plans for expansion also may encounter in dealing
with their neighbors. The paper's abstract summarizes the findings:
Crises can arise in relationships between colleges and universities and their surrounding communi-
ties, especially when campuses need to grow. If these institutions have focused strictly on sending their mes-
sages out rather than establishing two-way communication with important publics, they may suddenly find
themselves embroiled in conflict and confronted with a crisis. Colleges and universities must rethink and
restructure their communication and public relations functions to include two-way communication and
community engagement as a means of avoiding certain crisis situations. (14, p. 129)
The need for increased engagement between the airport and its stakeholders and neighbors is
also the principal recommendation that this ACRP study has drawn after over 40 interviews with
airports and their interest groups.
Case Study Summary
The case study, as reported in the 2006 paper, describes the dramatic events of June 1998
through May 1999, generally as reported in the Kansas City Star (The Star) newspaper. It began
when the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC) made unilateral public announce-
ments regarding expansion into surrounding neighborhoods based on a master plan of which
the public had no knowledge. The public reaction was furious and immediate and quickly
became highly organized and highly visible. The case study describes how the situation
unfolded, what the role of the media was, how the university changed and the public reacted,
and compares it to a similar university master plan for expansion in an adjacent area with a very
different process and result. In addition to the Leepers' paper, the authors of this document
were involved in UMKC's eventual successful approach to reconciliation with the neighbor-
hoods and add their perspective to this case study. UMKC is an urban university in Kansas City,
Missouri, of 14,000 students primarily surrounded by residential development. Its locational
OCR for page 83
Case Studies in Airport/Stakeholder Communication 83
situation is not unlike many urban airports. A chronological summary of major events related
to the case study follow.
The authors of this ACRP document, when employed by the Kansas City, Missouri's City
Planning and Development Department, were involved in the "Afterwards" part of the process.
They were requested by the University to help design and implement an effective two-way com-
munications plan that would enable dialogue with the public and incorporate the importance of
public engagement in decision making.
Initially, a kick-off meeting was conducted in which community leaders and the university's
new chancellor had the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues at hand. This meeting was
opened to the public as a successful attempt to clear the air after the initial expansion plans were
dropped, and began to restore UMKC's credibility with the community. At the meeting, groups
were formed to discuss the best approach for the university to move forward and to establish a
framework for dialogue between the parties (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1. Dialogue framework.
UMKC Administrative University Neighbors
Action UMKC Staff Action and Public Reaction
Timing
First two weeks (June University Neighborhoods are
14-27, 1998) administration furious and get
announces action and organized
insists on its right to
act autonomously, is
inflexible, denies full
knowledge of Master
plan in the face of proof
and shows insensitivity
to the impacts of
expansion.
Next six weeks (July Involvement of Community reacts with
1 August 12, 1998): University systemwide skepticism first meeting
leadership, self- with mediator
justification but
beginnings of call for
dialogue
Next six weeks Faculty enacts "no
(Through October, confidence" vote for
1998): University Chancellor,
based in part in their
claim of no involvement
in decision-making
Next 3 months University Chancellor
(Through January, announces retirement,
1999): still does not recognize
the essential problem
with the community
and retires.
Next 4 months Interim Chancellor
(Through May, 1999): communicates,
expansion plan is
withdrawn
Afterwards New Chancellor brings Neighborhoods work
in the City of Kansas within the process to
City planning staff to achieve mutually
help craft a successful acceptable goals and
new approach to development
planning and working
with neighborhoods
OCR for page 84
84 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations
With the feedback and ideas gathered from the kick-off meeting, the authors helped neigh-
borhood and University leaders form a group of stakeholders that met monthly, which led to the
development of UMKC's "Partners Project For Planning Master Plan". This land use and cam-
pus planning document was written to document the new and improved collaborative planning
process between the University and its surrounding community.
UMKC also added an Office of Community and Public Affairs in 2003, with the goal of focus-
ing on communication between the University and surrounding neighborhoods. The Office
launched a website recognizing the importance of two-way communication with the public and
building engaged relationships with key stakeholders.
The Leepers' paper reviewed a contrasting illustration of how collaborative planning can
reduce conflict by recounting nearby Rockhurst University's successful master planning and
expansion process. The boundaries of Rockhurst University are within one to three blocks of
UMKC in a number of locations. In late 1999, Rockhurst announced the successful conclusion
of a year-long series of negotiations that resulted in agreement with the neighbors to expand, and
would include purchase and demolition of 25 houses a project effort comparable to that desired
by UMKC, but without the crisis in public relations and delays in progress.
Key Issues. Several factors contributed to the size of and speed that the UMKC crisis arose
and the difficulty encountered in resolving it. They include:
· The University Administration's assumption of absolute autonomy. It assumed because it had
a legal right to pursue its master plan, that it could proceed in secrecy without consideration
for impacts on surrounding areas.
· The University's failure to really listen to the community and insensitivity in speaking to the
public.
· The University's failure to be transparent about the Master Plan even as information was trick-
ling out to the public. When the press and the public asked for information, it was denied.
· The failure of University leadership to be willing spokespersons who would meet with the pub-
lic. This gave the impression to the public that the leadership was afraid to take responsibility
for University decisions. Eventually, it was a higher level of University system governance that
moved to soften the University stance.
· The University's seeming inability to develop a coordinated communications strategy for
working with the media and the neighborhoods when it was clear that there was a crisis.
· The University's failure to understand how fast a community can be organized. As the Leep-
ers' paper said, "Failure to recognize the power of activist publics and the speed at which they
can organize and develop may have led to UMKC's initial dismissal of the neighborhood as a
public to be consulted." (6, p. 134)
· The University's assumption that because they provided services to the public, were open to
the public, and provided an economic benefit to the area, the public will perceive them to be
community oriented. The Leepers say that the UMKC example demonstrates that is no longer
sufficient.
Findings. The "Conclusions" in this case study identify those techniques that worked for
UMKC and those that failed as they attempted to move their development program through a
public involvement crisis of their own making. These are specifically lessons that can be applied
to any public service organization, including airports, that have impacts upon surrounding areas
in any way.
Communication Techniques That Worked for UMKC
· Establish an ongoing relationship. The Leepers write ". . . the importance of establishing and
maintaining a strong relationship with the community surrounding a college or university is
clear."(14, p. 140) This also applies to airports.
