The committee reviewed and adopted a brief proposed agenda. Because of limited attendance, members did not consider a permanent chair. Tim Chilton was named temporary chair at the committee’s previous meeting.

Members discussed the study process as it has unfolded to date. Joe Richardson, who’s participated in or observed many noise compatibility studies at other airports, said this study was different from any he’d encountered, in terms of its proactive community participation and steerage, involvement of all affected parties, and structured work program. Tim Chilton suggested it was certainly a departure from the previous Louisville study. All agreed that, while plowing new ground entails risks, this kind of effort is essential to getting a credible result.

The committee reviewed principal elements of the Study Group Charter, and reiterated the point that this study is different because "it’s not just a nice piece of paper to file away", but a robust set of principles and procedures actually being implemented successfully.

The Charter’s consensus decision rule was reaffirmed, with the recognition that "consensus" means, literally, "all consent." The Study Group’s actions and recommendations may not proceed without the consent of all its members. The Charter provides that in any case requiring action where consensus cannot be attained, differing viewpoints must be recorded and sent forward for further consideration. This puts a heavy burden of responsibility on individual Group members to keep the process moving ahead, but underscores that every member’s view is important.

Dorn Crawford related from the Study Group chair one procedural issue that may require the committee’s attention. The flow of dialogue and study information is a critical factor in reinforcing the Study Group structure and the quality of its work. When study managers or consultants receive inquiries or proposals from individual Group members or other sources, it’s important to steer action into the appropriate committee, so that information is fully shared, common concerns identified early, and facts and solutions spread to all interested parties.

A procedure to meet these objectives would have consultants and managers, while not refusing to respond to any inquiry, make every effort to direct individual requests for information or action to the responsible committee. Committee chairs would either respond based on information already available, or refer the matter to the Study Group. The Study Group chair would either refer the matter to another committee with pertinent information based on a common interest; respond based on information already available to the Group; ask consultants to develop a response of common interest to the Group; or invite the originating committee chair to seek a consultant response of specific interest to the committee. In either of the last two cases, the chair would coordinate with the RAA project manager to make sure the necessary work is within the scope of the project, or is otherwise supportable.

The committee agreed to take up this procedure when a formal proposal can be drafted. Dorn Crawford agreed to prepare and circulate such a draft, and to ask for another committee meeting once members can review it. Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.

back to top