1. Bridge Meeting Okemah, OK 4-13-09

2.  Meeting 1: Okemah Emergency Management Personnel  3/13/09  Personnel from health department, EMS, city and county emergency management, Creek Nation, Creoks, churches  Meeting 2: Boley citizens  3/24/09  Expressing their opinions on past emergencies and sharing their experiences Both groups answered same list of questions

3.  Recent Experiences with Natural Disasters  How well community responded / preparation level  Least prepared for disasters  Assistance available  Existing Resources  Local organizations involved in helping community prepare  Other organizations who could be involved  Assessing the EPD Project  Are the steps reasonable / appropriate?  Value of “community coach”  Is the vulnerability assessment process useful?

4.  Session 1: Some Areas of Agreement  Session 2: Some Areas of Differences  Session 3: Opinions on the EPD Project Responses / comments from first two meetings will be shown, then break into discussion groups for more in-depth conversation

5. Issues / topics that were consistent in both meetings

6.  Ice Storms (Winter 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2001)  Fires (Nov 2006, Spring 2007)  Droughts / Fires  Floods  Tornadoes

7.  Most Common  Loss of electricity  Fences / hay / livestock lost in fires  Less Frequent  Trees lost  Paden gymnasium collapsed  Street / road damage  Weleetka businesses lost

8.  Elderly  Lack of planning  Lack of mobility  Poor communication  Those with small children  Lack of mobility

9.  Mostly Yes  But, sources of information used were varied (next section)  Acknowledged strength of community  Personal contacts  Need for improved outside communication noted

10.  Some disagreement about which ones are currently involved (next section)  Those who could help:  Ministerial alliance  Local businesses  Fire dept auxiliaries

11. Issues / topics where there were inconsistencies between groups

12.  Some thought the community responded quite well  Well-trained combination of entire community  People know their roles  Some felt the community did not respond well  Lack of a plan / lack of generators / equipment  Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not  Some knew immediately who to call / where to go, for others the information was not obvious

13.  Some were very aware of Emergency Operations Management (EOM) plans, others were not  Some saw the plan as a success for obtaining / staging resources, others knew little about the plan  Most agreed that educating the public about these plans is problematic

14.  Some indicated that most of their information came from TV – which had very little coverage for their specific community  Weather radios were also used  Others mentioned contact from the emergency management team within Okfuskee county  Local contacts also seen as very important

15.  Some saw very few local organizations that were involved  Red Cross  Fire Department  Police  Others saw a lot more  Health Dept  Department of Human Services  Schools  Hospitals  State Gov’t  Salvation Army

16.  Some listed large organizations  DHS  Health Department  Schools  Others listed local individuals or organizations  Volunteer Fire Department  Local leaders  Church members

17. Feedback on the steps involved and the community coach

18.  Most were fairly optimistic  Felt it represented a good starting point  Having an organized plan would help keep people from panicking  Very inclusive  Good to look at areas that are at risk  Useful for future planning  Involvement of new people is useful, but challenging  Helps agencies who think about “what if” to be better prepared  Will encourage participation from larger community groups

19.  But some had a few problems with it  Getting community involvement will be difficult  Having enough volunteers to develop and implement the plan would be challenging  Would require some technical expertise to implement  Education needed before process even begins (particularly for surrounding communities to learn about each other)  How does it get updated?  Need for person-to-person recruitment will be time consuming

20.  Most generally thought it was a good idea  Must be someone from outside the community, with experience  Would be necessary to have this person  Good for motivation, and experience from other sites  But there were a few problems noted  Community coach can’t do it all  Difficult for the coach to relate to community  Trust is an issue  Can’t have an overbearing personality  How would they be funded?!