Bridge Meeting
Okemah, OK
4-13-09

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

Recent Experiences with Natural Disasters




Existing Resources



How well community responded / preparation level
Least prepared for disasters
Assistance available
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?



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
Issues / topics that were consistent in both meetings





Ice Storms (Winter 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005,
2001)
Fires (Nov 2006, Spring 2007)
Droughts / Fires
Floods
Tornadoes

Most Common
Loss of electricity
 Fences / hay / livestock lost in fires


Less Frequent




Trees lost
Paden gymnasium collapsed
Street / road damage
Weleetka businesses lost

Elderly
Lack of planning
 Lack of mobility
 Poor communication


Those with small children

Lack of mobility

Mostly Yes


Acknowledged strength of
community


But, sources of information used were
varied (next section)
Personal contacts
Need for improved outside
communication noted


Some disagreement about which ones
are currently involved (next section)
Those who could help:
Ministerial alliance
 Local businesses
 Fire dept auxiliaries

Issues / topics where there were inconsistencies between
groups

Some thought the community responded quite well



Some felt the community did not respond well



Well-trained combination of entire community
People know their roles
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



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




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

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

Some listed large organizations




DHS
Health Department
Schools
Others listed local individuals or organizations



Volunteer Fire Department
Local leaders
Church members
Feedback on the steps involved and the community coach

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

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

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?!
