Susan Chapelle
I would listen carefully, check the evidence and make the decision I can justify in the public interest. Volume is not a measure of how many people are affected or how serious the consequences are. Residents often identify problems that a report misses. I would ask what they are experiencing, examine the assumptions and seek input from people who have not been heard. My research background makes me attentive to the quality of the information, not simply whether a document contains numbers. If the evidence remained convincing, I would explain it in plain language, including its limitations and the trade-offs. I would look for adjustments that address legitimate concerns without undermining the purpose of the decision. A trial with clear measures may help where uncertainty can be tested safely. Nor would I dismiss people as uninformed because they disagree with me. After deciding, I would publish my reasoning and the conditions under which I would reconsider. Listening does not require promising everyone their preferred outcome. It requires taking their concerns seriously and being accountable for the choice I make.