14
The briefing books between 1995 and 1999 add a section called “Advocacy Tips,”
advising their readers to “be strategic” in their communication with elected officials. Indeed, the
authors of the briefing books placed a new emphasis on strategic communication throughout the
documents. The formatting of the issue reports in these briefing books added the new category
of “message” to the old categories of background, anticipated legislation, position and resources.
In 2001 the “advocacy tips” section was greatly expanded, with special guidance on strategic
communication. These tips advise environmental activists to research the background of their
elected officials and link their argument to the “personal interest” of the official. Activists are
advised to avoid “emotional arguments,” demonstrate “why the issue affects you, your family
and your community,” “be positive,” “steer clear of extreme rhetoric,” avoid “legal language or
policy studies,” “choose your words carefully,” “stick to message” and “Focus on the
conservation touchstones. . . home, health and heritage” (Environmental Briefing Book 2001).
In 2005, the briefing books adopted the brand, “Priorities for a Healthy Washington,” with the
stated goal “to improve the lives of the people of Washington and better protect the way of life
we all cherish” (Environmental Agenda 2005).
Examining the Mobilization of Bias within the Environmental Movement
What are the consequences of this narrowing policy agenda setting process within the
Washington State environmental movement? The WEC staff argue that the narrowing has led to
a higher rate of success—measured by the percentage of proposals that are signed into
legislation. They point to the trend since the “Priorities for a Healthy Washington” was created
in 2005 that shows an increasing success rate from 50% in 2005, to 75% in 2006, and 100% in
2007. Of course, each of these figures was generated in years with just four priorities on the
Convention