The Village

It takes a village…is generally followed by - to raise a child.  However, it seems after reading the material for this week’s class we could apply this phrase to a multitude of dispute resolution processes including Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR).  We have touched on the many ways that ECR can happen, but many of them were laid out for us in A Work in Progress (Bellman 2003).  From public meetings to “permanent” commissions this document provided us with a matrix to systematically determine what process should be employed with a given set of circumstances.  In reading this I found myself identifying that most of the time we hear about public meetings and rarely hear of groups having workshops, setting up advisory committees, or negotiating.  Why is this?  At first blush it seems that most public meetings are being held because the law requires, they include the greatest number of people, and take the least amount of resources.  However, many of the comments made fall on deaf ears or are addressed, but not seriously considered.  The public meeting can probably be done in a way to show the support of the “village” and I’d be very interested to hear from others experiences how this can be accomplished.

Setting the stage again jumped out at me in the Guide reading (Dukes et al. 2001).  It really does “take a village” to select and then develop an appropriate ECR process.  Beyond selecting the participants, but recognizing the importance of setting ground rules and goals as a group is vital to a successful process.  While it can probably seem pointless to spend hours discussing the picketing and ongoing corporate activities (Dukes et al. page 40) these discussions should have a place in the process and are important.  Being able to have these discussing in the ECR process, although at times heated, are the exact benefit of participation.  This example illustrated the point that you don’t have to agree on every aspect of life to complete as successful ECR.  Participants need only to come willing to be part of “the village.”

Photo via: Anduze

Capitol Hill…one large wastebasket

Just as so many call Kansas the “bread basket of America,” I call the United States (US) Capitol, the wastebasket of America.  You are undoubtedly familiar with the US Capitol; the iconic white building and dome topped with “The Statue of Freedom” that reaches towards the heavens; situated on a large hill at the center of Washington, DC with a rolling pitch of grass, called “the nation’s front lawn,” stretching out to the Washington Monument.  This is the image most frequently conjured in the minds of Americans when the word “congress” comes up in a conversation.  However, in the midst of the majestic surroundings, instead of the iconic building, I see a very large wire wastebasket full of millions of crumpled pieces of paper.  This altered view of the U. S. Capitol is based on readings from Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies by Kingdon and discussions with current participants in the legislative process.  In this paper two points will be discussed:  that the garbage can model, as described by Kingdon (Kingdon, page 84-85), best illustrates the decision making process within the legislative branch of the federal government and that the power of the legislative branch is divided among more than the 535 members of congress.

            The garbage can model (Kingdon, page 84-85) portrays decision making processes as organizational anarchy.   Kingdon discusses that organizations, such as the federal government, do not operate like well oiled machines in the way they solve problems and make decisions.  Rather, like a garbage can, congress has many different problems and policy alternatives present at any given time.  It is the relative number and type of alternatives in the garbage can, the political players involved and how they all mix together that determines what the end result will be.

            An important aspect of the garbage can model is the many and various political actors involved in the decision making process; their goals and preferences, their understanding of how all the pieces of the legislative process fit together, and the fluid nature of these participants as they move into and out of, as well as from one position to the next within, the process.  The three branches of the Federal Government play an important role in the decision making process and each is constitutionally connected to the others.  In fact, these checks and balances help to facilitate the garbage can model.  The executive branch through the great respect for the Office of the President is able to command noticeable control over the agenda through speeches and the appointment of many agency executives.  However, the President has little control over the solutions to the problems which congress puts forth.  Each alternative is developed and considered by congress which will create law.  Additionally, lobbyists and advocacy groups work within the process to advance their agendas.  The judicial branch must interpret the law, to ensure that it follows the Constitution, and determine if the executive branch agencies are appropriately administering the law.  Each branch of government has many participants that understand their role and are very good at what they do, however because each of our guest speakers on capitol hill held positions related to the legislative branch this paper will focus there.

The Honorable Tom Davis former representative for Virginia’s 11th congressional district gave us an excellent perspective of congress from the seat of a member.  Mr. Davis provided analysis and insight into the diffuse power structure that is present in the legislative branch.  A large number of people are involved in the legislative process from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), congressional staffers, committee staffers, and a multitude of lobbyists and activist groups.  This is not to say that members of congress with significant stature do not carry additional weight in the process, but it is important to remember that each member only has one vote.  With only one vote each, there is a lot of political jockeying that takes place in front of the media and behind closed doors.  Ideas for solutions to problems that are on the minds of congress have been around before and have been developed and researched by lobbyists, advocacy groups, content experts, and congressional staffers.  This is why the decision making process is dependent on more than the activities of congress or its members.  While congressmen play an important role in developing the alternatives and do propose/pass legislation, many other people influence the decisions the members make. 

            Mr. Davis also described for us how “participants drift in and out of decision making, so the boundaries of such an organization are rather fluid” (Kingdon page 84).  His time as a congressman yielded many relationships that he was able to capitalize on as a lobbyist.  Many other participants in the decision making process do this shifting including staffers who work for different congressmen or other organizations like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Congressional Research Service (CRS) during their political career.  Not only does “participant drift” cement the idea that the Federal Government’s decision making process is best represented by the garbage can model, but it also shows how the power that congress possesses is shared among a wide variety of participants.  A second important point that Congressman Davis discussed was a politician’s reluctance to identify their goals and preferences.  “You have to bring an open mind to the legislative table…signing [onto] a [campaign] pledge can tie your hands.”  It is almost impossible to get a politician to share their goals, and this is exactly in line with the garbage can model’s “problematic preferences.” 

            During the day we also heard from Mark Brunner who serves as a legislative assistant covering defense policy and energy for Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.  Mr. Brunner brought a wealth of knowledge and experience as a staffer on the hill.  He along with his contemporaries all work hard to further the goals of the congressmen and women for whom they work, who are responsible for developing policy solutions.  Congressional staffers research different problems and carefully craft legislation to deal with these problems.  Staffers like Mr. Brunner do not do this alone.  They have help from people like Ms. Colleen Shogan of the CRS who helps answer research questions regarding pending legislation and Ms. Michelle Sager, of the GAO, who help track the performance of past legislation.  As Mark Brunner sits at his desk and tries to craft his alternative to solve a particular policy problem, in this case defense spending, he gets input from a host of activist groups, subject matter experts, and lobbyists such as Mr. Shawn Bullard of The Duetto Group.  Mr. Bullard knows that he can contribute to the process and use his connections and relationships with members of congress and their staffs to influence which alternative is selected to best benefit his clientele.  This is exactly why we are picturing a wastepaper basket with its wire lacing.  Just as the basket has many holes, congress has many points for potential influencers to enter the decision making process.

            The thing that makes the garbage can model so applicable is that it recognizes that the participants, like Tom Davis, Shawn Bullard, Michelle Sager, Colleen Shogan, and Mark Brunner, are working simultaneously, often on the same policy problem and alternative.  Each participant takes the solution in a different direction, often working counter to some or all of the others.  The US Capitol may look like a majestic building full of hugely important people all working together to improve the lives of Americans and make our country a better, safer place, however, in reality, the “Hill” can be viewed as one large wastebasket full of thousands of crumpled up problems and many alternative policies for each.

Photo via visitdc.com

Collaborative Conflict Resolution Criticism

This week’s readings were all about the criticisms and decisions to participate in a conflict resolution or collaboration process.  It's likely that there are plenty of examples where collaboration did not work, but also many where it has worked splendidly and I'm sure we will discuss some of both in class this week.  However, you can't help but wonder if for each of the "bad" conflict resolution examples maybe it wasn't an appropriate method.  If ECR is appropriate, those involved have decided to participate appropriately, are willing participants, have something to offer, and have something to gain by participating.  There should be little that can derail the forward progress a group can make towards solving an environmental challenge if the appropriate protocols are in place.

The article by Michael McCloskey “The Skeptic: Collaboration has its limits” produces some legitimate concerns that are meant to spur discussion and create a dialog among environmental groups.  Additionally several key points were made in Judith Innes article “Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics” and the Guide.  Chief among them were that each group at the “table” must believe that they can get something from the collaboration process that they couldn’t get otherwise or can get easier via this process.  Also, each group must have something to give the others.  This dichotomy of having and wanting produces a give and take that is necessary for collaboration and negotiating to occur. 

Secondly, the geographic reach of the collaboration and specific environmental concern has a significant impact on the outcome.  For example, the process and potential outcomes of a 100 square mile watershed conflict in Virginia is entirely different that a collaborative approach trying to find solutions to climate change, which is a worldwide issue.  If we, in our class tired to collaboratively solve the climate change issue we may have a great process and reach consensus on many of the items we discuss, but we are not the appropriate people to have at the table, because we don’t represent all the appropriate groups.  Our findings would likely not be implemented by the appropriate groups to affect the problem. 

I’m interested to hear/read what others picked up on in this.  Overall there are some definite criticisms to collaboration, but I get the feeling it’s because the process was selected inappropriately, or the people/groups at the table were not the appropriate ones.  

Photo Via Claudio.Ar-150.000 views/1,4 M visits THANKS!!!

A sense of ownership…

During the discussion this week one of the points in our conversation that resonated with me was the question of ownership. Who "owns" the plan that an environmental conflict resolution (ECR) process produces? The Money Point, VA example (http://www.virginia.edu/ien/moneypoint/index.html) and current Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) development process provide very different answers to this question.

At Money Point many of the people involved would claim some ownership of the plan. This process was designed with the goal of fostering community and improving the areas environment in mind. Many individuals and groups were diligently included in the process to ensure that everyone who wanted to take part could and did. With so many people contributing, the final plan was of a higher quality with significant consensus and community building laying groundwork for the plan. Reading and talking about the process you can't help but feel good about the work that went into making the project possible. This in many respects represents the “idea” in ECR.

Turning to the Bay TMDL there is a very different feeling. This process had a vision and goals set by the EPA and to some extent the Commonwealth, with little input from the stakeholders that were “invited” to attend. With no input from the larger group about the goals this process was fighting an up hill battle from the start. And with the recent comments from the EPA showing displeasure for Virginia’s WIP it's safe to say that even the Commonwealth isn't happy to be the "owner" of this plan.

Moving forward it is easy to see that there is real need to ask the question, “Who owns this ECR process?” This question goes back to the four questions we discussed during our first class session when evaluating an ECR process:

1. Who gains?

2. Who looses?

3. Who makes the decisions?

4. Who gets left out?
Perhaps we should add #5. Who owns the process?...what do you think?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results – Albert Einstein

This week we read “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century” by J. Innes and D. Booher. As you can guess from the title of this post the article by Innes and Booher discusses the current system of public participation, or lack thereof, in environmental conflict resolution (ECR). Many of the public participation procedures in government are legally required, but they just don’t work. Examples of public comment periods where less powerful groups are given little attention while those with power are given long responses on the spot are discussed in the article. This process isn’t working and doing it over and over again will not yield different results. However, a bigger dilemma appears: “do we consider citizens to be customers or owners of government?” (Innes and Booher).


Citizen participation and inclusion in defining the problem, analyzing the alternatives, and decision making is vital to show that citizens do in fact “own” the government and are not merely customers to be appeased. This inclusion can take time and slows the process, but just as the founders of our nation devised a way to share power between three branches of government the process of inclusion shares the power and is not intended to be a speedy process. Additionally, the five purposes of public participation are a good framework to begin our examination of the Money Point Corridor Revitalization project along the Elizabeth River in Virginia. The five purposes are: to find out public preferences, improve decisions by incorporating local knowledge, advance fairness and justice, get legitimacy for the decisions made, and lastly because the law requires public participation.

The Money Point Revitalization project provides an excellent example where the stakeholders, including private citizens, can be engaged to make a real lasting improvement to the environment. While the documents we read “Rediscover the Treasure: Money Point Revitalization” and “Money Point Corridor Revitalization Assessment” by UVA’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation and our professor Frank Dukes show an excellent example of the stars can aligning to provide great public, corporate, and government involvement to improve the environment and a surrounding community I hope to learn more from our conversation on Monday night. How was the process started? What made the stakeholders work so well together and what is the state of Money Point at present day?

What do I not understand that makes this make sense to you?

As we get deeper into Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) I continually think about a Fredericksburg City Council meeting in which a citizen group spent several minutes explaining the frustration they felt in their neighborhood. The housing area near Dixon Park is "on the other side of the tracks" and CSX had been storing chemical tanker cars literally 50 feet from homes within the community. The plea for assistance to the City Council caused triggered several news articles covering the story and I'm not sure that CSX has done much to make this community feel better about the situation (or even stopped storing chemical tankers in this area).

This situation seems like a perfect opportunity for the community members/leaders, CSX, and the City to ask the question posed by Dr. Dukes in our discussion on Monday, "What do I not understand that makes this make sense to you?" Even more importantly how do you get parties that not only don't agree, but feel disdain for each other to communicate and build trust? These questions are not meant to be answered, but to be thought of during the ECR planning process.

I like the way of thinking about conflict presented by "Getting Disputes Resolved" by Leary and will probably have to pick up a copy. The idea of power - rights - interests in circle form is a good way to think about conflict. Adding "relatedness" that is, relation to a place adds a new dimension to a dispute. If you can get the parties involved to feel a connection to a physical location (such as the Chesapeake Bay) it can be much easier to come to a solution. The example of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation bringing Shenandoah area farmers to the Bay and have them spend time with Watermen is an excellent way to forge this connection. Getting groups of kids together to float one of the rivers into the Bay is another great example. When you have a connection to something and take pride in it the feeling takes over your life...think about it the next time you see trash in your front yard, bet you pick it up don't you?
Lastly, defining or refusing to define ECR and discussing what the greater community thinks of it important. While the process depends greatly on the topic and people involved it's important to know - in general - what people expect.

Step 1

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”

Confucius

Most of my time reflecting from our class discussion has revolved around the first steps of the ECR process. I’m not talking about the decision to begin the process, but the building of the group. Just as we did in class on the first night with simple introductions and on the second night with a more in depth discussion about ourselves; a similar process must also take place for a group of stakeholders in an ECR process. Each member has to be understood by as well as understand all the other members. I will call this the “circle of trust” in that each party in the ECR must trust the others and come to the process willing to listen and understand other points of view. A disinterested stakeholder with political capital such as a city council member tossing a wrench into the resolution process near its conclusion could quickly destroy all of the group’s work. If this disruptor succeeded in breaking apart the resolution that had been agreed upon what a waste of resources this would be for everyone involved, including the disruptor. Stakeholders must be willing to be part of the ECR process by listening, participating, and constructively giving opinions and ideas to the group. If stakeholders are not willing to take the first step in the ECR process the journey will never really begin, or be worth taking.



This reflection has helped me to really see the importance of the facilitator/mediator in the process. You have to get this group interested enough in the process and each other to complete the journey by taking the first step. I’m not sure many people have the tact and ability to read peoples body language and inflection to get people to the right starting point. It’s a challenge and something I hope we can learn a little more about doing as we continue our class journey this semester.