When lawmakers reach an impasse, Democracy Suffers

The Founders of our country told us that we should have more perfect union. They did not say we have to agree on everything. Public policy disputes have the potential of polarizing communities with the affect of delaying important decisions on vital issues of public policy, often resulting in diluted policies or no action at all.

While policy makers may agree on what the problem is, there is often uncertainty as to how to solve it.  Issues such as selecting a new Speaker in Congress or even passing road funding in Michigan lack a process for problem solving and lacks the leadership of those involved to stand up and seek help in resolving complex public policy disputes. 

Facilitation can help resolve high-profile policy disputes and help find resolution through controversy and clarity amidst chaos. To assist governments in resolving disputes by and between each other, the disputants need a trusted third party neutral who is knowledgeable about the issues and can design the process for resolution, while being sensitive to the politics of the issue.

The facilitator would design and facilitate meetings to make sure all viewpoints are considered and help each stakeholder sort through information to support sound decisions.

Great leadership requires finding common ground among diverse interests. Trained facilitators can create the system and process around an issue to help the stakeholders problem solve and move complex multi-party and often politically partisan issues forward. It is time those whom we elect step up and step forward and seek help in flagging the problem and addressing the issue. 

A facilitator can and will bring the right people together to make good decisions, under difficult situations. They don’t take sides or make decisions -- They simply create the path for people to move beyond their differences, join together, and discover a new way forward.

Perhaps its too soft of a way to govern, but given the lack of consensus and increased political posturing, with tonight's debate and the Presidential election well underway, over the next twelve months it is only going to get worse. 

It's time to resolve our differences so we can all move forward. 

THE WAY FORWARD

To Move Michigan Forward, we must first create a vision that a majority of stakeholders can agree on. This vision will help everyone focus on the core issues and when they stray toward politics, we can bring them back to the issue. This is the process by which we can start stakeholder engagement.

At each step of the way, we will identify quick wins or mutual gains for each stakeholder, to build trust and let them know we are all in this fight together. And at each step, we share information to help each of us make informed decisions. If it is not something we can agree on, then we should move to the next issue and focus on those issues that we can agree on.

The use of ADR processes by the courts and federal government has been widely celebrated as a more efficient and cost effective method of conflict resolution. Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process in which a trained, impartial mediator helps people examine their mutual problems, identify and consider options and carefully consider possible resolutions. A mediator has the experience to bring disputing parties together and help them draw out a successful resolution while preventing an impasse during the negotiations, or otherwise prevent the discussions from breaking down. Unlike a judge or arbitrator, a mediator does not make the decisions nor do they offer solutions. They help separate the politics from the process, help the parties find a common ground, build trust and identify potential solutions to agree on. 

Public policy dispute resolution focuses on the resolution of issues affecting the public, such as: Transportation; land use, special education, election districts and healthcare.  With public policy disputes, the issues tend to be a bit more polarizing, emotional and there are often a number of stakeholders from the community, including non-profits and business groups, and governments at a local, state and federal level.

Whether it is a public policy dispute or a dispute between neighbors, the goal of public any dispute resolution is to save money, preserve relationships and take control over the decisions. When it involves a public policy dispute, it is helpful and most effective if it creates the opportunity for all voices to be heard. It is a process being used in the planning process of multiple projects, including economic development projects in Austin, Texas and Salt Lake City Utah. 

In any mediation, the first step in the mediation process is to get both parties to agree to use a mediator. That is actually the first agreement both parties make together and we are on the way to developing trust and building a relationship.

While many states have dispute resolution clauses in key legislation or dispute resolution centers at universities, the State of Michigan does not. The ADR Section to the State Bar of Michigan, continues to talk with universities about creating a "Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution Services," and continues to talk with legislators.  However, since no university has yet to step forward in creating such a center, in part due to funding, The ADR Section is trying to show by example, the benefits of ADR.

Today’s political reality is that politics is by nature partisan and partisan politics has now overtaken the capitol. In addition, people and business are demanding a greater role in the policy making process so more voices are competing to make public policy that benefits or protects them. 

After Tuesday’s election, it is time our elected leaders push politics aside and focus on the big picture of helping Michigan Move Forward.

What Detroit Can Learn from an Alaskan Viaduct

Seattle, Wash, was struggling for years in figuring out how to replace The Alaskan Way Viaduct, a piece of aging infrastructure that stood as a barrier between Seattle’s downtown and its waterfront.

On one side you had environmental advocates that favored a solution focused on mass transit and bikes over more roadways.  The business community favored access and city leaders wanted to leverage the city’s waterfront to revitalize the city. And taxpayer groups wanted something that was low cost. 

As a result, a tunnel, elevated highway or retrofit of existing structures were not viable solutions.  A referendum failed and still after 10+ years of dialogue and debate, a consensus could not be reached.

City leaders turned to professional facilitators to help reach a consensus. The facilitators stepped in and secured a commitment from all those involved that they would negotiate a consensus agreement. They reframed the issue, considered the region’s needs and reviewed an independent technical analysis of potential solutions. In addition, an advisory group of stakeholders was forced to provide input into the process to assist those at the negotiating table.

It is time Detroit’s regional leaders come back to the table and negotiate a consensus agreement as it relates to the DWSD and help the region move forward onto additional issues that impact the region as a whole.

Today, Seattle is a vibrant community. It is not just a city. Those in Seattle have adopted a certain lifestyle, created in part by removing the barriers linking a downtown to its waterfront and creating a bridge between vital stakeholders who had the power to act and help the city move forward. 

And now that viaduct, is just "water under the bridge."

The way forward is by working together.

In Washington, Congress continues to find ways to avoid substantive issues such as immigration, transportation, poverty, education, serious tax reform and environmental regulation, among many others. In Michigan, there also are a number of unfinished issues that remain on the table, while the legislature is on summer recess for the election. In fact, in Michigan, we have a number of proposals on next month’s ballot that could have been resolved through facilitated discussion rather than expensive campaigns.   

In Lansing and Detroit we are still discussing bridges and transit. In fact, in 1976, President Gerald Ford offered funds to build a rail transit system in southeast Michigan. Instead, we just got the People Mover and in 2014, we are finally seeing progress with the M1 Rail construction now under way. 

However, despite the progress on regional transportation, our government leaders continue to struggle in finding their way forward and their failure to make difficult decisions by compromising.

Some would call it an impasse while others just chalk it up to politics. However, these are issues that can be resolved, and resolved in a way that preserves the relationships, maintains the political differences and helps move the agenda forward collectively. 

It is time we put politics aside - even in an election year. It is time voters demand our politicians to focus and do what is in the best interest of all those affected. Work to find resolution through chaos. Respect each other for taking a position and move on to find where you can each work together. 

DISCUSSION ON EARLY WARNING BEGINS

The Michigan Legislature recently considered legislation concerning "distressed schools" and creating a process to establish an "early warning system," to avoid state intervention due to financial stress.

Currently there are  48 distressed schools or districts at risk of financial disstress in Michigan. Some districts have a short-term hiccup, while others face long-term issues, such as continued declining enrollments and increased labor costs.  According to Gongwer, the multi-bill package proscribes measures for financially distressed school districts—with advocates noting—doubles the maximum amount the Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board is authorized to lend troubled districts, revises the loan’s eligibility criteria, eliminates restrictions on the Board’s ability to restructure existing loan repayment programs and removes limitations on the amount of surplus funds that can be loaned to municipalities and school districts over the next six fiscal years.

A number of school officials are opposed to the legislation, arguing that some of the measures’ reporting requirements and criteria are burdensome and possibly redundant, and would actually add to the district’s financial woes.  However, those same school officials should work with a facilitator to engage stakeholders in defining the problem and working in advance of the state stepping in to identify and implement realistic solutions.

By being proactive and engaging your community early on, you can avoid difficult situations down the road. However, acknowledging the problem and engaging others in the solution is a difficult process, one that can be helped by brining in a neutral to guide the discussion and help extract solutions.  

Polarization: It's Everywhere

Yesterday I heard a state legislature tell me that the best place to train for legislative leadership is in the minority. After spending a few years as a Democrat in a Republican House of Representatives, this person when on to become the Majority Leader when the Democrats gained control. 

Politics is cyclical. Those in the minority may soon have control of either or both chambers. Yet, according to an article in The New York Times, Polarization: It's Everywhere. According to the article and a new study from Pew Research, Republicans in Congress don't trust Democrats (and the feeling on the other side is mutual) and the voters certainly don't think very highly of those that we put in office. 

When we don't trust each other we don't work well together, but in creating sound public policy we need that trust. To help restore the ability to work together, to accomplish a common goal or mission, I propose the creation of a Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution. They exist in states such as Washington and Oregon and in city's like Salt Lake City, but we need to bring these models to other centers of power where politics trumps policy and progress.

There will always be politics and opposing views and debates on issues -- that is healthy, but what Oregon Solutions or Salt Lake Solutions provides is "process".

To formalize and sustain this process, I propose creating an office similar to Oregon Solutions, which provides a system and process for problem solving, using collaborative governance as a method of public decision-making in which government leaders involve stakeholders from many areas of society, including community members, businesses, other government agencies and non-profit organizations in making decisions that affect how people are governed or how public resources are used.

Oftentimes issues are brought to the Governor’s attention through Regional Solutions Centers (RSCs), which are places for state agencies to collaborate with each other and among key stakeholders.  

When an issue seems intractable, Oregon Solutions calls on Oregon Consensus to mediate and resolve conflict.  Oregon Consensus focuses its work on issues regarding the environment, economic development, transportation and public health.

Both Oregon Solutions and Oregon Consensus are not government entities, but they are affiliated with Portland State University. The Oregon Legislature continues to fund this program ($1.2M). Washington also has a similar system. 

Similarly, at a city level, Salt Lake Solutions is jointly funded by the City Council and the Mayor and is part of the city government. It is charged with the task of solving community problems by cultivating inclusive collaborations of public and private support. Ralph Becker, the Mayor of Salt Lake City, took that same model and created Salt Lake City Solutions, an office, in the city’s planning department, that is dedicated to community engagement and facilitation. 

These organizations provide a system and process for problem solving, using community governance. This includes:

• Assess situations and bring the right people to the table to discuss them.
• Design and facilitate meetings to make sure all viewpoints are considered.
• Help groups sort through information to support sound decisions.
• Help groups convey their recommendations or agreements in writing.

It takes the burden off the elected officials to drive politically charged issues to a neutral organization that can create the process to resolve them.

Each issue comes to the organization’s attention after the Mayor, Council or Governor defines a problem that needs to be solved. The Mayor/Governor designates an impartial convener to bring people together and develop an assessment of the proposed project. If the issue meets the criteria for resolution, a neutral or convener is selected to manage and help resolve the project through facilitated meetings.

If we can agree to disagree than let's work together to at least build a process to help resolve our differences. 

Government works when governments work together

Facilitating an urban transit strategy in Washtenaw County, Mich. 

Issue: Expanding county-wide transit options

Client: The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA)

Background. 

Ann Arbor, Mich. is a growing community.  With The University of Michigan serving as the anchor, the city has seen an increase in jobs centered-around R&D, manufacturing, start-ups and technology. The growth in the job market has led to an increase in new construction, not just in the city but also in the communities surrounding Ann Arbor.

With a strong transit system in Ann Arbor, expanding transportation options beyond the city has been an issue community leaders have been talking about for years. For the past three years (since 2010), since the creation of a 30-year Transit Master Plan for Washtenaw County, there has been an organized effort to reach out and engage the public, community leaders, and elected officials on the future of transit in Washtenaw County, culminating in an attempt to establish a countywide transit effort, which finally unraveled in the fall of 2012, after the City of Ann Arbor opted out of the countywide authority.

At the same time, the Ann Arbor City Council urged the AAATA to focus its planning efforts on the ‘urban core’ of Washtenaw County, that is, those communities where population density is highest and transit needs are the greatest. In response, the AAATA has developed a Five Year Transit Improvement Program for the Urban Core group of communities - City of Ann Arbor, City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and the City of Saline – and again gained a general consensus among those communities on the level and nature of services to be provided.

To facilitate the planning process, an Urban Core Working Group was formed, composed of local elected officials from the involved jurisdictions along with other interested communities leaders from the Village of Dexter, Ann Arbor Township, Superior Township and Scio Township. The group met in March, April and June of 2013 and January of 2014 to help develop the Service Plan, Governance Structure and Funding Proposal, respectively. Each meeting was preceded by the preparation of briefing documents describing options for the Working Group to consider.

Facilitation

The AATA engaged attorneys Daniel Cherrin and Brian Pappas to preside over the meetings and make sure all participants had a chance to be heard. Cherrin and Pappas also helped drive the discussion to a closure, so that each meeting ended with a rough consensus on the topic being discussed.

Discussions first centered on the transit needs and expectations of the involved communities.  The process was designed to ensure the AATA board and local elected officials worked together around a common vision for transportation in the county.

Once consensus was reached on the transportation needs of the community, Cherrin and Pappas began to focus the group’s attention to more contentious issues involving funding, governance and service.

A model was agreed upon and The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA) placed a millage referendum on the ballot to enable the funding of services described in the Five-Year Transit Improvement Program (FYTIP), as passed by the AAATA Board on January 16, 2014, which was approved in May 2014.  

 Voters overwhelmingly approved a new 0.7-mill transit tax approved by 71.4 percent of those voting.  Not only did the proposal have overwhelming overall approval, it had widespread support. The measure won in 54 of 56 precincts.  Tuesday's election marked the first time in the AAATA's history that voters were asked to approve extra funding for public transit services beyond the annual financial support provided through the city charters in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

 As a result of the facilitated discussions, listening to public input and analyzing specific suggestions, the AATA:

Developed a 5-Year Transit Improvement Program (5YTIP) for the Urban Core of Washtenaw County.

The City of Ypsilanti (August 15, 2013) and Ypsilanti Township (December 17, 2013) joined the AATA, creating The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA)

The ride board adopted a five-year transit improvement program that was based on a proposed program presented to the working group in March 2013 and refined through community feedback on Jan 16 2014.

A new funding model for expanded service and hours for a new urban core transit plan was approved by the voters in May 2014.

Changes to TheRide Governance Structure – MGF or Board member

A 5-Year Transit Improvement Program was adopted by TheRide Board.

QUOTES

“This plan really was a culmination of four and a half years of going out and talking to people, hearing what they wanted," Michael Ford, AATA CEO said. "We took a lot of time going through many areas that we had never been before, just talking to people about their needs and what their vision was for the future. I think this plan really starts to address that."

 "I think it's a game-changer," Ypsilanti Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo said, noting a lot of people commute from the Ypsilanti area to work in Ann Arbor, especially at the University of Michigan. "It's going to provide access," she said of the service expansion. "And it'll probably continue to grow and expand in the future."

"This was probably the single most important action we could take to further the interests of our region," Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje said. "I'm hoping the AAATA will continue to grow and Pittsfield Township would naturally be the next group to come in."

“The process allowed each mayor, township supervisor and city council member to come to the table from their own vantage point and participate in a discussion that is productive, leading to solutions in an area that this community has been talking about for decades without resolution.” – Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township Supervisor, January 2014

“The meetings were facilitated by Daniel Cherrin and Brian Pappus, who were working as dispute resolution volunteers (an odd note, since this was not exactly a dispute). They brought a fresh approach to the process, as they had no particular knowledge of transit and had not been associated with the long earlier process.” Ann Arbor, blogger, @localinannarborhttp://localinannarbor.com/2013/10/19/once-again-aaata-exceeds-its-reach/

“Had they been able to get to this point without our help?  Honestly, I don't think so. As much as these meetings ran themself, we provided an independent voice to help steer the discussion. But behind the scenes we also served as couches or counselors to the AATA to help move them forward with the process,” Brian Pappas. 

TESTIMONIALS

Thank you for making a very important contribution to the whole process.  Your steady facilitation of those Urban Core Working Group meetings moved us positively through a very sensitive time.  Outcomes could have been quite different without your involvement. – Michael Benham, AAATA, May 8, 2014

Dear Daniel and Brian:

Please accept our sincere thanks for the facilitation services you have provided to our Urban Core Transit Working Group.  The work you did with staff in preparation for those meetings, including review of prepared materials, was extremely helpful in setting the stage for each meeting.  Your facilitation of the meetings themselves, helped ensure that we got through the materials, and that everyone was heard.

As you know, gaining consensus on the Urban Core Transit Plan has been a complex and painstaking process.  We believe that your help was invaluable in achieving this consensus and setting the stage for our next steps toward achieving improved regional transit. 

As you consider future opportunities to provide your alternative dispute resolution services to other organizations, please know that we will be happy to speak highly of the value of your work. 

Sincerely,
Michael Ford, AATA, CEO
8/15/2013

Timeline

Voters reject county wide transit plan – 2012

Ann Arbor directs AATA to come up with a better plan – 2012

AATA announces Urban Core initiative, November 2012

}Discussions begin about facilitation – December 2012

First session convening government stakeholders – March 28, 2013 with additional meetings held on: April 23, 2013; June 27, 2013; November 2013.

Final session to discuss results and gain feedback for taking the issue before the voters – January 2014

Issue to be put on May 2014 ballot for voters to decide.

Voters approve millage. May 2014

Dispute Resolution for Alternative Energy Projects

To minimize costly disputes at the local community level, in 2011, the Bureau of Energy Systems began to work with the Community Dispute Resolution Program in Michigan to provide communities with contact information for individuals with specific expertise in wind-related Community Dispute Resolution, as well as information on the Community Dispute Resolution Program (CDRP) program.  In many jurisdictions throughout Michigan, courts are making citizens aware of the availability of mediation as an alternative to litigating many types of disputes.  

Community Dispute Resolution

Community Dispute Resolution is a voluntary process in which two or more parties meet with a trained neutral mediator and together find a resolution to their problem. Mediators have no decision-making authority, and they do not render case evaluations as in the MCR 2.403 case evaluation process.  Instead, mediators are trained to assist the parties in generating options that result in a mutually acceptable resolution of their conflict. 

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section of the Michigan State Bar houses a number of mediators who have mediated gas/oil, land use, and various additional "siting" type issues, including wind farm issues.  Other trained individuals work in government, private industry, the non-profit sector and academia.  Some individuals have training specifically related to Wind Energy.  Michigan also has a network of Community Dispute Resolution Program (CDRP) centers that offer mediation.  The centers, supported in part with funding from the Michigan Supreme Court, are available to provide mediation in a wide variety of dispute types.  (See: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/dispute/ for information on Community Dispute Resolution program). 

Local Community Wind Projects and Community Dispute Resolution 

Many local municipalities are incorporating a provision for wind-specific dispute resolution processes in both their Planning Process and Local Zoning Ordinances that covers the planning, implementation, and operation stages of local wind farms. In the interest of minimizing the number of post-construction complaints, the Local municipalities may also wish to consider some preventive measures that might reduce the need for formal dispute resolution processes or litigation.  For example, provisions might address requiring wind companies to include good-neighbor payments to non-participants who are located within a pre-determined distance of a utility-scale wind turbine.  Another consideration for municipalities that wish to minimize disputes may be to limit wind energy projects only to areas of low residential density.  Overlay districts may be useful in encouraging the siting of wind turbines in certain areas, in addition to encouraging continued use of those areas for agricultural purposes. In more industrialized areas, wind energy overlay districts could be identified to encourage placement of wind turbines in areas zoned as industrial.

Finally, the Bureau of Energy Services has identified the following individuals as having specific expertise in wind-related community dispute resolution and wind energy:   

Dan Cherrin, (313) 300-0932, dcherrin@northcoaststrategies.com.

David Bidwell, (336) 416 1644, bidwell2@msu.edu

John Sarver, (517) 290-8602, johnsarver3@gmail.com 

Richard J. Figura, (231) 326-2072, rfigura@sfplaw.com. 

For more information about the BES Community Dispute Resolution, visit www.michigan.gov

*Reprinted from State of Michigan Website

The first 100 days for Detroit's New Mayor

 

With just a few hours before the polls open for voters in Detroit to elect its 75th mayor, the next 100 days will be crucial and will set the tone for Detroit to re-emerge from its current state of chaos.

In 100 days, winter will have set on the city of Detroit and the the 2014 Winter Olympics will be well under way in Sochi. In addition, the new Mayor will have already survived his first snow fall and The North American International Auto Show. However, beginning the night of the election, the Mayor-elect should be able to set the tone for his administration and layout his vision for strengthening the city.

From the very beginning Detroit's new mayor must lay out a clear vision for the city. The people of Detroit and the region need to be able to join the new mayor to reaffirm Detroit's strength and to enlist our support in moving it forward -- together.

At first their vision can be broad, but then in the weeks between the election and the day they take office, the Mayor-elect should hold a series of facilitated meetings with key stakeholders to share their vision, solicit feedback and advise and enlist their support in implementing their vision.

This should include a series of facilitated discussions where problems are presented and communities are engaged in solving those problems together. The new mayor should begin to set the stage for open dialogue in Detroit to re-frame the issues facing our city and reset the way we approach problem solving.

Through this visioning process, the Mayor-elect can then begin to build his team to wrap-around that vision.  A core of advisors should emerge from their campaign and transition to the 11th floor of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, but the new mayor should seek professional support, not only from within the city, but outside the city, even outside the state, to join his administration to help implement the plan.

Every week should be choreographed and mapped out, between now and the mayor's official start date. For example, meetings with Mayor Dave Bing to discuss the transition, meetings and aggressive outreach to Detroit's City Council where we will see so many new faces around the table, meetings with labor, the business community, faith based community, regional and state leaders and the Mayor of Windsor.

The new Mayor should immediately begin to bring people together to solve problems. There is a strong role for the new mayor, even with an Emergency Manager in place. The new Mayor can create the plans for re-emerging from bankruptcy and get everything ready. The new mayor can get out in the community every day and showcase everything the city has to offer -- both good and bad. They must travel to Lansing and meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. And they should travel to Washington and meet with officials who can bring additional resources to the city  They should also seek immediate opportunities to immerse themselves in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and utilize the resources this organization has for cities like ours.

However, the most important thing for the new mayor to do is to be visible. Eat in our local restaurants, shop in Detroit's shops. Take the bus to work every now and then and get out and never stop talking to people.

Regardless of who wins on Election Night, the new mayor must usher in a new generation of Detroit politics. One in which barriers are shed and the wall between the Mayor and Council is torn down.  This city can no longer waste time mirrored in politics and now we must all work together, with the Mayor as the leader with the Mayor as the one with the vision to see it through.