Role #2: Pascal Raffia


Part 1: Introduction

You have been living in Vermillion for fifteen years. Still, you never thought much about Slippery Creek, a poor neighborhood in Silver Cliff (the next town over), until the newspaper began to print stories about a conflict over contaminated water. (See map.) You used to work for an environmental mediation firm and although you have since quit and are teaching at the university, you think you may be able to help.

You do some research on Silver Cliff's history. You find out that the town once thrived on mining, but since the Silver Cliff Mining Company shut down, it has hit hard times. The neighborhood of Slippery Creek is mostly low-income housing. Many migrants live there seasonally and many Slippery Creek residents speak only Spanish. However, despite the poverty, it is an incredibly beautiful place to live.

Apparently, fifteen years ago, toxic tailings left over from Silver Cliff's mining days leached into Slippery Creek. A man named José Martinez found four dead fish in the creek, prompting an investigation. Researchers discovered that both the creek and Trout Lake were contaminated with lead and acid. (See news article.) In 1998, it was also discovered that heavy metals from the creek had seeped into the ground, contaminating Slippery Creek's drinking water. However, the Colorado Health Department has delayed addressing the problem. Three months ago, they sent out a letter to everyone in Slippery Creek advising them that their well water had almost reached toxic levels of lead. They recommended that Slippery Creek residents not drink from their wells and use bottled water instead. However, few Slippery Creek residents can afford to buy bottled water. (See public hearing.)

Megan Lee Jones, an outspoken former water resource manager for Silver County, has formed the Slippery Toxics Action Committee (STAC) to advocate for the Slippery Creek residents. You decide that she's the first person you'd like to speak with. You call her and set up a lunch meeting. You are very impressed by Megan. She is smart and persistent. She tells you she has been trying to convince the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. If this happened, the EPA would clean up the contaminated water and soil around Slippery Creek. They would use either their own funds or possibly require Jake Millhouse, the mayor of Silver Cliff, to foot some of the bill since his family was responsible for the contamination in the first place.

Megan seems confident that the EPA will be able to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. (See memo.) However, she is a little hazy on exactly how the EPA would clean up the hazardous waste. She mentions that it might be a long, difficult process. You are interested in what Megan has to say, but you are also concerned. You are almost certain that having Slippery Creek declared a Superfund site will cause more problems than Megan realizes. There are people with other interests that she hasn't taken into account. (See public hearing.)

Questions:

Things to think about: (Note: Not all of the answers to the questions are given in the story. You will need to fill in details using your background knowledge of similar circumstances and your imagination. Also, please be aware that we did not have enough money when we built this to write different stories depending on how you answer. So if you are the principal, for example, you may say that you want to mediate, but then read on to find out that the principal did not choose to mediate. Please don't think we are ignoring you or that the principal or the story is "stupid." We had to make people do some "stupid" things, or else there would not have been a conflict for you to puzzle over. Stick with it, and decide what you should do at each step along the way, even if some of the "turns" could have been avoided, had we "listened to you in the first place." You will get feedback on your answers when you turn this in to your instructor.)

1. Who are the parties involved in the conflict so far? (List them in the box below.) (Click here for more information on parties.)

  • What do you think their interests might be? (List them to the right of their names, below.) (Click here for information on "interests.")

    List parties here:List their interests here:







    3. What are your interests?


    4. What, if anything, do you think you could do to address this situation?


    Part 2: Conflict Assessment

    Megan Lee Jones wins a grant from the EPA to bring in experts to see if the illnesses in Slippery Creek can be connected to the contaminated water. Experts conducted a similar study several months ago with St. Mary's Hospital in Vermillion. That study (news article) showed that "eighty percent of those tested who have been feeling sick in the last year had 50 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood or higher, which is very high." Megan hopes that the EPA study will confirm these results. The experts do a thorough investigation, but they're unable to find a conclusive correlation between the high levels of lead in the water and the illnesses Slippery Creek residents have been complaining about. However, the level of toxins has been steadily rising over the past 15 years, to the point where it's close to violating standards. It is now so high that Megan thinks she can convince the EPA to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. However, this plan meets with massive protest.

    The town is almost evenly split between those for Superfund designation and those against. Those for it are essentially the members of STAC who are afraid that the health risks are too great to leave the contamination alone. Those against are afraid of what Superfund status will do to tourism and their quality of life. Slippery Creek is a poor town and they believe that dredging will block economic redevelopment and decrease property values. They also argue that the experts' tests proved inconclusive and they question whether the EPA will be able to clean up the hazardous materials without stirring them up and contaminating the environment further. Furthermore, the mayor is afraid he will be held responsible for funding the project, which he is vehemently saying is unfair. The Silver County government is unsure how to proceed and so does nothing.

    The town becomes polarized. People start putting angry bumper stickers on their cars. Public opinion meetings tend to break down into shouting matches and are completely unproductive.

    You approach Megan again and ask if she would be interested in trying consensus-building as an approach to dealing with the problem. At first, she is skeptical. She's afraid the process will force STAC to compromise. You explain to her that you would like to conduct a consensus-building process, which would require everyone involved to come to an agreement that they could live with. Nobody would be required to compromise more than they were comfortable with. Megan says she is interested, but she will have to talk with the other members of STAC. You agree to meet with her again next week.

    Questions:

    1. Do you think an outside third party would be useful in this case? Why or why not? (See Intervention Options.)


    2. What kind of intervention would be most useful (and why)? (See Intervention Options, Neutral Fact Finding, Facilitation, Mediation, Arbitration, Hybrid Processes, and Adjudication.jsp.)


    3. Do you think mediation or consensus-building is a good idea? Why or why not? (See Peaceful Change Strategies and Mediation for advice.)


    4. What are the benefits?


    5. What are the risks and costs?


    6. What alternatives does STAC have if you don't mediate? (Click here for advice.)


    7. What are the alternatives for the people who are against Superfund designation?


    8. Fill out the following chart:

    Option:Benefits:Costs:Balance?
    1.
    y or n
    2.
    y or n
    3.
    y or n
    4.
    y or n
    5.
    y or n
    6.
    y or n


    9. If you do get involved in this conflict, what do you think would be useful for you to do? See Mediator, Consensus Building, and Policy Dialogue. Also consider the essays in Mediation Strategies.


    Part 3: Meeting with STAC

    Megan calls back as asks you if you would be willing to come to the next STAC meeting to talk with the whole group. You agree. When you get there, there are about 25 people in attendance. Megan introduces you to the others and asks you to explain a bit about your background and why you think consensus building might work for them. You give your standard "spiel," but then Maria Sanchez interjects:
    I'm really worried about this approach. Maybe it's just that I'm a worrier. But I don't think so. I understand that the experts didn't find anything conclusive about the health risks in our water, but I still think that toxins are having a huge effect on our community, especially because many people can't afford health care. Our rates of cancer are really high, miscarriages and birth defects are common, so are learning disabilities. People even seem to catch colds and flus more here than they do in other places, maybe because our immune systems are overloaded trying to fight off the toxins. I am sure that if we were a rich, white community, the state Health Department would be all over this. But we're not. We're poor and Latino. No one listens to us or cares about what happens to us. Why will rich white folks sitting around this table be any different?

    Question:

    1. How do you respond to Maria's question?


    "That's a good question," you answer. "But that's the beauty of consensus building. As mediator, I will make sure that everyone gets an equal chance to speak, and I will not move on until I am certain the other side has really listened to STAC and understood your concerns. On top of that, all parties must be able to live with the final decision, so the other groups will have to take STAC into account. If you don't like what the group is coming up with, you just say 'no.' Then we go back to the drawing board and try again, until we come up with a plan that works for you." You also offer to meet with STAC beforehand to help them prepare for the process.

    Megan asks you to leave the room for a bit, so they can discuss your proposal. "But stay close," she says, "because we might have more questions." About 20 minutes later they invite you back in to announce they want to try consensus building. "So what do we do now?" they ask.

    You say that you'll talk to the other groups to see if they'll agree and if so, you'll set a date to start. You'll also call Megan to set a date when you can meet separately with STAC to help them prepare for the consensus process.

    You meet again with STAC a few days later. About 20 members show up to the meeting, including José, Carla and Megan Lee Jones. You tell them you are there to help them assess their options. First, you ask them what their ideal solution to the problem would be. They all decide that it is important to them to have safe drinking water, but that they don't want to do it at the cost of the local economy. Then you ask them what they absolutely can't live with. Maria stands up and says that she can't live with the water contamination the way it is. It's making her sick with worry and most likely it's making her sick for other reasons. "They tell us that the water's safe, but then they tell us, just to be sure, we ought to buy bottled water. Why do we need to buy bottled water if it is safe? If we need bottled water, they should clean it up!" Everyone else agrees with her. Other people raise other ideas, but it seems pretty clear that their interests are safety for their family, freedom from worry (about toxic contamination, anyway), and improving the local economy. But safety and freedom from worry are paramount for everyone.

    You write these ideas down on newsprint, hang them on the wall, and then ask them to consider their BATNA, which stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. They have to think through what will happen if this negotiation process fails. You explain that determining a BATNA is the only way to assess how much power their group has compared to the other stakeholders.

    They start to brainstorm other ways to solve this problem if the negotiation falls apart. José points out that if they are lucky, the EPA may come in and dredge the lake whether the other stakeholders like it or not. In that sense, he says, they may be more powerful than the other parties. The other stakeholders will be forced to negotiate with you to come up with a better solution. Everyone at the meeting looks relieved and energized.

    But then Carla stands up.

    "You know it won't be that easy," she says. "Those other people involved, like the mayor, are experienced troublemakers. They'll go back to the courts and delay this for years. If they're not happy, they'll do anything they can to trip us up. And we can't rely on the EPA either. Government seldom responds to poor Latinos. We have to try our hardest to persuade the richer, white residents of Silver Cliff that we need a safe source of water. Only then will anyone listen."

    The other members of STAC start look a little nervous.

    Questions:

    1. Who do you think is more powerful in this situation? Do you think you (as a mediator) should do anything to try to equalize the power between the parties?


    2. What do you think STAC's BATNA is?


    3. What other advice can you give STAC in advance of the negotiations?


    Part 4: Meeting with Other Stakeholders

    You don't waste any time in the next week. You contact Mayor Millhouse and he agrees to meet you. He is very excited about the possibility of a consensus-building process. He says the water problems in Slippery Creek have turned into a lose-lose situation for him. No matter what he does, he will make someone unhappy. He hopes mediation will generate some new options.

    You also speak with Rachel LeBaron, the president of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association, a group of wealthy, well-organized homeowners who vacation on Trout Lake, and Ben Cartwright, the chair of the Silver County Chamber of Commerce. They have been very vocal about their opposition to the EPA cleanup. When you sit down to talk to them, they explain their reasoning. Ben is concerned that a Superfund designation will destroy Silver Cliff's economy. He explains that the town has spent the last year trying to market Silver Cliff as a hotspot for tourism and outdoor recreation. If the EPA initiates a clean-up, they will most likely close down Slippery Creek and Trout Lake for several years, completely crushing any tourism the town might have gotten. Ben says that considering the increasing poverty of this region, it may be disastrous for Silver Creek to lose its tourists.

    Rachel has different reasons for opposing the Superfund designation. She worries that if the EPA comes in, it will lower the property values around Trout Lake and destroy their idyllic location.

    After talking to both of them for several hours, they both agree to participate in the process. They also suggest that you speak with some of the other residents of Silver Creek including Lucy Lucky, a member of the Silver County Historic Society and Tourism Board and Walt Minick, a representative of the timber industry.

    Everyone you talk to is willing to participate. On Friday, you meet with Megan again and several other members of STAC including Maria Sanchez, Carla Cordero and José Martinez. They are sick of the constant bickering and are looking for a way out. Everyone agrees to begin the consensus-building process as soon as possible.

    Questions:

    1. Who do you think should be involved in this process? (See Stakeholder Representatives and Convening Processes for advice.)


    2. Are there any people who should NOT be involved in the mediation? Why not?


    3. What are you going to try to do first with the consensus-building process?


    Part 5: Beginning the Process

    The next week, you convene the first meeting. Over twenty people are there, including Jake Millhouse, Ben Cartwright, Megan Lee Jones, Maria Sanchez, José Martinez, Carla Cordero, Rachel LeBaron, Lucy Lucky and others. You introduce yourself and explain generally how consensus building works. You then ask the others to briefly introduce themselves, but ask that they save their "long introductions and statements of interest" until a bit later. You then suggest that the group adopt a set of groundrules. Although you have your own ideas in mind, you realize that if the group comes up with their own list, it will be a first exercise in successfully working together. You therefore ask the participants to break into groups of four and discuss what groundrules they think the group should use. You then bring everyone back for discussion, list all the proposed rules, and after some give and take, come up with a list of groundrules that everyone can agree upon.

    1. What ground rules do you think are important for the group to adopt? Click here for advice.)


    You agree on things like speaking respectfully, listening attentively, and keeping the mediation proceedings confidential. You then ask each person to explain their views of the conflict and what they would like to get out of the mediation. You ask Megan, from the Slippery Toxics Action Committee (STAC), to start. Megan says:

    STAC is concerned about the health of Slippery Creek residents. In the past three years, cancer rates have spiked by 10 percent. Birth defects have spiked by slightly less than 20 percent. The possibility of sub-clinical effects, such as decreased intelligence and increased hyperactivity is even more concerning. I am sure that no one in this room would be willing to expose their children to the possibility of a slow poisoning over the years." She pauses.

    "However, we are also very concerned about the economy in this town and we hope to be able to find a solution that will have as little impact on tourism and other economic activities as possible. So, I'd like to work with everyone here to figure out a solution to clean up the water and the land, and do so in a way that doesn't hurt the economy."
    Megan sits down. The next person to speak is Ben Cartwright, the chair of Silver County Commerce. He says grimly,

    The town of Silver Cliff is facing an economic crisis. I know most of you believe that we will make it out of this recession as we have made it out of hard times in the past. But the truth is, it will be a miracle if we do. Our only hope right now is encouraging as much tourism as we can and I firmly believe that having Trout Lake declared a Superfund site will smash any hope of that. I drink well water, the same as the rest of you. Every expert we have spoken to has said the levels of toxins in the water are below the amount we would need to be concerned about. Are we really willing to sacrifice any chance we have of an economic recovery at the altar of playing it safe?


    Ben sits down.

    Others take their turn. Some, like Ben, are concerned about tourism. Lucy Lucky is concerned about preserving the history and character of the region. The environmental groups, SANE and Pure Nature, are concerned about the environment too, but they are more extreme than STAC is. They are focusing more on preserving the environment than the people living in it. The residents of Trout Lake say they don't want a long dredging project driving down property values in their community. The last person to stand and speak is Jake Millhouse. He stands and says:

    I first ran for mayor of Silver Cliff because this town is my home and I truly want to promote the well-being of all its citizens. Today we are following in the footsteps of Vermillion. We strive to improve the quality of life, economics, education, and infrastructure of this city. I believe that we can find a solution that benefits everyone here.
    It is already late. You thank everyone for their time and suggest that you adjourn for the night and meet again next week. "Same time. Same place. Your homework for this week is to consider what everyone said tonight and start thinking about possible approaches that would meet everyone's needs."

    Other Questions:

    1. Are the parties framing the conflict differently? Does this matter? If so, what do you think you can do about it? (For suggestions, read Framing and Reframing.


    2. At this point, do you see any areas of common ground? (Click here for ideas on commonalities.)


    3. What do you think you need to do to be most effective as a mediator? (For suggestions, read some of the essays in Mediation Strategies and Techniques and some of the essays in Negotiation Strategies.)






    Part 7: Fact Finding

    At the next meeting, it becomes clear that part of the reason everyone perceives the problem differently is that they are basing their assumptions on different facts. Although many experts have already come out to study the site, their findings have not been conclusive. There are still too many unanswered questions about whether the contamination is serious and what the best way to address the contamination would be.

    Questions:

    1. How might these factual discrepancies be dealt with? (For advice, read some of the essays in the Fact Finding section of Beyond Intractability.)


    2. Do you think it makes sense to have another fact-finding process? If so, what needs to be investigated?


    3. What will you suggest be done differently so that this time the results will be more useful and credible?


    You do suggest that the group undertake a fact-finding process that will be designed in such a way that everyone will trust the results. But that will require more funding. Megan and Ben agree to go with you to talk to the EPA and the city. The EPA agrees to partially fund another panel of experts. The county and city governments also agree to chip in some money and, with some help from you, the community also gets some private grants. Then you meet with the other stakeholder groups and together agree on whom to select to participate in the fact-finding process. You choose six people who include university professors, doctors, and scientists. All but two of them have worked on similar projects before. Everyone agrees that this is a trustworthy group, and that they will respect the group's findings.

    The experts essentially hold a science court. They listen to testimonials from the EPA and various townspeople. They read the various reports that have already been produced. They take new measurements of their own. Then, they retreat to discuss what they have learned. About a month later, they call a meeting to present their recommendations. They say they believe the contamination has caused some people to be sicker than they otherwise might have been. There also may be some sub-clinical effects of the contamination, or in other words, negative effects that wouldn't send someone to the hospital, but are still concerning. One example of sub-clinical effects might be the high incidence of learning disabilities in the community. However, the panel stresses the uncertainty of all of these findings. The water and soil contamination just can't be conclusively connected to significant health problems in the Slippery Creek community. But, since the possibility is there, and people are afraid and distrustful, they tentatively recommend a clean-up, nevertheless.

    When the investigation is complete, you call a meeting with the fact-finding team and everyone else who has been involved in the consensus-building process. The team presents their findings and answers questions. They then leave. People are civil, but clearly not happy. Trying to dissect the facts along with the feelings the facts have elicited is going to be a big job — too big for tonight. You suggest people talk to their constituencies about the findings during the next week, and then reconvene to decide where to go from there.

    More Questions:

    1. How do you think the other groups will react?


    2. What do you think the group should do now?


    3. What do you think your next steps should be?


    Escalation

    The results of the fact-finding process still leave a lot of uncertainty. After the meeting, you hear various stakeholders talking. Both sides believe that the fact-finding process proved what they knew all along. Those who believe the EPA should come in and clean up the Slippery Creek area believe that the fact finders confirmed this. Those against the Superfund designation believe the fact finders confirmed it wasn't worth the time and expense.

    Nevertheless, a few days later, Megan's lobbying finally pays off. The EPA announces that they will consider Slippery Creek for Superfund status. They plan to fund the clean-up by charging Jake Millhouse for as much as he can pay and then using federal funds for the rest.

    Then, the worst happens. The group against the Superfund designation threatens to sue. The major players in the lawsuit are Jake Millhouse and Rachel LeBaron. You try to talk them out of it. You ask them to give consensus building a chance before they turn to the courts. You explain that if they sue, you will have to end the mediation process. But they refuse to back down. For several months, the consensus-building process breaks down into fighting over whether or not the lawsuit will go ahead. In retaliation for the lawsuit, the members of STAC decide to stage protests. They construct coffins and place them around Trout Lake. They organize marches through town waving banners and chanting. But, the demonstrations only seem to make things worse.

    You decide there is nothing more you can do in Slippery Creek for the time being. You decide to back off and see what happens.

    Question:

    1. Can you think of anything to do that might de-escalate this situation?






    Stalemate and Opportunity for Agreement

    The arguing drags on into summer. By this time, Silver Cliff has gotten some bad publicity about the contamination and the usually steady flow of tourists into Slippery Creek is barely a trickle. At the same time, nothing has been done about the water contamination. Everybody is losing. It is clear that the residents of Slippery Creek have reached a stalemate. The people in favor of the lawsuit agree to postpone it if Megan Lee Jones also agrees to postpone the EPA intervention.

    Maybe now you can get the consensus-building process up and running again.

    Questions:

    1. What are your goals and options at this point? (See Goal Setting and Option Identification.)


    2. Can you think of a solution to this conflict that could meet everyone's needs? (See Negotiation Theory.)


    Reconvening

    One week later, you reconvene the consensus-building process. Everyone gathers in a large conference room in the public library. You thank everyone for coming, but quickly get serious. "This process has dragged on a long time with stops and starts. You need to decide whether you really want to work together to come up with a collaborative agreement, or whether you don't. If you don't, that is okay with me, but I don't want to do this on-again, off-again routine. Let's either commit to this process seriously, or drop it for good," you say. After some short speeches, everyone agrees that they want to commit to it seriously.

    You then review the groundrules that the group came up with months ago, and review where the issues stand. On one piece of paper you list all the topics that have been discussed, along with the major ideas related to each. Then you move things around so you have a list of 1) decisions that have been made, 2) decisions that need to be made, and 3) information that still needs to be gathered. After doing this, the group decides that they want to form some working groups to investigate a number of outstanding questions. Groups are formed to: 1) see if there are any alternative sources of drinking water for Slippery Creek; 2) research possible ways to clean up the contaminated soil and water, evaluating each possibility to see how much it would cost, how long it will take, what the negative effects would be, and whether it would be worth the time and expense; 3) see if there are any other communities which have faced similar problems and what they have done about it; and 4) investigate how funds could be found to pursue any of these other options. The small groups meet for almost two months, coming back together at monthly intervals to report on their progress. You work with all the groups as much as you can, especially at the beginning. At first things are tense, with no one accepting other people's ideas. But after spending so much time bickering and getting nowhere, everyone seems to care more about getting down to business than trying to prove who's right.

    You are especially pleased with the progress of group number 3, the group working on looking for communities that have solved similar problems. Ben and Maria are on this committee and they are both very hard workers and every effective. Megan finds that the city of Leadville, Colorado has faced similar problems. They are a poor, primarily Latino community that has a history of mining and toxic residue. Like Slippery Creek, they are now trying to pursue tourism as a way toward prosperity. You propose to implement a plan similar to the one implemented in Leadville. While that plan included cleaning the water, it also involved putting in a bikeway to make the community more attractive to recreationalists. For Slippery Creek, you want to create a bike path that goes around Trout Lake connecting to the rest of Silver Creek and, for very intrepid bikers, to the town of Vermillion. You hope that the path will be a draw for tourism, just as the bikeway in Leadville is. You will also be able to use the path to pave over the rest of the tailings piles to stop them from sliding into the soil and water. Moreover, the path will highlight and preserve historical features in the Silver Cliff area, which pleases Lucy Lucky.

    The other groups have been successful as well. The water group believes the residents of Slippery Creek will be able to use water from the city source instead of their individual wells, which will hopefully limit the residents' contact with heavy metals and decrease the health problems they've been suffering lately. They have had to haggle for months with the city over this. At first, Mayor Millhouse said there wasn't enough water to accommodate the residents of Slippery Creek. But, when it came out that he was planning to use Silver Cliff water for new developments outside of the city, he admitted, embarrassed, that some of that water could be diverted into Slippery Creek.

    Finally, the clean-up group has investigated possible processes and concluded that it will be nearly impossible to clean the contaminated ground water and so it will be best to stop using the wells and rely on city water instead. As far as the contamination in Trout Lake is concerned, dredging such a large lake would be a long, noisy project, which would have questionable success and significant costs. However, they believe that dredging only the most contaminated part of the lake would increase the lake's safety considerably and be a fairly fast process. Furthermore, if the project is started in late fall, it should be able to avoid interfering with tourism.

    Question:

    Do you think this solution is likely to satisfy everyone? Do you see any unsolved problems? Explain.


    Part 10: The Hitch

    The only group unable to find a satisfying solution is the funding group. The EPA is interested in the consensus-building process and is willing to support its solutions. However, they say they are leaning towards holding Jake Millhouse responsible for the clean-up because it is his family's mine that caused these problems. This is never going to fly, you are sure. The Mayor will refuse to agree and all your months of work will be wasted. You talk to the EPA representative and convince her to hold off making that recommendation. When the group meets again you explain that the last remaining issue is funding.

    You acknowledge that the funding discussion has been extremely controversial, which is why (in part) you saved it for last. (Besides, before now you didn't know what you needed to fund.) But now funding is critical. Without the funding, this plan will fall flat. To your relief, everyone, including the mayor, agrees to work to try to investigate funding possibilities. All four groups focus on the funding question, talk to their contacts and report back three weeks later. Once again, the groups were remarkably successful. They've gotten leads on a combination of private grants and government funds, which together would be almost enough to cover the costs. But not quite.

    Then Megan makes a proposal:

    "Mayor Millhouse, since you own some of the land that we would like to use to build the bike trail, why don't you donate it to the city? That would almost cover our funding shortfall."

    Jake Millhouse stands up and says "No way! I paid a good price for that land. I don't see why I should be forced to take the brunt of this while all the rest of you get exactly what you want."

    Megan isn't fazed.

    "Now that's not quite true, Jake. Everyone here has had to compromise. However, if this still sounds unfair to you, you should think it through. If this consensus-building process falls through, we can just go back to the EPA and ask for Superfund status and they're going to ask you to foot as much of the bill as you are able to. Not only that, but may I remind you that we are all your constituents and you depend on us for your job. So it may be in your best interest to compromise here."

    Jake turns red and stomps out. You quickly call a recess and walk out as well, trying to catch Jake. But he's already gone.

    Questions to Consider:

    1. Do you think Megan should have targeted Mayor Millhouse in this way?


    2. Was there a better way to do it, that might have been more effective?


    3. Should you call Mayor Millhouse and try to talk to him? If so, what would you say?


    4. Is there anything you could have done to de-escalate the situation before the mayor walked out? Afterwards?


    Part 11: Waiting on the Mayor

    You return to tell the group that it looks as if mayor is not going to come back, at least not for today. He asks the others what they want to do. Rachel LeBaron, the president of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association, suggests that they adjourn for the day and she talk to Mayor Millhouse during the week. She thinks she can calm him down and get him to agree to that plan. Everyone agrees, and the meeting is adjourned. At the next meeting, Jake agrees to the deal. Not only that, but several other residents of the Trout Lake community who own property volunteer to donate their land as well. The plan is going forward.

    Questions:

    1. Do you think the solution the consensus-building team has come to is a fair one?


    2. If not, how could it be improved?


    Conclusions

    Two years later, the project is well under way. You are still feeling hopeful about it and are very pleased with your part in making it happen. You remain in the area and are in contact with many of the parties. You have offered to help out if any disputes arise during implementation, but so far, none have. One of the consequences of the mediation was a major improvement in the relationships between the parties. Rather than ignoring or demonizing each other as they did before, the parties respect each other and are able to work together to accomplish their mutual goals. This is one of the reasons you so strongly support consensus solutions rather than litigated solutions. Had the dispute been litigated, with one side winning and the other losing, the relationships between the parties would have remained hostile and the implementation of any decision would have been all the more difficult. All in all, you are very pleased with the outcome.

    • Also available: The Interactive Environmental Framing Simulation

    Copyright © 2006 Conflict Research Consortium,
    University of Colorado

    Please send comments and questions to