Role #1: Maria Sanchez


Part 1: Introduction

You were born and raised in the Spanish-speaking neighborhood of Slippery Creek within the town of Silver Cliff. (See map.) Although many of your neighbors are migrants who just moved to town looking for work, you have spent your entire life here. Although you sometimes feel trapped in Slippery Creek because of the poverty and lack of opportunity, you love the town at the same time. It is an incredibly beautiful place to live and after all, it's your home. You run a little restaurant in town. Your husband has had only temporary work since the plant he worked at shut down, so the past few years have been difficult for your family.

You have known about the heavy metal contamination in Slippery Creek for 15 years, ever since José Rodriguez found those dead fish (see news article). José is a regular customer and gave you the whole story before the newspapers picked it up. When you heard Slippery Creek was contaminated with lead and acid, you were furious and scared, but you didn't know what to do about it. You forbade your children from playing in the creek and told your husband to stop fishing from it, even though your family was used to eating fresh fish once or twice a week. You assumed that the people in charge would take care of it, and frankly, you were just too busy working and taking care of your family to worry about it.

Ten years later, in 1998, you learned that your well water was probably contaminated as well (see news article). When you heard that the Colorado Health Department was refusing to address the problem, while at the same time advising you not to drink from your well water, you became even more frustrated.

When Megan Lee Jones, a local biologist, formed the Slippery Toxics Action Committee (STAC) you joined and went to as many meetings as you could. But, you felt you weren't qualified to do much more than sit and listen. Still, you had a nagging suspicion that if the people in your community were white, wealthy and educated, the government would be doing more to address the problem. You began to believe that Slippery Creek's water problems have less to do with science and more to do with discrimination. Four years passed and you continued to worry about the contamination.

Three months ago, you noticed your well water tasted funny. You considered the fact that it could just be in your head. Everyone around you thought it tasted just fine. After all, over a decade of worrying about the water had turned you into a bit of a hypochondriac. Every time you had a headache, you wondered if it was a result of the water. Despite all the worry, you have remained fairly healthy. But many people around you had not been so lucky. You could tick off just under a dozen of your friends and neighbors who have health problems from birth defects to cancer. It seems to you that your community is slowly falling apart from the double threat of poverty and contaminated water. It makes you livid when the health department suggests that the solution to the problem is for Slippery Creek residents to buy bottled water. (See public hearing.) How can you possibly afford bottled water when you can barely afford to pay the bills?

At the last STAC meeting, Megan Lee Jones said she was talking to Elaine Green, who was with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trying to get Slippery Creek declared a Superfund site. She explained that if that happened, the EPA would come in and clean up the contaminated water and soil around Slippery Creek. They would use either their own funds or possibly require Mayor Millhouse to foot some of the bill since his family was responsible for the contamination in the first place. Elaine seems confident that the EPA would be able to declare Slippery Creek a superfund site. (See memo.) Megan was a little hazy on how exactly the EPA would clean up the hazardous waste. She mentioned that it might be a long, difficult process. You hope the EPA will come in and fix the problem, but at the same time you feel torn. You know that if Slippery Creek is designated a Superfund site, then it will kill the tourism that this area badly needs. (See public hearing.)

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.)

2. 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 should do to address this situation?


Part 2: Investigation

Megan Lee Jones won a grant from the EPA to bring in experts to see if the illnesses in Slippery Creek could be connected to the contaminated water. Experts had 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 for unexplained causes had 50 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood or higher, which is very high." Megan hopes that the EPA study would confirm these results in Slippery Creek as well. 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 is close to violating standards. It is now so high that Megan thinks she can get the EPA to declare Slippery Creek a Superfund site. However, this plan meets with massive protest.

The town is almost evenly split between those in favor of clean up and those against. Those for it are essentially the members of STAC. They are afraid that the health risks are too great to leave the contamination alone.

Those against Superfund designation 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 the creek and/or the reservoir will block economic redevelopment and decrease property values. Opponents 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 the funding the project, which he is vehemently saying is unfair. The Silver County Commission is unsure how to proceed and so does nothing.

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



You put a STAC bumper sticker on your car and at public hearings you argue that the government has been neglecting the water contamination because of environmental racism. But, privately, you wish there was a better solution to the problem than arguing, which doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Right now, you feel as if the Slippery Creek community is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Questions:

1. How do other interest groups frame the conflict differently from you? (See Framing and Factual Disputes.)


2. Do you see any areas of common ground between you and other groups? (See Common Ground.)


3. Can you think of any ways to reverse the polarization between the various interest groups in Slippery Creek? (See Polarization.)


Part 3: Opportunity for Intervention

One morning, everyone in your restaurant is talking about a front-page article in the Vermillion newspaper. The paper has picked up Slippery Creek's story and splashed it all over the front page. The articles paint Mayor Millhouse and the Silver County government in a bad light, which makes you feel a little smug. But still, you fear the article will just polarize and escalate the conflict further.

A few days later Megan Lee Jones comes into the restaurant and asks you to sit down with her. She says she's been talking to Pascal Raffia, an environmental mediator, who has worked on cases similar to Slippery Creek's before. Apparently, Pascal read about Slippery Creek in the newspaper and believes he can help. Megan confides to you that she's not really sure that declaring Slippery Creek a Superfund site is the best option. She hopes Pascal can help the town develop some new possibilities. She would like you and a few other representatives of the Spanish-speaking community to come along to her next meeting with Pascal.

Questions:

1. Do you think an outside third party would be useful in this case? (See Intervention Options.)


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


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 costs?


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


7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of your alternatives? (Click here for advice.)


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


Part 4: Meeting with Pascal

You go with Megan Lee Jones to meet with Pascal. You bring along your friends José Rodriguez and Carla Cordero, who have also been very involved in the conflict. Pascal tells you about the kind of work that he does and what he has been able to do for other people in similar situations. Then he asks you some questions (please answer):

1. If we do decide to mediate this conflict, would you want to participate? (Why or why not?)


2. If you do want to participate, what would be your goals for the mediation? (Click here for advice.)


3. What are your interests at this point?


4. Who do you think should be involved in this mediation? (See stakeholder representatives and convening processes for advice.)


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


You answer these questions, but you also tell Pascal that you have been feeling frustrated. You say you understand that the studies of toxicity were inconclusive, but you still believe the toxins are having a huge effect on your community, especially because many people can't afford health care. You are especially worried about the sub-clinical effects. You point out that parents want the best for their children, and no one wants to live in an area that is slowly eroding their childrens' health. You are concerned that because you are a poor, Latino community that people won't care what happens to your families.

Pascal Raffia listens to you carefully. He tells you he has been concerned as well. He explains how mediation and consensus-building processes work, telling you that all the stakeholders must be able to live with the final decision, so the other groups will have to take STAC into account. Pascal also offers to meet with STAC to help you prepare for the process.

Based on these reassurances, you decide to try mediation.

After the meeting, you feel hopeful for the first time in years. You like Pascal. He seemed to truly believe that there is a solution to Slippery Creek's problems. But he made it clear: it would take a lot of time and a lot of work. He said he'll talk to the other parties, and let you know if the other parties would agree to meet. If they would, he could start a process, but you'd need to find funding, most likely, to keep it going to conclusion.

Part 5: Capacity Building

Pascal meets with your group a few days later. About 20 members of STAC show up to the meeting, including José, Carla and Megan Lee Jones. Pascal says he is there to help you assess your options. First, he asks you what your ideal solution to the problem would be. You all decide that it is important to you to have safe drinking water, but that you don't want to get it in a way that minimizes harm to the local economy. Then he asks you what you absolutely can't live with. You all agree that you can't live with the water and soil contamination the way it is.

Pascal nods and says you now need to consider your BATNA, which stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. You have to think through what will happen if this negotiation process fails. Pascal explains that determining your BATNA is the only way to assess how much power your group has compared to the other stakeholders.

You sit down with the rest of your group and you start to brainstorm other ways to solve this problem if the process falls apart. José points out that the EPA may come in and dredge the lake, whether the other stakeholders like it or not. In that sense, he says, you are 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 stakeholders 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. We can't rely on the EPA. We have to try our hardest to persuade the other residents of Silver Cliff that we need a safe source of water."

The other members of STAC look a little nervous.

Questions:

1. Pascal told you that mediation makes everyone at the table "equal," but it seems to you that the rich folk and the EPA still have much more power than anyone else. Do you care? Is there anything you can do to even the playing field? What? (Click here for suggestions).


2. Negotiations often come down to whether one group can persuade another to do what they want. Can you think of strategies to persuade the other stakeholder groups to consider your interests?


3. How can you prevent the other parties from delaying a decision? (See negotiation strategies, sanctions, incentives, and action-forcing mechanisms.)


Part 6: The First Meeting

After a few weeks, Pascal calls you and tells you the first meeting will be a week from Tuesday at the City Council chambers. You show up to the meeting with both eagerness and trepidation, wondering who is going to be there and what is going to happen. It turns out that over twenty people are there, including Mayor Millhouse, Ben Cartwright (the chair of the Silver County Chamber of Commerce) and representatives from the other major interest groups in the conflict. Pascal introduces himself (much the way he did when you met with him individually), and explains again what mediation is and how it works. He then he asks each of you to briefly introduce yourselves, but he asks that you hold your full introduction until later. After quick introductions are made, Pascal suggests that you work together to set some groundrules.

What groundrules would you suggest? Click here for advice.)


You agree on things like speaking respectfully, listening attentively, and keeping the mediation proceedings confidential. Pascal then asks each person to explain their views of the conflict and what they would like to get out of the mediation.

What are you going to say?


Then it is Megan's turn. She stands up and 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 submit 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, do so in a way that doesn't hurt the economy."
Megan sits down. The next person to stand up 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 stand and speak. 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.
You raise your eyebrows. Mayor Millhouse has managed to entirely dodge the subject. To you his speech just sounded like politician-speak.

Pascal smiles at everyone.

"Great. We'll adjourn for tonight 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. Do you see any areas of common ground? (Click here for ideas on commonalities.)


2. What do you think you need to do to be most effective at the negotiating table? (For suggestions, read capacity building 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. If there were another fact-finding process, what questions would you like to see addressed? (See factual disputes.)


2. How might these factual discrepancies be dealt with? (For advice, read some of the essays in the fact-finding section of Beyond Intractability.)


Pascal does suggest that the group undertakes a new fact-finding process that will be designed in a way that everyone will trust the results. But that will require more funding. Pascal, Megan, and Ben agree to go 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 Pascal, you also get 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 trust-worthy group, and they will respect the 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 your 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.

Pascal calls a meeting with the fact finding team and everyone else who has been involved in the mediation process. The team presents their findings and answers questions. They then leave. People are civil, but clearly not happy. Pascal said that he had hoped to discuss next steps, but that the question and answer period went too long and it was getting late. He suggested people meet again in a week, and everyone concurred.

More Questions:

1. What do you think of the fact finders' recommendations?


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


3. What, if anything, do you think you should do now?


Part 8: Escalation

After the meeting, many people stay to talk about the results of the tests. You hear some of the people who were against the Superfund designation, saying that they were right all along, that bringing the EPA in is not worth the time and expense and might have really significant negative consequences. Your heart sinks. After all this work, you fear that everyone is just going to walk away and it is your children who are going to suffer. The idea of being slowly poisoned for the rest of your life makes you really angry. Worse, everyone else involved in this conflict has more education and more money than you. You feel powerless and frustrated.

Question:

How might you be able to build up your power so you would be better able to negotiate with the other side? (For ideas, read the essays on empowerment, voice, and coalition building.)


However, despite the experts' findings, a few days later, Megan's lobbying 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. You get really excited.

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, the president of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association, a group of wealthy, well-organized homeowners who vacation on Trout Lake. Pascal says if they do that, he will have to end the mediation process. During the next meeting, the consensus-building process breaks down into fighting over whether or not the lawsuit will go ahead. In retaliation for the threatened lawsuit, you and the other members of STAC decide to stage protests. You construct coffins and place them around Trout Lake. You organize marches through town waving banners and chanting. But, the demonstrations only seem to escalate the conflict even further.

More Questions:

1. Do you think your demonstrations were a good idea? Why or why not? (See coercive power, persuasion, integrative power, empowerment, and voice.)


2. Can you think of anything to do that might de-escalate this situation? Or do you want to continue to escalate it instead? (See essay on constructive escalation.)


3. Do you want to continue with the mediation process or give up on it? Why or why not?


4. What, if anything, do you think Pascal can and should do to deal with the situation now?


Part 9: Stalemate and Opportunity for Agreement

The arguing drags on into summer. By this time, Silver Cliff has gotten some extremely bad publicity about the contamination and the usual steady flow of tourists into the area is barely a trickle. This is disaster for such a poor area. At the same time, nothing has been done about the water contamination. Everybody is losing. Something new must be done. At the next meeting everybody is very serious. It is clear that you 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. Megan asks the rest of STAC to vote and STAC agrees to wait to bring the EPA in until you have given the consensus-building process a serious try.

You feel good that the process is up and running again, but you wonder if you'll get anything out of it. Honestly, how is your poor, uneducated community going to compete against the wealthy residents of Trout Lake and Mayor Millhouse?

Questions:

1. Is there anything further that you can do to level the playing field between you and the Trout Lake Homeowners? (See activism, coalition building, networking, capacity building, and empowerment.)


2. What are your goals and options at this point? (See goal setting and option identification.)


3. Can you think of a solution to this conflict that could meet everyone's needs? (See negotiation theory.)


Part 10: Consensus Building

One week later, Pascal begins the consensus-building process again. Everyone gathers in a large conference room in the public library. Pascal thanks everyone for coming and suggests that they need to make a decision. The process has dragged on a long time with stops and starts. The group needs to decide, he says, whether they really want to work together to come up with a collaborative agreement, or whether they don't. If they don't, that is okay with him, but he doesn't want to do this on-again, off-again routine. "Let's either commit to this process seriously, or drop it for good," he says. After some short speeches, everyone agrees that they want to commit to is seriously. Pascal then reviews the ground rules that the group came up with months ago, and reviews where he thinks issues stand. He does this by listing all the issues he thinks are resolved and then listing the ones that the group still needs to work on. He suggests that they divide up into teams, each team being assigned to develop options for one of the outstanding problems.

The small groups meet for almost two months. 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 have been working with Ben Cartwright and about ten others, researching what solutions other towns with similar problems have found. Other groups are in charge of other aspects of the project. One group is searching for another source of drinking water for Slippery Creek. Another group is researching possible ways to clean up the contaminated soil and water. They are evaluating each possibility to see how much it would cost, how long it will take, what the negative effects would be , and whether it will be worth the time and expense. A final group is looking into possible funding sources for the cleanup.

In your research, you stumble upon a project that the citizens of Leadville, Colorado put together to deal with the toxic metals in their area. When you tell the rest of the group what you've found, they're excited and want to adapt the plan to Slippery Creek.

After months of work, you have developed a preliminary plan. 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. 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. 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 you start the project in the late fall, you 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 11: 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 your 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. While a certain part of you would be pleased to see Jake Millhouse be forced to pay, you know that even though he is fairly wealthy, funding this huge project would leave him bankrupt. So this is sure to make him fight the cleanup all the way. Plus, even though he has dealt with this whole problem very badly, you realize that the contamination really isn't his fault. (See news article.)

The funding discussion has been extremely controversial. Thus, Pascal saved it for last. Everyone is nervous. Without the funding, this plan will fall flat. Everyone agrees to help. At your next meeting several weeks later, you all bring your funding leads. It seems almost miraculous, but with a combination of private grants and government funds, it seems you will almost be able to cover the cost. Then something occurs to you, and you stand up and say,

"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."

You take a deep breath.

"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. Pascal calls a recess and quickly walks out as well, trying to catch Jake.

Questions to Consider:

(For advice, click here.)

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


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


3. What do you think Pascal should say to Mayor Millhouse if he catches him?


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


Part 12: Waiting on the Mayor

Pascal returns awhile later and reports that the 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. After living for more than a decade with constant worry, it feels very good to know that the problem has been addressed. Furthermore, Silver Creek's improved image and the bike path have drawn more tourists. Your husband has a new job as a manager at the new expanded grocery store that opened to accommodate all the visitors. Probably, the most important thing you got out of the process was the relationships you built with other citizens of Silver Cliff and Vermillion. You feel that because of your work on the water contamination issue, your opinion is now respected in the community. The town has forgotten the old animosities and the angry stickers are chipped and faded on people's bumpers. Although, if you had had it your way, you would have wanted to dredge the entire lake just to make sure that there were no toxins poisoning the children who swim in it, you believe that the solution you came to was the best for all involved. All in all, you are pleased with the process.

Also available: The Interactive Environmental Framing Simulation

Copyright © 2006 Conflict Research Consortium,
University of Colorado

Please send comments and questions to