Appropriate topics

[Jim Creighton <jim@CreightonandCreighton.com>]

One reason I spent some time at the beginning talking about definitions is because the number of situations where collaboration can mean "making recommendations" is much larger than the number of situations where it is possible to "develop agreements."

In the 1970s there was a considerable effort to apply labor/management principles to resolution of environmental disputes. This worked wonderfully in a few circumstances, but had horrible results in others. Over time we learned that the labor/management analogy was not accurate and discovered that the following conditions must exist before you can talk about agreements:

1) All parties must be at the table.
2) All parties must be accepted as having a legitimate right to be at the table.
3) The constituencies must recognize the people at the table as their legitimate representatives.
4) Power needs to be somewhat equal.
5) Representatives must be able to make BINDING commitments on behalf of their constituency OR some external authority -- such as a judge -- must act as guarantor for the agreement.

What was happening was that agreements were being reached, but then new groups (or even rump groups of groups represented at the table) would spring up after the agreement and diswon the agreement, making the process of no value.

My experience is that these conditions occur rather infrequently, so that "develop recommendations" or building high levels of consensus which push the agency in a particular directions is often the more appropriate moedl.

Jim