Jason Gershowitz's blog

The Institute for Environmental Negotiation has an immediate opening for a Senior Associate at The University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Institute for Environmental Negotiation (IEN) at theUniversity of Virginia is seeking a highly organized, quality and strategic focused energetic person to fill the position of Senior Associate. The Senior Associate will be responsible for working under the direction of the IEN Director and Associate Director conducting public service facilitation, collaboration, and mediation services on IEN contract and grant projects. This position includes serving as process designer and lead facilitator for strategic planning, and organization development workshops for civic groups and government agencies. This position will manage projects including communicating with principals and diverse stakeholders, collaborate with colleagues to write project

proposals and develop budgets, investigate funding opportunities, develop grant proposals and contract proposals, respond to requests for proposals, and other related project marketing activities. The Senior Associate will move into leading project services independently as assigned. Travel and some overnight stays required. The qualified candidate will consistently display professionalism and confidence, as well as create a positive impression as an individual and as a representative of the University. A positive attitude and ability to work well with management and in a team environment is essential to this position.

The IEN Senior Associate position is posted on Jobs@UVA. The posting number is 0611872. The link to the posting is here: https://jobs.virginia.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?ti... and it is also attached. You must complete a Jobs@UVA application and then apply to this position number be considered for the position. If you already have a Jobs@UVA application in the system, you can just apply to the position.

For a link to the Jobs@UVA home page, go to: https://jobs.virginia.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?ti.... This is a University Staff position.

To link to the benefits for this position, please go to this link: http://www.hr.virginia.edu/hr-for-you/university-staff/university-staff-...

The complete announcement is available here.

The 2013 Rob Williams Award for Emerging Environment and Public Policy Leaders was established in 2010 in recognition of Rob Williams’ commitment and contributions to the field of environmental and public policy dispute resolution and the professional development of its practitioners. The award will be presented again this year to an emerging practitioner who demonstrates the promise to exercise the leadership exemplified by Rob.

More information about the award and how to apply is available here.

This is a guest blog post from Robin Gumpert. We hope you will share responses to his post and join the discussion in either the comments below or on the EPP LinkedIn discussion for this topic.

Honest Deliberation Amidst Polarizing Rhetoric

While not the most reliable source of information, I do turn to Facebook to get a flavor for the attitude and emotions my friends and family have about their election season experience. One friend has decided to go underground and completely tune out, bidding his Facebook friends farewell until after November for fear that engaging in discourse will strain and even sever relationships with those he loves. An aunt proclaims her views and then swiftly ‘unfriends’ anyone who opposes those views, especially if they say anything contrary to her chosen Presidential candidate. This has led to the development of factions and avoidance behavior within our otherwise close-knit family. To me, this extreme behavior is reflective of the highly charged rhetoric flooding the airwaves around us. We receive sound bites meant more to confuse and inflame us than inform us around our choices. Is there another way? Oregon says there is, and has passed legislation to promote sound, non-biased ‘Citizen Initiative Reviews’ of measures voters will decide on in this upcoming election.

The Back Story

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) was championed in Oregon by Healthy Democracy Oregon starting in 2007. A ‘field test’ of the CIR was conducted in 2008, observed by legislators and interested public and evaluated by the League of Women Voters. Passage of House Bill 2895 in 2009 enabled an official pilot. Healthy Democracy Oregon worked with the Secretary of State’s office, State Elections Office, campaign officials, and policy experts to convene two reviews in 2010. A team led by nationally-recognized researchers, backed by funding from the National Science Foundation, evaluated the Reviews. This impartial evaluation team concluded that the two CIR panels convened in August 2010 engaged in high-quality deliberation, and that the CIR Citizens’ Statements were widely used and helpful to a large percentage of voters.

In June, 2011, the Oregon legislature approved House Bill 2634, legislation making the CIR a permanent part of Oregon elections. Oregon is now the first state in the nation to adopt this innovative policy into law. The law was fully implemented during the 2012 election cycle during which two initiatives were reviewed by citizen panelists and their Citizens Statements were included in the Oregon Voters Pamphlet mailed out to every household in the state.

The Process

During a five-day public hearing guided by a team of skilled impartial moderators, panelists hear from advocates for and against the measure under review, and call upon additional policy experts for information about the measure. With input from the pro and con advocate teams, the independent convener (in this case Healthy Democracy) determines a range of additional background witnesses or policy experts that the panelists may choose to hear testimony from over the course of the review. Panelists have the opportunity to directly ask questions of the advocates and experts, prioritize what they want to learn about, and deliberate together. The citizen panel together sorts through the information they’ve gathered to highlight the most important points to share with voters statewide.

At the conclusion of the CIR process, the panelists draft a ‘Citizens’ Statement,’ detailing the most important findings about the measure, as well as reporting how many panelists support or oppose the measure. The ‘Citizens’ Statement’ is then published as a prominent new page in the voters’ pamphlet, and distributed to every voting household across the state.

Reviews

The Corvallis Gazette-Times writes:  “The Citizens’ Initiative Review makes sense…we welcome anything that gives voters an alternative to the screaming sound bites that usually make up most of the debate about initiatives.” Beyond that, as a third-party neutral in the CIR process since its beginning in 2008, I have observed a transformation of the citizen participants, many of whom (from their own reflection) had moved from a place of wariness, for some apathy, and still others trepidation, to a place of commitment to engage in respectful, active discourse with friends, family and neighbors on important election issues. To me, this is the most important benefit we have seen resulting from the CIRs– an engaged citizenry who recognize their civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

Robin Gumpert is a mediator with DS Consulting in Portland, Oregon. She served as a moderator for the 2008 CIR field test, a 2010 pilot, and an official CIR in 2012. In 2009, she also moderated a Minnesota citizen panel using a similar model in which the group deliberated over ‘Election Recounts’. She was appointed to the State’s Citizen Initiative Review Commission in October 2012. The Commission oversees the CIRs in Oregon. The results of the 2012 CIRs can be found at: http://healthydemocracy.org/citizens-initiative-review/2012-cir-results/

This is the second in a series of three blog posts from EPP member Ken Rosenbaum. This series is designed to inspire discussion about fuzzy decisions that we face in our work. We hope you will share responses and join the discussion in either the comments below or on the EPP LinkedIn discussion for this topic.

Some people think that ethical issues are rare in our profession, encountered once in a career, or, if we are lucky, never. Actually, we make decisions reflecting our ethics in almost every process or project we conduct.

Most of these are easy and automatic. Do we lie about our qualifications? Do we promise particular outcomes? Do we bill for work we didn’t do? No.

Some of these decisions are more difficult. The rules to follow are not always clear. In this series of blog posts, I invite a conversation on some of the fuzzier decisions we face.

The Poor Representative

Here’s another ethics question for your consideration and comments.

You are conducting a process involving representatives of several groups including the local environmental club. The club representative is a volunteer, a retired professor of engineering. He is bright, cooperative, and well-engaged in the process, but you begin to believe that he is soloing—taking positions on his own and not reporting back to his group. If things work out he will have to carry the deal back to his group, and at that point the compromise could collapse.

- Ken Rosenbaum of Sylvan Environmental Consultants

This is a blog post from Frank Dukes - a long time EPP section member. We hope you will share responses to his post and join the discussion in either the comments below or on the EPP LinkedIn discussion for this topic.

The E/PP field, and by extension the Section, faces a challenge that may either overwhelm or transform us. Like a kayaker facing a large boulder in a river, which forces the streaming water to one side, or over, we must decide how we will confront this challenge.

I am referring to what some have called the "New Activism". This term encompasses a range of opposition to our work and a similar opposition to conventional public policy and planning practices. Although including most prominently some Tea Party members, who may indeed make up a majority of this opposition, this opposition also includes those who would claim no affiliation and, in some cases, those who would associate with the "Occupy" movement.

Although local expressions of this opposition may not claim any affiliation at all, there are national efforts to lead this anti-planning, anti-government initiative. For example, the American Policy Center (http://americanpolicy.org/) offers a kit to help activists fight the United Nations Agenda 21, which they claim drives planning efforts in the United States. The fact that few public officials have ever heard of Agenda 21, or that it has no legal status in local, state or federal government, is merely taken as evidence of its sinister nature, rather than as a rebuttal.

Our field has faced similar challenges before. Indeed, all segments of environmental or public policy conflict resolution stakeholders have a certain skepticism that their goals may be compromised by participation in a process that they may not have experienced before. This skepticism is a healthy concern that ensures that we keep our practice sharp. But during the late 1990s and continuing into the next decade, we were confronted with a substantial segment of the environmental advocacy community who believed that our practices placed their goals at a disadvantage.

The concern of the environmental advocacy community was deeper, structural and widely publicized. They, too believed that we were largely biased; in this case it was a perceived bias against advocacy and confrontation as well as against legitimate representative practices of democratic governance. Many of us responded by inviting them to tell us their stories and concerns; those of you active in E/PP then will recall a series of sessions titled "Listening to Our Publics" at national and regional events. My own Institute for Environmental Negotiation, working with the National Audubon Society and The Wilderness Society, led a year-long process of engagement that resulted in publication of Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental Advocates. And those concerns largely eroded as we took them seriously, adapted where change was needed, and explained where change was not appropriate.

This situation is different, although I would agree that listening to and understanding the concern of the New Activists are useful responses, especially at the local level. And we do need to demonstrate best practices, such as use of clear and respectful language. We need to set clear values and expectations about what is and is not acceptable, to ensure clarity of process, and to implement strong, clear groundrules that promote fairness, safety and access for all. We need to ensure a clear agenda with opportunities for input are established.

While some colleague might disagree with this approach – seeking to understand, emphasizing best practices – I would expect that most would agree with its value.

But I think this is insufficient to the challenge. I think that we also need to be much stronger advocates for the work that we do. What does that mean?

I recently led a training for planners and other public officials who have been confronted by these activists with challenges to their planning and public involvement processes, and even challenges to the (constitutional) structure of government that they represent. One segment of that training gave an opportunity for participants to articulate the values that underlay their planning and public processes. And, to my dismay, the participants could not do so.

I know what I wanted them to say: that public planning ensures safety, avoids costly duplication of services, and promotes the transparency of, access to, and responsiveness of government that is enshrined in the constitution. Without good public planning for water quality and supply, for transportation, for schools, for economic development, we would have – and, in places that have ineffective planning, sometimes do have – our children drinking contaminated water and important but troublesome and even dangerous facilities located in our poorest communities. Without public planning we have closed-door decisions that, if history is a gauge, privilege those behind those closed doors and burden those left out of the process.

I wonder how many of you reading this post can articulate what values you are serving? Is it possible that the most common response to this question would be “neutrality?” During a webinar last winter, I noted that few people outside of our field believe that third parties are 'neutral,' and in fact that this claim may lead to distrust (as the claim is seen as false) and even active dislike (as neutrality itself, which may be seen as uncaring, or absence of thoughtfulness, or unwillingness to acknowledge injustice, is not wanted).

I suggest that our values are rooted, not in neutrality, but in democratic practice. More specifically, I suggest that our values begin by recognizing a distinction between good and bad public speech. Bad public speech relies upon claims based upon ideology rather than fact, denigrating humanity of one’s opponents, bounded participation. Bad public speech can drive out good public speech and leave no room for creative problem solving. Bad public speech leaves the public sphere with a far smaller range of options, and drives out those seeking affinity and protections of civic participation. It is less humane and offers less legitimacy to the results.

Good public speech is inclusive, seeks access to good information, promotes understanding of others' perspectives, encourages creativity, and promotes learning and caring. Good public speech invariably brings a much better range of options, more humane range of options, and more legitimacy for those options. Good public speech may also drive out bad public speech.

To be an advocate for our values means standing up for the constitutional rights enshrined in the first amendment. The Constitution declares the right for all – not just those shouting the loudest, or showing up in the biggest numbers, but all – to participate in public processes.

To be an advocate for our values means being willing publicly and forcefully to be an advocate for good public speech and against bad public speech. It means being willing to disagree with those who without any factual basis criticize the principles of our work. This may include our use of editorials, letters to the editor, public debates, or disagreements in the middle of meetings.

Do you see yourself in this quote? If so, where? What are your values? “But it's clear that our current notions of tolerance are dangerously flaccid. It no longer will do, as Isaiah Berlin once pointed out, to shrug and say: I believe in kindness and you believe in concentration camps, and let's leave it at that. That's not tolerance; it's indifference in which respect for free speech is less a value than an alibi.” – Timothy Rutten

The first amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- E. Franklin Dukes, Ph.D

Against the backdrop of a traditional mono-economy based on coal, with a high degree of conflict around mountaintop removal mining, coal-fired power plants and concerns around poverty and environmental justice, how are local economies built and sustained?  Coal has been the region’s economic backbone—it is a dwindling resource but still a strong economic driver. However, the unemployment rate among the 200,000 who live in far southwestern Virginia is just over 8%, while the rest of Virginia is 6% (according to the Virginia Employment Commission).  There is widespread poverty throughout Southwest Virginia, approaching 20%, while the poverty rate in Virginia is 9.4%, and the national poverty rate is 12.4% (in 2012). 

The Clinch River Valley Initiative (CRVI) is an innovative, pioneering, and collaborative multi-year planning effort to build local economies in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia, focusing on the Clinch River Valley—one of the most biodiverse river systems in North America.  Working at a watershed scale with several local partners, this grassroots effort has developed significant ownership and momentum with applicability for communities in Appalachia and beyond.

Alternately, according to the Outdoor Industry Association, the outdoor recreation industry contributed more to the US economy than oil and gas extraction or spectator sports did in 2010.  Many have noted the opportunity and the strong need to diversify and build local economies based on the natural, cultural and historic assets of Southwest Virginia, as well as throughout central Appalachia.   CRVI is working to build on the natural assets of the region—the Clinch River—to help foster a creative economy, building on the significant collaboration that has taken place throughout the region to build a creative economy.

Utilizing a consensus-based approach, several local, state and federal project partners have developed goals and strategies in a Clinch River Valley Initiative Action Plan for connecting downtown revitalization, outdoor recreation, water quality, entrepreneurship and environmental education along the Clinch River.  Utilizing a regional planning approach, the project connects to cultural and natural heritage efforts including Heartwood: Southwest Virginia’s Artisan Gateway, ‘Round the Mountain, Crooked Road, and other artisan networks and local efforts.  Finally, the effort builds upon the unique cultural and ecological assets of the Clinch River to distinguish and create new possibilities in the communities along the Clinch as distinctive cultural and ecological areas, particularly around environmental education, economic development, and entrepreneurship opportunities. 

This grassroots effort has had high degree of enthusiasm, participation and ownership by stakeholders.This effort is unique in the Appalachian coalfields, and many have regarded the capacity for adapting the building local economies process positively in other communities as regional conflicts around coal increase and the reserves of coal decrease.  Innovative tools have been utilized to engage youth, collect stories around the history and culture of the region, and foster collaboration and coordination among participants in the Clinch River Valley Initiative.

A Steering Committee guides the decision-making process for the group using a consensus-based process. Building on a vision for the Clinch River Valley, which may be found below, action groups are currently developing substantial actions around five goal areas as part of the Initiative.

Several meetings have been held as part of the Clinch River Valley Initiative, with numerous community events and meetings planned for 2012 and beyond.  The Clinch River Valley Initiative originated at a forum in the fall of 2010 around Building Local Economies in Southwest Virginia, and is coordinated by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia with numerous local, regional and state partners.

Next steps for the CRVI facilitation team at IEN include further development of a collaborative map, assisting with coordination and facilitation of CRVI (through initial project implementation and evaluation), and examining the direction and focus of our future work.  Questions the IEN team is considering about CRVI include: 

• How could practices or lessons learned from this effort be applied to other regions?  What is the appropriateness, or opportunities or challenges of doing so?
• What other approaches to building local economies could be utilized?  How do facilitators’ moderate the conversation around the challenges mining presents in the region?
• In this effort, the facilitators are also coordinators.  What lessons learned from other collaborative efforts could be helpful to this initiative, especially as IEN is stewarding this Initiative through initial implementation and evaluation?

We welcome your ideas, questions or comments about the Clinch River Valley Initiative or the work of the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia.  Additional information about CRVI may be found on the website: www.clinchriverva.com or by contacting Frank Dukes at frankdukes@virginia.edu or Christine Muehlman Gyovai at 434-982-6464 or christineg@virginia.edu.

Christine Muehlman Gyovai is the Principal of Dialogue and Design Associates and an Associate at the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia. Ms. Gyovai is certified in mediation and permaculture design, and has over ten years of experience in facilitation and training with a focus on increasing community and environmental sustainability. She holds a M.P. in Urban and Environmental Planning from the University of Virginia and a B.S. in Environmental Studies from Burlington College. Prior to joining the Institute, Ms. Gyovai directed a nonprofit organization, Communities United for Sustainable Progress, and has done facilitation, mediation, and taught environmental education in San Luis Obispo, California. More information about Dialogue and Design Associates may be found at the website: www.dialogueanddesign.com.

Interested in adding some content to the EPP blog? As we re-launch the EPP blog, we are soliciting concise, thought-provoking essays (~500 words). However, entries of all types will be considered. To date we have received submissions from several other thought leaders in our field of environmental and public policy collaboration and we look forward to publishing your work as well.

The blog is here for you, so let us know what you want to see in the comments. Interested in making a contribution? Check out the full blogging guide here.

This is the first in a series of three blog posts from EPP member Ken Rosenbaum. This series is designed to inspire discussion about fuzzy decisions that we face in our work. We hope you will share responses and join the discussion in either the comments below or on the EPP LinkedIn discussion for this topic.

Some people think that ethical issues are rare in our profession, encountered once in a career, or, if we are lucky, never. Actually, we make decisions reflecting our ethics in almost every process or project we conduct.

Most of these are easy and automatic. Do we lie about our qualifications? Do we promise particular outcomes? Do we bill for work we didn’t do? No.

Some of these decisions are more difficult. The rules to follow are not always clear. In this series of blog posts, I invite a conversation on some of the fuzzier decisions we face.

We are pleased to announce our new at-large Leadership Council members: Britt Ide, Ide Law & Strategy, PLLC; and Steve Smutko, University of Wyoming. These individuals will serve two-year terms on the LC.

In addition, Turner Odell, Oregon Consensus, will be assuming the role of 2012-2014 co-chair. Turner previously served on the LC as an elected member, and co-chaired the 2011 Section conference held at Portland State University. Click here to read the bios of our new co-chair and at-large members.

We would also like to thank our outgoing LC members – Richard Alper, Ona Ferguson, and John Jostes – for their years of service to the Section.  

The complete announcement is available here.

The 2012 EPP Confernece Interative Agenda is now available! We will continue to add additional materials to the Interactive Agenda as they become available.

Each session is hyperlinked to that session's materials. We hope this format helps you navigate through conference resources. For future conferences, we will be adding discussion platforms into the Interactive Agenda so that the discussion can continue beyond the conference without missing a beat!

2012 EPP Conference Interactive Agenda

Please share additional suggestions for formatting and content in the comments!