One of the things I promised to cover in the Blog, was an example of Consent that is so typical, so representative, so demonstrative that it deserves to be called a case of “Classical Informed Consent” . . . as opposed to “Consensus.”
In thinking about an example, many came to mind. One that I’ve not talked about – or even thought — about for years, is an absolutely beautiful case of classical Consent-Building that was pulled off by Tim Carlson in the mid-1980s in Jackson, Wyoming.
What Classical Consent-Building Looks Like
Here are some of the project highlights, as I remember them:
The town of Jackson hired ARIX, Consulting Engineers from Colorado, to redesign the town’s waste water treatment system. One of its young engineers, Tim Carlson, served as the project manager.
Early on in the project, Tim showed the Town Manager what he had come up with, thus far, as possible alternative treatment schemes, asking for his “input.”
One thing that all of his alternative solutions had in common was the location of a holding pond. (The treatment process, evidently, required that the effluent — which we non-experts, incorrectly, call it “sewage” — be held during the water treatment process in a lagoon for some time.)
“Well,”the Town Manager said,“that’s fine, but you’ve absolutely GOT to find a different location for that holding pond.
“You’re from out-of-town, so you wouldn’t know, but where you’ve put it is LITERALLY in the backyard of the richest, most powerful person in the whole valley.
“He would stop this project – if you propose the holding pond where you are proposing it – either by end-running us politically, or by tying the project up in litigation till the cows come home!”
Tim explained that the location in question really WAS the best location, that all other locations would require that all of the town’s waste-water be pumped uphill as part of the treatment process.
With the location that he was proposing, gravity would take care of that chore. The Town Manager responded by saying:“Don’t even THINK of proposing it there; you have NO IDEA how powerful, difficult, and ruthless THIS particular person is!”
Getting an Opponent’s Informed Consent
What Makes an Implementation Genius
Being a good student of SDIC, Tim said“Thanks for your input”and then promptly went to see this particular stakeholder (whom I’ll call him “Mr. X” because I cannot remember his actual name.)
This Mr. X was feared by public officialsacross the board. The Town Manager wasn’t exaggerating in his description of him. Other students of mine have had interesting encounters with the very same Mr. X! And yet, Tim didn’t hesitate to go knocking on his door, asking if they could talk over a cup of coffee.
Tim introduced himself with saying something along the lines of:
“I’m the guy redesigning the town’s sewage-treatment system. I need to show you some of the preliminary ideas I’m considering because they involve you . . . Well, actually, your property.
“Because water likes to flow DOWN-hill, and because you are located right where it wants to flow, I’m thinking that that’s where the holding pond ought to go . . . As they say: right in your backyard.
“And, because I figured that while you might not be all that interested in sewage-treatment, you probably ARE interested in a waste-water holding pond in your backyard . . . That’s why I came to show you my idea.”
Mr. X’s response:
“Ha, ha, ha . . . son(Tim WAS young enough to be his son),you’re NOT – in fact NO ONE is – going to put ANYTHING into MY backyard! . . . No sir!!!
“But, you ARE welcome to a cup of coffee.”
Tim stayed for coffee and kept up his effort to get Mr. X’s Informed Consent:
“I knew you were going to say that. In fact, I don’t blame you. No one wants a waste-water holding pond in their backyard; especially in a beautiful place like this.
“But, you see, geography and geology are conspiring to put it there. There ARE alternative places where I could put it, but they all would fail to take advantage of gravity, and require that the waste-water be pumped uphill as part of the treatment process . . .
“So, this really IS the logical place for it.”
Mr. X wasn’t about to change his mind, and gave numerous LEGITIMATE and rational reasons as to why he couldn’t possibly be in favor of placing the waste-water in his backyard:
“Son, let me show you something out in this little stream. It’s not just that I don’t want the holding pond in my backyard. I’ve been raising phenomenally beautiful trout in this little stream that your pond would be impacting. Wyoming Game and Fish Department biologists have been working with me in this very successful effort. I’m NOT about to let you interfere with that.
“Another thing: I notice on your drawing here that you would dig out a big – to me — ugly rectangular pond. When you DO build a pond SOMEWHERE, would you consider an irregular shape that is more natural-looking?
“One more thing: Wherever you are going to build that pond, you might also consider putting an island in it. There have been some water fowl around here that, I have noticed, have great difficulty keeping the coyotes out of their eggs. If they had an island, I think, they might do lot better.
“Here’s yet another reason why you can’t put your pond here. The way you have it laid out, it would interfere with one of the elk herds that come right through the area that you would be blocking. As a minimum, you’d have to split the pond into two, or make some other provision for the elk.
Responding to Mr.X’s rationale for being opposed to the proposal, Tim replied:
“Wow! . . . I didn’t know all that! . . . You make some good points! . . . Let’s bring that fish biologist from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department you’ve been working with into the discussion.
“Let’s bring in their most appropriate person to help explore whether an island WOULD work, and would be helpful.
“Let’s talk to their elk expert to make sure I don’t do any inadvertent harm to that part of the ecology . . .
“Let’s see what a holding pond might look like that takes all of these issues into account, and yet prevents us from pumping effluent uphill when we could have gravity work for us.”
Why Would Mr. X Ever Give His Consent?
To make a long story short . . . In Mr. X’s backyard is precisely where the holding pond wound up!
Make NO mistake, the Town Manager knew what he was talking about when he said:“Don’t even THINK of putting it there.”He was correct in assessing that for Mr. X to torpedo the whole project – if that’s what he chose to do — would be like taking candy from a baby.
Furthermore, Mr. X really, really, really did NOT like the idea of a waste-water holding pond in his backyard. There was no question, he was OPPOSED to it.
But, because of:
Tim’s brutal honesty,
Tim’s willingness, and courage, to argue for the mostunpopular— but most responsible — alternative,
And because of how Tim went about it all, including . . . his willingness – his eagerness – to incorporate any and all ideas that would enhance the project’s environmental consequences . . .
Because ofthese critical, but perfectly attainable factors,Mr. X decided to“grudgingly go along”with Tim’s unpleasant proposal. Essentially, Mr. XConsentedto its implementation.
As I remember, when it was all over, the US EPA recognized Tim’s outstanding work with an award for being one of the most sensitively designed environmental projects.
THAT, folks, is whatInformed Consentlooks like in real life. This isn’t the exception, this is a CLASSICAL case.
Today, Tim Carlson lives in Grand Junction, Colorado, where he has created and worked with a number of environmental organizations, including the Tamarisk Coalition.
If you work for a regulatory agency, or even if you don’t — but you administer regulation — you must have these two key ingredients to establish Legitimacy among your public.
In the short video below, we’ll follow-up the discussion from Consent-Building Clinic (Brownbag session) #69: “Regulating a Public Not OK Being Dictated To.”
Listen closely, and you’ll hear how identifying yourself, your team, your agency as “regulators,” is only making matters worse.
Then you’ll hear precisely what you need to communicate to your public instead.
Time to Hear from You
In the comments, share with us:
Lessons you’ve learned on establishing your work’s Legitimacy,
How you maintain Legitimacy with your public (particularly your fiercest opponents — always where we put our Consent-Building focus), and
Other obstacles you face when it comes to issues of legitimacy.
*Help out your friends and colleagues by sharing this blog with them. Like you, they have important missions to accomplish, and need all the help they can get to establish their work’s legitimacy.
“No matter what we tell our stakeholders, they always assume a decision has already been made, and that – therefore – it would be a waste of their time to get involved in our planning process.”
Boy oh boy! . . . Are there ANY public officials who DON’T give voice to this complaint?
So, if your public again and again feels that you’re asking them to get involved in a process where the horse has already left the barn, when – in fact – it has NOT, stay tuned.
On the one hand, the perception that their involvement could not possibly make a difference – when it still CAN – is a very damaging misperception. It undermines your credibility. It is a very damaging misperception, one that hinders your team’s effectiveness!
On the other hand, stakeholders’ feeling that their involvement is not going to change anything isn’t always a misperception. Quite often, it’s the TRUTH! . . . Public agencies often inadvertently create – or aggravate – the perception that their stakeholders can have a greater influence on the outcome than is really possible. You’ve got to be careful that you don’t create unrealistic expectations.
“When our stakeholders don’t like how we do our work, they go straight to our policy-makers who – then – try to micro-manage our projects. It’s one thing to stand up to stakeholders, but how do we stand up to this?”
Several different dynamics are in play when a community – a community that’s made up of people who hold DIFFERENT values – decides to tackle problems as a community . . . be that “community” a town, a city, a state, a region, or a nation. In a quest to improve public-sector problem-solving and decision-making, there are those of us who forever pry deeper and deeper into examining those several dynamics..
We find it useful to organize the lessons we learn into topics, such as Values, Individual vs. Group Rights, Data Analysis and Modeling, Dealing with Uncertainty, Risk and Risk Communication, Communication and Involvement, Professional Ethics, Leadership, etc.
Today’s question cannot be addressed without invoking the topics of Professional Ethics and Leadership.
Your policy-makers ARE part of your “public,” and stakeholders ARE in the habit of end-running you by going straight to them. But, your policy-makers are a very special “public” . . . after all, “policy-makers” is synonymous with “decision-makers” . . . So, they CAN micro-manage – as well as macro-manage – can’t they?
As you’ll see, it’s not THAT simple; your ethical responsibilities as a professional, at times, includes LEADERSHIP.
“Our message tends to get lost in the media: When they don’t over-simplify, they tell a lop-sided, negative story.”
This is a well-justified complaint! . . . One reason this kind of thing is more than just a burr under the saddle is that the traditional media – in spite of the internet – is a terribly important communications vehicle.
As justified as the complaint may be, don’t bother . . . don’t bother wasting your breath on complaining. It doesn’t help.
We’ll focus on what you CAN do — OTHER than complaining – to start using the media as the fantastic communications tool they have the potential of being. On projects and programs where you’re affecting a very large public, you just about HAVE to use the traditional media as one of your tools, or you’ll never reach all the potentially affected interests that you need to reach.
To finish up on the last few points in this month’s Brownbag session,we left off in your handouts at IV. Fundamentals for Preventing / Correcting CP Error #5, item C on page 14,this was the last of three (A-C) points.
Here are the rest of the finer points we wanted to relay to you . . .
IV. CP Error #5C: Implementation Geniuses are Flexible about SOME things, and NOT about others
Their Mission is NOT negotiable . . . They are intent on accomplishing it.
They are very flexible on HOW to accomplish that mission.
These two points are probably a good short-hand rule for getting THIS part of CP Error #5 right.
It’s best if you can get clear in YOUR mind and in your publics’ minds that:
You haveevery intention of accomplishing your mission. . . that you fully expect to SOLVE the problem at hand, that your Mission is NOT negotiable, and that you WILL fulfill your RESPONSIBILITY.
But . . .
You DO have an OPEN mind about HOW to accomplish your Mission . . . as long as it gets accomplished!Get them to concludethat you are willing to try to beResponsiveto PAIs’ concerns, as long as it doesnotinvolve compromising your Mission.
V. The Damage / Costs of CP Error #5
A. Trying to sell the public a bill of goods that you, yourself, haven’t bought into is a truly cynical thing to do.
Itcreates mistrust and disrespectfor you and your agency.Don’t EVER contribute to such sentiments!
If you DON’T have some Hidden — agenda, goal, objective(and we trust you don’t!). . . Then you’ll WANT to do each of the 16 technical steps asrigorously, honestly, and transparently as humanly possible!
Here’s the Rub
You may NOT have a Hidden Agenda at all . . . But, ifsomeof your stakeholders THINK that you’re NOT interested in doing the 16 Technical Steps rigorously, honestly, and transparently . . . Then,they will conclude you must have a Hidden Agenda!!!
Creating THAT kind of impression with your public isfar worsethan shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a marathon race. It’s more like shooting yourself in the knee-cap!
Giving theimpressionthat you DO have a Hidden Agenda is aphenomenally stupid thing to do!
We are continually amazed how many public-sector professionals, who are otherwise sensible, manage to continually do this . . . And, therefore, to keep suffering the consequences of:
Mistrtust
Suspicion
Cynicism
Skepticism
All of it feeding already rampant ANTI-government attitudes . . .
It is alsodemoralizing for you and your team . . .You can’t afford to do that!
B. Refusing to Speak Up for Your Professional Colleagues
i.e. Failing to explain, justify, represent those Rules, Regulations, Standards, Guidelines, and Laws that you are implementing, but instead to just remark “Don’t blame me for these stupid guidelines, I just work here.”
This is thequickest, surest, most fool-proof wayto create CONTEMPT for you and your agency.
There’s NO good reason why ANYONE would want to do THAT!
C. If you become SO responsive where you start to compromise your Mission
Your public mightLIKEyou, . . . But, they willno longer RESPECT you!Realize that if you have an important public-sector Mission . . .
Being LIKED isneither possible, nor necessary.
However, being RESPECTED isboth possible AND necessary.
VI. Important Concepts to Help Prevent CP Error #5
Look at your Decision-Making environment in a holistic way.
“Talking Back” about Technical Steps – especially Judgment Steps — simply amounts toInternal Consent-Building. . . i.e. Getting your boss’ consent to make a mid-course correction in your Planning Process.
For those of you who ARE responsible for the Citizen Participation side of the two parallel processes we often bring up (doing Consent-Building simultaneously as you do your Technical work — those 16 steps):
1. Play the Devil’s Advocate . . .
Askanyandallquestions a future opponents is likely to ask. Insist that the technical folks give you the ammunition tounderstandANDanswerthose questions, so that you can DEFEND the Problem-Solving / Decision-Making process — on EACH and EVERY one of the 16 steps!
Remember, finding fault withanyof those 16 steps is the EASIEST line of attack, and, therefore, the FIRST line of attack your opponents will use to torpedo your proposal.
2. Getsocomfortable and confident with those 16 Technical Steps where YOU will go public — aggressively — with the WEAKEST points in them BEFORE your opponents can go public with them!
All of this is about Consent-Building . . .
Developing Informed Consent amonginternalPAIs that each of the 16 Technical Steps is DEFENSIBLE (i.e. is completed with a reasonable amount of rigor),
Developing Informed Consent amongexternalPAIs. . . Ideally, on a pay-as-you-go basis foreach of the technical stepsso THEY come to the conclusion that what you’re proposing IS theright thing to do!
And if not on a pay-as-you-go basis, then AFTER you have done your technical work that: there is a serious problem / opportunity (one that HAS to be addressed); you are the right entity to address it (that, in light of your Mission it would be IRRESPONSIBLE if you didn’t address it); that they WAY you are going about addressing that problem (your Problem-Solving / Decision-Making process) isreasonable AND responsible;and that you DO care (if you’re proposing a course of action that’s going to HURT some interests, it’s NOT because you don’t care, it’s NOT because you’re not listening. . . ).
Recognize that you ARE part of government. Talking in a “blaming” way about other governmental entities breeds disrespect. Moreover, it’s unfair to your colleagues and their work, and it reflects poorly not only on them, but on ALL government — including you!
Don’t give in to the hypocritical temptation to bad-mouth “politics.” Using the term “politics” as if it were a four-lettered word.
When some of your colleagues talk of “politics” as if it were a curse word, point out to them that it’s utterly hypocritical to whine about “politics” while insisting on living in — and in your case WORKING in — a democratic system of government.
“Politics” is how democracies make decisions! Is it complicated? Is it crazy? Of course! But, the alternative is to NOT live and work in such a system.
Hans, Annemarie & Jennifer Bleiker
PO Box 1937, Monterey, CA 93942
Training & Coaching inquiries: 781-789-6500
Main Office: 831-373-4292
Jennifer@ConsentBuilding.com
Search
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
