When Science Meets Politics: The Polarized Fight Over Montana Elk

How Distrust and Misinformation Forced Biologists to Seek a ‘Consent-Building’ Solution

The Governor’s phone was ringing off the hook. Outraged interests were calling to put political pressure on a team of wildlife biologists to halt talk of adding a comprehensive plan (to study the state’s elk population) to the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ agenda. 

Being “end-run” by opponents is an (unfortunate and unnecessary) everyday occurrence for public professionals. What’s somewhat unusual about this case was that the calls came from two key interest groups – and the seemingly benign proposal to do a more extensive study of the elk population – added to their polarization! 

Neither group trusted the experts’ motivations, and even though it polarized them more than they were – it caused both to take immediate political action to stop it from being adopted. 

The team of wildlife biologists was a bit caught off guard when the Governor alerted them that as much as he didn’t want to micromanage their technical work, he couldn’t ignore the controversy their talk of a comprehensive plan had kicked up. The Governor warned the agency that he’d have to intervene if they couldn’t soothe and resolve the stakeholders’ emotions. . 

It looked like any effort to do a more thorough – and responsible – analysis of the state’s elk population was about to die on the vine when one of the wildlife biologists attended our training. As we discussed the tools and techniques that can help resolve issues of mistrust, distrust, and misinformation, she felt inspired that perhaps she could bring the comprehensive plan back to life. 

The polarized interests suspected that the agency was pursuing the plan as a cloaked effort to assist the other, rather than because it was the scientifically and technically responsible thing to do. (We often see such misgivings among different user groups such as: sportsmen, recreational, commercial, environmental, local, tourists, etc.)

She already knew what hadn’t worked:

• Ignoring the accusations that the plan was a means to favor one interest group over another
• Refuting their accusations
• Appealing to the policymakers and Governor to dismiss the misperception-based controversy
• Offering more technical explanations

So she was willing to try Consent-Building. 

Another student and friend of ours, Glen Marx, worked in the Governor’s office. He told us when he saw what the FW&P student and her colleagues did to turn things around – he was sure the phone would once again ring with angry calls… 

But that’s not what happened.

Not only did the Governor not receive a single call in opposition (or anger) to the same comprehensive plan, but it also dissolved all the controversy and helped depolarize two of the FW&P’s key interest groups. 

The team of experts was able to revive the comprehensive plan without watering it down, and regained the same interests’ trust and confidence that they were being mission-driving in doing so.

From Chaos to Consent: Saving Round Rock’s Government

When a Population Boom Triggered a Referendum to Abolish Local Authority

When an anti-growth movement got enough votes from residents to put a measure on the upcoming ballot to abolish the local government and start over, the city’s officials turned to us out of despair.

Here’s the case, as we recall…

Before becoming the home of Dell computers, Round Rock, Texas, had only a few thousand residents, most of whom commuted to Austin for work. At that time, land was plentiful and cheap, and to Michael Dell, Round Rock was the perfect location for the expansion of his corporation.

Along with its new headquarters, the Dell Corporation brought more than 16,000 local jobs to the City of Round Rock. That single change rapidly increased the city’s population from 5,000 to over 100,000.

While residents and city officials welcomed the economic development and opportunities of hosting Dell Corp. and the other businesses it brought, the growing pains it came with were undeniable. Most notable was the tremendous strain on the City’s existing infrastructure.

Out of necessity, Round Rock officials had to adopt drastic planning measures to meet the demands of such a large population with little time for public involvement. There was an incredible urgency for professionals from the Planning and Public Works departments to design and build new streets, neighborhoods, water and sewer systems, schools, playgrounds, police and fire stations, etc.

Every step of the planning, permitting, and implementation process had to be expedited to meet the basic needs of the City’s population explosion.

It wasn’t long before an anti-growth movement emerged. Not only were Round Rock’s public officials criticized for their plans to expand the city’s infrastructure, but the City Manager (Bob Bennett) and Mayor (Robert Stluka) were personally accused of “ruining the town,” not being responsive to the desires of existing residents, and of enabling an “evil form of government” to destroy the very nature of Round Rock. (Of course, that wasn’t how the public officials saw it!)

The anti-growth group called for an end to the “evil local government” by starting a referendum that invoked an ordinance (known as “Home Rule”) that would allow voters to abolish the City’s existing government and let residents create a new, more legitimate and trustworthy government.

The group got the “Home Rule” item on the fall ballot with the necessary signatures. That’s when the local officials sought us, and our Consent-Building training, for help.

Round Rock’s leadership had limited time to turn around the anti-growth group’s narrative and get the public (and City Council) to conclude their infrastructure plans were not only technically sound – but fair and responsive to the objections and concerns of the anti-growth interests – in addition to those of the community at large.

Long story short, under the leadership of (then) City Manager Bennett, Mayor Stluka, and the Communication Director Will Hampton, we trained many members of the City’s staff in our Consent-Building approach (SDIC: the Systematic Development of Informed Consent). All of them took to Consent-Building like fish to water, and immediately put it to work.

With only a few months before the fall ballot, Round Rock’s staff dedicated themselves to reversing the anti-government perceptions of their very angry public.

As a result, they turned what started as a public relations – and governing – crisis, into an opportunity for earning the public’s trust, respect, and legitimacy.

How did they do it?

City officials changed their communication strategy to address the serious misgivings the anti-growth group had unearthed. Instead of focusing on the benefits of the new plans, they brought up the concerns of the anti-growth interests and their responsibilities to meet the needs of a much larger population.

It was too late to stop a “Home Rule” measure from appearing on the fall ballot, but it wasn’t too late to develop the public and policymakers’ Informed Consent.

We coached them on what tools and techniques they could use to resolve the misunderstandings and mistrust behind the movement to abolish the existing government.

There was no guarantee that it wasn’t too little too late, but over that spring and summer, the city’s staff took our advice and began to communicate differently with the (outraged) public.

By the fall, not only had the anti-growth movement dissipated, but so had the calls to abolish the existing form of government!

As an added measure of “support” for the existing form of government – and a textbook case of the healing potential of Consent-Building – the very people who had instigated the ballot measure reversed their demands that Mayor Stluka be replaced by publicly announcing they wouldn’t run any candidate against him or the City Council!

This case was an incredible mark of success and only the first of many by the city’s staff in using our Consent-Building method.

From Predictions of “Carmageddon” to Winning Awards for Engagement

The Consent-Building® Strategy That Saved Missouri’s Most Disruptive Project

The headlines were bleak and elicited fear before the roads even closed: “Traffic Nightmare” and “Apocalypse Now!” 

The reactions were rather predictable considering that engineers within the Missouri Dept. of Transportation (MoDOT) proposed that a 10-mile stretch of I-64 (one of St. Louis’ central arteries) needed to be completely closed for 2 years. Staff within MoDOT likely braced for an onslaught of political attacks and opposition as the media picked up on a project that would be the most disruptive in state history.

At the time, an estimate of more than 236,000 commuters drove in and out of downtown St. Louis every day. Built for a much smaller capacity, the public and political figures began to demand that MoDOT expand I-64 to reduce delays and increase traffic circulation. 

Technically, it wasn’t a tough problem for the MoDOT team to solve. They had the expertise and could design more than one solution for the city and surrounding communities. What wasn’t easy was getting the same public to let them implement any solution. 

MoDOT engineers drafted two options for how to widen I-64 and significantly improve the throughfare for commuters. 

• Option 1: widen the road while traffic continued. This option would take 10 years to complete with ongoing lane closures to accommodate the upgrades. Meanwhile, the cost was considered “prohibitive” and beyond the state’s budget.
• Option 2: for a 10-mile stretch, close all traffic in one direction for one year, and all traffic in the other direction for a second year. This option would make it the most disruptive project in Missouri’s history, with traffic being rerouted through neighboring communities and urban areas for 2 years. However, the cost would be within the state’s budget. 

The team at MoDOT recommended Option 2 as it was the only fiscally viable option. 

Even though the traffic on I-64 had become so congested that users demanded an increase in capacity, once the plan became public, there seemed to be strong opposition against it. Although it isn’t the only major interstate with circulating traffic in and around the city, the thought of closing it off to all traffic for two years was unthinkable.  

Had MoDOT not had a Consent-Building student among the team, the story might’ve ended in political and literal gridlock – as too often happens. But Lina Wilson Horn had recently learned SDIC (the Systematic Development of Informed Consent™) from the Bleikers. As the Community Relations Manager for District 6, she developed a public outreach program that was anything but the norm. 

Unlike most public involvement programs, Linda ensured that all of MoDOT’s outreach was objectives-driven. And not just any objectives… The specific objectives the Bleikers’ research revealed will make or break any public-sector plan. 

During the historic project, Linda practiced her Consent-Building skills and honed herself into an Implementation Genius. Not only did she benefit professionally from this, but the whole project and statewide MoDOT team earned the public’s credibility, trust, and respect because of how they communicated this very disruptive and controversial project. 

As many Consent-Building students discover, not only did their relationship with the various interests improve (specifically the opponents, naysayers, and political figures who predicted the project’s failure), but the project was completed three months ahead of schedule and $11 million under budget – likely because there weren’t lawsuits or efforts to stall or stop the project. 

A message from Linda included the details of MoDOT’s historic success in refurbishing ten miles of the state’s oldest highway and its 30 bridges. By the end of the construction, MoDOT had a 95 percent public approval rating. 

Linda shared that the very same outlets that expected “Apocalypse Now” hailed the project as a stunning success. “It was selected as the 2010 best transportation project in the country by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, AAA, and the Chamber of Commerce.” 

In her email to the Bleikers, Linda noted that while listening to national coverage of the I-64 project, one journalist commented that “it would be wonderful if more projects had that kind of public outreach. (Of course, they did not know that SDIC was behind this incredible success).”

Needless to say, the MoDOT team and Linda’s career soared from there as they continued to use Consent-Building as their outreach strategy for projects big and small.