Subscribe

Email Updates
Sign up to stay informed about the latest happenings at Interior.

Subscribe

Sign up to stay informed about the latest happenings at Interior.
Email Updates
Sign up to stay informed about the latest happenings at Interior.
U.S. Department of the Interior
twitter facebook youtube tumblr instagram Google+ flickr
Resources:


Share

April 2002 Meeting Summary



Attendees:

Mary Denery
Jim Poole
Richard Redmond
Craig Calderwood
Laura Hankins
Dulcy Setchfield
John Trumble
Dee Thompson
Ed Dinep
Jesse Hicks
JoAnn Ransford
Pat Butler
Dick Andrews
Linda Behlin
Ann Wittmann
Phyllis Leslie
Christine Louton
Paul Politzer (observer on second day)
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson


Tuesday, April 9, 2002
START: 8:40 am

Welcome by Carolyn; Introduction of Pete Swanson as facilitator; General overview of agenda

Morning Activity

Find someone you have not met before and ask them:
1) name, 2) agency, 3) background in ADR, 4) something good about today
Participants took turns introducing one another to the group as a whole.

Review
Recap of Last Meeting

  • Last meeting was divided up into three days:
    • Day 1 - team-building,
    • Day 2 - introduction to integrated dispute systems design,
    • Day 3 - forming teams, determining objectives and coming up with an action plan that has led us to today's meeting
  • Proud past, present uncertainties, fantastic future (specific examples were listed)
  • Chartering process; charge statement was signed by Mike Trujillo and Elena Gonzalez
  • Looked at knowledge, perspectives and intellectual capital, values, hopes and dreams of participants
  • Discussed communication strategy (internal, external, transfer of strategy)
  • All bureaus are represented, therefore there is a high level of responsibility of each participant to be a communication link
  • Developing a communications plan
  • Acknowledging concerns about last year's review process- unification of the separate programs to an integrated program
  • Action plan developed

Review of Ground Rules

Printed on the back of name tents

  • Commit to the team and to solutions
  • Respect one another, our differences, different perspectives
  • Think possibilities
  • Focus on Mission and people
  • Build on the good work already done
  • Keep an open mind
  • Listen to learn, not to rebut
  • Question to clarify, not corner
  • Communicate openly, honestly, respectfully
  • Support those who need it
  • Participate actively
  • Attack problem, not people
  • Share relevant information, not who says what
  • Honor time commitments
  1. First choice for decision making - consensus based on 70% -30% rule
  2. Majority rule, if no consensus

Review of Standard Operating Procedures

The group decided to change a quorum from 10 people to 12 people because the group size has been expanded to 19 individuals.

Review of interim progress (summit meetings, BDRS meeting) (Carolyn)

  • Summits in Portland, Denver and DC
    • Copies of overheads of power point presentations from each summit provided to all participants
    • Many of the summit participants were interested and concerned about competitive sourcing and potential effects regarding ADR. Not many questions in general presentation, but more conversations took place one-on-one about ADR. There is awareness of the efforts of this group by most people at the summits
    • Participant offered that more recent information regarding ADR standing may be available through Mike Trujillo; therefore, it would be helpful for this group to have the most up-to-date info on realignment and summit outcomes because it might have a bearing on the work outputs of this team. It would also be helpful to have Mike here to talk with the group
    • Participant offered that the group may need to be aware of the impact of potential H.R. and EEO restructuring on ADR
    • Carolyn will provide any recommendations relative to ADR to team members
  • BDRS Meeting
    • Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialists- primary point of contact in each bureau for ADR activities. They, along with persons representing some offices within the Office of the Secretary make up the Interior Dispute Resolution Council
    • Roles and responsibilities of the Council are in the process of being refined
    • The members of the Interior Dispute Resolution Council serve as the links between OCADR and the Bureaus on ADR programs (workplace, programmatic, regulatory and contracts)
    • List of Interior Dispute Resolution Council members and their contact information was distributed to participants. Carolyn noted that it is important for each participant to meet with and get to know their IDR Council member representative
    • BDRS's are interested and concerned with the work of this group and are interested in coming to the table and working with this team. BDRS's were made aware of the amount of time devoted to building trust among team members. The BDRS's were assured that the members of the team would contact their respective BDRS's and keep them informed of the on-going work of this team, i.e., each team member is to contact their BDRS and provide briefings on team meetings.
    • Members of the Executive Steering Committee were listed
    • Pursuant to conversations with BDRS's, they requested that recommendations from the team on the new process be presented to the BDRS's prior to going forward to the Executive Steering Committee.
    • Carolyn asked the group if they are comfortable with BDRS's request. Conversation diverged and the question was not addressed by the team.
    • There was a short discussion of the team's location and standing (in regard to buy-in), as well as the history of the formation of this team, per a participant's inquiry.
    • Carolyn would like to share the video of Lynn Scarlett's dialogue on the 4 C's at the Executive Forum co-sponsored by OCADR and DOI University with the group. It evidences the strong level of support of ADR from the top persons in DOI.
    • This team needs to figure out a protocol to communicate with the BDRS's and establish a means for each of the participants to communicate with their Bureau's BDRS
    • Question to come back to: What does "workplace disputes" encompass?
  • Overview of Needs
    • Need most up-to-date information on EEO and HR realignments and summit outcomes
    • Have Mike Trujillo talk to group
    • Impact of potential HR Restructuring on ADR
    • Copies of video tape on Colloquium (Carolyn said it is possible to provide this)
    • Relationship with BDRS's and Team members - what role will BDRS's have in the outcome of this workgroup?

BREAK

Review of goals for this meeting (Pete/group)
Pete discussed the dynamics of the group (i.e., number of new members). He noted that the structure of how we are progressing now is based on what participants asked for in the last meeting:

  • Create Common Database (what is happening in ADR at the DOI)
  • Communications Strategy (how the group will start to impact the culture of the entire department)
  • Consensus on Conceptual Approach/Model
  • Break model down into constituent parts
  • Presentation on Ombuds/ADR Programs- private sector

Review of team composition and what has been done (Carolyn)

  • The union perspective is now represented by a person who is now on the team - John Trumble, He is the Business Agent for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 77.
  • Bureaus that were not represented at the last meeting are present at this meeting (Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service and Office of Surface Mining)
  • Dee Thompson is now on the team from the Office of the Inspector General
  • Erik Milito has switched jobs with Phyllis Leslie and Phyllis is replacing him on the team
  • Ed Dinep from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has replaced Howard Henderson on the team
  • Steph Smith is still on the team, but unable to be here due to scheduling conflicts

Review roles and responsibilities of team members (i.e., time commitments, Carolyn's expectations of team members, team members expectations of Carolyn, support, etc., Are these still reasonable?) (Pete)

This section was skipped.

Parking Lot review

This section was deferred until later.

Individual report outs

A copy of the summary of Bureau/Office Perspectives (based on 4 Bureau/Office Responses and DOI; 6 team members' responses) was passed out to each participant. Time was given for participants to read through the summary prior to discussion.

Individual report outs (team members)

  • Dulcy presented report out from BOR that was not included in the printed summary that was distributed. Lines between CORE and advisors have blurred at times. Consolidation is necessary. Advisors have been well trained. Currently, BOR does not have a permanent BDRS. Need to go to more organizational design training. Set up monthly conference calls and will meet twice a year with CORE and EEO persons. Would like to meet with unions more frequently. Consistent reporting throughout the bureau would be helpful. Funding is a problem in continuing with CORE activities. Need some method of credentialing, evaluation of mediators, professionalism, certification, etc.
  • Discussion of one-page reports (Carolyn)
    • Purpose of the summary was to review the "state of ADR" in each Bureau and to serve as an information tool for members of the team so that all team members would know what was occurring in Bureaus/Offices outside of their own.
    • Cadre of attorneys ADR focused
    • Management training needed
    • What is an appropriate entry point for SOL?
    • Issues of latitude with SOL (how much do they feel they have, and how much does the organization want to give them?)

Pete requested comments on how well institutionalized ADR is at DOI. Creating a common database is important, especially because of the replies, including:

  • Depends
  • Uneven
  • Pockets
  • Personally driven more so than institutionally driven
  • Inconsistent across bureaus
  • Issues of inconsistency have to do with amount of time allowed to spend on ADR activities
  • Viewed as unimportant because at meetings such as this, and within bureaus, top-level players are never seen
  • Dynamic of top leadership participation may be changing; some headway is being made for top level support at the department level
  • Not partnered with SOL
  • Does Elena have an office yet?
  • Most people view ADR as mediation only. There needs to be an education of what ADR really is, and that there are methods other than mediation available.
  • Not enough done in terms of filling ADR leadership vacancies (how to identify good people for these?)
  • No understanding of senior people and middle managers of the advantages of using ADR in standard business practices (i.e., of the myriad of disputes at DOI, at anytime are more than 3% of cases being considered for ADR?)
  • Some bureaus still have not officially designated a BDRS
  • Some managers are utilizing ADR - how do we find out about this? (will be addressed in the upcoming communication strategy discussion)
  • Inadequate, inconsistent funding

Discussion on how to deal with these topics will be tomorrow.

The vacancy announcement for the position of Administrative Assistant in the Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution opened on April 5, 2002 and will close on April 18, 2002. The position was advertised as a GS-303-8/9. Vacancy announcement number OS-02-45.

BREAK

Communications
Communications subgroup report

Members: Laura Hankins, Christine Louton, Phyllis Leslie, Craig Calderwood

Craig presented the Communications/Marketing Subcommittee recommendations and provided a synopsis of the issues considered by the sub group. A written summary was provided to each team member.

Laura discussed what has been done at the Bureau of Reclamation:

  1. Met with Regional EEO managers
  2. Face-to-face meeting with CORE personnel
  3. Reported back to Bureau Diversity/HR Director
  4. Minutes from meeting with CORE and this meeting will be distributed to Operations Director
    (Missing: regional directors, unions)

The importance of focusing on communication is to make sure we do not surprise people, but rather provide them with as much information as possible. At DOI, persuasion is the necessary tool for implementing the use of ADR. We need to respond on three tiers: How do we communicate inside this group (internal) outside of this group (external)? How do we start working on impacting the larger culture out in the field?

It was noted that a one-page summary of the highlights of the February workplace team meeting was prepared, immediately, and distributed to team members. The same will be done after this meeting.

LUNCH: 12:00 pm -1:00 pm

Discussion on Communications subgroup proposal

This was deferred until Wednesday, April 10th.

Pete constructed two flip charts to illustrate the difference between what was meant by infrastructure building and communications.

Chart 1:

Infrastructure involved structure, locations, staffing, evaluation, credentialing, standards
Communications involved putting a human face to the structure - communication, marketing, training, education

Chart 2:

"Communication" Strategy: Three Tiers
Our Team - Our Immediate Constituency - DOI as a Whole

Small Group Discussion

The team members were divided into three groups (one to focus on internal communications, one to focus on external communications, one to focus on communications to the field) to discuss communication strategy for approximately 20 minutes. Questions to be answered were:

  1. With whom do you need to communicate?
  2. What tools are available to draw upon?
  3. What are the biggest resistance points and
  4. What can you do to overcome them?

The team then re-convened as a whole to debrief and share their ideas.

Direct Reports from Teams

Internal Communications
Question 1 - Who?

  • This team

Question 2 - Tools?

  • E-Mail (work and/or home)
  • Fax
  • Voice mail
  • Face-to-face interaction
  • Postal mail
  • Positive intent/willingness to work with one another (What do you need from me? What can I do for you? How can I help?)

Question 3 - Resistance Points?

  • Some people not up to speed (such as new group members)
  • Lack of buy-in
  • Lack of e-mail/difficult to disseminate information
  • Management not involved in the process or sharing information

Question 4 - Overcoming Resistance Points?

  • Support new people with information and make them feel like an integral part of the group
  • Stay focused on the agenda
  • There has to be a strong level of consensus and trust
  • Realizing that at times there needs to be confidentiality
  • Personal responsibility of getting the information if one misses a meeting
  • Team members need to be ready and willing to discuss agenda items
  • Utilizing lack of buy-in - listen to resistance and learn from it . . . avoidance of group think
  • How do we deal with lack of buy-in?

Our Immediate Constituency - External Communications
Question 1 - Who?

  • What to tell whom?
  • When to tell whom?
  • All employees
  • Management at all levels
  • BDRS, LR, ER, EEO, CORE, Union

Question 2 - Tools?

  • Training in ADR techniques at all levels of management
  • Trainees sell the program
  • Positive experiences with the program - word of mouth publicity

Question 3 - Resistance Points?

  • SOL office has litigating minds (there is not consensus on this point- SOL is not necessarily the central point of concern)
  • Flavor of the Month attitude
  • People who do not want to settle

Question 4 - Overcoming Resistance Points?

  • Training in ADR techniques
  • Using successful ADR that already exists
  • Persuasion
  • This is a ripe time to bring ADR to SOL
  • BDRS includes the SOL

DOI as a Whole - Communication to the Field
Question 1 - Who?

  • Bureau heads
  • WADR - workplace ADR coordinators
  • CARR
  • Office of the Secretary
  • SOL
  • OIG
  • EAP - Employee Assistance Programs
  • Unions
  • Human Resources
  • EEO
  • ADR Service Providers
  • Customers
  • Others

Question 2 - Tools?

  • Website
  • Brochures, etc.
  • People, Land and Water (PL & W)
  • Newsletter
  • Logo
  • Slogan
  • Traveling display
  • Toys to publicize
  • Awards and Recognition (publicize success)
  • Face time (with BDRS, managers, etc.)
  • Speaker's Bureau (who's willing to go out and talk to people?)
  • Common Training Modules - inter-bureau communication (interchangeable parts)
  • Meetings/Briefings/Conferences posted somewhere to know who/where/when/why people are getting together
  • Annual DOI Conference on ADR
  • DOI University

Question 3 - Resistance Points?

  • Money
  • Time
  • Belief/Faith in the concept, the process and the system
  • Commitment - determination to do something

Question 4 - Overcoming Resistance Points?

  • Draw on the services/resources that already exist
  • If employees have a problem, deal with it immediately in a neutral setting (ADR)

Group Discussion About Communication Strategy

Is resistance the best word to describe SOL?
Parking Lot: Dealing with SOL issues

Presentation on HHS Ombuds program
The Ombuds Opportunity: Getting to Value

The AHRQ Experience & Learnings for Next Generation Conflict Management Systems
John Zinsser, Ombudsman at Agency for Health Care Research and Quality
(presentation materials are in handouts)

John was the recipient of OPM's Award for the Best ADR Program last year.

Questions and Discussion

  • Two participants have had experiences with Ombuds
  • Confidentiality applies to ALL aspects (criminal activity included)
  • Why contract with outsider? Speed up operation, quality of individual; additional advantages to keep core characteristics of neutrality, confidentiality, etc.
  • Work load dependent on size of constituency
  • Mr. Zinsser is paid a full time salary (although he is a contractor)
  • One real value of the Ombuds to an organization is that it that provides a mechanism for "stuff" to get addressed (i.e., conflicts and tensions vs. disputes, which are more suitable for mediation efforts).
  • John will provide survey instruments to group
  • Most contacts have to do with employee-to-employee, manager-to-manager, employee to manager, and may include EEO issues.
  • Ombuds in a union environment?
  • Introduce it first to a non-union environment, then offer it to union with caveat that ombuds must first make people aware of their negotiated processes (partnership approach).
  • How do you serve a population of people in different locations?
  • NIH has a team of 6 people. American Express has 14. United Technologies has 10 people. All work in a linked environment.
  • How would you create some Ombuds structure given the DOI structure?
  • One centralized ombuds with an ombuds function in each bureau that is full time, not collateral duty. Or, have four Ombuds (two bureaus for each).
  • Use refrigerator magnets as a toy with a number.
  • How does an ombuds program fit into an integrated system?
  • It can be one of the multiple access points. It can also be the navigator to the system. Have a conflict management system manager and an ombuds that are not in a hierarchical or even any type of reporting relationship. It is a symbiotic system.
  • Point of record - in thinking how to really affect change, think about who is going to be impacted by this system (slide 52) and identify problems and potential partners. Then create levels for measurement. Be wary of the fact that reduction in numbers does not necessarily mean success. It could mean that these conflicts are just closing down and going under the table.
  • How do you measure quarters? Are they 3 months, years? How do we assess impact of time to properly measure?
  • Be very aware of the culture of time and its impact vis/vie how you measure impact and success.
  • How do you incite people to come to the table?
  • The design has to have a measure of safety and security for the end user. Focus groups may be a way to start this.

PLUS/DELTA FOR THE DAY

Positives:

  • New participants, all participants
  • Small group work on communications
  • Candor, high expectations

Room to improve:

  • Readings alone did not provide what was needed to get folks up to speed - written work goes only so far.
  • Where is Mike? Where is Lynn? They would say thanks and is there anything they can do to make life easier for the team? Is the word getting to the Bureau heads? If it is and there is no action, then what will senior management do?
  • Let's not use term "new people", we are all part of the team
  • In issues of SOL and other points of resistance, we cannot attack that alone - we need to draw on each other internally.

Wednesday, April 10, 2002
START: 8:35 am

Pete opened with the "blue ruler"introduction activity. Carolyn talked with Elena last night. Elena cannot attend the meeting today. Elena will set up a conference call with Mike Trujillo for later in the day.

Presentation on private sector ADR programs
Dispute Resolution Systems: Effective Implementation and Analysis

David Lipsky, Professor and Director, School of Industrial Relations, Cornell University
Rocco Scanza, Deputy Director, Institute on Conflict Resolution and Executive Directive of the Alliance for Education in Dispute Resolution
Christopher Colosi, Program Coordinator, Institute on Conflict Resolution
(presentation overheads are found in handout material)


Discussion and Questions

  • Presenters asked participants to describe their previous experiences with ADR, trainings and mediation.
  • Why are in-house grievances and arbitration considered ADR? ADR's origin is that it is a private sector forum for solving a dispute by not using litigation. Arbitration is the traditional alternative to litigation. While some people may dispute the presenters' list of ADR forms, it was, for the most part, formed by consensus. Participant noted that it is important for group to consider the multiple forms of ADR, as the presenters' list of forms spans more than originally thought by group.
  • What is a mini-trial? "A creature of the corporate world." Parties involved in a dispute involving significant commercial issues and a lot of money. Prior to litigation, the representatives of the parties (generally lawyers) make summary presentations (strengths/weaknesses of cases) to executives from both sides of the dispute. The deciding body is composed of executives from both parties'organizations, who, after presentations take place, attempt to negotiate a settlement.
  • What is peer-review? In a dispute, as opposed to having an executive/manager/arbitrator decide upon an issue, a panel of peers (with varying compositions) takes on the third party role. Does the peer-review panel have binding authority or simply make a recommended solution? Depends on design.
  • Do forms that work in the private sector work in the public sector? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is much debate about the use of arbitration in the governmental realm. There are limitations in regard to what types of ADR forms are feasible in DOI.
  • Participant perceived that some judges, EEO officers, etc., are not held in high regard by some marginalized groups and individuals. Presenter noted that the group who is the most experienced in ADR is not very diverse (consists predominantly of older, white males). Efforts to overcome this limitation are currently in progress.
  • Can both parties look to the third party as a neutral processor? Presenter noted that they are discussing outside third parties (contract neutrals), but recognizes that there seems to be a trend of organizations using internal neutrals to aid in settling disputes. Reports show that internal neutrals have a higher settlement rate than outside neutrals. The term "neutral" is questionable because of issues such as who is paying the third party.
  • What was the measure of qualification?
  • Who was interviewed in regard to ADR qualification satisfaction? Corporate Council or top lawyers in most cases. No organization is monolithic and if you probe, you will find mixed opinions and reviews about ADR (therefore, depending on who is questioned will affect the answer to the general question).

BREAK

  • Statutory rights: employer poses to employee what forum to deal with dispute; Merits Systems Protection Board has agreed to waive rights.
  • Concern was expressed by participant about enforceability of settlement agreements in relation to ability to take dispute to another forum at another time and/or simultaneously ("two bites of the apple").
  • Discussion about the U.S. Postal Service's Conflict Management System
  • In the private sector, there is usually a precipitating event that leads to the development of conflict management systems (reactive response vs. strategic choice).
  • What are the driving and motivating factors influencing this group?
  • What advice can be given to aid the group in getting the top-level decision makers to accept the upcoming workplace ADR design?
  • The facilitator in the Mediation Assessment Program (MAP) design is not full time (This will not change unless the caseload increases to a greater extent than imagined).
  • How many entry points are necessary? This can vary. The MAP design provides the traditional points (union/manager/OSI) as well as the MAP Information Office and MAP Facilitator. This team needs to consider multiple entry points and decide what is right for DOI.
  • Have hotline set-ups (as point of entry) been helpful? Presenter's opinion is that it would be, but there is no research basis for this.
  • Why are some cases (such as discrimination) sent directly to the Office of Special Investigator? Presenter noted that the MAP design was oversimplified during this presentation and that such cases are not automatically sent to the OSI. It is the facilitator's job to provide the multiple options to the disputant, so as to provide the best possible choices. The option to pursue mediation is always available.
  • How do you approach the barriers of financial limitations?

LUNCH (12:00-1:00)

Eric joined the group from OIG as a substitute for Dee. The team was asked that Eric be welcomed (due to adoption of "no substitutes" as a standard operating procedure).

Copy of power point presentation was distributed to all participants.

Continuation of Presentation
Department of Labor Mediation Program
(this is not an employment program)

  • How do the participants choose the mediator in the DOL Mediation Program? The disputants choose a mediator together off of a list.
  • Why, in the DOL program, are all the decisions being made by the legal staff? The program comes in at the back-end (late intervention), meaning lawyers have probably been involved for months before complainant comes to the ADR option.
  • To tie this into what the group is doing, when there is a complaint that does not get resolved and is then internally turned to the Solicitor's office, dealing with ownership becomes an issue.
  • A typical case takes one day to reach a settlement.

We've now seen what Cornell has done with New York State and the U.S. Department of Labor, which are quite different than DOI. Pete asked presenters to discuss system design efforts with organizations more like DOI. Presenters discussed Prudential example. As far as the workplace, Prudential stood out: stand alone office, headed by individual responsible only to the CEO, given much autonomy, which is critical to the legitimacy of the program. Like an ombuds program but with more power and a bigger budget. Key feature is a separate office with a direct reporting line to the top of the organization rather than through staff lines (which works, as long as the CEO is a champion of the process).

Critical Points

  • Process under authority of lawyers (traditionally)
  • BDRS- realization of vision is an inhibitor

BREAK

Presentation by subgroup on conceptual model program
Members: Mary, Dick, Steph, Howard, Ann, Dulcy
Handout distributed to all participants (additional information included in notes).

  • Dick reviewed information on handout, including the vision and goals.
  • Systemic support within budget, organization, structure needed.
  • Dulcy and Ann described functions of Workplace ADR.
  • Intake and Referral - multiple access points, who are knowledgeable about ADR system; one of the multiple points of access is the CADR office.
  • ADR Service - advocating, trainings, provide information; add to the list provide training, speaker's bureau.
  • ADR Service Providers - internal CADR as first point of contact; consistent certification; high quality of training in the systematic process (as well as ADR processes).
  • Feedback and Evaluation - if employer is committed, then voluntarism is irrelevant to the employers; do not want to reinvent the wheel, but rather tweak that which is already in existence.
  • Conflict management is ultimately everyone's job in the office.
  • Team needs to be ready for the question of which positions (new and current) need to be contracted/competitive sourcing.
  • Value among the subcommittee is the default to be internal, not a purpose of exclusivity.
  • Issue of voluntarism is an issue that needs to be dealt with in the future (that is, voluntarily coming to ADR process)
  • Concern of whether or not the DOI will view the team's recommendations with an open mind. Pete noted that there must be good and valid reasons that the group is recommending what it does, and if those reasons exist, planning should be pursued with an open mind.
  • How does this affect position placement? New positions? Current employees?
            CADR
            BDRS (Bureau Level)
            /       \
           /         \
     Other     Workplace
  • Advisory group would consist of representative from sub-committees (such as communications sub-committee); or whatever would work best in a bureau setting (could be regionalized); need feedback from internal customers
  • Need champions at the top and the bottom levels/ departmental and bureau levels - this is a continuous process of finding people where they are, getting them to commit to being champions and continuing to bring up a "crop" of more champions
  • Need the department to be the network nurturers, to have commitment to staffing and funding, to demonstrate it is bridging gaps (particularly HR and EEO), to demonstrate its commitment to collaboration with those trying to make ADR program happen.

Pete pointed out the plan reflected a set of desired end states. Included in these end states were "triggers" that would need much discussion, including:

  • Multiple entry points (including CADR)
  • Internal neutrals as externals
  • Voluntary vs. Mandatory nature of agency participation
  • Training/Credentialing of neutrals
  • Resources Devoted (i.e., full-time vs. part-time)

BREAK

Discussion with David and Rocco about Model
Valuable document, but we have a long way to go still

Points to Consider

  • Need to consider if there need to be constraints on/narrowing of scope of issues to be addressed by Workplace ADR (WADR) and decide what types of issues can be funneled appropriately
  • Diagnosing current organizational conflict - a data analysis of types of conflicts (sources of conflict, most common types, taking the pulse of each bureau)
  • Principles and direction of ideas are positive; however, in the end if multiple access points will exist, they need to be highly specified into more precise, operational terms
  • Issue of assessment- will that be built into the design?
  • David and Rocco can share evaluation instruments with the group ("You are what you measure")
  • Clarify and refine objectives that the group is attempting to achieve through the system; Ask what it is to be achieved in the end
  • Re-examine objectives in light of take away value (do not confuse ends and means)
  • Participant offered that the way the subcommittee's report is written calls for "union-busting." Rather than having collective bargaining and ADR efforts as completely separate entities, they need to overlap in some ways (this was the intent of the sub-committee). Another participant clarified that the document was not intended to be read as a threat to any form of union activity.
  • Pete pointed out the group needs to be aware of intent vs. impact in all it does.


Conference Call with Mike Trujillo (3:55 p.m.)

What is it that the group would like from Mike?

  • Do you see any particular areas of resistance or potential obstacles to us being able to accomplish the chartered goal?
    • Mike thinks much resistance is resolved; he is totally committed to the process; there is a unified commitment to do this; agrees that there will be challenges to be addressed, but the work of this group will help minimize that; after the completion of this process, it becomes an education challenge and one of communicating unilaterally; overcome this by being organized in what the group is doing; the challenge is to come up with a clear and effective program that works for the department; as far as the program is concerned, we are doing the right thing at the right time
    • Mike is not as comfortable discussing this on the phone and would like to be in attendance next time; could not be here Tuesday morning as scheduled because of a strategic planning meeting; let Felicia know when the next meeting takes place
  • Have you had dialogues/shared information with bureau heads that would help us?
    • Not with the bureau heads, but with the MIT group; key people would be executive directors of MIT group
  • Mike asked if there are any concerns of the program being put into placement
    • Are there going to be changes in human resources or EEO?
    • Yes, but they will not influence the work of this group. The piece that might have an indirect effect would be the transition of activities/services already in process under the two previous programs. He is hoping for a smooth transition/change-over
  • Mike would like requests for his help in writing so that he can follow up on them with Scott Cameron (such as gaining consistency with BDRS).
  • Do you foresee in the near or long term future any funding to support what the group is attempting to accomplish
    • It would go in for some future date of approval, just like any other department. He would have to work with Scott. He has some understanding of the costs involved in this type of program; he will make sure it is properly funded; EEO- Plus will not be let go until this program is up and running

Next Steps

  • Workgroups
    • Communications
      • Christine, Craig, Laura, Phyllis, Linda
      • The task - building off the work from the prior day, examine each of the communication focus areas (internal team communications, between the team and our immediate constituents, and between those constituents and the rest of DOI (see pages 6-10 of this document)
        What does communication mean? (remember, in our definition communication means putting the human face on our structure - i.e., the messages we send to others, how we educate and train them, how we market this program, how we impact and make a change in the culture of the bureaus and the department as a whole)
      • What is it we need to communicate?
      • What mechanisms do we have (elaborate on the tool box the group already developed)?
      • How can we use employee focus groups?
      • What would be helpful to our group from Carolyn (i.e., and particular subject matter presentations, etc)?
      • Identify who is not here right now: Jim P., Dee T., Mary D, Pat B., JoAnn, Steph, Phyllis. Make contacts with each of them to inquire which sub-group they'd like to work on.
      • Carolyn would like to be in touch with group leaders biweekly
    • Conceptual
      • Dick, Ann, Dulcy, Steph, Mary, John, Richard, Ed
      • Re-examine your end states and have the difficult conversations about them, including:

* Discuss value differences
* What needs to be addressed
* Info needed by the group (i.e., data on grievances, outside presenters, other subject matter help/consultants)
* How we should address these
* Define take-aways (the benefits)

1. Recommendations in report (realities the team has to face) vs. thinking of design team
2. Internal neutrals as preference
3. Voluntary vs. Mandatory nature of agency participation
4. Training/Credentialing of neutrals
5. Multiple entry points (including CADR)
6. Resources Devoted (i.e., full-time vs. part-time)

Other issue to consider:

Short-term, long-term to do
Their commitment in terms of time beyond 6 months
What can OCADR do to help?
How will this be presented to group? Think of how we can present this to the group in May and work through it.

Other issues

  • Urge Carolyn and Elena to re-examine make up at the table (i.e., keeping union rep and possibly add more)

Summary

  • The next meeting will be in Reston, Virginia on
    • Monday, May 20, 2002 (afternoon)
    • Tuesday, May 21, 2002 (full day)
    • Wednesday, May 22, 2002 (full day)
  • Parking Lot/To Do Issues
    • Members leaving early because of travel concerns
    • SOL Resistance- going next step on communications strategy
    • OIG Representative Issue
    • Evaluation tools - John (Ombuds), David (Cornell University)
    • How can you have a policy of encouraging/requiring ADR when the ADR system is not yet in place? Secretary of Interior needs to restate policy
    • Management - Voluntary?
    • Expand group (more labor reps?)
    • Carolyn will contact people in the EEO and HR departments regarding collecting data for the group
    • Role of BDRS/Work team relationship
    • Have Mike Trujillo come to next meeting
    • Send out summary and meeting notes next week
    • Have Carolyn and Pete address Executive Committee and advise them that more time will be needed for the team to complete its work
  • Accomplishments of this meeting
    • Talked to Mike
    • Straw Men (model, communication)
    • Presentations/Feedback (Cornell and Ombuds)
    • EEO/Union representation (expansion of table)

Adjourn: 5:10 pm