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


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 - Office of Policy, Management and Budget
Click to toggle text size.

July 2002 Meeting Minutes

July 22-24, 2002

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 132 A
Arlington, Virginia

July 22, 2002
Start- 8:00 am

Mary Denery
Wayne Jordan
Elena Gonzales
Jim Poole
Craig Calderwood
Ed Dinep
JoAnn Ransford
Pat Butler
Dick Andrews
Christine Louton
Laura Hankins
Steph Smith
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Introduction and Overview

The official opening of the meeting was delayed until approximately 8:30 a.m.
Pete opened the meeting with a review of the meeting objectives -

  • Reach closure on conceptual model
  • Transition into Implementation stage –
    • Create common briefing points
    • Create feedback questions
    • Create individual bureau communication strategies
Carolyn reviewed that which has happened between the May meeting and the current meeting. The Labor Management Council (LMC) meeting was held in June in Washington, D.C. During the opening remarks of the Deputy Assistant Secretary – Policy Management and Budget, Lynn Scarlett, she emphasized the need to use ADR to resolve workplace disputes inclusive of those of bargaining unit employees. Carolyn briefed the LMC on the Design Team and its progress. The Council was also provided with a listing of the members of the team. Council members indicated that information could be provided to the Unions through the Labor Relations Officers/Specialist in each Bureau. National Park Service (NPS) expressed an interest in having a representative from the union (United States Park Police) involved in the work of the team.

On June 19th, Carolyn, Elena and Pete met with the Executive Committee to brief them on the progress of the Design Team and to obtain feedback from Committee members on those areas that the team had reached consensus on. In order to place what the team is doing in context, Carolyn invited David Lipsky (Cornell University), Ronald Seeber (Cornell University) and Richard Fincher, Esq., (Managing Partner, Workplace Conflict Resolution) who provided the Committee members with an overview on the design of integrated conflict management systems in the private sector. Carolyn reported that the team is on track in terms of the process that has been used in development of the new system. According to the “Ten Steps to Effective Implementation of Workplace ADR Systems – A Practical Guide”, we are at step 8: Remaining Pre-Launch Steps. (This information was included in the power point hand-out provided to the team members.) Carolyn thanked the team, again, for their hard work and dedication. The primary feedback received from the Executive Committee members was that they were concerned about resources (e.g., people, funding) needed in order to fully implement the conceptual model, ensuring the product represents the recommendation(s) that emanated from the ADR review, and the timeline for implementation. As an outcome of this meeting, it is critical that we script the message about the proposed system to ensure consistency when the briefings are given to the persons in the Bureaus/Offices that we need to build relationships with to ensure their support as we move toward implementation of the new system. It is also important that we ask pertinent questions in order to obtain feedback on the conceptual model that can be brought to the next team meeting and discussed in order to discern where we may need to “tweak” the model so that it meets the needs of everyone.

Carolyn, Elena and Pete also met with Mike Trujillo, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Workforce Diversity on July 19th. He noted during their meeting that the Management Initiatives Team (MIT) which is made up of the Bureau Directors and chaired by Lynn Scarlett, will have to approve the model and recommendations from the team prior to implementation. (This is a newly instituted requirement) This further illustrates the importance of our building support for the conceptual model within our respective organizations.

Carolyn was asked about the role of the Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialists (BDRS’). She indicated that each team member needs to brief their respective BDRS and suggested that they ask, during the briefing, what role the BDRS wants to play in the briefings of Bureau people. Also, if anyone wants her to brief with them, ahead of, or after, to let her know. For each Bureau, Carolyn identified who was serving as the BDRS.

Carolyn asked how to assure e-mail attachments and other information are distributed to all team members. It was requested that all documents be sent out in both Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect. Please note that Craig Calderwood’s correct e-mail address is:

Putting Marker to paper -- Review of the Conceptual Model – the Mind Mapping Exercise

Elena discussed, briefly, the ADR review, why the team was developed and how the team was chartered. She applauded the team for the great work that has been accomplished and reiterated the review process that would be involved after the Design Team makes its recommendations. She noted that Mike Trujillo would be joining us after the lunch break.

Walking our way through the model – section by section analysis of the proposed amendments to the Departmental Manual (Jim Poole, Dick Andrews, Pete Swanson)

Pete used a roadmap (“Yellow Brick Road”) of the conceptual model to walk through the components of the new system that has been designed.

The initiator includes employee-employee, employee-supervisor, supervisor-employee, and supervisor-supervisor.

EEO, HR, LR, EAP, Whistle Blower, Negotiated Grievances, Administrative Grievances, Supervisors, Proposed- Workplace ADR (WADR) Specialist represent the entry points to the ADR system.

Doorway to ADR -

WADR Specialists (perform the following functions)

  • Intake
  • Referral
  • Information source
  • Champion
  • Education/trainer
  • Third party
  • Consistent for every bureau?
  • How is it determined the WADR Specialist will function as a neutral

WADR Program Manager

  • Yearly reporting to OCADR
  • Monitoring success/implementation
  • Recommend neutrals for certification
  • Administer program
  • Train WADR staff (role of OCADR?)
  • Coordinate with WADR staff appropriate action for each intake


  • Provide workplace coordination
  • Certifies third parties/retains a master list of internal and external neutrals
  • Advises on personnel issues
  • Develops/Coordinates policy- ensures consistency
  • Develops simplified contracting/procurement methods

ADR Services

  • Mediation
  • Consultation
  • Facilitation
  • Conciliation
  • Cooperative Problem Solving
  • Informal Fact Finding
  • Alternative Discipline
  • Coaching (process, as defined by CDR)
  • Dispute Panels
  • Partnering
  • IBB

Third Party

  • Internal - WADR Specialist, Other internal roster
  • External - Other agency, private sector


  • Contains?
  • Reference to agreement to?
  • All written?
  • What happens if it’s broken? Any loopback?


  • Training for WADR Specialists
  • Convening Assessment
  • Other Points of Entry
  • User Buy-in – Co-design of Process
  • Interests of Choice/Veto of Neutrals
  • Grandfathering of WADR Specialists as internal neutrals?
  • When do WADR Specialists function as third parties vs. internal (neutrals/specialists), external mediators?
  • Confidentiality provisions (on hold)
  • Documents standards across bureaus/offices?
  • Training in other processes?
  • Marketing
  • Applicants to positions will not be included
  • Bureau/Dept. coordination of neutrals/WADR Specialists

Departmental Manual (Jim and Dick)

Draft was distributed to all team members to review prior to the meeting.

Section 1

  • Paragraph 1 -- last sentence- Third point should be altered to preserve relationships of all workers (as opposed to only the employee/supervisor relationship).
  • Paragraph 2 -- delete the second sentence; in the final sentence, change “write” to “develop”
  • Paragraph 3 – Sentence 1, delete “early;” final sentence will be edited by Jim and Dick

Section 3

  • Part A -- Sentence 2, Applicants for employment will be added; this paragraph will be provided to John Trumble and John Combs for review final to finalization.
  • Part B -- “encouraged” will be changed to “should;” change from “who, during the…” to “to protect his or her rights.” Time frames will be removed from paragraph.
  • Part C -- Only the first 2 sentences will remain. A tie-in sentence for the following terms will be included. “Dispute resolution communication” and “communication provided in confidence to the neutral” will be ADDED TO THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE DM.

Section 4

  • Part A -- Sentence 1 will begin with “Managers...”
  • Parts A and B will no longer be titled, and will serve as an introduction; Part C will become Part A and so on. The first and second paragraphs will be reversed. Throughout paragraph 3, “mediation” will be changed to “ADR.”
  • Part C, Point 2 -- “Illegally” will be deleted; only the first sentence will remain
  • Part E -- Paragraph 1 -- Sentence 1 is prefaced with the last sentence from Paragraph 3. Sentences 2, 3 and 4 are deleted. Paragraph 3 -- Last sentence becomes first of the section, ending at “approval.”
  • Part F -- This part will be renamed “Agreements.” Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 “a mediation” will be changed to “ADR”; Paragraph 2 -- Keep ONLY Sentence 1;
    Paragraph 3 will read: “The participating parties are bound by the terms of the agreement to the extent legally permissible. The agreement is to be specific to the dispute being resolved and is not considered as controlling concerning future matters in which similar issues may arise, unless specifically stated in the agreement. If an allegation arises that a party to the agreement has not complied or is not complying with it, that matter should be brought to the attention of the WADR Specialist. The WADR Specialist has no enforcement authority in a matter of noncompliance with an agreement.“
  • Section G -- Paragraph 2 is DELETED
  • Section I -- Point 2 -- change “must know and be able to explain” to “must be familiar with;”

July 23, 2002
Start- 8:15 am

Wayne Jordan
Elena Gonzales
Jim Poole
Craig Calderwood
Ed Dinep
JoAnn Ransford
Dick Andrews
Christine Louton
Laura Hankins
Steph Smith
Phyllis Leslie
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Pete reviewed goals for the morning session, including finishing the DM, looking at combining resources, standards for neutrals and evaluation.

Team was informed that along the way, they would hear from the individuals and groups that had specific report outs, including:

  • Evaluation of and Standards for neutrals –
  • Model evaluation, what it contains, means of evaluation (Mary Denery)
    • Blending CORE/EEO plus resources (Dick)
    • Model standards for neutrals (Dick/Pete/Pat Butler)
  • Model payment mechanisms (Carolyn)
  • Review of alternative discipline (Jim)

There was discussion about defining terms of different roles within the conceptual model.

? ? ?

Employee Contact Filter Service Provider

  • Concern was expressed that the group is discussing “how” rather than “what” questions, and how that may affect bureau (how) vs, departmental roles and responsibilities (what).
  • Whatever the rollout of each bureau is, overall a departmental, rather than bureau oriented vision is needed
  • Elena provided Mike Trujilllo’s feedback that he was impressed with the collaborative process used for the development of the system but wanted to ensures that Elena and Carolyn were managing the process. Mike also mentioned that it appeared as though the group was more focused on retaining Bureau autonomy, rather than moving toward “one Department” vision.

Departmental Manual Discussion, continued

Part I --
Discussed the chart proposing training requirements. (hand out)

  • Where do you get the training? Are there any pre-requisites?
  • What requirements are in place for existing people? Do they need to be enhanced?
  • Will there be a competitive selection process? Will this be open for anyone? What is the application process? What is the current interest?
  • Threshold requirements (Section I, Point 1)
    • 40 hours basic mediation training
    • 24 hours advanced/continuing training
    • 3 co-mediations
  • Grandfathering existing people into the new program - should there be any?
  • Criteria for the neutrals
  • People who fulfill these roles need to be high quality, vested in the process, have support of management, and there needs to be consistency with regard to standards/measures

It was stated that any training developed by and/or presented in the bureaus will meet the specific training objectives established by the Department.

Proposed (and accepted) conceptual steps

  • In recruiting for internal neutrals, the following needs to be done:
    • 1. Request volunteers (reaffirmation for current neutrals including an indication of interest; and, the supervisor’s approval
    • 2. Quality measure of volunteers/Design a common checklist
  • Tiered approach to phase people in
  • Steph, Elena, Dick, Christine, Wayne and Laura volunteered for the Standards Sub Group to explore the tiered approach will look at:
    • threshold requirements and filtering requirements (i.e., skill sets).
    • Clarify roles and responsibilities of the functions;
    • What the foundational KSAs for entry are (for both existing and new, including and expanding upon what currently is required for EEO-PLUS and CORE)
    • Define the tiers, training/certification requirements

(NOTE: This sub group needs to consider whether to consider now the certification criteria in order to perform all ADR services that will eventually be provided under the model, e.g., certifying to facilitate, mediate, conciliate, do cooperative problem solving; or, whether to concentrate on the most common services that will be provided will be provided, initially, which will be mediation and facilitation.)

Section 5

  • Part A -- Change title to OCADR; Point 2 is DELETED; Point 4, change Conflict Resolution Specialist to WADR Specialist
  • Reverse Parts B and C
  • Part C -- Change title to Bureau Directors; Point 2 change “as needed and available” to “necessary;” Point 6 change “Provide” to “Make available”
  • Part D -- Point 1 change “as requested” to “As necessary, as appropriate or as requested;” Point 2 change “Provide” to “Make available;” add Point 4 “Support the system by making its benefits and availability known to supervisors and employees.”
  • Part E -- All Points change “Provide” to “Make available;” Point 1 change “as requested” to “as necessary, as appropriate or as requested;” add Point 4 “Support the system by making its benefits and availability known to supervisors and employees.”
  • Part F-- Point 3 add “In coordination with ADR program partners” to beginning of sentence; Point 5 modify “fact-finding” to “informal fact-finding;” add Point 7 to read, “Effectively coordinate and communicate with all interested parties...” Point 8 will be added to refer to the maintaining knowledge of developments.
  • Part G -- add Point 7 “Support the system by making its benefits and availability known to supervisors and employees.”
  • Part H -- Point 2 change to “...or supervisors. Seek advice...”

Blending CORE/EEO PLUS resources (Dick)

Blending Resources (handout) -- The group will ask Elena what issues she might see arising from the blending; Otherwise, it is a non-issue

Section 6 of DM

  • A. Alternative Dispute Resolution – definition: ADR is any consensual method used to resolve disputes between two or more parties. Change “under the direction” to “under the guidance”
  • B. Modify “Fact-Finding” to “Informal Fact-Finding” (title and definition)
  • C. DELETE final sentence
  • D. DELETE L, replace with Mediation (and definition)
  • E. DELETE M entirely.
  • F. DELETE “to a mediation”
  • G. Change “written resolution signed by both parties” to “mutually agreed upon course of action”
  • H. INCLUDE definition of Alternative Discipline: AD can be characterized as a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that, like more traditional ADR techniques such as mediation, facilitation, etc., can be used effectively to resolve, reduce, or even eliminate workplace disputes that might come from a circumstance where disciplinary action is appropriate. As the terms suggests, AD is an alternative to traditional discipline -- usually when the traditional penalty would be less than removal.

Other discussion on the proposed Departmental Manual:

  • The text for the confidentiality section will serve as a “placeholder” until the workgroup on confidentiality that is a sub group of the Interagency ADR Working Group Steering Committee completes its work.
  • There was also a discussion about the “use of official time” by employees participating in ADR. It was agreed that the guidance that has been issued by the Department and supplemented by a subsequent Equal Opportunity Directive would be used in making decisions about how much official time should be granted to employees. Supervisors usually consult with EEO and Personnel officials when making decisions about approving the use of official time for these matters.
  • A section needs to be added to the DM on the sources of externals. (Elena will ask the Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialists to obtain that information and provide it to her prior to the next team meeting.)
  • Since the DM is a policy document, an operational handbook will be written that will address the “how to’s”.
  • It was discussed that the intake people are the most critical individuals in the process. Critical because they need to be able to educate persons about the process and options that are available to them. The intake person needs to be able to assess the situation - given the information gathered and provided - and determine what is the most appropriate process to utilize. Currently, the Specialist is the person performing this function and it is critical that he/she possess the necessary training and skills to do so effectively.

The team was reminded that the final re-write of the proposed Departmental Manual Chapter will be submitted to the Office of the Solicitor for review and approval.

Communications Sub Group (exercise lead by Laura Hankins)


The team split into groups of 3 to 4 persons to come up with a name and slogan for the conceptual model. This was for fun only. The three groups came up with the following:

CORE Workplace Intervention Network


A resolution for all
  “Mediators do it ‘til everyone’s satisfied!”
  WIN to WIN  

The group then moved on to the discussion of Rollout (7/24/2002 – 12/31/2002)

  Briefing Feedback   Tweak
  Setting Stage   Plan for Launch      
Aug   Sept   Oct Nov Dec
Data collection, program evaluation


Review Implementation objectives

  • Define briefing points, anticipate questions
  • Define areas in need of feedback
  • Brainstorm our toolkit
  • Create individual bureau strategies (Mind mapping exercise)
  • Suggestions to Department

Organizational charts will be provided to tea members by the Communications Sub Group to augment the roll-out.

Review accomplishments

There was a lengthy discussion on issue of choice of neutrals and the role of the WADR specialist. The role of the WADR Specialist will be clearly defined in the operational handbook that will be written.


July 24, 2002
Start - 8:00 am

Mary Denery
Wayne Jordan
Elena Gonzales
Jim Poole
Craig Calderwood
Ed Dinep
JoAnn Ransford
Pat Butler
Dick Andrews
Christine Louton
Laura Hankins
Steph Smith
Victoria Squire
Phyllis Leslie
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Goals for today include discussions about roll-out, individual bureau marketing, evaluation, next steps, next meeting. A team member requested that we review the charter. Pete read through the charter and discussed with the team where they were with respect to the taskings. It was agreed that most of the work of the team has been accomplished. There was a discussion about how to transition from design to roll-out and implementation. The team discussed closing out the work product of the Design Team next meeting and “declaring victory.” The next step would be to then establish a new team that would be chartered for the purposes of the implementation phase. Any members of the current team (design) may volunteer to participate for the implementation team if they choose to.

How do we roll out the conceptual model in a manageable way that will work for the Department and the bureaus, over a reasonable period of time, and then assess how it works?

Elena mentioned that implementing this system must be done on Mike Trujillo’s watch, or else it will fail.

Brainstorming follows:

  • Elena encouraged targeting a phased rollout. National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey could, ideally, be among the first of the bureaus to start the rollout. While the NPS and USGS were rolling out, a memo could be sent to the Bureau Directors from Mike Trujillo requesting their roll-out plans. One team member discouraged this idea, saying it might make other bureaus feel like they are “off the hook.” Further, doing so, might defeat the Department’s goal of “one Department.”(vs. Focusing on individual bureaus). After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that the implementation announcement should be made Department wide and, concurrently, Bureau Directors could be asked to submit their implementation plans
  • Team reached consensus on rollout idea, although final decision is for the CADR office
  • Names and locations of service pool are needed
  • Start immediately on talking with BDRSs about the conceptual model
  • Team member suggested that the memo on the new system come from the Secretary
  • How do OS offices rollout under new system?
  • 1) Briefings will be done by team members; 2) Quality control for review of implementation plans by Dept- feedback to Bureaus with quick turnaround; 3) Model transition
  • Roll-out, transition and implementation is ALL implementation (staged)
  • Implementation Plan must have: evaluation components, phased in approach, accountability, marketing/education. Where does support come from (highest level)?, OS rollout/support of system
  • One team member suggested that we should “go slow, to go fast” - model must be completed and approved by all necessary parties before official roll-out; handbook and policy (DM) must be completed and approved
  • Plan B -- departmental regional approach (rather than bureau approach) - bureau in each region be responsible for facilitating system in a geographic area. In order to do so, we must determine where are the resources are going now?; Evaluate - how are they impacted by use of the new system
  • Steps to implementation plan: SOC –› Bureau heads –› MIT –› Trujillo –› CADR –› BDRSs –› Bureau
  • Model transition plan - components:
    • “One size fits all”
    • Recognize scales- different needs
    • Technical assistance capacities (Dept/Bureaus)
    • Geographic partnering
    • Roll-out with organizational chart

What is needed before roll-out?

  • Approval of DM
  • Transition Model
  • Time line for implementation

Proposed – and Consensus Reached

  • Department roll-out with geographic partnerships among Bureaus
    • Providing training, Technical Assistance (TA), service delivery (represents collaborative approach)
  • Conceptually integrate the Four Cs (as part of the marketing scheme and in practice) Don’t include them as part of branding.
  • Build in Bureau accountability for implementation of the conceptual model
  • Geographic and Department based plan does not affect the conceptual design

NOTE: Proposed DM chapter will be amended to reflect geographic approach for new system

Geographic Partnerships - Clarifying Questions

  • Where are the resources (geographically)?
  • What are the resources?
  • Who are they?
  • What are our points of contact?
  • Number of employees/where are they located?

**For next meeting each Bureau (team members) must identify and submit to Carolyn the following:

  • People performing the functions
  • Number of employees in each region
  • ADR Service Provides

Elena will provide (from the BDRS’) the number of ADR Service providers (contractors) in each Bureau .

Mind Mapping Activity
In the Organization, the Program

Who We Know
Who We Don't Know but Need their buy-in
Who We Know and Can Directly Influence

1. Who do we talk to?
2. What do we communicate?
3. How do we communicate this?

Group Activity:

Team members were divided by Bureau/Office groupings to complete the tasks.

Responses from group activities:

Office of the Secretary

  • Do Know
  • Do Not Know
    • MIT/MEC
  • Organization
    • Regional Approach (NBC – Denver)
  • The Task
    • Create a web page
    • During trainings, invite Elena or Carolyn to speak
    • Create a planned message (i.e., PowerPoint, website)


  • Do Know
    • EEO
    • LR
    • CORE
    • HR
    • BDRS
  • Don’t Know
    • Executive directors and leadership teams
    • Managers and supervisors at all levels
  • The Task
    • DOI University classes
    • USGS Training Center classes- all receive fact sheet, toys, etc.
    • One-pager- quick description with concept model, DM in process, geographic partnerships, electronic
    • Meetings- who’s doing meetings
    • Focus Groups

Group 3

  • Do Know
    • EEO
    • BDRS
  • Don’t Know
    • Directory
    • Union
    • Regional Councils
  • The Task
    • Condense/Simplify information
    • Pool resources and work as a joint effort

Group 4

  • Do Know
    • LM
      • Develop the business case for them…why do they care?
        • No Fear Legislation (No Fear Act)
  • Don’t Know
    • Champions
  • The Task
    • What feedback are we looking for?
      • Obstacles
      • Who are the champions?
      • Costs that can be reduced
      • Who do they think we should talk to?
      • How do you want to be communicated with?
      • Is there anything we’ve missed in the design of the system?

BOR: Laura reported that she and Craig will participate on Monday morning conference calls to discuss conceptual model.
Focus groups being done with BOR and BLM.

OSM/MMS: JoAnn and Pat will pool their resources and do briefings together. Will brief EEO Officers, HR Officers, Directorates, Regional Executive Council for OSM

Next steps

  • Anyone who wants to send wordsmithing ideas on the DM, should do so within the week to Dick.
  • Carolyn will submit the DM to the BDRS’s for review and comment.
  • Include definitions of ADR processes into the definitions section of the DM (agreed upon prior to this meeting)
  • Add definition of ADR program partners to definition section of the DM
  • Section 5, Part F, Point 8 to be written by Dick and Jim regarding updating of one’s knowledge and developments in the field
  • CADR will supply briefing packets and feedback questions to all team members
  • Neutral Standards Working Group will meet (Sept 9)
  • BDRS’s need to get involved…schedule a one day meeting to explain the model and receive their feedback
  • Laura, Steph and Dick are interested in attending the meeting with BDRS’s when the conceptual model is explained, if their schedules permit
  • Compile individual lists of those people who will be contacted (names and/or roles) to be given to Carolyn as team members leave today’s meeting
  • Compile geographic ADR resources data (data to Carolyn by Sept. 13)
  • Feedback data on model from bureau briefings for next meeting
  • Develop one-pager, interim web page. Website should contain, at a minimum, statement on the new system, team charter, names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of design team members
  • Develop briefing package (OCADR)
  • Mary’s section on evaluation will be an agenda item for next meeting)
  • Pete to send draft meeting notes to Carolyn by July 26
  • OCADR will develop “fact sheet” on new system to send to each training center within DOI for posting and distribution at training classes - OCADR will tailor briefings to the audience Next Meeting
  • Draft DM approval
  • Evaluation
  • Conceptual Model feedback results/tweaking/finalizing
  • Naming/slogan development
  • Implementation/Roll-out strategy
  • Group product outline (i.e., report to Elena, DM, policy, etc) – what do we transmit?

Next Meeting is October 7-9, 2002 at 4040 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA., in
Room 132A. Meetings times will be as follows:

• October 7th & 8th : 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m
• October 9th: 8:00 am - 1:00pm

Buddies (Please let you buddy know what happened at the meeting)

  • Joy - Pat
  • John - Laura
  • Dulcy - Laura
  • Linda - Carolyn
  • Jesse - Wayne
  • Richard - Wayne
  • Anne - Carolyn

Parking Lot

  • Buddy System
  • Full time vs. Collateral
  • “Spoke on the wheel”
  • Revisit issue of non-negotiables with management participation
  • Should the titles “WADR Specialist” and “WADR Program Manager” remain?
  • Who’s writing the handbook?


  • Location and space
  • Cakes (including celebration cake)
  • Mike Trujillo’s and Elena’s presence
  • Not digressing
  • Level of participation


  • Some team members not here (absent)
  • Better breaks
  • Chocolate cake

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.