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.

October 2002 Meeting Summary

National Park Service
1201 Eye Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005
October 7-9, 2002

October 7, 2002
Start- 8:30 am

Pete Swanson
Carolyn Burrell
Christine Louton
Laura Hankins
Linda Behlin
Jim Poole
Joy Harris
JoAnn Ransford
Pat Butler
Wayne Jordan
Stephanie Smith
Mary Denery
Ann Wittman
Dick Andrews
Dulcy Setchfield
Michael Muchmore
Elena Gonzalez (came in later)

Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Carolyn M. Burrell, Team Leader
Pete Swanson, Facilitator

Carolyn Burrell indicated that the meeting was supposed to be held in Arlington, but the meeting location had to change due to a car crashing into the meeting room at the Webb Building.

Pete Swanson provided an overview of this, the last scheduled meeting of the Workplace ADR Design Team, after 8 months of work.

A team member inquired about next steps and it was explained that Carolyn would address the next steps later.

Up-date from OCADR
Carolyn M. Burrell

Since the July meeting, the CADR office hired an administrative assistant, Michael Muchmore. There has been a lot of activity since the July meeting. Interior Dispute Resolution Council (IDRC) was briefed for a full day on the Conceptual Model on August 29th. Received a lot of good constructive feedback on the model. IDRC members complimented the Design Team members on the fine work done since February. Steph Smith, Dulcy Setchfield and Joy Harris attended the meeting. Pete facilitated the meeting.

Concerns Raised During Briefing To IDRC
Workplace ADR Program Manager (because of differences in structure in various bureaus) Took off and put on ADR Specialist
Development of Conceptual Model Pushback on Model (because of questions about how it will be implemented in the Bureaus)
Individuals identified as key players Work during implementation phase to identify how the program will work effectively in each Bureau
Positions needed to accomplish work Identify in order to make effective in each Bureau

After their briefing on the Conceptual Model, the Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialists (BDRS’) were comfortable with information provided and agreed - by consensus - not to attend this final meeting of the Design Team. Carolyn will provide them with copies of the meeting notes.

The question was asked by a team member about how the Department sees this position in each Bureau, i.e., is it envisioned to be full-time for workplace? Carolyn indicated that we (CADR) could recommend that; however, that might not work in each Bureau without the allocation of additional funding and FTE’s.

Once the recommendations from the team are approved, CADR may request the identification of at least one person from each Bureau to come in and meet for one week to discuss and resolve implementation issues, e.g., development of the operational handbook for the new system.

Although, as mentioned earlier, the BDRS’ had agreed not to attend, Zell Steever, BDRS for the Bureau of Reclamation, came in late to the team meeting and participated in a portion of the meeting.

One team member did ask about the number of full-time BDRS’. There are currently three Bureaus that have a full-time BDRS - Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

Concerns raised by team members captured on the replication (below) of one of the flip chart pages.

Issue CADR Program Manager: (parallel position in Bureaus?)

  • Concern: Department-wide system – all Bureaus are to make it (the program)
    • work – skepticism if thought is, “Let’s fold that in somewhere else”

It was suggested that the recommendation be made by CADR that a focal point for workplace be designated in each Bureau.

Remarks by Elena Gonzalez
Director, Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution

Elena welcomed everyone and indicated that she wanted to take this opportunity to thank all the team members for their hard work and commitment to this project. Her office made a commitment to this project; then handed it over to the team. The team has risen to the challenge. This wasn’t an easy tasking. The team has bonded together and has performed in an admirable fashion. The work by Carolyn Burrell and Pete Swanson is truly fantastic. There is more to come and she hopes that the team will continue to support the work. She invited the team members to share any concerns or feedback at the end of this session by calling or by corresponding through e-mail with the CADR office.

Update from OCADR (continued)
Carolyn M. Burrell

Carolyn indicated that this was the last meeting of the Design Team and that they would be asking for suggestions of names of employees to participate on the teams established during the implementation phase (phase 2).

At the last meeting (in July), several team members expressed an interest in being provided information on what was going on in other areas with respect to ADR and what the IDRC was doing. Since the July meeting, you have been provided with informational communications via electronic mail on issues of note. Gail Bingham, from the U.S. Institute on Environmental Conflict Resolution, presented a workshop at the U.S. Geological Institute on the work of the Institute. Zell Steever has the lead in coordinating workshops (brown bag sessions) that will be held monthly on topics of interest in the ADR community. These brown bag sessions will be jointly sponsored by the Department of the Interior (IDRC) and the D.C. Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR). The first one will be held next week at the Main Interior Building at lunchtime.

Other Federal agencies are very interested in what we (DOI) have been doing with workplace ADR and we are getting recognized. We will be a model for other federal sector workplace programs. Carolyn indicated that she and Pete would be doing a session on the Design of our system for the Workplace Section of the Inter Agency ADR Work Group on Friday.

Carolyn and Elena attended a portion of the USGS’ ADR Advisors’ meeting in Reston. They opened the meeting by discussing the CADR office, it’s work and the formulation of and work of the Workplace Design Team. During the meeting, Scientists provided presentations on what they are doing - in the scientific community - with ADR.

Last Eight Months in Perspective
Carolyn M. Burrell

Carolyn provided an overview of what the team has accomplished over the last eight months beginning with the first team meeting in February 2002. Some of the highlights are as follows:

  • First team meeting - February 2002
    • Some trepidation on the parts of some team members and distrust. Challenge was building trust and getting team focused and on track.
      • Team Building Exercise
      • Team Chartered
      • Agreement reached on how to make decisions (by consensus)
      • Established ground rules and standard operating procedures for meetings
      • Began to build a communication strategy (no e-mail communication at that time)
      • Agreed to develop one page meeting summaries at the conclusion of each meeting that could be shared with constituencies
      • Formed two Sub Groups - Conceptual Model and Communications
      • Workshop or designing conflict management systems by Carol Houk
  • Second team meeting - April 2002
    • Discussed the state of ADR in each Bureau/Office represented on the team
    • Began to explore what was going on with CORE and EEO-PLUS and the important elements in each program
    • Began discussing communication strategy and identifying tools for communicating
      • Identified/discussed resistance points and how to overcome them
      • John Zinsser, Ombudsman at the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, spoke to the team. He was the recipient of the Office of Personnel Management's Best ADR Program Award last year
      • Workshop on Private Sector ADR Programs conducted by David Lipsky, et. al., from Cornell University
      • First look at a Conceptual Model. Agreed more work was needed
      • Established more Sub Groups to explore:
        • Use of Internals vs. Externals
        • Voluntary vs. Mandatory Participation
        • Training/Credentialing of Neutrals
        • Multiple Entry Points
        • Resources Devoted (i.e., full-time vs. part-time)
      • Telephone call in from Mike Trujillo
  • Third team meeting - May 2002
    • Had John Mahoney provide an overview of the President’s Management Agenda and how ADR ties in with it
    • Elena Gonzalez summarized the parallels between the team’s work and the President’s Management Agenda as:
      • increasing efficiency
      • an example of using the Secretary's 4 C's
      • a notion of "one Department" as opposed to separate bureaus, as not being unique to what the Design team is doing
    • Conceptual Model began to take more shape
    • Identification of need to streamline administrative procedures
    • Identified and began defining ADR techniques/processes that would be offered
    • Discussed culture and culture change
  • Fourth team meeting - July 2002
    • More definition of the proposed final product, i.e., conceptual model
    • Began discussing plans for transition into the implementation stage
    • Agreed that common briefing points would be developed and distributed to team members for briefings that were to take place before the last meeting of the team
      • Roadmap of Conceptual Model ("Yellow Brick Road") was developed which later became the flow chart "Road to Resolution"
      • Initial draft of new Departmental Manual Chapter reviewed and discussed
      • Began to discuss evaluation tools for system
      • Discussion about the blending of CORE/EEO-PLUS resources
      • Discussion about roll-out strategy and next steps, including time line for implementation
      • Reached consensus on Departmental roll-out with geographic partnerships among Bureaus for the provision of services, training and technical assistance
      • Established Sub Group to look at qualification standards for internal and external neutrals.

Next steps after this meeting will involve finishing the meetings/briefings with the Bureau Deputy Directors; meeting, individually, with the members of the Executive Committee; presentation to the Management Initiatives Team (MIT) for approval of new workplace ADR system. Two more Bureaus need to be briefed, i.e., NPS and FWS. [Since the meeting, those Bureaus have been briefed.]

It is hoped that this will be on either the November or December MIT agenda. Thereafter, announcement of new system in January 2003, via memorandum from the Secretary or Assistant Secretary, PMB, and formation of implementation team in January. Roll-out in April, 2003.

Mandatory ADR training was included in the Human Capital Management Plan that was just completed. Training will be a 30-45 minute overview of ADR.

Review of July Meeting
Pete Swanson

Pete provided highlights of the July meeting. Charted the conceptual model (“Yellow Brick Road”). Discussed roles and responsibilities. Team reviewed the draft of the new Departmental Manual. Revisions were submitted after the meeting. (Carolyn will provide a status of the Manual later.) A fun exercise on the name of the new system and logo was engaged in by the team.

There was discussion about the briefings that would take place between the July and October meetings for the purpose of obtaining critical feedback on the model that could be used to “tweak” it, if necessary, at this meeting. It was agreed that the CADR office would prepare the briefing materials and provide them to the team members (which was done).

Discussed various options for transition to implementation. Reached consensus on Department roll-out with respect to geographic partnering for purposes of delivery of services, training and technical assistance.

Established a Sub Group to look at the qualifications of neutrals and formulate recommendations. We will hear the recommendations from that group today.

Evaluation Sub Group Report Out:
Mary Denery

(Mary was scheduled to present this at the July meeting, but was unable to do so.)
Mary indicated that prior to this meeting, Carolyn sent out a summary of her briefing and a sample evaluation survey. Carolyn advised the team members that the CADR office planned to initiate a contract with a consultant to assist in addressing the evaluation component for the ADR process during the implementation phase. One of the responsibilities of the contractor will be to develop the tools for the tracking and evaluation system. Therefore, she (Carolyn) inquired as to whether the team members were willing to merely try and reach consensus on whether they would provide the recommendations from the Evaluations Sub Group to the Implementation Team for review and consideration, rather than discuss options for evaluations tools.

Mary’s assignment with the Evaluation Sub-group was to look at measuring the performance of ADR Service Providers rather than a program evaluation of the ADR system. At the time that the task was worked on (prior to the July meeting), the team had not made a distinction between ADR Specialists (who will manage the ADR program) and Third Party Neutrals (who will conduct the ADR process, such as mediators). She developed a sample survey form, which was based on her review of various forms used by ADR programs within Interior and from some outside agencies. She indicated that if Interior decided to use a survey, consideration should be given to having all participants in the ADR session complete the survey at the conclusion of the ADR session. The respondents would be the “people on the wheel.” This should include people who may not be “at the table”, but had a role in getting the participants to the ADR session. Other points for consideration were to have other measurement methods - such as feedback six months later, review of the agreement’s durability, hotline process, observation from someone at another level, and peer or self review. The group discussed that the purpose of evaluation was to measure an individual’s performance, evaluate the Bureau’s programs, and evaluate the process as a whole. Pete Swanson identified three system components for evaluation: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Customer Satisfaction. After a brief discussion, the team members felt that these were implementation issues and that the summary and sample survey should be passed on to the Implementation/Evaluation sub-group that will be working with the contractor.

Carolyn indicated that the CADR office does plan to create a team to work with a consultant on the evaluation and assessment tools for the new system.

Time Line for Implementation
In Oct
Evaluation (effectiveness – efficiency & customer satisfaction)

MIT-Nov/Dec for approval
Implementation Team-Jan/Feb
Implementation New System
Transition - Up & Running by Spring

- Get implementation
- Start ASAP
Template -------- Package to Secretary & Bureaus
Recommendations & Requests to Bureaus to provide feedback on how they will carry it out

Recommendations on Evaluation
1. Get Evaluation Group started ASAP
2. Evaluation Group produce a report containing recommendations that system go to the Bureaus

Neutral Standards Sub Group (Report-out)
Steph Smith

Sub Group members Steph Smith, Pete Swanson and Carolyn Burrell. Brainstormed ideas for certification and training for persons for all key roles in process.

Presentation is based on a tiered approach.

  • Certain people have basic ADR Workplace functions
  • Basic KSA’s identified
  • Higher KSA’s are evidenced by 3rd Party Neutrals


  • Clarify ADR Specialists Roles and Responsibilities
  • Establish basic Requirements
  • Determine Certification and Training Requirements

1st Tier Intake Functions/Duties for:

  1. Intake
  2. Referra
  3. Information Services
  4. Championing System
  5. Education/Training
  6. Processing Design/Coaching

Steph Smith/Process Design: Taking person through the system; initial fact-finding refer to Third Party Neutral. Referral to third party pertains to a person performing an ADR service such as mediation. Sub Group members identified the functions, skills needed to perform the functions (KSA’s) and suggested areas of training.


  • Conflict Assessment & Analysis
  • ADR Process & Procedures
  • Process Coaching
  • Basic Familiarity with formal redress processes

INTAKE –› Skills

  • Conflict Management Skills
  • Listening; Questioning; Consensus-Building; Brainstorming; Feedback; Interest-based comments; Deal with different people & conversations
  • Process Facilitation
  • Consulting
  • Analysis
  • FACILITATION:- To deal with people
  • PROCESS FUNTION:- Channel process through the people


  • Good Judgment
  • Appropriateness of Actions/Behaviors
  • Process Advocacy
  • Informal Fact-finding

3rd Party Neutrals (need all to be certified):

  • 32 hours basic Mediation Training
  • 24 hours advanced Mediation Training
  • 3 evaluated co-Mediations to come in to program
  • Continuing education; 24 hours refresher training (annually), including:
    • 8 hours practicum; 8 hours in-class
    • Bi-annual Department ADR conference
    • 16 hours in off-years provided by Bureaus

ADR Specialist

  • Full range of intake & process services
  • Support to ADR system
    • Program design/implementation experience
    • Prefer change management/leadership
    • Demonstrate leadership
    • Marketing ability

ADR POC’s (Green on Flow-Chart)

  • Information on system (why and roles)
  • Knowledge of ADR process
  • POC’s in Bureaus (ADR, CADR, Geographical)
  • Marketing
  • Advocacy

    Employees & Supervisors
  • All: Overview of workplace system
    • EMPLOYEE: 1 day conflict management training
    • SUPERVISOR: 1 day ADR

Recommending 3 days of Conflict Resolution Training for persons doing Intake. (24 hours of what the CORE Specialists were getting)

POC’s are points of contact. Persons can go directly to POC’s to get into the process. The POC is another door into the system.

Establishing certification requirements will ensure that everyone involved in providing services under the new system will possess adequate qualifications and provide quality services.

Some team members are still grappling with the question about internal third party neutrals also doing intake and feel strongly that they should be allowed to do so.

There was a lot of discussion about the feasibility of the training being proposed, e.g.,

  • Was it too ambitious, meaning too many hours required (40 hours of Conflict Resolution)?
  • What specifically needs to be taken?
  • Does anything need to be changed in terms of what was offered under CORE versus what will be proposed now?

Recommendations and highlights of discussion will be provided to the Implementation team.

Draft Departmental Manual Discussion
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Carolyn indicated that there were several areas that were not addressed in the draft Departmental Manual, e.g.:

  • Process/Techniques Being Offered
  • Sources of 3rd Party Neutrals
  • Delivery of services
  • Training Requisites

The draft will have to go through the clearance process and will most probably end up looking very different from how it now looks. The question Carolyn had for the team members was whether or not they were comfortable with giving the draft to the CADR office and having it further revised and sent through the channels for clearance. Some items will go into the handbook. Handbook will be done as part of the implementation phase.

Team agreed that it was okay to let CADR handle the DM through the Implementation phase.

Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. so that persons who needed to catch the shuttle back to the Main Interior Building could do so.

Tuesday, October 8, 2002
Room 63
Start- 8:30 am

Welcome and Check In
Pete Swanson

Pete reviewed the agenda for the day:

  • Conceptual Model feedback from the group and others (feedback received).
  • ADR Resources/Information that the Team Members have submitted.
  • Name & Slogan development for the system.

Conceptual Model Feedback
Carolyn Burrell

Carolyn distributed the summary of comments, suggestions and feedback from the briefings with Bureau Deputies to date. Primary purpose for briefings was two-fold: 1) to obtain crucial feedback on the model; and 2) so the Deputies would be aware of the new system when it is presented to the Management Initiatives Team (MIT) for approval. The Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialist in each Bureau was invited - as a courtesy - to sit in on each briefing. Some did and others opted not to.

One team member wanted to know why the corresponding member of the Workplace ADR Design Team was not included in the briefings. Carolyn responded that the team members did not express an interest in being a part of those briefings when they were informed during the July meeting and in a follow-up e-mail communication that these briefings would be taking place. Also, the BDRS’ were invited because they are responsible for all ADR in their Bureaus. Each BDRS has been provided information on the briefing with his or her Deputy if he/she was not in attendance. Workplace Design Team members have been encouraged - from the very beginning - to communicate on a regular basis with their respective BDRS’.

Initial briefings have been done in all Bureaus except the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Those have been scheduled and will take place later this month. Persons briefed have been as follows:

  • Bureau of Reclamation
    • Jim Weeks and Zell Steever (BDRS)
  • U.S. Geological Survey
    • Amy Holley and Virginia Miles (BDRS)
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs
    • Jerry Gidner (there will be an additional briefing scheduled for others later this month)
  • Office of Surface Mining
    • Glenda Owens
  • Bureau of Land Management
    • Francis Cherry, Marilyn Johnson and Paul Politzer (BDRS)
  • Minerals Management Service
    • Walter Cruickshank, Bob Brown and Eric Hager (BDRS)

Scheduled for later in the month are:

  • National Park Service
    • Randy Jones
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    • Marshall Jones and Denise Sheehan

The briefings for the managers were much more concise than the briefing materials that you were provided with. Each was scheduled for one hour and generally took about 50 minutes.

Feedback Summary:

  • Generally, everyone was pleased with what they were provided with (Road to Resolution and talking points on which consensus was reached)
  • Generally, everyone thinks the Conceptual Model is a good one
  • Liked that standards have been set - received endorsements from each Bureau.

Question received:

  • Contract employees covered by new system? Answer: This wasn’t covered by our group and the Team needs to cover today.
  • Does this replace EEO process – counseling function? (No)
  • Questions on definitions
  • Confidentiality – informal fact-finding. What happens to notes if matter not resolved? (Notes are covered by confidentiality - but they should be destroyed regardless of
    whether or not matter is resolved)
  • Why are IG and Solicitors Office listed as Access points?
  • Union vs. white-collar union coverage?
  • What will keep employees from getting "2 bites at the apple?" (Nothing really to prevent this. Savvy persons who know process can work the system.)

Another Comment/Suggestion

  • Administrative grievance procedures need to be updated.
  • One Deputy suggested Resolution Plus as the name of the new system.

With outsourcing, the issue of coverage of contract employees will need to be discussed by the team today.

Feedback from Team Members on Bureau briefings
Team Discussion

Briefing materials which included hand-outs and a power point presentation was sent to team members in order that all could speak with one voice and obtain feedback that could be used to “tweak the model” at this meeting if needed.

Carolyn shared the written feedback that was provided in advance of the meeting from one Bureau (USGS) and asked for feedback from other team members.

Overall, not much feedback was provided as few formal briefings were done by team members.

Carolyn mentioned that CADR does have a new logo that has been designed and used on all promotional materials. Each Bureau emblem will be included on marketing materials along with the logo. Lynn Scarlett actually provided input into the design of the logo.

Someone raised a question about executive level support, meaning the championing of our work by the members of the Executive Committee. Carolyn indicated that she would ask Mike Trujillo to address this when he comes on Wednesday.

Question about the roster and how much “say-so” the Bureaus would have about the composition of the roster. Carolyn responded that we asked that information be provided to us from each Bureau on the internal ADR resources in order to begin to develop the roster. Upon implementation, if a person’s name is not on the roster, they will not be able to serve as a third party neutral within the Department of the Interior. Some team members expressed concerns about oversight and guidance by the Department and about the roster.

A question was asked about the purpose of the roster and whether or not all neutrals would be listed on it. Carolyn indicated that the roster will be compiled and maintained by the CADR office. In order for a person to provide third party neutral services within the Department, their name will have to be on that roster. This is one of the of the quality control features of the new system. All Bureaus will have access to the roster.

Team Members expressed concerns about:

  • Restrictions on internal neutrals. Want new neutrals added to roster from within.
  • Half our people (on roster) aren’t elite.
  • Don’t want any folks left behind because of timing.
  • What value can be added to this Bureau program – only see constraint.
  • If the Department picks up the cost of Mediation, then can see that a person must be listed on the Roster.

Do see the value of a DOI-wide listing in order to locate someone you can use.

If there are opportunities to add further to the Roster, there is no problem.

It doesn’t take away from Bureaus to use the Roster – more cost-economical.


Conceptual Model Feedback
DOI Roster for Internal Neutrals
• 1 Roster – Bureaus Certified based on
• DOI-Wide Criteria – To be fleshed out in Implementation
• CADR Maintains Roster
• Grandfathering of those who don’t meet criteria or other function

Thinking after ADR review was that no new people would be added to the roster unless data supported a need to do so.

Discussion continued about the roster by team members.

P ete reminded the team that this conversation had been held a long time ago and it was his understanding that it was resolved. His question was, “Do you choose this as not the route to go?”

Carolyn reminded team that skills information was requested from all team members. For the most part, this information has been received and was provided to you today.

Pete reminded team members that they need to indicate rationale for why they are disagreeing if there is any disagreement.

Team Members, generally agreed that the roster will be useful and will lend support to the system financially. Members just want to ensure that the roster is maintained and kept current.

Pete asked if we needed to reconsider the Model in any way. There was general agreement that issues need to be “flushed out” during implementation.

Pete raised the issue of Contract Employees having access to the system.

Carolyn indicated that the contract employees being referred to are those who are hired by the government and treated - for the most part - like Federal employees. They are supervised, evaluated, etc., by Federal employees, although they are hired from temporary agencies.

Some team members had very serious concerns about including any contract employees in the workplace ADR program. They believed that unless there was a clause in the contract allowing them to access the system, they should be excluded. Some felt that this contradicted what had been agreed to in an earlier meeting, i.e., that contract employees would not have access to this system. Some believed that the solicitor’s office should be consulted for an opinion. Carolyn advised team members that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance several years ago on “contingent workers.” These are employees who are hired from a temporary firm to work for the government, usually in the clerical/administrative support areas, who are supervised by federal employees. In most employment situations they are treated like federal employees. Also, those persons are usually in the work place for an extended period of time. The Commission has indicated, in its guidance, that if a contract employee meets its definition of a “contingent worker” that employee has access to the discrimination complaints process. If the person pursues EEO Counseling, the counselor is supposed to offer them the opportunity to participate in ADR. Therefore, the team needs to seriously consider this issue, again. Also, because there will be more jobs that are out-sourced in the future, this could become a real issue.

After more discussion, one of the team members indicated that they could bring the EEOC guidance back after lunch so that it could be discussed further.

ADR Resources
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Carolyn reminded the team members that everyone had agreed, during the July meeting, to provide her with information on the ADR resources within their respective Bureaus. The information that was to be submitted was on employees internal to their Bureaus who were certified to conduct mediations or other ADR services. Other information that was to be submitted was on the number of employees that are serviced by third party neutrals in the Bureaus and the areas of the country that the employees are in. Once received in the CADR office the information was compiled and it was brought to the meeting and distributed to team members. This information is very important because once the new system is implemented, third party neutrals will not be able to provide ADR services within DOI if they are not on the roster. They will be able to provide services outside of DOI if not on the roster, but not within. The information that has been compiled will be provided to the implementation team for flushing out.

After the lunch break, Kim Brown, who is with Marasco Newton and worked with NPS and BOR in developing a video for marketing purposes, provided some background information on that project and introduced the video - which is approximately 7 minutes long - which the team viewed. It is not yet 508 compliant. NPS will put on their website.

Contract Employees (continued)
Carolyn Burrell

The EEOC’s definition of “contingent worker” was read to the team:

*** “Worker is a covered employee under anti-discrimination statutes if the right to control the means and manner of the work performance rests with the firm [the Government] rather than with the worker.”

Carolyn indicated that it was important to reach a consensus on this. Our team has representation from CORE and EEO. It is important to meet both interests. If we remain we remain silent on this, what happens when we have to provide training - what do we tell the persons we are training?

After more discussion, the team reached consensus that they needed to amend the language under “covered employees” to include contingent workers.

Original language was as follows:

Volunteers, Former Employees and Applicants for employment are not covered.

New language:
*** “Volunteers, former employees and Applicants for employment are not covered; contingent workers may be covered as determined by an EEO official”.

The team reached consensus on the new language. It is important to note that the determination on whether or not a contract employee meets the definition will be made by an EEO official.

Name of New System/Slogan Development
Pete Swanson

Pete reviewed the names that have been suggested for the new WADR System which are as follows:

  • ADR-I (Interior)
  • CORE-PLUS (People Listening, Understanding and Solving)
  • I-WIN (Interior - Workplace Intervention Network)
  • ADR-I (Alternative Dispute Resolution – Interior)
  • Road to Resolution
  • Workplace ADR
  • InterioResolutioNetwork

After some discussion, Pete asked that everyone think about the name overnight and come back the next morning ready to discuss and make a decision about it.

Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

October 9, 2002
Start- 8:30 am
Room 63

Welcome and Check-In
Pete Swanson

Agenda for the day

  • Reach consensus on the name of the system
  • Final Report Outline
  • Visit from Mike Trujillo.

Name of New System/Slogan Development (continued)
Pete Swanson

Other names were suggested and the team reached consensus on the name InterioResolutioNetwork for the new system. It was also decided that a slogan was not needed.

Group Report Outline
Carolyn Burrell
Pete Swanson

Pete lead the discussion on the report outline and the process of compiling the report.

At the July meeting there had been a brief discussion about the report outline. Pete shared with the group Carolyn’s suggested outline for the final report.


The report will go to Elena Gonzalez first for review and approval and then to the Executive Committee. Carolyn will draft the report. Question was asked as to whether or not the team members would have an opportunity to comment on the draft report. The response was “yes”. It was agreed that the draft report would be sent out to team members for comment by October 31, 2002. Comments would be due back to Carolyn by November 7, 2002.

Reflections/8 Months in Retrospect
Group Discussion

Pete discussed the process gone through the last 8 months and asked for feedback – both positive and negative on the entire process.


  • Positive comments - Elena and Carolyn are very dedicated and productive.
  • Team came together “in a pinch”.
  • Would’ve liked to see BDRS’s with us (the Group). [BDRS’s were invited].
  • Missed some persons being present – participating.
  • We are to go out as unified group to respective Bureaus and “sell” them on what we have done.
  • Saves money when we pool resources.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Group should speak with one voice on this product from this point on.

Pete asked if team members feel supported in their work - outside of CADR?

  • No, not at all (from Executive Committee).
  • - Carolyn Burrell didn’t keep open lines of communication. Wanted to be kept informed of all the briefings with the Deputy Directors (several team members agreed with this statement).
  • Not a lot of resources in different agencies.
  • Would have liked to see Carolyn Burrell or Elena Gonzalez attend monthly meetings of EEO and HR officers.

J. Michael Trujillo, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Workforce Diversity

Mike congratulated the team on the great work they’d done! Indicated that the EEOC’s perspective is that ADR is the cornerstone of EEO. There is a push on the part of the Commission to do more in ADR. DOI is focused on and committed. Mentioned Lynn Scarlett memo on the Human Capital Plan. The plan includes goals that support ADR. Suggested everyone look it up and read it. Mike indicated that what the team has been doing supports the Secretary’s 4 C’s. A team member asked where were we going with this? Mike responded that short term - it becomes our program; long term - it gets put into effect overall. ADR is the wave of the future. He’s been meeting with Lynn Scarlett and getting information out on the 4 C’s. In order to minimize conflict, ADR skills are critical. Mike further talked about a possible 4 C’s award that will be given (for examples of success stories). Once this new Workplace ADR system is implemented, CORE and EEO-PLUS programs will no longer exist. We’ll look, during implementation, at ways to close out CORE and EEO-PLUS with no adverse effect on present cases.

When Mike finished his remarks he gave out letters of appreciation that had been signed by Lynn Scarlett and certificates of appreciation to the team members.

Reflections/8 Months in Retrospect (continued)
Group Discussion

The discussion continued on process.

  • Carolyn needed to be more actively involved in the program.
  • Carolyn participated in sub-group meetings.
  • Publicity/promotion awareness throughout the Department of what team was doing.
  • Criticism of team as a whole - Carolyn indicated that none of us carried out our communication commitments in based on agreements about who would communicate
    with various constituencies.



  • Commitment of Elena, Carolyn, Mike and Pete to make positive collaborative experience productive
  • Facilitation & Mediation breakouts as well
  • Lots of work done by group outside of meetings
  • Good job of agreeing and disagreeing amongst ourselves
  • Exposed each other to a lot of resources
  • Carolyn – active involvement as we progressed
  • Carolyn – involvement in sub-groups
  • People served the whole group rather than themselves
  • Paid for FDR conference for one team member


  • Settle on Composition of team earlier
  • CADR did not fund lunches
  • Losing some voices – what happened?
  • Commitment was not there by the whole team the whole time
  • Ground Rule – too tough on attendance, i.e. every meeting
  • How meetings were scheduled – if you were not at the table, you were out of luck
  • Lots of work was somehow lost, i.e. communications group - no follow-through
  • Communication group - what did it mean for us (CADR office)?
  • Helpful if Carolyn had informed us in advance when briefings (for Deputy Directors) were to occur
  • Not particularly supported by Executive Committee - more a wait and see what we produce rather than practice
  • Would be good to have Carolyn or Elena at EEO/HR monthly meetings
  • BDRS communication is one-way - from team to BDRS
  • No Publicity/Promotion - should have reported what this group was doing while it was doing it

Team Member: - Hyper-link to full report (once it is completed and all-inclusive).

Pete asked for comments for implementation on the “Green Box” on the flow chart.

It was suggested that ADR be built into orientation training (introduction to ADR section). Also need to raise awareness of employees about ADR. Need to recognize different levels of training needed for different individuals.


  • We can continue to communicate through People Land and Water
  • ADR introduction included in orientation
  • Deal with Contingent Employees in Handbook
  • Multiple Access Points
  • Extent of training for these people
  • Skill training
  • Culture needs to change – focus at the lowest levels
  • Varying levels vis-a-vie skills versus knowledge

IMPLEMENTATION (Points of Entry)

  • Different training for “Green Box People” will be needed - “one size will not fit all”
  • Focus on Marketing efforts vis-a-vie training there is a difference between the two
  • Capitalize all letters in MOU
  • Needs focus when we say “the Union”

Pete asked for comments for implementation on the Key Players (“Yellow”) from the flow-chart



ADR Guidance / Assistance
- Handbook will be huge component


- Reporting Requirements: What is going on in ADR world outside of case data?
- Addressing the Carolyn counterpart at Bureau level - how Workplace Program Manager function will be instituted in each Bureau

Pete asked for Comments for implementation on Process Availability (“Orange” – Sources of 3rd Party Neutrals)?

  • Training of Third Party Neutrals will be an issue for Implementation.
  • Actual Transition process needs to be looked at by Implementation.
  • Communication will be implementation issue.
  • Geographic Partnering – provide implementation team with data.


  • Processes available – None
  • Sources of 3rd Parties – Training
  • Transition – Where we are now to where we are going to be
  • Much of our work was done, but we did not followup - there is not a need to "build a new wheel" - it is already spelled out


  • Give all work - Communications group to Implementation team
  • Don't lose sight of geographic roll-out idea


  • Consider carefully the roll-out of the Roster

Carolyn asked that persons interested in being a part of the implementation phase to let her know.

Implementation volunteers:

  • Dick Andrews
  • Jim Poole
  • Steph Smith
  • Christine Louton
  • Dulcy Setchfield
  • Mary Denery
  • Joy Harris
  • Laura Hankins (Evaluation)


  • Make the system as informal as possible in its implementation
  • Evaluation and Implementation groups should coordinate carefully
  • Target missing representation on this committee – Union, HR, DCR (EEO)

Carolyn thanked the team for all of their hard work and dedication.

As a last item, the team decided to brainstorm some suggested KSA’s to be considered as the implementation team is formed. Carolyn stated that she and Elena had been discussing desired knowledges and skill requisites, e.g., budget experience, computer capabilities, strategic planning skills.

Team members suggested the following:


KSA’s for Implementation Team

  • Budget Skills
  • Computer Skills
  • Strategic Planning Skills
  • Functional EEO
  • HR’s to Participate
  • Different Levels – Field/Top Levels
  • Managers
  • Public Relations/Affairs
  • Communications
  • Solicitor
  • Organization Development – Change Management
  • People with ADR background

The meeting ended with lunch.

Meeting adjourned at approximately 12:00 noon.