|
Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact
chouse@law.harvard.edu
or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (outside the U.S.) SCENARIO:
Imports Inc, a large multi-national corporation, has recently purchased Smith’s Rollers plant. The new owners want to expand the plant and are considering a site in Milltown on the Humboldt River. Milltown is located in Arcadia -- a fictitious western European country. In manufacturing the rollers, the chemical by-product ‘Laminia’ is generated. Although community leaders are enthusiastic about the project and the potential creation of new jobs and economic expansion, there is much concern regarding the long-term effects of the chemical releases. The elected regional Governors of Humboldt have invited seven parties, together with a mediator, to participate in an informal discussion that will cover both environmental and economic issues. There will be two preliminary meetings prior to the main meeting. The first preliminary meeting will include leaders from the Dairy Cooperative, Environmental Action League, and Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency. The second preliminary meeting will involve the Mayor of Milltown, the Director of Economic Development in Humboldt, and the Coordinator of the Business Association will meet to review their mutual concerns. When these six parties come together, the Lawyer from Imports, Inc., in addition to a professional mediator will also be present.
MAJOR LESSONS:
The preliminary meetings create a bi-level negotiating process. Participants have an opportunity to compare the differences and similarities of their particular dispute resolution styles when negotiating with parties having some similar ideas and then with parties articulating seemingly opposing interests. In addition, analysis can be made of how agreements may be reached in the face of differing interests and views.
Although three main issues are discussed at the meetings, each player has additional concerns as well. This underscores the possibilities of creative settlements, as well as aids players in deciding what coalitions will be most useful.
The use of linkage should be explored both in terms of threats and in terms of incentives or promises.
The blending of economic and environmental issues provides an opportunity to discuss the costs and benefits of tradeoffs, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's concerns.
During debriefing, discussion regarding the mediator's method of handling the dispute should be highlighted. At this point confidential information provided to the mediator by the Governors should be revealed. Analysis of this information and how the neutral party used it to either attempt agreement or decide that a consensus was unreachable provides an opportunity to focus on the role of a mediator in a public policy dispute.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
This exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.
Estimated Time Requirement:
30 minutes – read instructions
45 minutes – private meetings for each of the 2 coalitions
15 minutes – mediator can use this time to meet with coalitions if she or he has not been present in the private meetings
60-120 minutes – coalitions negotiate
60 minutes – debrief
Total: 2.5-3.5 hours
Needed for the excercise:
2 small rooms with seats for 4
1 large room with seats for 8
Flip charts, markers and writing material for all parties and in particular the mediator
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all Parties:
General Background and Instructions
Milltown Journal Editorial
Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for
Coordinator of the Humboldt Business Association Representative of the Arcadia Environmental Quality Agency Director of Economic Development
Lawyer for Imports, Inc.
Head of the Environmental Action League
Head of the Dairy Cooperative
Mayor of Milltown
Mediator
Teacher's package:
All of the above
Notes on background readings, logistics, debriefing, summary of major lessons and potential exam questions
KEYWORDS/THEMES: Environmental dispute resolution; mediation; mediating science-intensive policy disputes; contingent agreement; multi-party negotiating; consensus building; brainstorming; packaging; Agenda control; Authority; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions, blocking; Commitment; Communication, public v. private; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Creating and Claiming value; Credibility; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Distributional disputes; Joint gain; Group process; Information exchange; Interest, dovetailing; Lawyering; Legitimacy; Linkage; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic v. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Partisan perceptions; Personality; Precedents; Public opinion; Reality testing; Relationship; Reservation price; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem; Systems of negotiation; Threats; Trading, issues; Undisclosed principles; Yesable propositions
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS
Chemco Inc; The Carson Extension (mediated version)
|
