SCENARIO: Negotiations between the Metropolitan Association of Police Officers (MAPO) and the Administration of Mayor Holmes of Metropolis are soon to begin. Discontent among MAPO is demanding an increase in the police budget, which is essential for the police to provide adequate police protection in the community. Rising crime statistics have placed Metropolis as the 10th most dangerous city in the nation. The leader of the Metropolis Association of Police Officers (MAPO) has threatened "some kind of protest activity" by the policemen if the budget is not increased substantially. Proposition 6, which will limit municipal budget increases for any department to a maximum of 6% over the previous year's allocation, is on the ballot for elections taking place in two months. However, the mayoral budget can be enacted before that time. The Mayor (who is seeking another term) is anxious to have the whole affair behind him, and has arranged a meeting between his representatives and MAPO. In addition to overall budget increases, specific issues likely to be addressed include: starting salaries, maximum salaries, vacation days, sick leave, holidays, life insurance, pension benefits, health insurance, weapons upgrading, and drug testing proposal.

MECHANICS: This negotiation is intended to be a team effort, though the size of the teams may vary from two to four persons. Extensive budget and salary information on other cities requires thorough preparation and analysis before teams can plan effectively for the negotiation.

Outside research can also be useful.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• For all parties:
  • General Information

• Role specific:
  Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Administration Representatives
  • MAPO Representatives

• Teacher's package (36 pages total):
  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES: Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Commitments; Communication, public vs. private; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Force; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Linkage; Meaning of "success"; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Quantitative analysis; Systems of negotiation; Threats

MAJOR LESSONS:

This simulation provides an ideal setting for concentrating on objective criteria. Standards can be derived from careful analysis of the data provided and other data collected through outside research. The general information for this case contains five appendices with comparative statistical data.

The complexity of the case provides enormous room for crafting more or less Pareto-efficient solutions. The power of creative options is highlighted.

The potential tension between preserving a good working relationship and pressing hard for what might be seen as substantive concessions is a central concern in the case (on both sides), and a good subject for discussion. This tension is exacerbated by the temptation on both sides to try to use the media to enhance that side's bargaining power by courting public opinion.

As in any collective, representative negotiation, the questions of how much authority the negotiators have, whether they can really speak for their constituents, and how the chances of a revolution at home can be minimized, are ever-present and important.

The number of parties raises the range of issues about both intra- and inter- party multilateral negotiation. What is a good meeting design? How do you prepare? How do you organize the teams?