Desmond M. Connor
The Bridges of Winnipeg:
Combining Conflict Resolution and Public Participation for Challenging Cases
Desmond M. Connor and Suzanne Goulet Orenstein
Prologue
Some two years ago the authors met in New Orleans where we gave separate pre-conference workshops for the National Association of Environmental Professionals. In an ensuing discussion, we agreed that, for large and complex situations, neither conflict resolution nor public participation are sufficient. The two strategies need to be combined. We agreed to write a joint article on this topic.
Six drafts later, we had developed a discussion of the two fields, a l2 step model integrating both and a case study - 6,000 words in all. The editor of Consensus, published by the Program on Negotiation of the Harvard Law School, expressed interest, but in 1500 words. Following major surgery, we submitted a brief discussion, the model and a summary case study.
Public Participation
1a Prepare a social profile of the community or region, including identification of key leaders and groups.
3. Prepare and publish a responsive publication about the proposal and the process for the public.
4. Organize one or more open houses, workshops, or forums, as needed to enable to face-to-face discussions of key issues with interested members of the general public and produce a synthesis for interest group leaders.
6. Prepare and distribute a second publication for the general public outlining alternatives, inviting more, indicating proposed selection criteria and inviting revisions and weights on them.
7. Organize open houses or other forums as needed re above to respond to public concerns and solicit public views for interest group leaders to consider.
9. Publish alternatives acceptable to interest group leaders meeting, together with recommended criteria and weights. Solicit rankings and other feedback from public on alternatives.
10. Organize open houses or other forums as needed re above; discover ranking of alternatives by interested public responding to publication and open houses. Convey results to interest group leaders.
11. Conduct a telephone survey to ascertain the views of a cross-section of the general population. Convey the results to interest group leaders.
|
Conflict Resolution
1b. Conduct conflict analysis as part of the social profile to determine if barriers to agreement are surmountable. If they are not, consider public consultation only.
2. Convene a preliminary meeting of interest group leaders to agree on process, develop rapport and commitment to leadership committee; identify issues and options that need consideration. Meetings of interest group leaders can be open or closed to the public, though open meetings will result in better integration and partnership.
5. Ask identified interest group leaders to participate in a detailed review of the proposal and public responses to it, and generate alternative solutions for the issues noted. This group may form subcommittees to tackle specific tasks, like technical review, option development, etc.
8. Convene a third meeting of interest group leaders to review alternatives, and to establish evaluation criteria and weights, and revise as needed.
12. Convene one or more meetings as needed to integrate the views of interest group leaders, the interested public and the general public with a view to reaching consensus at the table. Convey the results to (a) the elected decision-makers, and (b) the various publics involved in the process. Establish timetable and mechanism for revisiting issues should final product not receive implementation. |
13. Evaluate this integrated model by interviewing a sample of participants.
Epilogue
The published article (see below) left me somewhat stunned. The editor had cut and pasted with great verve to create a much more readable piece, but would anyone recognize the model? He took a whimsical anecdote told over the phone and made it the subhead. In turn, the case study subhead became the main caption. Would readers see how they might adapt the model to their circumstances? I rather doubt it!
In any case, here is the complete model which I trust some readers will be able to adapt and apply. D.M.C.
The Bridges of Winnipeg: a Case Study
Or, how to transport two cats, two rabbits, and two cabbages across a river
Desmond M. Connor and Suzanne Goulet Orenstein
Early in 1992, a proposal by the City of Winnipeg to replace two aging bridges on downtown Main Street over the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers, an $85 million project, led to considerable public opposition. The present five-lane bridge had three overloaded northbound lanes during the morning rush hour; switched traffic lights provided three southbound lanes for the late afternoon commute.
The city needed to choose the best way to defuse this controversy and answer peoples' questions about the proposal. When Connor Development Services, a firm of consulting sociologists was retained, the firm quickly realized that neither conflict resolution nor public participation strategies alone would be sufficient to resolve this contentious public issue.
We reached that conclusion after preparing a social profile of the city in March of that year. It revealed that there were three kinds of publics for this proposal:
- people living between and around the bridges, who were largely low-income, ethnic, single parents and renters;
- nearby homeowners and business people, who were mostly middle class, organized and concerned about increased commuter traffic and reduced house values; and
- commuters for whom this major bottleneck was a continuing problem and any other citizen-taxpayers with an interest in this proposed project.
The reason that neither conflict resolution nor public participation would suffice was that either alone presented unacceptable drawbacks for one citizen group or another. The problem was like the one in the old puzzle about the canoeist who wanted to transport two cats, two rabbits and two cabbages across a river, but could only move two at a time. A wrong decision and the cats would eat the rabbits or the rabbits would eat the cabbages!
In Winnipeg, the well-organized ratepayer and business groups could meet their needs with regard to the issue of whether the capacity of the new bridges should be six lanes or eight, but only at the expense of the bridges' neighbours and the general travelling public.
In terms of the strategies, our analysis indicated that while a public participation program would be appropriate for the general public (constituent group #3 above), it would not provide sufficiently specific and direct opportunities to learn more about the proposal and to contribute to the decisions for the bridges' neighbours (group #1) and the nearby homeowners and business people (group #2).
Dual plan takes shape
Initially a series of planning workshops was proposed for these last two groups but the city, which has a long-standing network of Residential Advisory Groups (representing various neighbourhood groups and city interests, to advise the city council about civic issues), mandated a standing Project Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC would represent each of the three constituent groups we had defined. The Residential Advisory Groups also mandated public participation procedures. So, we utilized public participation along with conflict resolution tactics in a multi-step program.
Bear in mind some characteristics of each strategy:
- Public participation seeks to inform and involve the general public, the usually silent majority, as well as the leaders of relevant interest groups to resolve community issues.
- Conflict resolution begins by identifying the appropriate parties for an agreement and is followed by a series of meetings with an initial focus on building acceptance, understanding and trust amongst the parties. Mediators and facilitators of these processes need considerable shuttle-diplomacy skills and must develop very trusting relationships with the parties. They must take care that the parties' interests are reflected in the recommended solutions.
One weakness of conflict resolution, however, is that it can be time-consuming and costly. It also requires that representatives communicate effectively and often with their members so that commitments made by the former will be supported and implemented by the latter. In some cases, significant publics do not have organizations to represent them.
Public participation also has weaknesses. It is a high-profile and sometimes even higher-cost strategy than a series of consensus-building meetings with group leaders. Creative, win-win solutions are less likely to occur in large-scale operations with the general public. Small but potent interest groups may end-run public participation programs to use political muscle to influence decision-makers.
So, if a situation presents a large number of issues, or a number of affected interests have no organizations to represent them, then an integrated process of public participation and conflict resolution should be considered. That's what we did.
Here's how our first five steps, for example, were a mix of the two strategies. Each is identified as either a public participation (PP) or conflict resolution (CR) strategy.
1. Social profile (PP):
That social profile we prepared in March 1992 provided the social data on which to plan and manage the public participation program and identify the dozen groups relevant for the PAC. The 650,000 residents of Greater Winnipeg include a sizable French-speaking community with its own newspaper and many European, Asian and First Nations groups.
Why this sort of strategy:
This was to help create a comprehensive understanding of the community right at the outset. This would help us achieve public involvement by helping to assure participation by and balance among all the affected public groups.
2. Inaugural PAC meeting (CR):
This meeting of the PAC, with representatives of the city Streets and Transportation Department and the engineering firm retained to design the new bridges, was convened in April 1992. A trained facilitator was provided for PAC meetings and ongoing liaison.
Why:
It was essential to have this group meet as soon as possible, since there was considerable hostility between some of the invited groups and the city Streets and Transportation Dept. concerning this and two previous bridge projects. Developing mutual trust amongst the various community groups, the Department and the technical consultants took time, but was an essential forerunner to the groups' developing a sense of ownership in the project.
3. First responsive publications (PP):
Information about the need to replace the bridges and four options (six or eight lanes; divided or undivided) to resolve the problem was published in the three city newspapers in advertisements with a reply coupon. A bilingual brochure with the same information and a reply-paid envelope to return the coupon were mailed to 8,000 residents living near the bridges.
Why:
Having initiated the PAC, it was essential to inform and involve the general public so that their views could contribute to a balanced flow of informed input to project decisions.
4. Initial open houses (PP):
Three open houses were held near the bridges a week after the publications were distributed. Some 300 people attended. Their input and responses from the publications indicated a majority preference for an 8-lane divided facility. Since the number of written responses seemed low as a basis for a major bridge decision, a telephone sample survey of more residents was taken, which also showed majority support for an eight-lane divided facility.
Why:
Whenever a publication is issued, 5-to-10 percent of the readers have questions, concerns or suggestions they want to discuss with project staff. Open houses a week after publication provides time for thought and enables residents to drop by a convenient location at a comfortable time. This informal face-to-face gathering generates more light than heat, certainly more so that a traditional, conflict-resolution approach public meeting. While free to enter, visitors have to "pay" to get out by completing an exit checklist at the door.
5. PAC review of public response (CR):
The public preferences were reviewed by the PAC at several meetings. The PAC was divided. While a majority endorsed the eight-lane option, some continued to support a six-lane facility. The PAC continued to work with the project engineers, environmental consultants, and others. One engineering design called for doubling the traffic on each side of the neighbourhood's century-old elementary school. A PAC member wondered why the additional traffic could not be routed beside one of the rivers, away from the school, but was told that technically this simply wouldn't work. Still, the public participation coordinator urged the engineering consultant to model this option. In fact, the option did work and traffic beside the school was halved.
Why:
This illustrated the benefits of public give-and-take. The confluence of views from PAC members and the general public led some of the former to reconsider their positions. People who were committed to six-lane bridges, for example, accepted eight lanes as long as two lanes could be used by buses and bicycles.
Subsequent steps were a mix of public participation and conflict resolution strategies. Eventually, decisions were developed and recommended by the PAC, endorsed by the general public, and accepted by the city council. Plans were revised several times throughout the process to address concerns raised by both the PAC and the general public. Construction is now underway.
Barring narrow self-interest
In retrospect, it is clear that the PAC process of developing recommendations required considerable persuasion and negotiation activities, in addition to the education function of the open houses and publications for the general public. Keeping the PAC membership stable and engaged, and dealing with the relationship between the PAC and the city Streets and Transportation Department and the three technical consulting groups required mediation expertise. The traditional culture of the Department hampered creativity and responsiveness in both the public participation and conflict resolution processes.
All in all, in this progressive process of two different types of public consultation, the representative PAC helped the various consultants to create generally acceptable engineering, architectural, and landscaping solutions to technical issues, but was prevented from acting on the basis of narrow self-interest by the input of the general public throughout the public participation process.
Acknowledgements
Desmond M. Connor is a consulting sociologist with 25 years experience in public participation, mostly in Canada. Suzanne G. Orenstein is an environmental mediator. They share a professional interest in combining conflict-resolution and public participation strategies. Connor is the president of Connor Development Services, Ltd. in Victoria, BC He can be contacted at 250-658-1323. Orenstein is vice president of RESOLVE, Inc., Center for Environmental Dispute Resolution in Washington, DC. She can be reached at 202-965-6201.
Reprinted with permission from Consensus, October 1995.
Update
Since this case study was completed, the construction works are being implemented as planned. The PAC meetings have become quarterly. A bilingual "Construction News" newsletter was begun in February 1994 and is mailed about every two months to some 13,000 households near the site. It reports on progress, advises of temporary road closures and includes a "hotline number" to register problems or seek information. My former colleague, Ms. Susan Freig, facilitates the PAC meetings, edits the newsletter and is available to deal with any issues which arise; I am no longer involved with this project.
Desmond M. Connor
January 1997
 |
DESMOND M. CONNOR
"Improving the Practice of Public Consultation"
407-5332 Sayward Hill Crescent, Victoria, BC, V8Y 2H8
Voice: 250-658-1323 Fax: 250-658-8110
connor@connor.bc.ca www.connor.bc.ca |
|