The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/25/1993 Adjourned Meeting 2 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON MAY 25, 1993 ADJOURNED MEETING The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the Yakima School District Library, 104 North 4th Avenue, Yakima, Washington, for the purpose of a City /County Retreat. Council Members present were Mayor Pat Berndt, Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Bill Brado, Lynn Buchanan, and Skip Semon. Council Member Bernard Sims absent and excused. City staff members present were City Manager Zais and City Clerk Roberts. County Commissioners present were Chuck K1arich, Chairman, Bettie Ingham and Jim Lewis. County staff members present were Dick Anderwald, Dema Harris, and Dan Hesse. Also present was Kelsey Gray, WSU, retreat facilitator. Kelsey Gray introduced herself, outlined her agenda for this session, and requested the participants to write down their expectations and outcome from this meeting. The legislators and staff members introduced themselves and divulged their expectations. The common denominator among the expectations were better communications, building trust, a process for conflict resolution and a desire to avoid media bashing. Ms. Gray picked up on a couple of words used in the expectations, including conflict and collaboration, and asked the group to define those words. She stated the realities of collaboration are: 1) people are not mandated to work together; 2) the role is not in the job description; 3) the rewards are often not built -in; 4) 'organizational boundaries may be crossed; 5) task accomplishment test of success; and 6) lack of pre- established discussion. She asked how success would be measured and stated that minimal conditions for success would be: 1) shared understanding of what the joint effort would entail; - 2) shared yardstick of success; 3) understanding of how the effort will contribute to organizational goals; 4) an understanding of the role you and your organization will play; 5) a commitment of those involved; and 6) validation from your power structure. She drew a chart which indicated the different methods used for conflict resolution to achieve a goal and its relationship with the other party involved. There are people who give in to keep a relationship; people who avoid conflict; people who are competitive and the goal is most important to them, regardless of how it impacts the relationship; people who compromise, which is in the middle, but the problem is they may keep score as to who gave in this time and needs to give in the next time; and there are those who collaborate and try to make each side satisfied with the result. All these approaches have their use. She stated a workable agreement must include three components: substantive (sense that they got what they came for); procedural (fairness, trust that the process is fair); and psychological (feel they have been listened to and respected). She described an interest based problem solving process. To solve 1 275 MAY 25, 1993 - ADJOURNED MEETING a problem, you have to set ground rules; define the problem and legitimize the perceptions of the problem; you must have a goal of the process and an expected product; and you must analyze the problem - break down the problem and remember causes and effects. You must also agree on performance criteria and interests which must be satisfied; provide a wide variety of alternatives; compare alternatives to the criteria, develop implementation strategies and develop monitoring steps. There was a brief discussion regarding the County's governmental structure hampering their ability to solve City /County problems because the Commissioners have elected officials, instead of managers in charge of their departments. Following a ten minute break, the meeting resumed at 9:20 a.m. Ms. Gray asked the group to write down their ideas about how /ways to work together. She distributed a hand -out regarding proposed ground rules for the Inland Northwest Field Burning Summit, and reviewed it with the group. The document had fourteen ground rules spelled out. She then distributed a facilitated problem - solving hand -out. Ms. Gray asked the group to break into three small groups. She gave them an assignment to share ideas and begin to develop working agreements they could live with, and then report to the whole group. (Council Member Barnett was absent after 9:45 a.m. and did not participate in this activity; Council Member Beauchamp participated in the group activity, was absent after 10:25 a.m., and did not participate in the sharing of the information.) Group One (consisting of Bettie Ingham, Henry Beauchamp, Dick Zais and Dan Hesse) developed the following ideas: 1) Openness and honesty (to clarify the other's needs and goals) - early discussion about each party's needs and goals; 2) statement of intent, or "what are we trying to accomplish "; 3) start early with contact of all affected parties; 4) agreements need to be able to react to crisis; 5) agreement notification process spelled out - reopener /review mediation of potential disputes; 6) if one party changes position on terms of agreement, it is their responsibility to explain why and justify; 7) final meeting /discussion before signing; 8) agreement to provide specific policy direction that is clear and consistent to staff roles of each party's staff; and 9) more informal communications. Group Two (consisting of Pat Berndt, Jim Lewis, Bill Brado, and Dick Anderwald) developed the following ideas: 1) Define issues by elected officials, then assign to staff for joint research (give agreed upon positions and separate positions); 2) communications before formal action and at all points during process; 3) avoid surprises; 4) after agreement is in place, 2 276 MAY 25, 1993 - ADJOURNED MEETING actively and behaviorally support it; 5) avoid hidden agendas; 6) work for betterment of both governments with respect to each other's position; and 7) share and help and not take advantage. A discussion ensued regarding the circumstances when an issue would be jointly researched by City and County staff, or researched separately. Group Three (consisting of Chuck Klarich, Lynn Buchanan, and Dema Harris) developed the following ideas: 1) Each party present all positions; 2) honor each party's request for information; 3) recognize that the agreement we make affects others; 4) legitimize each party's interests; 5) don't "personalize" each others position /interest; 6) once an agreement is reached, "live with it" (don't stab in back); and 7) be willing to revisit agreement - change if needed. Following a discussion to clarify item #5, another issue was developed to not characterize other's position in advance. The group also discussed the difference of actively supporting an agreement versus just living with it and supporting it individually or as an organization. (Council Member Brado absent after 11:30 a.m.) Following discussion regarding the next meeting, it was the consensus that these ideas would be typed and the group would meet again on June 15th at 1:30 p.m. The group will use a real issue as an example for this exercise. The chosen issue should be one that will not put the two entities into an adversarial position, but will allow the group to obtain some concrete information about how this problem - solving solution works. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY:(/ o�/' t` �/ / / UNC IL Ma BER 111 A ' E 95 �401,1 9 I DATE CO NC L �' M: R y ATTEST: K al l-P--- v .2 49-%-e-}0--) (; 5M/? dA CITY CLERK MAYOR 3