Partnership 2000

History of the Partnership

IntroductionVision
Mission
Objectives
Interest Based Conflict Resolution Process
   Issue Identification
   Interests
   Brainstormed Options 1 through 4
Conclusion

I.  Introduction

State laws, including AB 939, AB 1220, and AB 59 established joint responsibility between the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA) for the effective management of solid waste in California. The relationship between the CIWMB and the LEAs, on occasion, been strained due to differences in interpretation of laws, regulations, or duties and responsibilities. Both the CIWMB and the LEAs have recognized the need for State and local governments to work cooperatively to accomplish the goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.

In April 1996, the CIWMB and the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH), representing the majority of LEAs, agreed to work in partnership to identify and resolve issues and to better promote their mutual effectiveness in meeting solid waste management legislative mandates. This joint effort was named "Partnership 2000." The project was conducted under the oversight and direction of the joint steering committee which was made up of representatives of the executive management of the CIWMB and CCDEH. It was agreed and understood that neither party could speak for their entire organization, and that any agreements reached among the committee would have to go through the normal considerations by each organization before they could be fully implemented.

Return to top

II.  Vision

The vision of Partnership 2000 was that the CIWMB and the LEAs (through the CCDEH) can work in partnership to collaborate in the identification and resolution of issues with the goal of improving their mutual effectiveness in meeting solid waste management legislative mandates.

III.  Mission

The mission of Partnership 2000 was and still is to develop a positive working relationship whereby the CIWMB and the CCDEH strive to clarify State and local roles and responsibilities, to facilitate communication and collaboration, and to secure a commitment from all levels so that mutual program and policy objectives can be met.

IV. Objectives 

• Clarify roles and responsibilities of CIWMB staff and the LEAs;
• Examine implementation issues as they relate to program and policy areas;
• Streamline inter-organizational processes and lines of communication to enhance program effectiveness, and
• Establish performance measures to determine success in process and policy objectives.

Return to top

V.  Interest-Based Conflict Resolution Process

The process used by the original Partnership 2000 joint steering committee was to apply interest-based negotiation/conflict resolution methods to identify procedural, policy, perceptual, or political issues facing the CIWMB and the CCDEH and to resolve or make recommendations that effectively address such issues.

This method of resolving conflict to the satisfaction of all involved parties is described in the Harvard Negotiation Project's best-selling book, Getting to Yes. This method teaches how to: 

1. Treat conflict between parties as a natural resource for solving problems and improving relationships.
2. Attack problems while respecting one another.
3. Raise issues in a way that invites cooperation.
4. Explore issues to discover respective underlying interests.
5. Generate options for mutual gain.
6. Develop any needed agreements based on objective standards.

Return to top

A. Issue Identification

The original Partnership 2000 formation committee met in April 1996 and discussed several issues of conflict and identified two major issues to use in learning the process for interest-based conflict resolution. The key issues initially identified were "conflict of interest" and "appropriate enforcement action."

The issues were identified through a process where the CIWMB and CCDEH representatives brought forward their respective thoughts as to the primary areas of conflict between the two groups. CIWMB identified "conflict of interest" as their primary area of concern, while the CCDEH representatives brought forward "appropriate enforcement action". Both issues reflected a number of inter-related factors and perceptions. CIWMB perceptions centered on whether an inherent conflict of interest (i.e., county LEAs regulating facilities at the county level, either county owned/operated or privately owned/operated) was an impediment to LEAs taking appropriate enforcement action. CCDEH perceptions centered on the failure of CIWMB to acknowledge the inherent differences amongst LEA jurisdictions and the need for flexibility and use of LEA professional judgment in determining what an appropriate enforcement action might be.

Following considerable discussion of the perceptions and factors which led the committee to identify these issues, the following issue statements were initially developed:

Conflict of Interest
The perception of Conflict of Interest stems from whether an appropriate level of enforcement action was taken.

Appropriate Enforcement Action
The CIWMB’s drive for consistency is in conflict with the LEAs’ need for flexibility in achieving compliance, which has created the perception of a widespread enforcement problem.

Return to top

B. Interests

The original 1996 joint steering committee discussed the interests and concerns surrounding these two issues at great length. Though use of the interest-based conflict resolution process, both groups identified their underlying "interests" in raising the issues of conflict of interest and appropriate enforcement action. (In this process, "interests" are defined as underlying needs, concerns, hopes, fears, and motivations.)

The development and cataloging of interests around these two issues facilitated the committee’s mutual understanding that the primary concern for both groups was whether facility compliance was achieved. In other words, the underlying interest of both LEAs and CIWMB representatives around these two issues was not whether or not a conflict of interest exists, but rather whether the ultimate goal of protecting public health and safety and the environment through facility compliance with standards has been achieved. This mutual understanding of how the two seemingly different issues stemmed from strongly shared interests and convictions, enabled the committee to agree to focus on just the one issue of appropriate enforcement action, as it most directly addressed the shared interest (and goal of state and local programs) of facility compliance. 

It was also agreed that debating the perceptions surrounding the "conflict of interest" issue would not further the goal of improving facility compliance. Further, perceptions of "conflict of interest" exist at all political levels and are perceived to impact decision-making at all levels of government. The acknowledgement that both groups are strongly committed to the common goal of protecting public health and safety and the environment, was a significant step in enabling the participants to move into problem-solving discussions, including the identification of options and the development of agreements to address the "appropriate enforcement" issue.

Return to top

C. Brainstormed Options 1 through 4

In the interest-based conflict resolution process, options are "brainstormed possibilities" for resolving conflicting interests to the satisfaction of both parties. Options are not agreements. The original Partnership 2000 joint steering committee identified four options to develop draft agreements for addressing the issue of appropriate enforcement actions. Those options were: 

1. Have a collaborative opportunity to identify the appropriate level of facility-based performance and then make the appropriate changes to reflect that outcome. 
   • Build in tools to provide exceptions to the regulatory/statutory standard
   • Make the commitment toward achieving the options through the "collaborative opportunity."
   • Make a commitment to come up with a joint proposal for achieving facility-based performance. 
2. Redefine how the Enforcement Advisory Council’s (EAC) role, function, and membership will include deliberation on statewide issues in collaboration with CIWMB staff to make advisory recommendations to the CIWMB and LEA management for resolution of these issues.
3. Formalize an LEA assistance function separate from the LEA evaluation function at the CIWMB to address and assist with questions, etc., and to provide training and technical assistance.
4. Continue Partnership 2000.

Subgroups of the joint steering committee were formed to develop draft agreements to the above options.

Option 1: Have a collaborative opportunity to identify the appropriate level of facility-based performance and then make the appropriate changes to reflect that outcome.

Six issues were identified in 1996 to address Option 1 as follows:

1. Bring facility permits into compliance.
   Major Tasks on a Site by Site Basis:
   • Determination of threats to public health and safety and the environment vs. administrative issues.
   • Collaborative approach.
   • Separation of enforcement and permits.
2. Improve quality of permits submitted to the CIWMB by LEAs so that the CIWMB can process permits within 60 days.
   Major Tasks:
   • CIWMB development of strong technical consultation capability to assist LEAs day to day.
   • LEAs and CIWMB collaborate on permit preparation training programs for LEAs and CIWMB staff.
   • Focus pre-permit inspections on conditions in permit and determine if an enforcement order is needed on any outstanding violations.
3. In the determination of "appropriate enforcement actions" allow LEA judgment with appropriate level of oversight by the CIWMB.
   Major Task:
   • Completing an advisory on appropriate enforcement options for "imminent threats".
4. Frequency of inspections should be commensurate with the degree of risk to public health and safety and the environment.
   Major Task:
   • Collaboratively develop statutory language to the effect that inspections will be conducted monthly or as prescribed in CIWMB regulations.
5. Provide an administrative appeal process with less legalistic protocol than prescribed in AB 59.
   Major Task:
   • Collaborate with LEA attorneys group, CIWMB legal staff, and LEAs to develop an AB 59 clean up bill for the 1996-97 session.
6. Develop a process for resolving dispute over "significant change".
   Major Tasks:
   • Collaboratively develop criteria for determining what should be in the Report of Site Information (RSI) and what should be in the permit. Include only "show stopper" issues in the permit, rely on the RSI for detailed descriptions.
   • Train LEAs and CIWMB staff.
   • Collaborate on the development of a model permit.

1996 Draft Agreement
The agreement reached in 1996 was to adopt the above six issues. An enforcement policy framework was developed using a collaborative workgroup of CIWMB and LEA staff with the shared goal of improved facility compliance. A number of documents were developed to support and clarify the overall enforcement policy; these additional documents were also developed using a collaborative process. Issues like these will continue to be raised through Partnership 2000, CCDEH, EAC, and other forums.

Option 2. Redefine how the EAC’s role, function, and membership will include deliberation on statewide issues in collaboration with CIWMB staff to make advisory recommendations to the CIWMB and LEA management for resolving these issues.

To improve the EAC’s ability to resolve issues raised, and to facilitate collaboration and foster consensus, the following issues were identified in 1996 to address Option 2:

1. The EAC’s Structure and Procedures document should include a statement that all resolutions shall be directed to the Deputy Director of the CIWMB’s Permitting and Enforcement Division.
2. The Deputy Director of the Permitting and Enforcement Division and the Chairman of the EAC shall make reports to the CCDEH Solid Waste Policy Committee as necessary. The Deputy Director will propose what EAC resolutions he/she will follow up on and which ones he/she proposes to forward to CCDEH Solid Waste Policy Committee and the CIWMB for follow up or any needed decision making.

1996 Draft Agreement
The above suggestions were discussed with the EAC during their August 29, 1996 meeting. Consensus with Option 2 was reached through the EAC’s passage of a resolution stating they would change their Structure and Procedures document to include a statement that all resolutions shall be directed to the Deputy Director of the CIWMB’s Permitting and Enforcement Division.

Option 3. Formalize an LEA assistance function separate from the LEA evaluation function at the CIWMB to address and assist with questions, etc., and provide training and technical assistance.

The following 1996 issues were identified to address Option 3:

1. The LEAs need to provide information as to what technical assistance and training is needed.
2. CIWMB staff need to provide information as to what are their own training needs.
3. The CIWMB should put together an LEA assistance function separate from the LEA evaluation function.

1996 Draft Agreement
Again in 1996, the CCDEH and the CIWMB agreed to identify their technical assistance and training needs (this identification has occurred and is now being implemented and coordinated). The CIWMB has also formalized an LEA assistance function separate from the LEA evaluation function. In addition, the CIWMB (in collaboration and with assistance from CCDEH and other interest groups) has formalized its training commitment. The CIWMB has taken the lead for developing the training delivery sequence and for implementing training.

Option 4. Continue Partnership 2000.

1996 Draft Agreement

1. Offer three pilot classes of Interest-Based Conflict Resolution based upon Partnership 2000 on a volunteer basis to LEAs and CIWMB staff, with one session each in Northern, Central, and Southern California. The CIWMB would take the lead on this.
2. Concurrently, conduct a joint training need assessment for both technical and related training. The CIWMB and the CCDEH would collaborate on implementing this.
3. Review the need assessment results to identify which needs relate to technical issues, and which technical issues might also benefit from conflict management training. The CIWMB and the CCDEH would collaborate on implementing this aspect.
4. Establish a training delivery sequence and implement training. The CIWMB would take the lead on this.
5. Hold a solid waste conference for CIWMB staff and LEAs to provide more opportunity for interaction and information exchange.

Return to top

VI. Conclusion

The CIWMB and CCDEH are committed to resolving conflicts promptly and informally at the source. Partnership 2000 has affected an approach to conflict management that has enabled both to reach the following goals:

• To promote the effective management of conflict in the work environment.
• To increase participants’ awareness of their conflict management style.
• To develop participants’ knowledge of and skills in interest-based conflict management.
• To enhance participants’ ability to deal with conflicts effectively and constructively.

Partnership 2000 continues to provide the opportunity to collaboratively identify conflicts and draft agreements to resolve some outstanding issues between the CIWMB and the LEAs.

All who experienced the Partnership 2000 in its early days felt very positive in the enhanced communication and conflict resolution skills they had learned. This process provides an opportunity for each to "walk in the other’s shoes" and it has been genuinely expressed by everyone that it is a positive experience that needs to be shared with each organization and all the LEAs. This same spirit carries forward in the present Partnership 2000.

Original 1996 Partnership 2000 Participants

Last updated: November 01, 2007