Collaborative Policy Development CADRE Dispute Resolution Conference

1. Collaborative Policy DevelopmentCADRE Dispute Resolution Conference Janice LaChance – Maine Parent Federation Ann Nunery - Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities Michael J. Opuda - Northeast Regional Resource Center

2. Welcome - Dispute Resolution Stakeholders Our charge: • Develop consensus for consideration by the Dept. of Ed. • Issues for discussion: • Mandatory mediation • Barring attorneys from mediations • Label for Serious Emotional Disturbance

3. Agenda • Welcome & Orientation • Review ground rules • Collaborative policy development • Consensus building • Policy Development Activity • Feedback / Reflections

4. Ice Breaker • Turn to the person next to you. • Identify the role you’ve been assigned for this activity • Identify who you really are • Why are you here? • What do you want to learn today? • Report out

5. Purpose of this Stakeholders’ Meeting • To identify policy options • To identify significant issues of concern to stakeholders • To develop consensus on policy recommendations for the Department’s consideration

6. Objectives • Improve understanding of diverse perspectives regarding the issues • Open, honest discussion of the issues • Identification of policy options based upon group consensus • Have some fun

7. Ground Rules • Agree to commit to entire meeting • Work collaboratively to develop consensus • Be respectful of diverse opinions • Express alternatives • Avoid side conversations • Others?

8. What is Collaborative Policy Development? • A Consensus based decision-making process • Collaboration among interested parties • Shared vision, goals, outcomes / diverse interests • Alternative to traditional policy development process

9. Typical Rulemaking Process • Development proposed rule • Notice of proposed rule • Public hearing • Public comment period • Review, summarize & respond to comments • Final regulations adopted

10. Why do we have regulations? • Builds on federal law, federal regulations and state law. • Recognizes the regime values of Congress and the state legislature. • Clarifies legal obligations and terms.

11. Why do we have regulations? • Establishes state policy. • Sets standards for performance. • Provides fair notice of obligations.

12. Problems with Traditional Policy Development • Accommodation / Compromise • Reactive process • Abstract policies • Top down decision making • Iron Triangles / Favored Voices

13. Collaborative Policy Development Characteristics • All groups with a stake voluntarily agree to participate • There is direct, face-to-face interaction • Decisions are made by consensus • The group determines process and outcomes

14. Collaborative Policy Development - Benefits • Focuses resources / sets priorities • Ensures policies reflective of stakeholders • Fosters creativity • Facilitates regulatory process • Increases credibility, legitimacy, and trust

15. Collaborative Policy Development - Problems / Concerns • Contrary to traditional policy process • Stakeholders may decline to participate • Process is time-consuming • Requires tough decisions be made • Consensus is not always achievable

16. Collaborative Policy Development - Summary • Acknowledges & values differences • Provides context for decision-making • Cooperatively seeks common ground • Develops consensus • Welcomes diverse perspectives

17. Consensus Unanimity based upon accepted criteria, e.g. “something you could live with.” • Responsive to minority concerns • Generates individual commitment • Time consuming • Veto-able

18. Consensus Building Methods • Round robin - solicit opinions from members • Thumbs up, down, or sideways • Five fingers method - fist = veto, 1 finger = highly unacceptable, 5 fingers = highly support

19. Reaching Consensus • Take easier issues first • Use active listening • Talk with each other • Park controversial issues • Identify acceptable alternatives

20. Decision Making • How will the group determine consensus? • Thumbs up / down • What standard for consensus will the group adopt? • Acceptable / Live with it

21. What are the issues? • Should Attorneys be barred from participating in Mediations? • Should mediation be required prior to requesting a hearing? • Should the term “Serious Emotional Disturbance” be changed to “Emotional / Behavior Disorder?”

22. Topical Discussion Process • We will address one topic (mediation, attorneys, or SED label). • Consensus on topic? • Individually – respond to the 3 questions for the selected topic • Move to your color coded small group

23. Topical Discussion Process • Break into one of three / four subgroups • Select recorder, timekeeper, facilitator • Individually - share your responses to the 3 questions w/ the small group • As small group – Discuss concerns / issues and solutions • Report to large group on concerns, solutions

24. Should Attorneys be Barred from Participating in Mediations? • Will this benefit Children, Parents & Schools? • Will this impose additional burdens upon Children, Parents, & Schools? • Will this improve parent / school relationships?

25. Should mediation be required prior to requesting a hearing? • Will this benefit Children, Parents & Schools? • Will this impose additional burdens upon Children, Parents, & Schools? • Will this improve parent / school relationships?

26. Change “Serious Emotional Disturbance” to “Emotional / Behavior Disorder?” • Will this benefit Children, Parents & Schools? • Will this impose additional burdens upon Children, Parents, & Schools? • Will this improve parent / school relationships?

27. Barring Attorneys at Mediations

28. Require mediation

29. Change category from SED to E/BD

30. Reflections • What are the prerequisite conditions for successful collaboration? • Who should represent your organization? • Unintended consequences? • Further Questions / Comments?