In Hawaii the community and taxpayers are embarking on a public policy decision – build a fast rail system which is already generating litigation. The last public policy decision was sunk by the State Supreme Court – the Super Ferry. However, the costs involved with Super Ferry’s departure, even though large, are dwarfed by the estimated – much less potential – cost of Fast Rail. Talk about a public policy issue needing to avoid, prevent, resolve conflict – this is the one.

Despite the Super Ferry and some other fiascos in the public policy arena Hawaii is rich in resources to put in place systems, processes, and infrastructure for collaboration consistent with the states Aloha Spirit. The big question is whether the stakeholders in the project are willing to commit to a collaborative dialogue meant to achieve mutual agreement or whether they will go down the road of growing adversarial relationships resulting in litigation - which until the judiciary makes a decision will remain in limbo – while millions of dollars of taxpayer money are being spent concomitant with ballooning costs? Does the scenario or even the issue – fast rail – exist in your area? If so read on.

To change from an adversarial to a collaborative and problem solving environment is not easy but the alternative – endless litigation – where decision making is transferred to an arbitrator or judge – is giving up choice by stakeholders. As long as problem solving between stakeholders works – meaning mutual agreements are reached – decision making stays with stakeholders.

So, a first step is to identify stakeholders who are willing to work in a collaborative problem solving mode. A stakeholder is someone who has not only an interest in a project but issues with the proposed rail system. Those stakeholders need to find a place around the table and their issues made transparent to the other stakeholders.

In order to initiate stakeholder activity they have to informed, educated, and convinced they will not only be heard but also responded to in a civil and dignified manner. For this to happen a forum, process, systems, and commitment from other stakeholders has to be achieved. In addition there must be ground rules, processes, systems, and infrastructure in place. And finally there must be an understanding and commitment by stakeholders as to what they are going to do when recommendations and agreements are reached in these dialogue forums – people don’t just want to spend time talking and problem solving only to find out no action is going to be taken on their agreements or recommendations. A step which can be taken in this regard is to have an escalation ladder which progressively ratchets up issues from direct negotiations, facilitation, mediation, to arbitration/litigation. In addition agreements must be reached in terms of confidentiality versus transparency. We’d all like totally transparent processes however that may not be realistic as there may be some issues which, to be discussed must occur in a confidential manner.

In terms of infrastructure – places to meet – frequency – format – record keeping – scheduling – and other infrastructure needs have to be identified and provided for. In addition resources – professional and volunteer - must be identified and made available for stakeholders to actively participate.

No process, system, or approach is 100% perfect. For example there are disruptive people whose principal aim is to derail a process – agreement on ground rules need to be reached. There are people who insist they are stakeholders in terms only they can understand – identifying who is a stakeholder is one of the considerations which must be built into the process and mutually agreed upon. There won’t be 100% mutual agreement – that’s a reason for an escalation ladder. We’re already embarked on the project and there are still those who question whether or not we should even be doing this project – that doesn’t mean stakeholders cannot hold dialogue. However, consider the alternative – a cascading adversarial environment where positions continue to harden along with the potential impact on the community and taxpayers who are being told this public policy decision – we must have rail as a way to alleviate …. – is made for their benefit. Later they find out that an arbitrator or the judiciary is going to be the one who makes the decision who wins and who loses – in the meantime their tax dollars are being sucked up like a black hole.

On the other side of the project is the construction itself – huge project – thousands of workers – hundreds of owner, contractor, consultant firms – in a highly fragmented and often adversarial relationship with each other. Is there a choice? Yes projects like this often benefit from a concept of construction partnering in which everyone involved gets involved early enough in the project to come to a mutual understanding of project objectives and are informed, educated, and expected to participate in processes and systems to work collaboratively and avoid, prevent, and resolve conflict. The process is often referred to as “construction partnering”. Given the complexity and risks involved in a rail project of this size and the expectations that it will be on budget, within schedule, and meet the performance requirements demanded by taxpayers “construction partnering” is a must.

So what can we as individuals do? That depends. In my case I intend to at least provide stakeholders an opportunity for dialogue in a collaborative and problem solving process through my series on Avoiding, Preventing, and Resolving Conflict on Hawaii Community Television. If possible it will be modeled on what I’ve indicated above and through organizations willing to lend a hand. In addition I intend to offer my services in this field in creating and sponsoring training programs as well as on-going services during the project. If you’re a taxpayer I encourage you to make your voice heard that in projects like rail stakeholders commit to dialogue – before and during projects – in a way that avoids, prevents, and resolves conflict. No one can stop lawsuits from being filed – however if we succeed in making public policy decisions more collaborative in nature and establish processes and systems where stakeholders have a place at the table then perhaps we can reach mutual agreements rather than deferring the decisions to arbitrators and judges – or on the court house steps – while we’re burning money in delays, litigation, with a potential scenario like the sinking of the Super Ferry. Let’s learn our lesson and move forward with confidence that together we can do so much more collaboratively and solve problems through mutual agreement or at least through the application of an escalation ladder.

And finally get familiar with what your area has in this arena for projects - for example a dispute resolution board or other means of working through the issue - but ensure that processes, systems, and infrastructure for problem solving and mutual agreement exist, are utilized, and are robust.