I'M filing this column to reread after the 1997 state legislative session. It is about a dispute settlement process called "Partnering" adopted by the Senate Democratic majority to help produce a legislative product members and the public will be proud of. Dispute settlement
in the state SenateIt was pioneered for the construction industry with the aim of getting jobs completed on time, on budget and without litigation among the partners.
Two keys to it are open lines of communication and a commitment to solve problems quickly at the lowest possible level. If that can't be done there are time deadlines for quick referral to higher levels and for their prompt decision-making on them.
As applied to the 1997 state Senate, President Norman Mizuguchi says the aim is for collaboration, not confrontation.
A Senate Partnering Compact was worked out during two days of intense interaction among 16 members at a Barbers Point Naval Air Station retreat Dec. 6-7. It wasn't publicized, so this may be the first place you will read about it.
Its preface speaks of tackling the Senate's 1997 agenda with integrity and collaboration in an environment of trust and respect.
It commits to a Senate code of ethics, establishing clear lines of communication, enhancing public access, electronic town meetings, accountability and positive actions. The final sentence says: "Strive for consensus; at the same time recognize and respect the diversity of our strongly held individual beliefs."
Only continuing commitment can make these more than warm, fuzzy words. The Senate president feels the commitment is there - "In 22 years I've never seen such communication before." There will be offers to reach out to the seven Democrats who couldn't or chose not to attend the retreat. Mizuguchi declined to identify them.
Attorney Gerald S. Clay, a leading proponent of partnering, was the key impartial, uninvolved facilitator of the gathering. Assisting were two other dispute-resolution specialists, Keith W. Hunter and James K. Hoenig.
On both days the senators met without any hierarchy, breakfasted together, lunched together and had dinner together. They spent much of their time meeting with facilitators in groups of four or less. Everyone was paired at least twice with everyone else.
The senators identified problems ahead that they called pebbles, rocks and boulders, and solutions they gave such names as chain-saws and bulldozers. They gave the 1996 Senate session a barely passing grade. They resolved 1997 will be better in product and help to restore faith in government.
They look to their novel system of committee co-chairmanships to keep any one senator from getting too strong. They want to break the grip of key committees like Ways and Means and Judiciary, through which most bills finally funnel.
IN a switch from the past, chairmen of committees that consider bills initially will play a key role in the conference committees that resolve House-Senate differences. This interaction, usually near the end of every session, is where crucial trades are made and where most of the key contested legislative issues are finally resolved.
Partnering won't make these problems go away, Clay stresses, but it may improve the level of dialogue before settlement. It should promote more listening to the views of others and consideration of them.
Clay has been in many partnering talks for industry. He said this new venture into politics had the most interested participants he has ever seen. He calls it "a grand experiment." Check in next May to hear how it worked on some of the knottiest issues to come along in years.