Examples of Consensus Processes in State Government
While the Stormwater Management case was not strictly a consensus
process, it did include an effort toward consensus. The DEP
felt that, in order for the Legislature to adopt its rules
to administer the Stormwater Management Law, they would need
substantial backing from stakeholders. Complete agreement
was not necessarily, but indeed desired.
The issue at hand was what bodies of water should be listed
as “most at risk” from new development and to
develop standards that new developments would have to meet
for the watersheds of these bodies of water.
Stakeholder Groups:
The working group members were chosen because they were either
involved in prior legislative hearings in work sessions on
the law, or because of prior connections with the DEP staff.
They are as follows:
- Associated Constructors of Maine—New rules
would increase costs for construction and place limits on
how a construction site can be developed.
- Consulting Engineers (2)—These members had
expertise on project design and were instrumental in advising
the DEP on the feasibility of new rules.
- Portland Water District—New rules would
help protect their drinking water supply.
• State Planning Office—Newly developed rules
would help bring Maine into compliance with already-in-place
federal program requirements.
- Natural Resources Council of Maine—New rules
would help protect water quality.
- China Region Lake Alliance—New rules would
help protect the quality of area lakes.
- Maine Merchants Association—Compliance to
a new set of rules would cost small businesses more money.
- Maine Department of Transportation—There
would be an added cost for highway construction.
- Maine Oil Dealers Association—Businesses
(e.g. gas station owners) would have to spend more money
to comply with the rules.
- Maine Chamber and Business Alliance—Compliance
to a new set of rules would cost small businesses more money.
- Maine Congress of Lakes Association—New
rules would help protect lake quality.
- Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife—New
rules would help protect inland aquatic habitat.
Processes:
A facilitator was hired from outside the DEP, one who was
already under contract by the agency for some similar work
on the development of the Stormwater Law. He was Mark Eyerman
of Planning Decisions, Inc. The stakeholders perceived him
as knowledgable about the subject, yet nevertheless impartial
about what direction the laws should take.
The facilitator proposed ground rules for the group at the
first meeting. The group discussed and accepted these, with
a few minor modifications.
Up-front, the group members were notified that, despite the
desire for consensus, the DEP would be obligated to proposed
a set of rules to the Board of Environmental Protection regardless
of whether or not total agreement was reached. The group acknowledged
this. This was an important consideration, given that one
group member vehemently opposed the Law altogether and made
it clear that he did not expect to agree to any rules developed
by the group, though he wanted to participate in the process
anyway.
Timing:
After the Maine State Legislature adopted the Stormwater Management
Law, the DEP convened a stakeholder group in June 1996 to
develop rules for the Law. The target was to read an agreement
with as many group members as possible by December 1996—this
would leave time for the Board of Environmental Protection
to approve the rules by mid winter 1997 before they were to
be brought back to the Legislature for approval. The group
met every other week for six months, and by December 1996,
only two groups still held out in opposition to the proposed
rules they had developed.
Results:
Rules were developed for the implementation of the Stormwater
Management Law, with nearly everyone in the stakeholder group
in agreement on them. The rules were ultimately adopted by
the Board of Environmental Protection and the State Legislature.
Lessons:
Although right up front, one of the stakeholders was an outspoken
opponent to the Law and any rules that might be developed
for it, it was still worthwhile having this individual in
the group. While the individual never did agree to the final
rule package the rest of the group agreed to, many of his
concerns were addressed. He was complimentary about the procedure
used to develop the rules, though he remained in opposition
to the Law. Without such a process, adoption of the Law by
the Board of Environmental Protection and the State Legislature
would have been much less likely.
Source:
Donald T. Witherill, Director: Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, Division of
Watershed Management
|
