THE SHARED GOVERNANCE PROJECT

THE SHARED GOVERNANCE PROJECT 

Lindell L. Marsh, Project Director

[Draft: April 2, 1998]

“Shared governance” is an evolving approach that allows a constituency of affected interests and local, state and federal agencies to: 

• transcend our fragmented system of command-and-control regulations;
  
• respect and utilize the diversity and power of our system of individual freedom; and,

• collaboratively, creatively and effectively address common concerns and opportunities in order to both improve our economic competitiveness and the sustainability of our nation.   

It is much like the American art of quilt-making – respectful of  the individual character of the constituent patches; while stitching them to together to form a coherent whole. 

Over the past year, as part of its Shared Governance Project, GMI has explored the concept through several specific efforts (and several related “side” dialogues). Lindell Marsh, Co-chairman of the GMI Board and attorney with Siemon, Larsen & Marsh, has acted as Project Director.  The following is intended to provide to those participating in or funding these efforts (as well as those searching for ways to improve our system of governance) an understanding of the context of the efforts, as well as their relationship to the underlying idea of shared governance.   

The GMI Projects

Santa Ana River Watershed -- the Water Connection Roundtable

This effort is a “systems-based” collaboration among local, state and federal agencies and interests regarding concerns, issues and opportunities connected with the “water-related” systems focused on the Santa Ana River watershed.  The Santa Ana River is the largest river in Southern California .   Efforts to date have included the convening of a “place-based” Santa Ana River Roundtable,  initially focused on the 50 square mile dairy preserve area adjacent to the River.  The area is home to more than 300,000 dairy cows (the largest concentration of dairy cows in the world) and 1,500,000 tons of manure (with 6,000 additional tons produced daily).  It lies at the center of the Los Angeles Basin metropolis and is in the midst of converting to urban uses.  Concerns and opportunities include manure and biosolids management; water (surface and groundwater)  supply, reclamation and quality; urban sprawl and attendant issues of energy consumption and air quality; open space and wildlife.   The group is developing an initial $100 million program for these purposes.

In the future, other topics addressed by the Water Connection Roundtable may include: statewide water supply; watershed-wide wildlife efforts; state and national concerns and opportunities regarding the management of manure and biosolids (i.e., bioresources); and, the possible development of a Center for Shared Governance.

As an adjunct to this effort, a National Roundtable on the Productive Use of Bioresources,  has been proposed.  This side dialogue would be convened at the national level and focus on the need for national and state leadership in avoiding the “waste” of what we have in the past characterized as “wastes” (manure and biosolids).  The hope is to improve the economic competitiveness of our communities, states and nation and, at the same time, improving the quality of our water supplies.

CEQ hosted Inter-agency Roundtable on Shared Governance

A second effort has been the inter-agency roundtable hosted by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”).  This is an effort of key federal agencies with environmental responsibility to explore ways to improve collaborative processes nation-wide.  The intent is to utilize efforts such as the Santa Ana River Watershed Dialogue, as well as similar efforts in Colorado, Florida and other areas as case studies in progress.

As an adjunct to this effort, a “side” dialogue has been convened (two meetings) focused on funding of wildlife conservation under the federal Endangered Species Act.  This is particularly related to the large-scale collaborative efforts.

Relationship of the Individual Efforts to the Shared Governance Project

While these efforts are discrete, they are also “linked”.  Together they explore key elements of the broader concept of Shared Governance as a way to improve the care of our natural resources and the environment.   The “learning” that has occurred over the past year as a result of these efforts is now beginning to quicken into a better understanding of the concept. 

Collaboration/roundtables

The idea of “shared governance” is simple.  At the “place-based” level, the affected constituency of agencies and interests comes together around a single “table” to collaboratively fashion a program (stitching together the patches) to address identified concerns and opportunities through a neutral, facilitated process.  In the case of the Santa Ana River Roundtable, those invited to the table include dairy and other land owners, counties and cities, water agencies, and state and federal agencies (e.g., Departments of Agriculture and Interior, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers).    

In this regard, the shared governance idea grows out of and builds on past efforts focused on watersheds, habitat conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act and large-scale efforts such as those regarding the Florida Everglades, the California Bay-Delta and Chesapeake Bay.  In a number of these cases, including the Santa Ana River effort, the intent is to construct an ongoing “roundtable” that will provide a vision – a  base, for common action regarding a variety of “initiatives” to attain that vision. 

One lesson has been that while we refer to a single “roundtable”, in fact, the most effective processes are those in which the group is ephemeral, flexibly changing form and composition as the concerns change.  Participation is not fixed, but is fluid and open.  In some cases, “step-down” efforts or “side dialogues” are convened.  Together they comprise a “network” of  “linked” roundtables, dialogues and efforts.

Top down/bottom up.

“Shared governance” is about innovation.  It allows “place-based” agencies and interests to collaboratively “create” solutions.  Rather than providing a single, top/down solution, it provides for a “diversity” of solutions, with the idea that, nationally, we can then choose among diverse solutions and adopt the most successful as national policy to be considered in other areas.  This approach promises national innovation, improvement and progress, while honoring diversity and individual initiative.  It is in keeping with approaches that have proved successful in private sector industry and business.

To speed this innovation, shared governance contemplates that collaboration will not only take place “horizontally” at “place-based”or “step down” roundtables but will also include “vertical” collaboration with linked roundtables and dialogues at the regional, state and national levels.   In this sense, the CEQ Roundtable and the proposed National Biosolids Roundtable are “linked” to the Santa Ana Watershed Dialogue as part of an “innovation web”. The CEQ Roundtable provides the opportunity for the key resource agencies to follow “place-based” efforts, such as the Santa Ana, so as to both “learn” from them and to support them.

The proposed National Bioresources Roundtable would provide an ad-hoc national forum for addressing problems such as those we face on the Santa Ana River.  By including other place-based efforts, we hope to share both problems and solutions and to collaborate to successful approaches.  One possibility would be we will be able to develop an ongoing “network” of “place and “system-based” efforts coordinated at the national level.

In summary, the vision is of a broad “innovation web”, with nodes such as the Santa Ana Water Connection effort, linked:  horizontally to the “step-down” Santa Ana River Roundtable (focused on the dairies) and a “system-based” bioresources effort extending into the San Joaquin Valley, and, vertically to an the “ad-hoc” National Bioresources Roundtable and the on-going CEQ Roundtable.   This network would provide for rapid innovation: questions and ideas being raised and responded to; technology, solutions and resources being shared. Rapidly.  To the benefit of our nation’s economic competitiveness and sustainability.   As the topics addressed by the Santa Ana Water Connection expands to water supply and other topics, the network would become more complex and effective.

What we are Learning

 As we progess, the incidents and promise of the concept have become increasingly clear.  The major thrust of the change in our way of working has been the movement away from, or in transcendence of, our past reliance on command and control regulation.   It has required that state and federal agencies provide more diverse leadership regarding matters of state and national interest.  This leadership includes providing and managing for collaboration (with other agencies and interests); facilitating the sharing of technology and experience; and, the inter-weaving of state and federal programs and policies and funding with the programs, policies and funding of others.    

For example, in connection with concentrated animal operations, there has been significant attention on the possibility of the increased nationwide regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (e.g., by Senator Harkin and EPA).  While regulation may be appropriate in other areas of the nation, as we look at this issue on the  Santa Ana River, it appears that further regulations focused on individual dairy owners will do little to solve the problem.  Rather, for example, area-wide flood control is a critical need that transcends the ability of the individual dairy owners.  It requires that local cities and counties, as well as water agencies, as well as state and federal agencies must overcome their past Balkanization and collaborate. 

A significant element of this collaboration is shared local, state and federal funding.  Further, when we address this need in the context of the broader “vision” for the River, we see that it is critical that we combine local, state and federal resources utlizing a “cross-cut” budgeting concept.  Thereby, our funds and efforts do double duty, producing multiple benefits from the same dollar.  For example, money for flood control can help dairies, water supply and wildlife – and vice-versa. 

What is the relationship to the private sector?

Command and control regulations have pressed heavily and almost exclusively on the private sector (landowners and business owners) to effect state and federal policy objectives.  In some cases, this pressing has been condemned as unfairly impinging on individual rights and freedoms.  The result has been, for example, significant resistance to the application of the federal Endangered Species Act.  At the same time, almost paradoxically, there has been broad support for the national policy of supporting biological diversity and the conservation of individual species.  The “shared governance” idea, on the other hand, is very respectful of individual rights and interests.  It provides to individual landowners the ability to solve a problem by  “collaboration” and cooperation (a deeply rooted national trait as de Toqueville noted during the last century), with support and sharing by local, state and national communities.  This has been the ground pioneered over the past almost 20 years by the habitat conservation planning process under the federal Endangered Species Act.  This is not to suggest that regulation is inappropriate; but, rather,  to acknowledge that we have relied too heavily and narrowly on it.

Role of GMI

A critical element of the shared governance approach is the role of a neutral third party.  In playing this role at GMI, we have been working to accurately characterize it.   The role is without a client, except possibly the “process” itself.   We do not have a good name for it.  It is more than that of a “facilitator”, particularly because the roundtables do not have fixed group membership (being open and inclusive).   GMI’s role in some cases has been that of institutional/process “architect”, “orchestrator”, “conciliator” and “scorer”.  The analogy has been made to “webmaster” and “quiltmaster”.  It comes with a commitment to openness, fairness and non-partisanship.  A major part of our “learning” has been the principles and incidents of this role.  

Ethics

As we move away from command and control as the exclusive or predominant mechanism for addressing environmental concerns, we predictably must rely increasingly on ethics.  This will be true of the role of the “facilitator/conciliator/orchestrator/quiltmaster” as well as that of the participants.  As we develop this concept of shared governance, the three basic principles of ethics will need to be explored and applied to the process in greater specificity: (1) respect by “each” for the “others” participating agencies and interests; (2) a commitment against harm and for good; and, (3) civility.

In connection with the Santa Ana effort, the group has developed principles of transparency, inclusiveness, civility and non-policymaking.

In summary

 Shared governance reflects the further evolution of collaborative efforts such as habitat conservation and watershed planning.  It contemplates “place-based” as well as “sysem-based” roundtables/dialogues/collaboration with ongoing representation by public and private sector interests and local, state and federal agencies, with a “vertical” link to similar “on-going” and “ad-hoc” roundtables and dialogues at the national level.  It reflects a shifting away from reliance on top/down command and control regulations in favor of more diverse and particularized efforts that will allow for creativity and innovation that can move up to, and down from, the state and national levels.  At the same time, it does not replace the need for effective environmental protection, acknowledging the need for appropriate regulatory “side-boards” and standards.  

The GMI efforts provide the opportunity to advance the national “learning” regarding these approaches.  The results, as well as the process, will be crafted by all of those involved.  The process focuses on “visioning” coupled with “surgical initiatives”; stresses ethical conduct; and, produces creativity and innovation.  Bottomline, it promises the increased economic competitiveness and environmental sustainability of our cities, states and nation.