A Pragmatic Approach

The flooding in Briarcliffe, its causes and solutions are currently under review. There are a number of  different positions and a range of stakeholders. Some are merely observers. Some will be expected to put something on the table to solve this. Some will expect someone else to pay to solve this. Some will expect to do little or nothing. 

I prefer to think of those who are involved as being in two groups. One is "the problem solvers" and the other is the "observers." However, it is possible to have both roles and switch from one to another. This happens frequently when observers realize that they are to be left behind or the outcome will be unacceptable. At that time they may switch roles. However, there is a dilemma. Becoming motivated at the end of the decision making process is usually far too late to have any real impact on the process. Arriving late is at best an attempt to exert influence on a decision that has already been made.

Arriving late is an approach that is being advocated by a few. 

A range of possibilities

There are a range of possible outcomes for the flooding problem. They include "no change" and various degrees of "improvement."

If you experienced the recent flooding, or if you were very, very close and did not simply because the waters receded, then you have one perspective. If you are one of those who is expected to pay for a solution, then you have another perspective.

What's the most likely outcome and what is a viable solution? Are they the same or are they different, and what are they? I do have an answer to the question. However, I am not revealing it at this time and this post serves to explain. 

Pragmatism
When approaching a problem and creating a solution, there are differing perspectives. Some problems invoke an emotional response. Flooding which is assumed to be preventable is one of those.

Individuals may prefer pessimism or optimism. A pragmatic approach recognizes a range of possible outcomes and includes pessimism and optimism. A pragmatic approach recognized the complexities and the differing positions of those involved. It also goes beneath the obvious to the motivations or possible motivations of the problem solvers.

Observers also have motivations and expectations. They can influence the problem solvers. In a situation of re-occurring flooding, it's essential that the observers become participants and make their expectations known to all of the problem solvers. It should be done openly and consistently. Coordination is useful. In this case of the flooding, I advocated a petition. That however, has been nixed and so yesterday I formally retracted that request. (Note 2).

People do have the right to choose their destiny and to take the actions to accomplish that future.

A range of outcomes
In complex problems which involve multiple players and money there are a range of possible outcomes. So too with the causes or possible causes of the flooding in this area. The outcomes include "no change," varying degrees of "reduced flooding" and "no future flooding."

Reality dictates that the actual solution that is implemented will be somewhere in that range. The likelihood of "no change" is small. The possibility of "no future flooding" is most likely unattainable. A reasonable solution will be somewhere between.

The outcome will vary from address to address because the flooding was not universal or consistent.

The success of the outcome will be subjectively assessed because of the impact on individual addresses. In the past, there was no problem a few blocks away. Whatever was in place prior to 2008 was completely successful for those who never previously experienced flooding. That changed in 2013 when some of the neighbors suddenly became aware of the existence of a "flood control district" in Wheaton and COD's pond #7. It wasn't hidden although Lake #4 is shielded behind a berm. Anyone who accesses Google maps would see the COD campus and several bodies of water. Some of the neighbors enjoy fishing on someone else's private property. No, it isn't a secret.

This is a complex problem
Coming to the conclusion that this really is a difficult problem is essential to having a solution. Let's see, we have COD to the north and east of the flood zone, which is Glen Ellyn only in name; a better descriptor would be "rogue college." Then to the north and west we have the City of Wheaton. The Village of Glen Ellyn is largely invisible when it comes to dealing with the problem, and the County of DuPage are the accomplices or enablers who say "All necessary code requirements have been met."

Now, none of these are the 'bad guys.' They are simply the players, and it is because of the interaction of these entities over decades that we have arrived where we are today. Or, to phrase it more accurately, where we were on April 18.

It's going to take the involvement and cooperation of each of these entities to come to a realistic and reasonable solution.

It hasn't happened before and so why should we expect that it can and will happen today?

Now you know why it's my opinion that this is a complex problem.

Negotiations
The first step in solving complex problems is to get those who have the authority and have a role in determining a solution to come together. They are the individuals who can cause a solution and should include those who may be required to give something at the table. They are those who are accountable and can make the decisions that are necessary. If they are unwilling to participate voluntarily, then it is necessary to enroll someone who can exert sufficient pressure to get everyone together. These individuals are sometimes called stakeholders.

Complex problems include complex, multi-part negotiations. For each problem that is identified there is a solution or solutions discussed. In each step it is decided what is to be done by whom, by when and who will pay for this. Or, what type of burden sharing is this to include?

In any negotiation there are three possible responses. Each of the following are acceptable if one takes the position that in a negotiation a request is made and there is then a response. Negotiations can be complex or simple. Here are the possible responses to each request :

• accept
• counteroffer
• decline

Each of the above is a perfectly valid response. There are consequences for each response and a decline can stop the action.

Here's a clarification. In the above, I said that "The first step...is to get those who have the authority and ...can cause a solution...They are those who are accountable and can make the decisions" In other words, these are the decision makers who are empowered to make those decisions. I consider this to be a very important distinction. It's easy to state opinions to spend someone else's money or to declare that "so and so" should do this or that. Such opinions seldom get the job done. It's essential to get "buy in" from the various decision makers. 

Halting negotiations

For negotiations to succeed there must be good faith among all of the problem solvers. Negotiations can halt and solutions can become impossible if any one of the problem solvers repeatedly says "No!" To further the action requires a process of accepting and counter-offering. As this continues, the problem solvers will discuss many differing solutions and the objections and obstacles will be revealed. Burden sharing can be a show stopper!

As any party can say "No" at any time, and as it is possible for one party to be intransigent, it's necessary to have someone at the table who can exert influence. Call it "pressure."

In the case of the flooding, this is absolutely necessary. Of course, we're unawares of the behind the scene discussions that have occurred in the past between the Village of Glen Ellyn, the City of Wheaton, the Community College of DuPage, and the County of DuPage.

For this round to succeed, a more open discussion is essential. 

Agendas, Beliefs and Expected Outcomes
Each individual participating in defining and developing has a different commitment. That commitment is their personal expectation and a desired outcome.

Some will base this on their personal belief system. "We'll negotiate honorably" is one example. It's not prudent to assume that anyone else is going to adhere to that or to any other personal belief or position, declared or otherwise.

Everyone who is involved to solve a problem which includes differing positions has a personal agenda. One of the aspects of that agenda is to "look good."

Unreasonable Expectations
Some expect that a solution can be achieved if only a few of the stakeholders take an active, committed role.  That's an unreasonable expectation.

Some of the observers expect that the outcome will assure that there will never again be flooding.  Some have the position that a good solution will spare them in the future and have little concern for anyone else. Some expect that a "class action" legal action will solve this.

It's useful for individuals to honestly appraise their expectations and openly declare them. That does not always occur.

Revealing and Unconcealing
To succeed in arriving at an acceptable solutions, it's essential to unconceal the motivations, agendas and commitments of the different problem solvers who are involved.

That is because human beings don't always operate in accordance with their stated intentions. Lawyers are experts at obfuscation and diversion. That's something to keep in mind. Each of us, to varying degrees has the same capability and will and do use them to accomplish our personal objectives. There are a lot of intelligent and educated people in this area. It would be unreasonable to expect that they haven't learned how to play the game and play it well.

Operating at cross purposes
If we recognize that each of the problem solvers has a personal agenda, an expected outcome, and a desired involvement, then it is easier to understand why there is unworkability present in communities and organizations.

The solution to the flooding will include dealing with such cross purposes. Everyone will immediately state that flooding is undesirable  However, when we ask "what will you do to solve this problem" is when these impediments will occur.

For example, the Community College of DuPage has steadfastly taken the position that they meet all codes. Their primary and overwhelming interest is in utilizing every yard of their 273 acres in a manner that benefits their goals. If flooding is a natural consequence and there are no codes to prevent it, well, then too bad for the neighbors!

Looking good is hardly likely when flooding is involved. However, everyone wants to look good. That can be used from time to time.

Holding the rope
That's an expression that is used in very dangerous situations involving mountain climbing. The person who is called upon to "hold the rope" is the one who has the life of the climber literally in his or her hands. If a mistake occurs or if under duress and pain should the rope be released, there can be serious consequences. It requires real commitment and integrity to agree to "hold the rope" and then do so. (Note 1).

In problem solving there will be times when the entire outcome is dependent upon one person. That will require literally "holding the rope." In the process of solving complex problems, there are at times multiple rope holders, and that task gets passed. If any "rope holder" should let go, there can be large setbacks or failure.

In successful negotiation each individual at the table is completely aware that they do in fact, "hold the rope." However, there is a willingness to compromise. There is also a shared commitment  If everyone wants some sort of successful conclusion, then the negotiations will succeed.

It is sometimes necessary to determine and reveal what that shared commitment is. If that does not occur, then negotiations may fail, particularly if there are intransigent parties at the table.

In the flooding situation which occurs south of the COD campus and in Briarcliffe from time to time, there appears to be no shared commitment. That is another reason I view this as a difficult problem.

I've found it interesting that if asked, many in our society will say "Oh, yes, you can count on me to "hold the rope."" A few years ago I got a a rude awaking when in an exercise. It was necessary to hold the rope and the guy who was holding the rope I was tethered to looked me in the eyes and said "I've got you." I could see he was physically struggling. A few seconds later, he let me go and I fell.

What I learned from that exercise is simply that what people say, and what they do, may not be aligned. Some people will say it this way "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." This is true even with the best of intentions and with lives in the balance.

I really don't know why he let go. Why don't I know? Shortly thereafter he told me why. But here's a question. If there was a lack of integrity involved, then how is it possible to believe what that individual told me? Perhaps he was being honest and straightforward and perhaps he wasn't.. Suffice it to say that he did let go. He professed a reason for doing so.

In the game of life, we either get results or we get reasons.

Conclusion
I'm a professional problem solver. Some are easy, some are very difficult, and a few have been declared to be impossible. Nevertheless, I approach all problems with the same dedication, passion and commitment. My success rate is extra-ordinary.

My "role" here is primarily that of a committed observer. However, I've been operating in accordance with what I have posted here.  I'm using my skills to direct and exert some pressure both publicly and behind the scenes. My association will be involved, like it or not. However, we too are at the bottom of that 1.5 square mile watershed. We have no control over the operation and maintenance of Wheaton's flood control district or project. To the Community College of DuPage, we exist in a cursory manner. So my personal involvement will be limited. It will take a much bigger crow bar to move this.

This problem is solvable. It's too early to say how it will be solved or if it will be.  Recognizing the agendas of some of the participants, those who will have the roles of "problem solvers" indicates this could be very difficult. When I say "very difficult" I literally mean that it will be far easier to fail than to succeed.

The observers also have an agenda. One owner has stated that the reason for the flood was because the berm on Lake #4 "was not properly maintained." Some are angling for a class action suit. Even the Chicago Tribune in a recent article stated that the leaking pipe on Lake #4 caused the flooding. That was apparently because others told the reporter that the pipe was the cause. I find that to be interesting!

In this situation everyone serves a purpose. Its interesting to unconceal that purpose or to have the individuals reveal it. We all serve a purpose and we can be used to accomplish and serve a larger purpose.

Notes:

1. In real world, modern climbing, mechanical contrivances are used to reduce the necessity to rely upon any one person to "hold the rope." The dangers are well recognized and steps are taken to avoid these situations. In training exercises, perceived danger is as useful for revealing actions and outcomes as would be real danger. To those participating in the training, perception is what matters. 
2. On May 21 I sent an email to the neighbors group, retracting my request for a petition. In that email I said this: "You can consider that request to be retracted. The May 19th email has served one of its purposes..."
3. How will this turn out? My crystal ball doesn't work at all. I can anticipate events, predict actions and likely outcomes. However, that is not the same as predicting the future. Politicians insist they can do that. I'm no politician. Nor do I think taking a "wait and see" attitude will be beneficial to the outcome. 
4. In situations of this type, it's possible to be used by others to accomplish their personal agenda. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. However, personal agendas which have nothing to do with the larger problem or the greater good are problematic. For example, I'm sure there are a few neighbors who see "job one" as protecting their personal property. That's a problem if such an achievement is their one and only goal and compromises the achievement of a larger solution. This is another example of individuals operating at cross purposes. 
5. The flood of April 18, 2013 occurred one month ago. In this age of sound bites and tweets, that's a lifetime ago! There are 400 million tweets in one single day!  My point? The flood of April 18 is so "ancient." We did discuss the necessity to keep this in momentum. One day was 400 million tweets ago. Oh well!