Getting past gridlock.

• Author: Carlson, Christine

Using a neutral "facilitator" to guide adversaries toward consensus can sometimes solve the knottiest legislative problems.

Nursing home expenses in Ohio were staggering. The state ranked fourth in spending for institutional long-term care. A full 43 percent of Medicaid costs - the largest line item in the state budget - went to nursing homes. Acknowledging the need to solve such a costly issue - and having failed in previous attempts - the legislature and the governor created a Medicaid Long-Term Care Reimbursement Committee and tried something different. They used a "facilitated consensus process" to bring state agencies and nursing homes together to agree on a system to pay for long-term care. Today, Ohio has a plan in place that provides for the nursing care of its elderly and that saves the state some $150 million per biennium.

In Virginia, surface water management was an intractable issue. So the Virginia Water Commission decided to put a new twist on discussions about fishing, boating, wildlife habitat, navigation and waste assimilation. It hired a facilitator to conduct a series of meetings that went so successfully that legislation was finally developed and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Hazardous Waste Siting Act were adopted by the legislature.

Like a lot of states, Nebraska's workers' compensation system was costly and discussions on how to reform it were contentious. But when representatives of labor and business sat down together in series of facilitated consensus meetings, the reforms they came up with won legislative approval by a substantial margin.

A new constitutional article set the stage in 1976 for consolidating North Dakota's trial courts. Because of a declining population, leaders recognized the need to reduce the number of judges and merge two levels of trial courts. Over the next 15 years, plans were suggested and rejected. Finally, legislative leaders encouraged a consensus process on the issue. The resulting legislation unified and reduced the number of courts. A single general jurisdiction trial court was established last January, and a plan was made to reduce the number of judges by 20 percent over the next decade.

Difficult legislative issues like these often involve many interests and views on highly technical subjects. When formal hearings do not build agreement and issues are not resolved, problems tend to fester, relationships deteriorate and the issues return, session after session, without resolution. In these circumstances legislators may need additional ways to reach agreement.

A new tool that supplements traditional lawmaking, the "facilitated consensus process," is sparking interest among some legislative leaders.

Q: What is it?

A: A facilitated consensus process is one in which everyone involved in an issue works to resolve it or set a direction for future policy. Because a neutral facilitator and staff assist the process, the participants are free to focus on the issues.

Each process is "customized" to meet the particular circumstances and needs of the issue.

It's a forum to identify the concerns of all parties and address as many of them as possible. Although the agreement might not satisfy everyone equally, and everyone might not support every part of it, each participant can commit to the agreement as a workable solution.

Q: What are the advantages?

A: Getting past gridlock is difficult, but the result may be well worth the effort in money, time, relationships...