In early 2001 the tribal organization reached out to the Office for Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) within the federal agency, and asked them to provide assistance in resolving the issues. OTSG requested the assistance of Carr, Swanson & Randolph (CSR), a firm specializing in mediation, facilitation, partnering and dispute systems design to assist. CSR assigned Pete Swanson, a partner with the firm, as the project manager. He had extensive knowledge and experience with tribal policy and disputes. These included resolution of conflicts on federal policy related to tribal self-determination; self-governance; public health and safety standards for gaming facilities; Indian Housing formulas, etc.

Strong institutional differences and diverse and divisive personal interests characterized this dispute. Over the course of 16 months, CSR worked with the parties to resolve the outstanding issues clarify and formalize the working relationship between the federal organization and its new tribal partner. This facilitated a change in the culture of interaction and communications between the two organizations. Among the most innovative tools created by the parties during this initiative was a “communications” protocol. This document provided a guide that enabled participants to actively participate in managing the relationship, a memorial to the extremely hard work that had been done in forging the new relationship, as well as a formal agreement that provided the basis for building renewed trust in interactions. This document served as a key component of the formalized institutional relationship. All parties acknowledged that without formally addressing how they related as individuals and organizations there could never be an effective relationship between the two institutions. The communications protocol therefore served as a backbone for all the protocols and agreements that followed. Built into the communication protocol was an enforcement mechanism to allow it to become a living document. Both parties are eager to share this model as an example for other organizations around the country to follow. Other accomplishments resulting from the intervention are as follows:

Technical:

• Established agreements on the access and use of project related materials relevant to the management of both organizations.
• Established protocols for the development and completion of Community Project Agreements (CPA).
• Have prioritized issues for guideline development, continuing to build processes and opportunities to amicably resolve differences of opinion. These include: environmental review procedures, database management, third party contributions, project closeouts, and account administration.
• Organized and communicated information related to the responsibilities that require interaction between the two organizations (Calendar of Events).
• Established agreements on the access to information/files.
• Initiated discussion on the reconciliation of “Transitional Projects”.
• Established a workgroup that resolved administrative issues.

Organizational:

• Created a model, representative of how the different groups viewed the relationship. This model included government – to – government relationships, advocacy, consultation, customer supplier relationships, and program management.
• Identified roles and responsibilities of groups and individuals related to day-to-day operations.

Relationship:

• Reestablished communication between primary decision makers within the agencies.
• Actively addressed and resolved emotional tension and conflict between organizational members that prevented collaborative work relationships.
• Provided organizational members with enhanced abilities to understand and manage conflict.
• Established the opportunity for both organizations to participate in maintaining positive relationships. Provided the structure for facilitated monthly meetings between organizations and weekly meetings between primary decision makers.

Many of the items listed above cannot be viewed in isolation. Many of the technical accomplishments were made possible by the progress made in resolving hardened positions by the primary decision makers and addressing emotional trauma experienced by individuals. In addition, the weekly and monthly meetings and recording of protocols provided the structure to facilitate continued progress on building positive interpersonal relationships and the opportunity to continue to address difficult issues.