|
AMWG role, authority, and relationships
The AMWG Charter makes it clear that AMWG’s role is to make formal recommendations to the
Secretary of the Interior: The committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.
(Kempthorne, 2008, p. 1). The duties or roles and functions of the AMWG are in an advisory capacity only (Kempthorne,
2008, p. 2). The Charter and AMWG and TWG Operating Procedures have been established to accomplish this
role. The AMWG must follow the role established by the Charter, making formal recommendations to the
Secretary of the Interior using the processes described in the Operating Procedures.
Collaboration
According to Yaffee and Wondolleck (2000), collaboration leads to better decisions that are more
likely to be implemented and better prepares agencies and stakeholders for future challenges. By
building interpersonal and inter-organizational linkages, managers are better informed and their
choices about future direction are more likely to solve the problem at hand. Programs are more likely
to be implemented successfully if they are supported by stakeholders. Collaborative approaches
have also been adopted as a means of building trust and ending policy, institutional, scientific, and
legal impasses.
Beginning in FY09, hold regular (annual or biennial) workshops/retreats to build trust among
AMP participants and to address internal operations, roles, and effectiveness. At the AMP’s
first retreat in 2004, the attendees defined the internal issues that they most wanted to address:
clarification of roles, responsibilities, and interactions among the various parts of the AMP (AMWG,
TWG, GCMRC, and Science Advisors). The FY09 retreat or workshop should continue the
improvement of internal operations by focusing on the issues that resonate the most with the
attendees. These may include some or all of the following topics:
Ensure that all parties clearly understand the interests of every other party. If collaboration
involves making sure that every party’s interests are served, then everyone involved must
understand the other parties’ interests.
Discuss whether there is a balanced range of interests willing and able to participate, and
if not, how to ensure it. For a collaborative process to be perceived as legitimate, it must
involve a balanced range of participants with diverse perspectives. Some AMWG members are
able to (or choose to) participate more actively than others do. Are there impediments to active
participation that could be addressed? In addition, some stakeholders feel disenfranchised
Establish a full time Executive Coordinator/Manager for the Program. A program as technically,
politically, and structurally complex as the AMP needs a lot of focused attention to be successful. A
full time Executive Coordinator/Manager is needed to lead the Program, facilitate timely resolution of
differences among parties, and ensure that those operating protocols are fairly and consistently
enforced at all levels of the Program. An Executive Coordinator/Manager would also relieve the
Secretary’s Designee of the burden for day-to-day management of the AMP. Several models exist for
this type of position that could be evaluated to determine what would best meet the needs of the AMP
and the Department of the Interior. In addition, the specific duties and authorities of the position
would need to be carefully defined.
Utilize facilitation and mediation expertise more broadly throughout the AMP. Sophisticated
process design, facilitation, and mediation expertise is needed for a collaborative process to
effectively address complex controversial issues involving the many diverse interests represented on
the AMP and that have a long history of conflict. Currently the AMWG utilizes a professional
facilitator for all of its meetings; a professional facilitator should be similarly utilized for TWG
meetings.
The Secretary’s Designee will emphasize the development of consensus for motions
proposed by AMWG members. A consensus decision means that the interests of all the members
of the AMWG were taken into account. If consensus is emphasized, it will encourage AMWG
members to look for ways to address all those interests. To put this into effect, the Secretary’s
Designee will ask parties that disagree on a motion to resolve their differences before or during the
meeting. In addition, all action items will be scheduled for the first day of the meeting, allowing time
for stakeholders to resolve any remaining differences either over lunch or between the first and
second days of the meeting. (Alternatively, longer meetings could be scheduled to allow much of this
negotiation and discussion to occur during the meeting instead of before.)
Develop a process for evaluating tradeoffs among conflicting or competing goals. One of the
biggest challenges of the AMP is to synthesize the large amounts of scientific and other technical
information to evaluate the tradeoffs of alternative courses of action. Adequate time is needed to
allow stakeholders to understand, discuss, and/or rank options. In addition, over the past decade,
AMWG distinction from TWG
The goal is to have TWG thoroughly discuss technical and scientific aspects of issues that will come
before AMWG. The AMWG should not duplicate the work of the TWG, but rely on their efforts and
technical expertise.
As a rule, technical reviews and deliberation will occur at the TWG meetings. As described in Issue
11, this will involve an evaluation of the technical pros and cons of reasonable options. This
technical analysis will help AMWG understand the basis for the TWG recommendations and will
serve as companion information to the AMWG evaluation of policy implications.
For each AMWG agenda item for which there is a TWG recommendation, the TWG chair or designee
will present a summary of the TWG’s work and its recommendation before discussion or action by
AMWG.
AMWG members should be adequately briefed by their TWG members before each AMWG meeting
as described in Issue #17. This will allow AMWG to rely on the TWG for technical reviews and
recommendations, and focus on policy options and tradeoffs as recommendations are evaluated.
Acting on TWG recommendations
The AMWG will discuss and consider all TWG recommendations.
Planning and scheduling work
A 1-year schedule will be developed for AMWG and TWG by the chairs of each group, which clearly
shows all essential regular items that need to be addressed every year, plus other items that have
been added by AMWG. This schedule will include the original timeframe for the tasks plus the status
of each task.
Final approval of annual plans of work and meeting schedules for the AMWG, TWG, and SAs will be
developed and incorporated into the AMP Biennial Work Plan (BWP), which traditionally has only
contained the GCMRC Annual Plan of Work. Reclamation will have the responsibility to develop and
update a composite annual meeting schedule and summary table of annual plans of work for all AMP
entities. AMWG will approve the programs and schedule in its summer meeting.
Assignments to TWG and requests to GCMRC
The GCMRC Chief and TWG Chair will attend all AMWG meetings with a clear understanding of their
workload and deadlines so they can respond during discussions to AMWG requests. The AMWG will
focus on providing clear recommendations to DOI. As the AMWG considers recommendations or
requests to the TWG or GCMRC, the TWG Chair and GCMRC Chief will review any actions that
involve them to ensure the action and timeframe is clear. If possible, the GCMRC Chief and TWG
Chair will determine at the meeting the feasibility of addressing the AMWG’s request.
Recommendations that are not addressed directly at the meeting will be reviewed by the TWG Chair
and GCMRC Chief and responded to after the meeting. Conflicts in workload that cannot be resolved
by the GCMRC or the TWG within current budgeting or staffing will be reported to the Secretary’s
Designee who will determine how best to respond to the AMWG request.
AMWG authority over agencies
The AMWG has no authority over any individual AMP member, including GCMRC.
The Secretary of the Interior established the AMP with four key elements: AMWG, TWG,
GCMRC, and the IRP (Independent Review Panel). The four have distinct roles, but ultimately
the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for seeing that the monitoring and necessary research
is done to evaluate the impacts of adjustments made to dam operations. . . . The AMWG can
recommend [emphasis in original] studies and priorities for implementing individual studies
during those reviews, preferably by consensus. However, final decisions as to the
management of Interior facilities and resources, what studies to implement, when, and using
funds from which sources remain, by statute, with the Secretary of the Interior and the
appropriate Interior agencies. (Loveless, 2000, p. 6).
The Congress finds and declares that the function of advisory committees should be advisory
only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law,
by the official, agency, or officer involved. (Federal Advisory Committee Act, 1972, Section 2(b)).
AMWG does have authority to charge subcommittees or work groups, such as the TWG, with
assignments.
The AMWG may have workgroups or subgroups that the Committee and the Secretary’s
Designee deems [sic] necessary for the purpose of compiling information or conducting research.
(Kempthorne, 2008, p. 4).
Individual comments, although appreciated and sometimes requested, are advisory only and do not
constitute direction to GCMRC or TWG. No formal direction is given to TWG without consensus or a
vote by AMWG. No formal direction is given to GCMRC without consensus or a vote by AMWG, and
approval of such by the Secretary’s Designee.
Free-flowing discussion and interaction are important to the program, and informal, individual
feedback to GCMRC is welcome, particularly when requested. However, GCMRC decides, as an
agent of the Secretary of the Interior responsible for the AMP science program, what input to
incorporate into its program, unless and until the input is an AMWG recommendation that has been
accepted by the Secretary of the Interior.
This means that in order for AMWG to give direction to GCMRC, it must make a recommendation to
the Secretary. See Issue # 10 for a new process for these recommendations.
Note that when TWG is given an assignment from AMWG, the GCMRC would also usually be
involved. In these cases, an AMWG recommendation to the Secretary may be required to obtain
GCMRC involvement. Actions by AMWG such as an assignment to TWG that would not include
GCMRC involvement, or establishment of an Ad Hoc Group, would not need a recommendation to
the Secretary.
AMWG decision making
The AMWG operating procedures require attempting consensus before going to a vote. After a
motion is made and seconded, AMWG members will modify the motion as needed through discussion
in order to attain consensus.
The Secretary’s Designee will eventually test if consensus has been attained by asking the group if
there is any objection to consensus on the motion. If there is none, the motion will be recorded as
adopted by consensus. If there is an objection to consensus, the Secretary’s Designee will either ask
that the group continue to attempt to attain consensus, or will call for a vote. The vote will be by roll
call.
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, a member who abstains has chosen not to vote, and
abstentions do not affect the outcome of the vote (except that they reduce the number of persons
voting on that particular motion, which reduces the number of votes needed to reach the 2/3
supermajority). Thus, abstentions do not block consensus recommendations, and if a roll call vote is
taken and everyone who voted cast an affirmative vote, the vote will be considered unanimous even if
there were abstentions.
Conflicts of interest
While it would be preferable that stakeholder groups have no financial interest in TWG or AMWG
recommendations, in a practical sense this is impossible. To comply with Federal procurement
regulations, the following approach will be used:
- AMWG will provide Federal agencies with broad program advice and recommendations through the organized FACA process.
- After program and budget approval by the Secretary of the Interior, GCMRC or Reclamation will issue requests for proposals (RFPs) to solicit specific monitoring and research proposals to meet program needs. However, in some cases, limited competition and sole-source contracts may be used. (See Issue #22 for more detail.)
- GCMRC will fund proposals based on an independent peer review and comment process. The Department of the Interior has recently promulgated new ethics guidelines for FACA committees, and the Charter and Operating Protocols have been modified to reflect these guidelines. In general, these guidelines state the AMWG, TWG, or subcommittee members are prohibited in participating in specific matters in which the individual member has a direct financial interest.
Measures of success
To clarify progress in meeting its responsibilities, the AMP will define measures of success. Adaptive
Management: The U.S. Department of Interior Technical Guide (Williams, et al., 2007) suggests using the
following four criteria for measuring success in an adaptive management program:
A. Stakeholders are actively involved and committed to the process.
B. Progress is made toward achieving management objectives.
C. Results from monitoring and assessment are used to adjust and improve management decisions.
D. Implementation is consistent with applicable laws.
In order to measure whether progress is being made toward achieving management objectives (B above),
the AMWG will recommend to the Secretary targets (desired future conditions) for the management
objectives in the AMP strategic plan. These targets, needed to guide and focus science and
management activities as well as to measure success in the program, will be incorporated into the AMWG
strategic plan.
| 
