Here are the notes related to Days 8 & 9:
SMALL GROUPS for DAYS 8 & 9
{first name is the group coordinator}

GG-1:
Gloria Harrison
Dolores Brent
Julie Milne
Larry Charach,
Danielle Arrand

GG-2:
John Pressey
William Cook,
Scott Watson
Bev Norman

GG-3:
Colette Zuberbuhler
Joanie Parker
Jeanette Espie
Dilys Dranchuk

GG-4:
Karen Ferguson,
Richard Townell
Leslie Pasloski
Suzanne Gareau-Kubicki

GG-5:
Lorna Townell
Majorie Phillipps
Dick Haldane
Colleen Goertz

GG-6:
Abe Hering
Alice Hinds
Joan Poplawski
Charles Toth

GG-7:
John Stokker
Grant Robertson
Hélène Lagacé
Linda Marie Johnson

GG-8:
Wayne Safruik
Charlotte Rode
Terri McTaggart
Jan Maynes

Day 8: Gilbane Gold – Solving a Contemporary Problem of Economics vs. Environment
How do we balance the ethical challenges of living and working in community?
(This also is a two day exercise – Part I: participants will review the video case and begin working on a potential solution in their small groups – each group will examine the case from the perspective of one of the key players.)

Questions to Guide the Team Presentations re Gilbane Gold
Synopsis
Gilbane Gold is the name given to dried sludge from the Gilbane wastewater treatment plant. It is sold to farmers as a commercial fertilizer. The annual municipal revenue generated saves the average family about $300 a year in taxes. Several years ago the city of Gilbane established limits on the discharge of heavy metals to the sewers in order to protect Gilbane Gold from the build-up of toxic materials that could end up in the farmer’s soil. These limits are ten (10) times more restrictive than Federal limits. However, the limits are based on the concentration of the discharge with no restrictions on total weight of material discharged.

Z CORP is a computer components manufacturer, which discharges wastewater containing small amounts of lead and arsenic into the city sewer system. By the current city test standards, the discharge usually meets the allowable levels for heavy metals. However, a newer test, known only to Z CORP environmental people, shows the discharge exceeds the city test standards. An ethical dilemma arise within Z CORP concerning whether to advise the city of the newer test. Acceptance of the newer test would require additional investment in clean-up equipment. Tom Richards is a Z CORP environmental engineering consultant who was fired for advocating the new test. Thereafter, David Jackson, an engineer working for Z CORP, goes public with his views. A television media investigation results.

 Complicating the situation is the fact that Z CORP has just received a contract for five (5) times as many computer modules as they presently produce, albeit at a very thin profit margin. The increased production means five (5) times as much waste will be produced. The discharge concentration can be kept the same by adding five (5) times the amount of water, thus still meeting the existing city standards. The result, however, is that Gilbane Gold has five (5) times the amount of heavy metals in it as before. The Z CORP vice-president is opposed to changing the test standards as that would require additional investment in wastewater treatment equipment. This could cause Z CORP to lose money on the new contract. The VP contends that Z CORP’s responsibility is to provide jobs and a payroll and that the city should worry about the environment.

Primary Questions (for all teams to consider)
• Have any laws been broken? And, is this even relevant?
• What are the major ethical problems? Where are they linked to technical uncertainties?
• Where are the decision points (moments of critical choice) whereby the situation could have been resolved?
• When, in such moments, could Cowboy Ethics be helpful at getting to better resolutions of the ethical dilemmas being faced?
• What Stage(s) of ethical reasoning does your character tend to operate at/from?

Background Thoughts (for each team to reflect & utilize as necessary)
The right course of action is usually clear when it is between good & evil. However, it is not unusual for decision-makers to find themselves forced to choose between competing goods, rather than between good & evil. This scenario brings together the competing goods of:
• protection of human health and the environment (regulation and the spirit vs. the letter of the law)
• the quality of life and the welfare of people (jobs & taxes)
• personal integrity (view of self & living up to personal standards)
• free enterprise (profitability and competition in an international marketplace)
Key Players
David Jackson (young environmental engineer at Z CORP
Maria Renato (Channel 13 Reporter)
Lloyd Bremen (farmer, also former commissioner for environmental protection)
Dr. Winslow Massin (professor emeritus at Hanover University, School of Engineering)
Phil Port (head of Z CORP’s environmental affairs department)
Tom Richards (environmental engineering consultant)
Diane Collins (Z CORP Vice-President: in charge of plant)
Frank Seeders (Z CORP head of production)

Specific Challenges
Each team will analyse the case from the point-of-view of a particular individual or organization. The cross-fire will attempt to determine what the proper/betterr/preferred resolution ought to be (and the goal of all teams will be to get to a solution, without the need of an independent mediator). The team that does the most to work towards a resolution and (if different) the team that actually brings the crossfire to conclusion will receive a bonus of up to three [3] marks towards the final marks of each participant.

GG-1: Maria Renato, Channel 13 Investigator
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• explain your perception of the degree of fairness in the Channel 13 investigation?
• to what extent did all sides get adequate coverage?
• in what ways did (or did not) Maria’s work contribute to resolution of the major dilemma?

GG-2: Professor Emeritus Winslow Massin
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• assess the helpfulness as well as the goodness of the retired professor’s comments & advice?
• discuss the validity of his view(s) extolling a compromise between development and production of new products and the resultant impact on the environment (and by implication, environmental health)
• should the fact he is retired be considered is weighing his value (& even whether he should have been invited for comment at all)?
• what should his advice have been to David?

GG-3: Lloyd Bremen (farmer & former commissioner for environmental protection)
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• how proper is it for former officials to get involved in such events after they have retired?
• to what degree might he be a mediative force in this dispute as he both helped write the regulations and now, as a farmer, is a purchaser of Gilbane Gold?
• where might he be helpful to city officials in explaining the long term impacts of their decision-making in regards to encouraging industry while promoting Gilbane Gold?

GG-4: Phil Port, David Jackson’s boss
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• where was Phil Port’s primary allegiance?
• to what extent, and in what instances, could he have facilitated a resolution to the dilemma?
• do what degree is he responsible for resolving the problems Z CORP seem to be creating (in other words, is this an environmental challenge or a production challenge or somewhere else??
• what seems to be his level(s) of moral reasoning?

GG-5: Tom Richards, Consultant
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• assess Tom’s ethical conduct with respect to David Jackson?
• …with respect to Z CORP, especially the environmental affairs department?
• …with respect to Channel 13?
• what seems to be his level(s) of moral reasoning?

GG-6: Senior Z CORP Management (basically Diane & Frank)
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• assess their conduct from the perspective of a Z CORP shareholder / a city taxpayer / a Gilbane Gold user
• what are their primary responsibilities — what are they being paid to do?
• what would be the advantages & disadvantages if they had pursued a policy of maximum protection of the environment, whatever the cost?
• because the company is meeting (or comes close to) the letter of the existing discharge law, to what extent does it have a greater responsibility to meet the philosophy or objective behind this law, which is currently flawed because it does not limit the mass of pollutants discharged or require the most advanced analytical technology in measuring toxic substances?
GG-7: David Jackson, the young environmental engineer
in addition to the primary questions noted above…
• what might David have done during the development/evolution of this dilemma that could have averted it?
• assess whether he should have gone public or blown the whistle?
• assess his decision to tell Channel 13 his side of the story off the record & how is Z CORP likely to react?
• what advice would you give?

GG-8: The Moderators, (these individuals DO NOT appear in the video)
The challenge of the Moderators will be to help facilitate, as necessary (or as opportunity arise), the group coming to a consensus answer… The Moderators are not to run the cross-fire or even attempt to direct it; rather when either an impass or a seemingly solution seems near, they can make suggestions to either individuals or the group as to possible ways to resolve the issue.

Day 8: Gilbane Gold – (cont’d)
How do we balance the ethical challenges of living and working in community?
(Part II: each team puts forward their solution in a crossfire format – all participants try to get to mutual agreement on the dilemma the case has raised).

Initial Presentations [Team Seating will form a large oval – all but GG-9 facing each other]
GG-3: Lloyd Bremen (farmer & former commissioner for environmental protection)
GG-7: David Jackson, the young environmental engineer
GG-5: Tom Richards, Consultant
GG-6: Senior Z CORP Management (primarily Diane & Frank)
GG-4: Phil Port, David Jackson’s boss
GG-2: Professor Emeritus Winslow Massin
GG-1: Maria Renato, Channel 13 Investigator

Cross-fire… Who is right? Who makes the most sense? What ought to be the final outcome? How can we all get there?

Remember: The cross-fire attempts to determine what the proper/best/preferred resolution ought to be (and the goal of all teams will be to get to a solution, without the need of an independent mediator). The team that does the most to work towards a resolution and (if different) the team that actually brings the crossfire to conclusion will receive a prize!!

g.w.