A Tale of Two Permits: Teaching Note

Investment Return on Conservation Efforts Decision Case

AG-862
2000

TEACHING NOTE

All materials in this package are copyrighted. All materials (with one exception-see below) can be copied once for instructors; additional copies require permission. Send copyright permission inquiries to: Copyright Coordinator, University of Minnesota Extension Service, 405 Coffey Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108-6068.You may also e-mail your request to: copyright@extension.umn.edu or fax to 612-625-2207.The exceptions to this guideline are the cases and the exhibits, which are copyrighted, but copies (for participants only) can be made without further permission. Note: These documents have a "Reprinted with Permission" statement attached.

Overview
A Tale of Two Permits describes a county board's dilemma regarding an application for a feedlot permit that has caused considerable controversy among local residents. This decision case lets participants discuss potential impacts of feedlots on the environment, economy, community relationships, and politics of a rural community. As participants increase their understanding of the complexity and intensity of issues faced by elected and appointed officials, they increase their appreciation of the difficulty faced in decision making.

Case Objectives
After participating in this decision case participants will:

¨ Understand different points of view regarding feedlot proposals in rural areas.

¨ Know which questions to ask when evaluating the future impact of proposed feedlots.

¨ Become more confident in their ability to make decisions.

Use of the Case
This case was developed for use by Extension Educators and other professionals to facilitate discussion about issues relating to feedlot proposals and similar controversial issues. Participants may include farmers, other rural community members, and elected and appointed officials.

Lesson Plan
This decision case is designed to be used in a 1-2 hour period.

Materials needed

Ö Copies of the written portion of the case and exhibits.

Ö Blackboard, flip chart, overhead projector, or other means of displaying participants' comments.

I. Introduction
	A. Possible opening questions:
		1.	How many of you have ever faced a difficult decision?
		2.	How many decisions do you think we make in an average day? (over 1,000)
	B. Overview of decision case teaching:
		1.	Focus on a real situation.
		2.	Practice problem solving.
		3.	There is no single right answer, because each person and situation is unique.

II. The Case Activity
	A.	Distribute the decision case and exhibits.
	B.	Allow enough time for each person to read the material.
	C.	Divide into several small groups of 2 or 3 to discuss the case.

III. Conclusion
	A.	Group members might vote on an option.
	B.	Give your closing comments.

Discussion Outline
To organize the discussion, you may want to fill an overhead or chalkboard with participants' comments as the discussion progresses. Some possible headings are shown below. You can change these headings to meet your specific goals.

I. Background
A. The dilemma
B. Approach

II. Issues

III. Options

Exhibits
Exhibit A: Map of Richland County
Exhibit B: Murray County News Article
Exhibit C: Richland County Ordinance

A Tale of Two Permits
General Principles of Case Teaching

Decision cases are a special kind of case study that focuses on an actual situation or dilemma that requires a decision. They are called "problem-solving" cases and are unique because the narrative that explains the dilemma does not include the final decision. The participants in the case discussion take on the role of decision makers.

Decision case teaching is an active learning process centered on organizing discussion around solving the problem. This is done by analyzing the situation and evaluating a variety of solutions. It is a group process based on the premise that several heads are better than one. The case teacher does not teach as the traditional "sage on a stage," but rather guides the discussion by asking probing questions, providing reference or bridging statements, recording the discussion on the board, and recognizing participants' contributions.

Case teaching can be intense. Some cases precipitate arguments and some participants become frustrated when the instructor insists that "there is no one right answer." Good cases can have several decision possibilities and participants quickly learn that, although more information would be helpful and that no perfect solution exists, a decision must still be made. Such is real world decision making and problem solving. However, by exchanging information through discussion, participants are exposed to a variety of viewpoints they may not have considered previously.

Room arrangement plays an important part in the case discussion. Most rooms are arranged in rows so that the instructor is the focal point; however, this physical setting can stifle effective teaching. If possible, the ideal situation is to place the seats in a "U" or horseshoe shape so participants can easily see one another and the case teacher can get close to the students and move to and from the blackboard.

An effective strategy for case teachers is to make use of the chalkboard, overhead projector, or easel with newsprint to help organize discussions that may at times seem to be going in many directions at once. By doing so, teachers give students a chance to see their contributions to the discussion validated. Teachers can organize the outline by the key questions asked or topic of the discussion. This Teaching Note contains a discussion outline option in the "Lesson Plan" section.

Managing time is one of the most difficult parts of teaching with cases. It may be helpful to indicate approximate times on the question outline notes to keep on track.

When closing a discussion, most case teachers use a summary statement or a debriefing of the case. One may ask the group to make a decision about the case.

Not everyone will agree. Again, the case teacher can point out that it is okay to have several decisions in a dilemma situation.

Another option is to ask the group, "What just happened here?" This gives participants an opportunity to talk about their perceptions of the case process and share their insight after participating in the decision case discussion. The method of closing the case depends on the objectives and style of the case teacher.

A Tale of Two Permits
Discussion Questions

These are examples of the questions you could use to stimulate discussion of the issues in the case. You could ask participants to discuss questions in small groups of two or three, followed by discussion by the entire group.

1.		What is the County Board's dilemma? The County Board's dilemma is whether or not to approve a feedlot permit for Bob Randolph. The board had already approved an application for a similar feedlot proposed by Randolph's business partner, Jim Mosely. The main difference between the two feedlots is location (Exhibit A: Map of Richland County): Randolph's proposed lot is close to the town of Hailey, whereas Mosely's is in a relatively isolated area. Board members have to weigh the opinions of a majority of their constituents (who oppose granting the permit) against the importance of regulating the feedlot ordinance in an objective manner.
2.	What are the main issues or conflicts underlying the dilemma of whether or not to approve Randolph's feedlot permit? Odor - Odor from the feedlot can affect residents' quality of life and the degree to which the area is livable and enjoyable. The new methods of storing and spreading manure may make the odors less of a problem than some residents anticipate. Competition - Some of the outrage at Randolph's proposed feedlot is due to strong competition among farmers and feelings of animosity when some are more successful than others. Economy - A new feedlot could stimulate the local economy because Randolph would buy and sell hogs, pay taxes, spend money for upkeep of his facilities, etc. This is of particular interest because Richland County is an area with limited industry. Location of feedlots - Randolph's feedlot, which is planned for a location in close proximity to a concentration of homes (Hailey), generated far more opposition than Mosely's, which will be built in a more sparsely populated area. Some residents feel that the distances stipulated in the feedlot ordinance will not protect them from a bad smell or from a polluted lake. Environment - Randolph's feedlot proposal has drawn people's attention to local environmental issues. Some Hailey residents worry that the feedlot will pollute Clear Lake. Their opponents point to the town's current disregard for environmental concerns.
3.	Why were some farmers angry at Randolph and Mosely (Exhibit B: Murray County News Article)? Some farmers do not like the fact that Randolph and Mosely are planning to get involved in livestock production. The farmers are accustomed to thinking of Randolph and Mosely as veterinarians-whom they pay for their services-and now Randolph and Mosely will also be competitors. This may lead to a discussion about the anger, jealousy, or resentment that sometimes comes up when one or a few farmers are perceived by other farmers as being professionally or financially more successful.
4.	Do you think the first Finding of Fact (Exhibit C: Richland County Ordinance) of the conditional use permit was a justifiable reason for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend denying a permit to Randolph? Some participants may feel the commission acted appropriately by citing the first Finding of Fact, since it is possible that the odor from the feedlot could prevent Hailey residents from enjoying their homes and property, or that the odor could bring down property values. Others may argue that the first Finding of Fact should not have been used because there is no concrete evidence that Randolph's feedlot, if he abides by the feedlot ordinance, will negatively affect people's enjoyment of their property or reduce property values.
5.	What official recourse would the residents of Hailey have if Randolph's permit was approved and the feedlot produced an unreasonable amount of odor in the surrounding area? The neighbors may file formal complaints with the County Feedlot Officer and/or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff. To avoid similar problems with feedlot proposals, citizens can encourage commissioners to amend the feedlot ordinance so that it is stricter and does more to protect neighbors from the negative impacts of feedlots (such as by increasing setbacks).
6.	What are the County Board's options? What are the possible consequences of each option? The board could vote to accept Randolph's permit application. This vote would uphold the feedlot ordinance, since Randolph is complying with all the rules and regulations of the ordinance. However, the vote would likely cause public outcry among community members, particularly among residents of Hailey. Some board members may risk their re-election if a sufficient number of their constituents are angered by the vote. Voting to accept the permit application and overturn the Planning Commission's recommendation might also anger and reduce the morale of the Planning Commission members. (It is often difficult to get citizens to serve on the Planning Commission.) If the board voted to deny Randolph's permit application it would satisfy the many community members who oppose the proposed feedlot. It would also not jeopardize the board members' standings with their constituents, the way a "yes" vote might. But if the board votes to deny the application, Randolph could challenge the decision on the grounds that his building plans follow the stipulations of the feedlot ordinance. If the case were to reach the state courts system, the decision could possibly be overturned.

Acknowledgements:
We thank the decision maker for her time and help with completing this project.

Developed by:
Catherine Willeford, Project Leader, Program for Decision Cases, University of Minnesota College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
Bob Koehler, Extension Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service
Marla Reicks, Associate Professor, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota

Reviewed by:
Brian Buhr, Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota
William Crawford, Extension Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service
Kent Thiesse, Extension Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service

Teaching Note: General Principles of Case Teaching taken from the Crossroads in Sustainable Agriculture Series, College of Agriculture Program for Decision Cases.

The opinions expressed by decision makers or in exhibits are being presented in the case by the authors, but this should not indicate endorsement by the University or its staff.

The University of Minnesota Extension Service is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota county Extension office or, outside of Minnesota, contact the Distribution Center at (800) 876-8636.