Find a situation (a real-world situation or a fictional situation) with two or more parties of jurisdiction or interest over a specific project or policy (public/private partnership, intergovernmental). At least one of the parties needs to be a governing board or elected officials.

In 750-1,000 words, do the following:

1.  Explain the participants in the situation. (power involved, interest, requirement)

2.  Explain the difference between influence and negotiation among the parties.

3.  Recommend strategies to build the relationship between the parties in preparation for negotiation (at least one of the parties needs to be elected officials or a governing board)

4.  Recommend different techniques of negotiation the parties can utilize to get their interest or requirements met.

5.  Discuss how each party determines the value of what they are negotiating for and what they are willing to give up.

6.  Discuss what would make each party agree to a decision within a negotiation or leave the table (how much leverage does each party have).

Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide,  An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Imagine you are the chief of staff for the chairman of the board of supervisors responsible for the stadium district of your county. The professional sports team who uses the stadium believes that the 20-year-old stadium is in need of upgrades to stay competitive with other teams around the league. They are demanding that the county pays $200 million for said upgrades or they will leave the county and build a new stadium elsewhere. The county originally paid for the construction of the stadium with a sales tax initiative that was somewhat unpopular with many voters. There are strong opinions and valid arguments from voters, the business community, and various other stakeholders and forces as to whether the team should stay in the stadium or not. As the chief of staff, you are responsible, with your staff, to assist the chairman in determining the best path forward to deal with this situation. In 1,500-2,000 (total) words, do the following: Part I (750-1,000 words): Determine the type of personal power you possess in this situation. Describe the type of personal power you may have in regards to the chairman, your staff, and the other parties who may have an interest in this issue. Determine the type of positional power you possess in this situation. Describe the type of positional power you may have in regards to the chairman, your staff, and the other parties who may have an interest in this issue. Given the type of power you possess, determine whether you have the influence required to move this issue in the right direction. Explain what type of influence you may have and if you will need to create more influence through other alliances, etc. Part II (750-1,000 words): Imagine that the chairman and your team have decided that it would be fair for the county to split the costs for renovations with the team and pay half of the costs. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the negotiation position the county is in to get the team to pay half of the costs by doing the following: Determine if the negotiation is just between the county and the team or if other stakeholders should be involved. Explain why. Outline the strengths and weaknesses of the county’s negotiation position. Explain why each is a strength or a weakness. Explain how you can employ systems thinking to strengthen your position, manage various forces such as public opinion and political pressure, and obtain the result that maximizes the public good. Use four to six scholarly resources to support your explanations. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide,

Create an argument for why healthcare is best regulated at the federal or state/local level. Explain the pros and cons of regulation at that level versus the other level, and consider aspects such as taxation, national standards versus local control, and the Constitution. Include recent examples in the news that support your argument. No plagiarism, will be submitted through Turnitin. Must be written in Turabian format.

Several sources should be cited and listed in the references to support points. These include the book, lessons, news articles, and relevant websites.

The task is to research, create, and support a scholarly argument using facts and evidence. Personal opinions are unnecessary and should be left out of the arguments. State facts and back them with citations. Phrases like “I feel” or “in my opinion” should appear nowhere in the essay. 

Please reference the attached rubric before beginning.

Writing Rubric

Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Did not attempt
Criterion ScoreSynthesis Of Knowlegde
20 points

Research Agent Orange, and the possibility that the chemical has been responsible for the death and health issues of millions of people during and since the Vietnam War. Based on prior scientific research by the facilities developing and producing this product, what scientific information existed to warn users that the chemical was a hazard to human and animal life either through direct contact, consumption of food products that were contaminated by indiscriminate spraying of the chemical, or through mishandling during manufacture, storage, or distribution of this chemical? Was the chemical intentionally, indiscriminately, disbursed knowing that immediate and long-term effects would impact any human and animal life coming in contact with the chemical?

Even in the war in Afghanistan today, our military and political leaders must consider the immediate and long-term impact of collateral damage as well as justification of any weapon of mass destruction, chemical or otherwise. Did such scientific research during the creation of Agent Orange provide any level of risk analysis that provided our military leaders with a projected percentage of collateral damage, which equated to acceptable losses of human or animal life directly or indirectly related to the aerial disbursement of this chemical? If such risk analysis did exist, did it include long-term impact projections? What effort has the United States government provided to compensate and care for those whose lives have been destroyed by this chemical within the U.S. and the country of Vietnam? Are such chemicals still used in military operations? What should be done for the millions of families across the globe who suffer from the debilitating effects of this chemical? Is blatant abuse of the distribution of industrial toxic chemicals relevant today?