Center for Ethics and Business

1997/98 Business Ethics Fortnight

February 1999

I am pleased to be able to issue the second report on the activities connected with the Center for Ethics and Business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles since I assumed responsibility for its programs in 1995. We had originally planned to produce a report annually, but some logistical problems forced us to postpone the 1997 report and to issue a combined 1997/1998 report. With those matters now resolved, we plan to return to annual reports in the future.

This report describes the progress we have made with our unusual "Business Ethics Fortnight" program. But it also describes some of the challenges we've faced over the last couple of years. We've learned a great deal about the practical problems connected with a program as elaborate as the one we're trying to develop. And I hope that this information will help other colleges and universities interested in developing similar programs.

Sincerely,

Thomas I. White, Ph.D.

Hilton Professor of Business Ethics

Director, Center for Ethics and Business

Business Ethics Fortnight

As detailed in our 1996 report, during the 1995-96 academic year, we initiated a new business ethics program on campus that aimed to build on the strengths of LMU's former "Business Ethics Week" panels. The new program, which we dubbed "Business Ethics Fortnight," has four elements: a presentation competition, a fund-raiser, a combined academic/athletic competition and a final ceremony.

The centerpiece of the new program is a student team presentation competition. Students form teams of 3 to 6 members, research a contemporary case in business ethics, and make a 20 to 30 minute presentation in which they analyze the issue and propose a solution. Teams must cover the financial, legal and ethical dimensions of the problem and offer a solution that passes muster on all three counts. Presentations are judged by panels made up of faculty members and men and women from area businesses. The top teams receive cash prizes ($1,000, $600 and $400).
However, as a way of putting a practical twist on the program, we put on a 5 kilometer walk/run and 10 kilometer run (the LMU Run for the Bay) and donate the proceeds to "Heal the Bay," a local environmental group. The idea is to have a component in the program that, within the limited time available in students' schedules, encourages them to be involved in something that does some tangible good for the surrounding community. The run is completely optional, but many students participate--either as runners, walkers or volunteers at the event.
To link these two components and to encourage students to appreciate the connection between mind and body, we also have two $500 prizes for the teams with the best combined scores between the presentation competition and the two distances in the run. We call this "L. A.'s Weirdest Biathlon."
To conclude the program, we have a closing ceremony. We've tried two different formats for this: a panel discussion on some issue related to business ethics, and an awards banquet.

Year One: 1996

Our experience with the various elements the first year (1996) was largely positive. We had 141 students participate, comprising 31 teams in the presentation competition. The students did admirable work on a variety of cases connected with the theme: business, ethics and the environment. In particular, we received very strong support from the Los Angeles business community. Judges were generous with their time and very helpful with their feedback to the students about their presentations. We received financial contributions both from individuals and corporations. More than 400 people participated in the run and generated a $1,000 contribution to Heal the Bay. We also benefited from the fact that one of the MBA courses in human resources chose to study the program as a class project and provided us with valuable feedback on a number of fronts. (The first year program is described in more detail in the 1996 report.)

Year Two: 1997

We began our planning for the 1997 program with the decision to keep the major elements of the program intact. As a first-time event, however, it's not surprising that there were a few things we wanted to do differently.

The primary change involved the cases students were working on. In 1996, we required teams to work on actual cases that we solicited from area businesses. The idea behind this was that it would give students first-hand contact with real-life, ongoing business issues as well as the opportunity to develop contacts at area corporations. While this approach has much to be said for it, it proved more difficult than we anticipated. Given the limited number of cases we were able to generate, many teams shared cases. Although our contacts at these companies were unfailingly generous with their time and didn't complain, we felt that in some cases we were probably imposing on these executives' good will. It was also clear that the logistics involved in communicating with other teams and sharing information from corporate contacts made the exercise more difficult than necessary for students. Accordingly, in 1997 we also gave teams the option of using a published case or doing their own research--an option that every team chose. The main reason for student preference on this score appears to be time demands, and students' perception that they could do a better job more expeditiously by taking the more conventional, academic route.

We did, however, keep the same theme (business, ethics and the environment) for 1997. We wanted to develop our relationships with the executives who helped our students in 1996. Even though students were not using the local corporate cases, many of these executives were involved in the program. Most judged; some arranged for corporate contributions; and one even presented workshops for our students. Northrop-Grumman emerged as a major corporate backer--providing help on all three fronts.

Our second year saw the field of teams in the presentation competition drop to 62 students comprising 13 teams. As was the case in 1996, virtually all of the teams were required to participate. The lower number of teams was the result of scheduling changes that produced fewer courses that would be appropriate candidates for requiring students to participate. However, this made it possible to work more closely with the students involved, and this produced a significant improvement in the quality of the presentations. A team studying nuclear power won both the presentation competition and the 5K biathlon. The membership of all teams and their topics are listed at the end of this report.

As was the case in our first year, virtually all of the students in the presentation competition were undergraduates. Graduate students were invited to participate, but they are so busy (most work full-time) that most simply have no time available for an extra, voluntary project. An increasing number of MBA students volunteered to serve as judges, however, and this expanded the number of companies and the range of industries represented in the judging pool.

Our awards ceremony featured a panel discussion connected with one of the most controversial real estate development projects in Los Angeles's recent history: Playa Vista. Debate, protest and litigation have surrounded this commercial and residential development for 20 years before the project could actually begin taking shape. By the end of the process, however, there was the very unusual situation where individuals who began as adversaries--the project executive for the development and the chair of the environmental group that first opposed the project--had developed a relationship in which they could say that they genuinely trusted each other. In the face of notions that business is just another form of war and that distrust is the order of the day, we thought that our students would benefit from hearing a discussion between two people who worked through the difficult process necessary to achieve trust in such a complicated situation. A transcript of this panel appears later in this report.

One small change made a significant difference in the following year. Better planning made it possible for us to videotape the finalists' presentations, and these tapes became an important resource for teams that competed in 1998. Many teams studied the tapes, and, as a result, there was major improvement in the overall quality of the presentations.

One other small change also made a major difference. The original course for the 5K/10K fundraising run was redesigned, producing a smoother, but more challenging experience for runners. Approximately 450 runners and walkers participated, including LMU's President, Thomas P. O'Malley, S.J., and the Dean of the College of Business Administration, John Wholihan. The event produced a $2,000 contribution to Heal the Bay, doubling the amount raised the preceding year. Six student teams competed in the "biathlon," although all chose the shorter distance. The winners of the presentation competition (the team discussing nuclear power) also won the combined contest.

Once again, the business ethics program was the subject of a class project--this time, an undergraduate marketing course. The student team made a number of excellent suggestions for promoting the event more effectively in the future.

Year Three: 1998

The program's third year aimed to consolidate gains and to test the possibility of a couple new directions.

The general theme was designated "business, ethics and the environment" one more time in the hope of generating financial support from outlets that fund environmental education. Feedback from both students and faculty indicated that a completely open theme, however, might produce greater participation in the student team presentation competition in the future. So we went into year three with the understanding that unless we could get some significant funding for the program, we'd open up the theme in year four.

One of the observations made by the students who evaluated the 1997 program was that the competition wasn't as well known on campus as we'd like it to be. Accordingly, one change we made 1998 was to promote the program more aggressively on campus. We tried three specific things. 1) We organized two promotional events/informational sessions featuring outside speakers. Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay, in the fall, and David Newton, author of Entrepreneurial Ethics, in the spring. 2) We advertised more heavily in the campus newspaper and distributed flyers to students in ethics classes. 3) We followed the students' specific suggestion that we try to promote the program by creating a slogan and using it heavily in our advertising.

Unfortunately, our promotional events drew small audiences, despite the fact that, at the first one, we offered free T-shirts to the first 50 students and a chance to win one of two gift certificates to the university bookstore--incentives that students assured us ahead of time were "sure things" for attracting a sizable audience. Our advertising campaign was more successful in increasing our visibility with students, although this didn't produce a significant boost in participation until the 1999 competition. We had immediate reaction to our new slogan, although our success with it became a two-edged sword. Trying to counteract the bias that an academic event--particularly one involving ethics--was ponderously serious and dull, we settled on the lighthearted slogan, "More fun than decent people think should be legal." We had a large banner made with the slogan emblazoned on it, and we hung it on campus--only to discover that it disappeared after one day. Thinking that this was perhaps an aberration, since banner theft hasn't been much of a problem on campus, we had a second banner made. This one lasted an entire week before it disappeared. At this point we realized that although we had come up with a very effective slogan, we were unprepared for some of the side-effects. As a result, we decided to put the slogan on bumper stickers and simply give them away. Hopefully, this will keep us from having to make a third banner. Nonetheless, we now do have greater recognition on campus.

For a variety of reasons connected with the scheduling of particular courses in the fall semester, no instructors felt that it was appropriate to require participation. Therefore, for the first time we had a completely voluntary field. The number of teams competing remained the same as 1997(13), made up of 44 students. Once again, teams steered away from the cases connected with local corporations and opted to work with the information available in published cases, or, more frequently, to do all of their own research. Also, once again, presentations improved substantially--especially in the analysis of the ethical dimensions of the problems. As a result of this improvement, for the first time we had a tie for first place between one team that studied cloning and another team that examined cigarette filters and the harm associated with their disposal. The pool of judges continued to expand, as judges suggested colleagues and as the program became more widely known in the local business community.

Despite the smaller number of students in the competition, there was growth in other areas. For the first time, the competition was opened to students from other colleges and universities. Our initial strategy for attracting outside teams was to mail announcements about the competition to administrators at business schools nationwide and to members of the Society for Business Ethics. We also placed an announcement in the newsletter of the Society for Business Ethics, ran advertisements in the student newspapers of UCLA and the University of Southern California, and personally contacted some administrators and faculty at neighboring institutions. A few students from UCLA and the University of California at Long Beach did participate, responding either to an ad or to direct contact by LMU students. Since appealing directly to students seemed the most effective route, we will do more of this in 1999. We also received feedback that our practice of scheduling presentations during the week instead of on a weekend, makes it considerably more difficult for teams from a distance to participate. As a result, 1999 will see a major change on this front.

In addition, there continued to be important improvement in the quality of the teams' presentations-particularly in the ethical analyses. Somewhat paradoxically for an ethics competition, in the first two years of the program, the ethical analyses were significantly weaker than the legal, financial and environmental analyses. Accordingly, one of our goals for 1998 was to address this issue, and we did so in three ways. First, we made a concerted effort to help teams individually with this. Second, in addition to making videotapes available of the best presentations from 1997, we produced a couple of videotaped lectures that described a fairly basic philosophical methodology and gave concrete guidance about how teams could apply it in their cases. Third, we changed the judging form in order to make the ethics section weigh more heavily in the final tally. Since we did see improvement, this seems to have been a good strategy.

This year also saw us try out a new competition in cooperation with Heal the Bay, the beneficiary of our 5K/10K run. One of the biggest sources of beach pollution in Los Angeles is cigarette butts, Heal the Bay wanted to find a way to reduce this problem, and they made the following proposition to us. If we would hold a student competition based on designing an advertising/public education campaign on this topic, they would arrange for a couple of judges from the advertising agencies that do pro bono work for them. Three teams competed, making excellent presentations to executives from TBWA/Chiat Day and Rogers Associates and a member of LMU's Marketing Department. This became the proverbial win/win situation. Heal the Bay got a number of themes and strategies to consider using, while students got direct feedback from advertising professionals.

As was the case in 1997, we learned that small changes can produce major benefits. In the first two years of the competition, we allotted one hour for each presentation. This amounted to about 30 minutes for the presentation, 15 minutes for a question and answer session, and another 10 minutes for the judges' feedback. However, it sometimes took a while for one team to leave and for the next team to set up and begin, and this meant that some sessions had relatively short question and feedback sessions. We extended the sessions to 90 minutes in 1998 and discovered that the judges took the extra time to give very detailed and helpful evaluations of a team's performance. It is impossible to overestimate the value of such high quality, professional, personally tailored feedback for team members. Second, the smaller number of competitors combined with greater success with fundraising let us add a new element to the program and invite the students and the judges to attend an awards banquet at which we announced the winners. This turned out to be a huge hit because the students had more of a chance to interact informally with the executives. Since one of the primary aims of Business Ethics Fortnight is to give students the opportunity for direct contact with men and women in business, the 90 minute session and the banquet will now be permanent fixtures.

The LMU 5K/10K Run for the Bay continued to grow. More than 500 runners and walkers participated, including John Wholihan, Dean of the College of Business Administration. The event produced a $2,000 contribution to Heal the Bay, matching the amount raised the preceding year. The number of student teams competing in the biathlon increased to 8, but only one team ran the longer distance. The cloning team that tied for first in the presentation competition won the 5K biathlon; a team studying ocean drilling won the 10K biathlon.

General Observations

While we will continue to develop this event and, we hope, make only new mistakes, the first three years have revealed some interesting facts.

First, business men and women are very strong supporters of this program because they understand its relevance to students' future careers in business. In a follow-up questionnaire after the 1998 event, judges universally testified to the value of students' grappling with ethical issues, working in groups and giving presentations. A number of judges also singled out the biathlon for praise. The backing of this constituency is especially apparent by an increase in the number and size of contributions from individual executives and corporations over our first three years. And the program has even received a boost from someone who is arguably one of the most important executives on the planet--C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman and CEO of AT&T. Last spring Armstrong delivered LMU's commencement address, and in his remarks he alluded to the distinctiveness of the program--particularly the biathlon.

Second, given the many demands made for students' time and attention, it's difficult to get them to commit to demanding activities outside of class--even when they recognize their practical value. Students informed us that they would most likely participate in the competition if they saw their work for it connected to one of their courses. Therefore, in year four of this program, we went back to linking the competition to courses. Nearly 100 students responded by registering for these courses, thus guaranteeing a field of about 20 teams.

Third, the fact that the ethical analyses have been the weakest sections of the student presentations reveals both an important weakness in our culture and tells us something about the difficulties in overcoming this. It is obvious to professional ethicists that moral discourse in contemporary society is relatively unsophisticated--compared to the technical sophistication we see in many areas of popular discussion. One way to illustrate the situation might be to say is that the level of sophistication we see in popular discourse about scientific or financial matters, for example, is equivalent to the skills necessary to do higher mathematics; however, the level of sophistication that generally obtains in moral discourse is roughly equivalent to that of people who are having trouble doing basic arithmetic. In contemporary culture, moral discourse is usually dominated by a combination of undefended personal feeling, public opinion polls, special pleading or the views of sometimes self-appointed moral authorities. And the message we hear is usually that moral standards is either virtually totally relative or unreasonably rigid. As a result, students get little exposure to professional ethical analysis. One way that colleges and universities have addressed this is to require students to take courses in ethics in order to equip them intellectually. Indeed, this is the strategy at Loyola Marymount, where students must take two philosophy courses, including one course in theoretical or applied ethics. As a result, virtually all of the students who have been in our competition have taken these courses. Nonetheless, despite this exposure, the ethics section in most presentations has been significantly weaker than the financial or legal discussions. As noted above, we have seen some important progress on this matter over the first three years. And, when given some combination of appropriate guidance, support and incentives, teams have shown that they can draw from the insights of their earlier ethics courses and do a reasonable job on the ethical issues. Still, the lack of an ongoing presence of sophisticated moral discourse in contemporary culture guarantees that this matter will continue to be an uphill struggle.

The Future

As a result of feedback from numerous sources, the 1999 program will see at least four major changes.

Teams will be allowed to work on issues from any area of business ethics.

We hope that this will make the competition compatible with the academic goals of more courses on campus--which will widen the field of LMU teams. We hope that this will also increase the likelihood of teams from elsewhere participating.

The final round and concluding events will be moved to a weekend.

We will still have a preliminary round of the competition for LMU teams during the week (April 6-8). However, the final round (LMU finalists plus any non-LMU teams) will take place on Friday (April 16) and Saturday (April 17). In order to make sure that outside teams will have the option of competing in the "biathlon," the LMU Run for the Bay will also take place on Saturday (April 17). The concluding ceremony and awards banquet will probably be held Saturday evening, but possibly on Sunday afternoon. Our goal here is to make it easier for teams from off-campus, especially teams traveling from a considerable distance, to participate without interfering with their classes.

There is a new prize reserved for outside teams.

A donor has contributed funds that will allow us to establish a new $500 prize that will be awarded to the best presentation by an exclusively non-LMU team. We hope that this incentive will increase the number of teams from off-campus.

We completely redesigned the Center's web site so that it is now a primary source of information for the competition.

Between the facility of students across the country with the Internet and the efficiency of computer technology, one of the best ways to provide information on the competition is through a web site. Accordingly, at the end of 1998, we launched a new site (www.ethicsandbusiness.org). This interactive site includes: resources for understanding and resolving ethical dilemmas in business, a discussion forum, and information about the Business Ethics Fortnight competitions. We've included everything from competition guidelines to possible topics to suggested strategies for handling the legal, financial and ethical dimensions of the case. We are also regularly updating it with information about the competition.

My next report will comment on the efficacy of these changes and will describe how the 1999 program went.

Business Ethics Fortnight: 1997

"A Dialogue on Trust"

Douglas J. Gardner, Partner, Maguire Thomas Partners. Ruth Lansford, Chairperson, Friends of Ballona Wetlands. Moderator: Professor Louke Van Wensveen, LMU, Department of Theological Studies.

The Playa Vista project is one of the most controversial commercial and residential developments in recent Los Angeles history. For 20 years, it has stimulated intense debate and numerous lawsuits, and much of this has revolved around the projected environmental impact of the project. The parcel of land in question, originally owned by Howard Hughes, is south of the Marina del Rey section of Los Angeles and includes the ecologically sensitive Ballona Wetlands. Part of the land abuts Loyola Marymount University. The original plan for the site, developed in the late 1970s by the heirs of Howard Hughes and the Summa Corporation, was widely opposed by the local community. Management of the project was subsequently assumed by MaguireThomas Partners, who proposed a smaller plan. The project is currently taking shape. It is being developed on a 1087-acre site and will include a mix of residential housing, office and commercial space, The Campus at Playa Vista (an entertainment, new media and technology complex), open spaces and recreational amenities. The development is planned to include the new DreamWorks studios. About half of the project will be devoted to open space, including the restoration of the Ballona Wetlands.

What follows is a transcript of a panel discussion between two individuals who were major players in this drama and who represent groups that are traditionally adversaries: a real estate developer and an environmental organization. The rationale for arranging this panel on trust is that despite all of the attention that has been paid to the Playa Vista project, one of its most unusual and most important facets has been largely overlooked. That is, despite being from opposing camps and confronting a highly controversial issue, these two individuals were ultimately able to get to the point where they genuinely trusted each other and believed that it was possible to deal with one another in an atmosphere of trust and integrity. They were invited to discuss the difficult process that led them to this point.

At the time of this panel, Douglas Gardner was Project Executive for the Playa Vista development, with specific responsibilities for the coordination of the project's design, master plan, and the entitlement processes. As project spokesman, he was also actively involved with the community surrounding the site, and with the numerous governmental agencies that have jurisdiction over the project. Mr. Gardner earned his B.A. magna cum laude from Yale College in 1973, and a Masters in Architecture from the Yale School of Architecture in 1975. He received his architectural registration in the State of New York in 1983. Prior to joining Maguire Thomas Partners in 1989, he was an Associate Partner with the firm of I. M. Pei & Partners, Architects, in New York City where he worked for 13 years.

Ruth Lansford formed Friends of Ballona Wetlands in 1978 in response to the original Playa Vista project. Beginning with six members, the organization quickly rose to over 1,500 members. From 1978 until 1984, the Friends, under Lansford's leadership, fought the proposed development through every level of government and every step of the permit process, ending at the California Coastal Commission when the Commission designated 178 acres for preservation--and then permitted a major roadway to cut through that. The Friends were determined to overturn the Commission's decision, and Lansford persuaded the Center for Law in the Public Interest to take on the Friend's case. In 1984, a suit was filed against the Coastal Commission, Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles and the developer, Summa Corporation. By 1989, with a lawsuit facing them and with the election of a new Councilwoman who was firmly against the project, the heirs of Howard Hughes sold their major interest in the property to Maguire Thomas Partners. Maguire Thomas immediately launched negotiations with the Friends. After a year and a half, agreement was reached which provided for the preservation and restoration of 285 acres of habitat, the elimination of housing sites abutting the most sensitive portion of the wetland, the deletion of the roadway cutting through it, the elimination of an upscale senior citizens' complex, a golf course, and ten story buildings an one of the most important portions of the wetland. The agreement also provided for up to $10 million for restoration, and this has since been revised upward to $12.5 million. In addition, the landowner is obligated to ensure that the freshwater portion of the marsh, as well as the riparian corridor, will function as habitat in perpetuity. The restored salt marsh will be deeded over to an as of yet undetermined public entity. The Friends also gained a seat on the Ballona Wetlands Committee which has done all the planning and decision-making for the wetland. Lansford has served as the Friends' representative on this committee. The Committee has designed a restoration plan which will restore habitat, decrease (and hopefully come close to eliminating) pollution, provide an educational and recreational resource for all of Los Angeles and serve as flood control for the community.

Ruth Lansford

From the beginning, when we were first dealing with Howard Hughes' old corporation, there was absolutely no trust whatsoever. We were dealing with a corporation that had recently "come in from the cold" as they put it. Howard Hughes had been the mastermind behind it for years, and, as you know, he was a very secretive and eccentric person. In part, we owe the survival of the Ballona Wetlands to that eccentricity because he never did develop the area. But that eccentricity also led his corporation into extremely private attitudes about everything, which made it very difficult to establish any trust whatsoever. During the period we were working against Summa and Hughes, we found that their standard tactic was the "Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove." They would lavish large campaign contributions throughout the various levels of government but at the same time make extreme threats--for instance, to plow under what remained of the wetlands that was agriculturally used at that time. That's why there was no movement from 1984 to 1989 with both sides completely separate.

The beginning of trust was when Maguire Thomas took over. And this happened for several reasons. First of all, when we heard that Maguire Thomas was taking over, we took steps to find out more about the company, the people who were in control there and what we could expect from the arrangement. The answers that we got were fairly positive from most people. So we began with a more open mind than we would have. But the first thing that they did was to make the first gesture over something that was a bone of contention with the previous developer, and then we began arguing about the rest.

Now there were some things that they could not guarantee us that were very important to us. One of them was the elimination of the Falmouth Avenue cut-through. What they said to us was that because it was up to agencies like the Department of Transportation and Cal Trans, they could not say, "Yes, we'll eliminate that." But they did say, "We'll work at reconfiguring it so that the cut-through would not be necessary." We were nervous about that because we'd heard those things before and they usually meant that we weren't going to get what we wanted. However, we did understand that what they said had to happen was true, so it was just a matter of good faith and whether they would really follow through. They did. They reconfigured the development in a way that made it much more feasible to put a cut-through further inland and not across the Ballona Wetlands which is where the Falmouth cut-through would have been.

One of the things we had a lot of differences over was our right to disagree. If, when the master plan came out for the whole development and the plans were more specific, if we felt it had an adverse affect on the Ballona Wetlands, we felt that we would have the right to disagree and even to opt out if we chose to. We were very firm about that. Our board was really sticky about the fact that we had to have this freedom of speech, that we could not be muzzled in any way. And I think Maguire Thomas was probably kind of nervous about that. But in the long run we did get that into our settlement agreement, and we agreed only on a general basis because the plans had not been completed yet. And, like everyone else, of course, we're still waiting for the master plan at which point we'll make our decisions.

What built that trust? Aside from the Falmouth Avenue issue, there was the choice between full tidal and mid-tidal restoration. I won't go into the details, but to preserve the full tidal would have taken a great deal of money. We would have had to raise Culver Boulevard and change the pipes for the gas company storage wells beneath the wetlands, and this would have cost $45 to $55 million. We still wanted to pursue it, but the only way we could do this it was to go to the Port of Los Angeles who needed mitigation funds. Maguire Thomas pledged $250,000 to pursue that avenue, and they spent not only the $250,000, but quite a bit more. In the long run, we came up with a different plan by all working together that was better than the mid-tidal plan, which we really didn't like, and wouldn't cost what the full tidal did. But they did spend the money, and they did what they said what they would do.

Their choice of consultants was also very important to us. There are certain biology consultants that we in the environmental movement call "biostitutes." They did not hire biostitutes. They definitely listened to our recommendations, and the people they hired were excellent--people with sterling reputations who really cared about restoring the Ballona Wetlands.

And there was also the way Maguire Thomas handled a controversy over red foxes which had entered the wetlands and were a non-native species and were proceeding to decimate the native wildlife. It was horrific, a really bad situation. And because it was private property, we had to call upon the land-owner to do some fox trapping there. This was not a pleasant thing for anybody. No one wanted to do it, but at the same time we recognized that if the wetlands were to survive, it had to be done. Maguire Thomas bit the bullet and did it. They were under no obhgation because it was private property. They were under absolutely no obligation to do this, but they recognized that it was necessary for the survival of the wetlands, and they did it. Well, they faced demonstrations. They faced people shooting in their windows, telephone threats on their families and on themselves. As I said, it was a pretty horrific situation. Nevertheless, they stuck it out and they did do it, and in doing so they helped saved the wetlands themselves.

Something else important was the issue of personalities. I'm digressing a little, but sometimes you make mistakes in personalities. There are people who at first glance you don't trust or you don't like, and then trust takes a long time. But suddenly you begin to realize, "Well, that person is following through and telling the truth." And then there are other people you like immediately maybe because they are more glib, or they have an easier time relating to people, but then they don't turn out to be quite that honest. That was one lesson that was very important in terms of trust. The other thing was that when thinking becomes dogmatic on either side-if one side says "all environmentalists are kooks" and the other one says "all developers are just out for the money and greedy and treacherous and so on"-then you end up with just a contest of power. And when you're in a contest of power, for the most part, the side with the most money wins. And that's not good for most environmental causes.

And then the last thing in building trust is contact, openness-making sure you each know what the other side is doing, being really confident that when something is said privately, that it is kept private, and that you're both being forthright in what you're both saying. As far as cynicism is concerned, the cynicism that we see a lot in people, frankly, I think that cynicism is an excuse to opt out. And that doesn't get you anywhere. So the thing to do is to open up, and that is the only way you're going to ever come to any fruition on these issues. Thank you.

Doug Gardner

This is a fascinating panel for me to sit on because usually I am asked to describe the Playa Vista project itself in ten minutes or less, which is not an achievable exercise. Obviously, today's short session is not about Playa Vista--the plan and the issues. It is really more about process and a great deal about dialogue and trust. As was mentioned, I came from an architectural background. I knew nothing about development. I knew nothing about Playa Vista when I arrived in Los Angeles in 1989 and was assigned to this project. But the first thing I'd like to say about building trust is that while you may feel that you don't have enough time to do what's necessary in the accelerated world we live in today, you simply have to make the time. This has been a long project with very complicated issues, and it required enormous patience and perseverance. And I am afraid that in the end there is not really another way than patience and perseverance to create an atmosphere in which you can work. You can't short cut establishing that necessary type of dialogue.

When we took over in 1989, Ruth Lansford and her group were certainly one of the most critical groups, but not the only group. Those of you who live around here know that every community in Westchester has its issues, and there are different environmental groups with their issues, and political issues, and legal issues, and all different types of issues. Part of our challenge was to listen to all of these issues and to try to weigh them against each other. And one of the first things we did was to invite people to community forums. This was enormously instructive to us because we understood directly what the concerns were of the community. But it also very instructive to the community because they understood they didn't all agree with each another. And the challenge given to us was that there might not be an answer to some of the questions. So in taking over the project in 1989, that's how we began the project. We didn't pick up our pencils and do any drawings, we just decided that we had to understand what the issues were.

We talked to the community extensively. We had public workshops in which we tried to engage the community and the government in order to think through these problems and to define the problem. What is the problem? What is the issue here? That's probably the toughest thing. It took a lot of time for us to work this through because people will articulate lots of things, but then you have to ask, "What are they really trying to say? "

I think that our relationship with the Friends is instructive. And although I want to emphasize that we've had both wonderful relationships and some not so great relationships with others in the community, with the "Friends" I think some things were at play that have been important not just in the business world but in whatever you get involved in in life. Ruth mentioned some of them-clearly, the dialogue. Again, I was an architect. I figure you show up on the sight and start building buildings and that's that. Well, that's not that. What you have to do in a dialogue is to be available, not to be afraid to deal with difficult questions, not be afraid to say you don't know the answer. Frankly, that's a big part of it. We viewed it as our central mission on this project to the outside to create creditability. Again, I was not here when Hughes was here. So I can't comment. But I've sure heard from the community, and, unfortunately, our predecessors were not credible. They may have been doing ninety percent of the things properly, but it didn't matter because they were not perceived that way. So we tried to build credibility. We tried to listen. We said we agreed when we could. And when we couldn't agree, we said that. Essentially, we tried to be very candid.

Another important thing I learned was to distinguish between misunderstanding and disagreement. Misunderstanding means you're not really communicating. You haven't conveyed the information properly or somebody does not understand what you're doing. That's different from disagreement. Disagreement is when you both know exactly where you are but you don't agree. And understanding the difference is important, because while "misunderstandings" need more dialogue, "disagreements" take really dealing with solutions and also being very clear about your goals, and what you're trying to accomplish. Our best dialogue has been with community groups who didn't necessarily agree with us, but who are very clear about what they want and who are well grounded in facts. I think that all of these things were evident in the Friends of Ballona. The Friends have been working this problem a long time. It was very clear to us that we weren't going to b.s. them. They knew their facts. They were very clear about what they wanted. They did not flip flop fifty times. They were willing to sit down and talk. They were very tough. And to this day, Ruth calls me up if I go out of line even one inch. I hear about it instantly. But while those are all qualities that again don't necessarily lead to full agreement on everything--and I don't think Ruth and I fully agree on everything, even as we sit here-it does lead at least to a mechanism whereby you can have that type of discussion.

So it has been very interesting for me having worked here as what's supposed to be one of the most hostile entities: developer versus environmentalist. And, again, agreement is not complete on everything. But we have found that by trying to establish credibility, be accurate, deal in facts, be clear about what we want, be willing to listen, be willing to talk--by doing these things, we have indeed established a relationship, and, in all candor, we don't have that relationship with everybody. We all read in the paper about businesses that don't have those ingredients, and you see the result. So that's really what has really been most fascinating for me about this process. It's a long process; it requires a lot of patience. But, eight years into the process, I have come away with some confidence that if you try to follow you instincts and if you just have patience, you can accomplish things. And again I'm not sure our predecessors got that far in the twelve years of effort.

Louke Van Wensveen

I think we're all privileged to be part of this dialogue. So often we live with these preconceptions about business and the lack of trust in business, but here something is working. And not only is it working, but both of you are able to articulate why it worked. I thought it was very helpful that both of you gave us some concrete ideas as to what you did and why it worked.

So at this point, I'd like to ask if anybody has questions to ask of you.

Question

I understand that there is a lot of controversy concerning this development, but if it is an issue of trust, why are there seventy-three different environmental organizations that are against the development?

Ruth Lansford

What I believe is that the coming of DreamWorks made an enormous difference in terms of public visibility. And I think that pubic visibility launched an opposition movement basically in Malibu from an organization that is a non-profit foundation. At the time it was a new age type of foundation, and it has now gotten into the environmental movement. It is a foundation that has a fair amount of money and is very good at public relations.

I think that there are reasons to be against the development that perhaps have nothing to do with the saving of the wetlands. There are issues such as traffic, air pollution, air quality--the kind of things that are serious issues that I think everyone should address. As I said before, the Friends have not said, "We're in favor of this development. We want this development." What we have said is when the master plan comes out we will look at that master plan, and if we decide it has an adverse affect on the Ballona Wetlands, then we can't support it. Then we have to go back to the drawing board and do more. We did that on the first phase. We brought in Heal the Bay for instance, and said, "Your water quality issues are very important in this thing, and Heal the Bay has a lot of expertise in that area. Come help us." They did, and so did a lot of other organizations and it made an enormous improvement in Phase One as far as the fresh water marshes on the riparian corridor are concerned, and we expect the same things to happen.

I think there also is a knee jerk reaction regarding the idea of saving open space. It is very important to a lot of people, but open-space is not necessarily wetlands. And the wetlands may not profit by just open space. I think a lot of people have come into the situation not knowing what the condition of the Ballona Wetands is. And that condition is dire. In the last year it has gotten much worse because the tide gates were changed and there is no access to salt water at that wetland, and that means it's shrinking. People don't necessarily know these things and they don't look ahead. They think if we stop the development right now, we're going to save open space. What you're going to do is stop a development that is well planned but may still have some problems.

Question

I agree that this development is a good idea. I was just wondering if there was a better location--like if this development went to inner city Los Angeles or other less built up economic areas. Do you think that could benefit the community a little more?

Ruth Lansford

I don't know what economic areas you'd be referring to, but I do hear people saying--and it's kind of amusing in a way--they say, "This development will bring terrible traffic, terrible smog. This is an awful development. Let's build it in South Central." Sure, they'd love traffic and smog in South Central. I mean, what happened to the environmental justice movement around here?

Question

I understand that, but can't we work more on trying developing more of the wetlands? I understand that this area right below campus would be an ideal spot for the development, but can't we just restore a larger portion of the wetlands and not have run-offs? Because when you have a large development, there are going to be repercussions of that development

Doug Gardner

Part of the problem here again is you're asking good legitimate questions, issue oriented ones, and if we had more time and a different panel, I would very much like to describe our efforts in that.

But I'd like to go back to your original question because it's germane to what we're talking about today. Those seventy-three groups. Incidentally, I'm not so sure how many of those groups existed before two years ago. There were maybe three of them that existed at the time we took over. And indeed I would ask you as part of your effort to understand this project and the process to find out who they are and what their agendas are. We have had very little dialogue with most of these groups--unlike the local environmental groups and the local community groups. And unlike the environmental groups who we've dealt with for years, many of them have not ever sought to have an audience with us even to understand the facts. There's a lot of factual information being put out there that is just inaccurate. We have to begin there.

Question

Then are you willing to sit down with either a representative from a member of the coalition or the individual groups and talk with them?

Doug Gardner

We will talk whenever. But certain of those groups have pursued their concerns in court, having felt they did not prevail in the public forum and in the public process. They did not prevail at hearings, so they pursued their agenda in court, and they have not prevailed in court either. At some point, if you're dealing with people who have you in court, there is only so much dialogue that's going to happen, quite candidly. But, having said that, I have never declined to meet with people to discuss the issues of Playa Vista in a constructive setting.

But to return to the issue of trust, the process is simple; the issues of the project are complicated. In today's forum, Ruth and I have each expressed some pretty basic approaches that extend beyond water quality and air quality. They're about how we relate, and that it is a fairly simple formula. The issues are a different matter, and I feel that we will talk about them at any time, as will the Friends of Ballona.

Ruth Lansford

I think the issue of trust also surfaces in terms of the new environmental groups. I think that one of the problems we've had in terms of these groups is that over and over and over there have been total misstatements of facts. And no matter how many times they are corrected with factual material, they are repeated.

Question

But a lot of their facts were taken from the environmental impact report in terms of air pollution.

Ruth Lansford

What they do with those facts, however, is very interesting. They give a quote about how everything will be destroyed with Phase One of the project, and certain animals will not live. But they neglect to quote the second part of that quote, which says, however, that if a fresh water marsh is built beforehand, then that probably will not happen. They don't tell you the second part of the quote, and that's not right. Another issue is they tell you that they're proposing that the Corps of Engineers buy Area A, but they don't tell you that they were turned down early last year on that very proposal. These are not proper tactics. These are not the things you do.

Louke Van Wensveen

Thank you very much. I would very much like to thank both our panelists. I learned one big lesson--that process counts. And I see that you two are still in process and that process is potentially open to other parties as well. We so often think about positions and dogmatism, but if we keep the process open, there is hope. And that is what counts. Thank you very much.

1997 Business Ethics Fortnight

winners and competitors

First place: Emmons Prize. 5K Biathlon: Cordova Prize.

Nuclear Power. Robert Campbell, Kristin Jones, Antonella Lombardo, Yuka Okajima, Jonathan Stainton-James.

Second place.

Mitsubishi Salt Works and the Gray Whales. Tara Cavanagh, Yu-Chih Chen, Norma Edge, Sherry Leadmon, Walt Moscoso.

Third place.

Playa Vista. March Christian, Kim Logan, Erick Neblina.

Additional finalists in presentation competition

Mitsubishi Salt Works and the Gray Whales. Daniel Diaz, Thomas Durkee, Grace Gabunilas. Third place: 5K biathlon.

Waste-to-energy Power Plant. Christine Johnson, Jerry Mann, Stormy Jade Wong.

Electric Automobile. Julio Estrada, Vanessa Kimber, Andrew Kumala, Cynthia Schmidt.

Competitors

Animal Testing. Kelly Kennedy, Heidi Kimura, Susie Lu, Sona Tolani, Yianni Trapalides, Caroline Zerres.

Cloning. Paul Burke, Matt King, Stephanie McGhee, Richard Munakash, Lupita Ramirez.

"Green" Coffee Production and Marketing. Derin DeRego, Dorothy Eusebio, Gordon Nonis, Joycie Dungca, Maria Dimaano, Xuong Do. Second place: 5K biathlon.

"Green" Marketing at Rank Xerox. Melanie Goodwine, Kevin Heisser, Salma Iddrissu, Steven Sullivan, Jennifer Yousem

Incineration. Richard Brown, Lissette Garcia, Monica Hayes, Nadine Kuwayi, Dara Lau.

Solid Waste Disposal in Bandung, Indonesia. Rudy Foniaty, Michael Kartadinata, Margerry Muliadi, Hendra Rusli, Yinda Suwandy, Theresia Tajuni

Tuna/Dolphin Controversy. Melissa Alexander, Diane Bermejo, Sandy Corvea, Beth Glassman, Kevin Griffin, Juan Carlos Herrera.

1998 Business Ethics Fortnight

winners and competitors

First place: Emmons Prize. (Tie)

Cigarette Filters. Osmin Hernandez, Andrea Luciente, Marisa Rokovitz, Anna Tokarska

Cloning. Gail Ambicki, Laura Gross, Rachel Walton. 5K Biathlon: Cordova Prize.

Third place.

Animal Testing in Cosmetics. Michelle Cipolla, Linda Muchamel, Hourig Sarafian, Bob Semnar

10K Biathlon: Cordova Prize

Ocean Mining. Peter Augustyn, Chris Beck, Chuck Eggert, Mike Mulry, Brian Severin

Additional finalists in presentation competition

Logging and Mining on Public Land. Robert Campbell, Xuong Do, Susie Lu

Waste Reduction/Recycling. Jason Borja (UCLA), Dorothy Eusebio, Waiman Law (UC Long Beach), Ingrid Shih

Competitors

Cigarette Filters. Filipe Andalon, Kelly Doyle, Melanie Hidalgo

Coocafe Coffee. Jennifer Antonoff, Tara Scott, Brian Spitz

Hydroelectric Power: Hydro-Quebec/La Grande Baleine. Aileen Du (UCLA), Aashish Gandhi, Maureen Langham,

Dolphins and Captivity. Quincze Brim, Nadine Kuwaye, Beth Lee

Economic Use of Elephants. Oman Gonzalez, Victor Ibrahim, Keli Moore

Human Cloning. Lisa Bautista, Eric Garcia.

Solar Energy. Marlon Ibarra, Jose Jasso, Gabriela Vasquez, David Viramontes.

1997/1998 Business Ethics Fortnight

Judges

LMU Faculty and staff

Jeanne Alvarez

Dolphy Abraham

Blanche Bettinger

Scott Cameron

Thomas Fleming

Renee Florsheim

Jeff Gale

David Gilbertson

Ed Gray

Arthur Gross-Schaefer

Joseph Jabbra

Fred Kiesner

Carol Kropp

William Lindsey

William Martello

Herbert Medina

Mahmoud Nourayi

Charles Vance

Louke Van Wensveen

Ray Watts

Anatoly Zhuplev

Business men and women:

Akbar Ahmed, LMU MBA student

Melissa Alain, UNOCAL

Elaine Anderson, LMU MBA student

Angel Barragan, Los Angeles Times, LMU MBA student

Gail Bernstein, Wells Fargo

Georgann Brannon, TDK Semiconductor

Janice Burrill, Wells Fargo

Elizabeth Burrows, LMU MBA student

Erik Busch, Northrop Grumman

Gary Cardinale

Monica Cardinale

Linda Carlisle, Northrop Grumman

Kevin Choroomi

Gary Combs, Hughes, LMU MBA student

Lisa Crosley, Heal the Bay

Carville Dennehy, Northrop Grumman

Lauri Deyhimy, LMU MBA/JD student

Alan Ehrlich, MCA/Universal

Chad Eshaghoff, LMU MBA student

Luis Figueroa, Eastman Kodak, LMU MBA student

Kim Francis, Heal the Bay

Jeannie Gervin, Northrop Grumman

Douglas J. Hileman, Pilko & Associates

Hal Huffer, Mikasa, Inc.

Mark Katchen, The Phylmar Group, Inc.

Mary Korey, Automobile Club of Southern California

Youen Lam, Occidental Petroleum, Corp., LMU MBA student

Connie Lee, LMU MBA student

Natalieia Leie, LMU MBA student

Joe Lim, Heller Financial, Inc., LMU MBA student

Russel Mau, Montgomery Watson, LMU MBA student

Dan McAlister, LMU MBA student (USAF)

Thomas McCabe, Northrop Grumman

Nancy Murachanian, Unocal, LMU MBA student

Joe Perry, Imperial Bank, LMU MBA student

Marie Phelps, Xerox

Amanda Provensano, Arthur Andersen & Co.

Jed Reitler, LMU MBA student

Edward Rendon, LMU MBA student

Len Rushfield, Asia Development Partners

Thomas Sabol, Englekirk & Sabol Consulting Engineers

Annette Stalker, Maxwell Group, Inc.

Jim Stalker, Maxwell Group, Inc.

Alan Sworski, New York Life Insurance Company

Tracy Vivenzo, Sony, LMU MBA student

Thomas Wall, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Millie Yamata, Northrop Grumman

Jim Yardley, Cendant Software, LMU MBA student

Beverly Youngstrom, Northrop Grumman

Chad Yussman, LMU MBA student

Jonathan Zlotolow, LMU MBA student

1998 LMU/Heal the Bay Advertising Competition

Winner:

Roseanney Liu

Honorable mention:

Meera Khanvilkar, Nini Mar, Karine Tereoganesyan

Osmin Hernandez, Andrea Luciente, Marisa Rokovitz, Anna Tokarska

Judges:

Chris Manolis, Department of Marketing, LMU

Dotty M. Diemer, Rogers & Associates

Jill Jarosz, TBWA Chiat/Day

1997/1998 Business Ethics Fortnight

Benefactors

Business Ethics Fortnight

Moses Cordova

Robert H. Kerrigan, Northwestern Mutual Life/Baird

The Robert and Christine Emmons Foundation

Northrop Grumman

Playa Vista

Center for Asian Business

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation

Los Angeles Chapter: National Association of Purchasing Management

LMU Run for the Bay

Amazing Balloons by Gee

Kuli Image

Runner's World

Sam Perricone Citrus Company

Sparkletts

Trophymasters

VONS

1997 LMU Run for the Bay

Top Times

5K Men 5K Women

1. Roger Antoine, 24 16:14 1. Kelle Laughlin, 33 19:56

2. Keith Olson, 33 17:19 2. Shelly Wall, 29 20:10

3. Chuck Hernandez, 24 17:29 3. Kelly Densmore, 20 21:11

10K/Men 10K/Women

1. Jorge Marquez, 30 34:24 1. Lisa Davis, 32 40:17

2. John Shapeley, 26 34:53 2. Ruth Monnie, 32 46:18

3. John Frankman, 39 36:00 3. Patty Zimmerman, 21 46:40

Top LMU Finishers

5K Men 5K Women

Students Students

Paul David Amanda Wilemon

Paul Lukascewski Lupita Ramirez

Faculty/staff Faculty/staff

Chuck Hernandez (Athletics) Bonnie Frankel (Athletics)

Gary Taylor (Distribution Center) Kristi Gonsalves (Campus Ministry)

10K Men 10K Women

Students Students

Mark Mehlert Patty Zimmerman

John Comer Mary Toman

Faculty/staff

Thomas White (Business Ethics)

Herbert Medina (Mathematics)

1998 LMU Run for the Bay

Top Times

5K Men 5K Women

1. Jaime Padilla, 21 15:24 1. Melissa Phillips, 16 19:38

2. Chuck Hernandez, 25 16:49 2. Darolyn Trembath, 16 19:56

3. Bartev Topalian 16:58 3. Sharon Lotesto, 47 20:37

10K Men 10K Women

1. Eric Huss, 30 33:13 1. Cheryl Minnix, 34 41:06

2. Sergio Gonzalez, 36 35:18 2. Kathy Weigel, 34 43:16

3. Milton Diaz, 38 37:07 3. Barbara Varon, 46 43:54

Top LMU Finishers

5K Men 5K Women

Students Students

Rick Weis Christina Nelson

Mark Mehlert Holly Turner

Faculty/staff Faculty/staff

Patrick Shanahan (Mathematics) Dolores Rivera (Career Services, Law School)

Kevin Smith (Distribution Center) Jackie Dewar (Mathematics)

10K Men 10K Women

Students Students

John Comer Mary Toman

Fredi Bauert Beth Herrera

Faculty/staff Faculty/staff

Jok Jok (History) Cheryl Roach (Music)

Herbert Medina (Mathematics) Irene Oliver (Education)

Winner of T-shirt design contest:

Maureen Pacino, Department of University Relations, LMU