The Partner Who Owns the Door
A six-organization coalition coordinating a teen vaping prevention effort has an expired memorandum of understanding. The school district - the largest partner, controlling access to 4,200 students - will sign only if it (a) approves every survey item, (b) owns all collected data, (c) holds final say over any public messaging, and (d) is not named in any report on e-cigarette retail sales near schools. The health department, a youth-serving nonprofit, and two clinics object; the youth nonprofit says the district is “holding the kids hostage.” The first survey wave is in eight weeks, the next full coalition meeting is in three weeks, and you are the only coordinator at 0.2 FTE.
1. Diagnose the situation. Which district demands are legitimate, which are not, and what is the underlying problem?
Read the worked answer
Underlying problem: no governance. The MOU expired, no decision rules exist, and the coalition never agreed on data ownership or messaging review. A high-power partner is filling that vacuum unilaterally. That is a structural failure, not a personality problem - fixing it requires rules, not persuasion.
Separate interests from positions. The district's real interests: protecting students, avoiding staff burden, managing legal exposure (parental consent requirements for student surveys, student-records privacy), and not being blamed.
- (a) Item review - legitimate, but must be time-bounded. Districts routinely review instruments; an open-ended veto is not review.
- (b) Ownership of all data - not legitimate as written. Data collected by the health department from consenting participants should be custodied by the collector, with the district as a co-owner or named party in a data-use agreement with reciprocal obligations.
- (c) Final say on all public messaging - not legitimate. A veto over every partner's communications lets one organization's risk tolerance define the whole coalition's voice.
- (d) Not being named in retail-sales findings - half-legitimate. A partner's name and logo should never be used without consent. But a district cannot control what other organizations publish about retailers, and suppressing retail proximity data removes evidence central to the coalition's purpose.
Also name the counterproductive move: the “hostage” framing misreads legal constraints as bad faith and will harden the district. The coalition is genuinely dependent, and the dependency has to be managed rather than resented.
2. Design a three-week process to reach a workable agreement, including decision rules. What do you do with 0.2 FTE?
Read the worked answer
Week 1 - bilateral, not group. Meet the superintendent one-on-one to surface the real constraints (legal counsel's concerns, board politics, staff capacity). Meet the youth nonprofit separately to lower the temperature and enlist them as a problem-solver rather than a critic. Do not negotiate in a six-way meeting first.
Week 2 - circulate a written governance proposal with options, not a blank page:
- Item review: 10 business days, then deemed approved.
- Data: health department as custodian; district as co-owner in a data-use agreement; aggregate findings shared before release, no embargo on findings themselves.
- Messaging: a three-person communications subgroup (district, health department, nonprofit) with a 5-business-day turnaround; no partner's name or logo used without written consent, but aggregate findings publishable by all.
- Retail data: reported at ZIP or community-area level, no school named.
Week 3 - facilitated meeting with the rules in the room. Adopt an explicit decision rule (consensus, fallback two-thirds vote, defined escalation) and a RACI so roles are visible. Sign a 12-month MOU with a renewal date.
At 0.2 FTE: cut to two deliverables this cycle - the survey wave and one retail assessment. Name a co-lead from a partner for meeting logistics, and set a quarterly rather than monthly full-coalition cadence.
3. The district refuses to move. What is your contingency, and what do you document?
Read the worked answer
Do not sign away the coalition's publication rights to buy access. That concession costs more than the sample is worth and would bind partners who never agreed to it.
Contingency:
- Proceed with the wave using non-school recruitment - clinics, the youth nonprofit, library and recreation sites, and social media with verified parental consent. Expect a smaller, differently composed sample.
- Offer the district a narrow, low-risk agreement covering only item review and data protection, and keep negotiating the rest in parallel.
- Recruit a neutral convener (a funder, the county administrator, or a university partner) to mediate; a peer at the district's level often moves what a coalition cannot.
- Consider delaying wave one by a quarter if a compromised design would produce data no one trusts.
Document: the district's stated reasons, every offer you made and its date, the decisions taken, and the specific effect on the sample (who is now underrepresented, expected N, resulting limitation). Circulate this to all partners so the record is shared and no single narrative dominates.
Report the limitation plainly: findings exclude school-recruited youth, which biases toward adolescents already connected to services. Then set a renegotiation checkpoint before wave two - access is a recurring problem, and the coalition needs a standing answer, not a one-time rescue.