Kwame Christian Joins OSU Moot Court Team for a Special Negotiation Training Session

Hello, my friend, and welcome to another exciting episode of Negotiate Anything. Thanks for joining us today. With over 10 million downloads and listeners from more than 180 different countries, it's dedicated listeners just like you who have made Negotiate Anything the number one negotiation podcast in the world. I'm your host, Kwame Christian. I'm a business lawyer, mediator, author, and the proud CEO of of the American Negotiation Institute. Now, before we get into today's insightful conversation, I have a golden opportunity for those of you who recognize the power of negotiation in your professional lives. Have you ever found yourself wishing that you could navigate those high stakes conversations with more confidence? Or perhaps you're looking to empower your team with the art of persuasion and conflict resolution? At the American Negotiation Institute, we've crafted specialized keynotes and workshops tailored for those very needs. We've transformed the negotiation skills of professionals worldwide, and we're eager to do the same for you. We believe the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations. And our goal is to help you improve your lives and the lives of those around you, one difficult conversation at a time. Don't let another challenging conversation leave you second guessing. Click the link in the description to discover how we can help you find confidence in conflict, negotiate better deals, and have stronger relationships. Because in the world of business, every conversation counts. And now, without further ado, let's jump into the interview. Okay. When you think about some of the challenges that you've had in the past with other competitors you've been up against or your own performance, what were some of those challenges?

So I think one thing is finding the balance, like one thing we've been consistently working on through last year and this year, trying to find the right balance between asking for information and giving information. So at one point we were told we were not giving enough information, and then at another point they were like, you should have asked more questions. So we've been trying to find that right balance between those two things and then just being, I think the other thing that comes to my mind be more clear about when our, our positions are a, like a hard position. So, like, our client needs this instead of. Because we, we tend to have that personality where we want to just be really collaborative and like easygoing. And so we don't, we don't like to be as direct as we need to be sometimes. And so I think that's the two big things that come to my mind. Is there anything else you can think of?

I would say, yeah, this is probably a little more minor and it's something we've definitely worked on, but it's also like paying attention to who's made the last offer and not negotiating against yourself just because we've definitely done that a couple times. I think since the second time we got that comment, it has not happened again. But it's just something that always kind of like floats in the back of my mind to be like, okay, make sure we're not bidding against ourselves and making a deal potentially better for them because we couldn't wait for them to counter.

Like if we're going to do like if we gave the last offer, if we are going to give another offer, make sure we're getting something for what we're giving, that we're not just going down for the purpose of going down and trying to get an agreement.

Yep. Okay. Anything else?

I think that's the big things.

I think one thing we have played around with this again. I think we're taught look for the creative solutions and sometimes we get a little too creative where we get too far away from the interests or too far away from the fact pattern, like where we kind of end up going down these rabbit holes and just wasting time. So I think that's something we've worked on recently as well, is just kind of be like, okay, if we're going to be creative, does this further our clients interests and is it enough to make it worth putting it out there.

And how do we fit it in? How do we fit it in to where it's not going to take up more time? And so a lot of things we've been working on is making sure we bring those creative solutions within something we already would be talking about rather than making it its own kind of thing. So that way we're still getting more for our client and we can talk about those creative solutions and we're keeping those interests in mind but we're not making a whole new issue in that creative solution.

Yeah, well, kudos on self awareness with all of this too because it's not always, it's not easy to always kind of know those nuances. So the fact that you are aware of those challenges, that's going to be. That's really important. That's really good. The other thing too is sometimes you have to. It seems like you've thought about the feedback from the judges a lot, so that's good. You also have to consider that you should take every piece of feedback with a grain of salt as well. Because. Because sometimes the judges aren't always paying attention and sometimes it's not an objective piece of feedback. It's more a stylistic type of thing where it's like, oh, I'm more aggressive, so you should be too. You know. And so it's interesting to see the different styles because I know with, with osu, we're collaborative, kind of really based largely on the Harvard style of negotiation. Right. And then oftentimes when you go to these other competitions, you have people who might be a little bit more aggressive and they don't appreciate that. So I think one of the things that you have to pay attention to is as you are creating your strategy and executing the strategy before, when you have a chance to talk to the judges, and after, when you're giving your feedback to the judges, make sure you're letting them know that everything that you did was done with intentionality. We did this because of this reason. So they don't think it's just like a flaw. They understand that you did it with some kind of reason. Yeah, storytelling is a big part of it. It's very, very subjective. Okay, cool. So we have 50 minutes, five minute breaks. So we both each have caucuses, right?

Yes. So if we choose to take them, they're not mandatory, but we can each take up to a five minute break. But it counts into those 50 minutes.

Gotcha. Cool, cool, cool.

And then did you want us to do a pre negotiation or did you want to just go into.

Okay, yeah, I want to do the. I want to do the pre negotiation. So listen. Gather your strategy and listen and use it against you. And then we will. And then we'll jump into it and I'll try to manage this paperwork in a non distracting type of way because I have the general information, I have my confidential information, and I have my iPad that I'm going to use to take notes. So this will be a fun little balancing act here. Any questions for me before we start?

I can think of. Good.

Cool. All right, so I'll set the timer here for five minutes for. It's five minutes for your pre. Right?

Yes.

Cool. All right, cool. Go ahead.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Shay and with my co counsel Joseph, we represent the Bayou State Fair Housing Council. We were asked to answer two questions in preparation for this negotiation. First, what are our clients goals and interests? And second, what strategy we plan to use to achieve those goals. I will address the first question and outline our client's interests and goals. Our client has three main interests. First is making improvements to the prior ordinances, not the new bond ordinances, but the family home, the Multifamily home ordinance which makes it to where you can't build multifamily homes within a mile radius right now of each other. It's really important to our client to make that radius smaller to where there are more multifamily homes that can go up in. In Stafford, the second ordinance is the rental ordinance where you can only rent to family members from four generations prior to four generations after. And this makes it very difficult to rent to new people in the town. So it's important to our client that that rental ordinance has to be gone. And in working on those two ordinances, this will advance their interest of eliminating the systemic racism in Stafford that has historically been there. Our second interest is making improvements to the new bond ordinance. And this will advance our clients interest in preventing future discrimination through an agreement surrounding the bond ordinance that does not allow individuals who moved in within the past five years to apply and get funding to help improve their house. And so because of the historic systemic racism that has been there, this new bond ordinance is having that discriminatory impact, even if it wasn't that intent. So it's important to our client to make sure that that impact is gone. The third interest of our client is creating a collaborative relationship with the between Bayou Fair Housing Council and Stafford. That way it helps create a community that does not discriminate in their housing practice moving forward. Going to keep in mind today our best alternative to the negotiation agreement, our batna, is that we go to court and win on all issues. And so that's our best alternative. But we recognize that our worst alternative is the opposite, that we go to court and we lose on all these issues and no improvements are able to be made. But the most likely alternative is that we're going to go to court, we're going to win some, we're going to lose some, and we have really no say at that point on what that's going to be. And so hopefully in this conversation today between both parties, we can come up with something where all parties are able to walk away happy and all the goals be met. So our overall goal is to achieve that mutual beneficial relationship. And there is discrimination in this situation. But we understand that to have a collaborative conversation with the other party, our framing of the issues need to be different than framing it that way and work in a collaborative way. Now I'll turn it over to my partner to talk about the strategies we hope to use to achieve this.

So in order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, we're going to do three things. We're going to take time to set an agenda, gather information and establish rapport with the other side by starting with an agenda. This allows us to set guideposts early in the conversation so that today's the negotiation can have some structure to it. Additionally, this allows us to create flexibility in the conversation should we get stuck at some point and need the opportunity to move on to another topic and maybe circle back later after we've built more momentum and more rapport with the other side. For this negotiation, we want to talk about some of the heavier issues first, that being the older ordinances because it's part of our client's position and interest today that we get those resolved before coming to an overall agreement. Next, we want to take the time to talk about the newer bond ordinance to see if we can help resolve the way for the remaining funding to be distributed to individuals within the town. Lastly, we want to talk about damages because we feel like if we are running low on time, this is a conversation that can occur quickly and allow us to further our clients interests towards the end of the conversation. Next, we want to take the time to gather information. We want to lead this conversation but not dominate the negotiation. We recognize that both parties need the opportunity to voice their interest to the other side to help them understand what brought them to the table today and what it's going to take to walk away with a mutually beneficial agreement. Additionally, based on feedback we've received in other sessions, my partner and I want to find a balance of information gathering, information sharing. We want to ensure that we're taking the time to ask those clarifying questions and get the information necessary to reach an agreement while also sharing our own party's interests with the other side and emphasizing what's important to our client so that we can reach an agreement that allows both of us to further our interests and our potential relationship moving forward. Lastly, we want to take the time to establish rapport. We want to make sure that both parties feel comfortable sharing information. And when you take time to establish that relationship, it can create an environment in which both parties are able to open up more and share information they may not have shared before. Additionally, we recognize there's a conversation five minutes.

All right. So we'll pause here and reset. So you know, I'll give you total feedback on everything at the end. But piece of feedback for now, time management on this part. So let's, you know what, let's, let's do, let's do it again. Let's. Because Shay, when you passed it off at 2:40 you pass it off at 246, which is pretty solid. And so what I want you all to do is kind of tighten it up a little bit. Something that would help is if you had some kind of timer or watch or something to make it.

We had one. We were down to, like, three seconds on our end because we started it right when. Right when we went. But we. I should have actually finished a little bit earlier than I did. So that didn't give him enough time to kind of finish at the end. But we're happy to do it again.

Let's do it again. Because what I would suggest doing is assume that their timing won't be perfect either, Right? So don't cut it so close, because it doesn't need to be. As long as you can convey the message effectively, that's really all that matters. So let's just. Let's restart. Let's do it again and just cut off. Cut a little bit of fat if you need to, because I can tell you're reading. If you can, like, maybe trim a little bit so you don't need to feel like you're rushing. Saying less is saying more. In a lot of cases, you know, the. The classic lawyer saying is, if I had more time, I would have made it shorter. Keep it tight. Go ahead, Joe.

I just say a question with. Because I'm trying as much not to read and just, like, look at bullet points and kind of like, gather that. Is there a way you can suggest where to do that, where it doesn't make it look like you're reading?

Yes, two things. I wrote these things down. So number one, I would you, first of all use an external mouse, because I can see that you're scrolling for each other. So that's one thing. The other thing is that I would make the bullet points shorter. You all, you already know what you need to say, you know, so I would make fewer bullet points. Both of you are doing a great job of following the rule of three, which is a great rhetorical tool. You know, it makes it easy for people to remember. So just focus on those three, and then just say, like, what are you planning on doing? Why are you doing it? How you plan on doing it? So, for example, Joe, you said you want to lead but not dominate, which sounds really great, but I want you to then explain specifically how you're going to do it. So you're. You want to. You want to be kind of like a good. A good magician. A good magician will tell you what you're going to see and it makes it more likely for you to see it. Right. And so you want to be able to say, this is the goal. This is why we're going to do it. This is how we're going to do it. And then you've primed them to see it when you do it. Right. And so that's, that's going to be something that could be really, really powerful because don't assume that they'll see everything that you do, because they certainly won't.

Okay. All right.

Want to take it from the top?

Sounds great. It's cool.

All right, I'll start now. Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question. Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on your team have better, difficult conversations? At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top tier negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands on training for your team, we've got you covered. Don't just negotiate. Master the art with the American Negotiation Institute. Click the link in the description to find out more. Elevate, negotiate and succeed.

Good evening. My name is Shay and with my partner Joseph, we represent the Bayou State Fair Housing Council. And we were asked to answer two questions in preparation for this negotiation. First, what are our clients goals and interests? And second, what strategy we plan to use to achieve those goals. I will address the first question and outline our client's interests. Our client has three main interests. The first is making improvements to the prior ordinances, including the multifamily home ordinance, which makes it to where you cannot build family homes within a one mile radius. And it's important to our client to get that radius down. And the second is the rental ordinance where you can only rent to family members. And so it's really important to our clients that new individuals can come into the town and this ordinance makes that difficult. So making improvements to those prior ordinances would advance our clients interest in eliminating the systemic racism that has historically been in Stafford. Second, our client wants to make improvements to the bond ordinance and this will advance their interest in preventing future discrimination through an agreement surrounding the bond ordinance because of its discriminatory impact. So it's important to our client to make adjustments to this bond ordinance and to where that impact is lessened. Third is creating a collaborative relationship between Bayou Fair Housing Council and Stafford to help create a community that does not discriminate in Their housing practices generally moving forward. Now, we're going to keep in mind throughout this negotiation, our best alternative to negotiation agreement, our batna, which is that we go to court and we win on all of the issues and we get all the change that we want. But we recognize our worst alternative is actually the opposite, that no change happens, we go to court and we lose on all issues. Now the most likely alternative to the negotiation agreement is that we win some and we lose some. The issue is we don't have any say on what that's going to be and what that's going to look like. And so in the negotiation today, we're hoping to create an agreement where all parties walk away happy at the end of the day with the improvements that's going to be made and our clients interests are advanced in all of those. So our overall goal is to achieve that agreement. But we recognize that while there's discrimination here, we understand that we, in order to have a collaborative conversation with the other party, our framing of the issues has to be adjusted to where we were able to move the conversation forward. So I'll turn it over to my partner Joseph to talk more about that strategy.

In order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, we're going to do three things. We're going to set an agenda, take time to gather information, and take time to establish rapport with the other side. By starting with an agenda. This allows us to set guideposts for the conversation and and provide some structure for the negotiation that can give the other side an idea of what we want to talk about and what's important to our client. Additionally, it allows flexibility for the conversation should we reach a sticking point and need to transition to another topic. And it still reminds that we need to go back at some point and circle back to further discussion, but allows us to build more momentum in the conversation to do so. Next, we want to take the time to gather information. We want to lead the negotiation but not dominate it. We want to make sure both sides have the opportunity to voice their interests and concerns and what brought them to the table today. To help us do this, we're going to take the time to ask clarifying questions, make sure we understand what the other side meant, and ask for any recaps or clarification as needed. Part of this too is based on feedback we've received from other sessions is finding that balance between information gathering and information sharing. This means we want to make sure that while we take the time to ask those questions and understand the other side's interests, we're making our own clients interests known to the other side and letting them know what our client has to have in order to walk away happy and reach that mutually beneficial agreement. Lastly, we want to take the time to establish rapport based on my partner's eyes personalities. We prefer a more collaborative, amicable conversation that allows us to gather the necessary information to make a well informed and educated agreement. Part of this is making sure we have as much information as possible and both sides feel comfortable sharing that information. By establishing rapport throughout the conversation, we create that environment in which parties may be more willing to share sensitive information that they wouldn't have otherwise. Additionally, this allows us to focus on the bigger picture of the negotiation while drilling down on the individual details. It allows us to not get lost in the forest by only focusing on individual trees. Here our forest is the overall systemic racism that's built into these ordinances and the specific trees are the individual ordinances and subtopics within each one. By allowing this conversation to have some structure in the rapport being built, it allows us to keep the conversation flowing and create that amicable environment which also allows us to further our clients interests of this continued established relationship with the city moving forward. Thank you.

Nice. Perfect. Good job, Good job, Good job. A couple things on that. So this was solid, like performance wise and style wise, a lot better. So kudos on that. Clearly time management was a lot better too. Shay, one of the things that I'd like to see is when you're talking about the bat now, and this is something that I want you to tell them, but I also want both of you to consider as you go back and strategize, because you talk about your best alternative to a negotiated agreement and the worst alternative to a negotiated agreement, but you didn't address the best alternative and worst alternative for me for the other side. And so yes, the batna is really important, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have to consider it relative to the other people. Because I might have a terrible batna, but if it's not as bad as theirs, then I have more power. Right? So I think that's really important. So you talk about that and then you talk about the fact that when you consider the batnas and you consider like leverage, where does your leverage come from? Where does your power come from? That's really important. One other thing, Joe. Do you prefer Joe? Joseph? I've always heard you say Joseph.

Yes, I prefer Joseph.

Gotcha. That's what I thought. Good. So when we're talking about the Collaborative approach. That's great. Right. And you're going to be scored on that, too. But you have to remember, the ABA is the. Those are the people. The American Bar association, they made the scoring criteria, but the judges are not part of the American Bar Association. Okay. So you're going to be judged by practitioners who live in the real world. A lot of times with the collaborative negotiation approach, it does not always comport with reality. And so I want you to be realistic, and I want you to say that, too. Right. We prefer our personality, and our teaching leads us to be more collaborative. At the same time, we understand that we have serious issues to address. So we need to blend this collaborative approach with an assertive approach. Because sometimes people can get too collaborative, and we need to be able to adjust as necessary, too. And you have to recognize there is probably some leverage that you have. So lean into that, too. Right. And so, again, when you think about the leverage part. The batna. Yeah. Okay, so it's a lawsuit for both of you, but that hits people differently. How does it affect you in a way that's different from the way that it affects me? Right. So just consider that, because that might change your approach, too. Any questions? Go ahead, Joseph.

No, see, I really like that a lot. Cause it's always. Because if you say you're going to be collaborative and then it goes through the negotiation, you do have to be assertive. Then you could get dinged on, like, well, you strayed from what you said you were going to do. So I think that's a nice way to be. Like, there's a blend and.

Okay, exactly. Yeah. And let me tell you, you know, when you get out in the real world, it's like, hey, this is not like the simulations I did. You should be nicer.

Right.

Doesn't always work that way. Okay, cool. So we have 50 minutes, two caucuses of five minutes, if we so choose. And any questions, comments, concerns, before we jump into it.

From a logistical standpoint, if we do choose to caucus, do you want us to. Do you want to hear our conversation that we have?

Yeah, Bill wants me to hear it.

Okay.

Just wanted to touch on that. Cool. And we have 50 minutes. Great. Ready to rock and roll?

Yes, sir.

All right, so starting now. All right. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it. My name is Kwame. I'm representing the city. And you all are.

And I'm Shea, and this is my partner, Joseph. We represent the Bayou Fair Housing Council. We really appreciate you taking time to come and sit at the table today with us. Hopefully we can find something that's in both of our clients best interests.

Definitely. Yeah, this has been, it's been on my radar for a while and so I'm looking forward to seeing what we can get done. I know this is tough, but you know, we'll see what we can do today. And just to keep things really efficient, I think what would be helpful is if we set an agenda. One of the things that I want to do is just get an idea of where you all are coming from, what your major concerns are, and essentially what it is that you hope to accomplish. Then we can talk about the specifics of the different ordinances and especially talking about the radius. And something else that's really important for us to discuss is the impact that this long drawn out potential lawsuit and proceeding is having on the, on our, on our people. Right. Because when it comes down to it, everybody here, we are here to serve the community in one way or another. And I don't think it's really clear. And perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong on your side, how, how much of a negative impact this delay is having on our citizens. So I guess just again going to that agenda, what would you say are your biggest concerns?

Certainly. So I think just some of the major talking points we want to get through today, as you mentioned, are those order ordinances that predated the hurricane that just kind of need to be addressed in terms of updating them. Second would be discussing the bond ordinance that was recently post hurricane that was providing the relief funding to repair homes damaged by the storm. And then lastly just talking about overall damages that are potentially involved. Those are the bigger talking points that we really want to address today. And also wanted to see if there's anything you wanted to add to those.

No, I think you pretty much covered it there and I think that fits well within my concerns as well, you know. So where should we start when we think about what it is that you're hoping to accomplish? I guess if we were to sequence your biggest concern, how would you sequence, sequence them like for a second third.

So it's a little hard to say like the specific order because it really is the big picture whole kind of package that is our client's biggest concern because the fact that all of them combined are having an impact that our client wants to avoid. And so, I mean, we can kind of discuss what order would be best to talk through them. But really they're all equally important to our client that we work through because of overall what is going to the discrimination that is occurring from it. And we recognize that the older ordinances, that the individuals that are there are likely not the same individuals that put them into place, and that the new ordinances, it may have been maybe just the impact and not the intent behind it, but it's important to our client to, to fix those issues. And so I know you mentioned as well that, you know, the impact of the long lawsuit and everything like that is an interest of your client is to how that's affecting the city. And so that's, I mean, that is also an interest of our client is trying to be able to get this fixed as soon as possible. So I think we kind of have a common ground there because. Because of the impact it's having on the individuals in the town and the community in the parish.

Right. Shane and one of the things that we can talk about, too, that I think would be really helpful is as we're talking about the impact, we have to talk about intent, too, because one of the things that your site has yet to address is the impact of the characterization of this as a racial issue. This is not a racial issue, and it is, frankly, a little bit offensive that we are approaching this from a perspective of racism or racist, because nobody in our town is racist. We don't have issues with racism. And there was nothing malicious in the intent that we. That we had here. And so coming here with this potential lawsuit, which essentially implies racism is having a negative impact on our citizens because now it's creating this divisive issues. And instead of being able to address the problem that we're having because we have people who have houses that have been damaged, these are real issues for real people. Now we're. It's like we're jumping into a cultural war that doesn't really help anybody. And so that I really want to get your thoughts on, on how characterizing this as a racial type of thing is, Is at all beneficial to anybody.

So I will say that hopefully we can, you know, change the characterization when we come out of this today is as hopefully one unified agreement and be able to change the perception that that has with the changes that the city is making. And so while we recognize that some people may not have had that intent when certain ordinances have went into place, the impact that has occurred from things that predate the individuals that are there who created these, the bond ordinances are having that impact. And so it's important to our client that we fix those things. But we're hoping to come out unified and to hopefully kind of Change that perspective, that it's not that anyone's calling the citizens of this town racist. It's that these ordinances are having a discriminatory impact. And so hopefully we, you know, the lawsuit after this can be gone, and hopefully that impact can cease to be happening by us coming to an agreement today. And we'll definitely keep in mind the interest of your clients of that perspective, of wanting to make sure the perception and that impact on the citizens is kept in mind throughout each of the things we discuss.

Okay? And I appreciate that. But again, I have to say this is nice to say behind closed doors. This is a private conversation. And so essentially, what you're saying is, hey, I know you and your people right now are not racist. Right. And that's great. That's not something that we've heard thus far. This is the first time that I'm hearing I'm not a bad person. This is the first time I'm hearing that my colleagues are not bad people. Right? So as nice as it sounds to say, hey, you know, if you give us what we want, we will stop calling you racist. It doesn't change the fact that damage has been done to this point to the brand of our community, and we're trying hard to diversify. But if we have a lawsuit hanging over our head, it makes it very hard to. Because now people are saying, hey, these people are racist. I don't want to live there, you know? So my question is, what is it that you all are willing to do to change the narrative that you and your people have been putting out about our community to this time?

I think a lot of that just depends on where we get today. Hopefully, if we can get to the improvements in these ordinances, then that. That shows a lot as well as. As, you know, if we come out of this as a unified agreement and improvements are made, that shows a lot. And, you know, we can kind of discuss exactly what that would look like as we get into the details of it, but it's not our intent to. To be calling the town or the citizens or anything like that racist. Our intent is to make improvements. And just like, you know, I understand the lawsuit is not ideal to be hanging over the city's head, but also the discriminatory impact that has been happening is not ideal either. And so if it's. If it's okay with you, maybe when we get in, like, we can start discussing the specific issues and see where we have some common ground, and hopefully we can come out of this where that. That's no Longer. Hopefully the perception going forward that now that we're being able to have this candid conversation and hopefully make improvements to this, that that's going to, not only us coming out as unified say something, but then also the changes to the ordinance, I think will show a lot of people what, what you're wanting, what you're wanting the perception to be of the town is that we're not racist. And so those, those changes will help show that.

Okay. And now I guess one of the things that you all have mentioned a number of times was changes, changes, changes, changes. And I want to get a bit more specific on those changes. And again, I want to be clear on what it is I can and can not do today. I don't have the authority to make a decision. Anything that I do today is going to be, you know, conditioned upon the, the, the people who are on the city council. Right. I don't control them. That's way above my pay grade. Right. So you convincing me is one thing, but convincing them is another thing. And I don't. It's not always easy to read them. So when it comes to what it is that you're hoping to get with specificity, what is it that you're hoping to get and what problem do you hope to solve with those?

Certainly. So kind of just walking through, just overall is starting with the multifamily home ordinance that currently restricts the ability of multifamily dwellings to be built within a 1 mile radius of each other. If possible, we would like that removed. We believe right now that's currently closing off the town to have these dwellings built that could allow renters or other people to come in and potentially develop those kind of properties and prevent individuals who can't buy a home from even entering the town. So that's one of the bigger concerns of our client, is the removal of that ordinance. Additionally with the rental ordinance, same thing, we're hoping that that can come off the books as well. Because as it stands right now, generationally, four generations down or up is all people can rent to. And based off of the demographics of the city over the past 10 years, it's predominantly not people of color. And because at the moment rental is regulated, or, excuse me, restricted to those just within the family, it's preventing individuals of color from even renting properties in this town. So I think for our client, in order to help move some of those issues forward about the impact of those older ordinances, the overall goal is to hope that they're removed and I'll help Us continue to have a conversation around why these things. While maybe the intent wasn't there, clearly the impact is discriminatory.

Okay. And so interesting. So let me, let me get this straight. So we're starting off this negotiation from at a point where we're saying, hey, these two laws in question, if you just remove them completely, we're good. Is that, am I gathering that correctly?

Well, that would be our client's ultimate goal. But the reason why we're having this conversation today is to, you know, to be able to come to a common ground that will achieve our clients interests as well as keep in mind what your interests are. And so with those, that's our goals. And you've asked for the specifics of that. But I would like to ask you what the city's interest is in keeping both of these to really give us a perspective of what the city sees important about both of these. And we're willing to discuss what that would look like. But that's ultimately what our client would like. And there. But you know, we're here to try to figure out exactly why these things are there so we can understand better how we can adjust what our client is asking for.

Okay, before I get into that, just, you know, lawyer to lawyer here. Your clients aren't here, my clients aren't here. Do you think that's reasonable?

So I mean, ultimately part of our representation is going for our clients best interests. And while it may not be reasonable, Brad's about to say these need to disappear. At the end of the day, we are advocates for our clients and they've given us some details and you know, in the interest of full disclosure and showing that we want to try to reach an agreement, unless we resolve something around these older ordinances, we're not going to be able to reach an agreement today.

Okay, so let me just summarize what you said there, Joseph. So you said, and I'm quoting you here, may not be reasonable. So to me that sounds like for both of you as advocates, you recognize that what you came into this negotiation asking for was unreasonable. Am I understanding that correctly?

Just to clarify, it was in response to your question of that you didn't think this was reasonable. But what we're saying is this is what our client would like and our client is reasonable. Our client is open to discussion on what exactly that would look like.

Okay. Okay, gotcha. So essentially there's a difference between what is reasonable and what your client is asking for.

So our client ultimately is bringing this to court. Right. And asking for all of these ordinances to be gone for certain reasons. But our client at this point doesn't know why certain things are in place. So at this point in time, what they're saying of these being gone because the discriminatory impact is reasonable, but they are reasonable people to hear what the actual reasons are behind these ordinances. And we are able to have that discussion. And so that's why my question to you is why the city wants a multi family home ordinance of one mile. Why the family or the town wants a rental ordinance to only. Only family members. Because the position they have right now is based on the information they have and we don't have further information to understand the why the city wants to keep these old ordinances in place.

Gotcha. So I'll answer that quickly. It's because we don't have an unlimited budget. I haven't. I have a limited amount of money that I can give to people. We're dealing with a series of tragedy. And these ordinance. One of the major reasons we have these ordinances in place is to create some kind of limitation on how much we can give. Because there is a limitation on how much we can give. If I could give money to everybody, I would. That'd be really pretty cool. But I can't. And so it's. I will concede that it is a. And the lines are drawn imprecisely, but the lines had to be drawn. You know, and so going back to what you were saying before, it was. I understand from a negotiation perspective, it's an important gambit to start with an aggressive position. And then when we negotiate from that, I get that. And one thing that was encouraging to me that both of you said was that your clients are, they're asking for this, but they are reasonable. And what I'm hearing is that they're reasonable, meaning that they realize that what they're asking for is unreasonable and they're really willing to negotiate. So just lawyer to lawyer, I think it makes more sense to start this negotiation off from a more tenable position. And so I know coming into this you probably had conversations about what is realistic, what is acceptable. So I'll just tell you off the bat right now, we're not going to just knock off all these laws. I can't do that. That's a lot. What is something that you believe is reasonable that we can use to get this negotiation started? Because I'll just tell you right now, starting from that position is untenable. So what is something that you could do?

So first I wanted to Just clarify earlier because when I asked the reasoning for those two ordinances, the multifamily home ordinance and the rental ordinance, what I heard from you was about the bond ordinance, I believe when you said you only have so much money to be able to give out. And so I think that gets to our next issue we'll talk about which is the new restriction with the bond ordinance. So I would still like to hear a little bit more about that. But in that same question I would like to ask which one of these is most important to your client to keep on the books and within that understanding the reasoning why. So if I could just ask you the reasoning behind that because that's really going to, it's really going to influence what our clients position is by understanding, understanding the reasoning behind it. So we can figure out where to go from here.

Yeah, I think that is a great question when I'm considering the two issues. We have the bond issue where we have the, the. We have the radius and then we also have the families like keeping it within the families for lack of a better term. Right. I would say that the issue with the radius for multifamily housing is more important to us. Right. They're both important to us. But I would say that's more important to us. And you know, I hope that's helpful. And considering that, you know, that is important to us, my question to you in return would be what flexibility do you have on your aggressive initial offer? Because like I said, I just want to be honest with you all about the what is realistic and what is not realistic. You know, so we are not just going to knock these laws off. That's something, not something I can do. So what else would be something that is tenable for you and your clients?

Well, I appreciate you sharing that. That really helps us be able to move the conversation forward because it's really important to our client to get rid of that rental ordinance. So if your client would be willing to completely get rid of that rental ordinance, we'd be willing to discuss potentially instead of getting rid of the multifamily home ordinance, just adjusting what that mile radius looks like. Do you think that that's something your client would like? Adjusting it down from one mile where it's currently at, to where there's still a radius. So the law is still there, just not at the 1 mile radius it currently is. Is that something your client would be open to?

Again, it depends on what the total deal is. But what I'm hearing before I like commit to anything I can't commit to anything right now. It sounds like there is flexibility on the radius thing. So it's not necessarily that you need that to be gone, you need that to be adjusted. Is that correct?

That's correct. And something else we kind of wanted to talk to you about is our current understanding is that the town has residential zoning and there's potential other zoning. And we were just kind of curious what that current makeup looks like if you know, because we might be able to make some adjustments in the overall zoning that helps both of our clients still achieve their interests with this ordinance.

Joseph, can you repeat that question again? Sorry about that.

Yes, so we're just curious, like we know that part of the town is zoned purely residential. We were wondering is there other zone, just purely non residential or is it like industrial, commercial? We were just kind of curious if you knew the breakdown of what the current zoning looks like and maybe if there's some room to rezone areas so that way there's just a greater area in which these homes can go up. Because as it is right now, if we look purely at residential areas where multifamily dwellings can be built, in Stafford, it's about 10% of the residential area and about only 25% of the actual town.

Gotcha. Well, to be candid, we have four zoning categories. We have single family, residential, multifamily, residential, commercial and industrial. Those are our four categories.

And would your client be open to kind of if we lower the radius a little bit but don't get rid of it. Also potentially rezoning some areas that maybe after the storm are no longer being used for say industrial or commercial to residential. To where your client's interest is kept in mind, to where there's still a radius. But our clients interest is in mind to be able to create more multifamily homes, to bring more diversity into the town. But it's not as close to each other, which I believe is part of your client's interest with having that radius, is that correct?

I think that's possible. I think that's possible. But again, it's difficult for me to say with any level of specificity because again, for the third time I'm asking for what the adjusted offer would be because we're not just going to knock this law off. You said that there is a number that is beneath nothing that you would accept. So what is that?

So I mean, just to kind of throw it out there to you, is there anything that the city would be looking for in terms of that? Like what they would find acceptable.

What a great question, Joseph. I'm glad that you asked that. I think one of the things. We're not unreasonable people. I think that's something that we can consider. And if we could move down to. I believe, again, I can't speak for the council, Right. If we could go to point eight, that's something that I believe would be tenable, especially when you consider the limitation of the budget. Because, again, it's not just about the structural issue right now. We have to consider also the fact that a significant amount of funding will be impacted by the adjustment of this radius. So we need to be mindful of that. So I think point 8, moving it. Moving the radius to 0.8 is something that could be acceptable for us, and I want to see how that resonates with you.

Well, I appreciate you first sharing that. And one of the things I think you keep mentioning is that, you know, you can't say until we get to a whole final agreement. And we completely recognize that everything we talk about here is tentative until we get to, like, a final proposed agreement that needs to still be taken back to the council. So just want to let you know, we recognize that. And as we talk about each of these issues, it's kind of tentative on how the other. The other issues go for us as well. But with that. With. How is. How is funding impacted by this ordinance? I know you mentioned that funding is a big concern for the city, so I just wanted to ask how funding is impacted so we can keep that in mind when kind of discussing this multifamily home ordinance.

Well, we had a total of $4.5 million to spend, and the issue is that we've already spent $1.8 million.

And so I know that's. That's with the bond ordinance. Correct. So with the multifamily home ordinance, I was wondering if there's any funding concerns that we need to keep in mind within that ordinance that is being affected by the city because we recognize there's only limited funds for the bond ordinance. But to kind of. I didn't know if there was additional funding concerns. We need to keep in mind when we're discussing the multifamily home ordinance.

No, not with the multifamily home ordinance.

No, because I just declare. Because I think, you know, when we were kind of, you were explaining about, like, adjusting the zone, it sounded like you said there could be a potential. If that radius is adjusted, it affects how funding is distributed. So I was just kind of curious to see how that's going to come into play because it's, I mean, our current understanding that the funding is only available for homes damaged by the storm.

Right, right, right. And I think that that issue gets really deep into some really esoteric, complicated city ordinances that I honestly, when I think about the scope of this negotiation, it doesn't really apply. And I'm not really at liberty to speak to that. But yeah, as far as we think consider about the funding issues, let's just focus it on the bond ordinance. I think that's where it's more salient.

Okay, gosh, I understand that. So thank you for clarifying that. I think going back to your original, going back to the point 8, again, interest of full transparency, that's not going to work for our client. I think we, they really, if the city's not going to consider removing, it would prefer a 0.25 mile radius for that just to shrink down. So I think they're really hoping, again, even if it's not going to disappear completely, its impact is still minimal and that amount of space within that residential zone to develop multifamily dwellings will increase.

Well, I think, I mean, we can, if we're thinking about how to approach this offer semantically. Joseph, you said minimal. I would say nominal. I mean, 0.25 is almost nothing, you know, so I know for sure that's not something that I can accept, again, in the interest of full transparency. So I think we might need to be a little bit creative about that because 0.25, that radius is far below what I am authorized to get or even entertain, you know, and so earlier you mentioned the willingness to be kind of flexible and creative. That makes me think that you did your homework and you have some ideas. And so when you think about that, what comes to mind?

So with that, I think part of it is that rezoning. So if we can get some, like, if they could potentially rezone other areas as residential, it will make the area that's residential larger. So still more multifamily homes can go up but stay further apart from each other than. Than 0.25 miles, potentially. So if we could have the rezoning. But then also looking at. I know this is getting into the next issue of the bond ordinance as well. With that, our clients really interested in having like a point system rather than individuals who have not lived there for the past five years not be able to get any funding at all. And so we might be able to move a little bit more on this issue depending on how we discuss the bond issue. So I didn't know if that's something you'd be willing, if we could move to that part of it to see if our client would be willing to move more here for your client?

Yeah, I'm interested in learning more.

Certainly. Okay, so I guess if we want to go on to the preference point system. So I mean, as our understanding is now, and correct me if I'm wrong, that money is being distributed from that $4.5 million fund, which I guess now is, as you mentioned, 2.7, that is going to individuals who have lived within Stafford for five years or more. And that really seems right now to be the only criteria for its distribution. And we were just kind of curious to see if there's other criteria being considered or if really somebody just applies and said they've been living here longer than five years and that's enough.

And to clarify, Joseph, are you asking more about our methodology, like how we're substantiating whether or not somebody's been here?

Not necessarily the methodology, but I guess like is the only criteria someone has to meet in order to apply and get this funding is they've lived here longer than five years or are there other factors you guys are currently considering or is it just kind of saying, hey, I've lived here longer than five years, I can apply for this funding. We verified you here for five years, you get the funding.

To my knowledge, it is just whether or not you have lived here for five years. As of it, as it stands right now, that is going to be like the key consideration. Now whether or not it's an automatic, hey, five years, there you go. I can't say for sure, but what I can say is that that is the, that is a go or no go consideration for us.

Okay. So for our client, I think they would be really interested in having a like preference point system. So where you can get points for certain things or you could lose points for certain things to where it could decide whether or not individuals qualify for that. And I know it's important to. It sounds like it's important to your client to have something with the five year time span as one of those points. And our client is open to having that be one of the points. But I wanted to ask what if you could share what the interest is in your client of having that five year period on there and if there's any other points that you think would be important to add to this point system or if you think your client would be adverse to the point system?

I think we'd be open to it. But I think the, I mean even the term preference point system, we don't want to create any scenario where we're giving preferential treatment arbitrarily to people. Again, we understand lines have to be drawn in order for us to be good stewards of this money. But we need to make sure that it's not done in a, you know, a random or unfair type of way. I think that's important with regard to substantiating the validity of five years. What we've done is we, we've conducted a research project that found that people who are residents of the city for more than five years, they are more likely to stay in the city for the long term, meaning more than 10 years, 15 years, those type of things. And so really we want to invest in our people. We want to invest in people who are committed to the city because of course it's nice to be nice to everybody. But if we're nice to somebody and then they take the money and run, then what do we get out of this? Because of course we're a community, but we want to invest in our citizens and we want to invest more in the citizens that are going to remain citizens. So that's why the five year provision is so important to us, because it shows true commitment. We don't know how committed somebody is if they've only been here for seven days.

Okay, I appreciate you sharing that. And like I mentioned early on, you know, one of our clients interests is making sure that the discriminatory impact is lessened. And I know that historically Stafford has had less people of color in the town, but the parish has less, has had more individuals, at least that have, that have been individuals of color. And so I didn't know if your client would be open to, in this point system we can kind of talk more about what that would look like having the five year period be open to both staff. Like if you've lived in Stafford or the parish in the last five years, because there's still, you know, the locality, they're still staying in the area, but they have potentially now moved into Stafford in the past five years, even before the hurricane. Because I know there might be individuals that are moving there now after the storm, but you have individuals that might have been there for four and a half years that moved from a city over, you know, maybe even just right on the line into Stabbert and so didn't know what your client would think about expanding it to the parish rather than just the city as one of the Preference points. Oh, I believe you're muted.

Sorry about that. To make sure that you. I'm understanding you correctly. So it sounds like what you're saying is you don't have an issue with the five year provision per se. What you're suggesting is extending that to, or I should say expanding that to include people who have lived in the parish or the county. You know, for people who are uninitiated, I'd say. But yeah, so extending that to people who have been in the parish for five years, because that would be a potential signal that they are more committed to the region. Is that a fair synopsis?

So it's a fair understanding, like the point itself, but we want it to be part of a set of factors and it not be a determinant factor. It's something that's considered along with other things, such as being able to show an estimate from a contractor that there's X number of damage to your home. That way, if we're giving a $10,000 grant to somebody who has $1,000 of damage, you know what's happening with that other 9,000. So we want to maybe work with you guys to come up with a list of factors where this five year within the parish is one of the things that's considered, but it's not the determinant factor of whether or not somebody gets funding. So we kind of wanted to see what your client's perspective was on that.

Right. Okay. Now one thing to consider is how are we supposed to do this administratively?

And that's something we might have to talk through and present to the council to see if there's a way, I think, you know, that whatever that application process is going to look like, it's something we're definitely going to need to talk through. Whether or not we have all the information from both sides today to figure that out, we can kind of get the conversation started and see if we do. But I think from an application administrative standpoint, it's going to take a little bit of time to flush out.

Okay, yeah, because I mean, it's cool idea points for creativity for sure. But when we have to, when we think about the application of it, how does this look like in reality? We have to remember that we are a small town that just went through a natural disaster. And so as a small town with a small tax base, we were already struggling with funding and now we have this happen and now we're struggling even more. And now we want to create more of an administrative and bureaucratic burden on the town and so to me that sounds expensive.

Well, we can make sure that it's a point system that is easy to apply because there's individuals reviewing the applications right now. So if we could find a point system that if you, you know, hit certain points, you, you qualify for, for this funding that way there's multiple different ways to qualify and not just within the past five years, because. Right. They're living there in the past five years because right now that's a determinative factor, excludes a whole lot of people from being able to apply. And so if we have a point system that say, is five, six different, different points you can get, then if you hit a certain amount of them, then you, you qualify. And if you do not, then you don't qualify. Might be an easy way to make it administratively easy on the individuals who are right now currently reviewing it. Just they'd be reviewing a new process. Is that something that your client would be open to?

Yeah, I think we'd be open to discussing that for sure. Again, can't promise anything right now, but if we can, I'll float it to them and we could have the future discussions on how to do that in a way that is sustainable and realistic. You know, so if we can make, if we can make that happen, I'm, I'm open to that for sure. But again, it has to be contingent upon everything else because especially when it comes to the, that the issue of the radius. Right. When it comes to that right now we're not close. I just want to be frank with you on that. So this nice thing right now, but we're not there yet.

Yeah, we completely understand that. I just wanted to mention a few of the other things that our clients would like to have in that point system to see if there's any, any of them that your, your client would have issues with. And then, and then we can also discuss that radius a little bit more as well. But some of the things were also, you know, points for low income families that might be in more need of the funding as well, families with children and individuals with disabilities. Do you think that that is. Are three things that your client would be open to having in the point system as well?

Again, open to all of it. It just, it depends on how feasible it is when it comes to implementation, because it sounds, it sounds great in theory. We just have to have a negotiation about how to actually get it done in practicality.

Okay, certainly. And it kind of sounds like if we're understanding you correctly, it's just maybe something we need to have a later discussion with. And kind of what's really holding up our conversation today is that mile radius is kind of a sticking point for us that needs to be resolved before we can really get any further. Is that a correct understanding?

Exactly.

Okay. I think. Or no, I know our client would be a little bit more willing to move on the size of the radius if the current rental ordinance would be taken off the books. I think for them, if we can't win on both points and have them both removed in order to justify saying, okay, we're going to leave this multifamily home ordinance in place and it's going to have a substantial radius that impacts the ability to make these properties, then I think removing that rental ordinance would be. Would allow us to explain to them why we went up from the radius that they initially gave us.

Okay. And so when you're talking about the. The. The issue, the bond issue, you want us to remove that. Is that. What. Can you do that again? Joseph? Sorry about that.

That's okay. He was talking about the rental, the renting to the individuals in the generation. So. Okay, yes, if that's fully removed and if we get that point system that we were just mentioning as well. So if our client is able to get the point system and we can kind of work out the details of those point systems as well, we're willing to move on the radius a little bit. And so we could come up from 0.25 to a third of a mile. So 0.33. And wanted to kind of get your thoughts on that. And I know another of the issues we need to still discuss is damages as well. And I don't know how much that part plays into your client's decision.

Okay, so let me make sure I'm getting this right. So you want me to lower the radius to something that is slightly above nothing. You want me to change the way that we deal with this bond issue, and you also want me to completely remove a law that we have on the books. That's what you're asking me to do in this meeting.

So it's definitely more than nothing.33 is a third of a mile. I mean, we're open to entertaining a different number. You know, damages is another portion of it that's important to our client as well. But I didn't know if there's. If there's another number that your client would be comfortable with. We're willing to hear that. But right now that's where our client would be at with those, because the point system still has something in place, and it's still keeping in mind your client's interest of within the last five years. It shows that they're going to live there for a longer period of time. That's still part of the point system. And so it's still keeping that a part of the bond program. But I didn't know if you wanted to share either what your client would be more comfortable with compared to a third of a mile, and also where your client's position is on damages.

Okay. And so let me just. Let me just. Can I be honest with y' all real quick? So this kind of feels like a shake shakedown, because, Joseph, you said, like, we want to find a way to get a win for. For our clients, Right? But it seems like it's completely at the expense of the city. You know, a city that is underfunded and under resourced and struggling with budget. And now we're going to talk about damage which will hurt the city's ability to serve its citizens again. You know, so for me, my question is, when we're talking about a win, I prefer to be more of a win win negotiator. And so I can clearly see how this is a win for your people. But how does any of this serve the city? How is this a win for me? Because what it sounds like is that we're just negotiating how bad I'm going to get beaten before I take this back to my people.

So certainly something we can talk about. It's kind of one of the interests you brought up at the beginning was that this lawsuit has kind of branded this city and branded the council members as racist. I think maybe something we can work with, especially with the images, is reframing what that looks like. So maybe instead of calling it damages, we say it's a donation to the Fair Housing Council. And that way it looks like, you know, yes, the damage has been done. For us filing this lawsuit and saying, you know, branding your town is one thing, but I think the combination of if we're able to reach an agreement that's acceptable to our clients and the lawsuits dropped in combination with maybe saying. And we were decided to make a donation to help issues moving forward, it might help take the sting out of some of that branding that was done and help your client move towards creating that image of Stafford that they really want.

And in addition to that, also coming to an agreement on the ordinances is going to help that perception as well. So, you know, getting the lawsuit dropped, reframing what those damages are but then also just your clients being willing to actually change these ordinances themselves, rather than a court having to do that and us kind of work to together in that. In that goal is going to change that perception on the city. And then also it is going to impact the city in a positive way just overall, by being more inclusive. And so it's definitely going to be rebranding what is currently going on. If we can kind of come to a full agreement. Our client, when it comes to damages, just to give you a number, because I know we've talked specifics on the other things, is a total of $200,000, which has been $150,000 in attorneys fees and 50,000 in organizational damages. Now, our client is willing to go down on this if we can come to a full agreement on the other things, because we recognize that that's the bigger goal for both of our clients today.

Okay, first, let me say this. I appreciate your willingness to be creative. Again, I can understand how this will help us to shape the narrative of the issue. And that will be helpful. That'll be helpful because we want to rebrand the city. This has been very damaging to us. And so I appreciate your willingness to first recognize that that's an issue and offer some solutions. And I think both of those are viable. I think, you know, I will say, Joseph, to your point, calling it damages versus donations, that does help. And at the same time, I recognize that that is free for you to give. That's just a semantic offer. It helps us, but it doesn't cost you anything. And so what I would ask is, what flexibility do you have on 200k? Because that's not viable.

So I'd say, I guess, you know, that's where our client has started. I guess the question we have for the city is what's your budget? What are you being able to work with? Because we do understand you're under the financial restraint from the new bond that's been passed, the financial state from other damages done by the storm. But, you know, with full understanding, if for some reason we can't come to an agreement and this lawsuit goes forward and we do succeed, there's a chance that it's much higher. We wanted to see from your client's perspective where there's some room to work with in order to help the organization feel like they can continue having this conversation and continue shaping that narrative and moving it forward with the city as well.

Right. Well, and, you know, lawyer to lawyer, it could be much higher for sure. And, you know, it could Also be much lower. Lower could be nothing. Right. So both of us are, you know, rolling the dice at this point. And so I think it would be better to try to get some certainty here and try to find a number that's workable. 200k, isn't it? Now, I'll say, though, I do have a little bit more flexibility on the radius. If you would be able to. If you would be able to go down to. I'm thinking about the budget here. Well, here's something that I know could definitely happen because again, remember this. So I'm negotiating on behalf of the. The city council, so I need to sell it to them. And so I know what the budget is, but the budget doesn't comport with what they will give me the ability to do. Those are two different things. But I have an idea of what is tenable. If we're able to put the radius at 0.6 miles, then we could do a $100,000 donation. I like your semantic approach, Joseph. A $100,000 donation here. And again, it has to be. We have to consider the interplay of those two issues. But I think that's something that would be something that I could take back and have a realistic chance of floating. Because again, I don't want to lead you all astray. I want this to be something that is like a beneficial conversation. But if I sell you a bill of goods and say, oh, yeah, absolutely, I can sell that. And then, you know, I get, you know, knocked down, that hurts our rapport and waste our time. So I think that's something that's viable. I want to get your thoughts.

Yeah, I appreciate you offering that. I think we're really close. I will say that on where we can get to. I think the $100,000 damage number, if we can agree on everything else, is agreeable to our clients. So making it $100,000 donation. But that's if we can agree to the other things. One thing we haven't spoken about yet is the amount that each bond will be and how long people have to wait after getting their first loan to apply for their second one. So if we could talk about those two things, our client could come up on. On the mile radius there. So for our client, it would be really great, really important to them to keep the amount where a lot of individuals can get access to this money. And so I don't know if you have an amount in mind for that. But then also it's important to our client to have six months where they wait after their first time getting funding to apply for the second one. So that way individuals who haven't gotten that first round yet will have a chance to get that first round before all the funds are liquidated. So I didn't know if you have a certain amount in mind for the bonds and if that six month timeline is agreeable to you, but if so, our client could come up on the mile radius. Not to point six. I will just let you know that's not agreeable to our client, but we are really, really close.

So just quick summary here. It sounds like 100,000 is doable, which is great. And then I believe the six month moratorium on application for more funding, I think that's reasonable because that gives everybody an opportunity. I think that's something that we can get down with really easily because it is equitable, no doubt. So I'm not going to play any negotiation games with that because I think that'd be unreasonable. But I need a little bit more specificity. When you talk about the radius, you talk. You said you could go up so.

We could come up in full transparency. The most we could come up to is 0.5 miles. But with that, our client would ask that the bonds that go out be limited in a certain amount. And I appreciate you being agreeable to the, the six month time limit. So is there a certain amount they're currently giving to each individual with the bond?

Yeah, we're giving $30,000.

Okay.

For homeowners that apply. What number did you have in mind?

So doing the lowering that to 20,000 would allow individuals to have more access, like more individuals to have access to that money. And I didn't know if that's something your client would be agreeable to.

Honestly, that's not something that we've considered. I don't want to shoot from the hip on that because the concern would be, yeah, if we put the number down really low, we can give a lot of people money. I mean, if we go down to a dollar, we can give even more people money. Right. But the question is whether or not it hits that critical number to which it's actually beneficial. And I know that with the natural disaster that we suffered, the damage that houses have sustained is pretty significant. And so I can't say with specificity what the average amount is that people have experienced or whether $5,000 would be sufficient to really do anything. I don't want this to be a situation where we're giving nominal amounts of support just for the sake of being able to say that we helped more People without addressing the fact that we did not give them sufficient help to be worth much of anything. So I would need a little bit more data on that to make that work. But it's definitely something I'm interested in. And with regard to the radius, the 0.5, that's something I can take back to the board. Again to the council, I can't guarantee anything, but that's something I can take back. But I'd be willing to consider the other one.

Well, I appreciate you sharing the interest behind your client of having the 30,000. That helps us understand it. I think our client would be agreeable to that if your client would be agreeable to come down to the 0.5 miles, especially since you gave us the six months as well that our client was asking for. So it sounds like we overall have a tentative agreement to all of it. So I just wanted to take a minute to kind of recap all of that to see if I understand all of it correctly. So that the radius would go down to 0.5 miles. For the family, the multifamily home ordinance, the rental ordinance would be gone. The bond ordinance would have a preference point system and individuals would have to wait six months to reapply. If they've already gotten funding once before, it would be $30,000 and then the damages will be $100,000 donation. Is that sound right for a tentative offer for you to bring to the council?

Yes. Yeah, I think that's something that we could, we could take again, no guarantees, but we'll see how it goes.

All right, well, this was great. I appreciate you coming to the table and that we have something to move forward with.

Thank you so much.

50 minutes. Well done. Okay, that's right on. Literally right on the dot. Okay. So you want to, you have to do your debrief first. Right.

What we have been, we will do in the competition is a five. We'll have 10 minutes to discuss and then do a five minute self evaluation, like a post evaluation. What we've been doing for the moots is just doing a joint debrief. So that way it gives us an idea of things that for us to watch for that we could improve and things like that. Because that's essentially. It's a solo debrief, essentially in our post. So it's up to you if you would like us to do that or to continue.

Okay, let's do this because I want to try to make bedtime tonight. Let's just do a joint debrief. I'll let you all Go first. Just nothing formal. Won't hold you to five minutes. And then I'll run through my notes.

Okay, Sorry. We got to open our notes here that we've switched back and forth. One thing I felt like we did really well is that anytime you were just trying to get us to come down without actually getting you to say anything, we put it back in in your court, which was very difficult. But. But I feel like we did a good job on that. We made sure to get. When we gave something even if it wasn't in the same thing. So, like, if we gave a little bit more on the mile radius, we got more from the point system. If we. So I feel like even if it wasn't within the same thing we were discussing, we made sure not to give without getting. Because I was actively thinking about that and any offer I gave.

Go ahead. I agree with that. I was gonna say in terms of maybe a little bit better. And something I was considering towards the end there, when we were kind of getting into a lot of issues really quick, was taking a break. But I've heard you like to do this is we wanted to like, maybe frame it so that you would take your break, to give you a second to kind of process everything. Because I think for our sake, it might have helped us kind of clarify where we still need to go instead of trying to go there very quickly at the end and maybe recognize, oh, maybe we do need a second conversation before we're able to like, pose a package because we can recognize we're running short on time.

And he was. He was asking me to take a break over here on our notes, but I was just looking at the time and we hadn't talked about damages yet. And I knew if we took a break, we just would not. I didn't even have the. We didn't have the information from you yet to be able to take a break, which maybe we should have gotten to a little bit earlier to be able to kind of get the positions earlier. So that's why. That's why I was like, I don't. I don't. I didn't think we would get to an agreement if we took a break. Even a two minute break would have just ate into that time because we're right on the wire. But I recognize that we should have built in time to have a break at some point. And it just. Because I feel like at the beginning there was a lot of talking back and forth. You did a really good job of just like, I want to talk about this. We're angry about like how, you know, this suit is portraying the city. And I feel like that definitely was like 10 minutes into our conversation at that point. And so I was trying to move us on from that. So if we can, I think that's something we could approve on to move on to that first issue sooner. I think we would have had more time for the break. That would have definitely been helpful. I just don't. I think we would have been rescheduling a second meeting at the end rather than getting to an agreement.

And something too I'm always just curious about because at least from like my perspective, I've always been a fan of being like we don't have to take the full five minutes. We can be like what about a two minute break? Especially if you're running short on time. Just because I feel like sometimes at the end, you know, as much as we're talking like we, everybody just might need a second to gather their thoughts because you're trying to also figure out based on your facts what you still need to cover. So I was just curious if you thought maybe that's also a good idea to try to frame it as we don't need the full five minutes but let's just take a moment to gather our thoughts.

Yeah, I think that's good because again in you have to think about this. This should be practice for real life. And as you are giving your, your pre strategy before the session begins and you're giving your own your personal feedback afterwards, you always want to couch it in terms of what's realistic because if you just, if you crush it in these negotiation competitions but you are in just ineffective in the real world. And what is this? You're a good stage actor but you're not acting your lawyers. Right? So I want you all to use that word realistic over and over and over again. There's no rules rule in a real negotiation that says you have to take five minutes, right? No, we just needed a quick second to sync on these key issues and then we're back. That's all we needed. Right. And the other thing too is that in a realistic negotiation the time pressure is different. So yeah, you might have a situation where yeah, one team needs a deal more than another. But 50 minutes is an odd time for a negotiation. Right. You're not going to just run through it really quickly to the detriment of your clients interests and so you want to say that too. So I think that's it's good awareness and sometimes like some of my best Negotiations in the competition came without a caucus. But I always wanted to explain it, why we didn't take that break, because sometimes people would question it.

And do you think that that explanation that I just gave, if we gave that within the thing, would be a good one? Yeah, yeah, we considered it throughout, but it just didn't seem like we had the information we needed to, to take the break yet.

Agreed, agreed. The, the time that I would have, or it could have been beneficial would have been early on, you know, just to kind of get your bearings and then come back. But you were able to navigate it really well. So you didn't, you didn't need to. Yeah. So for me, as a judge looking, I wouldn't say that it was a mistake to not take the caucus.

And then at the end, you gave us $100,000. We only needed 75. And so I wasn't going to sit there and argue on something when our client, I felt like our, I mean, you were saying it, but our client was getting a lot at certain points. And so I was like, I'm not, I'm going to kind of pick and choose the battles. Our client, the most they wanted to do was 30,000 for the bounce the bonds. And so that's why when, when you said that, I just wanted to make sure I got the information from you as to why, to give a justification to be like, okay, well, if our clients getting this and our clients getting that six month, you know, then we can do that. 30,000. Do you think that that was good considering the time situation, or would you have just scheduled a follow up meeting for that if it's not a sticking point for our client? Because in my mind, I'm thinking in real world, if there was time pressure, which there's not, but if your client wants an agreement and it's agreeable for you to just stick on it for no. Like when they have everything else they want, seems like it would be counterintuitive.

Yeah. So here's the thing. First, it depends on the judge. It depends on the judge. You just need to be very clear about why you did what you did. For me, I would have preferred you to push a little bit harder on the money or at least use it as a bargaining chip. Because for me, when you went from 200,000 to 100,000, I'm like, what, are you serious? You're just playing games. And so that might embolden somebody else to be more aggressive at other stages of the negotiation because it shows that it's a bluff. Right. And so even if you have that space, which you did, you had a lot of space. That was a great anchor. You want to make it seem like it hurts. You want every concession to seem as though it is painful. So even if you can give it, you want them to feel they won't. You want them to perceive it as painful. Right. Because then you can leverage it for more.

And I think we definitely would have if it was earlier on. So I get like. I think it's because of the time crunch. So I. And I. When you say make it feel painful, man, you. You do. When you're giving anything, I'm like, man, he's acting like he can't move at all. And so I. We definitely need to work on that a little bit more. And I think we would have probably negotiated a little bit more if it had been earlier. So my. My question to you is, if you were in our shoes and you were under those time, I understand if it's earlier, definitely negotiate more. But if you are in those last final minutes and you've already made headway on all the, like, main issues, that was your client's issues, do you give in a competition and just accept that hundred, or do you still negotiate and say, it sounds like we're really close, but can we just set a meeting for like a week from now and finalize the details?

Yeah, I would say. Well, question. I haven't seen your confidential information. Does it. Does it imply that you. Excuse me. That you really, really, really, really need a deal now?

They. I mean, not that we really need it now, but that they want us. They want us to get. I think that we're three weeks from trial, if I remember right from the. Or is that the other one I'm trying to remember?

Don't think we have like a hard. It's ever said there's a hard deadline. There's definitely, like, we're given preferences on certain issues. And like, there's like, we have, at least in this prompt compared to other ones, have much harder lines that have been drawn.

But it's not a timeline line. I don't think they are like, you have to come to an agreement today, but they want us to come to an agreement generally.

Okay, well, here's the thing. I think this is really, like you said, Shay, it's a timing issue. I think since this isn't one of the key issues, you could use it as a shadow issue. Right. Because probably letting go of 200k is a bigger issue for this small town than it is for you. And Your people receiving it and so introduce that earlier so you have more time to discuss it and plan to use it as a bargaining chip.

Got it.

If you run into a situation where somebody is really sticking on one of your main issues, then you say, oh okay, fine, we can be flexible on the, on the price on the, the donation. I like that by the way. We can be flexible on that if you are willing to give more on like the radius for example.

Okay, that makes sense. So put it out there earlier as a bargaining chip. So it's kind of a part of the conversation throughout. Maybe in like when we set the agenda and say I know we're going to talk about this damages later, but do we want to kind of just get full transparency out there on all the issues on where we're each at or like how, how do you bring that up without. Because I feel like if we just go into talking about damages as our first agenda item, that's like we can't do that. So how do we bring that information out earlier to have those part of the.

Yeah, I don't think it should be the first agenda item, but I think what you could do is you all did a great job of once we reached impasse, starting to bring in other issues. And so once you start to reach some impasse then you could say, well maybe that we could get some movement if we were to consider this issue.

Right, okay, got it.

That'll be good thing for us.

Like the one reason we've kind of just stuck it at the end, it's because it's also the topic we have the least information about. And so when you start that point out somewhere earlier in the conversation, I think we're afraid of those questions about like why or what's the breakdown or like what's the interest behind this? When literally we're basically given a range of what's acceptable and go from there.

It's like two sentences of our fact pattern.

Yeah. Well if I recall correctly with the rules of the negotiation competition, it's like you can create facts or scenarios to fill in gaps as long as it's not too self serving. Right. And the thing, the reality is sometimes you're going to represent clients who don't give you a lot of information. You're. Some of the hardest negotiations you're going to have are with your clients to provide you information. I want $200,000. Why? I want 200,000. That wasn't very helpful, but okay, I'll do my best here. Right. And so you have to be Able to kind of float with that and anticipate the questions. So think about every question that you don't want them to ask, assume they will ask it, and then have answers for it.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah. You ready for, for my feedback here?

Yes, please.

So, yeah, before the negotiation started, you remember, I asked, hey, so what are like the top three things that you're concerned about? Okay. So I tried to prey on all of those. So balance information flow. Sharing too much versus sharing too little. Finding that Goldilocks zone. Negotiating, negotiating against yourself with that. I tried to get you to negotiate against yourself at least three times per major issue. And you all did a really good job of pushing back on that. Being too collaborative, I know that's where you're comfortable. So I wanted to spend at least the first like 35 minutes being a jerk, you know, to make you uncomfortable. Right. So that was. So that was my focus. And so at the beginning, Joseph, in your strategy, one of the things that you said was we want to set the agenda, control the agenda, make sure that we're hitting the things right. So I said, okay, so I'm going to take that from him. And so the first thing I wanted to do was set the agenda in some very disorganized, self serving type of way. Right. And you all did a really good job of dealing with that because I have written down here, Joseph, you did a really good job of slowing down and resetting. Because a lot of times when things go poorly in a negotiation, they go poorly really fast. Like the pace of the conversation is happening and it feels like the negotiation is happening to you more so than you being a part of the negotiation. So one thing I learned when I was learning to drive from my dad was he said, you're going to make more mistakes going too fast than going too slow. So slowing down is always going to be like the right answer in those types of situations. So you did a good job of slowing down and then resetting and then answering my question, like saying, hey, these are the agenda. This is my agenda. And then you responded before going into that first agenda item like I was trying to find, force you to. You did a good job of responding with your key issues. And then I wanted you to show your cards again, pressing on the flow of information, criticized by sharing too much. So she I was pushing and saying, hey, what are your key issues? How would you rank them in terms of importance? Right. To get. That's a pretty significant tell. And you're like, they are all important to us. Which was a really Good response. Very, very good response.

Thanks. I was like, this is almost like a non answer, but at the same time it is. It's true for our clients. Client. But I was. So I'm glad that you thought it was a good answer because I was like, I don't know how to answer this.

Sometimes not answers are the best answers you have. I mean, you have to earn vulnerability. You don't know me, and I'm kind of being aggressive right now. So I'm not. It is not smart for you to just give me what I want in terms of information because you don't know how I'm going to leverage that against you. So that was a great response. Here's something to consider when you think about the agenda, because having an argument over the agenda is not a good use of, of time. And this is something that, you know, Professor Rogers said so. Former Ohio attorney general, former dean of the law school. So whatever she says to do, you do. She said that when somebody's setting the agenda and it doesn't work for you, you address the issue, but treat it very lightly. And then you say, listen, I won't be able to really go in depth because this issue is really tied to this other issue for us. So if we could go and address that issue, that would be good. And if they try to push you back, just say, listen, like I said, that's a great question, but I can't answer it fully until we address that issue. So you still stick to your agenda even though it might not be what is articulated as the agenda. Right. So that's a way to keep that flow going. Of course. Show your work, let the judges know. One of the things I wanted to do was throw in some red herrings of arguments that would be just completely unproductive. And so the impact versus intent, that was good that you said that. And so I wanted to say turn this into an argument of, hey, y' all are being the bad guys by calling us racist. We are good people here. Right? And you did a really good job because what you did was you approached it with a collaborative frame, which is what you said you were going to do from the beginning. So you said, hopefully we can work together to change the narrative through this negotiation, refocusing us to the negotiation and we're not calling you racist. I thought that was a great response. So I wrote down in this note, I'm going to try one more time. I'm going to see if you bite on it the second time. And again, no, you said it depends on the conversation, what happens on the conversation, that's how the narrative would be framed. But we have an opportunity here to work together. You refocused on the matter at hand. And then one thing that I would suggest is that when you are ending the things that you're saying, you often end them in periods, but you don't end them enough in question marks. So at the beginning of the conversation, for the first 20 minutes or so, you were talking way more than me, which is what I wanted you to do. Did it feel like you were responding a lot?

Yeah. And so that's why I like moved us, tried to move us into that first issue and ask, what is your client's interest in this ordinance? Because I'm like we said in my mind and this is what I think one of the things we would say in our post is we want to lead but not dominate. I didn't feel like we were leading at the beginning and so I wanted to adjust us into leading that conversation again. I feel like we did a pretty good job leading the conversation after that. But those first couple minutes I kept trying to turn it into asking or like turn it into getting you to give us your interest and you wouldn't. So then I was like, okay, let me use the agenda to get us to this first point and then ask you to hopefully move us on that first. Yes. I was like, no, we are not leading right now. We need to get back into our lead. So I felt it. I felt it.

You can feel it. Understand when the conversation seems to be getting away from you, it's probably because you're not asking enough open ended questions. I was the one asking the questions. And then when you would ask a question, I would respond with a short one sentence and then ask another question. Right. So just pay attention to that. That's what controls the conversation. You know, that's, that's really important. Joseph, you did a great job of refocusing us back on the agenda and you did. You were the first person to drop an anchor in the negotiation. Thing that I was disappointed in though is that you didn't talk about that in the strategy. Like that was the, that was one of the best things that y' all did on throughout the negotiation. Anchoring, get rid of all your laws, give us all your money. Right. That's a pretty aggressive anchor. And it worked really well because of the way that you can frame it collaboratively through as the conversation progresses. Right. So that needs to be something that you will say at the beginning to let them know that you're doing it other. Otherwise they might just say you're being extreme for no reason. No, this was. We calibrated the impact. We understood that we would have to negotiate. We felt like we had the. The leverage because of XYZ reason, and that's why we felt confident hitting them with a hard anchor. So that was really, really good. You just need to make sure that you're letting the judges know beforehand.

And I guess I have a question with that because, like, especially I'm in Professor Lee's negotiation course right now as well. And when we talk about anchoring, it's one of those things that's kind of like used cautiously and used carefully and make sure there's a purpose behind it. And I feel like compared to some of our other moots on this problem, anchoring either hasn't worked as well or we're not the ones who set the anchor. And that's worked in our favor. So I guess in terms of making that balance between the pre and the actual negotiation, do you think, I guess going forward it's something we should just do and anchor it and just say we're going to do that?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. In my opinion, anchoring is the most powerful negotiation tool at your disposal.

And this is the first time we anchored so low as well. Like, even with, I think one time, we did come in with the 0.25 as our. In one of our moots, as our first offer to come down to 0.25. And so it did feel. This was the first time we had been like, get rid of both. And I feel like it worked really well.

It did work. And the thing is, let me say something radical. Anchoring always works if you know how to use it, if you know how to recover. If you consider the potential responses, it's a limited sense of a set of responses that people can give. Right. So if you consider each of the responses, then you'll be fine. The anchor gets more real the more that you say it. So you want to repeat your anchor as often as you can. The more you say it, the more legitimate it becomes. It's like political advertising. Politicians aren't going to stop after one ad and say, oh, yeah, I think they got it. No, we're going to keep saying it over and over and over again. Right. And so you say that again. The reason why we don't want this law is because of this. The reason why our clients think it's important that the law is removed is because of this. The reason why the radius doesn't Work for us is because of this, right? And you just stick to it. It's about the way that you play it after the fact. More so than anchor itself. Anchoring always works because it's a psychological tool. Like, I'll give, I'll send you all an episode and for the podcast listeners, I will put the episode in the description too. It was like from August 2017. I love anchoring as a tool. You just need to know how to back it up. That's the thing.

Do you think this. So what I think worked really well and I wanted to get your opinion on is he anchored? And then I asked which of these two would be most important to your client? Like which. Which one keeping? Because for us, we have to get rid of the rental ordinance. And so knowing that it seems almost like the other side in this competition, at least it has to be the family, like the multifamily ordinance that is more important to their client. So then I was able to come in and say, well, we can budge on that if you get rid of this one. Do you think that was a good strategy to keep using or do you think that that open ended question would open them to potentially say, well, we really care about this rental ordinance? Which was my concern when I asked the question, but I think it's almost impossible that that would be there.

You just have to consider how to respond if it is like, we need to consider that rental ordinance. And then you just respond candidly and candidly and say, not even why? I would just because that if you ask the question why, it forces them to like defend themselves. Like, the only response is kind of defensive. Oh, I have to substantiate it. Right? It makes them more entrenched in the position. Something that you could look into that I like to use to substantiate anchors and again, to get people to consider that reality. The longer you get people to wrestle with the reality of an anchor again, the more real it becomes. So I like hypotheticals. So I'd say, hypothetically, if we were to get rid of that, that ordinance, what would that look like? How could we, how could we make that work? Again, I'm not asking you to commit, but if we were to get rid of it, again, repeating the anchor, how would you make that work? What would need to happen? Those type of things. I want to keep the conversation with my anchor as a reality as long as possible. And the longer you're able to do it, the more real it becomes. The faster you get off the anchor, the less likely it is for it to be effective. Okay, Right, Yeah. Let's see. Remove family restriction. Oh, we have to talk about tells. We have to talk about tells. Mainly for you, Joseph. You're. You're pretty stoic, Shay. So, Joseph, your. Your tell is this. When the more aggressive I got, the more water you drink. You notice that. And. And so, like I could. It's a shaker bottle. And so I can tell, like, there's nothing left because I could hear it rattling. Right. But the more aggressive I got, the more you drank. And sometimes it would be before, like, oh, Kwame, just hit me hard with something aggressive. I'll drink. While Shea responds. Or even if you do a good job of responding, then you have to. It's like you. What you do to relieve your tension. And so it's important to relieve tension, but it's important to not be seen while doing it. I know as Bill listens to this recording, he's going to laugh because I always tell people, you know, people can't see your toes unless you're wearing open toed shoes. And then, why are you looking at my feet, you weirdo? So, like ball, like balling up your toes, you know, that to me, that's something that I like to do because nobody can see it, but it relieves tension. So you have to figure out a way to relieve that tension in a way that's not a tell. Right. So when you look at the video or yeah, I'll send you a link to the video, you'll see, like, it happened about three times. Times. The third time I was like, I wonder if I can get him to drink.

Yeah.

Let'S see. Oh, okay. So one of the aggressive things that I said was I essentially said your. Your anchor was unreasonable. I wanted to see, like, how you would handle it. You have to be very careful about the way that you respond because a good negotiator will listen to everything that you said and then you say one thing. We latch onto it. It's like blood in the water for a shark. Right? And so, Joseph, one of the things that you said, which was a tactical error, was it may not be reasonable, right? It may not be reasonable. I was like, oh, so you know, okay. And so you see how many times I went back to that, right? You. You owe me nothing. And so when I say something like that, you don't owe me anything. You don't need to give me that. Even though it's true, you don't need to give it to me. Right. You know, one of the things that we do A lot of times, especially when you are more collaborative, like both of you said, is that as you are listening, you nod. You nod a lot. Right. And so you have to be careful when you do and do not nod. And you can't encourage me because I'm seeing that. And then I feel encouraged, I feel emboldened. And so the response would be to just stoically look. Nothing. No response. Right. I can't. We cannot accept that. That characterization of my anchor as unreasonable, that. That's one thing, because again, it destroys the anchor.

Right.

So we have to keep on acting as if it is real. Yeah. I kept on trying to get you all to negotiate against yourself, but didn't work. Never did. That was really good because I was pushing really hard.

But I could tell that you were like. You were just like, nope, I'm not going to give an offer. I'm like, well, we need an offer.

No, that's good. Yeah. And one of the things that you said in response, Shay, was Kwame, I heard you say blank. I heard you say, as you. As a lead in to something else is always a strong thing to say because the most persuasive thing that somebody says or that you can say to somebody is their own words. Right. So whenever possible, latch onto that the same way I did with you, Joseph. It may not be reasonable. Right. So I heard you say, use that a lot. And then when I was trying to get you to negotiate against yourself, you answered my question with a question like, how, like, what flexibility do you have? What adjustment can you make? You're like, well, before we say this, it would be helpful for me to know. Blank. Right. Responding with a question when somebody's asking something aggressively is a good way to push back against the. Negotiating against yourself. One little semantic thing that both of you did that is small but has an impact is the word, the phrase kind of, of. What do you think about kind of?

It's wishy washy. Not really. Like you're trying to like, put a qualifier in a statement that doesn't need to be there.

Exactly, exactly. And again, I was being more. I was being aggressive. The more aggressive I got, the more you said kind of right. No, it's not kind of. It is what it is. Right. You know, so you have to recognize those. There's some points in these conversations that are more important than others. Right. When I'm giving an offer, when I'm pushing against your offer, when you are responding, when I'm being aggressive, like those points in the negotiation. Let's call Them inflection points, they're more important. And so I'm listening. If you say kind of. I'm like, they're not serious. Like, this is a point where I can really push. So you don't want to encourage aggression by being too tentative when it doesn't apply. Right. Let's see. Yeah. I say talking too much, especially in the first 20 minutes. You have to realize that that would have been. That would have been the only time that I would have suggested getting a caucus. Like I said before, you did a good job of moving on to a new issue, Shay. When there was an impasse, and then you used creativity when we were, like, really stuck, which was good. I liked the preference point system. Just be ready for pushback. But it was really well delivered. I was trying to be unreasonable, but it was such a reasonable thing. I was like, okay, that makes sense. One thing, Joseph. Depends again on the judge, how serious they'll take this, but this hits people different ways. And I think, Shay, you said this too. Be mindful of using inclusive language, because you said, you guys. Right. That. I think that came out a couple of times. You know, depends on the person. I think there's a significant amount of people that would not notice that or care, but there will be some people who do. And so you have to be mindful of that because you don't want it to hurt. You want to pause. I've hit you with a lot of notes. I still have a few more. What's. What are some of the things that are resonating the most?

Well, there was one question I thought of as. As you were talking. Did you feel like we balanced our, like, us talking pretty well between the two of us? Because we have kind of a game plan of what we're going to talk about. But because I talked so much in the first part, we adjusted that plan and had, like. So we're both prepared to, like, talk about different issues anyways, but we kind of wrote notes to each other when the other one should take over. And I just wanted to ask you if it felt pretty balanced or not.

It felt really balanced. The communication between you two was really good. So whatever your system is, it seems like there's a piece of paper between you two. Keep doing it. It's really good. Really, really good. Something you can do in these negotiations when somebody is being really aggressive is list out concessions. And so you. You. You'll remember when I did that. So I said, okay, well, so let me get this straight. You want me to do this? You want Me to do this, you want me to do that, and do that. So essentially, you want me to get embarrassed and then go back to my boss and be like, hey, fire me now. Right, Right. So when you are thinking about the. When you're trying to trigger reciprocity, list out the things that you've given them and distinguish between them very narrowly. So I could. So I could say, yeah, there's one way I could phrase this where it just sounds like one thing I've given you, but I want to be intentional about saying, listening. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. What have you given me? Because it's the natural human tendency to trigger reciprocity. Like, I'm. Tell me if I'm wrong on this. But the goal was to create some psychological pressure in that instance, for you to concede and give me something. How did you feel when I listed those things out?

So my initial reaction was to instantly try to find, okay, what have we given them already? Not necessarily give more, but try to frame it where it's like, yes, we're getting X, Y, and Z, but we also gave you a B, and C kind of thing.

Just.

I don't think my brain worked fast enough to find things. That's what I was. My initial gut reaction was good.

And that's the right response. Right. And also, hey, don't make these whack laws. And then you wouldn't have to be smacked up by us. Right. All right. But again, if you find yourself in a situation where somebody's asking for a lot, you can. You can list these things out and then just say, what now? How. How am I supposed to do that? How is this. How does this work for me? And then just don't say anything and see how they respond. You know, it's not something that by itself often gets the concession, but it's something that kind of chips away and makes it more likely for them to get it. Let's see. My handwriting is very sloppy right now. I was doing, like, four things at a time. I was, like, looking at these notes, looking at the general information, my iPad. And then what I was supposed to. To be mean about. It was hard for me to do. Yeah. One thing with the damages versus donations, Joseph. I thought that was really brilliant. One of the keys to creativity is trading things of unequal value. Something that you value very. You don't value very highly, but would mean a lot to the other side. That's free, right? I can call it that. But I think one. One of the things that you could really push hard on is helping the team, helping the city with the brand. Right. And getting them to really appreciate how other people might see them and just ask the question instead of saying, hey, everybody thinks you're racist. Just say, hey, out of curiosity, with this potential lawsuit, what impact has this had on the brand of the city? Right. I want them to get to realize, oh, we don't look very good. And so then you could say, hey, we are willing to help you with the PR side of this. That's something that's free for you to give, but could mean a lot for them. Right. And so I think that's an angle of creativity that you can do. And then lastly. Oh, Shay, something that you did really well was that you talked toward the end about changing the narrative. You said, hey, you know, if we get a deal here, then there's no lawsuit. I thought that was a really good way of like, slightly flexing the batna without being, like, too overly aggressive to trigger an aggressive response. Right. So if this goes away, it wasn't like a shakedown, but if we're able to negotiate a deal and then the lawsuit isn't here, you know, that was a good way to say, hey, remember, this is still looming over your head. But yeah, the last thing is just timing, making sure that you don't introduce the damages way too late, because I think we were within one. Within 10 minutes. I think it was about seven minutes left when we. When we introduced the damages. So that was way too late. But other than that, everything was really. Yeah, introduced money with four minutes left for like. You should probably start the summary process at like one and a half. Yeah, you don't always want to go down.

We're at 40 seconds. I think when we were started, when I started listening, luckily Joseph had written down all of the summary here and I just, like had to do the final details and then added in to it. So. But 40 seconds. I feel like I stopped at like two seconds left or something like that.

You did, yeah. And so for me, like, when I saw that, I was like, wait, there's another issue. Okay. So I'm going to. I'm going to like, ramble on for a little bit just to see how they handle the time management. But you conceded on the 100k so quickly, so it didn't really matter. But yeah, just be mindful of the time, all the time. So, like, there should be a trigger in your head where if it's like two minutes left, then, like, you should, like, the next thing that you say should be the summary because if you give it to me with 90 seconds left, I could ramble for 75 seconds, and then we all look silly at the end.

Yeah.

Yeah. So that. That's it. We have finally gotten to the end of my notes, but kind of want to sit back and ask you, what were the key takeaways for you for the session?

One big one is it's okay to feel uncomfortable in certain situations. So especially when you try to get us to negotiate against ourselves. When. When you were aggressive on, like, hey, I've given you all these things, just, you know, taking a deep breath, responding that, like, we are very. We like to be collaborative. So uncomfort is not our. Is. Is not our strong suit. But, like, I feel like after today, I feel a little bit more comfortable being uncomfortable. And, yeah, that's probably my biggest takeaway.

I'd say for me, it's definitely listening to your word choice and even, like those fillers we add sometimes or just. I feel like when we're asked a question, everybody's initial response is wanting to be. To answer it right away. And there sometimes you misspeak, or sometimes you say something where you thought you meant something, but you meant the opposite or you ended up hurting yourself more. So I think for us going forward, it's really paying attention to, okay, what's the question that's asked? How can we answer it in a way that's framed in the interest of our client without adding fluff or having to kind of dig ourselves out of a hole when we realize, oh, we said one thing, but we meant the other thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. A couple of points on that, Joseph. So remember this. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once you say the wrong thing, then it's out there and it's stuck, right? So you want to be mindful of that and slow down. Something that you can do to get a little bit more time is ask another question. Like a Que. Like a clarifying question. What exactly did you mean by. Pick a word that they said? You might know exactly what they mean. But I am asking you that question so I can give myself time to think. Right? So do that. One of the things that I know when I was competing while, like, when I was in school was I would. We would let the judges know, hey, we're not afraid of silence. So sometimes they would ask a question, we would sit there and wait, and then they would clarify the question or abandon the question. Right? Or if I asked a great question, I wouldn't let them off the Hook, I would let that tension ride. I want them to feel that pressure. I want them to feel uncomfortable because pressure and tension, those are negotiation tools. Right. So that's really important. Being comfortable with silence and letting the judges know that you are, that's. That shows a high level of negotiation maturity because most people are not. Shay to your point of the pressure and tension being uncomfortable, it's an important part of the process. I'm a chess nerd. I talk about it all the time. Problem, It's a disease at this point. But I love playing. And so there's this concept called productive tension. So there might be a position where there are two pieces who could capture each other. And so expert players can recognize that. Oh, let me analyze the board in this position. Yes. I feel the pressure. I feel the tension. I know I could get killed. I know I could kill them. Right. But I'm going to sit here because positionally, this is the best move, move for me to make. And I can look into the future. I can see a couple steps ahead. I know if they capture me, it gives me a positional advantage. If I capture them right now, it puts me at a positional disadvantage. But novice chess players will take that piece not because it's a good move, but because it alleviates the tension. It doesn't improve my position, but it makes me feel better in the moment, but I'll regret it later. Right. So use that pressure and tension as a tool. It's really, really, really powerful. Yeah. But listen, y' all are solid. When I was like everything, you gave me these fake weaknesses and I tried to leverage them and you just handled it really well. Pointed. I wanted to write down, ah, negotiated against yourself the sixth time when I got him the sixth time. But y' all did a really good job. Really, really good job, so. And again, most likely the people that you're going to go up against aren't going to be like, as tough, like strategically tough as I was in this, because it's a ABA is a win win negotiation style competition. Right. Which is good and bad because we're promoting good negotiating behavior. But then you get out in the real world and then you run into some steamrollers, then people don't know what to do. So I want you to be prepped just in case you run into one of these tough ones in the competition, but also for the real world too, because is not always that easy.

Appreciate that.

We really thank you taking the time today to talk with us. Kind of work through this.

Yeah, yeah, no worries. Yeah, and feel free to reach out anytime if you have other questions. When. When is the competition?

Friday and Saturday of this week.

Oh, this week. Oh, that's coming up. Okay, cool. Well, keep me posted, Keep me posted. But I think y' all are in really, really good position. Try to. Try to win it. I got to the semis when I was in the in school, and I was very disappointed. So hopefully y' all can do better than I did.

We will see. Hopefully we're gonna give it our all, so.

All right, peeps. Well, you have a good night. We will be in touch. I'll send this video your way once it. Once it finishes. Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team, so welcome aboard. What most team members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show. The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations. Keep learning, keep practicing, and keep getting better. Your relationships will improve, your career will soar, and you'll have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations. Again, thank you for joining the team. We're excited to have you, and I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.