Question:
Now in this particular case, mentioning that, did you feel that the conflict became defined a little bit differently as time went on?

Answer:
No it was the same. There were clear issues. That's the one good thing about that situation was that the issues were pretty clear and definitive and the numbers were there. The data was existed.

Question:
So there weren't any factual discrepancies?

Answer:
No there were a lot of discrepancies because people would express their position on an issue and over a period of time they came to distort the issue.

Question:
For example?

Answer:
They'd make statements like a black has never held a position above Sergeant. Well that's not true and the city could show that in fact they'd had an assistant chief who was black. They'd had a black captain. They'd had a black major. They had a bunch of black lieutenants. Over the history of the department they'd had these but what had happened is that the black officers just kept saying nobody has been above a Sergeant. And all of a sudden that becomes the truth for them and it wasn't the truth. Factually that wasn't the truth, but for the black officers that was real-- it had just materialized to that point. I could just cite that for a whole bunch of different issues from the cities perspective, from the FOP's perspective, and from the black's perspective. This is just human nature. We allow things to become something that they're not because of the emphasis that we place on it.

Question:
Now once the facts were actually given and provided did the other side accept those as facts?

Answer:
Well let's just take the one we were just talking about. As I recall the response was something to the effect of well, yeah we forgot about that, but that was 30 years ago. We're talking about today. And that happened with those kinds of issues. People reluctantly understand that the historical data is there because it's on paper and people can prove it. But because they've made that an issue and they've stated their position, somehow there's got to be some face saving taking place here and so we change the focus to today. That's what we're talking about. And that way everybody has saved face all the way around the table. And that happens a lot and it happened a lot in this case.

Question:
So they didn't lose any of their validity?

Question:
Did you find that there was much discrepancy or difference between what you thought to be the issue and other underlying issues, and what the people revealed?

Answer:
I don't think a great deal of difference. There were some questions of fact that got straightened out with the assistance of the hydrologist. So the concerns and fears of the tribe eventually became somewhat eased. Both parties listened to the hydrologist and others as to how they could enhance the flow of the spring. As a layman, I was fascinated to begin learning about this. There were cottonwood trees and other growth in an area surrounding the spring, and the water experts pointed out if you cut that growth down, the spring might yield more. Somebody had the bright idea to put in a small herd of goats and let them eat up the vegetation.

Question:
Was there any question about the credibility of the hydrologist? Did anybody think he was working for one side or against another side, or did they trust you to find an impartial expert?