09 FED_DCR

Vista previa del material en texto

Harvard Business School 2-894-029
Rev. October 17, 1996
Copyright © 1994 James K. Sebenius. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used
in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means–electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise–without permission.
1
Deeport: General Information and Confidential
Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
This case consists of two parts. The information in Part I is identical for all parties while the
information in Part II is confidential to your role only.
Part I: General Information for All Interested Parties
A newly formed national consortium, Deeport, is interested in building and operating a
deepwater port off the coast of the state of Seaborne. The consortium’s members, mostly drawn
from a variety of commercial enterprises, expect to participate in the financing, construction, and
operation of the port. Deeport has already engaged in some preliminary planning and design work,
but cannot proceed without a license issued by the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA).
The Project
The deepwater port proposed by Deeport would be the first of its kind on the East Coast. It
would be located in Seaborne at the estuary of the Banksedge River. Like the European seaport,
Rotterdam, it would accommodate a new generation of large cargo ships and super-tankers–ships
considered to be especially cost-effective in transporting raw materials and goods.
The deepwater port would be based on an artificial island of roughly nine square miles
created with fill from the dredging of the access channel. The island would be connected to the
shore by a network of highways, railroads, and pipelines. On-shore, an Air-Sea Cargo Center
(ASCC) would be developed, along with connections to existing highways, railroads and pipelines.
Substantial infrastructure would be needed to accommodate an intermodal freight terminal of this
sort. Most of the industrial plant and ancillary facilities would be located on the island.
While certain components of the port could be operational as early as five years after
construction begins, the port’s full development might not be completed until 20 years later. The
projected cost of the port would be roughly $4 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars).
894-029 Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
2
The Parties
Deeport is excited about the prospect of a deepwater port on the East Coast. It believes
such a port could generate substantial profits within 10 years after operations begin. (Deeport bases
its projections on an independent study by Transport Associates, Inc., which concluded that such a
port could be economically viable under several possible scenarios.) In addition, Deeport believes
the local, regional, and national economies could benefit from a port which would dramatically
reduce the transport costs of imports and exports.
Several other parties, however, have an interest in the deepwater port as well. Each would
like to exert some influence over the terms of Deeport’s application for a license. Five of the most
powerful parties are described below:
The Environmental League: This coalition of environmental interest groups is generally
opposed to any “development” of coastal areas, especially development which might threaten
fragile ecosystems, add to air and water pollution, increase waste disposal problems, and increase
health and safety risks. The league is worried that Deeport’s proposed port would seriously
damage the environment in Seaborne and destroy the Banksedge River ecology.
Local Federation of Labor Unions (The Union): The Union is generally pleased that new
development is being considered for Seaborne. It anticipates the creation of hundreds of new jobs in
both the short run and long run. It will argue strongly, however, that these jobs should be reserved
for local union members. (This local federation is affiliated with the National Federation of Labor
Unions.)
Other Ports in the Region: The four other ports in the region–one is in Seaborne, the others
are not–are not pleased with Deeport’s proposal. They expect to lose a substantial amount of
business to the new port if it is constructed. They are extremely skeptical of Deeport’s claim that all
regional ports will share in the economic benefits generated by the new port.
Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR): This Cabinet level agency created during the
Reagan administration has a dual mandate: (1) to help realize the economic potential of the nation’s
coastal resources and (2) to preserve the environmental integrity of the nation’s coastal areas. The
DCR would like to see a deepwater port established somewhere on the East Coast and has the
resources and authority to subsidize such a port if it so chooses.
Governor Sherwood (of Seaborne): Governor Sherwood is in her second gubernatorial term
and is eager to promote development in her state. She is sensitive, however, to the needs of
organized labor, a powerful political constituency, and is therefore anxious to see that unions share
in the benefits of the port. Seaborne’s constitution permits a maximum of three consecutive four-
year terms for the Governor.
The Licensing Process
Deeport submitted an application just one month ago for FLA review. While aware of the
other parties’ interests in its proposal, Deeport expected little difficulty in the licensing phase of this
project.
The FLA, however, has recently been criticized by the press and by several Members of
Congress for failing to consider the “broader public interest” in its previous licensing
Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator 894-029
3
determinations. Consequently, the FLA is now very sensitive to the level of political support
surrounding each application it reviews.
In this case, the FLA will not approve Deeport’s application unless it is clear that there is
substantial support for the project. It has therefore decided that it will approve Deeport’s proposal
only if Deeport can muster the support of at least four other parties. The FLA would prefer to see all
five parties support a Deeport application, but will grant a license even if only four lend their
support.
Thus, two parties, together, can exercise veto power over the project. In addition, Deeport
itself can effectively veto any proposal in this negotiation (since no other party is capable of
initiating the development). Finally, if it refuses financial support to the project, the Federal DCR
can also effectively veto any project that requires a federal loan or loan guarantee.
The Negotiation
Deeport has already submitted a license application to the FLA which proposes the
following resolution of the five issues (to be discussed in more detail below):
• a heavy industry mix
• compliance with environmental laws
• a $3 billion loan from the DCR
• no special preference for union workers
• no compensation payments to other ports.
Deeport is free to submit changes to its proposal at any time during the licensing review process,
but it is anxious to have its application approved as is.
In an attempt to muster support for its current proposal, Deeport has invited all the key
parties to a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton. Its stated objective for the meeting is to seek a “negotiated
agreement” among all parties to ensure unanimous support for its proposal. (Of course, Deeport
needs the support of only four of the other parties in order to secure a license. No project, however,
can go forward without Deeport’s support. The Fed DCR must be one of these four or five
supporters if the proposal is to include a federal loan; in other words, the non-DCR parties cannot
successfully “vote themselves a loan” if Fed DCR does not support such an agreement.)
Mechanics of the negotiation. All five parties have agreed to attend the meeting, and are seated
at the negotiating table with Deeport.Each party has seen a copy of Deeport’s current FLA
application.
The discussions may progress in any direction, but Deeport will be searching for a proposal
that will win enough votes for FLA approval. Anyone can suggest alternative proposals, but
Deeport’s concurrence is needed for any proposal to be adopted.
Although all parties have agreed to attend the meeting, they need not meet as a group
throughout the negotiating session. Parties can opt to walk away from the discussion if they so
desire. In addition, they are free to meet privately in smaller groups at any time.
Three required voting rounds are scheduled for the meeting. The first will take place 15
minutes after the meeting begins, the second after 40 minutes of discussion, and the third after 1 1/4
hours of discussion. At each of these scheduled votes, Deeport must put before the group a full
894-029 Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
4
package proposal addressing all the issues. Note that the required votes are not issue-by-issue,
but on a single Deeport-proposed package.
Additional votes may be taken at any point during the meeting, but the three scheduled
voting rounds must take place. (If a project receives sufficient votes for FLA approval in the first or
second voting round, however, the parties may choose to forgo subsequent voting rounds.) Apart
from these required votes, informal (but binding) votes can be called by any party. Apart from
Deeport’s obligation to propose packages for the three scheduled votes (and the parties’ obligations
to cast votes), the choice of negotiating and voting processes is entirely up to the participants as a
group. (Given the short time frame for the negotiations, some care in time and process planning
may be useful.)
Once a proposal encompassing all the issues is passed in required or other voting rounds
(i.e., it receives supporting votes from at least four of the five other parties, in addition to having the
support of Deeport), the votes are binding and parties cannot renege on their promise of support.1
The parties remain free, however, to explore possible “improvements” in the agreement which
either benefit the supporting parties or entice the non-supporting party to vote for the agreement.
But proposed improvements must be unanimously supported by the parties to the original
agreement; otherwise the original agreement stands.
Negotiations must stop at the end of the meeting. If no agreement is reached (i.e., if no
proposal receives at least four votes plus the support of Deeport), the FLA will reject Deeport’s
application for a license.
The Issues
Preliminary discussions have taken place between Deeport and representatives of the five
key parties. As a result of these conversations, Deeport has identified five issues which seem to be
of concern to all or some of the parties. A general description of the issues is provided below; the
individual concerns of the parties are summarized separately in their confidential instructions.
Issue #1: Industry Mix
The deepwater port itself is only part of the development Deeport has planned. With the
construction of the port will come a variety of industries seeking access to the port. These industries
will either lease or purchase land, both on the artificial island and on-shore. The bulk of Deeport’s
revenues associated with the new port will flow from these real estate ventures.
Deeport has initially requested complete freedom in developing the port lands. This means
that it could develop (or encourage) any type of industry or plant, including oil refineries, steel
mills, or a resource recovery plant. The environmentalists, however, have argued that limits should
be placed on the industry mix allowed in the area: they are asking that only relatively “light” and
“clean” industries, such as certain high-tech production plants, be allowed.
As a result of this controversy, three options have surfaced in the discussions between
Deeport and the environmentalists.
 
1To be binding, a vote must be on a "package" which addresses all of the issues.
Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator 894-029
5
 1. Light–would be limited to only “clean” light industries such as high-tech
production industries; “dirty” plants would be excluded.
 2. Medium–would exclude the “most dirty” heavy industries, but would allow a
limited number of plants including food processing plants.
 3. Primarily heavy–no industry would be excluded, but the mix would probably
be dominated by oil refineries, petrochemical plants, steel production plants,
and a resource recovery plant; these are the industries which would benefit
most from construction of a deepwater port.
Air pollution, water pollution, and waste disposal would vary with the industry mix
selected. But, regardless of the “industry mix” in the project, all industries would conform to
existing federal and state pollution regulations.
Issue #2: Ecological Impact
If the present Deeport plan is enacted, the dredging of the access channel, the creation of the
island, and general construction activity at the port could disrupt existing “ecologically delicate”
areas both on and off shore. Damage would most likely include the alteration of nesting habitats, a
reduction in natural tidal flushing, the destruction of wetlands, land erosion, adverse effects on
existing fisheries, and subsurface geological disruption (caused by drilling and dredging).
Deeport admits that the new deepwater port could cause some damage to the ecological
setting, but also claims that such damage would be within the limits defined by federal and state
regulations. Environmentalists, however, counter that the damage would be excessive, and that
Deeport has no right to disrupt the area.
In light of these arguments, three outcomes are possible.
 1. Compliance with legal standards for environmental protection: This would involve
unremedied disruption to the ecological balance. Fish and animal nesting habitats
would be altered (or effectively destroyed), valuable wetlands would disappear,
water temperatures and currents would change, and certain types of aquatic flora
and fauna would be destroyed. All this would take place within Federal and State
impact mitigation guidelines.
 2. Maintenance and repair of the ecology, beyond compliance: This would involve
special precautions to divert construction and dredging activity (where possible)
away from the most ecologically delicate areas. In addition, it would include the
relocation or recreation of habitats destroyed by unavoidable dredging and
construction.
 3. Improvement of the ecological setting beyond maintenance and repair: Like the
previous option, this would include special efforts to by-pass delicate areas during
construction and dredging. But it would also include a variety of other affirmative
efforts to improve the local environment. Environmentalists propose on-going
fisheries management and wildlife protection programs, the creation of new and
larger protected wetland areas, an active anti-erosion program, and the construction
and operation of a small waste treatment facility to treat effluents flowing into the
estuary from the Banksedge River.
894-029 Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
6
Issue #3: Employment Rules
Construction and operation of the deepwater port is expected to generate hundreds of new
jobs in the community in both the short run and the long run. These jobs can be distributed among
potential employees in one of four ways.
 1. Unlimited union preference: Jobs would be reserved for local union workers,
where appropriate. This would enable local union members to claim as large a
share of the new jobs as possible.
 2. Union Quota of 2:1: Limited preference could be given to union members
where the ratio of unionto non-union workers would not fall below 2 to 1.
 3. Union Quota of 1:1: The ratio of union to non-union workers would not be less
than 1 to 1.
 4. No union preference (unrestricted hiring practices): Deeport would be free to
hire whomever it chooses. In this scenario, most workers would probably be
non-union workers, enabling Deeport to maintain the maximum degree of labor
flexibility and to reduce expected wage costs. In addition, many of the new
workers might be drawn from outside the state.
Issue #4: Federal Loans
The newly created federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR) has a mandate to
promote economic use of coastal areas while preserving the environmental integrity of these areas.
It can provide a substantial loan (or guarantee private borrowing) to help cover the construction and
operating costs of the port over the next 20 years. DCR is also interested in seeing the port
developed, but has implied that there will be strings attached if it lends money for the project.
Deeport estimates that the total cost of the project will be $4 billion. It has requested $3
billion in guaranteed loans, although three other options are possible.
 1. No federal loan.
 2. A $1 billion loan over the 20 year period.
 3. A $2 billion loan over the next 20 years.
 4. A $3 billion loan over the next 20 years.
Issue #5: Compensation to Other Ports in the Region
Deeport believes the new port will generate significant economic growth both in and outside
the state. It contends that the entire regional economy will be improved by the port, and that the
other four major ports on the Eastern seaboard will benefit from this growth as well.
The other ports, however, expect to suffer a substantial loss of traffic once the new port
begins operation. Based on a consultant’s in-depth analysis, they have estimated the present
(discounted) value of their losses to be roughly $600 million. These four ports argue that they
should be compensated for their prospective losses.
In light of this conflict, five possible options are up for consideration. Deeport could
provide:
 1. $600 million (or 100% compensation) to the other ports.
Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator 894-029
7
 2. $450 million (or 75% compensation) to the other ports.
 3. $300 million (or 50% compensation) to the other ports.
 4. $150 million (or 25% compensation) to the other ports.
 5. No compensation.
If any of the first four options is agreed, this money would be paid by Deeport to the other
ports at the outset of the project. (In particular, Fed DCR cannot provide compensation to the other
ports; any such payments must come from Deeport.) Though the ports would be free to spend this
money as they wished, they could use these funds to make changes in their design which would
enable them to serve more effectively as feeder ports for the new deepwater port.
Part II: Confidential Instructions for the Federal DCR Negotiator Only
Deeport’s recent application to build and operate a deepwater port in Seaborne is very
intriguing. We are certainly interested in seeing a deepwater port finally developed on the East
Coast. Unfortunately, some of our lower level staff appeared over-eager in initial discussions with
Deeport and would have gladly committed our entire budget to this venture had my Deputy
Secretary not stepped in!
This meeting seems a perfect opportunity to test the strength of Deeport’s commitment to
the project, and to wrangle some concessions in return for our funding. Given our dual
mandate� to develop our nation’s coastal resources while preserving the environment�we will
obviously seek some concessions from Deeport on environmental issues. But we have an interest in
all five issues up for discussion today.
Scoring. In order to help you plan your negotiating strategy, our policy shop has constructed a
special 100-point “scoring” scheme to illustrate which negotiable outcomes are of greatest and least
importance to us. Under this scheme, the most preferred set of outcomes is worth 100 points to us;
the least preferred is worth zero. You can earn up to 100 points depending upon how each of the
five issues is resolved.
Dealing with real issues in terms of “points” may seem a bit artificial and awkward. But for
the purposes of this negotiation, it enables us to combine our several interests�developing the
coastline, appeasing our congressional oversight committee, retaining control over important
projects, etc.� into a single “currency.” This, in turn, allows us to compare the gains and losses
associated with different issues.
In addition, using “points” allows us to compare the benefits (and costs) of a negotiated
agreement with our alternatives to negotiated agreement. In this case, we would be willing to
support any proposal worth at least 65 points to us. Any project worth fewer than 65 points would
cost us some credibility, and would probably flounder for lack of economic and political support.
(There are also several other projects we might elect to subsidize should we opt against funding this
particular port.)
Your task is to encourage construction of the port while minimizing our costs. Your success
will be gauged by your point total; try to earn as many points as possible in this negotiation. This is
not being greedy� it simply means that we want to further our legitimate interests as far as possible.
We can support projects worth at least 65 points, but that is the bare minimum we can accept. If no
agreement is reached, your score is 65 points. We certainly hope you will do much better.
894-029 Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
8
Federal loan. This issue is obviously of paramount importance to us. Our preference would be to
have at least some financial involvement in the project in order to retain a measure of control over
its operation. Furthermore, if we support the port and it is successful, our institutional credibility
will rise considerably. This is particularly important to our department at this time because we are
so new. Similarly, the current administration would also like to claim credit for helping to establish
the East Coast’s first deepwater port.
Fortunately, we have complete control over federal money on projects of this nature. Thus,
we can effectively veto any agreement we do not support which requires a federal loan to go
forward; if a project could be purely privately funded, however, our opposition may not suffice to
stop it.
The deepwater port appears to be a worthwhile project warranting our support.
Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited funds to bestow on this project, and so have assigned the
following points to this issue:
• $3 billion federal loan = 10 points
• $2 billion federal loan = 26 points
• $1 billion federal loan = 40 points
• No loan = 0 points
As indicated by the point distribution, we would definitely prefer some financial
involvement to none. But our Congressional oversight committee is anxious to see significant
private sector involvement in all projects we underwrite. Consequently, our first choice is to
provide just $1 billion. While Deeport will have a somewhat difficult time raising $3 billion, it
should not be impossible. (We think they already have almost $2 billion in potential commitments
lined up.)
Yet, while the $1 billion loan is our optimal outcome, it will take some fancy footwork to get
Deeport to agree to such a low level of support. We will need to extricate ourselves from the
previous, albeit tentative, commitment made by our junior staffers to provide $3 billion in support.
In addition to the Seaborne deepwater port, there are several other projects being planned
on both the East and West coasts, many involving improvements to existing ports. While we
acknowledge the tremendous public benefits associated with a deepwater port on the East Coast, we
would like to spread our money across as many worthwhileprojects as possible. Supporting these
other projects would prove especially beneficial from a political perspective, because they would
diversify our support across many congressional districts. Of course, providing too little funding
for a project to succeed would not serve our interests in a “showcase” success story for which our
support was indispensable.
Ecological impact. In light of our dual mandate, we cannot accept a port which promises to do
substantial damage to the environment. On the other hand, we do not want to burden Deeport with
improving the environment if such improvement threatens the economic viability of the port.
Trying to assist Deeport without alienating the environmentalists will prove extremely difficult, but
we must make an effort not to tip the scales too far in either direction.
We feel very strongly that the Banksedge River environment must be protected. It would be
disastrous to the fishing and shellfish industries if Deeport were to build the port without regard to
the environment; every effort must be made to persuade Deeport to minimize destruction of the
natural environment. We believe it is possible to construct an economically viable port without
wreaking havoc on the ecology of the region.
We have, therefore, assigned the following points to this issue:
Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator 894-029
9
• compliance with laws and regulations = 0 points
• maintain and repair = 20 points
• improve = 25 points
As you can see, we are not averse to improvements. We can, after all, win some political credibility
if improvements take place. But we are far more concerned that Deeport at least agree to maintain
and repair the setting. Improvements should be considered “icing on the cake.”
Compensation to other ports. This is a tricky issue for us because the four other ports in the
region are part of our newly-created constituency. In addition, we cannot risk alienating members
of Congress who are from coastal areas other than Seaborne. We would, therefore, be somewhat
reluctant to sign an agreement that specifically excludes these ports from consideration.
On the other hand, we do not want to jeopardize the economic viability of the deepwater
port by imposing huge compensation costs on it. Since this compensation would be paid “up front,”
it could pose a substantial burden for the developer. If compensation is to be paid, responsibility for
doing so is up to Deeport. Our agency cannot directly compensate the other ports or “earmark” any
part of any loan we provide to Deeport for this purpose. (By the same token, we cannot forbid
Deeport from using any of its funds for this purpose.)
Overall, we prefer the compromise solutions to either of the two extremes. Our analysts
suggest that, in fact, the other ports have over-estimated their projected losses. We think a fair
solution would be compensation of roughly $300 million. While these other ports may lose some
business, they will undoubtedly gain other business as feeder ports.
The following points are assigned to the various compensation levels proposed:
• $600 million = 4 points
• $450 million = 8 points
• $300 million = 15 points
• $150 million = 12 points
• No compensation = 0 points
Industry mix. This issue is moderately important because of its impact on the environment. But
while our mandate requires us to be sensitive to environmental concerns, we need not be overly
sensitive. Here we think the environmentalists’ demands may be a bit extreme. While we agree that
the “light,” all clean industry mix would create the least environmental damage, it would also
unduly limit Deeport’s flexibility in securing commitments from industries interested in locating in
the vicinity of the port.
Deeport should be free to develop a reasonably diverse industry mix. Too narrow a mix
would make the port extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy. Moreover, “medium,”
clean/dirty industries are much more likely to benefit from access to the port than light industries.
Finally, we are not convinced of the legality of prohibiting certain industries from locating at the
port. Clearly, companies which do not agree to abide by environmental laws can be excluded, but it
is not clear that those which do meet the most stringent environmental standards can be legally
banned.
We have, therefore, assigned the following points to this issue:
• heavy = 0 points
• medium = 11 points
• light = 5 points
As you can see, we again prefer the compromise position to either of the two extremes.
894-029 Deeport: General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator
10
Employment distribution. Compared to the other issues in this negotiation, this is perhaps a
minor issue to us. Nevertheless, we have some private qualms about tailoring a federally-
subsidized project to help organized labor.
Workers have not even been hired yet and already the unions are trying to become
entrenched. We would be very upset if employment requirements destroyed the economic viability
of the project.
It must be borne in mind that publicly opposing the unions on ideological grounds is very
risky. Nevertheless, you should feel free to lend your support on this issue to any allies whose
interests coincide with our own. The following points are assigned to this issue:
• unlimited union preference = 0 points
• union quota of 2:1 = 2 points
• union quota of 1:1 = 4 points
• no union preference = 9 points
Keeping the unions out of the port will enable Deeport to keep its wage costs reasonably
low. It will also provide Deeport with an opportunity to experiment with labor-saving technologies
which have historically been blocked by unions at other ports.
We have attached a one-page scoring sheet which summarizes the points assigned to each
issue. Do not take these points lightly. They reflect deeply felt and carefully analyzed interests. In
negotiating, you should treat each and every point as if it represents millions of dollars of your
money. Remember that the value of no-deal to us is 65 points. We are certain you can do much,
much better. Do remember though that this information is CONFIDENTIAL! Do not physically
show your scoring sheet to anyone. You may verbally convey some or all of your scoring
information to any of the other parties, but do not let anyone actually see your scoring sheet.
Good luck. I am confident that you will negotiate an extremely valuable agreement for us.
 General Information and Confidential Instructions to the Federal DCR Negotiator 894-029 
11 
 
 
FEDERAL/DCR WORKSHEET AND RESULTS 
Your Name: _______________________________ Your Pairing (Team) No.: ________________ 
Your participant no.: _________________________ 
Was an agreement reached? (circle): YES NO* 
If there was agreement, was suppor t for it unanimous? (circle): YES NO 
If support was not unanimous, who did NOT vote for it? (circle below) 
UNIONS ENVIRONMENTALISTS FED DCR GOVERNOR OTHER PORTS 
 
Issue/Option ........................................................Total 1st 2nd 3rd Final 
 Points Vote Vote Vote Results 
 Terms 
A. Industry Mix (Circle) 
 1. heavy ........................................................ 0 A1 (0) Points 
 2. medium ................................................... 11 A2 (11) 
 3. light ........................................................... 5 A3 (5) _______ 
B. Ecological Impact 
 1. compliance ............................................. 0 B1 (0) 
 2. maintain and repair ............................... 20 B2 (20) 
 3. improve ................................................. 25 B3 (25) _______ 
C. Employment Rules 
 1. unlimited union preference.................... 0 C1 (0) 
 2. union quota of 2:1 .................................. 2 C2 (2) 
 3. union quota of 1:1 .................................. 4 C3 (4) _______ 
 4. no union preference ............................... 9 C4 (9) 
D. Federal Loan 
 1. $3 billion .................................................. 10 D1 (10) 
 2. $2 billion .................................................. 26 D2 (26) 
 3. $1 billion .................................................. 40 D3 (40) _______ 
 4. no federal loan ....................................... 0 D4 (0) 
E. Compensation to other ports 
 1. $600 million ............................................ 4 E1 (4) 
 2. $450 million ............................................ 8 E2 (8) 
 3. $300 million ............................................ 15 E3 (15) ______ 
 4. $150 million ............................................ 12 E4 (12) 
 5. no compensation ................................... 0 E5 (0) 
 
 TOTAL Final* 
 Total _______ 
 
VOTING RECORD: (circle) PARTY First Vote Second Vote Third Vote 
 Deeport Y N Y N Y N 
 Union Y N Y N Y N 
 Fed DCR Y N Y N Y N 
 Environmentalists Y N Y N Y N 
 Governor Y N Y N Y N 
 Other Ports Y N Y N Y N 
 Total __ __ __ __ __ __ 
 
*Minimum needed to vote for an agreement = 65. (This is your score if the negotiations fail and no agreement 
is reached.)