A Word About Fait Accomplis
A process well known and used by the government to make it look like there are no other options and the "deal is done." I expect it to come soon...
I know I owe the structure post. I will get it done today.
My self imposed deadline of finishing most of these issues off is 8 days till “Soboroff Day” (the day the City publishes its plan and things really start moving).
We are in that scary time for politics. Deals are essentially done and now any new “variables” become a problem. Present the situation as a fait accompli.
Fait Accompli is a term used to say the outcome is predetermined, so there is no reason to do anything. There is no more negotiation. It is done. It is a time worn tactic in politics to brush off all those who could undermine a deal.
We are in the period of our reconstruction where a new variable could undermine a deal, so the fait accomplis are on their way.
I have been through a few of these fait accomplis in my career. I remember the feeling of powerlessness they present to the person trying to get something done. You get so close and then, well, the person in the “know” tells you they heard from the unknown people behind the scene, things are done. The person in power gets to act as if they are on high, saying, “I hear your point, but those with the real decision making authority have already decided.” They are always unseen and unknown. It has to seem more powerful than you can imagine. You push, but you are effectively told “no,” and people as I say, put their fingers in their ears and say “la la la.”
When you get the fait accompli is when you know you are making progress. That is when you know there is something dangerous. That is when you know you have to keep pushing. Deals are in the framework stage, but new variables can change the deals. New variables are scary. The calculus can change. The house of cards is very delicate. Constructing something which aligns stakeholders is very trying. Anything new can cause “renegotiations.” Re-negotiations and/or new entrants can be fatal.
The first time this happened to me, my clients had won a lawsuit. To change the outcome of the lawsuit, the other, more powerful, more connected with the “mystery people behind the scenes,” side introduced legislation to be a “compromise.” The goal was to undermine the absolute success we had in court.
The problem was their side had its own broader issues and we pointed those things out. We actually constructed an innovative solution (see a trend?) and that solution did not appeal to those with side deals cut. The legislation reset the status quo. We kept telling everyone there was no need for the legislation, those affected really did not have a worry (the drama they were complaining about was not real), and so forth. Legislators were told “do not do anything.” I mean that is the dream for them. No legislation. No calling in favors. No drama. But, they went ahead anyhow. They pushed the legislation.
The word from the “the resident experts” in the industry groups (and behind the scenes from ‘trusted advisors’) was “the deal is done. It is not worth pushing any further.”
Well, we had come so far. We had won at two levels of court and the last appeal would not be heard at the highest level. We were locked in and won. Now, at the last minute, the more powerful were going to take it all away? How do you walk away? The answer is you don’t if you truly care about what you are fighting for.
What we learned was the goal is to see from a legislative point of view (before they will support anything someone proposes), “does the person advocating really want what they are working on?” The casual “activist” will step aside at this point, going back to whatever they are doing when presented with the ephemeral “deal is done, power wants it that way, better go back to that rock you crawled out from” response. Does the legislator take the information you are presenting seriously? Do you take the information seriously? The “filter tool” is extraordinarily effective. The implicit threat is also, “if you keep going, you are going to make me mad.”
We kept going. We kept pushing. We got the “deal” shifted. We got far more than if we just walked away. More than anything, we changed the variables and are where we are today because of the desire to keep going- that desire is what really matters in all these advocacy discussion.
Another story is we were brought into another “done deal” for housing after our experience with the legislation. Because of our success with the legislative experience, it was felt our presence would have an effect on the outcome of the deal for housing. People would “understand” what our “presence meant,” which is likely that we would not be “easily brushed back.” There was “hair on the deal” as people like to say. Knowing we will not back down easily, and having been through the “are you really going to do this” moment in policy advocacy, it was felt maybe we can see things differently. Maybe there was another way to view the problem set? Maybe the deal, as people wanted it to go through did not have the entirety of the situation considered. Maybe something was missed?
Turns out, once we got into the deal, we pointed out where a significant policy consideration was missed, not to mention that a significant portion of additional money was also “missed” by the deal’s constructors.
In other words, sometimes an outside point of view changes the way “done deals” are actually “done.” Deals are never done in politics. Things can change quickly. A new variable can come in and change everything. “Regular Order” has a purpose. Regular Order requires a project to go through the various stages precisely because you do not want to miss something.
Why people “rush” a deal and then present it as a fait accompli is because they do not want to have to consider what could be. The legislation we had to contend with was pushed through “alternate means” to go fast and keep the “noise” down. The deal, in their mind, is done. Their “patron” has gotten what they want. “Sunlight,” as Justice Brandeis said, “is the best disinfectant.” Sunlight allows the citizens to get a better idea of what could be, not what is.
We just need to remember, in the case of Altadena, the “patron” is the voter, not the politicals. Voters are the ones who elect the politicals. Voters are the ones who entrust that authority with their politicals. Voters know there is complexity to political problems, but that is why people run for office. It is not to be “liked,” or do what’s easy, it is to handle these hard questions. Accolades in the community come because tough decisions have to be made. Tough decisions require time, require consideration, and require intellect.
Voters tolerate the notion people need to be “compensated” for their work (we are Americans after all), but they do not need to tolerate “easy.” They need choice. They need to understand all alternatives have been looked at.
Back to the deal I was brought into, we found the multiplier that those controlling the deal missed. The true patron, the Administration, put our change in. I got the “why are you doing this” question.
Why? Because it is what was right. Just like here in Altadena and the Palisades, there are serious problems and no one way to “skin the cat.” We need to see it all and make sure we address the entire issue, not a siloed position.
The variables are different now. We need to look at things differently. Deals may be almost done. Money might have already begun to move around the chess board. But one last lesson I learned over my years, “smart money people will always find the deal.” I do not think the deal is “done.” I think people will want to present it that way. That presentation is the surest sign it is not.
Whenever someone gives me a fait accompli I think it means they are worried something else might be there. I could be wrong, but I have been here before and seen this movie once or twice.
It gives me the comfort to know I need to keep fighting and keep on. Maybe I waste my time. Maybe not. Entrepreneurs see things differently than bureaucrats. We fight for the possibility of what could be. We “waste time” sometimes because you never know where it leads. That is the fundamental difference here. There is no “wasting time.” I would never be where I am today if I worried about taking on causes that “waste time.”
Maybe there is something different on the horizon for LA. As we know, this is a very different disaster with a different response required. What will that response be? Certainly nothing over the last 10 weeks gives one comfort to know all options are being considered.
High and tight pitches means you lean in and see what’s next.