Colleen Jollie,State Tribal Liaison: A Story of Transformational Change

Colleen Jollie, the state tribal liaison at the Washington State Department of Transportation, practices a form of transformational public administration that, at its heart, reflects a Coyote or “trickster” style of management. In indigenous stories across the world, the trickster uses his or her wiles to disrupt, refuse, and dismantle ways that are not working in order to creatively, and sometimes chaotically, build new ways. Jollie’s work as lead tribal liaison has transformed the agency, the tribes, and the relationships between tribes and the agency, creating a culture of cooperation across significant differences and honoring the transformational energy required to cooperate across difference. Like the Coyote, who does what needs to be done through many means, but mostly through thoughtful effort, Jollie works to create change that serves both the state and the tribes. As this profile indicates, the work isn’t always easy and the outcomes don’t always spell success, but the work is necessary for tribes and state governments to forge the kinds of relationships imagined in treaties and in other agreements between sovereign governments.     

Anti-immigrant mobilization in Russia's regions: local movements and framing processes

This article argues that increased anti-immigrant mobilization (the targeting of ethnic migrants to limit their rights and/or promote their resettlement) in Russia's regions is a consequence of local social movements adopting an anti-immigrant frame as part of their efforts to promote recruitment, acquire resources, and advance their movement's particular cause. Using the cases of Sverdlovsk's Gorod Bez Narkotikov (City Without Drugs) and Krasnodar's Cossack groups, it develops the argument and demonstrates specific ways in which an anti-immigrant frame is taken up by local movements. As a complement to existing studies of anti-immigrant sentiment or far right ideology, these cases highlight the practical politics of mobilizing support for anti-immigration causes in contemporary Russia.     

To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.