[Imc] Draft of text for <http://www.ucimc.org/mediation.html> (fwd)

Wed Jul 31 15:39:21 UTC 2002

I want to thank Paul for writing this mediation proposal.  I appreciate 
the reframing of a person-in-conflict not as someone causing trouble but 
as someone who can help find a path for improvement and advancement. 
 Overall I think this proposal looks very good and only have a small 
concern -- I apologize for not bringing it  up earlier.

I am concerned by the role of Advocate being someone who stands in 
someone's place at a meeting.  While I understand that there may be that 
need at some point, I think the Advocate needs to be construed more 
broadly.  

One of the goals of a non-hierarchical, open organization is that people 
are not represented, but represent themselves. While the IMC has a 
spokescouncil in its Steering Group, this group is not a group of 
representatives.  The difference is that in a group of representatives, 
all power (power to propose, power to vote) resides exclusively with the 
representatives -- you can't walk into the US Senate and demand the 
floor and vote.  This is not true with any IMC working group, including 
steering.  Anyone may submit an agenda item, proposal and participate in 
all levels of decision making.  The Steering spokes only stand to define 
a minimum constituency, to ensure that no working group is left out.

I fear that having an advocate who speaks FOR someone, essentially 
REPRESENTING her, dilutes, and possibly undermines this.

Instead, I would like to see the Advocate be someone who ASSISTS a 
person-in-conflict in having her/his concerns fairly addressed at a 
meeting. This person's role would be to see that the concern is properly 
placed on an agenda and properly given the time it deserves to be 
discussed and deliberated upon.  

The Advocate should accompany a person-in-conflict to a meeting in order 
to provide both support and guidance, to help guard the person's own 
interests, and help that person guard her own.  Because we can all get 
caught up in tense situations, that Advocate's role might also include 
advising the person-in-conflict to calm down, to take a moment to 
reflect, or even advise to accept a compromise.

The outcome of conflict mediation must be deliberated consensus.  In 
order for this to happen the person-in-conflict must be an active 
participant in the deliberation and consenting upon a solution.  I think 
it is difficult for this to happen by proxy.

That said, I do think that there can be situations where the Advocate 
should stand in for someone -- in cases where hostilities are running 
high, or where some significant threats to the person-in-conflict exist. 
 But I think and hope that these situations would be extremely rare.

I'd like to submit this revised Advocate role as a friendly amendment to 
Paul's Mediation proposal.
I suggest language to replace this portion: "An "ADVOCATE" is someone 
who attends meetings as your proxy, voicing concerns and proposals on 
your behalf."

My revised language is:
"An ADVOCATE is someone who will assist you in having your concerns 
fairly and properly addressed and considered at an IMC meeting.  An 
ADVOCATE will ensure that your concerns are added to a meeting agenda 
and given the proper amount of time for discussion and deliberation. An 
ADVOCATE will attend the meeting with you to provide support and 
guidance in airing your concerns, voicing your proposals and finding 
consensus in solutions.

In the event of an extremely difficult conflict an ADVOCATE may attend a 
meeting on your behalf, as your proxy.  You may empower that ADVOCATE to 
act on your behalf in raising concerns and reaching a consensus 
solution.  Because an ADVOCATE cannot represent you and your concerns as 
well as you can, it is strongly advised that an ADVOCATE be your proxy 
only when attending a meeting yourself will cause signficant difficulty 
and distress to yourself and/or others."

Thanks,

Paul

Paul Kotheimer wrote:

>hi folkses
>
>by request, here's an e-mail copy of the draft i passed out to
>steering group two sundays ago.
>
>just for some context, it's proposed that this text (subject to revisions
>submitted by all and any) become a web-page linked to the www.ucimc.org
>site, and that it be in place to hook IMC participants up with conflict
>resolution resources for conflicts they might encounter inside the IMC.
>
>my understanding is that this text is on the agenda for participant
>comment and improvements at the next two steering meetings.  i hope that
>info is legit.
>
>and i hope my ideas help...
>
>paulkotheimer:)
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>WHO CAN HELP ME THROUGH A CONFLICT I'M HAVING INSIDE THE IMC?
>
>Since all IMC working and steering meetings are open to the public, any
>willing IMC participant or community ally can act as a mediator or
>advocate.  A "MEDIATOR" is someone who meets with PERSONS-IN-CONFLICT with
>the goal of turning complaints and concerns into proposals and ultimately
>CHANGES in the IMC.  An "ADVOCATE" is someone who attends meetings as your
>proxy, voicing concerns and proposals on your behalf.
>
>The IMC has a number of dedicated MEDIATION volunteers who can be of
>assistance to you in times of conflict.  If you want the assistance of one
>of our mediation volunteers, you can contact one specifically by phone or
>e-mail.  Feel free, also, to e-mail them ALL at the address
><mediation at ucimc.org.>
>
>Here are the names and contact preferences of our (more-or-less) fearless
>MEDIATION VOLUNTEERS!!
>
>
>PAUL KOTHEIMER		herringb at prairienet.org		384-0299
>best to e-mail me with a description of the conflict at hand 
>
>and when's the best time for us to talk in person. 
>
>CONF LICTRESOLUTION	mediator at conflict.imc		123-4567
>call me on my cel-phone.  early evenings are my best time to meet.
>
>ETCETERA			etcetera at etcetera.etc		012-3456
>i don't check e-mail every day, but i'll get back to you within two
>working days.
>
>PLACE HOLDER		placeholder at thislist.list		222-2222
>i assume you get the idea.
>
>
>WHAT WILL A MEDIATION VOLUNTEER DO FOR ME?
>
>Once you've made contact with an IMC MEDIATOR, that MEDIATOR will probably
>ask you to get together in person to talk about the conflict.  IMC
>MEDIATORS have made a committment to asking QUESTIONS rather than giving
>advice or quoting policy.  MEDIATORS generally view conflict as a way to
>help the IMC learn and grow.  MEDIATORS view persons-in-conflict as
>CONSULTANTS to the IMC, that is, as allies with a valuable perspective on
>how the IMC impacts the community-at-large.  As a consultant, then, you'll
>be asked to describe a few things: how whatever conflict you're observing
>started, what you think the problem is, what changes you envision in the
>IMC--or about a particular working group--in order to address the
>conflict, what you think this conflict says about the current state of the
>IMC and the local activist community at large, etc.
>
>It might be the case that one or more potential mediators will "RECUSE"
>themselves from the role of mediator.  This just means that they don't
>want to get involved as a mediator because they see themselves as already
>involved, either as an actor or as a person-too-close-to-the-problem.
>Please don't take it personally if a mediator feels the need to recuse
>herself.  MEDIATORS are acting in what they see as YOUR best interest when
>they do so.
>
>WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I MEET WITH A MEDIATOR?
>
>Usually, the goal is to get your conflict onto the agenda at the
>pertaining meeting, either as an item for discussion or as a proposal.
>There are LOTS of completely valid reasons why a person with a conflict
>might not be able to bring a conflict to the meeting without assistance.
>It's the nature of CONFLICT to be emotional, painful, confusing,
>intimidating, exasperating.  That's why we propose the idea of the
>ADVOCATE.  As mentioned above, the ADVOCATE "sits in" at meetings on
>behalf of a persons-in-conflict, speaking from the point of view of the
>person (or group of people) with the conflict, hoping to facilitate a
>CONSENSUS which might resolve the conflict.
>
>How you and your MEDIATOR and/or ADVOCATE interact as a team to get your
>concerns voiced is entirely up to you.  It might be useful to have an
>advocate who has experience at IMC meetings or in CONSENSUS
>decision-making.
>
>Your MEDIATOR might volunteer to serve as a GUEST FACILITATOR for the
>agenda item which pertains to your conflict.  This can be useful when all
>in attendance at a particular meeting seem to be
>people-too-close-to-the-problem.  It's best to get a consensus on a guest
>facilitator one meeting in advance, although it can sometimes be done at
>the meeting in question.
>
>Your agenda item might be assigned to a CAUCUS.  A caucus is similar to a
>sub-committee:  A portion of the working group who have special experience
>or interest in the conflict-at-hand volunteer to meet seperately in order
>to brainstorm, problem-solve, and draft proposals.  These proposals get
>presented to the larger decision-making group for consideration
>and--hopefully, eventually...--CONSENSUS.
>
>HOW CAN I VOLUNTEER TO BE AN IMC MEDIATOR?
>HOW CAN I HELP DESIGN EVEN BETTER CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEMS AT THE
>URBANA IMC?
>
>With any questions, suggestions, or to volunteer, contact
><mediation at ucimc.org>. 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC mailing list
>IMC at www.ucimc.org
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>  
>