Day 3 of the ACR Conference

To confess, I'm back at my home base but I wanted to blog about Day 3 of the ACR Conference. The schedule was so hectic that I didn't have time to write during or after the day!

The day started off with the annual membership meeting. Discussions centered around the use of committees, malpractice insurance, certification of mediators (the family law section will be the first to experiment with this issue), the approval of the strategic plan (with a sharing of the vision statement, mission statement, and overall goals for the organization), how we can help with the foreclosure mess, and the use of civilian conflict resolvers in areas where the US is engaged.

I attended a session about "Getting Parties to the Table", focusing on how to explain the mediation process to folks. Later in the day was a session on the caucus vs. joint session in a commercial mediation. That was an instructive session because, despite two different mediators using two different approaches, the parties reached almost the same resolution to their issues. There's something to be learned there about mediators getting out of the way and being facilitators of solutions, and not imposing solutions. I ended the day with a fascinating class put on by Jennifer Kresge about "The Art of the Question." Despite the title of the seminar, it became clear that asking good questions is an art and science. A strategic question has the opportunity to create value, truth, understanding, experience, perceptions, collaboration, angst, and interest. Wow. Who would have thought?

Overall, the conference was solid. Very good presenters. Well organized. Nice to be around folks who want to promote resolving conflicts.

Day 2 of the ACR Conference

How often do you go to a professional presentation, the speakers go over time, and no one is concerned about it? No one is looking at their watches? Or PDAs?

I just attended such a presentation.

Here at my second day at the ACR National Conference, we just completed our keynote address by Lee Hamilton. A remarkable man who provided a remarkable address. He spoke eloquently, with passion, and with knowledge. The audience of conflict resolution professionals interrupted his speech with many rounds of applause and standing ovations. I walked away from the presentation thinking how fortunate our country is to have Mr. Hamilton serving it.

The keynote focused on lessons Mr. Hamilton learned in negotiating conflict—how to navigate partisan waters. He said there were ten points, and I believe him, but for some reason I only wrote down nine. So with due respect to Mr. Hamilton, here are the points he raised to help guide us in resolving conflicts:

Attitude. To build consensus, we have to have the attitude of working cooperatively and not confrontationally.

Commitment. We have to have a commitment to the task at hand. While we might appreciate the short term gain from tomorrow's headline, that pales in comparison to the benefits of working together for a long-term gain.

Focus on facts. Facts are tough things. But we have to focus on the facts at hand. Facts won't build consensus, but they will help narrow the gap.

Rule of collegiality. We must be nice to each other. Mr. Hamilton described that prior to the meeting of the 9/11 Commission, he had a social event at his home where the commissioners and staff got to know each other as human beings. We ought not view folks according to labels that we give them, but as human beings with backgrounds, experiences, needs, and interests. It's hard to get mad at someone you know well. According to Mr. Hamilton, the 9/11 Commission didn't have a vote that broke across party lines and he attributed that remarkable fact to the collegiality of the commission. Collegiality can mean hard work up front.

Communication. We must communicate with all of the players both in the talks and with those outside the talks. Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

Focus on fairness and justice. There are differences between actual and perceived fairness/justice. If you walk out of a negotiation saying "I won this one," the settlement and the relationship won't last.

Compromise is necessary. Compromise can be painful, but necessary for a sustainable solution. Look at the founding of the United States—it was founded on compromise. We must work to understand the other side's view. The goal of defeating and humiliating the other side isn't acceptable. Look at today's political talk shows—they are like sumo wrestling—they may be entertaining to watch, but they are not governing.

Deal with core issues. Find out what's really important to a party and then ask how we can deal with it. Not dealing with core issues is like putting lipstick on a _______.
Agreement is not the end point. Often, the tough work is implementing the agreement.

It was a great speech that reminded us of the core issues facing those in the conflict resolution arena. It also emphasized the thought that we have an obligation to work on making agreements sustainable. During the mediation or negotiation session(s), we need to lay the groundwork for better, more cooperative relationships in the future.

Day 1 of the ACR National Conference

I just finished my first day at the Association for Conflict Resolution's national conference. Fortunately for me, the conference is being held in Austin, Texas, a pretty convenient drive from my home city of Dallas. After a non-eventful three hour drive down I-35 this morning, I checked into the conference hotel and ran into the president of the Dallas Chapter of ACR. We reviewed last night's chapter meeting, which was our annual civil judicial panel. Five local judges were on last night's panel discussing the world of mediation. It was a good night.

Today's pre-conference institute was outstanding. Dr. Larry Fong (from Canada, eh—he actually said "eh" several times) delivered an outstanding presentation about thinking and asking questions. One might think that thinking and asking questions ought to be fairly routine concepts for folks to grasp, particularly those in the conflict resolution field.

But most of us know folks who are not clear thinkers. And most of us know folks who may find it difficult to ask the right question at the right time without derailing communications. Dr. Fong engaged us in an exercise on developing hypotheses and questions for use in mediation. I came away from the presentation with a reminder of how critical it is for the mediator to be prepared and how important it is for the mediator to enter the mediation free of bias, that is, mediators ought to reflect upon their own role in the "system" of the mediation, and continually ask, "What am I doing to direct this process? What assumptions am I making about the participants?"

Mediators need to work prior to and during the mediation. Be on the look out for mediators who do not work hard.

I am looking forward to tomorrow. A number of fascinating seminars are being offered, and the day will start with a keynote address from Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana and a member of the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Hamilton will speak on the future of American involvement in Iraq and the Middle East.

Verse of the day

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

--Romans 12: 20-21

Collaborative law kudos

A big shout-out to the Collaborative Law section of the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Collaborative Law Council. They were featured in today's Dallas Morning News. The DBA and TCLC are presenting their fourth annual Civil Collaborative Law Training Seminar September 17-19 at the Belo Mansion (a wonderful asset of the Dallas Bar Association).

Collaborative law started out in the family law world as a way to lessen the emotional toll of typical a litigation-oriented process. In its own way, it is a form of alternative dispute resolution.

Collaborative law focuses on the interests of the clients and has built-in structures to encourage the parties to settle disputes without having to spend the time and energy required by going to court. The parties are encouraged to disclose information, not threaten to go to court, and all of that allows conflicts to be resolved without handing over your property or business to a judge or jury to determine who wins or loses (that's because trial is a zero-sum process).

Congratulations to the DBA and the TCLC on their outstanding work in helping people understand alternative methods for resolving conflicts.

Verse of the day

"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit."

--Romans 15:13

Got meds?

Is this a legitimate question to ask someone at a mediation?

That's a question tackled by Perry Itkin. Mr. Itkin references an article in the National Law Journal pointing out that, because of the number of Americans taking medications, jury consultants are starting to ask jurors about their medication usage.

Did you take your meds today?

Mr. Itkin notes that the Florida Rules for Mediators provides that, if a party is unable to freely exercise self-determination, a mediator shall cancel or postpone the mediation. The mediator is also to adjourn or terminate the mediation if any party is unwilling to participate meaningfully in the process.

As professional mediators, what role do we have to inquire as to the mental or psychological state of a party? Should we ask if they are on medications? Or if they should be on medications? How, as a neutral, do we evaluate if a party is free to exercise self-determination?

The Association for Conflict Resolution, the American Arbitration Association, and the American Bar Association adopted Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Under those model standards:

• "A mediator shall conduct a mediation based on the principle of party self determination. Self-determination is the act of coming to a voluntary, uncoerced decision in which each party makes free and informed choices as to process and outcome. Parties may exercise
  self-determination at any stage of a mediation, including mediator selection, process design, participation in or withdrawal from the process, and outcomes." (Standard I. A.)

Standard VI.A.10 states:

• "If a party appears to have difficulty comprehending the process, issues, or settlement options, or difficulty participating in a mediation, the mediator should explore the circumstances and potential accommodations, modifications or adjustments that would make possible the party’s capacity to comprehend, participate and exercise self-determination"

What do you do to make sure that the parties don't have a difficulty comprehending the process, issues, or settlement options, or participating in the mediation when it comes to a party's psychological condition?