Below is correspondence from the Southern California Mediation Association about the proposed new regulation that landed in my in-box today. It includes links to arguments pro and con and urges mediators who are interested in the issue to contact the responsible parties.
In case you were finding your mediation world too calm this summer, let me introduce you to SR 05-01-2012, a resolution on mediator regulation that will be before the Conference of California Bar Associations at their meeting in October. Under this resolution, among other things:
1. “Mediator” is defined as “a neutral third-party who for compensation conducts a mediation.” (Emphasis added.)
2. Standards of conduct and minimum qualifications for mediators would be up to the Judicial Council.
3. Procedures for enforcing the standards of conduct would also be up to the Judicial Council.
4. The State Bar would be responsible for certification and registration of mediators.
5. The State Bar Court would be responsible for mediator discipline and would be directed to “use the same procedures in adjudicating the fitness of a mediator to mediate as it does in adjudicating the fitness of an attorney to practice law.”
Andre Jackson- A CBS News piece reports on using mediation in the workplace, stating that in 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's private-sector national mediation program resolved over 9,800 disputes, the most in the program's history. The EEOC's goal is to resolve such conflicts within 180 days of filing.
Cinnie Noble- It’s not a straightforward exercise to figure out from where and how our assumptions come to us. Life experience, family, friends, teachers, observations, gossip, others’ tales, and a wide range of variables have an impact on our thinking. How we interpret peoples’ words, actions, behaviours, attitudes, etc. leads us to act and react in ways that are based on our assumptions - not necessarily on what is actually intended. Conflict can easily arise from erroneous perceptions and misinterpretations. Unexplored attributions are antithetical to any effort to master conflict responses.
For a long time now, I’ve been wondering about some disconnect, or lack of congruence, in an area that is a major source of pride for the ADR field (particularly for mediation): Dealing with emotions.
We pride ourselves, as a field, on identifying parties core emotions, dealing with parties’ real concerns, and tapping into their underlying motivations. In teaching and training we teach future practitioners to address emotions, rather than to fear them as disruptive; to see them as a key area to engage parties in, as opposed to something to be brushed under the carpet.
However, it seems to me that we might not be fully preparing – and priming – these practitioners to elicit and deal with emotions that make up the true Dark Side of human experience. By these, I’m referring to emotions and emotional states that are often out of control, un-nameable and seemingly unmanageable.
More News, Articles, & Jobs