Attachment 1 - Rolling Record of Keystone Conference

Final Conference Report > Attachment 1 - Rolling Record

Keystone Conference

October 9-11, 2006

Day 1—October 9, 2006

OPENING SESSION- Morning, Day 1

Welcome by the conference hosts: Peter, Jim and Robert

Peter, Robert, and Jim welcomed the participants. They noted that this was a first of it’s kind conference and commented on the purpose and intention. Participants reflected a wide diversity of highly experienced practitioners most of whom had dedicated the better part of their careers to the field of conflict management and had contributed to the structuring of the field over the last 25 years. In addition to participants from the United States and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom were represented. The room was set to create an atmosphere that encouraged the kind of interactive and candid dialogue that is often missing from other conferences. In addition to providing a forum for experienced practitioners to talk, the purpose is to take stock of our concerns for the field and to generate propositions for addressing those issues.

The facilitators: Jody Erikson and Mike Hughes from the Keystone Center were introduced as the conference facilitators. Both of them represent the best of the coming generation of mediators. Jody and Mike both noted how mindful she was of how exceptional this opportunity is for her and what she considered to be the value of the event was for her and those of the generations that might follow. Mike helpfully reminded the group of their best advice to their own clients: while the room consisted of practitioners familiar with proper participation modes, he stressed the importance of giving everyone voice legitimacy, being the participants you would want to work with if you were leading this process, and most importantly, to trust the process.

Setting the tone for the conference: Following participant introductions, the group was asked to take a few minutes to individually develop central questions for the group -- questions they would like the group to discuss, grapple with, and attempt to answer throughout the conference.

Building on the exercise, Peter played some scenes from the film Discovery of Longitude, which thoughtfully deals with the theme of how new ideas and a different ways of thinking are accepted, or not, by society. The movie parallels the same task with which the conference participants were faced. This scene shifted the direction of the session toward the intense process of problem identification and approach, demonstrating the potential for innovation and creation as well as the emergence of conflict and obstacles throughout the problem solving process.

Jim Melamed showed clips from “The Mediators: Views From the Eye of the Storm.” Over the last 2 years, Mediate.com has undertaken to interview almost 90 conflict management practitioners and mediators who have been significant contributors to the field. The video series provides not only a rich archival resource documenting the history, but excellent training material as well. What was evident is the diversity of thinking and styles of mediation practice. Many of the conference attendees had been interviewed. They discussed candidly why they dedicated their professional career to conflict mediation back at a time 25 years ago when the notions of formal mediation was largely unknown, what has pleased them as they have seen the field develop and what has come or continues to concern them as the field moves forward..

Participants Questions and Concerns. As the session concluded, the conference participants shared their questions and concerns for the future with the whole group as a foundation to consider for the rest of the conference and beyond. Ranging from the profound to the mundane, the nature of those questions were as follows:

1. Are there institutional forces at work that are sure and relentless?

2. How can our field better resolve our own conflicts?

3. If we want to pass on suggestions to the next generation what is the best/most effective ways to pass on our wisdom?

4. How do we integrate diversity in to the field?

5. How and when are we going to develop systems of evaluation for cultural relativity and effectiveness?

6. Why have we not been successful in increasing the public’s awareness and how can we change this?

7. Are the traditional family values and values of self-determination valuable in commercial practice?

8. What can we do to prevent our wonderful set of tools from being manipulated?

9. What is the minimum level of competence for practitioners in each area? With out some minimum level, how do we practice ethically?

10. How do we as a community of conflict resolvers focus on creating collaboration that lifts all boats and addresses the scarcity of mentality?

11. What is our vision—what happened--why has there been an integration of family mediation in the court systems?

12. How to we move the field beyond techniques to reach our deepest wisdom?

13. How do we balance the tension between economic needs of the practitioners in the field with ideals of individual justice?

14. How will we ourselves insure the integrity of the field via standards?

15. How can we make the process of reflection and assimilation an ongoing one?

16. What should we be learning from peace builders around the world and how should that reflect on our practice at home?

17. Don’t forget to remember the past and unsung heroes.

18. How do we nurture relationships with colleagues?

19. How do we inspire better service

20. How do we encourage more mediation and peace making in to the mainstream as the best way of resolving conflict?

21. Pass on not just to the next generations and to society in general our lessons, values, and tools?

22. How do we change conflict attitudes in power and politics?

23. Is it possible this field focus reflects an obsessive need rather than a challenge?

24. What can we do so the next generation does haven’t to answer the infamous question; “what exactly do you do”?

25. How do we define acceptable practice so that it is understandable to society before we are “owned”?

26. How do we exercise leadership as dispute revolvers, create cultural fluidity and bridge the us vs. them?

27. What can we do about the assault on democracy and human rights in our government?

28. How can we assurance mechanism for competence?

29. Are we willing to focus our collective intent—do we have a platform to do this?

30. Is it possible to strengthen our existing systems rather than focus on creating something new?

31. How can we build better relationships with others in other fields?

32. How to balance our need for effective infrastructure with institutional negatives?

33. What is Mediation?

34. How can we do a better job listening to the various markets we want to reach?

35. Do we need to promote a broader concept of mediation, as an aspect of the art of communication?

36. Are there economically viable opportunities for the young people entering the field?

37. How do we promote a more deeply imbedded system of dialogue for democratic and civic engagement?

38. How do we develop make it so mediators/mediation is seen as THE most trusted practitioners and practice?

39. What new processes will the next generation show us?

40. How can we encourage professionals and academics to move to mediation, to incorporate it as the core of our daily lives?

41. How do we call people, especially in public and private arenas to create interconnectedness?

42. How can we support the leaders of the mediation movement so they don’t burn out

43. What have we done so far

44. Where can we find ways of preventing conflict rather than resolving it – how can we get a head of the game?

45. How can we make the best use of neuroscience and what real science is learning about us?

46. How can we keep communicating so we don’t independently reinvent the wheel?

47. How do we influence those entities who seek to regulate the practice?

48. How do we balance the call for our deliberative practice—balance best practices with the increasing demand for accountability?

49. What are the risks of accountability with peacemaking—social justice?

50. How do we address our own conflict avoidance?

51. What about the lawyers?

52. What about a national mediation association?

53. What about an agreement house movement as we have court house movements?

54. Why not move the field back to working form the heart—we have gotten lost in the head.

55. What do we do about the non-layers and how do we do it?

56. How do we become more reflective of the country’s population?

57. How do we avoid comments about what do we do about the lawyers—expand political diversity as well as cultural diversity?

58. How do we expand the political and cultural diversity of the next generation?

59. Can we hear from the next generation?

60. Will the legal system change—how can we implants in social and family systems?

61. The healing power of play—how can this be incorporated?

62. How can we bring heart in to mediation and understand the ‘energetics’ of mediation?

63. When are we as mediators going to learn to appreciate and understand the multiple layers involved in rying to get a settlement

64. What can we do about the fact that we live in a western paradigm—the law is taking all the space—how can we make room for all of us in this space?

Central themes. Mike summarized the discussion extrapolating these central themes.

Ø How are processes formalized so they can become standards without becoming a bureaucracy? There has to be a balance.

Ø Recognition of the need for processes and formalizations within our field.

Ø How do we professionalize without becoming a profession?

Ø Need for mainstreaming our practices in to other fields and practices. Don’t need an either or question and/or answer when addressing this topic.

Ø Provoke debate outside of the room—how do we generate that debate?

Ø Recognition of the need to shift away from questions to answers.

Ø Has the best of our practice been institutionalized?

Responses and comments. Participants had a variety of responses to the central themes:

§ You change society by changing institutions. You have to be multifaceted, work from the ground up, become united and work in all these areas. We have to move the focus beyond one area

§ Minimal representation of those working in Court programs which have been essential in institutionalizing mediation . We have to fix the “Us v. They” dynamic that is so prevalent in the field. (Bill Hartgering). .

§ In the court system this process has been institutionalized to provide the people what they want, a cheap process, those that haven’t focused on being cheap have quality programs (Nancy Welsh).

§ Mediators are settling all the case. Young, up and coming lawyers no longer have a change to speak to a jury. Judges are getting bored. Maybe this process hasn’t been thought through. What’s wrong with the lawyers learning how to negotiation and the struggle back and for cases

§ CHAOS IS GOOD.

§ Should we be looking at our leaders and diplomats and wondering why they don’t know how to mediate or negotiate?

§ Look more broadly than just the court systems for institutionalization In many places it is institutionalized and in many it is not.

§ There are very simple and basic standards that need to be added to the system: the ability to leave the process and to talk off the record.

§ Have to have an institution that will protect the basic values. This is not a new issue. Another question often presented within the field is: Who is allowed to do the work? This brings about conflicts between practitioners in various fields.

§ There is a disconnect between our approach to the needs of the system and the needs of the people who work in it.

§ The field is becoming something familiar to those who don’t call it ADR, mediation, etc. Have we recognized this? Have we recognized its use by others in other fields?

§ State based ADR commissions are representative of some of the most advanced state systems. Provides funding opportunities and authority to support ADR and such practices.

§ DIVERSITY-fellowship—after training young people, will the market be ready and open for this person? (Robert Creo)

§ There is a standard definition for mediation-whether or not everyone agrees with it.

§ It’s hard to talk about the future of the field when we are unsure of the present situation.

§ The teaching of mediation in kindergarten is critical. Those who are now entering the field are doing so because they learned it in schools at a young age. Push student mediation in schools rather than court systems will be the most effective mode for institutionalizing the field ( Steve Abel).

§ We need to encourage the emergence of a professional standard that says that “we won’t do”, what we consider unprofessional or even unethical (e.g. we won’t do the one hour mediations). If we do not as a field say that we can’t and won’t take those cases, regardless of the money, we will not be able to survive the tide of forced efficiency. (Richard Reuben).

§ It is possible to elevate standards of practice in a way that is flexible.

§ It is important to give the parties a voice in the design of the institutions.

§ I came into the practice saying “I can change things”. Don’t have an institutionalized system but a private system so as to avoid deprecating the field. An institutionalized system is not the preferred system—must persuade judges that it is a fresh field.

§ Come up with some type of generalized standards—best practices of individuals—getting the right balance between top down and bottom up—remaking and reformatting the system via change—institutionalized institution.

§ Community mediation - in the development of this field we worked with people to improve competency. Don’t be inconsiderate of volunteer mediators as providing a service to the community. Through this method we can teach people to talk to each other in a different way, without judgment.

§ A proposal should include: collaboration and quality assistance. The problem is not the institutionalization but the quality of the field and practitioners. Development of a program of quality assistance and assurance. Collaborating on every level in all areas of practice.

§ The United Kingdom has been regulated for 9 years and is still alive. It was not a positively accepted change but with it came government funding for services and provided for lawyers to use the system. We have yearly registration requirements and proper mentoring forms. I Don’t know how this would translate here but it has been of value. Being regulated doesn’t stop me from doing what I want to do with the parties

§ Public policy institutionalization. Jewish and Arab mediators facing the same problem in which they ask how to introduce this field to public policy officials with out it becoming a threatened idea

§ How are processes formalized so they can become standards without becoming a bureaucratized? There has to be a balance.

§ Recognition of the need for processes and formalizations within our field.

§ How do we professionalize without becoming a profession?

§ Need for mainstreaming our practices in to other fields and practices. Don’t need an either or question and/or answer when addressing this topic.

§ Provoke debate outside of the room—how do we generate that debate?

§ Recognition of the need to shift away from questions to answers.

§ Institutionalization was something that the older generation wanted and our glad to see developing

§ Is the best of the practice in what has been institutionalized?

Day 2---October 10, 2006

Morning Session

An Exercise: Mind Traveling to a Place of Brilliance

Mike Hughes, the facilitator, opened the morning session by having people venture out to the Keystone landscape through their minds eye. He told the participants to travel to find their place of brilliance. Each participant was asked to find a box within themselves and to open it up to find a memory inside, a moment when the participant was at their best. Mike told the participants that he wanted them to tell, either now or at some point during the conference, the brilliance of what they found in the box so that those that will come after can know.

Participants shared some of their memories:

· Being a mediator can mean being a grief counselor and help people get to the pain and anger below the frustration.

· Hope and renewal. After a land grant mediation that took 14 hours at the table, everyone took the meeting notes and burned them. It was kind of ceremonious.

· At the end of a 9 month water rights dispute with a large number of parties, at the last meeting they figured out that it was all going to fall apart. They felt the disappointment of getting to an agreement and then knowing that you are going to lose it. There was an acknowledgement of integrity and they had created the space for the people and the mediator to acknowledge the importance of the feelings of the participants.

· Being a part of the process when the parties are at the point where they get it, they understand the process and you see that you have the potential to help people.

· Bill Drake talked about being in South Africa in 1994 while helping with the elections. There was chaos inside and outside the election facility and the staff was left short handed. So much of what our work is based on is structured processes that we have control over, but sometimes you have to use impromptu structures because you have no control over outside situations. It became clear that a lot of what we do is irrelevant and nice structured processes can be insignificant.

Are We A Field?

Peter Adler and Julianna Birkhoff presented their perspectives on whether or not conflict management is or should be a professional field in it’s own right. Peter argued “No” and Julianna, “Yes.” A written summary of their perspectives is included as a separate attachment to the Conference Report.

Self Reflection: How Mediators Deal With Conflict

Michelle Le Baron and Robert Benjamin offered a performance art piece that questions how well we, as conflict mediators, have managed conflict in our field. They suggested that while we encourage our clients to deal forthrightly with conflict, many major issues in our field have gone unaddressed . Questions were raised about our level of conflict avoidance and the difficulty of openly discussing issues such as the rift between lawyers and non-lawyers in the field that remains a persistent thorn, or discussion concerning different styles of mediation.

Megatrends for Mediators: What Lies Ahead and Why Will It Matter?

Peter moderated the panel. He talked about the thinkable and unthinkable futures. This session is an opportunity to do some prognosticating. If the trend is so, then what does that mean for our work?

Technology—Colin Rule

Colin referred everyone to read the paper in the resources section on Mediate.com by Tania and that ADR cyber week information is on ODR.info.

Colin discussed how much technology has changed the practice and mediators? He discusses what the next ten years may look like. There are five elements to what is coming.

· There is an emerging digital eloquence of the younger generation. Instead of addresses kids now exchange email addresses when leaving camp.

· Video and audio conferencing is becoming a reality through use of websites like Skype.com. Virtual negotiations taking place across the country is now becoming a reality.

· E-democracy and digital government. Technology has already started to transform democracy but now it is being used more and more in governance. Government is using technology to disseminate information and people will be able to download documents from government organization websites.

· Technology has increased global communication and there will be global competition for dispute resolution. Colin mentions the book, “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Intellect is portable if you can communicate around the world. Virtual teams can collaborate from around the world.

· There are virtual spaces, virtual worlds that are emerging where people can interact with people. These are spaces where simulation trainings and meetings can take place.

Economics—Glen Sigurdson

There are economic structures that are plausible alternatives that are shaping the world. The key drivers are the market, coercion and regulation, and community. The key goals are efficiency, security, and social cohesion. See figure 1.1.

What accommodations are going to have to be made to incorporate all these stories?

· Low trust globalization.

· Open door.

· Flags

Current Trends

1. Free water/moderate boundary energy is ending.

2. Technology is narrowing. New technologies will have to be created to change trends.

3. Climate change is affecting industrialized communities and natural resources are disappearing.

4. Social license to operate is going to become more of a critical element of corporate success. Do more green business.

5. Globalization is forcing greater interdependence.

6. Niche economies are developing where there are clusters of competition.

7. Distribution not growth is going to be the central issue with the North versus the South.

Politics—Christopher Honeyman…

Chris discussed the tension between the democrat and republican parties. Politics is changing day to day and hour to hour. In domestic and international politics there are both organized and disorganized politics. Organized is getting elected and disorganized is affecting policies without getting elected. In domestic politics, the influence of money is extremely strong in organized politics, and the effectiveness of disorganized politics is going down. Internationally, he gave the disorganized politics example of Al Queda, and the organized politics example was the aircraft carrier with the caption “90,000 tons of diplomacy.”

Media—Richard Reuben

There are three media trends affecting conflict resolution—the bad, the good, and those that we do not know if they are bad or good yet.

· Bad. The notions of contraction and convergence. Contraction is the growing corporate ownership of news outlets and the consolidation of news outlets. Convergence is that the same reporters are covering the same stories in different mediums within media. There are fewer opportunities for clients to get their news out to the public through news mediums because news will go from local to national through the same conglomerate. Non-news worthy conflicts may not get coverage.

· Good. The media does not do a very good job about covering conflict and they are trying to change that. The notion of positions versus interests is a new revelation for media people. There is a realization that the positions were being covered not the interests, but that there is a deeper, more fulfilling story when looking at the interests. This is the notion of interest-based reporting.

· What we do not know is bad or good. How the internet will affect the coverage of conflict. News about conflict and disputes can be broadcast around the world within minutes via internet resources like podcasts and blogs. It is not yet known how this will affect ethics in news reporting.

Law—Carrie Menkel-Meadow

There is a globalization of law. There is a strong influence of American Constitutionalism on other nations. What is the impact domestically because we are going abroad? To what extent is the rule of law that we are exporting being eroded at home?

In courts there are more experts, which equal less cross-examination. There are adversarial experts within the global community. There are legal questions over legal matters. There is competition about which legal process to use and there is more privatization of legal dispute resolution. This is criticized because it should be public and transparent.

There needs to be more diversification in the profession. The U.S. does not adequately represent minorities in the profession meaning that the legal community is represented different than the population. Also, the technology influence creates questions about confidentiality and loss of privacy. Also, there is a growing trend of competition for legal services, the cost of legal services are leaving more people to represent themselves, and the trends in law depend on who is in power.

Governance—Kirk Emerson

There are ongoing trends that set the texture of the landscape of the role of the state. There is a hollowing out of the state with the increasing privatization of government functions. There is a decline in domestic government spending as we move toward international business. There is a decline in the trust in public institutions and accountability in public decisions that is creating an emergence in new institutional mechanisms to address what the government will not address. New forms of governing networks are being developed like E-government. A crisis will occur that will require a return to a form of a social welfare state like F.D.R and the new deal. Globalization will lead our own country to create stronger ties for trade with other countries, creating a rise to new sectionalism. We will have to rejoin as a world citizen in the world governance structure. The focus will need to be on working collectively on the consequences of situations like pandemics, climate change, and climate refugees.

Society and Culture—Ann Gosline

There are trends occurring in response to media and technology creating a mix of culture globally. An example is a Christmas display in Tokyo of Santa Claus on a cross. There is a decentralization and democratization of art. A further blurring of entertainment and information readership is occurring. The emergence of E-democracy is taking place that is changing society and culture.

There are responses to demographic forces and social capital. The rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is disappearing. The pattern of mobility is downward and the barriers to mobility are becoming more rigid. Racism continues to be a significant barrier and is getting worse. There is a growing gap in the quality of education, healthcare, and access to technology between the advantaged and disadvantaged. People are on the move for economic survival. There is economic dislocation in response to climate and other issues. She recommends reading “Bowling Alone.”

Immigration is creating significant societal issues throughout the world. There are several states where the majority is shifting, whites are no longer the majority and this provides an opportunity for diversity and change.

There is a search for meaning in this complex world creating an intense continuing debate regarding a number of things including government control in the name of security, sexual orientation and gender identity, and religion and society. What is it that we expect from our leaders?

Fundamentalism will continue to rise; there will be an intense continuing debate for the need for civil society. There is a rise of awareness and activism of people. This generation entering college is the most civic minded since World War II. There are encouraging trends in the effort to reengage civil society and in the involvement of faith communities. She recommends a book called “A Fine Balance.”

If these predictions are right, then what are the implications for the future of conflict management and mediation practice:

The capacity is there for us to have greater partners in the conflict resolution practice. There is exciting work in the collaborative governance movement and the potential for sharing great gifts. There are unlikely partnerships and alliances that will create opportunities. There is a combination of drivers that are leading us to globalize standards and norms. It is important to stay up to date on new and changing theories. The opportunities and potential outweigh the challenges. There is an opportunity for expanding out ideas across the world. There is a need to get past the disparity regarding the success of the field because there have been great advances made in a variety of arenas. We are in a wonderful position to help people take leadership in a variety of issues around our field. There is a general presence of optimism as the panel members make their final comments to the group.

GENERATING PROPOSITIONS

After expressing concerns, preparing to think differently, and trying to envision the future, the conference participants set about the work of generating propositions to address those concerns in future generations. The group began to look over and ask questions about the propositions that had been posted on-line in the conference meeting space. They had been broken down into seven groups: education and training, cultural competence, organizing our field, influencing the world, supporting quality, effective dispute resolution, and miscellaneous.

The conference participants found some measure of frustration in the process of doing this work in one large group and thereupon split into smaller groups to consider the propositions and then report back to the large group.

Small Group Reports:

The Miscellaneous group contained propositions regarding effective dispute resolution, funding, ethics, research, technology and participation. This group went through the propositions and decided which needed more discussion or refinement. They came to the following conclusions:

1. Need to develop a negotiation lexicon. This could be to help research consensus about language in the field or consumer oriented that promotes informed consent. 2. Expanding court mediation so that people do not have to file a case to get the service that is already there. 3. Client elected mediation. Does this mean more client control over mediation versus court ordered, or that disputants actually do the mediation not the mediator? 4. Funding conflict resolution in the public sector programs. This needs more discussion. Funding for peer mediation and how federal funding is linked to programs. Proposed collaboration for various organizations to form 501c3 to help manage grants and other issues. 5. Ethics and standards. There are those out there that are nationally recognized but it is a question of if people recognize them. 6. Mediation coercion as the use of threat via the judge to get mediation parties to agree. Needs more discussion. 7. Professional association to take on aspirations. Courts responsible for filtering cases that go to mediation better. 8. Integrating technology by making mediators aware of the technology available and make training available.

Also, they addressed that it might be useful to develop a proposition in the area of import/export of practices. Colin Rule made a closing statement that there are aspects of human nature that are weaknesses, and that the work of trying to solve conflict is noble.

Education and Training

This group discussed issues like diversity, mentoring, continuing mediator education, and curriculum design. One of the big questions was how do we measure training. There were two propositions, number 979 and 873, that there was uniform and universal consensus on. They are the responsibility of professionals to build in to their practice evaluation and monitoring among their peers. The second is the needed attention to history, how to we capture, record and pass along history.

Cultural Competence

This group narrowed the propositions down to four, discussing how there remains a strong tendency even by us as mediators to become positional and divide ourselves into ‘us’ and ‘them’ groupings, e.g. lawyers vs. non lawyer mediators, transformative vs. evaluative mediators, public policy vs. family mediators, etc.

Organizing Our Field

They put a disclaimer on the group that they are all ACR leaders. The group supported proposition number 973 to organize professional organizations. They did not support the proposals for new organizations because some of that merited discussion and wanted to work with current organizations to the extent possible. The group had an ethics discussion that developed from the certification proposition. They recognize that certification is the end result of professional development. They express that there should be renewed emphasis on ethics, defining what is good and bad mediation, that would give specific steps toward certification.

Influencing the World

The main concepts discussed were engaging more directly and affectively in the political process, building capacity for constructive handling of conflicts, learning from other sectors, cultures, and countries, cultivating humility, and considering and creating new structures and systems. They left propositions 997 and 926 as is. They also mentioned developing an international value statement for mediators.

Supporting Quality

This group discussed topics like institutionalization and credentialing. They also discussed professional development, training, supervision, coaching, and reflective practice. They discussed systems design and the supporting of quality of process. They also discussed standards.

Day 3----October 11, 2006

A Tribute. The final session of the Conference opened with a tribute to those colleagues who had passed away, including, Greg Sobel, Sid Lezak, Sarah Grebe, and others that participants might recall, who have contributed to the field.

A Samoan Circle

By the third day, the conference participants had struggled with propositions for two days and Mike and Jody suggested a Samoan Circle as a means to come back together and reinforce our collective knowledge. Participants were asked to share their thoughts, hopes and recommendations for the future. The following is some of what was shared:

Amy Glass: shared a story about her friend Susan who works for a non-profit organization in New York that works to train clergy from all faiths conflict resolution skills. On September 11, 2001 Susan shared a story with Amy about the image of all the clergy coming together to pray in their own tongue and language for the people injured, killed, or missing in the terrorist attacks. Amy stated that it was a powerful image that she will always carry inside her heart and that we as a field, tribe, or community of faith/mediators must realize the power behind coming together and being a family.

Debra Oliver: shared that the future generation should learn what a profound shift is and to know that they can happen suddenly and dramatically forever changing the atmosphere of a mediation or intervention. She also shared with the group a personal experience that changed her outlook on her role in mediation. She had the awesome opportunity to meet and attend a seminar with Carlos Swarez, author of the book The Site for Genesis. He stated in his book and seminar that the Garden of Eden was a dangerous place, not a place of peace and solitude as we have often thought of it as. She learned that we must desire to make this dangerous place we work in safer.

Bill Drake: desired that the next generation; 1) Help demystify the roles that we play as individuals within the field of mediation and have a collective impact on society; 2) Seek to demystify the concepts we use within the field in regards to methods of practice moving the field to where there is less process gibberish; and 3) Work to create a handful of crisp talking points. Lastly, he desires that the future generation encourage a push toward confronting who mediates and who does conflict work effect.

Colin Rule: desired that the future generation make goals to be more strategic for the field. He also desired that the field face the hard realities of conflict resolution work. He stated that it was difficult to transfer work from person to person because it is connected to that individual practitioner. It is frightening to him that the field does not have young leaders to pass on what has been created in regards to mediation. He believes that the direction to go is to put conflict resolver’s in every major media outlet, capital hill, etc. We need to be clear about what actions we need to take and concrete plans to confront the challenges that are in our field. Be out there and be part of the conversation. The field also needs to be customer driven and focused.

Nancy Yeend: shared that you have to know who you are and where you want to go and who you want to join you. Be true to your practice area and stay on your principles, don’t make compromises. She stated that the future generation needs to stop thinking as mediators if they want to advance it—think like business men and women first because as a mediator you are offering a product. Look at it as something to market and get out to the general public. As the future generation moves mediation forward they need to create the desire for the product and then the general public will see the value of what we can offer to them.

Carl Schneider: stated that there is a hell of a lot of unfinished business to address within the field of conflict resolution and the world at large. He stated that attending this conference was in response to a call a year ago to address these issues and that the true conversation surrounding the future of the field has yet to happen. We, as a field, have done wonders with ideologies but yet lack the ability to apply straight talk. He then called upon Peter Adler to share about the letter stating that they, as mediators, should address these issues now.

Peter Adler: stated that the future generation needs to be disciplined about where this field is going and organizing it. If it is not organized then we, as mediators, do not have the impacts within the areas that we want.

Nancy Welsh: advised the future generation of mediators to know that wisdom within mediation is about head and heart. Heart is what guides you in state of passion, but to move toward institutionalism it is led by heart. Don’t forget about the heart. Keep the love, but be tough.

Jonathan Reitman: stated that it truly was a privilege to walk the walk of collaboration. “May you walk with good companions.” He advised that being able to ask others what they would do and having people to save you from yourself is vital to keeping your practice pure and fulfilling. He also desired to have the future generation find the value of persistence in getting and doing the work and being the person in the room doing mediation. The most valuable lessoned learned was to adjust his expectation of what he can do in this field/work. He also stated that it was vital to recognize the surprise (that moment in the room) when everything comes together.

Jerome Barrett: desired to have the future generation seek out the history of the field. To go beyond personal and collective experience, and go back further and get in touch with the history that founded this field and what see today.

Margaret Sidis: shared with the group a distinct theory of leadership. It is the Theory of Thirds. This theory states that any group can be broken down into thirds. The first third are the leaders and their position is secured by conflicts. The second third are following the leaders but they have some position and influence to change the direction of the first third. The final third does whatever it is told and has no say in the direction of either the first or second third. It is through influencing the second third to influence the leaders that provides the opportunity for change to happen. We, as mediators, are the second group and we need to be the influencers of the leaders. As conflict resolvers we need to get away from the ideas that we are the leaders. We need to lead people to lead the leaders.

Bill Hartgering: began by addressing something disheartening heard in the bathroom during the break. He stated that someone said, “All the smart people left at 8:30am”. This demonstrated that the field continues to not give the heart behind the actions the recognition it deserves. He stated that the future generation should look for chances to get mediated upon. Look at every single case from the perspective of those sitting in those chairs. He stated a deep rooted concern because we, as mediators, don’t deal with our conflicts well. If we can’t do our own conflict then people are going to see that and wonder what we can truly offer them. We need to solve our conflicts better.

Carolyn Penny: began by sharing three attributes that are some of our greatest strengths. The first is optimism because we are often the only ones in the room with that. Patience is the second and energy is the third. We need to learn how to balance head and heart as individuals and as a field. It becomes troubling when we swing too far to either side losing balance between the two. We need to know when to get out of the way and to be willing to do so. Realize how much you don’t know. Her fears for upcoming generations, is that our path becomes harder due to other professions wanting to own conflict resolution and shape it into their own image. We, as mediators, are not doing our own succession planning so that they are actively involved in these questions as we are. Her hope is that they, the future generation, succeed in ways beyond our wildest imaginations.

Howard Gadlin: stated that he must first impose restraints on his critical, cynical self to share with the future his advice. First, the future generation must start by earning a living that works with values, beliefs, politics, and spiritualism of mediation. The field is in danger of imposing that we can live in complete harmony. We are in constant conflict over the identity of the field rather than what is actually going on in the field of mediation. Future generations must be willing to create commonality at a conceptual level and develop a better understanding of conflict and what drives it and how intervention should happen. Hard critical thinking must be connected to complex theory of practice. In closing he stated that if we are to have hope of achieving these goals we must face the realization that there needs to be a decline of the United States.

Thomas Fee: stated first that we, as citizens of the United States must vote. To remember that mentors are more than just people to be worked for but that the future generation must also learn from them. In closing he stated that, as mediators, we need to get to the point.

Susan Carpenter: began her statement to the future by wanting to create value for service. The legacy that she would like to leave for the future generations of mediators is the need to meet the challenge of thinking beyond classic mediation. We, as mediators, need to see the set of tools and skills we possess as something that needs to be embedded in the broader society. It is time to think broader about the services we can offer. Collaborative leadership with conflict resolution training is what is needed to create a new generation of leaders within not only mediation but the broader civil society. It must be a desire to create leaders who are not mediators but possess the ability to go and use these skills. It is her desire to see the skills of conflict resolution thirty years from now embedded within other sectors.

Greg Bourne: stated that the next step beyond this meeting is to meet with the next generation. It is essential to bring together for a follow up meeting the present and future generation of the field. He expressed a desire to create pan-partisan entity as seen as having knowledge in substantive area. The problem he expressed is that as a mediator people think you don’t know anything. It might be beneficial to form some organization that might look like the Union of Concerned Scientists. In closing he stated that one must learn to handle conflict with grace and confidence.

David Bogan: stated that he has seen the past, been part of the present, and sees the future and it fills him with great hope. The future lies in the mirror of those who are the future generation. In closing he wants the future generation to remember that the field has fences, when creating the fences leave some gaps.

Evita: stated that she felt the past, present and future converging together within the field of mediation. But we must develop an awareness of our own limitations. Yes, we need both head and hear, but we must embrace the fact that we live in a society that is run by the head (white western society). This is the society that has created twenty million laws designed to enforce the original Ten Commandments. The future generation must prioritize hanging on to the passion that we have had and continue to cultivate within mediation. She stated that we must not lose the passion that drives each of us to participate in doing the work surrounding conflict resolution in all the head stuff that is going on within the world at large. It is like turning the Queen Mary, we made progress very slowly and steadily. She asked us to think about the large European Cathedrals that took decades to build. The builders knew that it would not be finished in their lifetime and that as mediators we must also realize that our field will not be built overnight. It will take time and dedication to see our field grow and mature. In closing she encouraged the future generation to build your own cathedral from the heart that drives you.

Terry Wheeler: stated that we are all leaders within conflict resolution. Heart and mind are not an either/or but a both. He believed that we must embrace that the organization and cause is bigger than you as the individual. Both the present and future generations must be the leader of leaders and decide what we are willing to sacrifice for the betterment of the field. What impact do we have and what impact do we want to have? Reducing stress reduces expectations but however; never reduce your standards of practice. Set expectations realistically and strive for those standards. In closing he asked how we deal with our view of a leader. We must be willing to take constructive criticisms and learn from them.

Chris Knowlton: began by telling a story about how one is often taught to study for exams. We first must rewrite all of our notes. Then we condense them down into one clear and concise page. From there we take that information and place it on note cards. Then finally, you eat the cards. In learning the craft, skills and techniques of mediation the future generation must be diligent, but they must be able to recognize the moments when you have to “eat the cards”. Be present and aware of what is happening in each moment and know when to throw your process and own opinions out of the room. We must learn to listen deeply to ourselves and the wisdom we internalize. We must also not be afraid to listen and learn from the people we are working with. We are at a crossroads, we are waking up and recognizing that something different is being asked of us and we don’t have a guide, so we need to eat our card and look deeply within ourselves and look to those outside that hold the conflict and have a conversation with them.

Susan Terry: she began her advice to the future with a quote from the movie As Good As It Gets. “You make me want to be a better person.” She states that those moments when it is possible for me to be a better person, those are the moments we as mediators must strive for. She believed that it is essential to realize that you come into the field because of the fire that burns within each of us. She believed that we, as mediators, do a great job of thinking individually when we need to, but collectively we have a hard time coming together. We think small when we should be trying to think big. She stated that when she thinks about the future generations of mediators she sees them as members of a spy agency. She desires for them to be trained and placed in the positions and seats of power that are essential for bringing peace.

Jane Docherty: stated that she believed conflict transformation starts with our toes and travels up to the international powers. If we are to change the face of the world we need to engage those with whom we disagree. We need to see ourselves as leaders and engage as leaders in our world. Bring to the world our understanding that conflict can be a positive energy that can be harnessed and used for good. We need to learn that we can engage in the tough discourses like security and maintain the integrity of our field. We need to look at those that have done some of this, like in West Africa.

Elinor Robin: she stated that a few things that those who are successful in this field share in common; 1) vision and the drive to make that vision a reality, and 2) have connection in relationships. She stated that it was important to not take ourselves too seriously and enjoy our work. She stated that the most important thing is to keep your eye on the client because they will come back and continue to give you work. Keep control of your ego. Look for a place in this industry because the opportunities are endless and enormous. In closing she stated that we should look for what nobody else sees and move forward in that.

Glenn Sigurdson: desired for the future generations to see diversity in the richest fullest widest sense. Diversity has many dimensions and levels in this country. He stated that in order to further the field we need to build leadership in the image of who we are. Our organizations need to mirror that. Working not only as conflict resolvers but also relationship builders. In closing he stated that we need to recognize that this field has an enormous robustness with bringing others in and sharing our knowledge.

Barbara Wilson: began by stating that less can be more. The future generation should never give up, never surcome to the narrative power of conflict resolution and never give up the search for truth. She desired that the future generations think about those outside of the room and how they can be included in the process and dialogue.

Tamra Pearson d’Estrée: desired that the future generation of mediation learn the importance of staying connected. It is important to remain connected to the people that you meet throughout your life and to do this in a real way. She also stated that many mediators feel that they are good listeners but do not feel that they can speak up and speak out. As the future generation comes into the practice, the older generation has the responsibility to do just that.

Cookie Levitz: stated that it is essential to get involved with places that are involved with free services. Don’t listen to the people who say that there isn’t enough work and in closing do not ever give up.

The Conference was concluded.

Respectfully Submitted by the Conference Interns,

-Sammie Gallon
-Mikaela Ladwig-Williams
-Angelique Preuit

November 9, 2006

This site managed with Dynamic Website Technology from Mediate.com
Products and Services

The Keystone Conference