If you are aware of the agenda for tonights member meeting you are aware that there are some concerns over the space’s problem resolution process.
Currently there are two procedures offered by our rules, a formal complaint and mediation. The problem with the mediation as it has been performed till now is that the mediators end up being the board members. This is a real problem because the board are also the judges if the mediation fails and it falls to a formal complaint.
I propose that we create a committee of members who are willing to serve as mediators (not judges) in these disputes. This will keep the board out of the mediation process, reducing their work load, and preventing the board members from having a conflict of interest in the event mediation fails and the conflict elevates to a formal complaint.
If your willing to serve, please add your name to the proposed committee page.
This should be done by an individual, not a group. Making this a political process, guarantees a lot of wasted time and discussions, and adds nothing. Mediators don’t make decisions. They expedite process.
Typically, the Mediator is an individual appointed by a Judge, in the public context. This person, essentially tries to negotiate a compromise between the combatants. The combatants are free to ignore the mediator, and proceed to the Judge(s) (Board). The reason for the Mediator, is to try and get the dispute off the Judges calendar, and attempt a compromise outcome.
Trying to assign this role to a group of people, is a recipe for dysfunction, in my experience. It will add a lot of discussion and argument to the process as the members meet and try to each have their version of wisdom adopted by the group, which in turn presents it to the combatant(s). It would just add a ton of wheel-spinning to a process meant to expedite a solution, not drag it out.
The group serves two purposes. It provides a list of members who are willing to serve as mediators, and it can help train its members on appropriate mediation techniques.
Your example is only one of the many types of mediations that can occur, and not really the model I think we should use. A judicially appointed mediator has more authority than I think appropriate for DMS.
I envision the parties to the dispute would select one (or more) of the committee members whom they would like to mediate their dispute.
A non-involved third party can serve an invaluable function by helping the parties understand their opposites view point on the conflict and therefore come to a mutually agreable solution.
Agree that is inappropriate. The mediator should be uninvolved in any final judgement. If it makes it to the Board, it should be considered without prejudice.
Exactly, ths committee addresses a conversation I had with @ESmith. “Who can the board or aggrieved parties call upon to serve as a mediator(s)?” This committee would provide a list of members whom could answer that question.
Providing we can get five or more members who are willing to volunteer. There is some doubt that we will…
If we can’t find at least five members willing to serve then the concept will not work. If only a small group volunteers, then we have the same problem we have now. The perception that a ‘clique’ is acting.
Perhaps if people are not being excellent toward each other then they both need to go to some kind of DMS “Excellence” training class. Or we just need a Mom
Wouldn’t be the first time a persons mother had been brought up
Sad fact is that as a group increases in size the probability of interpersonal conflicts increase dramatically. Having mediation available is one of the least intrusive ways for an organization to deal with it.
Mediation doesn’t have to be a formal process…the last time I needed a mediator, a mutual friend volunteered. If you see an issue and think you can help deescalate, approach both parties separately and ask if they want you to mediate. Everyone else will appreciate it, especially if we can deal with things before they become official complaints.
There’s nothing wrong with with board members being mediators. It’s part of their job. Honestly, I think some people are trying to apply their philosophies of actual government to the Makerspace and it’s a little silly.
No there isn’t if they then abstain from serving as judge if the mediation fails and the board is called upon to judge a formal complaint. The problem is that the board hasn’t always abstained in those cases.
The point of this proposal is to provide the board an option instead of feeling they must rely upon themselves only.
Your example is great, and it would be ideal if all conflicts were handled that way; however, they aren’t so we need a way to deal with them.
I don’t think that’s the kind of conflict of interest the bylaws are referring to. Not liking someone, or being tired of dealing with them, isn’t a (legal) conflict of interest. It’s just kind of a dick move.
Folks, so far only three members have signed up to be potential mediators. With over 1200 members I am surprised more are not willing.
We really need at least 10 volunteers to have a reasonably large pool that could serve. If you agree that mediation is preferred to our current process of formal complaints, we need volunteers.
