Did you find it necessary at times to help the parties define or prioritize their issues? How did you do this?


Ernest Jones


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Did you find it necessary at any time to help either one of the parties in this situation to prioritize their issues or did they already have that?

Answer:
We took them through an exercise. I went to the FOP, and that was done individually, I said make me a list of your issues and then give me a list of what you think all the issues are that should come to the table. Those aren't necessarily going to be the same lists. The same with the City and with the black police officers. The black police officers filed the lawsuit. My contention is, and my position is that, the person who said, "you did this" and is raising the issue is the one who should state the issues. And so I used their list as the guide from which we operated. So what we did then were some comparisons and we decided okay, here's the list of the black police officers, these are the ones they are going to court with, these are the ones the judge said we're supposed to deal with. But in order to successfully do that, are there others we are going to have to address? If there are, let's put them on the list. So city, do you any that need to be on this? So then we got this list and we cleaned it up. We're just getting the basics down, that's it.




Will Reed


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Were you helping the minority community come up with their issues, or was that something that they had already done, and were just waiting for you to further develop for them?

Answer:
As I said, these folks were very smart; they weren't stupid. They had all of that down before I came in there. No matter where you go, when you go into a deprived community, bet your bottom dollar that they're on top of every one of those things. There's nothing new to them. They just want to know whether you are smart enough to understand, or whether you are some dummy running around for them to laugh at. They're looking and they're playing the game with you. It stops being a game when they begin to say, "Hey this man really understands what's going on here. He's got it."




Dick Salem


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Did you contribute to the agendas, or did you just record what they tell you?

Answer:
No, we took what they said I took their agenda items and then I rewrote and organized it for clarity. I started with some simple, easy to resolve issues including those where I knew the inmates would win. Censorship matters, food issues, creature comfort matters. I put some of the heavy duty ones further down. I wanted them to see they could reach agreement on some issues. Pretty standard text. Along the way, the Italian American group could not come up with anything meaningful for its portion of the agenda. They wanted sick leave for the work program. That was their issue, sick leave. That’s all they could think. Their leader said, "We really don’t have anything here,” and during the course of the mediation, the Italian Americans acknowledged they weren’t a culture group. They had no issues and they were beginning to feel awkward. It didn’t really manifest itself until later at the table when they basically said, "We’re dissolving, because we have no reason to be here.” While listening to others at the table, they came to understand and appreciate the plight of the racial minority groups, and they didn’t want to be there.

Question:
Now are you saying you created a black agenda and a white agenda?

Answer:
No, no. I merged all of the agenda items, but the cultural items were often grouped.

Question:
So how do you decide who’s issues go above who’s? Did that ever become an issue?

Answer:
No it didn’t. I started off with easy ones to resolve and then moved along. Those were mostly creature comforts proposed by the general population. So now we come to the table. We start talking about some of the creature comfort issues. One of the first issues, for example, was censorship of the newspaper. They had a very credible newspaper. Censorship actually violated the state law. So at the first session, the deputy, the assistant commissioner, and the assistant superintendent agreed this was something we could work out. Censorship of mail was an issue. The administration agreed, "We don’t have to open all incoming mail. We don’t have to read every outgoing letter.” Delivery of books and magazines brought by visitors; it would sometimes take 48 hours to get the package to the residents. "We can do better,” the administrators agreed. We were making progress. Even though these were relatively minor issues, they began to build credibility into the process. These were agenda items from the white residents, but that was okay. The inmates of color were at first untrusting of the process and were laying back, waiting to see what was going to happen. The Indians were sitting there saying, "Our only issue is that we want a reservation in the prison.” That was the last agenda item because I knew where that was headed.




Nancy Ferrell


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
You mentioned coaching. Did you coach everybody together, or did you coach some groups individually?

Answer:
In the initial contacts, part of that would occur with the individual groups, talking to them about what's going to happen. Certainly you have some rage, certainly you have some interest in sharing that feeling that you have. But what is it going to get you? You need to be very clear about what your concerns are and they need to be definable. They need to be stated in a way that they can be resolved. Saying you're angry at the administration because they're not responding to you, doesn't tell the administration anything and there's nothing they can do to respond to that. So coaching them to really clarify what their concern is. That's definable, something you can respond to. Not being treated fairly in student government is a valid concern, but what does that mean? You can't be elected because it's always at large, so you can't have representation at student government, that's specific. So I coached them in being prepared to sit at the table. I think that's always a big part of it. Not diminishing someone, is making sure they are prepared for what's going to happen. If you put somebody there and they're not ready, then they feel like they've been put down by the other parties that can talk more easily. The other party is more prepared with the response, then you haven't done them any favors. My coaching there would be getting them ready to come to the table and feel confident. The student had as much power at that table as the vice president of student affairs. There was no power and no rank. And that was part of my process, my responsibility. And everybody had to agree to that, the tenured faculty included. They had no more influence on the group than a student did.

Question:
Did you do any coaching of the faculty or the administration?

Answer:
Yes, the same kind of thing. Sometimes from a different perspective of being able to hear and listen to the students or listen to the other group without becoming defensive. It was that whole issue of helping people understand that being defensive is not helpful and it doesn't help resolve problems. It just entrenches people. So the coaching may be different, sometimes not. Generally it was more from that side of, you do have the power, but what's going to happen to you if you don't have the students. What's going to happen to you if the community believes that you are this kind of institution. You're more likely to be appealing to their public relations image than anything. Coaching them in that sense would be more geared toward listening and not being defensive. It was hard for an administration or an institutional mind set to listen to things that they believe to be completely contrary to what they were doing. They believed that they were doing the right thing. For somebody to attack them with the opposite, it was hard for them to hear that. I could coach them in saying that community or the student's perception is that they're treated unfairly. Now if that's not true, don't you have an interest in helping them understand why that's not true? If it is true, then you should have an interest in helping them figure out how to change that. So either way there's a response. I never went in and tried to get an institution to say they were wrong. That would just be wasting time for one thing, and I didn't have to get them to say that. The only thing I had to get them to say was that things could be better. That's another one of those little keys, that if you go into an institution, or a minority group for that matter, and say, "Your system is deplorable, and if law enforcement people came in here they'd take you to court and everything's terrible." If you go in there like that, why should they listen to you? Why should they come to the table with you? But if you go in there and say, "this is what the community believes, this is how they feel about it, now if that's not correct, then you have an opportunity to help correct that perception. But even if some of it's correct, can your institution do better?" I've never had anybody say they couldn't do any better. And it's amazing what that one little thing will do for any kind of mediation. If you try to make the respondent say, "I was wrong," then it's a hurdle you may never get over. But if you can get them to say, "Well sure, we can all do better," then I can help you. So that was the dance to me. It's moving with them, where they are, and not trying to drag them somewhere. You dance them into the place where you want them to be, but if you don't keep the rhythm, then you're pulling and dragging, and they're not ever there in good faith.




Silke Hansen


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Is there anything else that you try to do in the initial meeting besides finding out what their view of the issue is?

Answer:
To some extent, I am already trying to lay the ground work for potential mediation. Now of course, the majority of the cases do not end up going to mediation! But let me give you an example. This could be any community. I go into the minority community and let's say that they are concerned about a racist school superintendent. So I will go in and say, "What's the problem?" They say, "We've got a racist superintendent." "What do you want to do?" I'll ask. "We want to get rid of him." That is their number one demand, get rid of the superintendent. So I go on. "Okay. So if you get rid of the superintendent, then what?" "Well," they say, "we will get a superintendent who isn't racist." "Fine," I reply, "but who hired the superintendent?" "The school board." "Okay. Who is going to hire the next superintendent?" "The school board." Now we're getting deeper into the issue. "Well, how can you be sure that you are not going to get another racist?" "We'll tell them that we don't want a racist." "But how do you know that he is not a racist?" I'll ask. "What are the kinds of things that this superintendent is doing that let you know that he or she is racist? What are you going to tell the board that will convince them so that they will not hire another racist?" "Okay," they'll say, changing their approach a bit, "we'll say we need somebody who hires more minority staff." Okay. Now we've gotten somewhere. So then I start writing on my flip chart if there is one. "Okay, so part of the problem is the hiring policies here," I'll say. "What else?" "Well, look at the discipline here. They are expelling and suspending far more minority kids than white kids." "Okay, so the discipline problem is an issue." I continue writing on the chart. By having that kind of discussion I am now helping the community to focus not on the individual, but on the existing policies that need to be changed. Because the reality is that even if they get a different superintendent, if he or she does the exact same thing as the one they have now, they haven't gotten anywhere. On the other hand, if the current superintendent can be persuaded to do things differently, the problems could be resolved. Now, of course, I'm not at that point yet with the group. But if the superintendent would change some behaviors if he would do certain things differently then he wouldn't be seen as a racist that needs to be replaced. Yet initially, the only option that the community sees is, "Get rid of the racist bastard and get somebody better." So when you start taking about what somebody better would look like and what the differences would be, we now begin to get some issues that I can then take to the superintendent. I can't just go and say, "They think you're a racist," because, obviously, the superintendent is not going to agree that he is a racist in most cases. But often, after some conversation, the superintendent does agree that his job would be easier if he had a better relationship with the community. And even though this is just a small, minute trouble-making part of the community it always is [in the superintendent's view] he begins to realize that his job would be easier if his relationship with them was better. So if I can show him that I can maybe improve relations with that community, and he is willing to talk about some of the hiring policies and the disciplining procedures, then I have something I can work with. If we can talk about those issues, rather than whether or not he is a racist even though I haven't talked about mediation a whole lot yet I have begun to lay the groundwork for identifying what some of the actual interests are. This shows that the frustration isn't so much the one person as it is with what's happening to the children of that community. And by helping them to define that, I am also helping them to address it.




Stephen Thom


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Do you help parties prioritize their issues?

Answer:
Do I help them prioritize their issues or do I take their issues and put them in priority order?

Question:
Help put them in priority order. How ever you want to define it. Help them prepare to come to the table.

Answer:
What I think I really do is I listen to them and I take their priorities as they give them to me, as I see them. I analyze them against the other parties' priority issues and then when I write the issues down I try to manipulate them so we work from the easiest to the hardest. At that point, I share the issue with each of the parties one at a time and gain their concurrence. The parties are also given a chance to add or delete issues. I generally do that all the time because I want them invested in the process before we get to the real hard ones. I've had situations where I've put hard ones on the front end and we couldn't get through them and there wasn't enough good will established to get through that issue. I've always found if I put the easiest issues up front that by the time we hit the lower issues they are either never going to get there, or they would feel that they've invested so much that they would work through the more difficult. So I've always used that approach.






Nancy Ferrell


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
We talked yesterday about the theory we developed, based on talks with a lot of people, about what we call intractable or resolution-resistant conflicts. We came to the conclusion that conflicts were more resolution resistant if they involved very high stakes and distributional kinds of questions. They were also more resistant if they involved fundamental moral differences, or what we call domination conflicts, pecking order conflicts, or identity conflicts. All of these tend to be involved in race issues. I threw this out at you yesterday, and you said that the factor we hadn't been thinking about was the need for relationship. If there was a need for relationship between people, then they would be willing to negotiate on those things. Are there other factors we're not thinking about?

Answer:
Another factor is the party’s or the individual's ability to look beyond their current power position. If they can't perceive themselves in an honorable way, beyond this entrenched position, then the issue's not negotiable. That's why I always ask, "What is in your interest?" If I can't help them identify an interest that serves their needs beyond this entrenched position, it won't work. I can explain to them, "You have the power to direct authoritarian decision making on this plan, but what is it getting you? What might happen if you're willing to move in a different direction? Is it worth that?" If they say it's not worth that, then I'll tell these people what to do. If they don't do that, they're out of here, they're not going to negotiate. Again, at that point, I'm not looking for them to understand the other party's interest. I'm looking for something to catch their interest. So if they're so entrenched that they can't see hope of personal interest served -- beyond this entrenched position -- they're not going to move out of it. That's when I would say, "Call me."

Question:
You mean if they change their mind?

Answer:
Yes. I think one of my propensities was to keep moving beyond their real interest. They would have to be really overt to me and say, "Go away." As long as they just danced around it and kept the door open, I just kept moving forward. Generally that worked out, although sometimes they slammed the door. I think that's one of the skills of the mediator, to understand whether or not it's mediatable. If you can’t help that party see beyond the entrenched position, then it's not going to be mediated. I use it in the 40 hour mediation class. For example, one of the barriers may be authority. It's a big rock. Here's the mediator, they're the fulcrum underneath this lever. As the mediator, I'm trying to get this party off of its entrenched position in order to see the benefits of the mediation. If I can't come up with something to put on the other side, then it won't level out and it's not going to work.

Answer:
So the mediator is looking for a leverage point to move people out of their entrenched position, to get them to consider a negotiation. In family situations, children are often the point. Sometimes it's money. "How many resources are you going to use supporting that intrenched position? Are you willing to consider another option?" So you've got to find that leverage point. If you can't find it, and I don't say many things absolutely, but that's where you would have an intractable conflict. If they had found that point already, they wouldn't be there. So, all your incredible skills have to involve helping find that leverage point. It's either going to be a common interest or a personal interest. A common interest gives you the possibility of a richer mediation. A personal interest can at least get you to the table and create some sort of contractual relationship to the conflict. If you can get them toward a common interest, that's where the payoff is. That's when I try and transform those relationships by the process. But sometimes the best you can do, because of personal interest, is to get to some contractual relationship. It's better than nothing. Abortion is another example I use. With the abortion issue, there is no common leverage for either side to move off that intrenched position. You're wasting your time. The best you can do is work with the majority of people who are in the middle and try to bring reason to the extremes. That's what has happened in these big international affairs, like Kosovo. They don't have a middle. In Ireland, there's become this middle group who says these intrenched positions are killing us. That's where you need to start focusing your energy, is in that middle group, in helping and nurturing and supporting. Then the light's on, and these two intrenched positions are no longer acceptable and the community often has to move on beyond them. They'll still be agitating back here, but the group as a whole has been able to create some life to move forward.

Question:
Now you talked yesterday about groups wanting to keep the extremists away from the table. But you disagree and think you really need to get them there?

Answer:
Yeah.

Question:
Revisiting that in light of this conversation, do you want to bring extremists to the table or do you keep it with the moderate group?

Answer:
My first beginning is to bring the extremists there and try to find the leverage point. But if I can't find the leverage point, then they're not going to participate.

Question:
Do they leave on their own?

Answer:
Some. Some of them, you have to say to the group that they represent, "This person obviously is not willing to become a part of the team or part of the solution. They're not prepared to build a response or a resolution. Are you prepared as a group? You all have to decide that. If you are, we will continue. If you're not, then we need to move on to something else." If you could bring them to the table, many of them, you can give the individual a way of seeing themselves as still having honor. You can use them as a decision maker. "We need you here, you're a very influential part of this community. You can make a difference." So you give them honor in this new role and many of them will again rise to that and see their identity shift while still having honor. They may not, and they may have to be left behind. But if you can bring them with you, it's all the better for everybody. Remember that they're still out here agitating the cause. Some people cannot visualize themselves as having any influence or honor outside the role they have. You're not going to get them to negotiate off of that. An example of that is someone who's been an authoritarian in the family. A mother or father. They can't learn that a different way still brings honor. They're too frightened of it and they're too intimidated by the possibility of losing influence and power. You're not going to negotiate honor away from them without replacing it with something that has honor. I think that's something we miss. I think we miss the reality that everyone needs to be honored, and if we don't provide that, then they're going to stay where they are.




Silke Hansen


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

You actually get the idea of what the interests and issues are of one side. Then, do you go to the other side and say, "This is what they are thinking?"

Answer:
No, no. I don't ever do that. I let them do that at the table, I just try to find out what their interests and needs are and where the flexibility is. Sometimes I might ask some "what if" questions. What is your reaction to this concept and what do you need in this and so on. But I don't try to become a messenger for the parties. On the contrary, I avoid that. Even if we're in a mediation session and we're at the table, you always make sure there's a room for caucuses. If I caucus with one party or the other, before we go back into the room, one of things I make sure is determined is, "Okay, which of you is going to bring this back to the table, because I shouldn't be the person." I am strictly seen as the mediator, rather than a messenger for either party. So I make a specific, conscious effort to not become the messenger. The closest thing to being a messenger might be if there is, in fact, a proposal made and I try to estimate what their reaction would be. I would say, "I don't know, but let me check, okay?" Then, even if I am not sure if that's going to work, I try not to actually deliver the message per se.




Silke Hansen


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Did you coach them at all in that, or is this something they specifically do on their own?

Answer:
A little bit of both. I try to coach them to be clear, to present their needs, and to state their position. I start with, "What do you think is important for the other party to know? Who's going to say that? Who's going to present that?" I also tell both sides that part of my role as mediator is to control the process, and that I'm not going to let it get out of control. They also need to understand that there are some emotions here and there is some anger here and that is part of what we're here for, but to trust me, that I'll keep it under control. So far I've been able to do that. It's more than just coaching on how to be calm participants. It's an approach that they themselves pick up and use. Again I've not always seen that happen. I've seen it enough times to sort of almost marvel at the change in presentation. It's not a change in outlook, but it's a change in presentation. I think probably they're wanting to be seen as people who are sincere and wanting to work this out, so they believe that they need to appear to be reasonable, controlled and organized in making their presentation. So yes, I do some preparation towards that, but it's more than that, it's more than just good pre-mediation training. To some extent I admire them because we had very sophisticated people on both sides, as opposed to the more grassroots leadership that I frequently work with. That degree of sophistication means we still made some preparation. We make sure we work with both sides so that they recognized what their specific needs were and what some of the options and alternatives might be. We didn't do the kind of basic role playing that I might with a more grassroots party.




Silke Hansen


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Did you have to help the minority communities frame their issues or did they have it pretty well in mind?

Answer:
No they had it pretty well in mind.

Question:
Did they change over time?

Answer:
Not the basic issues. What it would look like in terms of an agreement and how it might be addressed, that's what the whole mediation process was about. I think what they wanted was pretty consistent all the way through.




Silke Hansen


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Did you facilitate the parent council?

Answer:
Yes, to some extent. Certainly, I did, during those first meetings and I brought them together in the first place.

Question:
Did you help to set their agendas?

Answer:
Yes.




Martin Walsh


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

They had these various issues but they didn't have anything related to the precipitating incident, campus security and campus life environment. So we said that since this precipitated the racial problems and protests, we think we need to deal with them. Larry and I added them to the agenda.



Stephen Thom


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

People have the patience to listen to this if they're angry or enraged?

Answer:
By the time I get to the meetings with people, the anger is there, but they want to know what their options are. They're interested in that. Their anger needs to get focused on something constructive at some point, and I think they realize that. I think they appreciate it if you can give them that big picture. That's the way I approach a lot of cases. So in the case with the institution, we talked about all of the options. Because the institution had already consented to go to mediation, we knew where we were going, so it wasn't hard to get them to sit down and really work with us. When we actually went to the table, we had an agreement on the full agenda, and as we went through the list of issues, it went fairly smoothly because I think we knew where we were going and we knew the parties common ground and interest and we knew that the institution was willing to concede the remains to the tribe. They had learned about the spiritual need for Native Americans and recognize that they did all the testing and learning they could with these remains. They had no real, viable use for the remains. The pictures they had taken and the pre-measurements and all of the analysis they had was documented in a way that they didn't have to hold these remains to teach students in the future. So they were comfortable.






Leo Cardenas


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Were the community groups you were working with already educated as to putting their issues together, or did you help them facilitate and help them put them together?

Answer:
Actually, the two conciliators in Denver helped them draft their issues, and by the time I came on, the main issues were already on the table.




Leo Cardenas


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

If you say to them, "I'm going to go to the superintendent, what should I tell them?" and then they continue to vent, do you try to correct them? Do you tell them, "Well, we need to specify some particular issues." Do you try to get some organized thoughts?

Answer:
It all depends on how prepared they are and what type of history is behind it. For example, with a school issue, we may find that they've already written letters and outlined those issues. Maybe the letter hasn't been responded to, so they had to force the issue onto the superintendent, and that in itself hurt. The fact that the superintendent wasn't meeting with them did a lot of harm. That's when we put in the idea that we could talk to the superintendent. We put it as an "if" question. "If we're able to talk to the superintendent, how much do you want me to tell him?" That sort of thing.

Question:
Do you try to help them frame their issues at all?

Answer:
Not initially. In fact, what we find is that their issues are generally pretty well framed, from their perspective. Next we need to meet with the other party and begin to find the neutral language, or the language that's going to work for them.




Leo Cardenas


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Was there ever a time when you're asking the groups involved to number their positions and when you looked at their list, you said, "Wow, I would have really had this issue number one." Did you try to get them to rework the order of their issues, or was that strictly the decision of the group?

Answer:
That is one of the greatest services that we, CRS, can provide to a community group. We train our conciliators and mediators to actually carry easels, or have some place to write so everybody can look at the same thing. In a lot of cases we will initially do the writing, because we of course know the language. We will do the writing on those issues, and then in a very timely manner, we'll ask one of them, "Why don't you continue this while I take a break?" Eventually they can take ownership. People in dispute come together with a lot of emotions, and while they have all of the skills, talents, and intelligence to participate they can only provide a certain amount of time to a community dispute. It's not their bread and butter. Their reputations might be at stake or they can even say their children's futures are at stake. They can only give a certain amount of time and effort and so their involvement lasts only the time that the meeting lasts. They don't go home and get on a computer and start working on it. The school system on the other hand, the school superintendent assigns someone to work on the case. The committee doesn't have that, and so keeping them together, keeping them focused, and being realistic as to how long they can keep together becomes our task. We do that. It's actually their task, but we focus a lot as to how to keep together and who's going to do what and when. It's not that the leadership doesn't have the ability and capability, but they don't have the resources for long-term projects. Any disputes that we're working with, to us, is a very short-term project. We're looking at resolving it within two or three days. We're looking at resolving it with one meeting and they never look at it that way. It's also important to note that a lot of the disputes that we handle are in smaller communities, say a community of three thousand. We get there, and we're introduced and we give our spiel and then they get up and start telling us of all the ills of that community for the last ten to twenty years. Then we'll say, "Well, could we ask the leaders to assign someone to work with us tomorrow?" One person will meet with us and we have fulfilled their goal which was for someone in authority to listen to their complaints because no one has done it before. We happen to be from the US Department of Justice. We happen to have someone who knows how to listen, and that's it. We'll come back later and ask the city, "Well, whatever happened to that case? There were forty people there and you had a list of fifteen items. I can't get a hold of anybody, nobody will answer my calls." We have fulfilled our mission and we have provided a service to that community. That's all that's going to happen. They'll never admit to it, but that's all they wanted, someone to listen to them.




Edward Howden


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Tell us more about what the "get-ready work" entails.

Answer:
As I mentioned before, it entails making sure they had defined their problems and hopefully had been able to focus on some proposed remedies. For a less sophisticated group, sometimes that would take a lot of time. When feelings are high and grievances are pretty heavy, one of the problems for the mediators is trying to get the folks to understand we aren't going to adjudicate what has happened up until now. As nasty as the history may be, we are not judges, and this process isn't going to result in any decisions as to who was guilty or not guilty.




Ernest Jones


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
And when you do have those groups does it include helping them shape or frame their issues?

Answer:
One of the things a mediator does is help both sides clarify what the issue really is. Get down to what exactly the issue is. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a mediator to help the parties, both of them. It's your turn to clarify the issues.




Ernest Jones


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Did you have any effective techniques for persuading a party to modify their position at any time?

Answer:
I don't know, but I'm sure I've played on the minds of people in all kinds of ways. To try and get them to rethink positions, not to change their minds. I don't ever try to get somebody to change their mind. I tell them if that's what you want, that's what you're going to go with, fine. But, maybe think of rewording it a different way. I mean clean it up a little. I make suggestions all along those lines. My job is to facilitate a process, these are grown adults by and large, and I'm not there to hold their hand. I'm not there to hold their hand and I'm not there to do their work for them. I mean it's their issue; it's their community.




Julian Klugman


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Answer:
Oh, of course. First the Indians had to trust me, and I had to trust them.

Question:
So what did you do to try to get them to trust you?

Answer:
You start by asking questions. "You can't bring up everything. In what order do you want to bring this up? What are you willing to settle for? What is the bottom line position? How do you want to present this stuff? Who will be your spokesman?" That wasn't easy because it turned out to be the woman and her son. There wasn't a lot of leadership in the Indian community. "You don't want five people talking, so who is going to be the spokesperson?" The woman chose to be the spokesperson. You've got to defer to her. Let's go through the ground rules on mediation. Then I had further complications. I had people there from the outside. The U.S. Attorney, a very liberal guy, had hired a young Indian woman who was the first female Indian person to get a law degree in Oregon. She was there. I had an Indian guy from the state who was part of the Alcohol Control Commission of the state. He was an Indian official with the state. He wanted a piece of the action.




Julian Klugman


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Answer:
There are arguments for doing both. There are arguments for what is the bottom line. It's very important for them to figure out what their bottom line is in advance. Although that can change during the mediation and you explain that to them.

Question:
How did you establish trust with the disputants?

Answer:
This was my first mediation. How do I get people to trust me? You're the principal of a school, I come in, you don't know who I am. I find out who you know and I give you the names of three principals where I've done mediation. I give you their phone numbers and say give them a call. Same with the police chiefs. Call up some chief's office where I've mediated and ask him. But that was after years of mediation and that's why we were so much more successful after we'd been around for a while. We knew a lot of people and we had hundreds of successful mediation cases under our belt. Also, you build a relationship before an event. To handle crowd control like at the Republican Convention, we spent a year building those relationships. If you go in cold, it's more difficult. You find out who's going to protest at the Republican Convention. So that when things did go wrong, they knew us.

Question:
So you're tackling the number one issue which is how to deal with alcoholism, you've already got a solution in your head that you developed?

Answer:
I didn't, I had an idea, it came out, it developed.

Question:
Ok, so what happened, how does it come out in joint session?

Answer:
I don't think we concluded it in that first go around. I don't remember if I called on the state guy during the session or not. Information came out that in Grant, Oregon, there was an alcohol control officer. So after we talked about the problem, everybody agreed it was a problem and everybody agreed they'd like a solution. The information came out during mediation that Grant, Oregon had money from the state; they had an alcohol control officer. Maybe this is something we ought to look into. We said, "We're going to get more information on this."

Question:
Did you brainstorm solution options?

Answer:
A little bit, but you don't want the mediation to stop and you're not going into a committee meeting. You want to move along. We may have interrupted. I may have asked the guy to tell us, which is perfectly legitimate. He didn't know if he could get a grant, but he sure could try. He explained what it was, and how it was working in Grant. It's not the solution to alcoholism, but they've cut down the number of confrontations. The law enforcement folks thought it was a great idea. Why don't you talk to the state office. How would they get a grant? And so on. I think he came back within those two days and they were very amenable to giving a grant. It wasn't all nailed down, but it was part of the agreement. That they were going to go for that grant. Subsequently, that grant came through very quickly.

Question:
What do you do in situations where you don't have a solution in mind?

Answer:
Hopefully it'll come out. You try to get an agreement to the problem. You really can't figure out what to do about the problem? It's not an end all and be all. You want the Indians and law enforcement to set up a permanent group, which can continue to work on the problem, which we did. It's part of the agreement. We got a staff person, the first Indian on the payroll for the county. The permanent group would continue to meet and this problem was put on the agenda. If there is a problem we're going to try to work on it, and this group is part of a work plan. Employment would be an issue there. They didn't employ any Indians, there were no Indians under the sheriff, or any on the police department. That was one of the things for the future. But there was some acknowledgment from law enforcement that it would be good to have some Indians in law enforcement. How do we set up the agreement? I had ideas on that, and the state had some ideas on that. The woman from the U.S. attorney's office did too. They decided on their goal, they wanted to get some Indians hired. Subsequently there were Indians hired.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

I went to the business leaders, the chamber of commerce people, and asked, "What is this costing you?" "It's costing a lot of hotel reservations. People that were going to have conventions here have canceled. Fishing is quite popular around there, so some of the fishing tournaments have been canceled. The downtown shops are losing money because that's where some of the Klan rallies have been." It was to their self-interest to get involved, to do something about it. So going back to the self-interest, that conflict is bad business. Racism that causes conflict is bad business. And it's bad for the community business, so what I do is get to the self interest of these different elements. It would be to their self interest to get involved to fix the conflict. It's like say a hand or a body, you smash a finger, well the whole body hurts, not just the finger, the whole body needs to get involved in fixing the finger. In making it better for that one element it makes it better for everybody. Communities work in the same way.

Question:
Can you briefly tell us what the other interests were for the groups besides the businesses?

Answer:
Political leaders want to be elected and they care for the overall community. As for educators, their classes were being canceled, causing disruption in the schools, it's not good business for them, either.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

We analyzed with them their options and what they wanted to do. They chose a community rally although they said if we have a rally the Klan is going to come and the media is only going to cover the Klan. Also, what about security? So we helped them with law enforcement and came up with a security plan. It had to be a public rally so there wouldn't be retaliation of those speaking, with the option of city council passing a resolution condemning the violence and hatred. They were supporting brotherhood, togetherness, and working with each other, so the politicians were going to meet in public and pass this resolution. They asked me to write the resolution, I couldn't, but I did review it.



Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Did you ever assist a party in coming up with what their interests were? Were there parties who were not well organized?

Answer:
Yes. You teach them the process and what's required of them. "You have to look at this, you have to spend time, talk to your neighbors, talk to whoever. What are issues that they are concerned about? One person is not going to know everything, and one person is not going to represent everybody. You have to have enough representation of both of the population and of the issues involved."

Question:
Did you help them determine what was doable? If they came up with things that were off the wall, would you tell them?

Answer:
I do the old devil's advocate thing. A lot of times they want civilian review boards, so I'll provide information or compilations of cities that have review boards and how they're working. You can use that. "And I give that to the police also, but you might expect that they're not going to accept it and if they don't accept it, what other option do you want? What's the next thing that would satisfy you?" Also, I explain to them what I'm interested in doing. Especially when it involves excessive use of force, a possible solution is to lessen the opportunities for problems to occur, for police misbehavior to occur. Lessen the possibility of that and then you don't have to deal with the after of trying to correct it. First, recruit the best people that you can and as diverse as you can, and give them the best training that you can give them. Monitor their activity. A supervisor needs to discipline them. If you do all that, and the community has opportunities to partner with law enforcement, through committees or police advisory committees, things can be taken care of before things get big. If you tell the chief some things that are wrong, he might be able to come up with a response, a remedy, an agreement of what will be done. This agreement will describe what is going to be done, who is going to do it, and by when. Otherwise you don't have accountability and you're just wasting time. My time especially.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Do you do the same sort of work with both sides? Do you help the police or the KKK or whatever the opposing side is to help develop their issues?

Answer:
Sure. Not develop the issue but look at possibly how the issues could be addressed and what he or she might be willing to do. Especially once they propose a remedy. How possible is that, how feasible is that. Maybe if you cannot give them A or B, you could give them C or D. Or A or category D or whatever. It's good for me to know both sides, where they think they are and what do they think are some solutions. I mentioned, you have to help both sides or you can't help either side.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

A lot of times they don't understand, they might be in groups asking for things that somebody wants and then somebody wants something else within that group. So the officials don't know how to respond or have difficulty in knowing which group to listen to. What we offer is a clarification of the dispute and then through the clarification of issues and the presentation of issues in a programmed manner. The officials may not have much experience in negotiating in the street, but they know how to negotiate in a controlled setting. But maybe the protesting group may not have experience in negotiating in another setting like that, so we provide the setting where everybody's comfortable. Both parties understand that it's to their benefit to come together. There's all levels of groups, levels of sophistication, and levels of experience and sometimes they require very little of us. Sometimes it requires more preparation. I would say most groups are very sophisticated, so we just need to help them and they do it themselves.



Manuel Salinas


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
What were the techniques you used to help the community members look at issues differently, either in a broader perspective or to modify their positions?

Answer:
I think really the approach I used was primarily talking to el Comite as a group. As we talked about it we would identify many ideas, we wouldn't stay with just one thing. We would identify training, I'd ask, "what is it that ought to be talked about within training. Human relations? Proper handling of firearms? Meeting with the people? What an officer ought to be doing, not to be too much of a stranger, what are the things we want when we say training?" They would begin to identify those things.




Will Reed


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

We worked through all these issues. We had about ten issues on paper they were passing around the table. The number one issue I had to deal with was the issue of education. I said, "How in the heck did education get in there?" But that's what they had on the paper and they wanted to deal with the issue of education. They wanted to be able to have some Indians on the staff at the schools, more than as teacher's aides. They wanted some bona fide, degreed Indians with legitimate majors, from any one of the universities in the state of Montana, such as MSU, MU, or from the college in their town.



Will Reed


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Who came up with the solutions? Did you see that as the parties' job, or did you come up with solutions and propose them?

Answer:
Oh no. I didn't come up with hardly any of the solutions, other than the ones I thought were very, very important. I might ask if they want to put something in there about them. Like I was just telling you about the group where you had a historical meeting once a month or something like that, it's a good mechanism. But as far as the solutions, the groups themselves came up with their own solutions.




Dick Salem


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Who decides what they need, do you or do they?

Answer:
We always start with what the group says it needs. It would be nice to sit here and say they tell us and we respond, but the reality is when you do enough of these for enough years you can sort of pretty well see what’s needed and what’s happening and you can lead the community group into knowing what it needs very often. One simple thing is helping a group understand it needs a good agenda if is going into negotiations, with or without a mediator. That grievances should be presented in a way that they can be responded to. If the agenda is fire the school superintendent, or fire the police chief, you know that's not likely to be achievable. You encourage them to shape an agenda that puts that at the bottom and started with some of the substantive changes they want to see. So you put the achievable at the other at the top of the agenda and push "fire the police chief” to the bottom. When they make enough progress at the top and middle of the agenda, they realize that you don’t have to fire the police chief, if he’ll abide by what you’ve agreed to up above on the agenda. So that’s empowering, helping the group understand the negotiation process. And you’re leading the group that way, certainly. You’re saying, "I know what’s best for this group in this negotiation.” I’ve never seen a group when we suggest resources that are available that wouldn’t be eager to accept them, if they were serious about resolving problems. Sometimes it was a consultant we identified who could help them, someone who had resolved a similar problem in another community, or an expert in policing or schools. We could pay plane fare and honorarium. "We’ll pay this guy’s plane fare to come over to talk to you and sit down with you.” In one case, I brought three Hispanic parents from Chicago into Washington DC to meet with the Civil Rights Division (CRD) during Chicago’s school desegregation suit. There they had a chance to meet with the attorneys who were working with the city and putting a plan together. So they felt they had their voices heard in Washington. That is providing technical assistance -- knowing that’s what the group wanted in that case. It was hard to tell whether anyone was listening, but the community members felt they had their voices heard. Now that’s another way of building credibility for ourselves. Before that, trust levels were really low. There was at a big public meeting and CRD had asked me to go; the US attorney had asked me to go. Nobody else in the Justice Department wanted to go near it. So what I brought to that public meeting was the idea that we would pay the fares for three people in your group to go to Washington to talk to the Civil Rights Division and be sure their voices were heard. There was so much skepticism that somebody raised their hand from the audience and asked, "Are you going to pay our plane fare back too?”




Dick Salem


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Changing gears, going back to the assessment phase, how do you go about identifying what issues are key? Is this something that you leave to the parties, or is this something that the mediator will play a strong role in doing?

Answer:
Well, it’s politically correct to say you leave it to the parties to define the issues, and in fact you do. But you see things. You’re traveling around, and when you get to Evansville or Xenia or Springfield, you’ve seen the situation in other places and you hear certain things, and all of that directs your questions to certain points. The state of the group, how serious the violations are, what kind of sources of support they have, all these factors tend to alert you. That doesn’t mean that an individual without an organization can’t bring about great change. I mean, I told you about this community worker who wasn’t even from Battle Creek, who was bringing about major change at a small community college but that’s the exception. So during your assessment, you look for certain things: what resources are in the community, how supportive are they? Things that would key in the mediator in doing the assessment, and making it more efficient to determine whether or not mediation or further intervention would have significant results. So yes, the parties would define the issues, but sometimes you would point out other issues that were important to them, that they just hadn’t really thought about in the context of this particular problem. A jail suicide is what they’re complaining about, but there may be underlying issues in police/community relations that led up to this. "Why don’t you believe them when they tell you this was a suicide?” There’s a lack of trust. So what engendered that lack of trust are the issues you may want to look at.




Nancy Ferrell


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

So, I went to the President and met with him, and it's a good example of thinking on your feet, having a way of helping an institution understand their best interest. I learned that anytime I work with an institutional representative that my approach could not be like, "What's the just thing? You know what the right thing is, it's the thing that will cost you if you don’t do it," because they're ready to hear that; they're not ready to hear, "You ought to do the right thing.” They're very open to "What's it going to cost you?" So, when talking with the president, I had to be aware of the fact that he had a board of regents who probably wouldn't see anything wrong with what had happened at the fraternity, and probably would be upset with him if he gave it much power or much interest and that's a reality. So his first response to me was that bringing in the Justice Department is just going to make it look worse than it is; this will blow over, things get out of hand but they'll die down, it's no big deal. "If you come in here, you're going to make it a big deal." That was a common response for an institution, whether it was city government, state government, or IBM, any institution’s first response is that outside intervention is just going to make it worse. I told him one part of what we do is voluntary; you don't have to participate with us. I said, "But I do have an obligation to make our services available to you. Because, if another incident occurs here and there's some other problems here, somebody in my agency is going to call me up and say, ‘Nancy, did you offer your help?’ I need to be able to say, ‘Yes, I offered my help but the president really wasn't interested; he thought he could handle it himself.’" But you had to use the kind of approach that let him see what was in his interest, and he saw a really big public relations faux pas, if something else happened, and here's this agency who had offered to help and he resisted. So, all of the sudden he was open to our help. That's all I needed from him, so he couldn't back out later. So, that was an interesting entry kind of a situation.



Nancy Ferrell


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

The challenge from the minority community and the minority students’ perspective, was that they didn't see any value or benefit in working directly with the administration. They felt the administration was not trustworthy, the administration wasn't interested in doing anything to be helpful, so, "What good is it going to be to even engage in that process?” So again, what's in their best interest? What can I say to them to convince them it's worth engaging in the process? And one important thing is whatever we do is not going to diminish your right or privilege in the future to take some other action. It's not going to cost you anything in terms of legal recourse, it's not going to cost you anything in terms of any other response you want to make. The other is that we do bring twenty years, thirty years of experience to this and maybe we can help bring a different outcome. The other kind of stark awareness for them was, is this institution so bad that it should be destroyed?

Question:
This institution, meaning the fraternity, or the university?

Answer:
The university.

Question:
Was that a concern of the minority community?

Answer:
Well, it was my ultimate response to them not wanting to involve themselves with the administration because the administration wasn't trustworthy. And again my task at that point was to help them see that the administration, regardless of what they thought about them, had a legitimate position. Everybody has a legitimacy. And unless the institution is in such grave violation that it needs to be destroyed, you have to honor that the institution has a position. It will try to protect that position and part of that protection involves their regents and the people that fund them. Everything that impacts the administration has to have legitimacy and if you discount that, then you aren't going to come to the table from a reality perspective. Unless it's so bad you need to wipe it out and start over. So if you agree it has legitimacy, you have to at least honor its reality, and its reality is all of these parties and constituencies out here. So that helped them come to the table with a little more reality about what was going to happen.




Nancy Ferrell


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

So it's a matter of keeping the group that they're boycotting sensitive and really giving them a way to save face and come to the table. That's probably the biggest challenge. Q - How do you do that? A - Using their public interests, and good will. "You know, you may even shut this plant down, but what's it going to look like to the national community when it becomes public knowledge?” You can gain a lot from interfacing and having somebody like me in there, giving them a way of coming to the table without saying, "You're right." Again, it's the very same discussion. If they feel like you're not sensitive to their needs for education and you're just taking advantage of them as workers and they're wanting you to institute GED programs, what's it going to cost you to do that? What do you gain from it? And you've got to figure out a way for it to be in their self interest to do it. And I would sometimes do research on other companies that had done stuff like that. I would bring information to them and say, "This is what happened to production. Production went up." So they gain more. The organization gained more from that than they lost. We did a really long mediation with Levi Strauss one time. They were closing a plant in San Antonio. The community's perception about who they are as an organization was very important to them, so they weren't difficult to bring around. Generally, it becomes an ego thing and both sides become entrenched. So then you've got to figure out a way to let them save face and come out of that entrenched position. If there's no potential for a long-term relationship, it's probably not ever going to settle, short of both groups being destroyed, economically or whatever. These people lose their jobs, these people lose the plant. But you try to find a place where you can bring them to a joint, mutually beneficial goal. Save the plant, save our jobs, but get some of our needs met. Also give them that place where they can stay safe. "Yeah, I understand how they feel, but we didn't do anything wrong." And it’s really as simple as that sometimes. Q - Now how do you save face if the one side is steadfastly refusing to negotiate? It seems like just the act of sitting down at the table, in a sense, is losing face. Because then they're saying, "Well, I was wrong before, I guess I will talk to you." A - Yes. But, you have to get them to a point where it's in their interest to come to the table. You have to come up with some reason. For example, in the community where the Iranian students were. Everybody I talked to, from the officials side, did not feel there was a problem. Not until I was able to point out that there was an economic reality. If I hadn't thought about that, I'm not sure that we'd have done anything except try to bring some referrals for the students in terms of getting some legal redress. There was some misunderstanding about what the US law's limitations and realities were. The Iranian students were expecting some things from the local police that they couldn't deliver. So that was a part of the dynamics then, the education. We also found out that the high school students didn't have a clear understanding of what law enforcement limits and responsibilities were. So we did some orientation with them as well as the Iranian students and the college students. Without some personal interest, they're not going to come to the table. Your job is to find out what's in their interest and try to point that out.





Angel Alderete


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

So my first job was to bring the Latinos and the African Americans together, and get them to agree that they ought to come together, in order to get at these people who were abusing them. I told them, "You may not like each other, but if you have that common thing, we can do something."



Angel Alderete


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Are these ideas things that the community people developed?

Answer:
We sat there and discussed the situation. "What do you think about this?" And sometimes they would give me an idea and that would trigger something else in my head, and I would agree with what they proposed and I'd say, "Well, we could also consider this." Sometimes they'd say, "Yes, that's okay." Or sometimes they'd say, "We like our idea better." And that's the way it usually worked.




Angel Alderete


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
I would imagine during these discussions with these people there, that you got to a lot of the underlying issues. Yeah, of course you had these riots, the fires, and things like that, but by talking to them you were able to get at some of the underlying issues that they felt were problems in their community. Did you help them sort of organize their issues together, say, "Hey, that's a good point, you should do something. Follow up on this"? Or were you just a sounding board?

Answer:
During the initial phases, nothing like that happened because we were more concerned with the prevention aspect of our job. Sometime afterwards was when people began to get together, and that included not only African Americans but also Latinos and Koreans. I didn't mention the Koreans, but a lot of our people had a lot to do with getting together with the Korean business people and trying to reason with them about things. Their tone was really combative, and so I wasn't involved in that one, but our people had to talk to them about not only toning their discussions down, but also getting those people off the roof that had rifles. I doubt if they would have used them, but it's very intimidating, and it might have caused some person over here to take a shot at one of those guys. So they agreed to that, but that was probably the biggest area of concern that anybody had: the clashes -- really mostly verbal clashes, and maybe some pushing and shoving between the Korean business people, or between the general Korean group and the African Americans. There's another concern that there was a lot of looting involved and only the African Americans and Latinos were getting blamed. But, everybody was sticking their head into it. That's where I think we played the role of not only placating, but starting the discussion on what ought to be done. At that point, it was getting groups together that wanted to get together to discuss the issues that we were dealing with and out of that came a get-together, that was the aftermath of the violence.




Bob Hughes


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Did you help the parties prioritize their issues in any way, or help them with their presentation? There was quite a long list on both sides, so did you reformulate them in any way?

Answer:
I would list them and I might rephrase them in some way to make them clearer.




Julian Klugman


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Answer:
Well, you get down to basics. I mean it's common sense. What are the issues? You have to agree on a certain number of issues, so we agreed on 12 issues. There were no Indians in the whole county on staff. Of course, they had to start hiring Indians. They did, they had to hire one right away, that was part of the agreement and there had to be a plan to hire more. We talked about arrest procedures and how they handled the Indian kids. The sheriff wouldn't sign the agreement, but he didn't talk against it. We isolated him, we boxed him in. The county hired this lawyer to represent him, and he starts raising all these questions, and I just wouldn't recognize him. "Why are you doing this?" "Because I'm the mediator and that's how we do it." You just move ahead sometimes. But you have to be careful, you can't move beyond the group. I sat down with this Indian woman, the matriarch, and she decided to trust me. That was the key.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

So you don't try to develop the ideas for them or ask them questions to get them there?

Answer:
Yes, Sometimes that is necessary. We help them formulate their issues, not create their issues. Their main concern was that they felt there was no justice. The slogan of the youth, "No justice no peace." So those are all examples of injustices occurring. So just working on those issues, you get to a point where they feel maybe there's not total justice, but there's sufficient justice.




Efrain Martinez


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

So I say you can do it both ways, but think about it this way, you can do that, but also think about this, the official is not going to make any decisions right then and there on the spot because he needs to research how he's going to respond to the issue and what he/she can possibly do about it. So identify the issue and propose some way that it could be resolved. He or she needs to know what you think would be a solution to this. Now if you propose that at the same time you bring up the issue then he or she has the time to research and talk to his or her department, to be responsive, but in a positive way because he or she has seen that these remedies you're proposing are not off base. And maybe he or she wanted to do something along those lines anyway. And this creates a sense of trust let's say, the beginnings of that. But it also expedites the process. When you go up there having the issues identified and in writing that's a plus already because in the previous meeting with this chief they didn't have that. They just went out there and vented, and it was very unproductive. Unproductive enough so that the chief said he was never going to meet with them again. I was talking to a city council member in that same city, and remember I said I always ask questions that I know the answers to. I asked where the minority community in town was, and he didn't think they had any minorities. They've got some coloreds, I think he said. And they live north of main street, but over the last few years they've been infiltrating south. How can somebody accuse somebody else of infiltrating. It let me know where that person stood. Both in the terminology he used and how he interpreted things. Anybody has a right to move anywhere they can afford to move. Whether it should be called infiltration, that's a little extreme.



Manuel Salinas


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

They were the ones that pushed and kept going after the department. At that time they didn't know exactly what it was that the department ought to do. In other words, they were protesting what had occurred, but they didn't know how to fix it. Yet they didn't want to leave it up to the department as to decide what they were going to do either, because they didn't know.

So, based on our experience, we decided that maybe an assessment ought to be made of the department. We would not conduct the assessment. The assessment would be done by consultants that we would identify, that was agreeable with the department and the community group. The community group didn't have any problem with this approach. Because this was all foreign to them. Therefore they were willing to accept that process. And the chief accepted it too.



Ozell Sutton


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Question:
Would you have said that to the white caucus?

Answer:
I made a demonstration with them when I got over there. I said I've been with the Justice Department a long time. I believe like Langston Hughes: "Justice delayed is justice denied." I'm here from a different angle, but you're talking about the same subject. I don't wish that you sacrifice your rights, I don't want anybody to sacrifice their rights. But let's get onto it. Here I go on another sermon, but from a different angle.

Question:
So you reframed the issue for them in the caucus?

Answer:
In words that they could connect to.




Dick Salem


 [Full Interview] [Topic Top]

Inmates were granted hearings if racism was alleged. There was some increased understanding of why the black residents were so loud when they came down the hall after their meetings. Have you ever walked by a black church on Sunday morning and heard the joyous singing? Well that’s another side of the coin to the pain, too. Some of this came out at the sessions. The American Indians’ need for solidarity came out when we talked about their issues. So good things happened.






Copyright © 2000-2007
by Conflict Management Initiatives and the Conflict Information Consortium at the University of Colorado