Silke Hansen

Answer:
Yes. I think it's up to the community; they need to decide. If they want to set a legal precedent, then they don't want to mediate. I would be the first one to say, "If that's what you need, and that's what you want here, good luck, God bless you. Call me when you need a mediator." I think one reason that CRS has been effective in many communities in resolving conflict and helping to fashion agreements, is that many of the situations to which we respond would find it very difficult to make a legal case in court. We can come in without "probable cause," which allows us to intervene and to have an impact on situations which might be very, very difficult to pursue in court, but are nevertheless generating tensions within the community. But if a party wants to set a precedent, then they shouldn't use mediation. As much as I love mediating, and being a mediator and I probably believe that more things can be mediated than some people.... I'm almost a mediation evangelist I recognize the importance of legal precedent. If that's what a party needs, then mediation is not the answer. Some of those jurisdiction cases in Indian country, for instance particularly the one that centered around whether or not State Patrol was allowed on reservation roads. In that case, the tribes wanted a court ruling and they got one that basically said, "No, they [State Patrol] don't have jurisdiction on the reservations." Now, I would think that once they got that ruling and they had that legal precedent, it would be easier to mediate the conflict because both sides would be coming from a mutual power base, if you will. But we actually never quite reached that stage. That's why it's one of the conflicts that I would continue to make myself available for indefinitely, even when I'm no longer with CRS, because I really do believe that a resolution is possible. Now see, that's an example of a case in which you need to develop much more trust among the parties before you can have that kind of a discussion. But then, that issue [of jurisdiction] is one that probably should not have been mediated at that time anyway, because it was important to tribal leadership and to those nations to establish that they had jurisdiction, and that non-tribal police did not.

Silke Hansen

Answer:
Well, for a start, you need parties that are identifiable enough so you can say "These are the sides." Sometimes that is not clear. Sometimes there is tension in the community, but it is hard to define who, exactly, the opposing parties are. Second, you need specific issues that are clearly-definable. One of the things that's difficult to mediate is, for example, if there is a court case and a community believes that even bringing the case to court was an injustice, or the disposition of it is not fair. Usually you can't mediate that. So in that case, I would look for ways to bring some healing, some communication, some positive interaction among members of the minority and the majority community. I'd just try to begin to get some common interests, some common goals to deal with race relations in that community in general, without going through a formal mediation process. Now, I'm one of those people who starts off every case initially by saying to myself, "Okay, how can I bring this to mediation?" It helps me from day one, minute one to have an agenda in my mind. As I'm working toward that, it may become clear fairly quickly that the case is not going to go to mediation, and that's fine. But if I start out thinking that it might go to mediation, I have a perspective to work from when I approach the parties. If that doesn't work, then I ask myself, "Is there some training we can do? What other kinds of assistance can we provide? Are there some documents I can give them, or maybe I can just facilitate some meetings?" or whatever. But usually, unless I am asked specifically to come in for some other purpose, I'll assume we're trying to initiate mediation. Remember the case I was talking about earlier, about tax day? In that case I was asked to come to facilitate the meeting. I ended up facilitating another one similar to that about a month later in the same community. And there were some great things that came out of that, so it was a very rewarding and beneficial event. But that would be an example of where I didn't attempt to go toward mediation, even though there were some pretty good outcomes that arose from that particular situation.

Silke Hansen

Answer:
Yes. I think it's up to the community; they need to decide. If they want to set a legal precedent, then they don't want to mediate. I would be the first one to say, "If that's what you need, and that's what you want here, good luck, God bless you. Call me when you need a mediator." I think one reason that CRS has been effective in many communities in resolving conflict and helping to fashion agreements, is that many of the situations to which we respond would find it very difficult to make a legal case in court. We can come in without "probable cause," which allows us to intervene and to have an impact on situations which might be very, very difficult to pursue in court, but are nevertheless generating tensions within the community. But if a party wants to set a precedent, then they shouldn't use mediation. As much as I love mediating, and being a mediator and I probably believe that more things can be mediated than some people.... I'm almost a mediation evangelist I recognize the importance of legal precedent. If that's what a party needs, then mediation is not the answer. Some of those jurisdiction cases in Indian country, for instance particularly the one that centered around whether or not State Patrol was allowed on reservation roads. In that case, the tribes wanted a court ruling and they got one that basically said, "No, they [State Patrol] don't have jurisdiction on the reservations." Now, I would think that once they got that ruling and they had that legal precedent, it would be easier to mediate the conflict because both sides would be coming from a mutual power base, if you will. But we actually never quite reached that stage. That's why it's one of the conflicts that I would continue to make myself available for indefinitely, even when I'm no longer with CRS, because I really do believe that a resolution is possible. Now see, that's an example of a case in which you need to develop much more trust among the parties before you can have that kind of a discussion. But then, that issue [of jurisdiction] is one that probably should not have been mediated at that time anyway, because it was important to tribal leadership and to those nations to establish that they had jurisdiction, and that non-tribal police did not.