How would you describe your work in terms of your neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity in a case?

Bob Hughes

Answer:
Not offhand, I just sit there and bite my tongue. As I point out to them, in the role of the mediator, I may have some feelings, I may have some strong feelings about the right and wrong of what one side is doing. If I state what that is and act in such a way in chairing these sessions, if I seem to be favoring one side or the other, then the other side has one more person on their side and there's no mediator. Therefore, regardless of my feelings, I am of use only if I try to be as objective as possible, and my personal feelings don't have anything to do with it.

Bob Hughes

Answer:
I don't think so. I usually make it clear in the beginning my value to you is that I be impartial. I can join your side because I might think that it's fair, but that doesn't help you. I just adds one more person over there. Then who's going to mediate? That's when you need a mediator and so I need you to help me to stay in that position.

Ozell Sutton

Answer:
Yeah. There have been times when I felt even after we did not get an agreement, that I should have taken sides. But then I know that's not the thing to do. I really try not to do that. But I say about mediation, like I used to say about newspaper, I can look at any story a reporter writes, and tell you what he felt. I don't care how hard he tried to be neutral, right? His own inner feelings get into the story, and he can't do anything about that. Down, deep down, somewhere.

Wallace Warfield

Silke Hansen

Answer:
If you mean how do I justify that, let's start with that piece first. Very easily, because I don't think I can do an effective job of mediating between two parties if there isn't some balance there. So unless I help bring about that balance, mediation won't work. Of course, you can't necessarily assume that because one side is a minority community that it's the powerless community. That's another issue. But let's assume that, in fact, there is a power imbalance. Unless I can help balance that, and empower each party to effectively participate at the mediation table, we're not going to have an effective, successful mediation. So I explain that to the institution and I offer pre- mediation training to both sides. I also use that as a way to help each of the parties identify what their interests and concerns are, and what they hope to get out of this process. Sometimes, that's particularly important for the institution, because they often start out from the perspective of, "Okay, how much do they want, and how much of that are we going to give them?" They rarely think in terms of, "What do we want, and how much of that are we going to get?" The reality is that they usually do want something from the community, so this helps them become aware of that. This is another trust-building mechanism as well because I'm acknowledging that, "You need things too! What is it that you want? What is it that you're looking for?" I want to make sure that both sides are heard and that we can talk about how each side's needs can be met. I also let the institution know that it's in their best interests to have a well-trained, capable party on the other side because it will be easier to deal with and negotiate with them if they are capable. Part of what the institution is afraid of is that they will have a group of ranting, raving maniacs on the other side that they can't communicate with. So part of what I'm providing is some security, some format which is reasonable from their perspective. I may say to the institution, "Now, you understand that party A is angry and they're going to need to express that. But trust me, we're going to get beyond that, and get to problem- solving." So I lay the groundwork for there being some anger. I hate to call it "venting," because to me "venting" sounds too patronizing. I don't want to be allowed an opportunity to vent; I want to be allowed an opportunity to be heard. So, even though the term "venting" might apply, I avoid that word because it does sound patronizing to me. It has undercurrents of, "They're just spouting off, and they really have nothing to say." In most cases they have a lot to say, but they've never been allowed to say it and be heard before.

Renaldo Rivera

Answer:
As impartial. Neutrality is really hard. It's like objectivity. I don't think it's possible. The drive is to be impartial. So that's why I'll talk to each side in these ways and it also helps to keep from being too strong an advocate because if you're perceived as an advocate you can't help the other party. And you're not an advocate anymore when you're with CRS. Although what we implicitly do is balance the playing field with those disaffected groups and the mainstream society. But you need to approach your work in an impartial way.Let me introduce something to you that came from an earlier story. When I was advocating for the National Latino Media Coalition and we were meeting with Senator Hollings, I presented what we were talking about in terms of media portrayals, access to employment, ownership opportunities across the board for print and electronic media, tax credit structures to encourage diversity of ownership and our interest in getting public messaging out. When I was finished, he said to me, "You know, you're not a special interest group. You're talking about John Q Public," and I said, "Yes, we are part of the public and that's the point of view that we're representing." I was 27 or 28 when I started there. I think that's the same approach that I brought to the work at CRS, which is assisting public officials and law enforcement to recognize that it isn't just a screaming group of minority people over here, but that this is a part of the public and it's in the public interest to see them that way and have their viewpoints and concerns incorporated in public policy that way. The notion of special interest populations is part and parcel of why you have protected classes. If you're going to begin to undo the nature of those community dynamics, people need to perceive special communities as part of the general community so that it gets addressed in the same way that general community issues are addressed. I think that translation question is what I'm best able to do with public officials and law enforcement, in ways that they can receive it. Which then prepares them to hear it in less fine language from the community and come up with constructive solutions. So I can do my work impartially, but it really does represent a leveling of the playing field. So it's an advocacy for inclusive community interest without advocating for a particular community at any particular episode.

Stephen Thom

Answer:
Besides telling them? I think it's very important to give equal time, to demonstrate equal interest, to facilitate and to not get caught up in judgments. All of those kinds of things I think I have to manage to avoid getting caught up or being perceived as bias in any way. I do a lot of pulling out ideas from people, but letting them own it. I try to stay out of it as much as possible, I think that's the only answer I can give you.

Stephen Thom

Will Reed

Answer:
Not when I got out into the woods. Maybe somewhere in the city that might have happened, but no. Because most of the time I was not. I was impartial as hell. I had my feelings. Nothing you do is going to take away from that. You can't just take that away. See, that goes back to some people being concerned about, "Hey, you got a black guy coming into a black situation? You know he's not going to be impartial." That's because that's a reflection on themselves. Because they know they're dishonest. And they see you coming in, they figure you're going to cheat. I was always ready for that. When somebody started to say something and tried to catch my reaction, I would not give them eye contact. I would look off and look on the ceiling. You learn all of these dynamics because I came out of corrections and prisons and all of these places before I even came to CRS. It's difficult. But I managed to do real well. And most of the guys in CRS did real well. I could come up with name after name of people who were just outstanding. In this agency, I mean say what you want to, but this was one of the best investments that the federal government ever made in anything. The only thing that I regret is that they didn't let us become a Bureau and have autonomy to the point to where you really could have gotten some things done. But despite all that, you have people here who have managed to do so well and put some things together that were incredible. And it keeps a lot of people from getting hurt, seriously. We could have had a lot of genocidal stuff going down if it wasn't for CRS, and that's the bottom line.

Silke Hansen

Silke Hansen

Answer:
Sometimes. One of the things which always became interesting within the Korean community was that there was a lot of competition within the community itself. It was like, everybody was the leader. So as an impartial third party working in this, an ongoing process was to make clear that, "I understand that you represent this group and we want to make sure that you are included and that you're a part of the process, but there are others who feel just as strongly that they have a valid or maybe even THE valid perspective. And so we need to make sure that everyone is included. Over a period of time they began to recognize that and appreciate that. When I was there the first time for those five months, from May until September of 1992, as that long detail was just about over and it was clear that I was going home, four different victim associations, who to some extent were sort of in competition before, came and visited me at my office and brought me plaque of appreciation. And it really became quite emotional. First of all I had not expected that. And I said, "I really feel like I didn't do a whole lot. There are still so many needs and so much more that needs to be done here. But they said, "Silke, at least you listened." I tell that story often, not because I want to show off the plaque, but it again was sort of a visible validation of the importance of just listening. There are times when I'd be there until late in the night or would come at almost any hour of the day or night just to listen. You spend a whole lot of time listening. You begin to realize how much of the conflict and how much of the frustration and then anger on the part of the victim communities come not so much from what's not being done, but a sense of, "They aren't even listening to me. They don't even take me seriously." And so listening is such a crucial part of what you do. Much earlier in our conversation I mentioned going into a community and almost being accosted with the anger and frustration and then hearing all of these stories. Then all of that gets toned down by the time you get to the tables. But I think the key to that also is that regardless of how angry and how almost belligerent they might be, I'm listening. And it's probably one of the few times that someone that they think might be able to do something came and actually listened to everything that they had to say. So that listening and hearing is such a crucial part.

Stephen Thom

Bob Ensley

Answer:
Well, it's good because these men worked with us when they were young troopers and they knew the powerful influence of conciliation and mediation, and talking with groups and everything. Therefore, I did not always just stay there and maintain a neutral position. I had to speak out at times. Like the merchants would always come out and some of the merchants along there would always want to come out and start sweeping and watering and all of that stuff. They were willing to take the dollars that were being spent, but they didn't want them standing in front of their stores. They wanted the blacks to come in and buy stuff and get out of the area. So I had to speak up about that.

Edward Howden

Answer:
It didn't get raised by either side as an issue. I don't like the term "neutrals" to describe mediators, I prefer other terms, "objectivity" and "impartiality." I don't think any individual mediator is going to be without his or her assessments and personal values with regard to situations. The only question is whether that is going to interfere or unethically intrude upon the action that the mediator takes and that's a distinction obviously that ought to be maintained. The more strongly you feel about a given injustice as you see it, the more careful you have to be as a mediator. The mediator really does need to look at the concerns and problems of both sets of folks.

Bob Hughes

Answer:
Well, on Whitby Island, that is the site whereby the leader of the most violent terrorist group ever to form in the U.S., an off-shoot of the Aryan Nations, formed in Northeast Washington. There were about 22 people, primarily men, who assassinated Allenberg here in Denver, and other individuals. Some of the victims were their own members, who were thought to be informers. They tried to bomb the house of the head of the Northwest Coalition at one point, in Coeur d'Alene. The FBI, in 1984, was able to track that group down, and the leaders were tracked to Whitby Island. But they had several safe houses up there, right on the edge of the water. They were surrounded by several hundred law enforcement, and the leader of the group was killed. Now the Aryans and neo-Nazis go to the State park, which is almost adjacent to this site of his Martyrdom, as they put it. They hold services. Then, anti-neo-Nazi groups from Seattle and other places come to the site to protest their presence. A confrontation then develops and law enforcement's caught in the middle. From the beginning, I was involved in getting the State Park's people to arrange to meet with law enforcement and the leaders of the protest groups to meet and sort out ground rules. We discussed what could be expected from each, and that sort of thing. That doesn't really involve the neo-Nazis. But the neo-Nazis have a campsite that they usually camped in and people such as newspaper reporters, were filtering down into the campsite. So I went down and they were chasing them out. I recommended, "What we're trying to do is avoid violence in this case. This would play into their hands." But we urged them to talk with the leadership of the group there, who is an old time neo-Nazi. We urged him, "Why don't you go up there and set up a perimeter at this gate up here, at the top of the road, a hundred yards from where the campsite is and have somebody up there to meet whatever medial representatives come there and make a determination as to whether you want them down here in your campsite. The interview could be done up there, or just to decide whether or not you want to talk with them at all. " But, not to leave it wide open where conflicts were developing. A lot of confrontations were developing along that road. They thought that was a good idea, and followed that suggestion. In subsequent years, I would meet with the first arrivals at the campsite, and just establish rapport, as tenuous as it was. I was there in the event that some problems did arise, outside of demonstrations that were orderly and in the area, but not at their campsite. Things generally worked out very well.

Bob Hughes

Answer:
Well, I would talk about mediation and explain the guidelines. I might also expound on how they might comply with these or fulfill these, or react to these in the mediation. But I know that for some mediators before mediation starts they'll have training sessions with one of the other parties on how to negotiate, and I've never done that. I felt like it could be difficult to my image of impartiality. I would always try to do the same thing to both sides, and let each of them know that I was doing this. We have had cases that would eventually be taken through a process where you ended up in a training session, but that's a little bit different from what you were asking.

Ernest Jones

Answer:
Well it ended up not playing a real big role. But in the beginning we were very clear in establishing ourselves as an agency that was there to respond and provide assistance. It wasn't going to be guided by other agendas and everybody knew up front that we were there to deal with the community conflicts that came up but not that we were playing the advocate role of the community. Again neither were we playing the advocate role for the cops. We were a neutral entity and the argument was made that because we state that we are a neutral entity and because we are viewed that way hopefully we can provide that service that somebody else can't provide. I mean we can do something that you can't do because you're not neutral. So we can fill that void. And I didn't have any problem with it one-way or the other. It never really came up.

Werner Petterson

Answer:
I guess I'd try to ask them why they had drawn that conclusion because people have opinions and feelings, but I don't think it does any good to talk about feelings and opinions. I would ask, "what happened that has brought you to that opinion?" Maybe it was something that I said, something I did, other times there was some explanation and that helped clear the air. Sometimes it was just my being a representative of the Justice Department, I mean, there is no way I can rationalize things that the department did in a situation. I think one of the very interesting things that CRS struggled with was that CRS has always been kind of an aberration to the Justice Department. There would be positions the Justice Department would be taking, say school desegregation, or fair housing and I would work out an agreement in federal court and I had questions raised saying, "that's not a policy." I think that's being a mediator within a legal context you're helping parties reach agreements that may be extra legal, and as long as the courts say this is okay then that's the answer. On the other side you are the representative of the Justice Department and people who are involved and invested in issues know what the Justice Departments position is on particular issues. You get involved in the community and people know those positions. They'll have questions about what you're doing.

Manuel Salinas

Answer:
I don't know whether it's stronger, but I definitely would work more with that particular department or individuals to show them that in the long run they can resolve the issue, if they cooperate. I would push them harder. Much harder. But I would also provide resources that might be helpful to them. I'd try to convince them. You can't push some of these people too easily, but you just have to be able to provide resources for them, in other words you push but you provide resources at the same time. I think that they can see the value to it. If they can see the value in what you're saying, I think that you'll make some headway. If they can't see value, they just won't assess it, and then you're stuck. You lose.

Will Reed

Answer:
Of course not. It didn't matter. There were some instances. Then it came down to not what you said, but what you did to make up for it. So that's what happens.

Dick Salem

Answer:
No one expects you to portray yourself as neutral if you come into a situation where everybody knows there are inequities. It’s not necessary if you can project yourself as objective, understanding, and empathic. We were called upon to help communities resolve problems, and empowering is part of that. You could do that legitimately and appropriately without violating your objectivity or impartiality. You bend and you lean, but I think everybody understands that.

Dick Salem

Answer:
Not in a formal mediation, but I can’t imagine that over the years and all the things I interacted with that someone wouldn’t say, You aren’t fair, you’re not impartial.” But that happened often. It may well have happened more with my staff, but we fought those things out internally. That’s natural, I think. Everybody had a high sense of justice and we were all torn by the need to bring about justice and to have the group get what it could, maximize its gains.

Silke Hansen

Silke Hansen

Answer:
I think it is. A mediator runs into danger as an impartial mediator if she begins to get an image of what would be fair. I would rather have the parties describe at the beginning what they would consider fair. Then they need to look at how they present that. Then the mediator must make sure that both parties have an understanding of what the other side would consider fair. I can think of one mediation in particular, not this one, which was probably a very good example of this. These two parties hated each other. There was no trust there at all. You could not discuss the issues at all until you could get some of that hostility out of the way.

Angel Alderete

Leo Cardenas

Leo Cardenas

Leo Cardenas

Answer:
Particularly police stations. We stayed away from police stations. Just the very nature of police stations in the smaller community, the jail is usually in the same building, and so we generally stayed out of them. School settings normally have some type of conference room or classroom. But we generally used community centers and churches also.

Bob Hughes

Answer:
Not an open issue. It may have been suspected, but it was never communicated to me as I remember.

Julian Klugman

Answer:
Tough to me. They're not there to do what I want them to do. I'm there to help them, I work for them. They don't work for me. But there are times when mediation is going to fall apart and there are times when you don't mediate. That's what I was talking about regarding ethics. Nobody talks about that anymore. Sometimes mediation doesn't make sense. Sometimes it shouldn't be done.

Efrain Martinez

Efrain Martinez

Answer:
In order to carry on a dialogue, there has to be a level playing field of some sorts. Maybe the community's at that level already, through their contacts. I always understand nothing is new to them, because they have a relationship with each other, there's a history already when we arrive. It's up to us to know the history. Police leaders have asked me, "Why do I have to deal with those folks? Whom do they represent? Just who are they anyway? They're self appointed leaders." I remember in one town, there was an issue over Hispanics' participation in a festival, and the fact that I was Hispanic was an issue. There was a Hispanic organization that was leading the charge. They were not discriminating, the officials said, so why did I have to show up? I explained, "I'm not out here to see if you're discriminating or not discriminating, I'm not going to ask you any questions on that. Yeah, I'm Hispanic, but I'm not a member of their organization, but maybe I can help you with the problems you're having." They say, "Okay, come over, but we're not going to have anything to do with that organization." So once I got there all these organizations that are part of this festival were there. "Which group is giving you problems? You get along with the Elks?" "Yeah, but not with that group." "Would it behoove you to sit down and talk with that group?" But it was to them a coming down to their level and they were not going to appease it by recognizing them as legitimate. So I had to reinterpret that for them. Okay, through me, let's see if I can get them to sit down and again come up with a list of issues and what not. Finally they agreed to come together. When I brought the issues of the responding group, I had to prepare them because they not only wanted to be included as vendors, but they also wanted a seat on the board. And I don't tell them what they should ask for. All I ask is, "Right now, what would resolve your problem here?" That's all I'm interested in. Although I discussed with them what the possible reaction might be. What to expect so they don't get surprised. But even when he wrote on a paper and I took it over to the other side, I told them, "Look, here it is and when you first look at it, you might think they want the moon! But feel confident that they're not asking for Mars and Jupiter, just from here to the moon." Because it's a shock, they want us to give them everything. There's always things they could've asked for then they negotiated on maybe not right then but next year.

Manuel Salinas

Answer:
I think he probably felt that, I think he probably did. But he probably felt that the group needed our assistance more than he needed us. He needed us only for the assessment, and for that he did need us. But otherwise, they're the law, they don't really need us.

Manuel Salinas

Answer:
I always lean toward the minority community, actually, because they're the ones that were out. Anything I could do for them I would do, but not to go to such an extent that I would harm my relationship with the other side. I really had to be careful there.