|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: UCIMC |
|
Mediation Mtg at IMC MONDAY |
Current rating: 0 |
by meghan
Email: meghan (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified!) |
24 May 2004
|
MONDAY, MAY 24
6-7 PM at the IMC
meeting about IMC Mediation policy |
some folks may remember that one of the working groups at our last membership meeting focused on brainstorming ideas about how to revitalize our mediation policy to deal with more issues than the simple conflict between two members.
there will be a meeting to further discuss these issues on
Monday, May 24
6 - 7 PM
these meeting will NOT be about specific cases but will rather be about how to address the needs of our community in the future as they come up and how to stop conflicts from getting out of hand (people leaving the organization because they feel their opinions are not being addressed, or
because of harrassment concerns, or any other reason why individuals may feel isolated at the IMC).
this meeting will be about trying to make our goal of having a safe space a reality.
sorry for the late notice! there will be more meetings if you can't make this one. |
This work is in the public domain |
|
mediation with other imcs |
by indygena
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2004
|
i think it would be interesting that you study how to mediate with other imcs and make the conclusions publics.
at for example, what about if two imcs desagree with the rest about the use of money? what if others don't feel confortable on the way of a imc gets the fundings?
i think it is necesary to think about that and find solutions.
love + peace |
|
Mediation meeting notes |
by Paul Riismandel
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 May 2004
|
These are notes from the mediation meeting.
U-C IMC mediation ad hoc group meeting notes 5-25-04
Present: Meghan, Paul, Arun, Jane, Mike, Carol, Beth
We first discussed some of the ideas suggested during the mediation focus group held at last April's IMC General Membership Meeting.
Meghan summarized some key points, since she facilitated the group and took notes. There was a focus on the role of Advocate, with the following recommendations:
-There should be a big list of current Advocates on the wall, with bios and contact info so that it clear who IMCistas can go to if in need of mediation or conflict resolution
-Advocates should be:
-current IMC members
-as diverse as possible
-not be spokes to steering
The main question we're facing is: How do we make mediation and conflict resolution resources open and accessible, especially so that people do not wait a long time to seek help?
Mike raises concerns about excluding spokes from being Advocates, concerned that we're overly narrowing the pool of possible Advocates, and notes that steering will necessarily be involved in some resolutions.
Some discussion about how some conflict resolution doesn't need to be public, especially if it has to do primarily with personality conflict. However, some conflicts are more public in nature, because they involve many people and/or the work of the IMC. Meghan sees one role of the Advocate being to help be a conduit to bring private conflicts into the public realm.
After some discussion it becomes obvious that we need to better define and clarify the roles of Advocate and Mediator -- a sense that the terms are not utterly transparent, nor separate.
We also identify the need to clarify the steps of mediation, how does it start, what happens next, and on. The current policy is more philosophical than practical.
Mike thinks that it is important that Spokes to Steering can be a first line of contact for people looking for resolution, because they know the IMC and are well known. Paul agrees, but also expresses the concern that because Spokes are so involved, being the first point of contact might appear to be a conflict of interest, and also questions how well known spokes really are -- thinks that the video group, for instance, doesn't know who all the spokes are, though they probably know who the video spokes are.
Mike suggests two short definitions that help to refine our terms:
A MEDIATOR is someone who is trying to balance interests.
An ADVOCATE is someone there to help represent interests.
Therefore there's general agreement that Steering Spokes should not be Mediators, given that in many situations Spokes will have vested interests that would be difficult to remove from the conflict at hand. Also, when Steering is involved in a conflict, the group itself has an interest and therefore members cannot be expected to adequately mediate.
However, there is general agreement that Spokes could be Advocates, provided that they are asked to be.
Further, there's general agreement that because Advocates are chosen by people seeking mediation or conflict resolution, there shouldn't be many restrictions on who can be an Advocate. People should be free to choose their Advocates. The IMC should find volunteers willing to be an Advocate, so that there is a known pool for people to choose from, but they should not be confined to just that pool, especially if there are other persons whom they are more comfortable with and who are willing to help.
With regard to the problem of having enough volunteers for these roles, Paul points out that the IMC has about 200 members, arguably more than any other IMC. However, most of our recruiting efforts are relatively passive -- we occasionally make a general call for volunteers, but rarely specify specific tasks, and even less often make that call beyond the Steering meeting or the IMC list. He suggests that if we made a specific call to the whole membership that clearly defined the roles we were looking to fill, we'd probably be able to get at least 5 - 10 willing volunteers (2.5 -5% of our membership).
The question of having enough volunteers really depends on how wiling we are to put effort into recruiting for the roles of Mediator and Advocate.
General agreement that we need to have very clear instructions about how one can get mediation and conflict resolution -- basic, plain language.
Additional points from the General Membership Meeting:
We need to define what it means for the IMC to be a safe space, and post it clearly. Meghan stresses that this really needs to be done before we move into a bigger more public space and reopen for shows and performances.
Paul suggests one model to look at is 924 Gilman St in Berkeley, CA, which is a long-running all ages punk venue. They have what amounts to a code of conduct that is specific about the kind of behaviors that are not tolerated. Unlike IMC shows, you need to be a member of Gilman St in order to go to shows there, and part of being a member is signing an agreement not to engage in unacceptable behavior.
General agreement that it is not sufficient to simply state "No sexism will be tolerated" -- we need to simply outline some common sexist behavior that we won't tolerate. This is especially important for shows, when we have lots of people otherwise unfamiliar with the IMC coming to the space.
NEXT MEETING
To start we'll have meetings on the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 8:30 PM. May change to accomodate the schedules of current participants. |
|
Where to find the current Mediation Policy |
by Paul Riismandel
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 May 2004
|
The current mediation policy is on the Info page of this website (click Info at the top banner menu). This is the direct URL:
http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/mediation/index.php |
