Public Dialogue, Direct Governance and Global Complex Problem-Solving in Broken Political Systems
When should governments involve their citizens in shaping public policy? Why do complex challenges, such as preparing for the impacts of climate change, require local participation? How can governments do a better job of integrating the interests of individuals when making decisions about competing priorities, such as whether to prefer free trade or environmental protection; national security or liberty? This session will address these and other questions arising from the complexities of involving civil society in decision-making and problem-solving processes traditionally reserved for government actors in complex local, national and international public policy issues. The panel will provide participants with guidance on recent research and practice in the field of collaborative governance before encouraging discussion through facilitated break-out groups and full-group debriefing, networking and practical proposals.
Kenneth Cloke, Center for Dispute Resolution and Mediators Beyond Borders, Santa Monica, CA
Anna Spain, University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, CO
Charles Crumpton, Crumpton & Hansen, LLLC, and Accord 3.0, Honolulu, HI
Ian Boisvert, Blue Sky Mediation and Law, San Francisco, CA
Mary Jacksteit, Public Conversations Project, Watertown, MA
Peter Adler, Accord 3.0 Consultants, Honolulu, HI
John Sturrock, CORE Solutions Group, Edinburgh, Scotland
Mediating with the Federal Government: What You Need to Know
The federal government is the largest single consumer of federal court services across the country and uses ADR in virtually every case. The panel will address four questions: What types of cases does the government mediate? Who are the mediators? What mediator qualities are most important in these cases? What is different about mediating cases with the government? The panelists will first offer an overview of mediation with the federal government, then address particular issues in various types of litigation including contract disputes, civil fraud and qui tam cases, federal program litigation, civil rights cases and environmental litigation. Finally, a private mediator will discuss his experience in mediating cases with the government, offering his perspective and advice.
Deborah Bynum Department of Justice, Washington, DC
John Bickerman, Bickerman Dispute Resolution, PLLC, Washington, DC
Joanna Jacobs Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Stacy Stoller Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Beyond the Town Hall: Innovations in Public Policy Dispute Resolution
Governments often resort to contentious public hearings, costly litigation, or time-consuming ballot measures to resolve disputes. But around the country, agencies from the local to the national levels are rethinking their dispute resolution paradigm. This session will examine how public and community disputes present unique opportunities for ADR practitioners to apply their skills. The session gives participants a first-hand glimpse at the complicated work of multi-stakeholder collaborative processes aimed at building consensus on contentious issues. Through role plays and discussion, participants will experience and examine case studies that illustrate the value and effectiveness of ADR processes applied to public disputes.
Larry Schooler, City of Austin, Austin, TX
Suzanne Schwartz, The Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution, University of Texas School of Law, Ausitn, TX
Susan Schultz, Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX
Margaret Menicucci, Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX
Federal Agencies’ Early Conflict Management Initiatives: Applications of Conflict Coaching and Mapping
The federal Alternative Dispute Resolution community has developed and is continuing to develop robust early conflict management processes, such as conflict coaching and conflict mapping. This presentation is designed to highlight the steps agencies take to implement such programs, how specific conflict coaching models have been catered to individual agencies, and the success of such implementation. The four panelists are members of the Steering Committee of the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group (IADRWG), established by Presidential Memorandum of May 1, 1998, to assist federal agencies in developing and operating ADR programs.
Katie Manderson Agency for International Development, Washington, DC
Patrick Chapman Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
Sarah Stanton, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC
Cynthia Mazur, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
LoValerie Mullins, National Mediation Board, Washington, DC