Kathy Elton Consulting

Blog moved to my website

2009-09-05T11:05:00.002-06:00

Hi, My Blog has moved to my website. Please visit there:
Kathy Elton Consulting

Getting the "Whole" story

2009-06-01T11:00:00.007-06:00

I find it interesting how a night at the Utah Symphony often teaches me something about the work I do in mediation. It happened again. On Saturday night I attended the much lauded final performance of Keith Lockhart as the Music Director for the Symphony. I bought the tickets at the first of the season with my regular season tickets and had not thought much about it since then. I have had a hectic month or so and so my connection to the newspaper, news, the world in general has been limited (this I like!) so I missed all of the stories about the performance scheduled for that night.

The perfomance was "Leonard Bernstein's Mass" and this meant nothing to me as we drove to the Symphony that night. When we arrived I took care of the personal essentials - a cookie and the restroom - and got to my seat about 10 minutes before the perfomance began. I looked at the program notes, but did not have my glasses and the print was too small, so I didn't read anything. As the program was beginning I leaned over to my partner, who had read some of the program notes, and asked what was this about. She responded "you should have read the program notes, I cannot explain it to you now."

I sat there for the next two hours, there was no intermission, totally bewildered by what I was seeing, hearing and feeling. You see, I love the Symphony and this night I did not. I won't bore with you all the details, I'll just say that at the end I could not understand why the Musical Director had picked this performance as his last and I was disappointed.

The next morning I was headed out on my daily walk with my dog and I was listening to podcasts. I came across one from the week before which was an interview with Keith Lockhart and others on the upcoming final performance. My first instinct was to hit delete... but I didn't and I am glad I didn't. Over the next 40 minutes I listened to an amazing explaination of what I had seen and experienced the night before. As I walked and listened I found a new appreciation for what I had witnessed and been a part of the evening before. All of a sudden something that was confusing and unpleasant became something moving and interesting.

So, how does this relate to mediation and conflict resolution? Many times when I am working with parties who are unable or unwilling to talk with one another, I find it frustrating that they each have compelling stories about their side of the issue, yet they are unwilling to sit in the same room and share them. I fear that as a mediator, when I carry those stories back and forth between the parties, that something important is lost. I am not able to carry the "Wholeness" of what the parties need to hear and experience with one another. They may leave my office feeling like I did when I walked out of Symphony Hall that night, confused and disappointed. I think one of the challenges for us as mediators is to find ways for the parties to have these experiences and see the other person in context, in their "whole" story and expereince.

There is one more part to this story. One other element the guests on the podcast talked about was the difference between listening to a performance on a recorded device versus being there in person. I also relate to this. I LOVE the Symphony, but I do not enjoy listening to classical music as a recording. There are some things that you have to experience, be in the middle of, to appreciate fully and for me classical music is like that. I love it when I am sitting in Symphony Hall and the music washes over and through me. I don't have that same reaction when it is on my home stereo or ipod.

There are things that people have to experience in context and in person for them to fully understand them. Often, conflict falls into this category. For conflict resolution to happen the parties have to understand the back story of the other and to listen to the experience of the other in person. They need to allow the story and experience of the other to "wash" over and through them. It is my experience that when this can happen in a mediation, transformation begins.

Mediation with Gay and Lesbian Couples; It Is Not Straight Forward -- Click for full article --

2009-02-28T13:14:00.009-07:00

This is an article recently published in ACResolution Magazine, Winter 2009 ACRnet.org

By Kathy Elton

A couple of years ago, my partner and I spent the weekend with a male friend who happens to be a mediator. His wife was unable to join us, so it was just the three of us. One night we stayed up late and somehow my partner and I ended up telling him the details of each of our past relationships.

The next morning our friend brought up the discus-sion and asked if we were OK. The question was unexpected because there was no reason, in our minds, not to be OK. He went on to share that the topic of our past relationships and the way in which we talked about those relationships in front of one another had made him uncomfortable. He said that if he or his wife were to discuss a past relationship in front of the other, it would create negative tension between them. He could not imagine that we did not react in a similar way.

That experience has stayed with me and when I came across research that outlined the similarities and differences between same-sex and cross-sex couples I was intrigued. In this article, I will review some of the research on same-sex couples in conflict and make suggestions for mediators based on my own experience that reinforces the research.

Limited research
When you think about same-sex relationships what comes to your mind? Some of the common myths about same-sex relationships are:
· Homosexuals are unhappy individuals who are unsuccessful in developing enduring

relationships;
· Gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to cross-sex relationships;
· Gay and lesbian relationships are less satisfying than cross- sex relationships, more prone to

discord, and people in gay and lesbian relationships are "less in love";
· Homosexuals arc socially isolated and lacking in social support.

The research on same-sex relationships is sparse, but those studies that have looked at these relationships have found that same-sex couples are comparable to cross-sex couples on measures of relationship satisfaction and quality. A 1987 study by L.A. Kurdek and J. P. Schmitt tided "Partner Homogamy in Married, Heterosexual Cohabiting, Gay, and Lesbian Couples" published in the Journal ofSew Research found that same-sex and cross-sex couples who are matched on age and other relevant characteristics do not usually differ in levels of love and satisfaction. Kurdek and Schmitt's studies on this topic are all based on self-report questionnaires. The bottom line is: Same-sex couples are not any more prone to relationship dissatisfaction and difficulties than are cross-sex couples.

So, how do same-sex and cross-sex relationships differ?

Some of the most recent research (2003) on same-sex relationships was conducted by Dr. John Gottman of the University of Washington and Dr. Robert Levenson of the University of California at Berkeley. In a 12 year study, they evaluated 42 same-sex couples (21 gay and 21 lesbian) all of whom were cohabitating and in a committed relationship of at least two years. These couples were compared to 42 cross-sex couples who had been married for at least two years and whose reports of satisfaction in the relationship were roughly equivalent to
the same-sex couples. In a 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times, reporter Kathleen Kelleher summarized the then unpublished results of the Gortman/Levenson study:
· 20 percent of same-sex couples had broken up at the end of the 12 years, compared to 38

percent of the heterosexual couples.
· Same-sex couples use fewer controlling, hostile emotional tactics during arguments.

According to Gottman, generally, power-sharing and fairness are more prevalent among

same- sex couples than among cross-sex couples.
· In a fight, same-sex couples take negative statements less personally than do cross-sex

couples. "A gay or lesbian person can say something negative in a fight and a partner is much

less likely to be defensive than those in a cross-sex partnership," Gottman said.
· Unhappy same-sex couples are better able to cairn down while in a fight than cross-sex

couples. For some reason, cross-sex couples become more physically agitated during a fight

than same-sex couples. The upshot, Gottman said, "is same-sex couples appear better able to

soothe each other during conflicts or in the aftermath of a fight."
· In a fight, lesbians show more anger, humor, excitement and interest than conflicting gay men.

Gottman speculates that this may be the result of two women in a relationship who have been

raised in a society where emoting is more acceptable for women than men.
· Gay men need to be especially careful to avoid negativity in conflict. If the initiator of conflict in

a gay relationship becomes too negative, his partner may not able to de-escalate the conflict as

well as lesbian or cross-sex couples.

Given the research, mediators working with same-sex couples should consider the following:

Understand your own comfort level with high emotion
I believe that all mediators should be aware of their own comfort level in regard to conflict so they do not intervene because of their own discomfort. We, as mediators, should only intervene when the conversation becomes unproductive.

When working with lesbians, mediators may experience a higher level of emotion than they experience when working with gay men or cross-sex couples. My partner and I tend to express our emotions with each other in front of our family members on a regular basis. At times when we are having a disagreement with one another and I feel like we are just getting into a good discussion, a family member (often my father or my partner's mother) will say something that is meant to calm us. During those moments, we do nor need to be calmed down and, in fact, we are both feeling very engaged and connected to one another. However, the level of emotion we are willing to express makes others uncomfortable. Is the discomfort others experience just a generic response to any emotionally laden situation? It could be, but I think it has to do with both of us being women. I also think it can be related to Gottman's speculation that it is more accepted in society for women to emote. With a lesbian couple you get double the emotion. In the family context I do not mind being "shut down" because of someone's discomfort with the level of emotion, but if I were a participant in a mediation talking about something important and a mediator intervened, it would frustrate me. Mediators need to be aware of the possibility of this higher level of emotion and should be prepared to allow the lesbian couple to engage in a way that is comfortable to them. Mediators need to be careful not to intervene because of their own discomfort when working with lesbian couples; the last thing you want to do is to shut them down, because that may increase their level of stress and frustration and derail the mediation process.

Conversely, when working with gay men, a mediator needs to be sensitive to the level of negativity exchanged between the parties. If the level of negativity becomes too high, the relationship can be further damaged. 1 still advocate for keeping my gay clients in the same room and using caucus sparingly. In instances where I would likely not intervene
with cross-sex or lesbian couples, I may intervene with gay couples, just to make sure the relationship is not negatively impacted while the couple is in the mediation process. In instances when I do intervene, I usually reveal my rationale to the parties so they do not assume I am being too controlling of the process. Once they understand the reason for the intervention, they often self-regulate or, at least, understand why I am breaking in.

The use of caucus
The use of caucusing should be limited when working with gay and lesbian couples. If you are a mediator who uses caucuses as a regular part of your mediation process, you may want to re-think this approach when working with same-sex couples. The Gottman/Levenson research basically concluded that gays and lesbians display less belligerency, domination and fear with each other than cross-sex couples. The research also found that gays and lesbians who exhibit more tension during disagreements are actually more satisfied with their relationships than those who remain unruffled. When working with cross-sex couples, we as mediators know that the higher the level of tension, the more trouble the relationship is in, so we may instinctively separate the parties. This can be counterproductive when working with a same-sex couple, unless the caucus is held to lessen the damage between two men.

Respect the parties and the relationship
Finally, and most importantly, as a mediator you must respect the parties and the quality of their relationship. I recommend that mediators who believe in the old myths about gay and lesbian relationships decline such cases, instead referring the cases to a mediator who understands and uses the unique techniques associated with mediating gay and lesbian relationships. In
any type of conflict, gay and lesbian clients need and deserve the same support and respect from the mediator that would automatically be afforded a cross-sex couple.

Kathy Elton has more than 12 years experience as a mediator in many different dispute areas. She is the owner of Kathy Elton Consulting in Murray Utah and offers mediation, conflict coaching and training.

Prop 8

2008-11-13T17:51:00.003-07:00

If you have not seen the 7 minute response to the passage of Prop 8 by Keith Olbermann watch it here.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVHXsl-n2E

Making a Difference in Harlem

2008-10-06T23:04:00.001-06:00

How can we make a difference in the lives of children who live in poverty? I recently learned of a man named Geoffrey Canada who founded a program in Harlem called “The Harlem Children’s Zone.” Geoffrey had his second child in his mid forties and became aware of all of the research on stimulating a child’s brain. He was working in Harlem with families in poverty and he sent his staff out to see if low income parents knew about this research, they did not.

Geoffrey set out to change the culture of Harlem, so that teenage pregnancy and going to prison were not the norm. He founded The Harlem Children’s Zone which offers a holistic system of education, social-service and community-building programs to children and families in 97 intercity blocks of Harlem, 10,000 kids in all.

The programs at the Children’s Zone are based on research that shows that the most effective time to intervene in the life of a low income child is the ages of 0-3, when only the parents can be the one to make a difference. The research highlights the benefits of parents singing songs, playing games and talking with their young children. The more parents interact with their children with language, the more the child grasps language skills.

In a 1980’s study completed in Kansas City two sets of families were studied side by side. One set of families was on welfare and the other set of families had parents who were professionals. The study found that the biggest difference between the two families was language, the number of words the children heard during the first three years of life. Children whose parents were professionals heard 20 million more words during the first three years of life than those whose parents were on welfare. The words were mostly just the regular jibber jabber of a parent talking with their child. But those words had a profound effect of the child’s verbal ability. This study found that the number one determiner of later success in school was not family income, race or a parent’s educational level, it was the sheer number of words the parents spoke to their children.

In the early 1990’s economist James Heckman from the University of Chicago completed research on programs that are typically offered to disadvantaged youth. The study found that programs like job training , GED programs and programs for dropouts were all found as not helpful. These programs are all based on the belief that young people who can’t find a job and are struggling often lack a skill and if we can help them learn that missing skill, they will be ok. Heckman found that youth in these programs were missing basic skills and abilities such as the ability to communicate, ability to solve simple mathematical puzzles, read the newspaper, self-control, motivation, get out of bed, engage and be open to ideas. This led him to ask “How are these skills formed?”
Heckman found that if these basic skills are not formed by the time a child reaches kindergarten, it becomes harder and harder. If a child has not learned to read by age 8-10 it was very hard for them to learn and if by early adolescent you have not learned the non-cognitive skills (motivation, self-control, engagement) it was harder to learn those as well.
The good news was the reverse is also true.
If you can get to a poor child early on… even small interventions can have huge effects.
Another study was conducted on a group of disadvantaged African American children.
In one group in this study the children attended a basic pre-school program 2 ½ hours a day for five days a week for two years. The other group did not attend this type of program. Upon following up on these children the researchers found that those who attended the pre-school program showed a positive difference in crime rates, integration into the larger society. home ownership and salary rates.

One final study focused on the kind of language used in homes where parents are on welfare versus professional parents. This study counted the number of encouraging words versus discouraging words used when speaking to the children. The study found that children with professional parents heard 500,000 words of encouragement and only 80,000 words of discouragement by the age of three. On the other hand, children whose parents were on welfare heard 200,000 words of discouragements and only 80,000 words of encouragement by the age of 3.

Physical and verbal punishment have a huge effect on child development. Geoffrey Canada shared that “One of the things that frustrated him and others working in communities with low income and disadvantaged kids is parents telling kids “Get over here” “sit down” “shut up” “Don’t you make me come over there and get you” “you just listen”. And that is a two year old they are talking to, who talks to a two year old like that? Lot’s of people who really believe that the parent’s job is to make their child listen and become passive, so the child does what ever the parent wants. In this scenario, the child has no opinion to express, doesn’t leave the parents side, and doesn’t touch anything without the parents permission. Many parents believe that a child that looks like this is a “good” child. So you see all of this energy being put into shutting a child down, into making them stop. This is done without realizing how a child’s brain develops , a child’s brain develops by exploring their world. Our job as parents is to help our children explore the world”.
It is counter-intuitive for many parents to believe that a good kid is not a quiet kid.

We have been trying to improve the lives of children by focusing on their parents… now the children themselves are being focused on. Break the cycle of poverty at the childhood level. It is hard to “give up” on those who are in their late teens or early 20’s…. but if we can teach them to be good parents, their children can make it out of poverty. It all starts by reading to you children, every night.
So far this is working. Last year, the first youth who have been involved in the program entered 3rd grade and took the NY State achievement tests. The results were astonishing, the children are all poor, African American and most from single parent homes, some with parents who were teenage mothers, high school dropouts or had trouble with the law. All of the children have reading scores above the NYC average, their math scores were phenomenal, more than 95% of them on grade level.

The information on what children need to develop in the most positive way is nothing new to families in middle class America, but it is different for the families in Harlem who know nothing about the “latest research.”
The big question is why does it have to be this way?
Why can’t we do this for all children?

For more information on “The Harlem Children’s Zone visit their website: http://www.hcz.org/home

Breaking the Sound Barrier

2008-09-30T11:38:00.004-06:00

Chuck Yeager was the first person to break the sound barrier. When he landed from the flight the media ran to him and asked what he had to say. His first comment was “just before you break through the sound barrier, the cockpit shakes the most.”

When I heard this story about Chuck Yeager I couldn’t help but think about working with people in conflict. Because the “cockpit” usually has to shake before the parties are able to break through the conflict.

What would have happened if Chuck would have backed off when the cockpit was shaking? If he had backed off, he would not have broken the sound barrier and nothing would have changed. Because he pushed through the shaking and the fear of the unknown, he became a legend.

When serving as a mediator, are we doing our job if we back off when the going gets tough? Or is it our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side? If we don’t help them go somewhere new then what good are we?

I believe it is our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side, helping them to break their own sound barrier. We can only do this if we are able to tolerate the shaking ourselves…. If we stop the process because of the shaking, we are getting in the way of the parties moving forward.

How do you get through the shaking? Share with others by leaving a comment on this blog…

Fighting in Front of Your Kids

2008-06-08T07:59:00.003-06:00

Jun 5, 2008 10:44
Psychologically Speaking: Fighting in front of the kids
By DR. BATYA L. LUDMAN

Dear Dr. Batya,
As hard as we try not to, it seems inevitable that we end up fighting in front of our kids. They get upset and at times even try and intervene. Do you think our quarrelling has negative consequences for the kids or do they see us as just having different opinions and an open yet heated discussion?
- L.L.

Children have the potential to learn a tremendous amount by watching how two adults disagree and handle conflict, an inevitability in even every good marriage. How well they will do and whether they will be adversely impacted depends in part on how you resolve your arguments, the tone these arguments take, how well you get along when you are not fighting and your child's age and stage of development. It will also depend on what the issues are, how often you fight and even when you fight.
The fact that you wonder if the children will be affected might suggest that something about the way the two of you disagree has you concerned. Ask yourself how your child acts during and after a fight. For example, does he take on the role of mediator and try and persuade you to resolve things? Does he raise his voice, run away, appear anxious or upset or not talk to or listen to one of you afterward? Does he imitate you? Is he overly dependent on his siblings in a way that suggests a lack of trust in his parents?
One thing we know for sure is that children are far more aware of fighting than parents think, so be aware of what information they get from an argument. They don't miss a thing! It is natural and normal for couples to fight as no two people agree on everything. It can even be a healthy and constructive way to resolve tension if done appropriately. Children can learn much as observers and need not feel threatened or insecure, assuming they see that you respect and love each other, you quarrel, resolve your issues and then become warm and affectionate once again to each other.
Fighting in itself doesn't destroy either a marriage or the children's psyches. It is how you fight that determines how your child will ultimately do. What gets said and how is it said? Are you calm, considerate, open, honest and mature or do you interrupt, bring up issues that are not relevant to the argument or verbally abuse each other? Do you include your children in your fight, forcing them to take sides or blaming them for your issues?
While you can, and maybe even should, fight in front of your children, your goal is to work through and resolve issues by being both a good role model and teaching healthy conflict resolution skills. If you argue frequently, but never seem to resolve an issue, children will see that discussion does little to solve problems. When children experience constant conflict and either don't see issues being resolved or don't see the fight end with parents making up, the take-away message is that fighting is bad. They may see you as competitive, mean, scary and indecisive, and they themselves may feel insecure, stressed or assume their behavior is the cause of your conflict.
As it is, children may draw the wrong conclusions and sometimes completely misunderstand what you're arguing about, or assume by your tone that you're arguing when in fact you aren't. Children need lots of reassurance that all is okay.
While many issues can, and should, be brought up in front of the kids, you should always be aware of the impact they might have. You know your own child and his needs best. Many disagreements or differences of parenting styles, for example, can be easily addressed in front of the children and input from the children even discussed. However, if two parents disagree such that one parent is more permissive than the other and brings this up in front of the child, the child will soon learn to manipulate his parents and ask the more lenient one for what he wants. Private or confidential issues around intimacy, sex, work, money or other people should also not be aired in front of your children.
If you think that fighting can never take place in front of your child, be aware that by protecting your child from anger or conflict, you may inadvertently deprive him of an opportunity to perfect interpersonal skills that he'll need later in life. I have seen many an adult in my office who, having been shielded from all parental conflict as a child, has difficulty in his current relationships because he avoids conflict at all costs. Wouldn't it have been better for him to have learned that parents who love each other can acknowledge their differences and frustrations yet be tolerant, accepting and ultimately forgiving, and move on?
In an atmosphere of love within the family, there will be room for disagreements and differences of opinion because people can tolerate this and express themselves constructively and in a healthy way. Stay tuned until next time when I'll address just how to argue and how to resolve quarrels and provide some rules for fighting fairly.
The writer is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Ra'anana. ludman@netvision.net.il

I Agree, We Disagree

2008-06-07T21:34:00.003-06:00

I Agree, We Disagree: Conflict is a social problem, resolution takes behavioral skills
Diana deRegnier
April 23, 2008

Radical Collaboration coaches Jim Tamm and Ron Luyet have taught conflict resolution skills to individuals, employees, corporate teams and the military. Their clients include the State of California; Hewlitt Foundation; Catholic Healthcare West; Boeing; U.S. & Canadian Departments of Defense; International Management Program in Stockholm; NASA; Pfizer; Sony Ericson; Swedish Work Environment Authority; and United Nations Office of Oversight Services. Jim and Ron encourage us not to fear conflict. "If your relationship doesn't bump up against conflict every once in a while, you're either in complete denial or overly-medicated." There is an oft told tale in the Marin County community about two brothers who owned the Horizons Restaurant in the quaint, touristy San Francisco bay city of Sausalito. As years passed, brotherly love turned contentious. I've forgotten the focus of their disagreement, but the object of dissension is often a token of misplaced dissent. For instance, couples argue most about money, when the real problem is how they feel in the relationship -- but I digress. One stormy night, customers fled early into wicked wind and pouring rain. Okay, maybe there was only a storm in their hearts but it made candles flicker ominously and waves crash against Horizon's sea wall. The brothers argued. Finally, brother one stomped out into the wretched night and returned with a chainsaw. As brother two looked on in horror, brother one cut into an exquisite burl wood table, screaming, "All right, here's your half of the restaurant, do with it what you want." Now, I know that the restaurant was built in 1898 by the San Francisco Yacht Club and the building was purchased by a local family in 1959. It now houses two acclaimed restaurants, Ondine upstairs and Horizons downstairs. Perhaps the brothers resolved their dispute by splitting the building and each follows his dream with his own enterprise – perhaps. Whether talking about a relationship with a sibling, spouse, friend, peer or colleague(s), we will eventually disagree. The friction may be minor, dismissed easily or resolved over dinner. Along the other end of the continuum, dissent may lead to severe encounters that leave both parties with ill-feelings which re-surface again and again in miscommunication, sarcasm or even threats. Our behavior in conflict exemplifies our true principles. How we treat each other and how we take care of ourselves in disagreements are ethical and moral issues. Will we take the high road and treat our antagonist with respect, compassion and empathy? Or, will we descend into malice, vindictiveness or even hatred? Will we, or the other party, resort to what Harvard Medical School calls Intermittent Explosive Disorder with recurrent episodes of angry and potentially violent outbursts? Or, will we demonstrat calm, rational-thinking and forgiveness? Hopefully, in the end we will resolve disputes with an outcome that respectfully satisfies the needs of each individual. Jim and Ron are confident that this is possible even in the most provocative situations. Their approach of Radical Collaboration has proved significant. One follow up research study tracked participants from nine countries over a six year period. Monterrey Tech University in Cuernavaca, Mexico determined the following gains in effectiveness in conflict environments:49.5 percent increase in reducing participants' own defensiveness 44.8 percent increase in getting their interests met31.5 percent increase in successful problem-solving26.4 percent increase in building and maintaining long term climates of trustRadical Collaboration teaches skills quickly and easily. The State of California Public Employment Relations Board, where Jim Tamm was a senior administrative law judge and San Francisco regional director, showed almost one hundred organizations reduced their conflict by 67 percent. The ten most troubled organizations at the start of the project reduced their conflict by 85 percent over 3 years. Participants also reported significant gains in their ability to build and maintain climates of trust.Jim and Ron's book "Radical Collaboration: Five Essential Skills to Overcome Defensiveness and Build Successful Relationships" provides a practical approach to traversing challenging, distrustful confrontations to problem-solving that meets the interests of all parties with awareness, insight, forgiveness and respect. They advise us to explore our feelings wherein our defensiveness lies. "Do not avoid or deny fears, but rather move toward them, bringing them fully into your consciousness and acknowledging them. While this is counterintuitive, it is the most effective way known to cope with fears and to reduce defensiveness." Jim and Ron explain further: "When people feel insignificant, incompetent, or unlikable, they may act in ways to avoid those uncomfortable feelings." Some defense mechanisms we may witness in ourselves or others: sleepiness; intellectualizing issues; overeating (bring on the chocolate); flooding others with information; talking too fast; trivializing issues with humor (see above); abuse of alcohol or drugs. In addition, defensiveness may drop our IQ 20 points.Jim Tamm:"Remaining non-defensive is the single, most important thing you can do to turn conflict into collaboration," When we feel safe, secure and trusting we are likely to enter into and stay in the "Green Zone." Creativity flourishes and people, unfettered by fear and mistrust, are energized and inspired to contribute their best work. This is where relationships are built. In the Green Zone, people:
Seek to understandValue DifferencesConnect with othersStrive for mutual successLook for solutionsAre self-accountable Ron Luyet:In contrast, in the Red Zone, trust and collaboration are destroyed. When we perceive a threat to our well-being we respond in what we believe is self-protection. The Red Zone is not a place that fosters collaboration, innovation or creative problem-solving. In the Red Zone, people: Feel threatenedUse shame and humiliationTry to defeat othersSeek to win for self onlyNeed to be rightLook for blame. Both zones require exploring skillfully and deeply to learn more about underlying unresolved feelings. Though it sometimes takes "emotional dentistry" to pull us out of denial, only then can we take action to reduce inhibitors. Creating an atmosphere that diminishes others' overreactions as well as our own helps build collaboration. Jim and Ron have determined that solutions require Five Essential Skills:Collaborative Intention: which requires staying in the Green Zone and unhooking from buttons that trigger defensivenessTruthfulness: the grand simplifier, paired with listening – the most often taught, yet unused skillSelf-Accountability: which requires taking responsibility for choices we makeSelf-Awareness and Awareness of Others: understanding our behavior in relationships and gaining empathy for our opponent. Rigidity is the enemy; breaking free of past survival mechanisms, one feeling at a time is key.Problem-Solving and Negotiating: resulting in strategies for collaborative successJim and Ron have integrated the use of a relationship profile into their program: the heavily researched Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory. FIRO was created by Dr. Will Schutz for the U.S. Navy. Questions relate to our desires about interactions with others in contrast to one's actual behavior in relationships. They inspire us to explore how we feel about including others in our lives; to what extent we include others; how we are included by others; our desires and feelings about influence and control compared to feeling influenced or controlled by others; our openness; feelings of competence and significance; and our comfort levels with closeness and social interaction. Answers are meant to provide just a snapshot in time and circumstance. Scores provide clues to preferences versus rigidity of feelings and behavior. They show neither good nor bad. Community needs generals and privates, leaders and followers – we cannot all be in charge, first, or greatest in every realm. The way I see it, musicians and artists need an audience of appreciators. Comments from admirers of the book and the optional workshop in which Ron or Jim teaches Radical Collaboration are plentiful and telling. For example:"How do organizations mired in contentious and destructive debate come around to productive relationships? It requires Radical Collaboration," says Soledad O'Brien, CNN American Morning. William Hobgood, former Assistant Secretary of Labor comments, "Effective relationships aren't created by magic, they take skill and effort… The ideas and tools [of Radical Collaboration] can make a powerful difference in any relationship." Michael Rossiter, Vice President of Chubb, PLC, says, "Tamm and Luyet are experienced guides and have provided us with the tools and roadmap to skillfully navigate our interior landscapes and create successful collaborative outcomes." In summary, Jim and Ron caution Radical Collaboration provides tools, but it is ultimately our job to change our lives. We are the CEO of our own redevelopment project. Jim and Ron advocate 15 actions to take today to improve your ability to be in successful relationships: Tell the truthRealize that you chooseSeek deeper self awarenessRespond emotionallyGive up blame and postpone judgmentSeek not to consciously hurt othersTake time to envision yourself as you want to beConsciously change your limiting beliefsAssert yourselfBe as sincere and as vulnerable as possibleBe in touch with your body and its wisdom Seek a higher meaning or purpose in your lifeTreat your personal growth with respect, excitement, and patienceGive to giveLaugh a little: Some things are much too important to be taken seriously. Their last recommendation: Bring to mind the person with whom you have conflict. As you visualize him or her, coordinate the following with the inhale and exhale of your breath. "May you be free from suffering. May you be at peace." I would add the additional recommendation that you repeat the blessings, replacing "you" with "I." "May I be free from suffering. May I be at peace." Namaste!Diana deRegnier writes freelance and the syndicated SpiritLinks column for United Press International (UPI) ReligionandSpirituality.com and AmericanChronicle.com from the San Francisco Bay Area. Her articles can be found online and in print publications around the world including Australia, Sweden, Italy, Spain and India. Diana is managing editor for the nonprofit program http://www.SpiritLinksNewsletter.org for spiritual explorers of any or no religious affiliation. © copyright 2008 by Diana deRegnier
I am a freelance writer on lifestyle topics relevant to finding our way in this complex society. My subjects range from "Confessions of a Chocoholic" to "Mike Farrell: Raw, tenacious, principled" to "Ben Stein Roused by Suppression in Science" and many points outside and in between.My articles also appear on UPI ReligionandSpirituality.com, SpiritLinksNewsletter.org, Topix.com and numerous sites around the globe. My writings are sometimes serious, curious, humorous, compassionate and, if I do my job right, always thought-provoking. Rather than lecture or proselytize, I write in first-person-wisdom and let you decide how my thinking fits for you. Thanks for joining me in my journey.

Feelings.... Nothing more that feelings......

2008-05-09T16:11:00.003-06:00

I found this post on a blog. I found it interesting and applicable to mediation.... As mediators we should always take a moment prior to a session and identify our emotions so that we can control our own reactions and biases.
Enjoy......
How are you feeling today?April 21, 2008 — Gregory Kyles
Most people do not stop to reflect upon the meaning of that question, yet typically their answer is “OK.” During the hurry of the day, it may be a bit much to consider how one might be “feeling.”
It is the very act of pausing and considering one’s feelings that are significant to anger control. Most people understand the concept of emotional intelligence - all those skills that assist people to manage their relationships successfully and are vital to conflict resolution, anger control, and positive outcome. It would be to our benefit to reflect upon the relationships we have and the feelings that arise and consider if we know how to create a win-win situation when conflict arises. Often, we are not taught the skills of emotional intelligence or conflict resolution; instead, we react and do not know how to respond.
Remember the last time you had a physical? The doctor may have stuck your knee with a small hammer, your knee reacted automatically, and your leg kicked out. This is similar to when we react in anger. At this point, our reaction is “programmed” to yell, sulk, stuff, berate, criticize, and on and on. When we embark on changing the course in our relationships with ourselves and others, we make a conscious choice to make internal changes for the better. We know our triggers, reactions, and behavior. We take accountability for our actions in anger and conflict.
Knowing how you “feel” becomes the guidance system that helps you navigate your triggers. Make the conscious choice to take charge of your feelings and your actions by resolving your conflict.
By Sonia Brill, LCSW, CAMF http://www.soniabrillconsulting.com/

Conflict Coaching

2008-04-14T19:41:00.004-06:00

Conflict Coaching is a new skill I have been learning and practicing over the past six months. Many ask me "what is it" and I have had a hard time responding.... so here is another try at describing what Conflict Coaching is and what it is not.

The best overall definition of Conflict Coaching I have found is
"Conflict Coaching is a structured process that helps people to develop and enhance their skills, knowledge and competencies to effectively engage in and manage interpersonal conflict."

Conflict Coaching is a structured process in which the Coach helps the Coachee reach their own goals.
Conflict Coaching is based on the value of self-determination and is a process in which the Coachee is guided to find their own solutions.
Conflict Coaching is focused on the future.
The Coach provides the Coachee support, accountability and leads them through a methodical process that is task and action orientated.

Conflict Coaching is NOT Mentoring, Therapy or Consultation.

In a Mentoring relationship, the Mentor gives the Mentee advice and helps them to decide the steps they need to take to move to the next level of their development.
In Therapy, the Therapist assists the Client to gain understanding and awareness of the sources of their concerns and/or problems. Therapy also tends to be focused on the past.
Consultation is a process in which the Consultant is giving the Client advice in regard to what they need to do and how they should do it.

Coaching is an excellent process for those who are struggling with a current conflict situation or want to examine the way in which they deal with conflict as a whole. The process typically takes between four and seven hours and is completed in one hour sessions. The Coaching can be done in person or over the phone and one to two sessions are scheduled each week.

For more information on Conflict Coaching visit http://www.kathyelton.com/

Be Different

2008-04-02T21:37:00.004-06:00

There are many professions in the justice system that tell people what to do with their lives.... Judges, attorneys, court commissioners, arbitrators and early neutral evaluators to name a few. The legal system also tends to tell people what they can and can't do and how they can and can't do it.... There are certain forms, timelines, formats and protocols they must follow to appropriately file something with the court.

As mediators, we have the opportunity to be different. We have the opportunity to be client-centered and support their self-determination. My experience in serving as a mediator is that parties often don't know what to do when you won't tell them what they should do, give your opinion about their situation or tell them what you would do in their situation..... Yes, they will ask.... but does this mean we should answer? I say "NO." We should reframe the moment when they ask as a moment to push them... to challenge them... to help them to think about their situation differently... OR we can be like the rest of the system and we can tell them what to do or what we think about their situation. In sharing our thoughts and opinions about their case, we take the control away from the parties once again and become like all the others in the legal system where the focus too often is about resolving the case, not allowing the parties to resolve the issues.

I hope we, as mediators, can continue to offer a different process to parties who come to us for mediation. I hope we can sharpen our skills as mediators so that when parties are at an impasse and they look to us for help... our help comes in a form that builds the parties ability to consider ways to resolve their own dispute and we don't give into temptation and take the easy way out..... telling them what to do.

Ellen Speaks Out

2008-03-15T08:55:00.001-06:00

This video speaks for itself....

http://www.tmz.com/2008/02/28/ellen-torn-up-over-gay-murder/

Quantum Questions

2008-03-13T21:12:00.005-06:00

In a podcast in which Kathlyn Hendricks, Ph.D. & Gay Hendricks, Ph.D. are interviewed about relationships they share Five Quantum Questions. I think these questions can be useful in a mediation session so I wanted to share them.... They are:

1. Am I willing to resolve this?

2. How is this conflict/feeling familiar?

3. What can I say about this situation that is unarguable right now?

4. What do I really want? Specifically....

5. What is the simplest step you can take to move toward what you want?

I think these questions can be used by us when we are acting as mediators as well as we can ask the questions of ourselves when we are struggling with an issue....

For more information on the Hendricks and their work visit their website: http://www.hendricks.com/

The Cost of Divorce

2008-03-01T17:53:00.002-07:00

Family Law
Kinder, Gentler Collaborative Divorce Also Costs Less
Posted Dec 18, 2007, 02:48 pm CST By Martha Neil
A kinder, gentler method of getting divorced has won fans among both clients and counsel. But it has yet to win over some traditionalists, who wonder, for instance, why collaborative divorce must include a promise not to litigate. (Those who violate the ban on courtroom battle have to start over again with new counsel.)
“I have no issue … with two lawyers sitting down with two clients to work out a deal, but why it’s necessary to wrap all these conditions around it is beyond me,” David S. Goldberg, a Gaithersburg, Md., family law mediator tells the Daily Record, a Maryland legal and business publication.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of soon-to-be-former spouses and their lawyers are embracing collaborative divorce, as well as do-it-yourself divorce and mediation, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary animosity, reports the Associated Press.
"Most clients in a dispute are looking for an honorable peace, not war," writes David Hoffman, a Boston lawyer, in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece about collaborative law practice. "Collaborative lawyers can be just as zealous about seeking such a peace as litigators are about victory in the courtroom."
A recent American Bar Association ethics opinion (PDF) provides important support for collaborative divorce, by finding collaborative law agreements consistent with lawyers' obligations to serve their client's best interest, notes Hoffman, who chairs the Collaborative Law Committee of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. (What Hoffman describes as a "maverick" Colorado Bar Association ethics opinion earlier this year reaches a different conclusion than the ABA and several other state bar associations, however.)
Cost may also be a motivating factor in the quest for a peaceful resolution of a problem marriage: The Boston Law Collaborative, where Hoffman works, recently analyzed 199 of its divorce cases. It found that mediation had a median cost of $6,600, followed by $19,723 for collaborative divorce, $26,830 for a divorce settlement negotiated by counsel, and $77,746 for a litigated divorce.

Manipulation? Mediation?

2008-02-29T19:09:00.001-07:00

Do Mediators Use Manipulation?

In the mediation community there has been a long standing debate regarding the manipulative nature of mediation. In the past week while conducting a Basic Mediation Training I found myself thinking a few times…. “Wow, am I telling these people to be manipulative?”

How does the possibility of manipulation enter into the mediation process? I believe there is a possibility of it in many areas……
Questions that are asked or not asked. As a mediator we make decisions throughout the mediation process regarding the questions we may ask, how we ask them, who we ask them too and something I think we don’t think of often enough…. The questions we decide not to ask.

The Tone we use in the mediation session. So much of communication is non-verbal and some of that is the tone of voice we use while interacting with the parties. Our tone of voice can set the “tone” of the mediation session. Different tones will set a different environment and we as the mediator are in control of that.

The use of Silence. Like the questions we ask or do not ask, the way we use silence, when we use silence and with whom we use silence can have an effect on the mediation session. The choice of the mediator to not use silence at a certain point in the mediation can also have an effect.

The use of Touch. This is a “touchy” subject. At times when I mediate I may reach across and touch a participant on the arm. This can be a gesture of support, a way to intervene and stop negative behavior, or can be used in a humorous moment.

Don’t get me wrong…. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if at times we employ the use of strategies that could be seen by others as manipulation. As with everything in mediation and in life, I think the key to this issue is being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it. There are some ways in which the techniques listed above can support and enhance the mediation process and the outcome for the parties.

For example, at times the use of questions can be used to Challenge the Thinking of the participants and/or encourage them to Think in a New Way. This is the goal of mediation in my mind. If we are not assisting the parties to explore new ideas or solutions or if we are not challenging their thinking on an issue or conflict, what are we doing? We have to have a strategy in order to help the parties move down the road to possible resolution.

In reality we do control some of the outcome in certain mediation sessions. We do it differently than other professions…... It is different because we do not overtly give advice or an opinion. Does this difference ensure self determination? If we are asking or not asking leading questions, how does this impact the outcome of a given session? How do mediators reconcile this as being better than active advice?

I think we reconcile it by remembering:
Open ended questions can give parties more latitude than direct advice.
Suggestive questions are less pressure than direct advice.
“What if” questions help parties to explore the possibilities.
And finally, no one ever has to agree to any terms of settlement…….

Leading the Blind

2008-02-24T12:21:00.005-07:00

I had a dream about my dog Maddie last night. Maddie died in March of 2006 and she taught me many things about mediation and working with people. Maddie was a mini-schnauzer and was raised with her litter mate sister Molly until Molly died on 9/11/2001.

Shortly after losing her sister, Maddie became ill and early in 2002 was diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes. She then developed cataracts and went blind (see that sweet blind stare in her eyes). In the end her going blind was harder on me than it was on her... she did not miss a beat. So what does this have to do with mediation....?

As Maddie was going blind I found a book about Living with a Blind Dog to help "me" cope. When you have a blind animal you often have the urge to help them..... and as in mediation, sometimes helping them is actually hindering them.

One of the best things I learned from the book was that you should NEVER pick up a blind dog and transport it to a new place and put it down.... you may see this as helping, like carrying your dog from the front yard into the house.... or from one room to another in the house. In reality it confuses the dog. Blind dogs have the ability to cognitively map their surroundings, so Maddie always knew where she was and what obstacles were ahead of her. By picking her up and moving her somewhere new and just putting her down.... it would confuse her. She would not know where she was or how she got there..... it would take her a minute to adjust and figure out what just happened. Instead of picking her up, it was best for her if I would stoop down and lead her to where we were headed, that way she learned for herself how to move through the world and when she ended up somewhere, she knew how she got there.

This is the same in mediation and one of the reasons I do not believe in giving suggestions or my opinion to the parties. The parties in a mediation need to know how they reach the resolution, if they come to one... and they need to know the obstacles if they are unable to reach resolution. As mediators we may feel the urge to be helpful and pick the parties up and drop them off at a resolution that we think makes sense. The problem.... when the resolution starts falling apart the parties are not sure how or why they came to it, so they are unable to problem solve keeping it together and they don't "own" it. So, next time you are tempted to pick up the parties and take them to the resolution room, remember my baby "Maddie".... and stoop down and encourage them to the path of resolution and let them find the way themselves.

The Language of Energy

2008-02-17T10:34:00.006-07:00

The Language of ENERGY

The white pooch is my boy "Frito"

Excerpts from Cesar’s Way by Cesar Millan

Thoughts for Mediators:

As a mediator, we have to take into account the language of Energy, our own energy and that of the participants in the mediation. There is no denying that in every mediation session, there is energy coming from every party. How you contain and move that energy as a mediator will have a great effect of the mediation session.
Things you should know about the "Language of Energy"
*There is a language that all animals speak, without even knowing it, including the human animal.
* All animals are born knowing this language instinctually. Even human beings are born fluent in this universal tongue, but we tend to forget it because we are trained from childhood to believe that words are the only way to communicate.
* The irony is, even though we don’t think we know the language anymore, we are actually speaking it all the time. Unknowingly, we are broadcasting in this tongue 24-7.
* Others can still understand us (humans and animals), they read us loud and clear, even when we’re unaware that we’re communicating.

When things become emotional in a mediation session, the energy is flowing. No one can hide the energy they are experienceing when they become emotional. As a mediator, you have to be aware of this energy, even when the parties are trying to hide it..... it is still in the room.
Energy and Emotion:
* Energy is a language of emotion.
* All the animals around you, including other humans, are reading your energy every moment of the day.
* You can say anything that pops into your mind, but your energy cannot and does not lie.

The goal as a mediator is to master the skill of having "Calm-Assertive Energy." This energy will give the participants the sense of security they need to speak freely and know thay you are going to keep the space safe. It is also an energy that is not overwhelming and will not shut participants down.
The Calm-Assertive Personality:

*This is the Energy a medaitor wants to portray.
*A calm-assertive leader is relaxed but always confident that he or she is in control.
*A calm-assertive personality is relaxed, even-tempered, but undeniably powerful, and always in charge.

Cesar shares some observations he has made over the years in regard to who animals will follow as a leader and who humans will follow.... My conclusion... our pets should be allowed to vote :~)
Power of the Pack:
* Animals won’t follow soft or weak energy.
* Animals won’t follow compassionate energy or a lovable leader.
* Animals will not follow overly excited energy.
* Animals will not follow an unstable leader, humans will.
* Animals will follow only a stable leader.

To learn more about Energy and Calm-Assertive Energy check out Cesars books.

http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20

Spotting a Lack of Safety

2008-02-09T22:02:00.001-07:00

How does a mediator create safety? The advice given to those in a "Cruical Conversation" by the authors of the book "Crucial Conversations" (check out the book at http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20?node=2&page=2) is to step out of the content of the conversation and take care of the conditions of the conversation, then move back to the content. Don’t stay stuck in what’s being said when things are not going well, step out of the conversation, fix what is wrong with the conditions of the conversation and then step back in. The belief is that conversations go downhill when one or both parties in the conversation are not feeling safe.

So how does a mediator create safety in a mediation session? First, you have to know how people may act when they are not feeling safe in a mediation session. That is one of the problems... People who are not feeling safe act out in negative ways like yelling, finger pointing, arguing, becoming defensive, or totally shutting down and going silent.

Sometimes a mediator may take these kinds of behaviors to mean that the party is not cooperative or not trying to resolve the issues in the mediation. But, before you make these assumptions, think to yourself.... is this about safety? Should the mediator intervene and enforce ground rules, challenge the behavior of the party? Or should the mediator think about ways to create safety, make sure the party is feeling heard, take the fear out of the room?

Next time you are in a situation when a party in the mediation appears to be uncooperative... step out of the content and before you intervene ask yourself... Is this about safety? or something else.....????

Utah Supreme Court Opinion on Mediation

2008-02-01T19:38:00.001-07:00

February 1, 2008
An interesting case out of the Utah Supreme Court today....

The case was a civil case which involved a man being injured and he filed suit against the company for negligence. The case went to mediation and in the mediation a settlement was discussed, the mediator prepared a Memo of Understanding (MOU).. but the man who was injured would not sign it because there was a term in the MOU he did not agree with. The opposing side did not believe an agreement had been reached and the injured man took them to court to try to enforce the oral agreement. The trail court judge ordered the parties in the mediation to disclose what had happened in the mediation and if an agreement had been made. The attorney who was representing the company refused to disclose this information. The trail court found that she had to disclose the information and she appealed this decision to the Supreme Court to decide if she had to disclose the content of the mediation.

The Utah Supreme Court: First, upheld the confidential nature of mediation and ruled that the attorney did not have to and could not be compelled to disclose information from the mediation session... which is great news for the mediation world.
They second ruled that an agreement made in mediation is not enforceable unless and until it is put in writing and all involve parties sign it. We have been struggling with this issue in Utah for years.... the binding nature of a mediated agreement and if it matters if the parties sign it or not... This opinion has now answered that question.

It was a good day for the mediation community in Utah in that the Supreme Court supported the confidential nature of the process and outlined when an agreement reached in mediation is binding.

In short they found "we expressly recognize the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the mediation process and hold that Utah law requires agreements reached in mediation to be reduced to a writing and signed by all the parties to the agreement in order for the agreement to be enforceable by a court."
The decision was written by the Chief Justice Christine Durham.

To read the complete opinion go to
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Reese2020108.pdf

Helping Someone Gain Insight

2008-01-26T19:23:00.001-07:00

I listen to many Pod Casts. I recently listened to one in which David Rock, the author of a new book called "Quiet Leadership" is interviewed. In the book he talks about how leaders should be taught how to help their staff think, instead of just tell them what to do. He talks about ways in which we can "help people think better, not tell them what to do". This style of leadership is connected to mediation in that as mediators our job is to help people improve their thinking, not do the thinking for them.

David Rock outlines six steps to help some one improve their thinking..... Here is a short note on each...

1. The goal should be to help the other person "think about thinking." To step back from
the details and drama of a situation and help the person think better.

2. Listen for Potential. When you are working with someone who is struggling..... help them
to focus on what they are doing well, the positive.

3. Speak with Intent...Simplify. Help the person to feel safe and comfortable. Think about
what you are saying and how you are saying it. Keep it short and simple, do or say in 15
minutes what it could take 60 minutes to do or say. Focus on what is Useful versus what is
Interesting.

4. Dance toward Insight. Do not tell the other person what to do and then try to convince
them it is the right thing.... guide them on a process to find their own answer.

5. Create New Thinking. This is a great step which is hard to outline. You begin with the
persons current reality and explore different ways in which the conversation could proceed.
The trick is to watch for the topic which sparks the persons energy to rise... that is your sign
to move in that direction.

6. Follow-up. This is another great piece in the interview. To make a change you have to
focus your attention on that thought and/or intention everyday. When you focus the brain,
you build new neural connections....

This is a great book not only for leaders but for mediators. David Rock is a Life Coach and believes that people want to make decisions and they want to have new insights to their concerns and problems. Most leaders, and I would say most of us as humans, are trained or learn to tell people what to do, we are not good at helping them have insights.

If you want to listen to the full interview, it is only about 30 minutes long, here is a link
http://results.podbean.com/2007/02/18/landed-fm-radio-interview-with-david-rock-ceo/

Let me know what you think.......

If you are interested in the book check it out at my Amazon store, the link is
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20

Building Confidence as a Mediator

2007-12-17T20:14:00.001-07:00

One of the things I have noticed as I have become more comfortable mediating is when and how comfortable I am in pushing the parties and not giving up to soon. When I first started mediating I was a little bit apprehensive to push or ask certain questions when the parties were convinced that this was not going to work and they were not going to come to a settlement. As I have become more comfortable as a mediator, I have also become more comfortable in pushing the parties a little bit more and asking questions I would not have asked when I first began as a mediator. What I am finding is these questions are what will move people to settle. They push the parties to think of different ideas.

I remember a mediation I conducted that has been in civil litigation for over 4 years. The parties had made offers back and forth and back and forth. In the mediation session I encouraged them to think outside the box. I encouraged them to think of a settlement possibility that they could not get in the court that would be useful for them. In the end a settlement was reached and the parties agreed that one party would a give credit of services and product that his company made to the other party in lieu of a cash settlement. The other party had two years to use this credit. Both of the parties jumped right on the idea, it was a perfect settlement and something they could of never come to in a court hearing. The court could only look at cash damages. It was one of those win/win situations.

As you grow as a mediator you have to be a little bit assertive and be willing to ask the questions that may seem like you are keeping things going to long. There is the balance of course, that you cannot keep parties hostage until they settle and you have to know the difference. But quitting too soon is something that new mediators really need to pay attention to and make sure you work just a little bit to move the parties to settlement.

Control

2007-12-05T22:06:00.001-07:00

Control of the Process
In basic mediation training we are all taught that we are in “control” of the process of the mediation… not the outcome. So, what does being in control of the process mean? Does it mean that you exert yourself at all costs? Do you set ground rules? Do you ever give over the “control” to maintain control?

I remember a case I mediated in which I had a very energetic party. It was a young Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the case and he was fairly new in this role. The case was complex and the level of conflict was high so this GAL has a lot of energy wrapped up in the case.
The case involved a young child who had been abused physically and the parties were trying to determine the custody and visitation arrangements between the mother and the father. The abuse had been perpetrated by mother’s ex-boyfriend who was now being charged with criminal child abuse. So, neither of the parents directly caused the abuse, but the state child protection workers wanted both of the parents to take some responsibility in the form of failure to care charges.

The GAL was very animated and involved in the discussions regarding the care of the child. In order for me to suppress his energy and involvement in the mediation would have taken a lot of interventions and in doing so, I would have had to shut down many things that were happening in the mediation. It also happens that when he came into the room, I asked him to sit at the end of the table; instead, he pulled in right in-between the parents and their attorneys. This put him in direct line with those having the conversations.

So, he was put in the middle due to the seating arrangement as well as in regard to his role as the GAL. So, what did I do? I went with the flow. The GAL had lots of energy around the issue, he was working and engaging appropriately with both parents, so, for a portion of the mediation I basically stayed out of his way and he worked out the issues of custody and visitation.

He worked it out between the parents like a mediator would. The GAL was doing a fine job of negotiating custody and visitation, moving back and forth between the parents. The mother and her attorney were in the mediation room and the father and his attorney were in a caucus room. The GAL was the one moving back and forth negotiating the plans, instead of the mediator. I would not always do this, in fact, I would rarely do it. The reason I allowed it in this case is that I believe that we as mediators need to be aware of what is working and not working in the room. And in this case, it was working.

As mediators, we have to be flexible, we have to work with what is going on in the room and not force people into the format or the structure that we believe is best for them. Instead, we need to work with them and help them to find the format/structure that will work best for them in addressing the issues they have come to work on in mediation.

The other issue in this case was that of seating arrangements. When ever you have someone in- between the parties in conflict, they are going to end up being very involved in that conversation. My preference would have been for the GAL to be opposite me at the other end of the table and the parents to be side by side with their attorneys and the State Child Protection workers and their attorney across the table. Then, I, as the mediator, am in the middle of the conversations and in this case the parents could have had conversations without someone in the middle. Seating is very important and you have to think about it. In this case I could have been more assertive when the GAL first sat down and asked him to move, but I did not. Once I made that decision I had to work with it and not disrupt the flow of what was happening in the process.

So, as with all other things in mediation…. Control is a relative and flexible concept. I guess that is why we all love the work so much.

The Balancing Act of Time

2007-11-07T19:41:00.001-07:00

Time .....
How much Time is really needed for a productive mediation session?

In today's world, time is in such short supply for all of us. When I present to groups or individuals and talk about mediation, one of the most common questions asked is "how much time will it take?" When I tell them it could take hours, they cringe at the thought.

I recently had a meeting with some school officials talking about truancy mediation. What we ask of the school officials is to block two hours out of their very busy day to engage in the mediation process. There is some resistance to the time and most want to know what we can do to make the process faster.

I explained to the school officicals that truancy mediation is about building relationships and building relationships takes time. Often when the student and parents come into truancy mediation they are feeling one down, they are in a powerless position. In order for them to become comfortable and to speak their truth, the first goal is to get them to feel comfortable. That takes time, time and consistency and you cannot do this in 5 minutes. You have to do this over a period of time and everyone is different, so there is no standard time.

There is also a balance to this..... in that you cannot take forever to complete a mediation. If things are not moving along, the mediator cannot continue to try everything possible hoping that parties will move in a direction that seems meaningful. Sometimes you have to be willing to let it go, end the session. In the truancy mediation program we train mediators to be aware and if the mediation is taking over two hours they should have a really good reason why it went that long. The mediator should be able to explain why the process is taking so long.

If you medaition sessions are lasting an extremly long time be willing to examine the reason your mediation sessions are taking so long....... if there is an understandable reason, OK. If you cannot identify the reason the mediation took so long, then you have some searching to do.... What is going on?

I believe that Time cannot be pushed, you cannot force through a mediation any quicker than the slowest party is grasping and moving along in the process. In addition to the parties understanding you must also take into consdieration the time that is needed to create positive relationships.

On the other side... are you losing parties by allowing the mediation session to go on for too long?
That ever present balance of TIME..........

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Emotional Intelligence & Social Intelligence

2007-10-31T20:23:00.001-06:00

Emotional Intelligence is the ability to bring intelligence to emotion. To view the human experience without bringing in emotion is short-sighted... Emotions are part of the human experience as much as thought. In his book Emotional Intelligence Daniel Goleman outlines Emotional Intelligence as:

Knowing Ones Emotions;
Managing Ones Emotions Appropriately;
Motivating Ones Self;
Recognizing and Understanding Other Peoples Emotions;
Managing Relationships -- Managing the Emotions of Others.

Mediators who work with high conflict parties need to examine their own level of Emotional Intelligence. To appropriately intervene with parties in high emotion, I believe we must first be able to accept our own emotions and manage them, not deny or suppress them. The role of a mediator is to hold the space for parties so they can work on and address difficult issues. If the mediator is unable to accept and manage their own emotions...how can they create a space for others to accept and manage strong emotions?

I encourage all mediators to take an emotional intelligence test available on-line. There are many out there if you google for them.... One quick and easy test can be found at

http://psychologytoday.psychtests.com/cgi-bin/tests/transfer.cgi?partner=pt&part=1&teaser=0&ref=free&ad=0&test=eiq_abridged&AMT=0.00&item=Emotional%20IQ%20Test%20-%20Abridged

The next frontier appears to be Social Intelligence.... Here is an article about Daniel Goleman's latest book.....

Daniel Goleman, the author of the best-selling book "Emotional Intelligence," is back with a new book on social intelligence -- the ability to read other people's cues and then act on them.
In "Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships," Goleman says that our brain is designed to make connections with other humans, and that our relationships have a real biological impact -- whether it's flirting with the opposite sex or succeeding at work.
Social intelligence means being smart in relationships by being empathetic, or being able to sense what others are feeling and their intentions.
Secondly, it means having the social skills to act on that information.
The people with the most social intelligence are those who are good listeners, Goleman says.
You can become a better listener by being motivated and mindful in social situations.
Instead of just saying what you think, stop and listen to the other person, and fine-tune your response to them.
Once you make the effort, and practice the skill, it comes naturally.
For full article see this link
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2496899&page=1

Check out Daniel Goleman's books:
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20

Now is the time

2006-08-06T09:22:00.000-06:00

So, I have been thinking about starting up my blog again and this seemed to be the article that I will start with..... I am not sure what to think about this???? Should we think this is good??? Should we feel sorry for these people who cannot live their life as they are??? It seems to me that they are giving up soooooo much and for what? It seems like a soul killer to me... and their kids???? what do they learn??? Here is the link..... http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4138478

Sir Elton John

2005-12-23T16:24:00.000-07:00

So, England gives me hopes and makes me wish I lived anywhere but Utah in the USA.... This week Sir Elton John and his partner tied the knot....check out the great headlines. You would think that Tony Blair could have a chat about this topic with George.....?

Sound of shifting ground
Cultural shifts can be hard to document. But sometimes they crystallize around an event. That seemed to be the case Wednesday as flamboyant rock star Elton John, 58, became one of the first people to take advantage of a new British law allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
John and longtime partner David Furnish, a 43-year-old Canadian, had their union made official at Windsor's Guildhall — where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles married in April. Any doubt about broad British acceptance of civil unions, which give the same legal rights as marriage does, was dispelled by London's tabloid press, which prides itself on having a finger on the nation's pulse.
With the headline "Elton's 'wedding' sealed with a kiss," the Daily Mail typified the warm coverage. Twenty years ago, such a celebration would have been unthinkable. Britain joins more than a dozen countries recognizing some form of civil union. Five, including Canada, have legalized gay marriage.
In the USA, the political debate over gay marriage — in which religious conservatives have pushed for a constitutional ban — has obscured a similar broad cultural shift.
A new Hollywood movie about two gay cowboys —Brokeback Mountain - might become a marker of that shift, if not as starkly as Sir Elton's civil union. Brokeback Mountain, based on an Annie Proulx novella, has already garnered high praise from critics and seven Golden Globe nominations. In its limited release so far, it has been a box office hit. Its breakthrough appeal is that it is a poignant love story, one in which the characters happen to be gay. A similar trend has been seen on TV for the past few years.
In polls, most Americans oppose gay marriage but are far more accepting of civil unions, sometimes with a slim majority. State laws are all over the map. Massachusetts allows gay marriage. A handful of states accept or are considering allowing civil partnerships; others have moved in the opposite direction.
Last year, running for re-election, and with a keen awareness of the broader public mood, President Bush parted ways with the Republican platform: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union," he said. Sir Elton would no doubt agree that such rights are part of what Philadelphia freedom is all about.
Tony Blair: Why we should all share in these celebrations
Much of the opposition to equal rights for gays was downright spiteful
Published: 21 December 2005
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.
Across the country this week, hundreds of couples will be celebrating a major milestone in their lives. They will be followed by thousands more in the coming months as same sex couples take the opportunity to gain legal recognition and protection for their relationship.
The Civil Partnership Act may not be the biggest change that this Government has brought in. But, by correcting an obvious injustice, removing fear and providing security, it will change the lives of tens of thousands of people for the better. It is also, importantly, another step towards the fairer, more tolerant country which this Labour Government pledged to build.
This landmark measure ends the situation where same-sex relationships were invisible in the eyes of the law, denied any recognition of their commitment. It gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies.
As you would expect from this New Labour Government, new rights and privileges are also matched by new responsibilities. Financial support will be expected to be provided for the couple's children, for example, in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.
Such a wide-ranging reform was long overdue. By 1997, society's attitudes to lesbian, gay and bisexual people had changed dramatically. There is, as we have seen already this week, still some opposition to these measures. But I don't believe these views reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people in our country.
Past hostility and suspicions have been replaced with tolerance and understanding. Our laws and political culture, however, had simply not kept pace with these changes. So when we came to power, Britain still had an unequal age of consent and it was lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.
It was something I was determined to help tackle. I was struck when I listened in the Commons to debates on the age of consent and other issues like this just how much of the opposition was based on prejudice which was very old-fashioned and, at times, downright spiteful. It seemed to me that a Labour Government committed to equality must take action.
In the last eight years, we have seen steady and, at times, remarkable progress. The age of consent for gay men has been equalised. Section 28, a law of which a great many Tory MPs were rightly ashamed but which they still put in place, has been repealed. Anti-gay discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed as it will soon be, we intend, in the provision of goods and services. From 1 January, gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt children jointly for the first time.
I am proud it was this Labour Government that has brought in these modernising and fair measures - and I can't imagine that any government will reverse them. I wouldn't pretend for a moment that MPs from other parties did not campaign for these changes. But I am convinced that we would not have come so far or so fast without the election of a Labour government determined to turn its words on an equal, opportunity society into action.
For the Civil Partnership Act helps highlight again this Government's determination to create a more modern, open, fairer and democratic country. It's a commitment which can be seen in a wide array of measures, not all of which Independent readers may welcome as much as this Act. So along with the Freedom of Information Act, improved rights for parents at work, devolution for Scotland and Wales, better public services, and the creation of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, we have also seen new powers - with more to come - to tackle the antisocial behaviour that still blights too many communities. All are part of our central mission to provide security and opportunity for all.
They are having an impact. Britain is, in many different ways, a more modern, fairer and better place to live than it was. One of the greatest delights about London's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics was that the decision by the IOC was based, in no small part, on their recognition of the dynamism, strength, tolerance and diversity of our society.
There is, of course, no room for complacency. There is still too much injustice, discrimination and unfairness. But in ceremonies up and down the country this week, we can also see that, as a society and country, we continue to move in the right direction. That's a good enough reason for us all to celebrate.

Inspiration

2005-12-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

I don't have anything meaningful on my mind lately.... But I have been reading the blog that gave me the inspiration to start this one and I decided I should share it with you... So check it out and get a good laugh. The blogger is a 20something American who has been living in Shangi and is on her way out.... In about 5 days...
Check it out and Enjoy.
http://nicoleandmsg.blogspot.com/

Maybe Arnold's Not SO BAD?

2005-12-05T12:20:00.000-07:00

So, Arnold is in political trouble...So he has appointed a new Chief of Staff....A Democratic Lesbian named Kennedy (no she is not related to "the Kennedy" family). Of course, the conservatives are having a fit...See the website at the bottom of this post...But it seems that Arnold made Maria happy!
All I can say is...Don't sell out Susan! Be true to your beliefs and values and do not let Arnold co-opt you...We will see???

By Adam Tanner Wed Nov 30, 7:24 PM ET
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California's Republican Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger' named a Democrat in a same-sex marriage as his chief of staff on Wednesday in an apparent political shift on the heels of a major electoral defeat.
Susan Kennedy, 45, was the confidant and number two to ousted Democratic Gov.
Gray Davis' whom Schwarzenegger beat in a bitter recall election in 2003. She married her lesbian partner in 1999.
"I love Susan, I think the world of her," Schwarzenegger told a news conference at the state capitol. "She is willing to take her Democratic philosophy aside and implement my vision."
Despite his celebrity as a former Hollywood star and champion bodybuilder, Schwarzenegger faces a challenge in convincing a state in which Democrats are the largest party to re-elect him in 2006.
Voters rejected him across the board when he sought support for ballot initiative measures opposed by Democrats earlier this month.
The appointment of a woman who once served as the California Democratic Party executive director and has led campaigns for abortion rights angered some Republicans.
"The appointment of Susan Kennedy as chief of staff to the governor is a betrayal of the hard-working activists that supported the governor during the recent special election," said Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly.
Another opponent immediately set up a Web site www.stopsusankennedy.com where visitors were urged to sign a petition seeking to rescind the appointment.
"BRILLIANT CHOICE"
Although reaching to the opposing political party for senior staff appointments is relatively rare in American politics, Schwarzenegger's top advisor is his wife, prominent Democrat Maria Shriver.
He also says his mother-in-law, Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- sister of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy -- frequently offers him political suggestions. Susan Kennedy is not related to the family.
Former Gov. Davis, under whom Kennedy served as cabinet secretary and deputy chief of staff, called Schwarzenegger's choice brilliant.
"Susan is a remarkable public servant -- she believes in governing from the center," Davis told Reuters. "She processes information more quickly than anyone that I have ever known."
Kennedy, who served most recently on the California Public Utilities Commission, described herself as a moderate Democrat willing to put aside party differences.
"I'm tired of the partisanship," she said. "I felt it was time for me as a Democrat to put up or shut up."
Schwarzenegger said that he had heard protests from about five percent of those he told the news, but said he would not change his political program.
"This is not about drifting anywhere," Schwarzenegger said. "It doesn't change my direction at all."

The stupid website set up to STOP her appointment
http://www.stopsusankennedy.com/

Life or Death

2005-12-05T07:41:00.000-07:00

Life or Death for Tookie Williams? What do you think? For those of you who are not up on this story, he is one of the men who started the "crips" gang in LA. He has been convicted of killing four people, but there were no eye witnesses to any of his crimes, only the testimony of other gang members who were also at the scene. Since being in prison, Tookie says he has changed...He has learned empathy and has remorse for his behavior. He has written books targeted to keep kids from joining gangs and has spoken, via phone, to many groups about gangs. SO, should he be put to death on 12/13/05?

I have worked with a group of about 12 men in a central Utah prison for the past 4-5 years. All of these men are incarcerated for murder, and many of them are in on a life sentence. I think the one thing I have learned from them is the idea of judging someone for one moment in time in their life. I don't know a lot about Tookie, he obviously had years of crime behind him prior to his incarceration....But for many of the men I work with, their crime was one of passion...An out of control moment they will pay for with the rest of their lives. This idea of punishing someone for one moment in time in their life makes me think.... Are their times in my life when I have acted or done things I am ashamed of??? Yes..... Would I want the label of that time and those actions to define me for the rest of my life? NO.... So, do we as a society allow people to change? To grow? If not, what is the point????
If you want to get involved in this issue more check out www.savetookie.org
For more information an article from the SL Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3277156

Red v. Blue

2005-12-02T11:00:00.000-07:00

This has been around awhile, but it was recently sent to me and I like it...

Dear Red States,
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of New California
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opry Land.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids that are apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, vitrully 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, and Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you @#$%^ &*&@#)( believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too
You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.

No More Republican "Lite"

2005-11-29T10:21:00.000-07:00

A cheese-head for President? Russ Feingold is looking good to me. He is a Senator from Wisconsin. He voted "no" on the Iraq War, "no" on the Patriot Act and is holding true to his beliefs. I really liked his approach and his philosophy as he was interviewed on ABC Sunday Morning.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1349549

He talked about the Democratic Party taking a stand and said democrats can no longer be "Republican Lite". They have to stand for something and be proud of it.

For more information on his views and his timetable proposal to pull out of Iraq visit his website: http://www.russfeingold.org/

This guy gives me HOPE!

Words of Wisdom

2005-11-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

No, not the word of wisdom...but something better. Words from a grandmother on a fixed income who is struggling with the whole meaning of Christmas. Don't get me wrong, I am not against giving a gift to show how much you love and appreciate a loved one or a friend..but I do agree that there has to be a limit....any maybe we should all consider having a limit and sending some of the money we would usually spend going over the limit to someone in need....or better yet, just spend some quality time with our families instead of running around shopping looking for the perfect gift...Often, our attention and love is the perfect gift!

Christmas has been stolen from us
Utah Voices
Janice Cameron

Usually the Christmas season starts the day after Thanksgiving with huge come-ons in the stores. Last year, I even went with my family to Best Buy and stood in line to buy a DVD for just over $30. My grandsons camped out all night in the line to purchase all the things the family wanted. But this year, I decided Christmas has just gone too far. When the X-Box craze appeared at the first of the week, and people were camping out, I finally decided we U.S. citizens have gone crazy!
You see, I live in a retirement center on a fixed income. This is the first year I have had to face the fact that I can't go out and charge up the world with my cards. And I have always enjoyed giving gifts and doing things for others at Christmas. So when I looked at the Target advertisement a few weeks ago and noted the prices of the suggested gifts (ranging from $40 for video games to I-Pods that were far more than what I could pay for), I determined that I could not give at Christmas anymore. Sen. Orrin Hatch said recently that the elderly have more money to spend than ever before. I don't know where he gets that idea because he sure doesn't live like I do. And I live in a nice retirement home (not a nursing home), I have a nice dining room and drivers to take me to my doctor appointments and shopping.
There is nothing more in this world I want to do than buy some great gifts for my grandchildren. But I can no longer compete with the prices of items for those children today and, darn it, I love them just as much as the next grandma. What happened to kids lying out in the snow and moving their arms up and down to make snow angels? What happened to the families who chopped down their own Christmas tree and decorated it with whatever they had, including stringing popcorn. What happened to the sleds, skates, hot chocolate and people singing Christmas carols and baking cookies?
And I wonder what the low-income parents do to try and be Santa Claus to a generation of kids who always have something stuck in their ear while you are trying to have a meaningful conversation.
The true fact of Christmas this year is that there are a lot of lonely elderly people out there whose families have become so busy that they don't have time for us. They have season tickets to the local football teams; they fly to Hawaii (or some exotic place) for Christmas; they watch their children play in tournaments and run marathons, and are so busy that they miss an awful lot of life.
The fact is that there are many children who have no way of getting those expensive items. The fact is there are soldiers who put their life on the line for us every day to give us the freedom we experience. The fact is that 70,000 people were killed in Pakistan recently and winter is coming on for them, and they have no food. People in Africa are struggling with AIDS. And Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala just were decimated by storms.
There are the people without homes in the New Orleans area, and just last week the electricity was finally on in the Fort Lauderdale area. The Navajo people need stoves to keep them warm (they are one of the few Indians who do not have gambling casinos); Delta Air Lines is in bankruptcy; General Motors is laying off thousands of workers. The food banks are asking for help. The Humane Society needs food and warm bedding, and frankly, there are just a thousand ways everyone in this United States could spend their money this season. But instead, this nation chooses to stand in line to be the first to have the latest technology of today instead of what is really needed.
Even though it is depressing right now to face the Christmas season, all the needy and elderly may get through it. But how many could you have helped instead of buying that digital camera? --- Janice Cameron is a retired mother of two and grandmother of five. She lives in South Jordan.

Happy Turkey Day

2005-11-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

I know it is late for this post...but I cannot help myself. I thought about this all day on Thanksgiving.

You Go!

2005-11-23T15:54:00.000-07:00

Check out these articles about the conservative right trying to take over Utah....like they don't run all of our lives already????
My dad spoke out against this and I am a PROUD daughter!
You Go DAD!

Institute urges cities to map out family roles
http://sltrib.com/ci_3244212

and

North Salt Lake shrugs at family resolution
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635163445,00.html

Judgment

2005-11-23T13:48:00.000-07:00

I was having a conversation with another mediator today about the whole debate over transformative mediation. What I came to was that those who are "great" mediators naturally create a space in which parties can transform. They do this by just being themselves and staying away from judgment. In the ACResolution Magazine, Fall 2005, Sharon Pickett from Bethesda, Maryland wrote "I remember that I do not know the people sitting with me or understand the life experiences that have shaped who they are. We are all flawed human beings doing our best in an imperfect world -- and that includes me." What a great way to view the world and those who we come into contact with. It must take a lot of energy to always feel like you are better than others, figuring out what is wrong about them and right about you. Sounds like too much work to me....I like being in charge of only myself..and sometimes my dog, never my cat, and I don't even consider my Wife.

News of the Day--My judgment of the day

I cannot believe that our Vice President is hosting a fundraiser to help pay for Tom DeLay's court case...What is the world coming to? Is there not enough to do as the Vice President of the US....this guy has time to promote this kind of behavior????

HOUSTON Nov 22, 2005 Â A campaign fundraiser for embattled Rep. Tom DeLay postponed by Hurricane Rita in September is being rescheduled for Dec. 5 with Vice President Dick Cheney as the headliner.
"It points out that the party is behind (DeLay) and the (Bush) administration is supportive and wants to keep Congressman DeLay in office," Eric Thode, Republican chairman in DeLay's home county of Fort Bend, told the Houston Chronicle in a story published Tuesday.
The most expensive tickets for the event $4,200 includes a spot at a VIP reception and a photograph with the vice president.
"Congressman Tom DeLay has been an exceptional leader on Capitol Hill and Vice President Cheney looks forward to helping his re-election effort," said Lee Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman in Washington.
DeLay was indicted earlier this year on campaign finance-related charges in Travis County, an action that forced him to step down at least temporarily as House majority leader.
Former Rep. Nick Lampson is seeking the Democrat nomination to run against DeLay next year.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Utah & Poverty

2005-11-21T15:58:00.000-07:00

Did you know?

More than 70 percent of workers do not earn enough to support a family with one working parent.
About 30 percent of workers earn a wage that leaves them below the poverty level.
About 70 percent of people with disabilities are unemployed.
The poverty rate in Utah was 6.7% in 1999-2000. In 2003-04, the poverty rate was 9.5%.
The average family size in Utah is 3.6 people.
A "typical poor person" in Utah is Anglo and is a member of a two-parent, working family.
The federal poverty guideline for a family of four people is $18,850 a year--or $1,571 a month.

From Utah Issues Center for Poverty Research & Action

I Begin

2005-11-21T12:18:00.000-07:00

So, I now have a Blog....what does it mean. It means I have somewhere to write my thoughts, my rants, my raves. This Blog will have many threads....I am a lesbian living in Utah, I work in the conflict resolution field and I am a democrat...who is sick and tired of the Bush bullshit! I can't believe that we have this man as a president...what is wrong with us? Who voted for that idiot?
The one thing I like the most about working as a mediator...is that I have learned that I do not have the answers for anyone except myself ( and sometimes I struggle with those). So, who is Bush to decide, with his conservative buddies, what is best for anyone or everyone. A poem for BUSH.....

Listen

When I ask you to listen to me
and you start giving advice
you have not done what I asked.

When I ask you to listen to me
and you begin to tell me why I shouldn't feel that way
you are trampling on my feelings

When I ask you to listen to me
and you feel you have to do something to solve my problem,
you have failed me, strange as that may seem.

Listen! All I asked was that you listen.
not talk or do -- just hear me.
Advice is cheap; one dollar will get you both Dear Abby and
Billy Graham in the same newspaper.
And I can do for myself; I'm not helpless.
Maybe discouraged and faltering, but not helpless.

When you do something for me that I can and need
to do for myself, you contribute to my fear and weakness.

But, when you accept as a simple fact that I do feel what I feel,
no matter how irrational, then I can quit trying to convince
you and can get about the business of understanding what is
behind this irrational feeling. And when that is clear, the answers are obvious and I don't need advice. Irrational feelings make sense when we understand what's behind them.

Perhaps that's why prayer works, sometimes, for some people because
God is mute, and He does not give advice or try to fix things.
"They" just listen and let you work it out for yourself.

So, please listen and just hear me. And, if you want to talk, wait
a minute for your turn; and I'll listen to you.
Anonymous

It's about understanding...not knowing it all!