communityconversation [Sasona Cooperative]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Community Conversation ======

Community Conversation is a process designed to be an alternative to punitive measures (such as membership review or behavioral no shows) when private mediation fails to resolve a dispute. Community Conversation is separate from house meetings and requires all resolutions to the conflict to be unanimous. It focuses on the emotions of the people involved as well as the actual violation of house rules. Community Conversation seeks to provide restoration not retribution.

Community Conversation should accomplish two interrelated things: The first is to provide additional feedback from the house to resolve individuals disputes. The second is to bring to the house's attention issues and dynamics occurring within the community in a non-hostile neutral manner.

Community Conversation is to be used only when the following two conditions have been met:

-- a mediator believes he/she cannot find a resolution that will be agreeable to all participants and the mediator, or one of the the participants involved, feel that not reaching a resolution might be emotionally or physically harmful. And the mediator doesn’t believe that bringing in other mediators will be significantly beneficial

**Step 1 Determine that Community Conversation is necessary**

The mediator determines that a solution has not been reached and likely will not be reached with further individual mediation and that other mediators will not be able to help. At least one participant, or the mediator, states that they feel that leaving this issue unresolved could be emotionally or physically harmful.If the mediator agrees he/she schedules a Community Conversation. If not a participant may explain the situation to another mediator and ask that they call a Community Conversation.

**Step 2 Decide on a time for mediation**

The mediator recommending community resolution coordinates with all conflict participants, all individuals who have information about the incident, and the house membership in general. The mediator then sets a time and a place for Community Conversation to occur at a time that allows maximum participation.

**Step 3 Meeting is started and a facilitator is chosen**

The meeting shall be coordinated by a facilitator. Until the facilitator is chosen the mediator that called for the Community Conversation session is to direct the meeting. The facilitator is to be chosen by consensus and may be any member present. If there is not consensus on who should be the facilitator then the mediator may select anyone, including themself, to be the facilitator. Selecting a facilitator should not be a contentious argument but should be about trying to find the most neutral person who can best direct discussion. After the facilitator is selected he/she shall remain the facilitator for the duration of the session unless he/she feels like he/she cannot fulfill the role in which case they shall select another individual to be the facilitator.

**Step 4 The primary participants in the dispute explain the situation**

The primary individuals involved in the conflict explain the situation. Typically this is only two people but may be more if the facilitator believes the conflict involves more than two conflicting views. Individuals should state the facts as they see it and also express how they feel about it. When not speaking the other participants should be receptive to how the other person is feeling. They should be willing to accept differences in perception and feelings. The facilitator is to intervene if, and only if, the language used is abusive or if an individual feels unable to continue. (e.g. gives the time out signal). After each primary participant has spoken the facilitator may have each further explain their views, respond to each other or open the floor to secondary participants.

**Step 5 Secondary participants in each dispute explain the situation**

Participants who have special knowledge of the situation (i.e. people who witnessed what happened, mediators who's previously been involved etc.) may speak. Participants should state the facts as they see it and also express how they feel about it. The facilitator is to intervene if, and only if, the language used is abusive or an individual feels unable to continue (e.g. gives the time out signal).

**Step 6 Other individuals are allowed to speak**

Other individuals present are allowed to speak typically rotating in a circle from the facilitator. Conversations and direct responses from primary and secondary participants are allowed at the facilitator’s discretion. If individuals are not present they may leave a statement or send out an email to be read by the facilitator. The facilitator may speak but should do so primarily to provide neutral input or point out common grounds.

**Step 7 Discussion continues under the direction of the facilitator**

The facilitator continues going around in the circle until all individuals who want to have spoken. After which the facilitator allows members to speak again, preferably in a circle to whatever degree possible while still prioritizing those most directly involved in the conflict. The facilitator should point out common ground and should encourage individuals to expand upon thoughts and feelings but should avoid making their own statements of opinion.

**Step 8 Conclusion**

The facilitator should recap what, if any, common ground was found after conflict participants and other members presents are done talking. The facilitator should work with individuals involved in order to create a plan of action if possible. A plan of action could include a participant avoiding a particular action, a member agreeing to move out or continuation of private or group mediation. Conclusion may also be less formal than a plan of action and could be things like conflict participants apologizing, hugging or showing other signs of resolution of their own accord. Sometimes conflict participants will fail to reach a conclusion in which case participants may seek other means of resolving the dispute.”