Yesterday I attended a conference in Massachusetts on ADR presented by the Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Trial Court, the Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution, and the Massachusetts Office on Dispute Resolution. (Which is where I heard the news I reported earlier confirming MODR’s official new home at UMass Boston.)

David Hoffman, a collaborative lawyer and mediator, and founding partner of the Boston Law Collaborative, delivered a compelling keynote at yesterday’s conference. David took as his theme the symbiotic relationship between the courts and ADR, considering it in the context of the legal system operating within the larger framework of democratic government.

David touched upon a number of changes that the courts have undergone and described a phenomenon which the litigation bar refers to as the “vanishing trial”—the significant decrease over the years in the number of cases which have gone to trial.

The “vanishing trial” caused such consternation among the legal community that the American Bar Association’s Section on Litigation established a task force to evaluate it.

The number of civil trials has indeed declined within the forty-year period from 1962 through 2002. (For a thorough analysis of the statistical data, see the ABA’s report (in PDF format) entitled The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts , compiled by Marc Galanter et al.)

Any number of factors have contributed to (or been perceived as contributing to) the measurable decline in trials—everything from the cost of litigation to fear of juries by corporate defendants to ADR. (Not surprisingly, ADR professionals have grown defensive at the suggestion that ADR itself may be to blame for this decline, and have responded by arguing that the decline in trials is simply evidence of successful case management practices by judges.)

(Brief aside: It is true, as David reminded us yesterday, that trial by jury lies at the very heart of democracy. It stands as a safeguard against abuses of power by the state and serves as a vehicle for advancing liberty and justice. Except for voting, it constitutes one of the very few ways in which ordinary citizens may participate in government. An important civic obligation, it is the very embodiment of the rule of law.)

Intelligent minds may disagree as to the ultimate cause of the vanishing trial. And not all causes should be reason for concern. If fewer cases go to trial because courts are managing cases better and offering an array of dispute resolution mechanisms (including ADR) to disputants which encourage early and mutually satisfactory settlement, then that’s a good thing for courts and litigants alike. Causes, however, such as mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts or tort reform schemes which limit or deny access to the courts should justifiably raise red flags for anyone who cares about the availability of justice in our legal system.

Three goals, however, should unite us all, trial attorneys, ADR professionals, and judges alike:

1. The satisfactory and timely resolution of disputes.
2. Dispute resolution mechanisms, alternative or traditional, which inspire public confidence and trust.
3. Efficient and innovative ways to deliver justice.

On occasion, attorneys, ADR professionals and jurists unwittingly work against each other. I have mentioned here before the ambivalence with which some attorneys view ADR. At the same time, as David cautioned in his speech at yesterday’s conference, all too often do mediators, in dealing with disputants unable to reach agreement, invoke trial as a danger to be shunned—rather than as an avenue to be thoughtfully considered as part of the process of reflective decision-making.

There is no reason all of us—attorneys, judges, mediators—cannot work together to achieve the three goals outlined above. Indeed, here in Massachusetts and elsewhere around the world, many strive to ensure that these goals are fully realized.

ADR practitioners in court-based programs depend upon the full support of judges and court personnel; the judicial system in the same measure depends upon broad support as well. ADR practitioners should offer it whole-heartedly, to judges and attorneys alike. That way, in the best spirit of ADR, everyone wins.

There’s news to report from Massachusetts on the ADR front. Massachusetts has an office of dispute resolution, created by statute in 1990. According to its enabling statute, the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution (“MODR”, pronounced “motor”), was charged with promoting and expanding the use of dispute resolution at all levels and branches of state government, including counties, municipalities, and public agencies. For years MODR operated under the auspices of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance.

Last year MODR transferred its operations and staff from the Executive Office for Administration and Finance to the University of Massachusetts at Boston. This transfer has now been statutorily formalized in the language of one of the outside sections of the Massachusetts fiscal 2006 budget.

Beginning on July 1, 2005, UMass Boston (which offers a graduate degree program on dispute resolution) will be MODR’s official locus within the Commonwealth.

For the full text of the new enabling statute for MODR, click here.

(And thanks to colleague and fellow blogger Bob Ambrogi for forwarding to me the text of the outside section.)

The fact that the ADR world has largely failed to discover blogging is a surprise to me. There are only, at least so far as I can tell, eight blogs solely devoted to ADR. Eight. Out of some 12 million blogs worldwide.

That’s surprising. People in the dispute resolution field are communication mavens. One of the classics in our field is called Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. We run programs with names like “The Public Conversations Project”. (There’s that word “conversations” again.) People hire us when they’re having trouble talking to each other. We provide the lubricant that keeps the discourse engine humming.

So how come there aren’t more of us blogging?

I don’t have the answer to that question. I can guess. Many of us are technology-averse. We prefer face-to-face contact, the personal touch. Many of us distrust online dispute resolution—which relies upon technology as a “fourth party” in the process—and are troubled, perhaps, by the fact that technology itself presumes to mediate among the parties and the mediator. Meanwhile, those of us who are mediation trainers pride ourselves that we continue to use flip-charts and magic markers in a PowerPoint age. (And I confess that I am one of those.)

Okay, let’s put aside the question of why so many ADR professionals are distrustful of technology. (That’s a post for another day.)

Let’s instead talk about my main purpose in writing this article: 5 reasons why ADR professionals should start blogging now.

Reason No. 1: Blogging makes you smarter.

It’s true. Successful blogging requires research. So bloggers surf the web, cruising for news. We’re Internet blood-hounds, tracking down the elusive scent of stories that will pique the curiosity of our readers. That constant prowling alerts us to stories, trends, breaking news in our field—and even in fields that have nothing whatsoever to do with our blog’s focus, which, I would argue, makes us well-rounded individuals. (My blog-buddy Dina Beach Lynch, publisher of Mediation Mensch, describes this as Alice’s pursuit down the rabbit-hole.) (Side benefit: bloggers grow better informed about their own field and simultaneously become masters of trivia as well. You’ll never be at a loss for words at cocktail parties again.)

Reason No. 2: Blogging can be a great marketing tool.

By definition a blog is updated frequently—that means that our readers are kept informed, and can therefore infer that we keep our fingers on the pulse of our profession—that we are, in short, paying attention. And who would you want to hire—a professional who’s behind the times, or someone who’s on top of the latest developments?

And, like a common-garden-variety web site, your blog continues to work while you’re going about your day job or catching up on your Z’s. It provides 24-hour optimal efficiency. Regardless of when a post is published, readers can access it to suit their time zone. While the blogger in Boston sleeps, the subscriber in Bangalore reads.

(Since informed decision-making is important in mediation, I invite you to consider differing perspectives on the effectiveness of blogs as marketing tools discussed at Robert Ambrogi’s Lawsites blog, along with comments posted by Kevin O’Keefe, pioneering founder of LexBlog, a company providing blogging solutions for lawyers.)

Reason No. 3: Blogging increases your visibility.

Everyone wants to boost their search engine rankings (at least anyone who realizes how important the Internet has become to information dissemination and communication and commerce). And search engines love blogs because of the frequency with which their content is updated.

Reason No. 4: Blogs are a great way to share what you learn.

This is one of the great things about blogging. You find out all kinds of great information (see Reason No. 1, above) (of varying degrees of usefulness), which you then get to share with your readers. Bloggers are citizen journalists, reporting on news and information that busy readers are unlikely to find on their own. Think of it as providing a public service.

Reason No. 5: Blogging is all about community and conversation. (Hint: A lot like ADR.)

If our goal as dispute resolution professionals is to build relationships, promote community, and establish dialogue, then blogging is the brave new world of the ADR field. Here’s a vast frontier for us to discover together, in which we can reach out to each other, connecting ideas and conversations.

So, come on, all you conflict resolvers out there. What are you waiting for? Come on in, the water’s fine.

Adversity brings knowledge, and knowledge wisdom.

A couple of weeks ago, just for kicks (and also because I was frankly too tired to get off my butt and change the channel), I watched Hell’s Kitchen, the latest reality television offering. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past several years, you’re probably all-too familiar with the standard premise behind reality television shows: contestants compete for some prize (whether to marry an eligible bachelor, achieve fame and fortune as a vocalist, or, in this case, to win your own restaurant), usually under the supervision of an egotistical tyrant with serious anger management issues.

Reality television programs like this are indeed a curious phenomenon. If aliens from outer space visited Planet Earth and the only glimpse they were afforded into American culture was achieved through the satellite signals of reality television, they would undoubtedly reach the mistaken conclusion that above all things Americans value aggression, treachery, self-aggrandizement, and naked ambition. Oh, yes—and conflict. Definitely conflict.

Conflict is indeed the high-octane fuel that popular entertainment runs on. You will never see a reality television program depicting a boss who is a skillful teambuilder with good listening skills and a collaborative approach to problem-solving. It just ain’t going to happen. Conflict is exciting. Peace, on the other hand, is pretty dull stuff. Let’s face it—watching people get along with each other is just no fun. (One can only wonder to what extent the prevalence of workplace bullying may be attributable to the influence of popular culture.)

I was struck by a comment that one of the Hell’s Kitchen contestants made when she was instructed to select two of her fellow contestants to be ejected from the game: “I’m not here to make friends”.

That phrase really struck me. “I’m not here to make friends.” Too bad really. And richly ironic when the goal of each contestant is to win their own business—a restaurant of their very own. No business, whether a restaurant or a restaurant supply manufacturer, can run without a good team to support it or without the good will of employees and customers to sustain it. (For an instructive example of what happens when qualities such as backstabbing and betrayal are openly encouraged among employees, and toxic practices flourish, consider Enron.)

As the famous 1960’s study by social psychologist Stanley Milgram demonstrated, each of us is only six people away from everybody else. This is the “small world phenomenon”, as Milgram described it, and the reason why networking in careers and businesses can be so effective. It’s also a good reason to cultivate connections, not burn bridges behind you.

It’s just too bad that bridge-burning is what keeps Nielsen ratings so high and viewers tuning in.

An interesting report on mediation appeared this week in the U.K. online journal Legal Week by attorney Tim Ashdown, a commercial litigator and partner with the British law firm DMH Stallard.

The article describes benefits mediation offers clients in commercial litigation, including early settlement, cost savings, more direct participation by clients in their own case, and greater flexibility in creating outcomes than litigation offers. The article also draws attention to factors which can limit mediation’s effectiveness.

However, that’s not the reason why you should read this report (despite the fact that we mediators always appreciate a thoughtful, well-written article highlighting the benefits mediation offers written by someone who understands the subject matter very well indeed, as Ashdown does).

What’s most striking about this article is its discussion of a current trend in British jurisprudence for judges to sanction litigants who “unreasonably refuse” to go to mediation to resolve their disputes, particularly when a judge has recommended mediation. Ashdown cites a number of examples of cases in which courts in Britain have approved cost sanctions against parties who have refused to mediate.

This imposition of sanctions in my view undermines two of mediation’s defining principles: voluntariness and self-determination. These principles are among the chief factors which account for mediation’s tremendous appeal for disputants. The process works precisely because of this absence of coercion—parties are more willing to participate in a process which is theirs alone and in which they themselves define the outcome. Autonomy matters.

It is true that courts everywhere—in Britain and certainly here in the U.S.—promote mediation and other forms of ADR as a means of relieving the demands litigation places upon overburdened court systems. But here in the U.S., at least here in the state in which I practice, we approach the issue of sanctions in mediation very differently.

In Massachusetts, Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution requires court clerks to make information on court-connected dispute resolution available to both attorneys and pro se parties, and requires attorneys to

provide their clients with this information about court-connected dispute resolution services; discuss with their clients the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of dispute resolution; and certify their compliance with this requirement on the civil cover sheet or its equivalent.

However, although Rule 6 permits a court to impose sanctions on parties who fail to attend a scheduled dispute resolution session, it also prohibits courts from imposing sanctions for failure to settle and stresses the importance of ensuring that settlements are reached without coercion, particularly when parties are unrepresented by counsel:

Courts shall inform parties that, unless otherwise required by law, they are not required to make offers and concessions or to settle in a court-connected dispute resolution process. Courts shall not impose sanctions for nonsettlement by the parties. The court shall give particular attention to the issues presented by unrepresented parties, such as the need for the neutral to memorialize the agreement and the danger of coerced settlement in cases involving an imbalance of power between the parties. In dispute intervention, in cases in which one or more of the parties is not represented by counsel, a neutral has a responsibility, while maintaining impartiality, to raise questions for the parties to consider as to whether they have the information needed to reach a fair and fully informed settlement of the case.

Voluntariness and self-determination, along with confidentiality, may be under assault here in Massachusetts: as some of you no doubt recall, back in January a Superior Court judge issued a decision which penalized a party for failing to heed a mediator’s advice. This decision, fortunately, has been appealed.

As I have discussed here before, this is a path we do not want to embark upon. Sanctioning parties for failing to settle through mediation will only erode support and public confidence in the mediation process. While this approach may provide incentive to parties in Britain to come to the mediation table and reach a deal, there are other and better ways to promote settlement through mediation.

Yes, I know, this is totally off topic, but for those of my readers who are fellow bloggers, this is important stuff.

Bloggers, are you interested in doing your bit for science? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is conducting a survey to measure the impact blogging has on communication and social interactions. It’s painless, it’s easy, and it’ll take just a few minutes of your time.

Plus, you get a very cool sticker to place on your blog to direct other bloggers to the survey (like the one affixed to this post–you’ll find another just like it in my sidebar). And, as a big bonus, completion of the survey entitles you to take a peek at survey results so far.

When I took the survey this afternoon, 5,982 bloggers had responded to date. I invite you to do your part to up that number and impact the demographics.

Confidentiality of data is totally assured, so you can share your stats knowing that no traceable information will be kept that could potentially reveal your blogging secrets.

For more details on the M.I.T. blog survey, click here.

From time to time Online Guide to Mediation will offer interviews with ADR all-stars—individuals who have gained iconic status in the dispute resolution world, have contributed greatly to the advancement of the field, or are taking ADR practice in bold new directions. (Or who don’t necessarily meet any of the above criteria but just tell one heck of a good story.)

Here’s my first interview—this one with ADR All-Star Ericka Gray, who can definitely claim that she does all the above.

Ericka, tell my readers a little bit about yourself. What do you do in the ADR field?

I run my own company, DisputEd, in Arlington, Massachusetts, that provides mediation, facilitation, consulting, training, and dispute systems design services, as well as just about anything else related to conflict prevention, intervention and management. I also teach Mediation at Boston College Law School and Suffolk University Law School, teach Divorce Mediation at Northwestern University in Chicago, and generally keep very, very busy. And, yes, I coach, mentor, volunteer, serve on professional organization boards of directors, serve on the Massachusetts Trial Court Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution, and try to have a life outside of work.

You and I are both baseball fans. We know that stats matter. Tell us how you long you’ve been mediating, what kind of experience you’ve had, and how you got into the major leagues.

My mediation career started in 1985 when I was a psychologist for an HMO. A woman called and asked the intake person if we provided “divorce therapy”. The intake person, for some unknown reason, always headed the weird calls my way. Of course I said, “Well, we haven’t before, but why not? Come on in.”

That was the start of helping people figure out a better way of dealing with their conflicts. That couple ended up having an amicable divorce, figuring out a parenting plan, property division, etc., before I even knew there was such a thing as mediation.

Two years later I was employed full-time at the Burlington County Superior Court in New Jersey running a Multi-Door Courthouse (the fourth in the country), supervising more than 100 volunteer mediators, developing and managing mediation and other ADR programs in the courts, and having an absolute blast. I got that job because a friend of mine told me about it and said it sounded perfect for me - except I didn’t have a law degree, which it required. I figured I’d apply anyway - what was the worst they could do - not hire me?

Well, they saw it my way, and it was a great match. I was on the American Bar Association Multi-Door Courthouse speaking circuit with Melinda Ostermeyer and Kimberley Kovach, and, along with Larry Ray, we went around the country to various conferences talking about the concept and the realities of operating such programs. When the judge I was working for was going to retire and I was getting a divorce, I started looking at getting out of New Jersey. So, I asked around, and Margaret Shaw, who was hanging around my courthouse doing some research, told me about the startup Middlesex Multi-Door Courthouse (MMDC) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I faxed my c.v. that day, and the next week I was on a plane to Boston for an interview.

And so I moved to Boston, where I knew no one, for a job that had 18 months of funding. I mediated just about every type of civil case there was which at MMDC. Well, funding kept getting extended but it was always iffy and I finally said enough was enough and headed on over to Endispute, which later became JAMS. At Endispute, Eric Green, Paddy Moore, Jack Wofford, Larry Susskind, Carmen Reiss, Marjorie Aaron, and a cast of characters you wouldn’t believe were mediating a variety of disputes, ranging from major environmental issues to personal injury cases to land use to construction to employment to intellectual property. It was a high-end boutique ADR firm with the best of the best and I was thrilled to be there. In addition to mediating, I was developing their training programs and putting some structure in the professional services side of things.

I must say, the opportunity to learn from such amazing talents probably can’t be duplicated today. To be able to co-mediate with Eric Green? Just incredible!

Anyway, as happens to companies, Endispute began rapid expansion and became a bit overextended. Investors came in and soon enough, Endispute became JAMS (which stands for Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services). Suddenly, the focus became hiring retired judges as independent contractors and settling personal injury cases—volume, volume, volume. What a culture clash.

So, I left to become the Executive Director of the Academy of Family Mediators. Now, talk about a job! A board of 12 volunteers, all mediators, all with different backgrounds, styles, beliefs, experiences in business, etc. I signed a 3-year contract and served as Board members such as Robert Benjamin, Peter Maida, Don Saposnek, and many others came through. Talks started with the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) and other organizations about a merged ADR organization at the instigation of the Hewlett Foundation. At that point, I went out on my own, starting DisputEd.

So, to answer the question about how I got into the majors, the answer is that I’ve been in the right place at the right time, taken advantage of opportunities, and gotten to know a lot of people in the field.

We mediators love trading war stories (while of course at the same time honoring the confidentiality of our clients). What was your most memorable case ever? And how did you get it to resolution?

Oh my, this is tough since there have been so many memorable ones. And, some of the most memorable ones didn’t get to resolution. Lots of them involve animals for some reason - the slaughtered goat hanging from the front yard tree was one (religious reasons but the neighbors weren’t really happy about this - resolution was to move future slaughtered animals to the backyard tree and make sure that some type of fence or other covering surrounded it so the neighbors couldn’t see it).

The pig bite case was another. Then there was the pet goose that was attacked by a neighbor’s dog and needed hundreds of stitches but lived. The neighbor just laughed when asked to pay for the vet bills and did not want to mediate. You know, people are just so interesting and come up with all sorts of weird and unusual ways to get themselves into conflict. So, these will have to do for now or I’d have to write a book.

Lots of people want to get into the mediation business. Many are called, few are chosen. What advice would you give to all those sweet young things out there who want to make it in this field?

Mediation is a BUSINESS just like any other business. Not only that, it’s an entrepreneurial business. There is a very limited pool of jobs available and a huge pool of potential applicants for these jobs.

Most people who make it have several things in common: 1) They’re good! 2) They have an entrepreneurial spirit 3) They understand that a start-up mediation practice takes capital, marketing, networking, lots of hard work, lots of hours, paying your dues, and no one’s going to hand you paying business. Any new business generally takes from 3-5 years to show a profit. 4) Build on your strengths and your current knowledge and skills set. If you’re a human resources director, for example, you might concentrate on mediating workplace conflicts and marketing to fellow HR people, rather than trying to establish a practice mediating land use disputes. And 5) Hope for a good dose of luck. Look for opportunities. They don’t come looking for you!

Okay, most important question: How do you think the Red Sox are going to do this year?

This is an easy one. If they don’t get their bullpen in order, they just aren’t going to do it. Come on guys, get some real relievers and closers! Embree? Halama? Don’t make me laugh.

Alternative dispute resolution practitioners come from many different kinds of professional backgrounds, including the law. Those ADR practitioners who are attorneys admitted in Massachusetts should be aware of recent changes in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct which regulate the practice of law. These changes impact attorneys who serve as neutrals in a wide range of dispute resolution processes.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports this week that these rules have been amended by the addition of Rule 2.4, which governs lawyers who serve as third-party neutrals. Rule 2.4 defines the parameters of that role as follows:

A lawyer serves as a third-party neutral when the lawyer assists two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them. Service as a third-party neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a mediator or in such other capacity as will enable the lawyer to assist the parties to resolve the matter.

Rule 2.4 requires an attorney who is serving as a neutral to explain to pro se parties that he or she is not representing them as an attorney. If the attorney-neutral has reason to believe that the parties are confused about the role he or she is playing, Rule 2.4 imposes an obligation on the attorney-neutral to clarify for the parties the difference between the role of a neutral on the one hand and that of a client’s advocate on the other so that parties appreciate fully the distinctions between those roles.

(This is sound practice regardless–it is of course critical that parties choosing dispute resolution understand the role the neutral will be playing and to understand that the attorney-neutral cannot provide legal advice. This is true in other professions as well–for example, a mediator who is also a psychologist needs to be sure that prospective clients understand that mediation does not constitute therapy, nor serve as a substitute for it.)

The comments to the new Rule 2.4 also recognize the potential that situations may arise in which an attorney who served as a neutral for parties in one case may subsequently be asked to provide legal representation in the same matter. These conflicts of interest would be governed by Rule 1.12, which prohibits an attorney who has personally served in a dispute as adjudicator, mediator, or arbitrator from subsequently representing parties in the same matter unless they have the permission of all the parties involved.

Calling all presenters. Got a great idea, an innovative technique, a proven approach you can’t wait to share with the rest of the ADR world? Do you have a flair for public speaking and presentation and enjoy interacting with groups?

The New England Chapter of the Association for Conflict Resolution (NE-ACR) is seeking workshop proposals for its 2005 Annual Regional Conference to be held on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at the Boston University Corporate Education Center in Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. This year’s theme is Pushing the Limits: Conversations for the ADR Community. Pushing those limits will be keynote speaker Robert Benjamin, nationally known mediator and widely published (and controversial) author.

ADR practitioners—mediators, arbitrators, facilitators, educators, trainers, ombuds, negotiators, and anyone else whose work involves conflict resolution—are invited to submit their proposals for consideration.

The Call for Presentations Form is available for downloading here in two formats:

- Word format
- PDF format

Proposals are due by Friday, July 15, 2005, by 5:00 p.m. EST. If you have any questions at all, please shoot me an email, since I’m the one you’ll be submitting your completed proposals to. Details are in the Call for Presentations Form. (You can get in touch with me at levin [at] partneringsolutions.org.)

(And of course please feel free to pass this on.)

Today is Father’s Day here in the U.S., a day when those of us who are fortunate enough to have fathers (or, perhaps I should say, are on speaking terms with our fathers) take time to express our thanks to the dads who made a difference in our lives.

This post is dedicated to my own father, Maury Levin, loyal Red Sox fan and all-around great dad, who taught me many important lessons—the rewards of virtues like honesty, hard work, and perseverance—and also imparted skills vital for day-to-day living—how to pitch and hit a baseball, calculate a tip, read a map, and cuss fluently in Yiddish.

My dad is also a fan of games and puzzles—a predilection I seem to have inherited. (Readers of this blog have probably noticed this—I’ve posted any number of times on the subject of online negotiation games.)

I especially like lateral thinking puzzles. A lateral thinking puzzle tells a brief story with a minimum of details and poses a challenge to be solved on the basis of the few facts provided.

Puzzles are great to use in mediation or conflict resolution trainings. They’re fun as warm-ups, of course, but more importantly they invite creativity and encourage flexibility in problem-solving in the participants. What puzzles teach groups is that an idea from one member of the group can spark an idea in another member, which motivates and inspires the group as a whole. It’s intriguing to see how collaboration produces clever solutions more quickly and effectively than individuals acting alone.

Anyway, my dad got his 15 minutes of fame recently when he submitted his own puzzle to “Says You!”, a game show produced by NPR station WGBH in Boston. “Says You” describes itself as a “game of words and whimsy, bluff and bluster”. My dad’s submission was actually chosen and used on-air to stump the “Says You” panel of puzzle-busters.

My dad’s puzzle, a series of literary challenges, is available here (in PDF format) for your enjoyment. Although not a lateral thinking puzzle, it nonetheless requires creative thinking, and, like most challenges, is way more fun to solve with a group of people than on your own.

And, if you’d like to wrestle with some lateral thinking puzzles, just click here.

At any rate, here’s wishing a very happy Father’s Day to all you fathers out there—my own especially. Thanks for everything.

I was going to save this post to coincide with the release of the remake of “War of the Worlds” on June 29, but I decided I simply couldn’t wait.

The following definitely falls into the “We couldn’t make this up if we tried” category.

For those mediators who are no longer feeling challenged by ho-hum disputes between neighbors, business partners, or warring nations, there’s a course designed with you in mind: Exopolitics 102: Citizen Diplomacy with Extraterrestrials, available through Exopolitics.org, a web site devoted to exploring “the political implications of the extraterrestrial presence”. This 14-week program scheduled for this fall provides a special section on “Applying Principles of ‘Citizen Diplomacy’ to Extraterrestrial Affairs”, which includes a module on “Key Principles of Conflict Resolution, Mediation & Track Two or ‘Citizen’ Diplomacy”. (One can only imagine what the case studies are like.)

Beam me up, Scotty…

More and more people are getting the message that certain fundamental life skills, including conflict resolution, are key to getting and keeping a job.

In support of that point, consider a great story in this morning’s Phoenixville News about the Chester County Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC), a non-profit organization in Pennsylvania dedicated to providing adult literacy and life skills programs. Its goal is to provide training to prepare individuals to gain independence and employment.

OIC recently honored its second graduating class of the Independent Career Action Network (I CAN) Program. This program, aimed at out-of-school youth in the 16-to-21 age bracket, in addition to teaching basic job and learning skills—resume writing, job application strategies, interview techniques, and time management and office technology skills—also teaches conflict resolution skills, along with active listening, problem solving and anger management techniques.

For more on this program or what you can do to support it, please visit the OIC web site.

Yes, I know it’s hard to think of snowy February when it’s June and summer here in the northern hemisphere.

Nonetheless I’m delighted to announce that Online Guide to Mediation (that’s me) will be hosting the February 6, 2006, edition of Blawg Review.

Describing itself as a “carnival of the blawgs” (although, sorry, no fried dough or Ferris wheels), Blawg Review is a moveable feast—each Monday it’s hosted by a different law blog, which sums up a week’s worth of the new and noteworthy in law blogging. Then, like the genuine article, this virtual carnival pulls up stakes and moves on to another location. This gives visitors to Blawg Review an opportunity to sample a variety of law blogs.

So please go ahead and check out this week’s Blawg Review #10, which is hosted by Evan Brown at InternetCases.com. And this coming Monday be sure to pay a visit to Al Nye the Lawyer Guy, who is next week’s Blawg Review host.

By the way, you don’t have to be a lawyer to enjoy these carnivals. This week’s Blawg Review features blog posts on medical marijuana; tort reform (which IMHO everyone should be worried about, not just personal injury lawyers), and blogging basics, which offers a link to an article Al Nye wrote for the Spring 2005 Maine Bar Journal (in PDF format, on page 39) with plenty of great tips on blogging for anyone who wants to join in on the blogging craze.

Two stories involving schoolchildren and conflict resolution were reported on the Internet from opposite ends of the U.S. within the past 24 hours.

The first story, which appeared on the web site for the Christian Science Monitor, concerns a new Washington State law dubbed “The Family Preservation Act” which establishes a curriculum to teach public school children relationship skills, including conflict resolution.

With a little diligent digging, I was able to locate the text of the new law on the Washington legislature’s web site. (Scroll down that page and click on the words Bill As Passed Legislature for the statute in PDF format, or paste the following URL into your browser: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1252-S.E.pdf.) The statute provides that the “model curriculum shall include, but is not limited to, instruction on developing conflict management skills, communication skills, domestic violence and dating violence, financial responsibility, and parenting responsibility.” The statute encourages, but doesn’t require, schools to implement the curriculum.

This legislation, apparently prompted by alarm over the rising divorce rate and the growing financial burden that divorce places upon state resources, generated some controversy prior to its approval by the legislature. At least one legislator expressed concern that such a curriculum would promote antagonism towards nontraditional families or single parents, a concern that I share.

(I myself am all for teaching kids conflict management skills, but I’m not convinced that it’s the job of our public schools to teach our children how to have “successful and fulfilling family relationships” as the statute claims. I figure that’s my job as a parent, thank you very much.)

The second story comes straight from Boston, my home town. The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General has just released its report on Elements of a Successful Peer Mediation Program. This report provides a list of recommendations and questions to serve as guidelines for any school in the process of developing its own peer mediation program for its students.

The Attorney General’s Office has identified five elements vital for the success of peer mediation programs: appropriate staffing; quality training to adequately prepare mediators; appropriate mediators who truly are peers, reflect the diversity of the school, and can uphold confidentiality; support by the entire school system, including teachers and administrators; and ongoing consultation. This report also describes five phases necessary for the development of a successful peer mediation program: Developing a Vision for Peer Mediation; Information Gathering and Planning; Program Design; Program Implementation; and Program Management.

You can view the full report by clicking here.

There was construction underway over the weekend on Online Guide to Mediation’s sidebar (that’s the column over there on the right). Please take some time to check out the latest additions:

1. A brand-spanking-new blogroll. (Just scroll down to find it–it’s below my list of links.) This is an inventory of the blogs I enjoy reading, broken down by categories—alternative dispute resolution blogs, law blogs, blog directories, miscellaneous blogs, and blogs with great names. (The last category gave me some consternation, since I didn’t want anyone on my blogroll whose blogs weren’t included in this category to believe for one minute that I didn’t think the names of their blogs were great, too. For the record, I think they’re all great.)

By the way, if you’re looking for an easy way to manage your own blogroll, I would recommend Bloglines. It’s a terrific way to keep track of your RSS news feeds as well. (Thanks, George, for the helpful advice.)

2. A link to the new ADR Web Ring which Mediation Mensch Dina Beach Lynch and I have co-created. You’ll find it right at the very end of my sidebar. Dina and I extend an open invitation to anyone with an interest in alternative dispute resolution (or who is ADR-friendly) to join our web ring. If you have a blog, web site, wiki, directory, search engine, or online community, we want to know about it. Join the ADR Web Ring and get your web site listed so the rest of us can see what you’ve been up to. Not sure if your web site belongs? Go ahead and submit it anyway—we want to be inclusive, not exclusive.

The ability to follow links is one of those things that make surfing the Internet so addictive. Links also bring you about as close as you can come to the experience of infinity. A friend sends you an email with a link to a blog. That blog has a link to a web site, which contains a link to yet another blog, which leads to another blog, which leads to another web site….and so on, ad infinitum. (At least in theory. In reality there are, alas, more important things that reclaim our attention—like working and earning money.)

It’s that connectedness that intrigues many of us about the Internet. The Internet of course creates connectedness not just among web sites but among people as well. Through its facilitation of communication and community, it knits us together. In that sense it is the ultimate mediator.

With the values of community and connectedness in mind, I offer you three web sites which promote those ends:

The World Citizen’s Guide was initiated by Businesses for Diplomatic Action, Inc. (”BDA”). Recognizing that world opinion of Americans has grown increasingly negative in recent years, BDA sought ways to stem this rising tide of anti-American sentiment. Each year some 170,000 American college students travel abroad. Seeing the possibility that each one of these students could in theory be an ambassador for America, with the potential of restoring good will towards the U.S. by countering harmful stereotypes, BDA set into motion the project that would ultimately produce the World Citizen’s Guide, a manual for students with tips and ideas on how to be good citizens of the world while traveling abroad. (For an interesting perspective, click on the tab on the web site marked “100 People” for a breakdown of what the world’s population would look like if the planet held only 100 human beings.) World Citizen’s Guide is available for downloading in PDF format.

Tolerance.org, an award-winning web project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, aims to fight bigotry, promote tolerance, and build communities in which diversity is valued. It offers resources and links to teachers, parents, kids, and teens. (You can test yourself for your own hidden biases by following the link on the Tolerance.org web site to Project Implicit, an instrument which measures unconscious bias.)

Finally, there’s Global Voices Online, a global citizens’ media project, with the motto “The world is talking. Are you ready to listen?” There are conversations going on around the world on grassroots levels as private citizens blog or podcast, or participate in wikis, or engage in synchronous or asynchronous online discussions. There are parts of the world, too, where these conversations never begin because of lack of access to technology. Sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, Global Voices Online seeks to build bridges that span technological, geographical and linguistic divides through the dissemination of open-source tools and technology that will enable individuals and conversations around the world to connect with each other. Bloggers of the world, unite.

The out-of-doors apparently offers benefits well beyond fresh air and scenery, as a story in the Los Angeles Times today reports.

According to a recent study of at-risk fifth- and sixth graders in schools in rural areas in Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California, children who participated in a week-long outdoors environmental studies program not only improved their science scores and showed a great appreciation for the environment, but also demonstrated increased confidence, were more cooperative, and showed a greater openness to conflict resolution.

The study, Effects of Outdoor Education Programs for Children in California, was conducted by the American Institutes for Research on behalf of the California Department of Education.

You can view the executive summary of the study by clicking here.