Mediation Process
A link will also be established between what transpires in this situation and the concepts in the broader literature of this concept. An explanation into why these strategies used did not work or worked will also be looked into. The solutions and how they measured up to the initial stages will also be analyzed. Finally, the mistakes both parties made will be looked into and those that the mediator did, considering that no one is free from mistakes.
The Analysis
The events that transpire in this despite involve residents of a particular neighbourhood, and a local church. The neighbourhood is against the churchs recent activities and they think that the church presents its self as a threat to the existence of a peaceful neighbourhood. The current dispute concerns the church planning to open up a centre or a home for the mentally handicapped. According to the residents of the area, this is unacceptable and they demand that the church keeps the sanity of the area, by not doing so. The residents argue that the presence of these mentally retarded individuals will disturb the peace and quiet that they have seemingly enjoyed for the past 25 years, and that they deserve the peace and quiet especially since they pay their taxes. They also argue that the presence of mentally challenged individuals within their neighbourhood is bound to attract trouble and that the elderly within the neighbourhood will be defenceless and this will force the residents to stay confined to their homes. The crime rate is also a major concern to the residents of this area with claims that the presence of these individuals is bound to increase the already high crime rate. Another concern of these residents is the increase in traffic within their neighbourhood which will lead to an increase in the noise level, hazards, parking space will be a problem and the value of their property will also reduce. The residents also argue that the church has been constantly expanding its activities without further consultation from the residents of the area, despite the fact that strangers have been frequenting the neighbourhood at odd hours. The residents also believe that the company that is being leased the space to is unable to offer full time supervision to the patients and this will lead to the patients wondering off into the neighbourhood. They also believe that the church is not a conducive place to place such disturbed individuals.
The events imply that this is a dispute since the church is also not willing to back down and just halt their plans of setting up this facility by leasing their land. This also implies that if the two parties dont reach a consensus on their own, a mediator will have to intervene to quell the dispute. Now, a mediator is a neutral party who assists in the resolution of conflicts through negotiation. This is done through the process of mediation which happens to be the alternative if the two feuding parties fail to disagree, thus it is an alternative dispute resolution. Mediators may involve the community, organisations or even individuals. This implies that the mediator will not have to accept any other settlement that a third party other than those in dispute, may try to impose (Dana, D. 2001).
According to the residents, they are vehemently opposed to the fact that mentally retarded individuals will be roaming their neighbourhood, while the church insists that this is their property they are leasing and not the whole neighbourhood. These two disputing parties thus have taken different positions with the residents taking the position that these individuals deserve to be at a GP clinic and not in a church. They also believe that a day care centre would be much better as compared to a church especially in their neighbourhood. The churchs position in this matter is that their clients dont have a major problem, implying that they are not mentally retarded as such, but are rather people who have been released from mental hospitals, and are recovering. They claim that the clients just have minor psychological issues and impairments and that people should live in the community in harmony (Woolford A. Ratner R. 2008). The church also claims that the facility is open to any member of the community that is willing to pay it a visit. Further more, the church states that the capacity that the facility is projected to hold is a maximum of 30 at any particular time and this should form any sort of immediate problems to the immediate community. The residents are also seemingly confused as to what service the church is really keen on offering to these mentally challenged people. Another concern of the community is who will be supervising these individuals, considering the church doesnt have any medical staff that is readily available at all times. The church claims that supervision will be provided by psychologists and that the church will provide security training and responsibilities. The church also claimed that the ratio of the staff and that of the clients will depend on the activities that will be taking place. The community also believe that the patients should be transported with a bus and that the activities should only take place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m from Monday to Friday only to minimize contact with the patients. The community also believes that crime is a major issue in the area and that the presence of these patients will only serve to aggravate the problem. The church believes that crime is not an issue and that even if it is they are not to blame for the problem (MacKinnon D. 2008).
The residents are ready to go to court to settle this dispute there, if it can not be settled at a local level. They have contacted their representative and demanded that the Board of Aldermen undertake an investigation to ensure that the company being leased the land is qualified to run such a facility. The residents are also concerned that why cant the government intervene by of erring a building or space for free to these organisation to facilitate this kind of cause. The residents also offered to approach the church to negotiate on the terms of service if they are to implement their plans or if they can forego their plans. To do this, the residents sent a member to represent them and meet with a representative from the church and a mediator from the Neighbourhood Justice Centre to negotiate the problem. The interest that the two parties had were discussed such as to who the facility is intended for, to which the church responded by saying that it is for the general community. The residents also wanted to know how many patients the facility will hold at a given time. The residents were also concerned as to which service the church was offering, considering it was not qualified to host such a facility. Another interest that the residents had was why start such a facility when there were numerous other ways the church could serve the community without endangering the welfare of the residents of the area.
The strategy of communication that the two parties used was direct dialogue, which they managed to achieve by sending two representatives to represent them they could not all meet since there could have been a sense of confusion and this would have jeopardised the reconciliation process. Also, the rule was that one person was to speak at a time to allow for effective communication, and for the mediator to be able to get both sides of the story without getting confused. This form of strategy was effective since both parties get to get immediate feedback and also they get to react to the issues that are raised almost immediately. The only setback that this form of communication has compared to others is that the other members of the community and the church will get second hand communication of the proceedings and this could be distorted (Abramson H. 2004).
The dialogue generally was a smooth one and some of the factors that contributed to this were the fact that both parties were wiling to compromise on a number of issues. For example the residents had to allow the facility to be set up, and this left the church with no option but to also compromise on a number of factors such as issue training to ensure that the patients are handled professionally. Although some factors that the parties couldnt agree with stalled the negotiation process even longer and this issue could only be solved by the direct intervention of the mediator (Doherty N. Guyler M. 2008).
During the course of the mediation the issues up for negotiation or the bargaining mix changed from time to time due to the fact that both parties at some point had to reach a settlement zone and this could only be done through compromise. The issues that the residents defined as the bargaining mix was the issue of crime while the church believed that crime was not the main issue. The phases in mediation involved the parties first stating their interest and stating their goals and objectives the mediator had to listen and an agreement had to be reached, but the mediator could impose his views to affect the outcome of the agreement. The form of mediation that took place was a mix of a number of models of mediation. It could be termed as compromise mediation, due to the fact that the both parties reached a central point through compromise. The definition of the dispute was also based on the different positions that the disputing parties held. The negotiation process also used the compromise model due to the fact that the mediator rare intervened in the mediations and the bargains by the parties were based on positions. Another model used in this mediation process is the facilitative model, due to the fact that the problems were interest based and the mediation was aimed at solving a problem. The model used can also be termed as facilitative due to the fact that mediator only encouraged them to form creative solutions to the problems that could be of benefit to both the parties (Cloke K. 2001).
The negotiation process went well owing to the fact that the process was well managed and organised and due to the fact that both parties were willing to compromise in a bid to mend their relationship. The mediation process also went well considering that both parties were able to reach a consensus, and their problem was finally solved amicably. The solutions that both parties were able to reach can be attributed to the fact that both parties were determined to solve the dispute considering that initially neither of the parties were ready to reach a compromise. Even though the mediation went well, it is important to note that the mediator could have done more in regards to intervention and advice. The mediator played the role of a listener more than that of an active mediator due to the fact that he rarely intervened in the problem. Also, both parties should have brought in more representatives than just one, since one representative may only pout his or her interests on the table and ignore those of the whole party at large (Dobson C. 2003).
Conclusion
The solutions that both parties reached was due to the fact that the model of negotiation that they used was effective, and also due to the fact that they combined two models that is facilitative and compromise mediation. Though I believe that this should not have been a dispute that should warrant a mediator, the mediator played an important role in ensuring that matters did not get out of hand by constructing a dialogue between the parties as it should be in the facilitative model.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment