# Facilitation Council Dispute Resolution

*A structured process with a trained council of facilitators who manage the dispute resolution process*

This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.

---

## Article: Dispute Resolution

### Section 1: Principles and Values

**Core Values**
This community centers on:
- **Equity** - Fair treatment and process for all parties
- **Transparency** - Clear procedures and documented decisions
- **Restorative justice** - Focus on repair rather than punishment
- **Collective decision-making** - Multiple facilitators bring diverse perspectives
- **Restorative dialogue** - Communication that heals and rebuilds

**The Council Approach**
Panel-based facilitation provides:
- Multiple perspectives on each case
- Balanced decision-making
- Diverse skills and backgrounds
- Reduced individual bias
- Consistent application of standards

**Documentation**
- Rules and protocols in searchable online database
- Version history tracked
- Physical copies at community center library
- Regular updates communicated
- Bot maintains current version

### Section 2: The Facilitation Council

**Council Composition**
The council consists of:
- 9-15 trained facilitators
- Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
- Rotating service terms (2 years)
- Staggered terms for continuity
- Community nominates and approves members

**Council Member Qualifications**
Facilitators must have:
- Completed comprehensive training program
- Understanding of community values
- Conflict resolution skills
- Demonstrated impartiality
- Active community participation
- Good standing in community

**Training Requirements**
Council training includes:
- Restorative justice principles
- Facilitation techniques
- Community constitution and values
- Cultural competency
- Trauma-informed practices
- Evidence evaluation
- Decision-making frameworks
- Bot system use

**Council Governance**
- Council elects coordinating committee (3 members)
- Coordinator handles case assignment
- Regular council meetings for learning and consistency
- Annual review and improvement
- Bot supports coordination

### Section 3: Information Access Model

**Three-Tier System**
Information shared based on role:

**Tier 1 - Full Access:**
- Involved parties
- Assigned council panel members
- Access to all case materials and deliberations

**Tier 2 - Anonymized Tracking:**
- Council administrators
- Process tracking without identifying details
- Patterns and statistics

**Tier 3 - Quarterly Reports:**
- Broader community
- Anonymized summaries
- No identifying details
- Trends and learnings

### Section 4: Initiating the Process

**Formal Intake**
Initiated via:
- Online form submission to @govbot
- Hard copy form at community center
- Both include same information fields
- Accessible formats available

**Intake Form Contents**
Requesting party provides:
- All parties involved
- Description of dispute
- Timeline of events
- Previous resolution attempts
- Desired outcomes
- Any safety concerns
- Evidence or documentation

**Council Acknowledgment**
Within 24 hours:
- Council acknowledges receipt
- Assigns intake coordinator
- Initial assessment begins
- Parties notified of next steps

**Coordinator Contact**
Within 48 hours:
- Intake coordinator contacts all parties
- Explains process in detail
- Answers questions
- Schedules initial interviews
- Provides process timeline

### Section 5: Panel Assignment

**Panel Size**
For each case, panel of 2-3 council members:
- **2 members** - Routine disputes
- **3 members** - Complex cases or serious matters
- Coordinator determines based on initial assessment

**Selection Criteria**
Panel members selected for:
- Availability for full process
- Relevant expertise if needed
- Diversity of perspectives
- No conflicts of interest
- Balanced backgrounds

**Lead Facilitator**
One panel member designated as lead:
- Primary coordinator of process
- Leads sessions and deliberations
- Main point of contact
- Ensures process integrity
- Supported by other panel members

### Section 6: Process Ground Rules

**Talking Piece Protocol**
Council uses structured communication:
- Talking piece indicates who has floor
- Passed in intentional order
- Speaker cannot be interrupted
- Can pass without speaking
- Slows conversation for reflection
- Ensures all voices heard

**Additional Ground Rules**
All participants commit to:
- Structured speaking order
- Time limits respected
- Direct communication when productive
- Listening without planning response
- Focus on resolution
- Confidentiality of process details
- Respect for all parties

**Facilitator Authority**
Panel has authority to:
- Enforce ground rules
- Manage time and process
- Pause for cooling off
- Request additional information
- Modify process as needed
- Make final determination

### Section 7: Assessment Phase

**Structured Assessment**
Panel conducts thorough review through:
- Individual interviews with each party
- Written statements from parties
- Witness consultation if relevant
- Review of documentation
- Analysis using formal framework

**Assessment Framework**
Panel examines:
- Facts agreed upon and disputed
- Applicable community standards
- Context and history
- Impact on individuals and community
- Underlying interests and needs
- Power dynamics at play
- Potential for resolution

**Jurisdiction Determination**
Checklist-based assessment:
- Falls within community authority?
- Appropriate for council process?
- Safety concerns requiring escalation?
- Legal violations needing referral?
- Resources adequate for resolution?

**Referral Criteria**
Cases with serious legal violations or safety threats:
- Referred to appropriate authorities
- Council may run parallel process
- Safety prioritized
- Community standards still applied

### Section 8: Handling Non-Participation

**Participation Requirements**
- Required for active community members
- Voluntary for non-members
- Non-participation has consequences
- Process may proceed without party

**Modified Process**
If party refuses participation:
- Council proceeds with available information
- Decision may be made in absentia
- Limited remedies possible
- Non-participating party informed
- May affect their community standing

**Encouraging Participation**
Panel makes efforts to:
- Understand barriers to participation
- Address concerns about process
- Offer accommodations
- Explain importance and consequences
- Provide support if needed

### Section 9: Deliberation Process

**Information Gathering**
Predetermined schedule for:
- **Statements** - Each party presents (30-45 min)
- **Clarifying questions** - Panel and parties ask questions
- **Witness testimony** - If relevant and requested
- **Evidence review** - Documents, records, communications
- **Standards review** - Applicable policies and precedents

**Deliberation Format**
Multi-stage structure:
- Most cases involve 3-5 sessions
- Sessions are 2-3 hours each
- Spread over 2-4 week period
- Allows time for reflection
- Parties and panel have breaks between sessions

**Additional Voices**
Process includes:
- **Primary parties** - Central to all sessions
- **Council panel members** - Guide and decide
- **Invited witnesses** - Provide specific information
- **Support persons** - Emotional support for parties (with permission)
- **Community representatives** - When case affects broader community

### Section 10: Resolution Process

**Tiered Approach**
Panel prioritizes in order:

**First: Facilitated Consensus**
- Panel helps parties reach mutual agreement
- Most preferred outcome
- Parties control their resolution
- Panel guides and supports

**Second: Council Recommendations**
- If consensus not reached
- Panel proposes resolution
- Strong recommendations to parties
- Parties encouraged to accept

**Third: Binding Decisions**
- When needed for community protection
- Panel makes final determination
- Binding on all parties
- Used sparingly

**Decision-Making Within Panel**
Panel decisions require:
- Discussion until consensus reached
- If consensus not possible, majority vote
- Dissenting opinions noted
- Lead facilitator breaks ties (if 2-person panel)

### Section 11: Resolution Outcomes

**Types of Outcomes**
Council may determine:
- Findings of fact
- Responsibility determinations
- Behavioral requirements
- Restitution or repair actions
- Boundary setting
- Relationship agreements
- Community service
- Policy recommendations
- Apologies or acknowledgments

**Written Decision**
Panel provides comprehensive document:
- Summary of dispute
- Process followed
- Evidence considered
- Standards applied
- Determination and reasoning
- Specific requirements
- Implementation timeline
- Follow-up plan

**Decision Communication**
- Provided to all parties
- Submitted to @govbot
- Anonymized summary to community
- Implementation coordinator notified
- Appeals information included

### Section 12: Implementation and Follow-Up

**Monitoring Compliance**
- Implementation coordinator tracks
- Regular check-ins with parties
- Bot sends automated reminders
- Progress reported to panel
- Support provided as needed

**Follow-Up Sessions**
Scheduled as needed for:
- Checking agreement implementation
- Addressing emerging concerns
- Supporting relationship repair
- Celebrating progress
- Modifying agreements if circumstances change

**Non-Compliance**
If requirements not met:
- Coordinator reaches out
- Understands barriers
- Panel reconvenes if needed
- May modify requirements
- Escalate to governance if willful refusal

### Section 13: When Resolution Fails

**Alternative Pathways**
Panel may recommend:
- **Specialized mediators** - For deep interpersonal conflicts
- **Governance escalation** - For policy questions
- **Professional services** - Therapy, legal advice, etc.
- **Legal resources** - When appropriate
- **Separation protocols** - If co-existence not possible
- **Interim measures** - To stabilize situation

**Partial Resolution**
Sometimes full resolution not possible:
- Panel addresses what can be resolved
- Provides clarity on what remains
- Suggests next steps
- Documents progress made
- Maintains safety and boundaries

### Section 14: Appeals Process

**Appeal Criteria**
Appeals accepted for:
- New evidence not previously available
- Procedural errors affecting outcome
- Agreements proving unworkable
- Changed circumstances requiring revision
- Evidence of panel bias

**Filing Requirements**
Within 30 days of decision:
- Submit appeal to council via @govbot
- Explain specific grounds
- Provide supporting documentation
- Propose alternative outcome

**Appeal Review**
New panel assigned:
- Different members than original
- Reviews appeal against criteria
- Conducts limited-scope hearing if needed
- Decides: affirm, modify, overturn, or remand
- Decision within 30 days of acceptance

**Appeal Outcomes**
Appeal panel may:
- Affirm original decision
- Modify specific elements
- Overturn and decide differently
- Remand for new process
- Provide clarification

### Section 15: Council Learning and Improvement

**Case Review**
Council regularly reviews:
- Patterns across cases
- Process effectiveness
- Consistency in application
- Areas for improvement
- Training needs

**Community Reporting**
Quarterly reports include:
- Number and types of cases
- Resolution outcomes
- Process timelines
- Trends and patterns
- Anonymized learnings

**Continuous Improvement**
Council commits to:
- Annual process review
- Incorporating feedback
- Updating training
- Refining procedures
- Community input on changes

---

## Implementation Notes for Bot

When supporting facilitation council process:

1. **Coordination hub** - Manage complex logistics of panels, parties, and sessions
2. **Information management** - Implement three-tier access appropriately
3. **Timeline tracking** - Multi-session processes over weeks
4. **Panel support** - Provide facilitators with tools and documentation
5. **Implementation monitoring** - Track compliance with decisions
6. **Pattern analysis** - Help council learn from cases
7. **Community reporting** - Generate quarterly anonymized summaries

This process works best when:
- Multiple facilitators bring diverse perspectives
- Complex cases need structured but flexible process
- Community values both thoroughness and efficiency
- Restorative outcomes prioritized
- Strong facilitator training in place
- Time available for multi-session deliberation