agentic-govbot/templates/dispute-resolution/facilitation-council.md

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