agentic-govbot/templates/dispute-resolution/chosen-facilitator.md

Chosen Facilitator Dispute Resolution

A process where participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution

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 emphasizes:

• Open dialogue and mutual respect
• Collaborative problem-solving
• Neutral facilitation chosen by parties
• Participant empowerment
• Confidential process

Community Standards

• Guidelines available on community website
• Physical materials at community center
• Regular updates and review
• Bot maintains current documentation

Section 2: Community Relations Committee

Committee Structure The Community Relations Committee:

• Receives dispute forms
• Coordinates facilitation process
• Maintains facilitator pool
• Tracks outcomes and patterns
• Reports to governance body

Committee Responsibilities

• Acknowledge dispute forms within 24 hours
• Contact all parties within 48 hours
• Provide copies and process information
• Support facilitator selection
• Monitor case progress

Section 3: Initiating the Process

Submitting a Dispute Members submit dispute forms including:

• Parties involved
• Nature of the dispute
• What has been tried so far
• Desired outcomes
• Submit via @govbot or physical form

Committee Response Within 48 hours, committee provides:

• Acknowledgment of receipt
• Process overview
• Copy to all parties
• Facilitator selection information
• Timeline expectations

Voluntary But Encouraged

• Participation is voluntary
• Community members commit to good faith engagement
• Refusal may trigger individual outreach
• Alternative options available if needed

Section 4: Selecting a Facilitator

The Facilitator Pool Community maintains trained volunteers:

• Completed facilitation training
• Understand community values
• Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
• Committed to neutrality
• Bot maintains current roster

Joint Selection Process Parties work together to select facilitator:

1. Committee provides list of available facilitators
2. Parties review facilitator backgrounds
3. Parties jointly agree on selection
4. If no agreement, committee suggests options
5. Ultimately parties must both accept facilitator

Facilitator Role The facilitator:

• Helps guide the conversation
• Ensures all voices are heard
• Maintains focus on resolution
• Remains neutral throughout
• Supports productive dialogue
• Does not impose solutions

Section 5: Meeting Logistics

Neutral Spaces Meetings occur in:

• Community spaces accessible to all
• Neutral locations (not either party's space)
• Private settings ensuring confidentiality
• Comfortable environments for difficult conversations
• Virtual options available if needed

Meeting Schedule Typical timeline:

• First meeting within 1-2 weeks of facilitator selection
• 90-120 minute sessions
• Typically 1-3 sessions
• Spaced weekly to allow reflection
• Flexible based on participant needs

Support Persons

• Support persons may attend with permission
• Must be agreed to by all parties
• Observe only, do not participate
• Provide emotional support
• Maintain confidentiality

Section 6: Ground Rules and Process

Established Practices All participants agree to:

• One speaker at a time
• Focus on issues, not personal attacks
• Use respectful language
• Practice active listening
• Take breaks as needed
• Maintain confidentiality

Process Flow Typical session structure:

1. Facilitator opens and reviews ground rules
2. Each party shares their perspective
3. Facilitator helps clarify and reframe
4. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
5. Explore possible resolutions
6. Build toward agreements
7. Document outcomes

Section 7: Dispute Assessment

Developing Shared Understanding Facilitator helps parties:

• Share perspectives without interruption
• Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
• Clarify facts versus interpretations
• Understand each other's concerns
• Define what resolution looks like
• Identify obstacles to resolution

Scope and Jurisdiction This process handles:

• Interpersonal conflicts
• Communication breakdowns
• Disagreements about behavior
• Community standard violations
• Relationship repair

Escalation Determination Facilitators recommend escalation for:

• Serious safety concerns
• Legal violations requiring reporting
• Complex issues beyond scope
• Situations requiring specialized expertise
• Power imbalances preventing fair process

Section 8: Deliberation and Resolution

Building Understanding Through facilitated discussions:

• Each person's needs and concerns heard
• Underlying interests explored
• Creative options generated
• Impacts and consequences considered
• Common ground identified

Working Toward Resolution Facilitator supports parties to:

• Generate multiple options
• Evaluate feasibility of solutions
• Build on areas of agreement
• Address remaining concerns
• Find mutually acceptable outcomes

Decision-Making Resolutions require participant consensus:

• Both parties must agree
• Facilitator cannot impose outcomes
• Partial agreements acceptable
• Revisiting and revising allowed
• May need multiple sessions

Section 9: Resolution Outcomes

Types of Outcomes Common resolutions include:

• Mutual understanding of perspectives
• Agreements about future behavior
• Commitments to specific actions
• Changes to procedures or policies
• Plans for relationship-building
• Agreed boundaries or separation

Documenting Agreements

• Facilitator documents agreed outcomes
• All parties review and approve
• Submitted to @govbot for records
• Include follow-up mechanisms
• Specify accountability measures

Implementation Support

• Committee tracks agreement implementation
• Follow-up check-ins scheduled
• Resources provided as needed
• Modifications allowed if needed

Section 10: Appeals and Follow-Up

When to Appeal Appeal available when:

• New information emerges
• Circumstances change significantly
• Implementation fails or is problematic
• Process fairness questioned
• Agreements prove unworkable

Appeal Process

1. Party submits appeal to committee
2. Committee reviews grounds for appeal
3. New facilitator assigned (not original)
4. Fresh review of situation
5. New sessions held as needed
6. Decision on modification or new resolution

Follow-Up Sessions Available for:

• Checking on agreement implementation
• Addressing new concerns
• Adjusting agreements as needed
• Continued relationship building
• Either party can request

Section 11: Information and Privacy

Need-to-Know Basis Information sharing:

• Full details only to direct parties
• Facilitators have access to case documentation
• Committee tracks process, not details
• Community receives anonymized statistics
• Annual reports on trends and patterns

Confidentiality Commitment All participants agree:

• Not to share details outside process
• To protect each other's privacy
• To allow anonymized learning
• To respect sensitive information
• Exceptions only for safety concerns

Record Keeping Bot maintains:

• Case timeline and status
• Facilitator assignments
• Agreements and outcomes
• Follow-up schedules
• Anonymized statistics

---

Implementation Notes for Bot

When facilitating chosen facilitator process:

1. Coordinate smoothly - Handle logistics efficiently
2. Support selection - Make choosing facilitator easy
3. Provide resources - Share guidelines and templates
4. Track progress - Monitor timeline and follow-ups
5. Respect roles - Facilitator guides, parties decide
6. Ensure privacy - Protect confidential information
7. Enable learning - Collect anonymized data for improvement

This process works well when:

• Parties want structured support but maintain control
• Mutual facilitator selection builds trust
• Trained volunteers available
• Community values facilitated dialogue
• Clear escalation paths exist