36justice.pdf

Rob

Gelblum

RobB.Gelblumrecently received his Juris

Doc-torateand MasterofCity and Regional Planning from the University of NorthCarolinaatChapel

Hill.Gelblumgained

ex-perience in community justiceplanningthrough

hisassociationwith

var-ious progressivepolitical

organizations throughout theUnitedStates.

Effectivedispute resolutionisan importantattributeofstable

community

relations. In

many

western

socie-ties, however, traditionalcourtsystems

have

proven incapableof handlingthe increasing

numbers

ofcases

beforethem.

The

costsof formaladjudication

have

also beenprohibitive for

many

groups

and

individuals. In

an

attemptto

advance

a

more

equitable

and more

responsive

means

ofresolving

community

and

interper-sonal conflicts, mediation

and

arbitration strategies

have

been developed in

many

communities.

Gelblum'sarticledescribesthe roleof disputecenters asan institutionalsource ofconflict resolution. These

organizationsprovidea

framework

for cooperative, negotiated dispute settlement.

The Chapel

HillDispute

Settlement Center is presented as a case study ofeffective

community

conflict mitigation.

mediationversus adjudication

alienationfrom the

traditional courtsystem

Disputes

seem

inevitable, bothat theintergroup

and

interpersonallevels. Conflict has

been

with us since "time

immemorial"

and shows

no

signs of abating as a

human

activity. AnthropologistsLaura

Nader

and

H.F. Todd, Jr. (pp. x-xi) list the follow-ing as the

components

of a dispute: that

which

is disputed, theparties tothe dispute, presentation of thedispute,procedureor

manner

ofhandling,

termi-nation of the grievance

and

enforcement of the decision.

The

desire to resolve conflict is a natural

func-tionofsocialorganization.Mediationisan

embodi-ment

of thatdesire; itscultural

and

historicalroots are deep. Itis a practice, moreover,

which

has

be-come

increasingly important for

many

American

communities

in theireffortsto create cooperative,

productive

and

healthy social environments.

In

most

developedsocietiesthereisastate

appara-tusfor handlingdisputes: aformal

and

hierarchial

legalsystemisitsusualform.

The

common

law

tra-dition followed in the United States

employs an

adversarialsystemofadjudication.

Two

champions

(thelawyers)

meet

on

thefield ofbattle (the

court-room), with

one

sideemerging victorious

and

the othervanquished.

The

winner

ischosen

by

ajudge orjurywith thedecisionbased, theoretically, only

on

theletterofthe law. Despiterisks

and

complexi-ties of the legal process, increasing

numbers

of

Americans

areusing the courts toresolvetheir dis-putes. This heightened

demand

hascreateda severe

backlogof casesateverylevelofthejudicialsystem.

Compounding

the

problem

isthefactthatcases in

progress

sometimes

takeyears to settle; costshave

risen proportionately.

Indefense of thelegaledifice,

one

institution de-servesat leastqualifiedpraise

—

smallclaimscourt.

It is used

by

many

as

means

of redress for

minor

civilgrievances. Smallclaims courts feature

"infor-mality, the willingness to mediate

and

to concede, thewaivingofformalrulesof evidence,and, above

all, thewillingnesstosubstitutegoodwill

and

com-promisefor theadversary process"(Alper

&

Nich-ols, p. xvi). Unfortunately, its limitations

—

the restriction tocivilcases, the

minimal

amounts

that

may

be suedfor, thefrequentdifficultyofenforcing

judgments

and

the specter ofdelay

—

leave

many

of its users dissatisfied.

Alienation

from

the traditionalcourtsystem has

become

widespread.

Many

feel thatthecourts

dis-penseanythingbutjustice,

and

thatonlyinthe

most

cumbersome

and

convoluted

manner.

Into this

breachhave rushed

new community modes

of

jus-tice,

which

"donotrest

on

afoundationof

innocent-guilty, right-wrong, win-lose, victor-vanquished.

The

foundationhereisoneofhealing, of

reconcilia-tionofdefendantwithcomplainantaswell aswith

the

community"

(Alper

&

Nichols, p. xii). It is as

if

many

are saying "justice is too important to be

left to the justices."

victim assistance

and

compensation,

and

citizen

panels

which

advise

on

sentencing.

Community

par-ticipationinthe disputeresolutionprocessprovides perhapsanegative

commentary on

ourlegalsystem.

At

the

same

time, it

may

be

viewed

as a positive

reflection

on

the concern

and

resourcefulness of

many

citizensnationwide.Thisisnottoimplythat

grassrootsjusticehasarisenovernight.

As

Alper

and

Nichols (p. xvi) note, "the idea of

community

in-volvementin the settlement of disputesisasold as the first families of

humans

who

came

together to

form

aclan.Responsibilityfor theresolution of con-flict

and

thedispensationofjusticeisthecornerstone of

any

society."

Even segmentsof thelegalprofessionhaverallied

around

alternativedisputeresolution.

Out

of a1976

conference

on

the"CausesofPopularDissatisfaction

withtheAdministrationofJustice,"

commemorating

a 1906 address

by

eminent

American

jurist Roscoe

Pound

on

the

same

theme,1

emerged an American

Bar Association Special

Committee on

Alternative

DisputeResolution.

Promotion

of "dispute

resolu-tion centers" throughout thenationis the

commit-tee's charge,

and

it seeks to accomplish that by:

•maintainingaclearinghouse of

informa-tion

on

dispute resolution

which

iseasily accessible;

•producing

publications including the quarterlynewsletter, abibliography,

and

a directory,

and

•providingtechnicalassistance

on

request

(Ray 1981).

Examples

of specificactions taken

by

the

commit-tee are:

assisting the UnitedStates Justice

Department

in the development ofthe

Neighborhood

Jus-ticeCenterDemonstration

Program and

Exper-imental Grant-in

Aid

legislation tostimulate

fur-therefforts;presentation ofa

major

National Conference

on

Resolutionof

Minor

Disputes

(Columbia

Law

School,

May

1977); mainte-nance of contact with almost every

opera-tionaldisputeresolution projectinthecountry,

withinformational datafilesoneach;assisting in the

development

of the

proposed

Federal

Dispute Resolution

Act

(PL96-190) [which passed

on

February12, 1980.

Though

not di-rectlyfunded, undertheAct, the

Department

ofJusticeis assisting18states in formulating

dispute resolutionlegislation (id., Foreward)}

(id.).

Of

course theadministration ofjustice ishardly the only front

which

has seen a recent resurgence of citizeninvolvement

and

participation.

Commu-nity

development

has

remained

vital, even during

the

"dormant

70s," through the establishment of

neighborhoodassociations, citizencrime-prevention

programs, healthcenters,

community

schools, food

cooperatives

and

community

corporations for the rehabilitation of deteriorated housing (Alper

&

Nichols, p. xviii).

Though

a

broad

scale

community

justice

move-ment

isonly

now

discerniblein the United States,

examples of such

abound

throughout the world. Forinstance, layjudges

now

participateinthe courtsof

many

European

countries, including

socialist nations. For

many

years now, the

Scandinavian countries

have

entrusted the hearing

and

adjudication ofchildren's casesto

child-welfare boards

composed

ofelected lay

persons

from

the

community, which

take the place of the juvenile court as

we know

it.

The

British magistrate'scourtscontinue tooperate

in a fashion similar in

many

respects to our

American

Justices of the Peace.

We

see the

emergence ofspecialcourts for labordisputes,

as in Israel.

The approach

ofcommunity-justicebodies

is also being used

on

an increasing scale in

family courts

and

in thejuvenile courts

now

found

in every

major

country of the world.

Housing

courts

and

special tribunals for the

hearing of

consumer

complaintsare

two

addi-tionalspecialized tribunals

coming

into their

own.

In various ethnic groups

we

find

modern

application _ofaprocedurethat dates

back

to biblical times

_—

for instance, the Beth

Din

found

in Jewish

communities

in the United

States,

whose

roots

go back

tothe Sanhedrin

courts. Today's Gypsies,

whose

originsarelost inantiquity, continuetopractice theirancient

procedures for resolving disagreements

be-tweenindividual

members

oftheirgroup.

The

Panchayat

courtsofIndia,supplanted during

the centuries of British colonial rule by the

common-law

procedures ofthe

home

country, aregradually replacing this alien imposition

on

their historic

ways

ofadministeringjustice.

The

socialist countries,

none

of

which

has a

common-law

precedent, especiallythose

whose

courtproceduresare

more

likely tobederived

from

Roman

or

Napoleonic

people's courts,

grassrootsjustice

legalprofessionsupport

foralternativedispute resolution models

impedimentsto

community-based justice

wherelay persons, whetherasprosecutors,

de-fense counselsorjudges, supplant the legally

schooled professionals

who

administer the courts in

our

country (Alper

&

Nichols, pp. xvii-xviii).

As

appealing as

community-based

modes

of

justice are, there are

impediments

to theirgrowth.

The

above-cited

work

of the

American

Bar

Associa-tionnot withstanding, the institutional barriersare, in large part, reinforced

by

the legal profession.

Thereare, of course,

many

attorneyssupportiveof

fessionalsarevirtually

uninformed

abouttherange

and

consequencesofthe legalproblemsthatplague ordinary citizens" (id.),

and

the

magnitude

of the obstacles

becomes

clear.

Impediments(e.g.,thelegalestablishment),

which

can be confronted directly are sufficiently formi-dable.

Beyond them

lies thearguably

more

funda-mental

problem

posed

by

a societythathas evolved

from one

consisting of stable,cohesivecommunities withsharedvalues, tooneevidencing great mobility

and

adisparity of

norms

within communities.

Com-a lCom-ack of incentiveto createanew legal institution

informal dispute resolutionmethods.

On

thewhole, though, the professionhas"littleincentive'tocreate

new

legal institutionsto facilitatethe resolution of disputesoutside thecourtrooms' "(Nader

&

Singer,

pp. 314-315, inAlper

&

Nichols, p.243).

These

are times of

economic

scarcity. Itisdifficult tofind

ex-amplesof

economic

altruismin

any

occupation,

es-peciallyperhaps

when

the

number

of practitioners

hasincreased as dramaticallyasinlaw.

Lawyers

are

alsodisproportionately representedatboththe state

and

national legislative levels,

where

much

can be

done

toretardorfoster alternativestothelegal

pro-cess.

Add

to this the fact that "the social distance

betweenthe legalprofession

and

the

mass

of

middle-income Americans

has increased so that

most

pro-munities displaying strong consensusaroundnotions

of fairness

and

justice have given

way

to polarized groupings

bonded

tenuouslybya highly sophisticated legalculture.Thisstateofaffairscomplicates the

pro-cess fora transition to grassroots

forms

ofjustice.

Aside

from

thefactorsmilitatingagainst the

pre-dominance

of

community

dispute resolution, there isanaspect of the

phenomenon

which

createscause for concern. Wholesale use of the

new

schemes couldbring

many

individualstothe"bar ofjustice"

who

might nototherwisehave beenensnared. That

is, ifgrassrootsjusticeis

made

widelyavailable

and

unqualifiedly promoted,

numerous

complainants

handling

mechanism

could

become

overburdened;

just conflict resolution

would

remain illusive.

The

pitfalls notwithstanding, the potential of

community-based

justice isgreat.

Throughout

the country, people are organizing to effect thisgoal; theirsuccess

bodes

wellforall ofus. Clearly, if

in-dividualconflictresolutionsareto

command

greater respect, they

must

be the product of

an

"organic" process

embodying community

values.

Mediation

Inmediation, a thirdparty facilitatesagreement betweenor

among

disputingparties.'"[TJhirdparties

have, orshouldhave, the objective ofchangingthe

relationshipbetweenthe partiesfromadestructively

competitivewin-lose orientation to a cooperative, collaborativeproblem-solvingorientation" (Fisher, p. 81).

A

requisiteelementof theprocessisthe

dis-putants'acceptance ofthe mediator's intervention. Together, the contendingparties

and

the mediator

resolve theparties'differences

and

attempt to

formu-lateamutuallyagreeable settlement.

Though

medi-ated resolutions

do

notlegallybindthe disputants,

itisanticipated that theprovisions ofany agreement

willbe

honored

by

virtueof theparties'

mutual

in-terest in termination of the conflict.

Mediation has

grown

increasingly popular over

thepast

two

decades.Creativecitizens

and

organiza-tionshavefound

ways

toapplyitsuccessfullyin

con-textsasvariedasenvironmental,labor-management, budgetary

and

interpersonalconflicts (thelatter

in-cludes domestic quarrels

and

squabbles involving landlords

and

tenants, merchants

and

consumers,

and

neighbors).

The

National Center for Dispute

Settlementofthe

American

Arbitration Association, theUnitedStates

Department

ofJustice's

Neighbor-hood

JusticeCenter

and

many

localgroups

around

thecountryare activelypursuingtheuseof

media-tion (Susskind

and

Ozawa,

p. 22).

Mediation isanappealing

form

ofdispute resolu-tion.

The

judicialsystemgainsin

many

ways. Staff (judges, police, prosecutors

and

therest)arespared

thetime

and

risksinvolvedincasesthatgoto

media-tion. Forexample, familyquarrels,

which

are often

mediated

when

theoptionisavailable, account for

approximately

20%

of police deaths

and

approxi-mately

40%

of police injuries (Alper

&

Nichols,

p. 131). Jails

become

less

crowded and

the

burden

of bail is eased. Perhaps

most

important is the

heightened respect for the legal system that fair

mediationengenders.

Those

who

have

become

alie-nated

from

thesystem

may

no

longerequatejustice

with harshness

and

inequality, but

may

come

to

view

theconceptasconnotingfairness, restitution,

peacemaking

and

themeetingofneeds(id.).

Recidi-vism

is understandably

low

among

those

whose

complaints are resolved through mediation.

The

disputants are the beneficiaries of lowered

hostility, aggravation

and

tension

when

their

griev-ancesare successfully resolved. In contrast, judicially settled conflicts tend to inspire sharpened

antag-onism. Mediation occursat theconvenience of the

participants, rather than at the behest of a court.

Lossesof

wages and

time are thereby avoided.

Most

interpersonaldisputescanbesettledin

one

to three

sessions.

The

disputantsformulate their

own

deci-sion, rather than having

one

foisted

on them by

judges

and

lawyers. Finally if thereisa loser, pen-ance is in the

form

of

payments

or constructive

tasks, not in the

form

of a criminal record. Mediation'sgreatestbeneficiary

may

bethe

com-munity. Forexample, thedemoralizationresulting

from

disputes

which

have been ignoredor relegated

tothecourtsisameliorated. Mediationcanallay

ten-sions

and

possibleviolence

which

couldresult

from

unchecked

community

conflict. Indirectbenefits

in-clude

enhancement

of a

community's

dispute

han-dlingresources,

and

an

improvement

in

community

ambiance.

Mediation differs

from

arbitration.

Though

the

two

share thenegotiation process, thelatterentails

the imposition of settlement.

Acording

to

Meyer

(p.164): "Mediation

and

arbitrationhave nothingin

common

conceptually.

One

involves helpingpeople

to decide for themselves while the other involves helping people

by

deciding for them."

The

Chapel

Hill Dispute Settlement Center

Chapel

Hill,

North

Carolinaboastsan

outstand-ing

example

of a

community-based

mediation ser-vice.

Though

the

Chapel

Hill Dispute Settlement

Center did not

open

its doors to disputants until

summer

of 1979, the need for a

community-based

mediation center

was

first articulated in the early 1970s.

The

center

was

bom

from

acourtmonitoring

program

initiatedby

two

women

of the localchapter of the

Women's

InternationalLeagueforPeace

and

Freedom(WILPF), atthe instigation of the Interchurch

(now

Interfaith)Council.

The

Center'sorganizers be-lieved there were better

ways

than adjudication to

handleparticular types ofdisputes, especiallythose

the potentials of

community justice

accepting amediator's intervention

mediationand

fundingfora dispute center inChapelHill

staffingthe center

goals of the center

involvingpeopleinongoingrelationships.

They

felt

thatcourtdisputants

were

shortchanged; they also

arguedthatthere

were

betterusesforthejudiciary's

time.

Over

a period of several years, the

women

amassed documentation

on

mediation

and

assessed itsappropriateness for the

Chapel

Hillarea.

An

im-portant event

was

a

Chapel

Hill visit, in 1973,

by

a representative of the

American

Arbitration

Asso-ciation

(AAA)

who

had

been instrumentalin

start-ing the Dispute Settlement Center in Roxbury, Massachusetts. Interest

which

later bore fruit

was

piqued at that time.

Inthe

summer

of1976, afterthreeyearsofcourt

watching, another

AAA

representative visited

Chapel

Hill.

The

result of his well-attended

and

well-received talk

was

the successful funding of a

localdispute settlementcenter.

The

Orange

County

Board

of

Commissioners

allocated

money

in Octo-ber1976asdid the

Chapel

Hill

Board

of

Aldermen

inspring1977.

The Orange County

BarAssociation,

contrary to the

norm

elsewhere, helped complete plans for a Center.

With

fundingstillaproblem, thenascent Center

was

fortunate in procuring gratis the training ser-vicesof a retiring

woman

attorney

from

the

Com-munity

Relations Service of the United States

De-partmentofJustice.

Of

thefifteenmediatorstrained then, twelve remain with the Center. In the

sum-mer

of 1979, keysubsidies

were

obtained

from

the

North

Carolina General

Assembly and

theUnited Fund.

The

funds

were

used, inpart, tohirea direc-tor

who

inturnprocuredgrants

from

theReynolds

and Babcock

Foundations.

Though

hardly

well-endowed,

theCenter

was

abletohire anotherstaff

person,

and

recruit

and

trainpeopleto staffdispute settlement centers across the state.

These

efforts resulted in the establishment of ten additional

centers, incities

and

counties

around

thestate.

New

center locations included Greensboro, Raleigh,

Durham,

Winston-Salem, Charlotte

and

Chatham

County.

Three

more, inBurlington, Asheville

and

Hendersonville,have

opened

theirdoorswithin the past year.

At

theCenter's headquartersinChapelHill, three staff areemployed: a director, a caseworker

and

a

clerical worker. Six fundingagencies subsidize the Center: the

towns

of

Chapel

Hill,

Carrboro

and

Hillsborough,

Orange

County,

and

theChapel

Hill-Carrboro

and Orange

County

United

Ways.

As

an

indication of the

growing

demand

for the Center's

services, in fiscal year 1983, 441 cases

were

pro-cessed; inthenextfiscalyear,650caseswere brought

to the Center.

The

Center divides its cases into

two

sources,

"Court"

and

"Community".

The

formerincludescases

referred

by

theDistrictAttorney(alongtimefriend of theCenter), private attorneys, "self", the police,

judges, magistrates, theSheriff'soffice

and

"other."

What

theyallhavein

common

isthatawarrant has beenissued inthematter; ifitisresolved, allcharges are dropped. Cases referred range

from

assault

(from simple assault to assault with a deadly

wea-pon), to

communicating

threats, trespass, injuryto

property, breaking

and

entering,

and

larceny.

The

court category accounted for

53%

of the Center's cases in the 1984 fiscal year.

"Community"

casesarethosebrought tothe

Cen-terdirectly

by

localcitizens. Forty-sevenpercent,or 226 of fiscal 1984's cases, arose in such a manner.

The

most

numerous

categories of such cases are

"Domestic/Family," "Roommates,"

"Money

Claims,"

"Neighborhood," "Landlord/Tenant," "Customer/

Business"

and

"Miscellaneous."

Withinthelast

two

years aHillsboroughsatellite officehasopened. Itscaseload currently represents

about

31%

of the Center's total. Interestingly

enough, Hillsborough's

Court/Community

mix

is the reverse of thatin

Chapel

Hill.

Whereas

65%

of the caseshandledat theChapelHill officestemfrom

the

community,

65%

of those in Hillsborough are

subsumed under

thecourtlabel.

As

popularas the

Center has

become

with the authorities in

Chapel

Hill,inHillsboroughitiseven

more

so; there,

many

ofthe

same

defendantshabitually

move

throughthe judicialsystem

on

chargessuchasdrunkenness

and

barroom

brawls.

The

Centers'servicesare offeredabsolutelyfree,

though

most

disputantsheedthefact that

contribu-tionsarewelcome.

The

onlyexceptiontothe

no

fee ruleisfordivorce

and

separation cases,

where

$10 percouple is chargedfor the first session

and

$20

forany subsequentones.

The

averageannualincome

of the Center's disputants is under $10,000.

Fitting the overall mediator staff to the

demo-graphic profile of the

community,

and

each case's

mediation team(Centermediators

work

inpairs)to

the disputants, is important to the organization.

Correspondingly,

29%

of the mediators areblack

and

58%

are

women,

withagesranging

from

early

20's to 80. Three

male

mediators

were

recently

added, bringingthetotal ofallmediators to 34(26 in

Chapel

Hill, 8 in Hillsborough).

main

goals: help disputants find amutually agree-able solutionwhile maintainingtheirdignity;create

a

more harmonious

relationshipbetween the

dispu-tants; relievetensioninthecommunity.

The

Center's

successistestimonyto theeffectivenessofmediated

dispute resolution. In a survey of mediations con-ducted4V2 years ago,

85%

of Center-facilitated resolu-tionswerestillintact. Also, of172cases

commenced,

156 were successfully mediated to an agreement in fiscal 1984 through the first three quarters of this fiscal year.

Justice, of course, has

many

different

meanings

to

many

different people.

Most would

probably

agree,however, that

community

roots are desirable

inasystemofdisputeresolution. Thisis

what

insti-tutionssuchas the

Chapel

HillDispute Settlement

Centerhave to offer,

and

nurturingofsuch places

by

communities seemswell-advised aspart ofa plan

to

improve

morale

and

the quality of life.

A

Role for Planners

The

fact that there islittle recognition of a

spe-cialtywithin thefieldcalled "justiceplanning" not-withstanding, it arguably

behooves

professionals

working

in all aspectsof

human

services to foster

non-adjudicative

modes

of dispute resolution. In

1959, President

Dwight

Eisenhowersaid, "[Pjeople

want

peaceso

much

that

one

ofthesedays

govern-ment had

better get out oftheir

way

and

let

them

haveit."

Though

people

may

well

want

alternatives

tolitigationasbadly,planners should

do

more

than

getout of their way.

They

should, through

demo-graphics,courtstatistics,

and

consultationwithlegal

system personnel

and

community

representatives,

endeavortoascertain a desirablealternativedispute resolution

mechanism

for the

community

in

ques-tion. Clearly, aplannedresponsetofrustrationwith

the judicial system

makes

farbettersense than an

ad

hoc

one.

Postscript

Given

thecurrentfundingpriorities

and

political interestsofthe

Reagan

administration, itisclear that

communities

can expect little support

from

the

federal government. In the

name

of market-motivatedprosperity, towns

and

citieshavebeenleft

todrift. There seems tobelittle

on

thehorizon, in

termsoffederalinitiatives,thatpromisesto

amelio-rate the plight of those passed over

by

Reagan's

magic

wand.

These, arguably, are theones withthe

most

togain

from

theadvent of

community-based

dispute resolution.

Not

that such a

program

could

everbea panacea for the

woes

of those

who

have

"fallen through the cracks," but dispute resolution

on

a

more

human

scale might serve as

some

sort oflightningrodfor

community

tensions.

One

senses

that, in

some

quarters, asstraitenedconditions give

rise to an escalatinglevel ofinterpersonal conflict,

alienation

from

the court system

may

likewise

increase.

NOTES

1.

Among

Pound's concernswerethe limited access

tojusticecaused

by

thedelay,highcosts,

and

in-timidating character of thecourts; the failureto

achieve substantive justicecaused

by

the nature

of theadversaryprocess

and

overridingconcern with theetiquette ofthe law;

and

the inevitable

inabilityofcourts, guided

by

generallegal

prin-ciples, to

make

decisionsresponsivetothe subtle variations

among

cases (Dubois, p. 61). 2. Todate,170communitiesinfortystateshave

estab-lished "dispute centers" (also

known

as

"neighbor-hood

justice centers," "citizen's dispute settlement programs,"

and

"nightprosecutor's programs"). In addition,

more

than400privateagencies

and

city

government

entitiesareinvolvedinproviding

in-formal processes to resolve citizens'

problems

(Ray 1981, Foreword).

REFERENCES

Alper, B.S.

&

Nichols, L.T. (1981).

Beyond

the

Courtroom.

Lexington,

MA:

DC.

Heath

&

Co.

Bacow, L.

&

Wheeler,

M.

(1984). Environmental Dispute Resolution.

New

York:

Plenum

Press.

Dubois, PL., ed. (1982).

The

Analysis ofJudicial

Reform. Lexington,

MA:

DC.

Health

&

Co.

Nader, L.

&

Todd, H.F., Jr. (1978).

The

Disputing

Process

— Law

in Ten Societies.

New

York,

NY

Columbia

University Press.

Ray, L. ed. (1981). Dispute Resolution

Program

Directory, Special

Committee

on

Dispute

Resolu-tion, Public Services Activities Division.

Washington,

DC:

American

Bar Association. Sander,F. (1977).ReportontheNational Conference

on

Minor

Disputes Resolution. Washington,

DC:

American

Bar Association.

Susskind, L.

&

Ozawa,

C. "Mediated

Negotia-tioninthePublicSector:

The

Planneras

Media-tor."Journal ofPlanning Education

and

Research. Vol. 4, No. 1,

August

1984.

justiceplanning