Thursday, April 25, 2013

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator

Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative and Transformative Mediation

By Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator

Mediators around the country find themselves uncomfortable with what is being called mediation in their own and other areas. Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator reports that Accusations are made that one or another approach to mediation is not "real" mediation or are not what clients wanted. In addition, many clients and attorneys are confused about what mediation is and is not, and are not sure what they will get if they go to mediation. Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT

Facilitative Mediation

In the 1960's and 1970's, there was only one type of mediation being taught and practiced, which is now being called "Facilitative Mediation". In facilitative mediation, the mediator structures a process to assist the parties in reaching a mutually agreeable resolution. The mediator asks questions; validates and normalizes parties' points of view; searches for interests underneath the positions taken by parties; and assists the parties in finding and analyzing options for resolution. The facilitative mediator does not make recommendations to the parties, give his or her own advice or opinion as to the outcome of the case, or predict what a court would do in the case. The mediator is in charge of the process, while the parties are in charge of the outcome.

Facilitative mediators want to ensure that parties come to agreements based on information and understanding. They predominantly hold joint sessions with all parties present so that the parties can hear each other's points of view, but hold caucuses regularly. They want the parties to have the major influence on decisions made, rather than the parties’ attorneys.

Facilitative mediation grew up in the era of volunteer dispute resolution centers, in which the volunteer mediators were not required to have substantive expertise concerning the area of the dispute, and in which most often there were no attorneys present. The volunteer mediators came from all backgrounds. These things are still true today, but Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT says in addition many professional mediators, with and without substantive expertise, also practice facilitative mediation.

Evaluative Mediation

Evaluative mediation is a process modeled on settlement conferences held by judges. An evaluative mediator assists the parties in reaching resolution by pointing out the weaknesses of their cases, and predicting what a judge or jury would be likely to do. An evaluative mediator might make formal or informal recommendations to the parties as to the outcome of the issues. Evaluative mediators are concerned with the legal rights of the parties rather than needs and interests, and evaluate based on legal concepts of fairness. Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CTEvaluative mediators meet most often in separate meetings with the parties and their attorneys, practicing "shuttle diplomacy". They help the parties and attorneys evaluate their legal position and the costs vs. the benefits of pursuing a legal resolution rather than settling in mediation. The evaluative mediator structures the process, and directly influences the outcome of mediation.

Evaluative mediation emerged in court-mandated or court-referred mediation. Attorneys normally work with the court to choose the mediator, and are active participants in the mediation. The parties are most often present in the mediation, but the mediator may meet with the attorneys alone as well as with the parties and their attorneys. There is an assumption in evaluative mediation that the mediator has substantive expertise or legal expertise in the substantive area of the dispute. Because of the connection between evaluative mediation and the courts, and because of their comfort level with settlement conferences, most evaluative mediators are attorneys.

Transformative Mediation

Transformative mediation is the newest concept of the three, named by Folger and Bush in their book THE PROMISE OF MEDIATION in 1994.Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT reports Transformative mediation is based on the values of "empowerment" of each of the parties as much as possible, and "recognition" by each of the parties of the other parties' needs, interests, values and points of view. The potential for transformative mediation is that any or all parties or their relationships may be transformed during the mediation. Transformative mediators meet with parties together, since only they can give each other "recognition".

In some ways, the values of transformative mediation mirror those of early facilitative mediation, in its interest in empowering parties and transformation. Early facilitative mediators fully expected to transform society with these pro-peace techniques. And they did. Modern transformative mediators want to continue that process by allowing and supporting the parties in mediation to determine the direction of their own process. In transformative mediation, the parties structure both the process and the outcome of mediation, and the mediator follows their lead.

Pros and Cons

Supporters say that facilitative and transformative mediation empower parties, and help the parties take responsibility for their own disputes and the resolution of the disputes. Detractors say that facilitative and transformative mediation takes too long, and too often ends without agreement. They worry that outcomes can be contrary to standards of fairness and that mediators in these approaches cannot protect the weaker party.

Supporters of transformative mediation say that facilitative and evaluative mediators put too much pressure on clients to reach a resolution.Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator says They believe that the clients should decide whether they really want a resolution, not the mediator.

Supporters of evaluative mediation say that clients want an answer if they can’t reach agreement, and they want to know that their answer is fair. They point to ever-increasing numbers of clients for evaluative mediation to show that the market supports this type of mediation more than others. Detractors of evaluative mediation say that its popularity is due to the myopia of attorneys who choose evaluative mediation because they are familiar with the process. They believe that the clients would not choose evaluative mediation if given enough information to make a choice. They also worry that the evaluative mediator may not be correct in his or her evaluation of the case.

Strong Feelings

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator believes that Mediators tend to feel strongly about these styles of mediation. Most mediation training still teaches the facilitative approach, although some attorney-mediators train in the evaluative model, and Folger and Bush have a complement of trainers teaching the transformative approach. Many mediation standards (from national and state mediation organizations, and state legislative and judicial mediation programs) are silent on this issue; others prohibit evaluation, and a few require it. For example, the Mediation Council of Illinois Standard IV (C) Best Interests of Children states: "While the mediator has a duty to be impartial, the mediator also has a responsibility to promote the best interests of the children and other persons who are unable to give voluntary, informed consent.......If the mediator believes that any proposed agreement does not protect the best interests of the children, the mediator has a duty to inform the couple of his or her belief and its basis."

Another example of these strong feelings is that in 1997, Florida’s professional standards for mediators were reviewed, and the committee got stuck on the issue of evaluation in mediation. The current rule says "a mediator should not offer information that a mediator is not qualified to provide" (Rule 10.090(a)) and "a mediator should not offer an opinion as to how the court in which the case has been filed will resolve the dispute" (Rule 10.090(d)). The committee came out with two options for a new standard on this issue: Option One would prohibit giving opinions except to point out possible outcomes of the case; Option Two states that the mediator could provide information and advice the mediator is qualified to provide, as long as the mediator does not violate mediator impartiality or the self-determination of the parties. After receiving comments on these two options, both were withdrawn and the committee is trying again. The comments were many and strong. Early in 2000, the new rule was written to reflect Option Two.

In a new Michigan Court Rule effective August 1,2000, which authorizes judges to order cases to mediation, the Supreme Court of Michigan differentiated facilitative processes from evaluative processes. The rule states that courts may order parties to facilitative processes, but not to evaluative processes.

Concerns

There seem to be more concerns about evaluative and transformative mediation than facilitative mediation. Facilitative mediation seems acceptable to almost everyone, although some find it less useful or more time consuming. However, much criticism has been leveled against evaluative mediation as being coercive, top-down, heavy-handed and not impartial. Transformative mediation is criticized for being too idealistic, not focused enough, and not useful for business or court matters. Evaluative and transformative mediators, of course, would challenge these characterizations. Sam Imperati, for example, sees evaluative mediation as ranging from soft to hard: from raising options, to playing devil's advocate, to raising legal issues or defenses, to offering opinions or advice on outcomes. He therefore believes that it is not appropriate to assume that evaluative mediation is necessarily heavy-handed. Folger and Bush, on the other side of the discussion, see transformative mediation as ultimately flexible and suited to all types of disputes.

Another concern is that many attorneys and clients do not know what they may get when they end up in a mediator’s office. Some people feel that mediators ought to disclose prior to clients appearing in their offices, or at least prior to their committing to mediation, which style or styles they use. Other mediators want the flexibility to decide which approach to use once they understand the needs of the particular case.

Styles vs. Continuum

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator reports that Samuel Imperati and Leonard Riskin believe these styles are more a continuum than distinct differences, from least interventionist to most interventionist. The Northwest Chapter SPIDR Survey and other less formal surveys have noted that most mediators use some facilitative and some evaluative techniques, based on individual skills and predilections and the needs of a particular case. Folger and Bush see more distinct differences in styles, particularly the difference of "top-down" vs. "bottom-up" mediation. That is, they believe that evaluative and facilitative mediation may take legal information too seriously, and that resolutions coming from the parties are much more deep, lasting, and valuable. However, in informal discussions, many practitioners who utilize the transformative model state that they mix facilitative and transformative techniques rather than using one or the other exclusively.Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator says that It would seem that in general mediators are on a continuum from transformative to facilitative to evaluative mediation, but are not squarely within one camp or another.

Conclusions

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator concludes There is room in mediation practice for many styles, including facilitative, evaluative and transformative mediation. Each has its usefulness and its place in the pantheon of dispute resolution processes. Imperati believes that most mediators use a combination of these styles, depending on the case and the parties in mediation, as well as their own main approach to mediation. Some sophisticated mediators advise clients and attorneys about the style they think would be most effective for their case. Some parties and attorneys are sophisticated enough to know the difference between types of mediation and to ask mediators for a specific type in a specific case. It appears that it would be helpful for mediators at the very least, to articulate to parties and attorneys the style(s) they generally use, and the assumptions and values these styles are based on. This will allow clients to be better and more satisfied consumers, and the field of mediation to be clearer on what it is offering. It can only enhance the credibility and usefulness of mediation.

Francesca Donofrio Stamford CT

Francesca Donofrio Stamford CT

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford progressive and empowering approaches to conflict resolution Our goal is to arm you with the words you need to disarm the conflict and the communication gridlock. At CMI one of the fundamental techniques of the mediator is to teach the participants to communicate to facilitate a more successful conflict resolution. Gridlock in communication and lack of shared perspective is what helps to perpetuate conflict and obstruct resolution. Francesca Bambino, the Executive Director at CMI has implemented her own style of mediation practice. Francesca Donofrio Stamford CT mediator says “Teaching the participants to communicate is as essential as teaching the mediator to facilitate.” The mediator cannot facilitate a mediation if the participants are not communicating or are using their words to stagnate the gridlock that brought them to the table. Its is past experiences between the participants that have brought them to conflict and subsequently to the mediation table. While it is the past that divides it is my thought that looking toward a more positive future can unite perspective and raise awareness of the alternative. Alternative perspectives equate to possibilities for the future. Our teaching model for the participants is one that focuses on integrity and respect. A hallmark of a successful mediation is when everyone leaves the table feeling successful. Francesca Bambino a mediator and trainer, specializes in workplace conflict management, focusing on conflict prevention, as well as dispute resolution. Her mediation practice includes extensive experience with discrimination cases, discipline and discharge, and interpersonal relations. She is a widely published and she is also an experienced practioner and trainer in reflective mediation practice. Francesca Bambino is the vision and Executive Director of Concord Mediation Institute “CMI” in Stamford Ct. In this role, she implements conflict management processes, including conflict coaching, mediation, team- building, large group facilitation, training, and consultation as well as manages the training programs. In her mediation practice, Francesca is very much in tune to the underlying issues common in interpersonal conflict. She works with the parties to help them consider the range of potential issues and options, so that they can develop solutions with which they feel comfortable. Francesca’s training practice in conflict management includes extensive work for government agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, and labor unions. She designs and provides practical, participatory training programs in collaboration with the client. Francesca Bambino is currently authoring Arming to Disarm: The Mediator’s Guide to Teaching Participants to Break the Gridlock.

View all posts by loracgroup →

Francesca Donofrio Stamford

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Francesca Donofrio Stamford

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford Mediator has a model for beginners at mediation.

Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT

Francesca Bambino D’Onofrio Francesca Bambino Donofrio Stamford CT Concord Mediation Institute is a leader in providing progressive and empowering approaches to conflict resolution
Our goal is to arm you with the words you need to disarm the conflict and the communication gridlock. At CMI one of the fundamental techniques of the mediator is to teach the participants to communicate to facilitate a more successful conflict resolution. Gridlock in communication and lack of shared perspective is what helps to perpetuate conflict and obstruct resolution. Francesca Bambino, the Executive Director at CMI has implemented her own style of mediation practice. Francesca Bambino D’Onofrio says “Teaching the participants to communicate is as essential as teaching the mediator to facilitate.” Francesca Bambino D’Onofrio says The mediator cannot facilitate a mediation if the participants are not communicating or are using their words to stagnate the gridlock that brought them to the table. Francesca Bambino D’Onofrio feels It is past experiences between the participants that have brought them to conflict and subsequently to the mediation table. While it is the past that divides it is my thought that looking toward a more positive future can unite perspective and raise awareness of the alternative. Alternative perspectives equate to possibilities for the future.
Our teaching model for the participants is one that focuses on integrity and respect. Francesca Bambino D’Onofrio notes A hallmark of a successful mediation is when everyone leaves the table feeling successful.

Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediation Consultant

T he technique

Mediation is a process for resolving disputes by which an independent mediator assists the parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement. It is an extension of the parties own negotiations and is sometimes referred to as a "supercharged negotiation." Francesca D'Onofrio Stamford Mediator

What is the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique?
It is a simple, natural, effortless procedure practiced 20 minutes twice each day while sitting comfortably with the eyes closed. It’s not a religion, philosophy, or lifestyle. It’s the most widely practiced, most researched, and most effective method of self-development.

What happens when you meditate?
The Transcendental Meditation technique allows your mind to settle inward beyond thought to experience the source of thought — pure awareness, also known as transcendental consciousness. This is the most silent and peaceful level of consciousness — your innermost Self. In this state of restful alertness, your brain functions with significantly greater coherence and your body gains deep rest.

How many people practice the TM technique?
More than five million people worldwide have learned this simple, natural technique — people of all ages, cultures, and religions.

How much scientific research has been
done on the TM technique?
Over 350 research studies have been conducted at more than 200 universities and research centers (including Harvard, UCLA, and Stanford). These studies have been published in more than 100 journals.

Where did the TM technique come from?
The Transcendental Meditation technique is based on the ancient Vedic tradition of enlightenment in India. This knowledge has been handed down by Vedic masters from generation to generation for thousands of years. About 50 years ago, Maharishi — the representative in our age of the Vedic tradition — introduced Transcendental Meditation to the world, restoring the knowledge and experience of higher states of consciousness at this critical time for humanity. When we teach the Transcendental Meditation technique today, we maintain the same procedures used by teachers thousands of years ago for maximum effectiveness.

Did you say mediate or meditate? A play on words by Francesca Donofrio Stamford mediator

Francesca Donofrio Stamford Mediator doesnt believe to two are so far apart in goal and outcome.

T he technique

How many people practice the TM technique?
More than five million people worldwide have learned this simple, natural technique — people of all ages, cultures, and religions.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

francesca bambino donofrio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pfxB5ut-KTs
Mediation is a process for resolving disputes by which an independent mediator assists the parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement. It is an extension of the parties own negotiations and is sometimes referred to as a "supercharged negotiation." Francesca D'Onofrio Stamford Mediator

Supreme Court strikes down federal provision on same-sex marriage benefits

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

updated 7:23 PM EDT, Wed June 26, 2013

Toobin: DOMA is gone

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: Edith Windsor, who sued the federal government, says she is overjoyed by the ruling
In a 5-4 decision, the high court says Congress cannot deny equal protection
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward," president's twitter account posts
Justice Antonin Scalia issues a thunderous dissent saying " the court has cheated both sides"

What do the Supreme Court rulings mean to you? Share your thoughts on CNN iReport.

Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at congressional authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of a law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same federal benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The vote Wednesday was 5-4.

"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. He was supported by four more liberal colleagues: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Photos: Same-sex marriage in U.S.

Photos: Reaction to same-sex marriage rulings

$Photos: Edith Windsor\'s fight for recognition$ Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition

Read the ruling

The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.

The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries.

But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.

A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.

"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down.

Kennedy, in his opinion, used sweeping language to affirm the rights of gays and lesbians.

"For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the state (of New York) acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the state worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages," he said. "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect."

But Kennedy -- a moderate-conservative who proved once again to be the "swing," or deciding, vote -- made clear the ruling is limited: "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages." Thirty-five states have laws banning same-sex marriage.

Under DOMA, Social Security, pension and bankruptcy benefits, along with family medical leave protections and other federal provisions, did not apply to gay and lesbian couples legally married in states that recognize such unions.

In a thunderous dissent, read from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia slammed the majority for its "exalted conception of the role of this institution" -- the Supreme Court -- "in America."

"Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on both sides," he said. "Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our (Constitution) framers gave us, a gift the court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves."

Scalia added, "Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also dissented.

Windsor was in New York when the ruling came down. She told reporters that she was overjoyed.

"We won everything we asked and hoped for. Wow," she said. "I'm honored and humbled and overjoyed to be here today to represent not only the thousands of Americans whose lives have been adversely impacted by the Defense of Marriage Act, but those whose hopes and dreams have been constricted by the same discriminatory law."

Windsor thanked the supporters who cheered her on throughout the case.

"Because of today's Supreme Court ruling, the federal government can no longer discriminate against the marriages of gay and lesbian Americans. Children born today will grow up in a world without DOMA, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married as Thea and I did, but with the same federal benefits, protections and dignity as everyone else," Windsor said. "If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do it. And she would be so pleased."

The Defense of Marriage law was defended in the high court by House Republicans, after Obama concluded the law was unconstitutional.

Traditionally, that role would fall to the solicitor general's office. But president ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to defend DOMA in court. That raised the question of whether any party could rightfully step in and defend the law.

By striking down the DOMA provision, the court decided the standing question was not at play in this case, and it had jurisdiction to decide the larger questions.

A bill known as the Respect for Marriage Act is working its way through Congress and would repeal DOMA.

That law does not prohibit states from allowing same-sex marriages, but it also does not force states to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Most of the current plaintiffs are federal workers, who are not allowed to add their spouses to health care plans and other benefits.

The case is U.S. v. Windsor (12-307).

3320

Comments »