Columbine Apology

February 13, 2016 – 1:11 pm

The mother of one of the Columbine shooters told the families of her son’s victims last night on TV, “I’m sorry.” Sue Klebold, mother of Dylan Klebold, broke her years-long silence in an interview with Diane Sawyer in anticipation of release of her book, A Mother’s Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of the Columbine Tragedy. “I’m so sorry for what my son did. And yet I know that just saying I’m sorry is such an inadequate response to all this suffering.”

Sue Klebold has spent the last eleven years trying to figure out what went wrong. She realizes now that her son was suffering from depression, whereas she chalked up his moodiness to normal adolescence. She regrets that she didn’t heed warning signs.

After shooting 12 fellow students and teachers at his high school in April 1999, Dylan and his colleague Eric Harris committed suicide. Dylan cannot apologize for what he did. Can his mother apologize for his actions? It’s tough to apologize on behalf of someone else, and the apology probably brings little relief to victims.

Perhaps more helpful to victims is to hear Sue Klebold acknowledge what she wishes she had done differently. She regrets that she didn’t search his bedroom, didn’t discover his journal, didn’t ask more questions about school. She didn’t specifically apologize for that in the TV interview; perhaps she does in the book.

The father of one of the victims said after the incident, “There’s a false teaching that God forgives everyone; he doesn’t. God never forgives the unrepentant.” Is he implying that, if God will not forgive, neither can he? But the family of Rachel Scott, another victim, has established a foundation promoting forgiveness. And Ann Marie Hochholter, paralyzed from the waist down, said, ”I realized that holding onto that anger does nothing; it just brings you down.”

 

 

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Columbine Apology

How Active Should a Mediator Be in Pushing for Resolution?

February 2, 2016 – 7:52 pm

The panel of mediation experts who addressed this question in an ADR Section-sponsored phone conference today concluded, “It depends.” The more parties trust the mediator, the more the mediator can push without appearing “pushy.”

From a legal perspective, mediators can be as pushy, or coercive, as they want to be, without repercussion. Prof. James Coben of Hamline University Law School reported that, although there are a dozen cases a year nationally where parties claim mediator coercion, courts aren’t receptive to such claims, partly because courts favor settlements, and partly because the legal definition of “coercion” doesn’t fit mediation, where the complaint is not about the other party to the contract, but to a third party.

But from a professional perspective, a party who felt pushed into a resolution is not a satisfied customer. So the panel developed an impromptu list of “best practices” to help a mediator avoid pushing too hard for a resolution:

  • Mediators should always begin facilitatively, in order to build trust.
  • Beware that coercive possibilities increase as time goes on; the longer the mediation session, the more likely that a party will feel undue pressure.
  • Attend to party requests to take a break, or to cease altogether.
  • Consider letting parties leave without signing an agreement, so they can “sleep on it” – although the panel agreed that this will likely result in fewer agreements.
  • Be gracious and artful in raising risk-exposing questions. If a party has a past drunk driving conviction, Mediator can ask, “Have you had conversations about how this will play out?” instead of, “You’re going to look like an idiot if this comes out!”
  • Beware of party perceptions – the mediator may be communicating what the other side told her to say, but a party may perceive it as the mediator’s own opinion.
  • Make sure parties go through domestic violence screening, and refuse to mediate a case where domestic violence patterns may make mediation ineffective.
By abfifer | Posted in Learnings from Mediation | Comments Off on How Active Should a Mediator Be in Pushing for Resolution?

A Better Apology from Gov Snyder

January 21, 2016 – 11:38 am

Governor Snyder apologized (again) for the Flint water crisis this week. This time, I think it truly was an apology.

In his State of the State message Tuesday, as well as in interviews, he has taken responsibility for the disaster.

He began his annual State of the State address Tuesday by addressing the residents of Flint, saying, “I’m sorry and I will fix it. You did not create this crisis, and you do not deserve this…. You deserve accountability (and) to know that the buck stops here, with me… Government failed you at the federal, state and local level. We need to make sure this never happens again in any Michigan city.”

In an interview the next day, he complained of the staff in the DEQ’s Department of Water Quality, “They were too technical. They followed literally the rules. They didn’t use enough common sense to say in a situation like this, there should be more measures. There should be more concern. And it has led to this terrible tragedy that I’m sorry for, but I’m going to fix. I have to take responsibility for the state’s role in this. These folks work for me. That was a failure.”

Up until now, it didn’t seem like Governor Snyder saw the connection between the DEQ’s errors and his own responsibility, but now he does. He still hasn’t completely “Admitted specifically” what he did wrong–e.g., no mention of the fact that he appointed the city managers who kept opting to use the Flint River despite warnings it wasn’t safe–, but he recognizes that “the buck stops here.”

Another measure of a good apology is a willingness to “Accept the consequences.” Some believe that the consequence should be his resignation. He isn’t willing to do that, but he does seem to realize that another consequence is loss of trust by Flint residents—and others– in their state government.

Many recipients of apologies complain that they want action, not just words. They want to see “Altered behavior.” Governor Snyder sincerely seems to want to alter government procedures as well as the situation in Flint. Let’s hope he succeeds at both.

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on A Better Apology from Gov Snyder

Governor Snyder’s Apologies in the Flint Water Crisis

January 12, 2016 – 8:58 am

Our governor, Rick Snyder, issued what he called an apology a couple weeks ago for what’s known as the “Flint water crisis.” Governor Snyder’s statement, in my humble opinion, didn’t meet the criteria for an effective apology, and the result has been – no surprise – more conflict. So yesterday, he tried again; he’s getting closer, but he still hasn’t truly apologized.

In April 2014, the city of Flint switched from Detroit water to water from its own Flint River, in order to save money. But it was immediately apparent to residents that Flint water was “bad.” Their complaints to the state went unheeded for over a year, until evidence demonstrated that Flint children had elevated levels of lead that could have come only from the water. Flint switched back to Detroit water in October 2015, and Governor Snyder appointed a task force to determine what went wrong.

The task force issued preliminary findings just after Christmas, pointing to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance as the culprit. The DEQ director and his spokesman – who initially criticized the lead-level reports as “irresponsible” – resigned. Then Governor Snyder issued a statement that included this:

“I want the Flint community to know how very sorry I am that this has happened. And I want all Michigan citizens to know that we will learn from this experience, because Flint is not the only city that has an aging infrastructure.

“I know many Flint citizens are angry and want more than an apology. That’s why I’m taking the actions today to ensure a culture of openness and trust. We’ve already allocated $10 million to test the water, distribute water filters, and help in other ways…”

One way to measure an apology is by comparing it with Peacemaker Ministries’ “Seven A’s of Confession.” This statement is good on one of the A’s, “Alter behavior”—it devotes quite a bit of space to what will be done differently in the future. Another “A” is “Admit specifically.” Governor Snyder, if you really want to apologize, you need to tell us what you did — or didn’t do — that you now regret. Saying you’re “sorry that this happened” is like saying to a friend, “I’m sorry you have cancer.” Using the word “sorry” doesn’t convert a statement into an apology.

Perhaps he does not see how he is responsible for the tragedy in Flint. If so, he’s being honest, not taking the blame when it would be politically expedient to do so. Or perhaps he’s leery of the repercussions if he admits responsibility, a fear that stops many of us from apologizing.

Now Governor Snyder is being excoriated in the national media. Perhaps that prompted yesterday’s statement in Flint, where he acknowledged  that the state’s response had not been “good enough,” and that he’s “responsible for what happens in state government.” And yet he still sounds defensive; he pointed out that he already apologized, and insisted that his office has been “clear to communicate” the issues at the DEQ — neither of which, in my opinion, is true. And he’s still publicly insisting that he didn’t know there was a problem until October, even though his chief of staff Dennis Muchmore alerted him months before that.

It’s not too late for Governor Snyder to make a good apology, and he’s moving in the right direction. It should include elements corresponding to the A’s of “Admit specifically” as well as “Acknowledge the harm” and “Accept the consequences.” It could also include an apology for his poor attempt at an apology.

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on Governor Snyder’s Apologies in the Flint Water Crisis

I’m sorry that this isn’t an apology

December 22, 2015 – 5:59 pm

Mr. Sepp Blatter, former president of the international soccer association FIFA, was found guilty this week of ethical violations by the FIFA ethics committee, and was barred from taking part in any soccer-related activities for the next eight years. He has said he will fight the suspension. He has been under suspicion of ethical violations for many of the 17 years he has been FIFA president.

After the suspension was announced, Mr. Blatter called a press conference to make a statement beginning with the words, “I’m sorry…” but it was not an apology:

“I’m really sorry. I’m sorry that I am still a punching ball for FIFA, …  and I’m sorry for football … I’m sorry for FIFA, which I’ve served for over forty years. I’m sorry for the 400-plus team members. But I’m also sorry about me, how I’ve been tainted in this world of humanitarian qualities.”

It might have been more accurate had he substituted the word “sad” – or even “mad” — for “sorry.”

By starting off with the words, “I’m sorry,” his audience might have been lead to believe that he was going to apologize. But an apology includes remorse and responsibility for one’s actions, and Mr. Blatter apparently feels neither. At least he was honest!

 

By abfifer | Posted in Apologies | Comments Off on I’m sorry that this isn’t an apology