Patricia Glenn -- Part 1 of 2

Patricia Glenn was a conciliator in the Chicago office of CRS in the 1980s, and then we promoted to the New York office as Regional Director in 1989, where she stayed for ten years before returning to the Chicago office at the end of her CRS career.

There are 2 parts of this interview and a summary: Part 1, Part 2 and Patricia Glenn Summary This is Part 1.

Play YouTube Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcCCfQJhdWA

 

Bill Froehlich(00:00:00): Well, today is January 12th, 2022, and we're continuing the update of the civil rights mediation oral history project with Patricia Glenn. Patricia, can you just spell your name for us for the record?

Patricia Glenn (00:00:18): Patricia P A T R I C I A Glenn G L E N N.

Bill Froehlich(00:00:26): Thank you so much. Well, let's dive right in to questions. So Patricia, can you talk to us a little bit about your career trajectory, and background prior to joining the community relations service?

Patricia Glenn (00:00:42): Okay. Prior to joining CRS, I actually was in the civil rights movement. So we had a really big movement here in Chicago because Reverend Jackson, Jesse Jackson was here. We had of course, remnants of the black Panthers, you had CORE, so you had a number of civil rights agencies and, well groups, not agencies, groups, who were at this time really beginning to talk about how they really wanted to extricate themselves from mainstream civil rights. And so, I was actually with CORE, Congress of Racial Equality, and you know, we did a lot of work. I was certainly younger then, and we picketed, a lot of places. We went on a lot of marches. I was there ... for Dr. King's funeral, and actually was one of the representatives from CORE for his funeral.

Patricia Glenn (00:02:03): ... But I was weaving in and out of college. And I said, "You know, I have got to finish college." And so at that time, then there was a movement, really nascent movement in Columbus, Ohio of all places. And so I decided that... Because I, you know, always liked to travel, would move there. And when I did, I was able to get a job with KACO, which was an old, old poverty agency. And [an individual] who was from Chicago, had the reputation of hiring anyone who said, "Hey . . . I'm from Chicago." And so, I did exactly that. And... I was hired, uh, and so we actually had a program, really to get people back to work, concentrated employment program. And so I was...I would work part-time then with concentrated employment and also finish at Ohio state.

Patricia Glenn (00:03:21): And so, you know, after that .... I worked and started , once I graduated from Ohio state, THE Ohio state, by the way, from THE Ohio State, then, I was hired by Mr. Willis, who was the principal then of East High School. And I taught English composition. I actually taught for the first time, because my minor was in ethnic studies. So I actually taught the first classes at East High School in Ethnic Studies and American Indian literature and Asian literature, obviously in Black literature [and Hispanic literature]... So I, was there three years and then because I had elderly parents, I moved back to Chicago. And was able to, um, actually worked for EEOC, which, I guess I've always had the stream of civil rights and, and mediation.

Patricia Glenn (00:04:41): And so I worked for EEOC, but sent out a lot of job applications and got a... I got a phone call from Dick Salem. And he said that he had heard his neighbor was, lived, worked in the same office that I did in EEOC. And he had heard about, my mediation and he wanted to know if I was interested in a job. My dilemma was, I didn't have a clue what CRS did. I just honestly did not. And I went over a couple of times and talked to him, we brown bagged. But I could never really get a clear definition, but then decided, well, this is interesting and they mediate anyway. And so at that point I joined CRS.

Bill Froehlich(00:05:43): You could never get a clear definition of what CRS was, but it was interesting. Yes. So you joined, I love that explanation. Do you have any more background about some of the conversations you had with Dick Salem? Can you recall any of that?

Patricia Glenn (00:05:58): Well, I guess it was primarily just trying to really get a hand on what, what do you do? You know, who brings you in? I mean, once you're there, what's your purpose? How do you know when you're going to leave? How do you know when you've been successful? So, those were really the kinds of issues that I had. And, I guess he either was able to assuage all of my concerns or, I was tired one or the other, but, you know, nonetheless, it just did work out

Bill Froehlich(00:06:43): Wonderful. Well, those are some of the questions where we hope to talk to you about, here today... So can you tell us a little bit about the time period you were at CRS, and the roles you played at CRS, whether they were in the Chicago office or in DC, or multiple locations, multiple roles, etc.

Patricia Glenn (00:07:06): Well, and they were all ... what you just mentioned. I did of course start in the Chicago office. But, you know, traveled a lot throughout region five, you know, with the contiguous states. But then in 1989... I was promoted and I was the regional director in New York for 10 years for CRS. And at that time I was the only African American female regional director. So, ... I guess there was always, you know, kind of a a ying and a yang because, I was really content, but then I told you, my daughter became ill and I had to come back home. And so then the rest of my career, I worked back in the Chicago office again.

Bill Froehlich(00:08:14): So, you were a conciliator in the Chicago office, from the early seventies. Is that what I'm hearing?

Patricia Glenn (00:08:22): Yes. Yes.

Bill Froehlich(00:08:25): Until 1989.

Patricia Glenn (00:08:27): Yeah. Okay.

Bill Froehlich(00:08:28): And then you were the regional director in, the region based in New York city, for 10 years, until about 1999 as the only African American female regional director. And then you came back to Chicago. (Glenn affirming). And what was your role in Chicago?

Patricia Glenn (00:08:43): Well, even though we did not have a deputy as in name, I certainly functioned in the, in that role, because at that time we had younger people who had not been mediators, who, you know, did not have the experience. And so, I spent, it seems to me a fair amount of time traveling with them really, you know, assisting them in kind of the same questions that I generally, you know, asked and so to really get them to kind of understand this is the role, this is the objective, this is how you mediate. This is, you know, so just number of issues, you know... because we just throw mediation around, I think so much, but not understanding it's a skill, you know, it's a process, but it's a skill also. And so I guess I was always trying to get them to the skill of mediation.

Bill Froehlich(00:09:52): Great. Great. Thank you for that. So, and I just wanna be clear about your role as deputy. You were in essence, the deputy director of region five, which is the Chicago.

Patricia Glenn (00:10:05): Yes. Yeah. Even though we had a director now, cause Jesse Taylor was okay. Jesse ... had been until Dick left. Jesse had been the deputy. Okay. (Froehlich affirms) and then when Dick Salem left, then Jesse ... became the director and stayed until he retired

Bill Froehlich(00:10:33): And you retired from CRS. You said about 12 years ago, so 2010, 2009,

Patricia Glenn (00:10:41): Something like that.

Bill Froehlich(00:10:43): Okay. Wonderful. Well, I'd like, if you don't mind, for you to talk through, one of your cases, perhaps one that's more interesting or more challenging, to give us a sense of what happened, what you did, what resulted from your involvement. Can you give us a little background about what you're thinking about?

Patricia Glenn (00:11:06): Well, ...let me tell you one, that was a surprise, I guess, you know, because I was in the office in New York and the phone rang and I picked it up and the voice on the other end was Governor-.

Patricia Glenn (00:11:27): [redacted] and you know, said, look, there's a situation at Kane University, and I want you to go over there and resolve it, thank you so much. [And they] hung up. So, ... it had begun to, to make the papers, but my assignment was [that they] knew about CRS. So that, to me, you know, because even though we've done fabulous work throughout the country and the Virgin islands in Puerto Rico, nonetheless, we are still, we were still, and I think still are known as kind of this dark agency that does something.

Patricia Glenn (00:12:14): We're just not sure what. So I was amazed that [they] would know that, and I guess was also amazed that [they had] no manners that, you know, [they would]... not even go to any nicety, but say, this is what I want you to do. This is a situation at Kane. Kane was one of the universities, I think that was always... Competing with the Ivy leagues universities, ... because you had a, a number of them in the area, but Kane had up until this time had a pretty good reputation and worked together. Faculty really worked together pretty well. Kane had, the black faculty were celebrating ... they were celebrating, I think Dr. King's holiday. And so they had asked for a book seller to come in and come on campus, having variety of books that, because you did not have a large African American population at the school. And so they said, well, you know, we can have this. They did not know that what one of the books that he was going to bring was the one that talked about the revision of the Holocaust.

Patricia Glenn (00:13:49): And so, that they were not aware of that because they really did not vet what he was going to bring. And so, once he did come on campus, once the Jewish community, you know, faculty found out that he in fact had this book, they then demanded of the black faculty that they tell the guy to leave, you know, say that they did not approve of ..., the literature, etc. And it really just kind of was mushrooming into a really nasty situation. And so that's at what time the governor called me. So I, went there and, you know, I went first of all, to the Jewish community, talked about... What we did,... how, what did they, what did they need? What did they see all to be their alternatives? You know, that, to my surprise, as soon as I finished, they said, well, you know, thank you, but we don't want you. And I said, well, why? And they said, well, because we believe that you're African American, although we're not sure, but you might be African American. I said, well, what difference would that make... You know? And they said, because you're going to favor the African Americans.

Patricia Glenn (00:15:32): So, you know, we won't get done. And so my response to them was how many of you in here teach? And of course, every one of them did. And I said, so now, if a student came into your office and said to you that they didn't believe that you could teach them because you're Jewish, what would be your response? Well that's, and they were, you know, I said, ok, so I'm in the position of the student that, you know, I have, you know, some skills that I think that you need that are not related to race, ethnicity or anything, but a way... To help resolve this situation. Okay annd I said I think that this ought to be the thing. if you see, after all of this, that I cannot, then at that point, that's what I think we ought to do. You know, I will... gracefully tell you that, but not having spoken to everyone, then I think that, that it's just premature to say that. So they said, okay.

Bill Froehlich(00:17:04): So I'd love to know, did you share that concern with the members of the black community on campus?

Patricia Glenn (00:17:12): Well, I have to tell you about my experience with the black community, good with the black faculty. Because I went to see the black faculty and they did not even let me start. They said, no, we don't want you because you're a Tom for the government. And, the government has never, you know, especially the department of justice has never...treated African Americans and people of color correctly. And, you know, we've had all these issues and, you know, we've had all of these kinds of investigations against us. And so we don't want you, you know, I had to give the same speech to them that I had just given to the Jewish community about what, you know, I mean how can you prejudge? So I was able to get both sides to actually come to the table.

Patricia Glenn (00:18:00): And, but what I started out with was, you know, to think about how, and I said, you know, what's the tenure? I mean, how many years have most of you taught together? And, this was an old, you know, faculty and most of them had not only taught together. They had gone to each other's homes. They knew about babies and, all of this. And so that was really my pitch that, you know, if you had all of these experiences together, are you going to let this...with books, seller who no one knew was going to bring this book, you know, are you going to let this destroy, then your relationship? Are you going to let then the students? Because after all this is a university, and these students ought to see adults who can do better than this.

Patricia Glenn (00:19:05): Because what are we telling the students when they come in and you'll say, well, don't fly off the handle. Well, this is kind of what's happening here, you know, because did all of, any of you say, you know, I need to meet with Jane and Sally. No, you just went straight ahead, you know, with accusations and so long to short, we really were able to get them to come to the table to talk about what the issues. And then of course, a lot of issues came out about tenure and this and that, but ... we got them to, you know, to come out and they were ready to sign the agreement. And then Louis Farrakhan came to campus.

Patricia Glenn (00:19:54): So I knew, minister Farrakhan because I had worked his case here in Chicago because he bought a home in a wonderful, beautiful, suburb, just gorgeous homes. But the people did not want him and he had to sit on the steps. Well, he didn't have to sit on the steps, but he sat on the steps of his home with a gun every day. And so, I had kind of worked through that with the police and minister Farrakhan. So he knew me and he always called me ,whenever he saw me, my sister from the justice department. So I, then was able to kinda say, can you kind of back off you know, so we were able really to resolve it, but as you can see, it took a lot of time.

Patricia Glenn (00:21:02): You know, and it really, I guess my lesson to, to working, you know, with them was... About relationships, and how fractured they, they, can become. And do we really know each other? I mean, so I really try to work, ... the mediation and the strangest thing was from that, they asked me, would they, would, I work with their staff to, you know, to really work out some other strategies with them and to work with the teachers who were having, because again, this was a university where you did not see a lot of darker faces... And the teachers were having a hard time going to the school system, working with the black students. So, you know, kind of out of one issue then was a lot of different work, you know, but it was the mediation getting them to see kind of, you know, where things might have gone differently. Is this the only approach that you can use, you know, what happens and getting them to do some, I think some fact finding, getting them to really think about that.

Bill Froehlich(00:22:38): I really appreciate the illustration. It's really helpful, if I'm hearing you correctly. I want to go back to some of the issues, obviously the issue that the presenting issue... that gave rise to your going down to the university, was the calling of publisher and the failure to vet and the fact that the publisher had the books that called into question the Holocaust, that he put out there. And you mentioned some of the other issues that arose, during the mediation, during the conversations with parties, like, some issues with respect to tenure for black faculty members, were there other deep seated, underlying issues that this mediation helped address, between the faculty members that were engaged?

Patricia Glenn (00:23:30): I think that the one of tenure was probably the outstanding...for faculty, because you either have to write or perish. So, I think that was really an underlying issue, which by the way, continued long afterwards, they're still, ...fighting that tenure issue, they're still fighting having a black president. So some of these you can resolve and some of these, you can make a stab at resolving, but at least I think you can. Even if you can't resolve it, you can get them to understand this is something that you can continue to address as a faculty. So that it just is not... once you leave, then that's the end of it. And so they did continue to meet.

Bill Froehlich(00:24:34): So you're not just setting up structure to get to an agreement on the issues you can, but you're also helping them design a process that will... need to move forward after you leave.

Patricia Glenn (00:24:45): Yes.

Bill Froehlich(00:24:46): Because CRS is the quiet agency, mysterious agency, but only has so many staff.

Patricia Glenn (00:24:52): <laugh>, <laugh>

Bill Froehlich(00:24:54): Wonderful. So I would like to know a little bit more about how you might have prepared for this particular mediation. If you can't remember specifics, how you might prepare for a mediation like this, the governor calls you, what do you do next? Are you aware of what's happening down there already? Do you go look at news clips? Do you call some folks who already know who are in the area? What steps do you take to prepare before you head to the university?

Patricia Glenn (00:25:25): Well, I mean the first thing you is your homework and that's just what you talked about. You know, what's the history? What kind of university is it? Has it had other kinds of situations? ...What's the racial and ethnic composition of the faculty? What's the racial and ethnic composition of the area where... It's located. So yeah, the first thing that I hope anyone does is always, what's your homework? You know, what do you need to do? If there are newspaper articles... then to whom did people speak? Because a lot of times I think you know as well as I, that they only get one side. So... part of the doing the homework is what's the leadership, who's the leader? And a lot of times... we, you know, talk about this, because I used to teach mediation. So, and I taught it over in Russia for a while. So... That was what I talked about then, how do you identify who's the leader, you know, because you always really have other leadership you don't see. That maybe the real leadership versus the leadership that's always loud that it's in front is not necessarily the leadership that can make a decision.

Patricia Glenn (00:26:55): So you have levels of leadership and not leadership, but levels of people who are involved. But do you have levels of people who can make a decision? Because that's the other part of this, that as you're working on that homework, then I hope that what you're also doing is to really begin to say, okay, you know... What ultimately do they want? You know, who keeps on surfacing? You know, who doesn't keep on surfacing? So yeah, it's a lot of work that you do before you go and the more work that you do, the more information, then I think the better mediator you're going to be, because if you go in there cold, you've got to do everything before you can get them to a point where they can sit down and talk.

Bill Froehlich(00:27:56): Absolutely. So I'm hearing this distinction between leaders and some terms that you use where real leadership, the loudest person, the named leader, who has the title, and the person who can get things done. And those all might be distinct. Is that what I'm hearing?

Patricia Glenn (00:28:15): Yes. Yeah and they usually are and, ... they usually are because... so much of the time... the person who is the loudest is not the person who can make a decision. It's just the person who's the loudest. And so that's why I'm saying... you have to understand that they are different, different levels and listen... They're also different roles that people play and I think that's really an important concept, you know, that you really need to understand that, this is the role that I'm supposed to play for this. Okay and that someone else is going to do something because, you know, community groups I think, or grassroots or whatever you want to call them, are not unsophisticated people.

Patricia Glenn (00:29:16): And so that they understand, ideally what they want, how to get it. And then how ... we can ... help facilitate this process for them. Because after all, I'm not telling them what they want. I'm not, that's not my role. My role is to get them so then they can talk about what they want. Because I don't know what they want and what sometimes what they think they want, is not really what they want anyway but they don't know how to articulate it. And they can't see long reach ... what it would be.

Bill Froehlich(00:30:08): So in all of this, in your preparation and your identification of leaders, particularly the leader identification, when you get on the ground, that seems to me like an assessment process. You're assessing the situation. Can you talk?

Patricia Glenn (00:30:22): Absolutely. That is my assessment. That is my assessment..

Bill Froehlich(00:30:26): If there's more to say about your assessment process, I'd love to hear it, but I'd also like to hear ... how and why you would make choices after your assessment. So why did you make choices about bringing particular leaders into the conversation to the mediation table based on your assessment?

Patricia Glenn (00:30:47): Well, because ... first of all, you have to deal with the people who are there. I mean, that's number one. And so I think that's a choice also ... because the dilemma becomes that we can't decide who ought to be at the table. You see? And so based on that, it's okay. If you can give me a list of the people who are going to be at the table, not so that I can say no, this one can't come, but just so I'll know who is going to come, then I can get an idea of kind of what positions are out there. And that's why that's important because I'd like to know, and sometimes you don't get, and sometimes you do, but it's something that I think that I know as a mediator. You have to try to get the: What is the position? What do they really want versus what do they have? And I always used to talk about throw away this or throw away item that I really don't want, you know, but I'm going to use that as a stepping stone to what I really want.

Bill Froehlich(00:32:13): That's... Trying to identify what that throwaway item is that folks might use as a negotiating chip. That's a fascinating strategy.

Patricia Glenn (00:32:23): We want the police chief fight. We want .... to mayor fight. Right.

Bill Froehlich(00:32:31): Okay. So those are really concrete examples and is it that there were throwaways or that they were also unrealistic? ... Were you helping?

Patricia Glenn (00:32:39): Well... It's the same thing. I mean ... sure it would be nice if that happened, but generally that's not gonna happen. But can you get a civilian review board? Okay ... so would you settle for that? Or, how important is it for the chief to go versus a civilian review board where you can make decisions? I just call 'em throw away items to me. I wouldn't say that to the you know.

Bill Froehlich(00:33:23): Sure. <laugh> Fair enough. Please identify the items that you'll throw away, doesn't sound a gift.

Patricia Glenn (00:33:29): You know? OK.

Bill Froehlich(00:33:30): Or a mediator. But ... that framing is useful and helpful to think through from a mediation practice point. So thank you for that. There is a neat thing. So after assessing that scenario, you would decide on a response plan. Did you typically do this on your own? Did you consult with other mediators, with folks in DC with your, with your colleagues? How did you make those decisions?

Patricia Glenn (00:34:05): See, I think it depends on your level of skill, how much you have to do that. Okay. I, I think that once you have really done this for a while, then you can pretty well understand what you have to do. But if you are newer new at this, then I would say, yes, you need to sit down with someone who has more experience and work through what are the expectations, What's the leadership? What do they want to in fact go through your entire case with someone else? But most of the time, once you are seasoned, then I'm not quite sure you have the time to do that. Because most the time, and we had a lot of cases, and if we had to sit down and do that every time we had every case, we'd never get out. We just talk all day in the office.

Bill Froehlich(00:35:25): And you were probably doing a lot of that talking as a regional director, advising your younger folks and as the deputy director named in Chicago.

Patricia Glenn (00:35:34): Well...I always worked, I always worked, I never sat in the office. Which I mean, which might not have been, you know, the best managerial skill, but I always was just fascinated with this process. And so ... We did a lot of mediation where I had other people with me because I wanted them to get the experience, and that's really important. And then at that point, sure, you can say, okay, once we're outside... Ok, how do you think that went? ... So that it becomes, you can use it for a lot of teaching moments, but ... I I'll just be on, I was known to work a lot. So.

Bill Froehlich(00:36:40): I'm glad... we're trying or glad we're talking about it now, were you ever asked either by a disputant or an outside party to do something that you were not able to do?

Patricia Glenn (00:36:57): Yes. ... you were all the time. Well, I want you to take this message for me. No, I'm sorry. I can't do that. You know, and I would just tell them the reason that I can't do it is because first of all I can't take your message for you. Ok, because that's unethical really. And I would just say that that's unethical, however, because... I was always pushing them to meet. So... However I think that when you get to the meeting, then that's something that you can bring up.

Patricia Glenn (00:37:40): Okay, now at the beginning, I would have this caveat that because we had at the beginning of civil rights, people were not as docile as they later became. So one thing that I'd always say ... I want you to understand that these are confidential meetings... However, if you have a meeting and you either have weapons or you're gonna talk about overthrowing the government, then that is not the meeting for me... I was very serious about that... Because ... you and I know that that's against the law and I represent the law. So, you know, I want and I tell them before we had any meetings or anything,

Bill Froehlich(00:38:44): That's a helpful ground rule. And so I wanna, I want to transition to that a little bit because I'd like to talk specifically about your processes. I have a number of questions for "a table oriented process," where folks sat down at a table and had a conversation, which it sounds like you had a number of throughout your career. So these are more generic questions, not about a specific incident, but I just want to start with generally, and you could talk at about a, a campus issue or ... I'm certain you were involved in cases that connected to police involved shootings, or if you want to talk about a concrete case that illustrates these points as well. Well, that would be fine, but the first question is, so who's at the table for a mediation session and who chose and identified the participants?

Patricia Glenn (00:39:46): Okay. Let's talk about, I guess, a police case is the prior case with Minneapolis because how the fewer that occurred ...with the one in Minneapolis was not the first one. I actually, with

Bill Froehlich(00:40:17): George Floyd ... that wasn't the first one. Okay.

Patricia Glenn (00:40:20): No, no. So I actually had one, with, in Minneapolis and who was at the table, a cast of thousands because you had the American Indian movement, you had the American Muslim movement, so I'm just... You had, of course the African Americans, on the other side, you had the police chief, you had ... a commissioner... so who chose them? They chose themselves because it's not proper for us to choose who's at that table because ... we don't represent their interest. If I tell you that you can come to the table, I'm representing your interest and you can't do that because you have no neutrality.

Bill Froehlich(00:41:40): Yeah. So .... So I'm not sure how this next question, what your answer might be, but were there ever challenges in getting folks to the table? or did you not face challenges?

Patricia Glenn (00:41:55): There was always a challenge

Bill Froehlich(00:41:56): There are always challenges. Can you say more about them?

Patricia Glenn (00:42:00): They're all ... You know there's always a challenge because nobody trusts us so that knockdown... So it's always, and that's the reason that you meet separately with the people, because you see, it's not getting people to the table... It's not at the table, it's getting people to the table so that they trust you enough because what do we hear as people of color? Well, you're sellout, and that was a familiar refrain... So, no, it's what do I have to offer them that will get them to the table?

Patricia Glenn (00:42:56): The fact that for change, and I would say this, listen, you can design your own destiny if you come to the table, Aren't you tired of people deciding for you, what they think is best for you? So then.. If you come to the table, then you can talk about what you want, because I, first of all, I can't represent you, but what I can do is facilitate a meeting and then you can talk about what you.... How you see it, how important this is to you, what order. And so it's really prepping them to come to the table.

Bill Froehlich(00:43:47): So... from your perspective, as the mediator in Minneapolis at an incident prior to George Floyd, in that example, or a similar example, did you have goals for your involvement?

Patricia Glenn (00:44:05): Well, my goal was really to .... first of all, because there were so many groups, I mean, it was just humongous because, you had the Somali because there's a great big Somali community in Minneapolis. So you know, there was ... with the Indians and each of them had had something different that they wanted to talk about. And so that was my purpose in saying: bring it to the table. You know, because obviously, because they'd say, well, we've been talking about this for years and my response was, well, how'd that work out for you? Because you're still, if you've been talking about this for years, then what has been your process and your progress for getting them to the table? Hasn't been very good. So let's try to have kind of an orderly way of then discussing each of your various concerns and see: is there a way to put this then into an agreement because that was my ultimate concern all the time. I want an agreement.

Bill Froehlich(00:45:36): Was that your concern getting to an agreement? Or your personal goal? Or a CRS goal?

Patricia Glenn (00:45:42): Well,...I represent CRS. So... I mean otherwise, why are you there? I mean, if your goal is not to ,first of all, try to get down the level of tension, get the people to be able to see each other not as adversaries, but as people who may have different concerns, but that doesn't make me your adversary. That just means that's my concern versus your concern. Well, if your real aim is not to get an agreement, what are you doing? So, you just want a round table where people just talk incessantly and forever? And then at the end, what do you have to show for it? How have you helped that community?

Bill Froehlich(00:46:45): So I'm hearing that getting to an agreement is a core goal and some subsidiary goals include cutting down level of tension, getting folks to the table, helping communities and helping the participants in the process see one another, not as adversaries, but as folks with different perspectives.

Patricia Glenn (00:47:09): Yes. And ... that is really, and particularly when you have police involved,

Patricia Glenn (00:47:17): You see, because anytime that police come, they don't wanna come anyway. I mean... And they always feel that everyone is beating up on them. Don't understand how hard it is out there...in the community. Ok. So getting people to the table gives then the community, a chance to see: look, these guys and women are human just like we are. This is their job for the police. It gives them a chance to see, because not, I didn't do this, I don't do this with, but I used to also do police training because ... that was part of disruption. And one of the questions that I will always ask police, ok. I want you to, to think about one person in, in your community whom you arrest all the time. Ok. For whatever. I don't care what it is. Tell me what you know about that person.

Patricia Glenn (00:48:32): Ok. Now I know what time he or she gets up, I know if they have a job, I know how many people are in their family, etc. Ok. Now think about someone in the community. What do you know about someone in the community? Well, so my point to them was that you know a lot about people who are breaking the law, but nothing about people, you see whom you service every day and shouldn't it be the other way around? Well, when you get people to the table, it gives them a chance to see each other as human.

Bill Froehlich(00:49:26): So the folks that you brought or that elected to come to the table, folks that participated, did they share your goals or were their goals different? And how did you reconcile those?

Patricia Glenn (00:49:41): Well, that's one of the things that in working with anyone, police, community, whatever, you have to really help them with what might be a goal. I can't tell them what the community's goal, but I can say that. if you have a chance to sit down and discuss this with them, then maybe you'll have a better idea than about their issues. And that's because, again, never spoke for the police and never spoke for the community because I wanted them to speak for themselves. Because first of all, it's more powerful. Because they expect me to say something like that. Well, you know, we need better neighborhoods. Sure. Okay. Because you work for the department of justice. What are you supposed to do? You understand? But let the community do that. And really before the meeting, absolutely. I was always saying, okay, what do you want from this? You know, how do you see this? You know, is there something else that.... feel you need to include? You know, but those are the questions that they have to be able to answer. We should not answer those for them. Cause first of all, we can't do it anyway. You know, we're gonna be gone and you're still gonna be there in their community.

Bill Froehlich(00:51:21): That's right. We're just, in it with them for a few minutes. We're visitors. So, tell me a little bit more about the table oriented processes. I wonder, you talked about look, no guns, no overthrowing the government. That's not the process for me. And you put that on you in that framing as well that you weren't gonna engage in those conversations. Not that the parties shouldn't, they do what they want, but that you weren't going to engage or facilitate those conversations. Did you set other ground rules? Or did you ask the parties to help you identify ground rules during a table oriented process?

Patricia Glenn (00:52:05): Yes. We both did that. I mean, mine, mine were that... At the beginning we would have a timeframe for how long someone could, could speak at the beginning. Okay. That that's a ground rule. I know this was kind old fashioned, but I tried it anyway, that no profanity, because once you start using it, I think the level start, the level of tension starts. And so, you know, no profanity, no name calling, ..., that one person would speak at a time. So sure we would have ground rules and you know, I'd say now folks, these are mine. Are there some that you'd like to add so that we, we then have a consensus of ground rules?

Bill Froehlich(00:53:05): Did folks add any or were there any that stick out?

Patricia Glenn (00:53:09): Sometimes.

Bill Froehlich(00:53:11): Did you have trouble or any challenges enforcing the ground rules?

Patricia Glenn (00:53:16): Every time. Every time. I mean, it sounds really so nice, but yes, particularly at the beginning about no name calling, you know, one person speaking, ... And then letting someone else speak, I mean sure, absolutely. And we just have to go over and remember, this is what all of us agreed to and that was the language I used that all of us agreed to. So it weren't my ground rules, they were ones that everyone who sat at the table agreed to.

Bill Froehlich(00:54:00): In these conversations who facilitated the discussions? Was it you? Someone else? And how was that decided?

Patricia Glenn (00:54:09): I did. I did.

Bill Froehlich(00:54:12): And you, that was your role as the facilitator?

Patricia Glenn (00:54:16): That was. You know, I mean that was my role... and I felt and I still feel that because it leaves it so that no one else owns the process. So that this way you see, then if I'm facilitating, then, first of all, I have an idea of kind of what people are gonna say. I can look out for the traps because they're there,... of what may occur. And so if I'm not facilitating, then why am I there?

Bill Froehlich(00:55:03): Yeah. I appreciate that. Your role is clear in those conversations. Did you as the mediator facilitator, set an agenda and/or identify the negotiable issues with the parties? If so, did you identify those negotiable issues or did you use another process to identify issues to negotiate over?

Patricia Glenn (00:55:32): No. I ask them what are their issues? Just that simple. What would you like?

Bill Froehlich(00:55:39): Mm-hmm <affirmative>

Patricia Glenn (00:55:39): No, I don't. ... because see, once you begin to help them frame them, then those are your issues. They're not their issues anymore. Okay. So I stayed away from helping them frame anything because I think that's dishonest. And, I think that it takes away from their process because how I frame it would be how I'd like to see it turn out, but that may not necessarily be how you needed to turn out or what your expectation was. So yes, I always said, you know... I can type the agenda for you, but you have to tell me what's going to be on the agenda.

Bill Froehlich(00:56:36): And so, did you help them? You said some earlier, sometimes that folks struggle to articulate some of their goals. Did you help them or help elicit, some of the issues they wanted to negotiate? If they were unable to articulate them?

Patricia Glenn (00:56:55): Well, we're back to that same thing again, if you do that, then whose issues are there?

Bill Froehlich(00:57:07): See, did the agenda in table oriented mediation sessions... Did the agenda shift over time or issues alter sometimes added to that conversation?

Patricia Glenn (00:57:21): Absolutely. I mean, you know, this was not finite. I mean, ... This is something you'd like to discuss, let's put that on there also. And that also saved you many a time, you know, because, sure other issues come up, but I just don't want it to be well "She's the one who suggested we do this."

Bill Froehlich(00:57:52): No. So you've talked about a number of ways to build trust, between yourself and the parties. For example, just in the campus example, you said the Jewish, faculty members said we don't want you because we believe you identify as black and black faculty members said, look, we think that you're just an agent of DOJ. And so, but you build trust with them to get them into the conversation. Can you share, some other examples of how you built trust, both between yourself and the parties and between the parties during a mediation process?

Patricia Glenn (00:58:32): Well, I just think it's an ongoing process. I mean, it's not because I never say you can trust me, you know, because I just don't think that makes sense... I think not disclosing information that one side has given me, and that's really important, because if you do it in any side... Then whom are you representing? Because you're certainly not representing CRS when you do that. So, and it is continual, if I said I'm gonna call you, I call them. If I'm gonna be at the meeting, I'm gonna be at the meeting. But I really try to always talk about these are your issues, you know, and so I didn't want to ever bring them up as mine, because then we lose one side, another is gonna lose trust. And, I mean, I saw this and I always think about this for me because I was at a table and we were having a discussion and one guy made a point and I did just like this. I just kind of, you know, said, "oh, okay." Well, when the other side spoke, then I didn't do that.

Patricia Glenn (01:00:14): And they called me out on it. They said "well, wait a minute." And that was a useful lesson for me. So, you know, I was always... If I didn't sneeze at one time, I certainly was gonna sneeze at another. So, but it is simply a way...because you have to build trust, you don't get trust, you build it.

Bill Froehlich(01:00:43): Oh, I like that example of that. Now, any other examples of building trust you wanna share?

Patricia Glenn (01:00:50): No, because I think that that's it, you know, if you meet with one person... If you meet with one side, you meet with the other side, I mean, these are kind of simplistic approaches, but they do work. If you call one side, you call the other side.

Bill Froehlich(01:01:11): And on that, it sounds like you both worked with the parties together and in a shovel negotiation or a caucus, depending on what point you were at in the conversation, is that what I'm hearing?

Patricia Glenn (01:01:25): Well... No, I mean, I would explain to them that you can call a caucus... Let me just say that I did not, as I always explain mediation rules that... This is what we talked about the expectations earlier. This is, you know, what we are not meeting to meet we're meeting for. If you feel that you need to have a caucus, then this is what a caucus is. This is why you do this, you know? So that they would understand that maybe if things were getting out of hand or they was not going. That this is something that they could do either. So.

Bill Froehlich(01:02:13): And would you yourself call a caucus?

Patricia Glenn (01:02:16): Yes... Especially if I saw that people were arrested or ... clarification. Yes, yes, I would.

Bill Froehlich(01:02:36): So one question that's on this list, that you've already answered. I just wanna note it though. Is, do you have any effective techniques for persuading, a party to reframe a problem to make it negotiable? And I know your answer is that, you didn't reframe, you took the parties issues as they presented them. Is there anything more you wanted to say about that?

Patricia Glenn (01:02:59): Yeah, because you know what, there's always a surprise that if I helped them reframe that, then...there's always see this thing of "well why did you think about this?" Well, when I sat down with the mediator she discussed, no, no, because I don't understand the question because... Who's speaking for it being more negotiable? When you ask that question, then what you ought to ask the mediator is who who's making it more negotiable?

Bill Froehlich(01:03:40): From who's perspective Is it more negotiable? Who's making that decision?

Patricia Glenn (01:03:46): Mm-hmm

Bill Froehlich(01:03:46): If what I'm hearing from you is if the mediator is making that decision, then they're emphasizing or they're making judgment about what the parties issues and concerns are and that's problematic.

Patricia Glenn (01:04:01): Well, it is problematic. And also then you're steering

Bill Froehlich(01:04:07): Mm-hmm,

Patricia Glenn (01:04:07): See you're steering the discussion. Let me say that and I think that's the dilemma... Because if we say that you, you know, we have no dog in that fight, and then all of a sudden you find out that maybe we do have a dog in the fight, then where's your neutrality? And you can't get it back. You see? And I mean that it's so much of the time that you don't understand that police talk to each other, communities talk to each other, and it may not be that community that you're working with, but just suppose you have to go to another community. It was... interesting to me that when that they had the George Floyd situation and our mediator from Chicago went to after all these years, they asked for me.

Bill Froehlich(01:05:21): They asked for you, wow. 12 years later.

Patricia Glenn (01:05:25): Yes.

Bill Froehlich(01:05:27): The parties in Minneapolis.

Patricia Glenn (01:05:29): Yes. That was just astonishing, you know? Because who remembers the mediator?

Bill Froehlich(01:05:40): Nobody.

Patricia Glenn (01:05:42): Yes, that's my point.

Bill Froehlich(01:05:43): But they remembered you.

Patricia Glenn (01:05:44): You know, and ... I'm sorry. And he said, would you believe? And I said, no. I said, that was the worst mediation. That was the mediation from hell. No... I'm really serious because when we had that mediation, we had the Native American, one of the Belcorp brothers, and he started every session talking about how the department of justice had not helped the Indians that wounded knee and i mean every session and then, you know, here would come a community group and they say, well, you weren't. I mean, that was the mediation from hell. I know. I didn't want to see those people again. You know, now we got an agreement, and we got about a 32 point agreement from, but it was still the mediation from hell. So that's why I'm saying that, honestly, sincerely, you, you have to stay neutral. You have to represent the government, not us.

Bill Froehlich(01:07:14): That's great. So and perhaps if we have time ...I might ask you more details about that first Minneapolis case, if you're open to it... But I wanted to ask you a few more questions about table oriented processes. You mentioned how to deal with some seemingly intractable demands, like firing the police chief, what's the throw away your framing of,

Patricia Glenn (01:07:43): Mm-hmm

Bill Froehlich(01:07:43): some of those demands, but were there other techniques that you had for dealing with and working through intractable demands that one party was making?

Patricia Glenn (01:07:56): Well, one thing, if that were the case, then what I would try to do would go through what if? As a way of not saying I'm on someone's side now, but just to have a discussion afterward, by ourselves about... Can you tell me why this is important to you to get more of a framework for something that just, you know, seems just insane, but nonetheless, people do make them. And, so that would, that was my exercise. Well, if this is your issue...what do you think, why do you think you need that? What may come from it? Okay. Is there another way to approach it? But always putting it back to the community or the police now, not just community groups who do it, because you know, it's anybody who's, who's involved in the process, but to have them think about, well, what might the outcome be.

Bill Froehlich(01:09:20): Great. So I wanna talk a little bit about disagreements between parties at the mediation table. How did you deal with disagreements over facts? Did you have any strategies for dealing with disagreements over facts?

Patricia Glenn (01:09:37): Over facts? F A C T S?

Bill Froehlich(01:09:41): Yes.

Patricia Glenn (01:09:42): <laugh>. Okay. <laugh> well, the first thing you you do is for the media, you have to understand that my definition of facts may not be the same as yours. My perception of facts will not be the same. Look at George Floyd, the perception of the police and the facts were not the same thing as the perception of the community, even the people who were there. And so that's that idea when you see that is to just kind of sit down and go over it again. Okay. You know, I think this is good time for us to have a meeting. Could you work with me again on why these are your demands? Could we go over these again? What are you seeking from here? And, that's a way to really kind of get them to look in because see sometimes facts have nothing to do with mediation truthfully. Feelings have something to do with mediation, perceptions, have something to do with mediation, but what's really, what's a fact sometimes, you could just ignore that, but it's why do you feel this way? And the feeling because its visceral is what's standing in the way of really resolution. And so those facts then, okay, if those are the facts, what do you, what do you want to get from the facts?

Patricia Glenn (01:11:32): So I think it's really just sitting down. You really do have to sit down and have that kind of discussion.

Bill Froehlich(01:11:40): So tell me, you mentioned feelings and perceptions are critical to mediation. And how do you deal with visceral feelings in your mediation sessions?

Patricia Glenn (01:11:55): You acknowledge them... I know that this, this mediation is very difficult for you... but this is... Can you, you know, really try to stay with us and you know, let's try to work on this, so it won't happen to someone else.

Bill Froehlich(01:12:27): Simple. Uh, mm-hmm <affirmative>, I'm gonna pause for one second. So, Patricia, we talked a little bit about disagreements, about facts and I'd like to discuss with you a little bit more about how do you deal with fundamental disagreements over values? Like religious values, for example, or values about blue lives versus black lives matter? Or deal with disagreements over values at the mediation table?

Patricia Glenn (01:13:08): I think that that's a really good question. But I think.... I don't think it's at the mediation table. I think it's at the meeting before the mediation, because... If you have a discussion about values at the table, you won't go anywhere. And this is the reason why I'm always into preparation before you get to the meeting so that you understand these...this is what you're going to hear once you get to the table from either side. Okay. Because if you deal with, with the values, you won't go anywhere because that's that visceral again. I mean, that keeps us as human, but it also keeps us arguing because it's, well, you just don't understand this. Okay. No, I may not understand your point of view, but I understand that you have this, this point of view, and I think that's very valid. Right?

Bill Froehlich(01:14:34): Absolutely.

Patricia Glenn (01:14:36): See and I think if you can, if you get that out there, then it really is going to cool. Ok. Those hot tempers, because part of the problem is they feel well you're not listening to me. You don't understand it because that's never happened to you. And that's probably true. Okay. But then understand, you know, and, I mean, it's, but these are the ones not at the table. This is your preparation. I understand that. I hear what you're saying. Right. Because you, part of the reason that so many we have so much mediation is that we don't acknowledge anything. You see, we don't give people a chance to say, you know, that's real that...that's an honest viewpoint. So when we don't acknowledge, then we don't give them a chance to move on and we don't move on.

Bill Froehlich(01:15:52): Yeah. Acknowledgement again is key here. So tell me a little bit about how you worked through power disparities between parties

Patricia Glenn (01:16:05): It's knowing who to talk to.

Bill Froehlich(01:16:13): Can you say more about that?

Patricia Glenn (01:16:15): You know, no knowing, and again, see, I guess.. You know, I keep on talking about this homework, but I know how important that homework is because we talked earlier about who's the leader and that's part of who's the leader and then who's the real leader. Ok? But, then ...what do you need to know? How do you deal with them? And again, that's what you ought to have figured out before you bring these people to the table.

Bill Froehlich(01:17:00): So let me give you an example. Maybe you can walk through how you would've addressed...this disparity. In prior oral histories, one mediator talks about how they were brought into help with a prison riot or a hunger strike. And the mediator met with warden and the mediator met with the prisoners. And then the mediator came back to the warden. He says, "Hey, look, I wanna host this negotiation session, but I need to train the prisoners. I need to provide them a skillset so that they can articulate their concerns, because they're not at a place where they can articulate their concerns." So this is an example of a power and balance between the prisoners and the warden. Would you have taken a similar approach or no? What approach would you have taken there?

Patricia Glenn (01:18:09): No, because they may not have been able to articulate it in the way that you speak or the way that I speak, but they can certainly let you know, because I've done prison. I did death row mediation for the department for CRS. Prisoners can tell you that my food is cold that they don't need, see that's that's not the power has is in the fact that they're in prison, the disparity is not in, they can't articulate what their concerns are. Does that make any sense to you?

Bill Froehlich(01:18:55): <affirmative> mm-hmm <affirmative> Yes.

Patricia Glenn (01:18:57): Okay. You know, because when I did it and the guy was on death row he said, "listen they keep on giving us 25 wide bulbs and my sight is bad." You know, they put in prisoners who have mental problems in with other inmates. See, he was clear. You see in what he.... He wanted to say. So the power imbalance was not they couldn't. The power imbalance was one was locked up and one was free. And that's not anything that we can... Can handle. So what were we go? What were they supposed to do? Let the prisoners go free?

Bill Froehlich(01:19:52): I see. So the imbalance is something that, from your perspective, can't be addressed because the prisoner is going to remain in prison, and you can meet them where they are with respect to their articulation of their concerns.

Patricia Glenn (01:20:09): Yes... Yes. that's my point. Yes, you can. Because the concern can't be, they wanna get out of prison. I mean, well, they certain probably do, but... That that's not, so where we're going to, because I know that they talk about cold food, you know, because so many are Muslim. They need a prayer rug. You understand all of that. Well, they can tell you that. So... that's a stereotype that because you may be uneducated, then you can't express your concerns and that's not true.

Bill Froehlich(01:20:59): Yeah... I really appreciate that insight, I thank you. Thank you for sharing that. So I want to talk a little bit more about tension, at the mediation table. How did you deal with tension? How did you let tension take place? Did you try to diminish tension?

Patricia Glenn (01:21:21): Yeah

Bill Froehlich(01:21:22): How did you deal with tense points in Mediation?

Patricia Glenn (01:21:23): Yeah. I mean, but tension is real and, and that's ... one of the reasons why I like to meet with folks because let me bear attention. See ... let me as the mediator, you know, that they have all of these issues. So let them just kind of, I'll be the scapegoat for that. Because if that means that by the time they got to the table, they've calmed down, then I've done part of my work because then that means that at that point... But now listen, tensions do rise and that's why we take breaks. That's that thing called breaks. Right? Where... We call a break and sometimes, you know, you just say that well, you know, I think we need a break and then, you know, while this, and then you meet with both sides again and say I understand ..., And I never understand how they feel, but I understand your concerns.

Patricia Glenn (01:22:37): And I know this must be very difficult for you, but ... if this is not the day for you, then let's schedule it, let's reschedule it. Okay. You know, but do you think that you can? One lady cried her son had been killed and, and it was just heartbreaking. You know, and that's when I said, well... look, let's, let's try this another day. Ok? So I think you have to be prepared as the mediator to look and see wait a minute, where is this going? You know, and if ...we need a break or we need to have it another day, then you'll be prepared to do that.

Bill Froehlich(01:23:28): That's valuable. So, ... if and when someone threatened to leave or threatened violence during a mediation, how did you deal with that?

Patricia Glenn (01:23:42): Well, I had a case actually where the guy really ... pulled his gun on me, the police officer,

Bill Froehlich(01:23:57): A police, say that again, a police officer pulled his gun on?

Patricia Glenn (01:24:00): Me.

Bill Froehlich(01:24:01): On you?

Patricia Glenn (01:24:02): Yeah.

Bill Froehlich(01:24:03): Okay.

Patricia Glenn (01:24:04): Yeah. You know, ..., He just kind of was out of control and so... I mean, it was really kind of, kind of funny cause truthfully, I never thought that anything was gonna happen, but his officers, you know, were going "man, what? you sit down" I mean... But I told you at the next meeting, I said, there'll be no guns in this session. So <laugh>, I mean, but that's the reason to have enough sessions about violence. You know and to more than once talk about, ...these are issues that have been on the back burner for a long time, but here's your opportunity. And I talk about this though to meet as an equal at the table. When is the last time that someone has been able to control your destiny versus you controlling your destiny yourself? And how do you do that at the table? Bring ... it to the table. For police, same thing. Aren't you tired of people having that, that image of you just eat donuts all the time? When it's hard out there. This is your chance to meet with the community you see and begin to express this. So this is what I'm saying that that homework is important.

Bill Froehlich(01:25:52): Absolutely. So with respect to these table oriented processes, how long would a table focused mediation last? Would it ... be done in a half day or 52 months? How long would they last?

Patricia Glenn (01:26:09): It depends on all the issues ... it's just that simple. Although truthfully, I don't think mediation ought to be more than an hour and a half. I really don't. And I'll tell you why, because after an hour people begin to repeat themselves. I want you to think about this in your meetings. That the meetings start out really well ... And then what you find out is after a while someone is just repeating what you just said. Okay. And then it's "well no what I really meant to say." And that's the reason why ... we have an agenda. So that we can really sit down, we can go through whatever we get through is what we'll get through for the day.

Patricia Glenn (01:27:05): But, the session is only going to be this long and hold it to that. Hold the sessions to a particular time. Because first of all, and this is no slight, a lot of community, people are not accustomed to meeting our after hour. So this is another reason to really say... This is a time that we're gonna meet and something in our brain. If we say, we're going to meet for two hours, then two hours, see we can do that. But...then all of a sudden, you see, you are going to sleep, right. People are doodling. Okay. You know, it's all kind of things. So that's the idea... Because look, if you want to get this resolved and it's been going on a year, well, what's the problem with having another mediation session?

Bill Froehlich(01:28:13): So, it sounds like you would try to schedule shorter sessions, but you'd have multiple sessions over a longer period of time. To keep the parties attention, to keep them engaged so that we're not sitting in conference rooms for day after day.

Patricia Glenn (01:28:28): Yes. Yeah.

Bill Froehlich(01:28:30): No, thank you. So in those sessions, you've mentioned a couple of agreements you reached, one was 32 points, I believe. How were solutions developed? Did the parties developed them?

Patricia Glenn (01:28:47): When it came time, because it would check off, you know, okay. Now we've agreed to this. All right... actually going over once we would have agreement on something then that would be that...kind of checklist we say, okay now is it my understanding? Because you know, this is their agreement. Is it my understanding that you have agreed that there'll be a civilian review board? Okay. Is that my understanding? Okay. All right. Well you know, will it be citizens? How many citizens? I mean, see, once you get to that, then you can really do the parameters for how that agreement ought to look.

Bill Froehlich(01:29:37): Okay. But... Based on what we've talked about previously, the parties would come up with the solutions and you would clarify that there was consensus about that?

Patricia Glenn (01:29:48): Yeah, I would clarify it and basically most of the time I write the agreement.

Bill Froehlich(01:29:53): Got it. And you'd ask additional questions about some, some of the details.

Patricia Glenn (01:29:56): Yes.

Bill Froehlich(01:29:59): So, after solutions were agreed upon, was there anything that you did in particular to ensure those agreements,... the parties would follow through with those agreements?

Patricia Glenn (01:30:09): Well, you have a timetable in there, that's how you do that. You know, you don't ever write an agreement where you don't have a timetable... one month, well I'm just giving you... in one month the newly formed and selected, elected commission will meet for it's first meeting. Okay. And so you have a series, you know, and six months and... You can write that into the agreement.

Bill Froehlich(01:30:49): So using that timetable was a way to make sure that they'd be carried out. Did CRS ever play any role in following through with the agreement or supporting the parties in their follow through with the agreement after the mediations concluded?

Patricia Glenn (01:31:08): Probably... Probably because I've not had to do that, but I'm sure... because, you know, I mean a lot of communities speak before forked tongue and a lot of... elected officials and whatever speak with forked tongue. So, I think that that's something that really does happen and where you have to call... and say... We do have this agreement and has something happen, you know, because sometimes it does happen. You know, sometimes the community says, well no, this is not really what I wanted. You know... you get a new police chief. Yeah. you know, you get a new commissioner and so all of that hard work, you know with good intentions and well intentioned people and then all of a sudden what goes on,

Bill Froehlich(01:32:18): <laugh> So, and that's ... a enforcement perspective, I guess. Also though from, I heard you played other roles, after agreements were reached. For example, you provide, in the Kane university example [inaudible], you stated you provided training to staff as a result of the agreement. So CRS played other roles as well. Is that right?

Patricia Glenn (01:32:42): Oh yeah. Oh yeah...So I mean, it was really not in the agreement about the training. It was really something that just came up after like to train. So, you know, they worked out well.

Bill Froehlich(01:33:04): Oh, training is fun. Excellent. So from your perspective, from your observation, were the solutions that you helped the parties arrive at? Were they durable? Did they last?

Patricia Glenn (01:33:23): Some of them did.

Bill Froehlich(01:33:26): Any observation on what made a solution more likely to last? More Less likely to last?

Patricia Glenn (01:33:35): Something where you didn't need a lot of change.

Bill Froehlich(01:33:39): Hmm.

Patricia Glenn (01:33:41): If there's... A lot of change, then I think it's harder when... It's kind a simple change, it's easier for it to survive.

Bill Froehlich(01:33:57): So, would a CRB, for example, would a CRB require a lot of change or a little change?

Patricia Glenn (01:34:09): Lot of change. I mean... Look at Chicago. It's tried to get one, still can't get one with all the... issues and...there's appointed this one and because it's, I think if it's something that's too drastic, it most of the time it's just not gonna fly.

Bill Froehlich(01:34:41): Okay. So, is there anything you would do in your mediation sessions to talk to the parties about the reality of their proposed changes to test their assumptions or... Do some reality testing around the ideas?

Patricia Glenn (01:35:00): Yeah, because I think that, you know... One of the things that the mediator does have to be is an agent of reality. Ok. Now you may not get everything, Ok? Some of these, you know, they've tried and they haven't been done, but let's think about some of the things that may work.

Bill Froehlich(01:35:24): That's great... That's a great example. So there's one last question I have for you. Today I wanted to go back to the issue of reframing, because I understand that you're not going to reframe the issues, the negotiable issues for the party to make them more negotiable. For example, because who's perspective you're influencing the negotiation based on your perspective of what's negotiable. And I wanted to compare that with the issue about intractable or throw away issues. So... I see the perspective from your depth of experience about the firing of the police chief, or asking the mayor to step down. Those are throwaway issues because they're just unlikely to happen. But ... I'm wondering ... can you parse out the difference between the choice point about I'm not going to reframe this issue be from my perspective about what's negotiable to I'm identifying this issue internally. You're not doing it publicly, but you're identifying it internally,

Patricia Glenn (01:36:50): But you can identify, excuse me, you can identify it internally with either the police chief, with the police or saying, this is a dilemma for doing the reframing. All right.

Bill Froehlich(01:37:07): Okay.

Patricia Glenn (01:37:07): That, if you do that, someone is gonna tell it's just that simple. So if you say you know, in the past, when they have asked for the police chief to resign... that has never worked. Before you get out the door, the community is going to call someone and say, you know, that person from the department of justice said, we don't need to do that because that's not going to work. You understand, now you may look good to the police.

Bill Froehlich(01:37:52): I see.

Patricia Glenn (01:37:53): You know, and that's my real dilemma about not doing that, about trying to say, ok, I understand you have a problem... With the police department. I understand you have a problem with the chief, because you keep on mentioning... that. Ok. So.

Bill Froehlich(01:38:23): And I'm seeing this a little bit as a distinction between, you're going to let them identify the issue as the police chief, but then you're gonna help rather than telling them look nobody gets the police chief to resign. It's never gonna happen. You're going, test their assumptions, do... some of that agent of reality work... How are you going to get the police chiefs to step down? What levers are you going to pull? What parts of this negotiation?

Patricia Glenn (01:38:56): Okay. Now.

Bill Froehlich(01:38:57): That's a distinction, right?

Patricia Glenn (01:38:59): Yeah... Because you're helping them get to where they need to be without saying, you know, they never asked the police chief to resign.

Bill Froehlich(01:39:14): Right.

Patricia Glenn (01:39:15): Okay.

Bill Froehlich(01:39:15): I get it. I I'm seeing the distinction. I just wanted to loop back to you and clarify that a little bit for this video and the transcript. that's really helpful, Patricia. So I'm gonna hit pause. So, Patricia... You had just mentioned, CRS hosted an event at Ohio State. And you were just digging in into it. So if you could just share a little bit more about that.

Patricia Glenn (01:39:50): Yeah. It really came about, because it seemed to be that there was just a spate of different kinds of issues at big 10 schools after athletic events where, the schools would, the students would either kind of wreck the campus or the communities where the events had been held. And so CRS had a conference at the Ohio State, and we brought in a number of the big 10 schools. We even let Michigan State and all of them come. And so try to work out some kind of procedures on what would be the kind of the impetus for this, you know, what role would administrators have to play? What roles should students play? And so, it was a fairly well attended conference.

Bill Froehlich(01:41:01): Do you recall the approximate year when that took place?

Patricia Glenn (01:41:06): No, but I'm gonna call, if you're interested, I'll call Darrell Bork with who was our media person at the time and asked him about that. But yeah, we actually held that conference.

Bill Froehlich(01:41:20): That sounds, I I'd love to hear more about it. So thank you. I'm gonna hit the pause button now.