Ten Things Lawyers Should Know About Ombuds, #5: Ombuds are Neutral and Impartial — EngagingConflicts.com
This is one of Guest Blogger Ombuds Thomas Kosakowski’s posts in his series “10 Things Lawyers Should Know About Ombuds”, part of the Engaging Conflict’s Taking Peacemaking Public series. His Introduction and point #1 are posted here, point #2 here, point #3 here, and point #4 here.
5. Ombuds are Neutral and Impartial
To be credible and effective, ombuds operate independently and without interference. This independence is achieved primarily through organizational recognition and reporting structure. Ombuds should report administratively to the highest possible office and should have the endorsement of the chief executive.
In assessing whether an ombuds is independent in structure, function, and appearance, the following factors are important: whether anyone subject to the ombuds’s jurisdiction or anyone directly responsible for a person under the ombuds’s jurisdiction (a) can control or limit the ombuds’s performance of assigned duties or (b) can, for retaliatory purposes, (1) eliminate the office, (2) remove the ombuds, or (3) reduce the budget or resources of the office. (ABA, Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices, p. 3.)
Ombuds also are vigilant about their neutrality. As with mediators, ombuds do not take sides in any conflict, dispute or issue. Ombuds do not advocate for any party in a dispute, nor do they default to defending their organization. Ombuds strive to consider the interests and concerns of all stakeholders in order to facilitate dialog and assist parties work toward fair and equitable resolutions. Therefore, ombuds generally shun any relationships within their organization that could create a conflict of interest. In light of their peculiar, self-imposed isolation, most ombuds consider themselves “inside outsiders.”
Tom’s series will continue later.
