NOTES

¹ Walter Gellhorn, Ombudsmen and Others: Citizen’s Protectors in Nine Countries (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967).

² Donald C. Rowat, The Ombudsman: Citizen’s Defender (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1965).

³ See Alan J. Wyner, ed., Executive Ombudsmen in the United States (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies, 1973). ⁴ See Larry B. Hill “the Citizen Participation-Representation Roles of American Ombudsmen,” Administration and Society 13 (February 1982): 405–433.

⁵ Paul Dolan, “Pseudo-Ombudsmen,” National Civic Review 58 (July, 1969: 297–301 and 306.

⁶ Stanley V. Anderson, “Comparing Classical and Executive Ombudsmen,” in Alan J. Wyner, ed., Executive Ombudsmen in the United States (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies, 1973): 305–315; Larry B. Hill, “Institutionalization, the Ombudsman, and Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 68 (September 1974): 1075–1085.

⁷ Ibid.: 1077.

⁸ These are adapted from ibid., and from Larry B. Hill, “Bureaucratic Monitoring Mechanisms,” in The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet, ed., Charles T. Goodsell (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981): 169–185.

⁹ The convening groups were the Association of Canadian College and University Ombudspersons, the California Caucus of College and University Ombudsmen, the Canadian Legislative Ombudsmen, The Ombudsman Association, the University and College Ombuds Association, and the United States Ombudsman Association.

¹⁰ I have briefly examined the relationship between various kinds of bureaucratic monitoring mechanisms (including the Ombudsman) and the following seven intellectual traditions: bureaucratic accountability, complaint handling, appeals reviewing, dispute resolution, client dependency, auditing, and program evaluation. See “Bureaucratic Monitoring Mechanisms”: 161–167.

¹¹ Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement Without Giving In (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1981).

¹² A good introduction to the ADR movement is Linda Singer, Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal System (Westview Press: Boulder, 1990); see especially Chapter 2 for a comparison of ADR techniques, including organizational ombudsmen.

¹³ A few organizational ombudsmen—for example, at American Express Company—have a considerable measure of independence from management because they report directly to the corporation’s board of directors. For a model of this kind of corporate ombudsman, see Victor Futter, “An Answer to the Public Perception of Corporations: A Corporate Ombudsperson?” The Business Lawyer 46 (November 1990): 29–56.

¹⁴ See Mary Rowe and Dean M. Gottehrer, “Similarities and Differences Between Public and Private Sector Ombudsmen,” (working paper prepared for the 1997 Spring Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, Hotel Washington, Washington, D.C., April 18, 1997): 4.

¹⁵ Generating options is a key element of the new negotiation literature. Chapter 4 of Getting to Yes is called: “Invent OPTIONS for mutual Gain.”

¹⁶ See D. Leah Meltzer, “Federal Workplace Ombuds,” (working paper prepared for the 1997 Spring Meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, Hotel Washington, Washington, D.C., April 18, 1997).

¹⁷ See Sir Brian Elwood, “How to Harmonize General Ombudsman Activities with those Related to Specialized Ombudsmen,” (presented at the International Ombudsmen’s Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21 October 1996).

ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice
740 15th Street, NW
Washington,
DC 20005-1009
E-Mail: adminlaw@abanet.org