[-] Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorDavis, Charles N.eng
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Daxton R.eng
dc.date.issued2009eng
dc.date.submitted2009 Springeng
dc.descriptionTitle from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on Feb 16, 2010).eng
dc.descriptionThe entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.eng
dc.descriptionDissertation advisor: Dr. Charles N. Davis.eng
dc.descriptionVita.eng
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.eng
dc.descriptionPh. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2009 .eng
dc.descriptionDissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Journalism.eng
dc.description.abstractPeople seeking access to public records and meetings under state and federal open government laws have the right to sue in court to enforce them. But several jurisdictions also have alternative systems to handle disputes arising under public access laws. This study applied principles of Conflict Theory and Dispute Systems Design to examine the systems in place in each jurisdiction. First, formal dispute resolution systems in each jurisdiction were examined, and a typology of systems was developed that identified five models: Multiple Process, Administrative Facilitation, Administrative Adjudication, Advisory, and Litigation. Second, ten experts in the freedom of information field were interviewed to examine any informal dispute resolution systems that may be in place. While few informal systems were found, the sources affirmed the necessity for formal alternative dispute resolution systems. Finally, case studies were conducted of three ombuds programs to examine the effectiveness of these kinds of offices in handling open government disputes. The study concluded that ombuds programs, if established following the tenets of Dispute Systems Design by using a stakeholder process and building trust for providing independent, impartial and credible oversight, have great potential for constructive conflict management. .eng
dc.format.extentix, 245 pageseng
dc.identifier.oclc519697145eng
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10355/6131
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.32469/10355/6131eng
dc.languageEnglisheng
dc.publisherUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaeng
dc.relation.ispartof2009 Freely available dissertations (MU)eng
dc.relation.ispartofcommunityUniversity of Missouri-Columbia. Graduate School. Theses and Dissertations. Dissertations. 2009 Dissertationseng
dc.subject.lcshAdministrative agencies -- Public meetingseng
dc.subject.lcshPublic meetingseng
dc.subject.lcshPublic records -- Law and legislationeng
dc.subject.lcshFreedom of informationeng
dc.subject.lcshFreedom of the presseng
dc.subject.lcshPublic records -- Access controleng
dc.titleConstructively managing conflict about open government: use of ombuds and other dispute resolution systems in state and federal sunshine lawseng
dc.typeThesiseng
thesis.degree.disciplineJournalism (MU)eng
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaeng
thesis.degree.levelDoctoraleng
thesis.degree.namePh. D.eng


Files in this item

[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

[-] Show simple item record