by admin on October 27, 2007
The water problems in the southeastern United States have started to pit one state against another on the issues surrounding the water flow of the Chattahoochee River. The governors of of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are set to meet next week in Washington to discuss the situation.
Sadly, Georgia Governor Sunny Perdue has provided an especially pithy sound bite demonstrating that misunderstandings about mediation can reach the very highest level of decision-makers. After announcing the meeting, he continued, “frankly the time for mediation, the time for holding hands and singing Kumbaya is over, we need action in Georgia right now.”
Mediation, of course, is not about holding hands or singing. Instead, a party — whether an individual or the chief executive of a state of millions of residents — opts for mediation to resolve a conflict in a timely and cost effective manner, while getting as much of “the pie” (or, here, the water) as possible. If Gov. Perdue carefully considers Georgia’s BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), he may find some distinctly unappealing choices. He has already stated that the current situation cannot continue indefinitely. Protracted litigation between states would be slow and expensive.
Gov. Perdue is off the mark in stating that it’s too late for mediation; in fact, it may be too late for anything else.
by admin on October 18, 2007
Today, October 18, 2007, is Conflict Resolution Day. According to the Association for Conflict Resolution, “Conflict Resolution Day is an international celebration held annually on the third Thursday in October.”
Conflict is a common occurrence in human interaction. And we are all aware of some of the common approaches to dealing with conflict, from denial to demonizing those we consider our opponents.
Mediation is an approach to resolving conflicts that allows parties to craft a process that enables them to work with a neutral mediator to reach a resolution that meets their unique needs.
For more information about Conflict Resolution Day, including a listing of some of the wide variety of events celebrating the day, visit the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Conflict Resolution Day web page.
by admin on October 7, 2007
A few days ago I had the opportunity to sit down with Jamie Horsley, Deputy Director of the China Law Center at the Yale Law School, Shi-Chi Pan, a Yale Law student, and Zhao Wenmei, a visiting scholar from China to share some thoughts and experience about mediation in the U.S. Ms. Zhao, one of four visiting scholars at the China Law Center for the fall semester, has served as a judge and an administrative judge in China and is currently the principal staff member of the Administrative Reconsideration Department of the Legislative Affairs Office of Shanghai Municipal People’s Government.
During her stay at Yale Law School, Ms. Zhao is studying the dispute resolution frameworks for the use of mediation that have been created by various federal and state agencies, including the United States Postal Service REDRESS mediation program. Although most U.S. mediation programs, both in and out of the administrative setting, use the facilitative model of mediation, the REDRESS mediation program is unusual in its commitment to the use of transformative mediation.
Ms. Zhao expects her research about mediation processes in the U.S. to help her upon her return to Shanghai to draft proposed guiding practices and procedures for a more structured use of mediation in the administrative adjudication process.
by admin on October 1, 2007
A study recently published by Public Citizen blasts credit card companies for hiring arbitration firms that rule in favor of the companies and against individual consumers in almost every case. The study, published on Public Citizen’s website, is called “The Arbitration Trap” and details the effect on consumers of the standard fine print in many credit card agreements that requires binding mandatory arbitration.
For those who are unfamiliar with alternative dispute resolution processes, it can be easy to confuse various types. Yet the differences are significant.
As the article points out: ” Binding mandatory arbitration is wholly distinct from post-dispute arbitration, non-binding arbitration and mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, particularly because agreements to use them are made after a dispute arises, not before and as a condition of receiving the good or service.”
Mediation is a voluntary process that individuals or entities choose as a method for resolving conflicts. Sometimes a contract or other agreement will state that mediation will be the first process that the parties to the agreement will use if conflict arises. But all the parties to the agreement will still have the ability to choose a mutually acceptable mediator and define the parameters of their own mediation. Most important, parties to a mediation — whether they are large corporations in the midst of expensive and lengthy litigation or family members trying to resolve difficult issues in order to prevent angry disputes in the future — are not forced to accept any proposed resolution to their dispute. In mediation, the parties keep control of their situation until they decide for themselves to agree to a particular resolution.