BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2003-09 > 1063232375


From: "~Richard...~" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Next Agenda Item - Mediators
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:19:35 -0500
References: <PCEDIGLJFHKFCNAGDACIIEPOJEAA.shari@tyaskin.com>


Madam ALR

I understand that we shouldn't be discussing this with a motion pending.
However I would like to request a committee to discuss a possible
solution if the motion doesn't pass? Richard...

Shari Handley wrote:
> I support the idea of mandatory mediation. Earlier today on
> the -DISCUSS list, Angie Rayfield made a good point that perhaps it
> would be better to think of it more in terms of "binding arbitration".
> The word "mediation" implies that both sides are willing to compromise,
> and that is almost never the case. In those instances in which one or
> both sides are unwilling to bend, Angie points out that it would be nice
> for the AB (or its designated arbitrators) to be able to say, "Ok, then,
> *we'll* make the decision for you and both parties *will* abide by it."
> I agree that this, in theory, would allow us to get through some of the
> "log jam" issues that come up before the AB.
>
> Shari
>
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/about/awards.html
>
>
>


--




Richard M. Howland
Mailto:
ICQ # 898319



This thread: