This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all
encountered FuelWagon doing his thing.
It is only that general familiarity which could support proactive or
summary action.
Often the first we hear about someone is when it shows up on Requests
for arbitration and we are truly clueless about what is going on. We
don't want the endless pile of evidence we are usually presented with
(No one could actually read it all). What we need is a few examples
which nicely illustrate the problem. This is not too much to ask for.
You are writers. You are editors.
Fred
On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:49 AM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
Is a "better way" to deal with this not to
allow arbitrators to
proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to
them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like
believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then
the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the
process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases
that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and
delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to
the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate,
without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned
into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I
should make it.
Cormac