On 10/6/05, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure if a mixed system is the right way to
go. Are there really
people you would vote magistrates but not arbitrators?
Yes. I have a number of people in mind who I think would make good
magistrates but who I would not (yet) trust with the duties of
Arbitrator. Also, magistrate is likely to be a more manageable load
than Arbitrator, especially if we let people volunteer to work at
controllable work load levels (i.e. let individual magistrates specify
whether they are open to accept more cases or not; the ArbCom doesn't
have that luxury). More people may be willing to make the commitment
to be a magistrate (especially ) than the much greater commitment of
an Arbitrator.
I am drawn towards a less hierarchical structure. If
we could draft enough
people in (and it should be easier if we can guarantee a lower work load) it
might make sense to have several "courts" - new cases would be assigned to
one of the courts (based on current load?) and arbitrators assigned to that
court could then agree to hear or not hear a case. If too many had to recuse
themselves, then the case could go to a different court.
This leads to venue-shopping, which I'd prefer to avoid, and to
circuit conflict. I don't want to put Jimbo into the position of
resolving conflicts between circuits of the ArbCom. If we did do
circuits, to avoid this problem we'd have to allow appeal to the
ArbCom en banc, which is likely to be a mess, especially with the
proposal for 30 to 40 Arbitrators. I also doubt that we can find 40
competent and qualified Arbitrators who enjoy the support of a
substantial portion of the community.
The reason this appeals to me is the fact that people
don't like having
other people look over their shoulder. People brought before the magistrates
are going to say "you can't judge me, I am appealing directly to the
'real'
arbcomm" (like people now appeal to Jimbo).
They will learn not to do that when the ArbCom summarily dismisses
their appeals.
Kelly