Fred Bauder wrote:
If we do allow litigants to select among arbitrators
that would indeed give
those who are knowledgeable and experienced an advantage (like in real life)
where one party choses one arbitrator the other choses one, then the two
chosen choose the third. In labor disputes the union choses someone friendly
to them, likewise management, then the two chosen look for someone they can
both work with.
I don't really like this idea. It puts too much politics into it based
on the selection of who's voting on your case, and those who know how to
game the system are more likely to come out ahead. It also adds yet
another beaurocratic step to the process. I'd prefer instead a simple
vote of all members of the committee for all cases. I very much hope
there will not be a lot of cases, so I don't see this as being a problem
workload-wise. If there are a lot of cases, then we need to figure out
how to rework the system so that there aren't--the vast majority of
issues should, in my opinion, be decided by consensus on talk pages or,
if necessary, through mediation.
Having some sort of grandiose process I'm afraid will actually encourage
the overuse of the committee, as it makes it seem like it's normal to
refer matters to be decided through this process. I think instead the
arbitration committee should be a "decision-making committee of last
resort", to which only relatively extraordinary matters are referred.
And so we could have a relatively minimalistic process: the committee
just votes, and thereby makes a decision (including possibly making the
decision "the committee declines to make a ruling on this matter").
-Mark