A second "team" would be good, but team is the operant word. I think
a second team might develop organically if we could actually get 12
folks on board who were active. Our biggest problem is that the cases
are often very complicated, requiring review of voluminous evidence,
most of it poorly presented. Good presentation would highlight the
truly egregious offenses which a decision can be readily based on.
(But then one must spend time looking at the context -- what everyone
else was doing -- in order to determine whether or not the "offender"
is actually the one causing the trouble).
Perhaps cases could be decided only by the arbitrators who "sign on"
to be part of that particular case. That would then lessen the
problem of waiting around for those whose input in necessary but
don't have time or energy to review the evidence or vote on the
proposals. One problem is that if they are not satisfied with what is
being proposed is that they have to make their own proposals (and
justify them with cites to specific evidence) but that is a skill
which takes some practice. This can seem discouraging and
frustrating at first. You just have to dive in and start doing it.
Fred
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Jon wrote:
The idea of having 24 arbitrators of whom only 7 hear
each case is
designed to lighten the workload and mean not all active
arbitrators have to wade through every single case. I'd be
interested to hear from current arbitrators as to whether lessening
their individual load in such a way would interest them. (Of
course, it is predicated on being able to find 24 willing volunteers!)