[WikiEN-l] Re: Compulsory Mediation, Was Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Fri Jun 10 06:40:20 UTC 2005

Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 6/7/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a
>>requirement/obligation.
>>    
>>
>I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on
>my request).  The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to
>report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation. 
>Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the
>report.  (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the
>other we agreed on nothing.)  I think it's important that those acting
>as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting
>only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if
>anything, during the mediation.  If either party refuses to mediate in
>good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a
>close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining
>why.
>
Although I largely agree with you, when only one of the parties is 
clearly not negotiating in good faith that should be made clear in the 
report.  This does not mean that this should be explained in great detail.

Ec