The government agencies prefer using mediation to

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 13 pages.

resolution (ADR) initiatives (Senger, 2014). The government agencies prefer using mediation to solve their operational and policy challenges this allows the government to save valuable resources by minimizing unnecessary litigation. Since the 1970s the government opted to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes to reduce court backlogs as well as deal with natural resource and environmental disputes. In 1985, the Attorney General directed the need to recognize ADR to reduce expense and time related to civil litigation (Nabatchi, 2014). Later, Department of Justice through its Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel gave a Congressional testimony that highlighted the benefits of ADR leading to the first ADR legislation being passed in Congress in 1990. Several mediation initiatives have been adopted and implemented by the Federal government and Congress especially settling workplace disputes (Senger, 2014).
MEDIATION 9 In the 1990s, Congress enacted three laws Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996 which obligated government agencies to adopt a policy that encouraged the integration of ADR in decision making and allowing the federal trial courts to open ADR programs to litigants (Noll, 2013). The programs included the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations; Executive Order 12871, Labor Management Partnerships; the National Performance Review; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Furthermore, the United States Courts for the District of Columbia Circuit’s Office of the Circuit Executive administers the United States District Court Mediation Program (Senger, 2014). The program is led by a Director of Dispute Resolution who assigns cases to qualified volunteer mediators and offers parties the suitable instructions and notification. The program also acts as a resource for program mediators as they handle cases, supervises volunteer training, and collect appropriate statistical information (Nabatchi, 2014). Such executive and legal actions by the federal government demonstrate the increasing significance of ADR in dispute resolution as well as the need to cooperate and share ADR information among federal agencies. 5. Ethical Obligations The mediator must ensure a fair process as they responsible for determining the process strategy or design; reality testing or line of questioning; suspending or terminating the process; and whether to permit (Alfini, 2017). Such critical decisions greatly impact the outcome of the process. Confidentiality, conflict of interest, deceptive conduct or lack of good faith, the capacity of the parties, power differentials, inequality leads to ethical challenges. The mediator must respect the principle of self-determination that is applicable to the parties and must only facilitate
MEDIATION 10 the process. With regards to impartiality, the mediator is obligated to be impartial and neutral (Alfini, 2017). Besides, they are required to disclose all potential or actual conflicts of interest judiciously known to them. After such disclosure, they must opt to recuse themselves or decline

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture