----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:55:43 -0700
To: Steve Dunlop <steve-dunlop(a)nerstrand.net>, <arbitration(a)nerstrand.net>
Subject: Decisions, Opinions, Precedents and Learning from Experience
I suggest that on any matter each arbitrator first state a conclusion such
as accept or don't accept then a brief (or lengthy as it suits them)
explanation of why. These votes and "opinions" should be available to all
users. As to precedents, lets not consider ourselves bound by what we have
done in the past but guided as it were by experience. In the case of matters
we refuse to hear we can watch what happens when we do refuse to hear a
matter. Likewise we can watch our difficulties and the consequences of
acceptance and that experience can guide as a similar matters arise in the
future.
Fred
> From: "Steve Dunlop" <steve-dunlop(a)nerstrand.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:39:45 -0600
> To: <arbitration(a)nerstrand.net>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Jurisdiction - keep it simple?
>
> I also think it is important that we, as policy, do not give a reason for
> refusing to hear a dispute. To do so adds considerable work for us since we
> would have to reach consensus on the reason and the wording for each case we
> refuse. Such refusals may make precedents inadvertently so they would
> require careful work to construct.