On 10/6/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if a mixed system is the right way to go. Are there really people you would vote magistrates but not arbitrators?
Yes. I have a number of people in mind who I think would make good magistrates but who I would not (yet) trust with the duties of Arbitrator. Also, magistrate is likely to be a more manageable load than Arbitrator, especially if we let people volunteer to work at controllable work load levels (i.e. let individual magistrates specify whether they are open to accept more cases or not; the ArbCom doesn't have that luxury). More people may be willing to make the commitment to be a magistrate (especially ) than the much greater commitment of an Arbitrator.
I am drawn towards a less hierarchical structure. If we could draft enough people in (and it should be easier if we can guarantee a lower work load) it might make sense to have several "courts" - new cases would be assigned to one of the courts (based on current load?) and arbitrators assigned to that court could then agree to hear or not hear a case. If too many had to recuse themselves, then the case could go to a different court.
This leads to venue-shopping, which I'd prefer to avoid, and to circuit conflict. I don't want to put Jimbo into the position of resolving conflicts between circuits of the ArbCom. If we did do circuits, to avoid this problem we'd have to allow appeal to the ArbCom en banc, which is likely to be a mess, especially with the proposal for 30 to 40 Arbitrators. I also doubt that we can find 40 competent and qualified Arbitrators who enjoy the support of a substantial portion of the community.
The reason this appeals to me is the fact that people don't like having other people look over their shoulder. People brought before the magistrates are going to say "you can't judge me, I am appealing directly to the 'real' arbcomm" (like people now appeal to Jimbo).
They will learn not to do that when the ArbCom summarily dismisses their appeals.
Kelly