It's quite awkward, because on the one hand the rules are very clear that there need to be democratic processes, but on the other hand each constituency defines its democratic process. In the memorandum from Council Steering about the subject, faculty at the Law School and Wharton were identified, I wondered if this is the kind of issue that might be settled at another level. Steering was given impression the Ombudsman was not able to resolve it, and there are members of the faculty who have a great deal of experience and sensitivity in handling these things. The notion of arbitration is precisely to ty to avoid the more adversarial but still resolve the issues. I think there are some people in our community who would be able to handle this very well.
Arbitration is a step up in dispute resolution.
Arbitration means both sides agree to accept the findings of the officer. So it's a step up, short of a formal quasi-judicial hearing. I'd be glad to accept your suggestion for other mediators, because we still have to get both sides to agree. Return to index for this issue .