While provisions elsewhere in the UMA for confidentiality and no known conflict of interest have merit, these requirements do not accomplish the same salutary purpose as impartiality. Impartiality guarantees fairness and equal treatment. Requiring confidentiality and declaration of any known conflict of interest does not. These tenets are aspects of a mediation process defined by the imprimatur of impartiality and even-mindedness. I encourage you not to create, nor offer in these United States, a Uniform Mediation Act based on a flawed definition of mediation.
Mediation is a practice governed by a process ethic, the heart and mind of which is impartiality.
I think it goes without saying that impartiality in a mediator is desirable, and perhaps there should be a requirement of mediator impartiality except in situations where all parties agree otherwise during the mediator selection process, especially in mediations where a party does not have veto power over the selection of the mediator. Moreover, a requirement of impartiality might not go far enough, since it does not address the need for an appearance of impartiality, which may be almost as important in maintaining the integrity of the mediation process. A controversial element has concerned the Act s definition of mediation. It is currently defined as a process in which a mediator facilitates communication and negotiation between parties to assist them in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding their dispute. A mediator is an individual of any profession or background who conducts a mediation.