1 / 17

Alternate Dispute Resolution

Alternate Dispute Resolution. Using Negotiation and Mediation to Resolve Contested Matters at the Utilities and Transportation Commission. Scope of this presentation. ADR: Alternate dispute resolution Alternate to litigation Foundation for Commission ADR Legal sources of authority

tara
Download Presentation

Alternate Dispute Resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alternate Dispute Resolution Using Negotiation and Mediation to Resolve Contested Matters at the Utilities and Transportation Commission

  2. Scope of this presentation • ADR: Alternate dispute resolution • Alternate to litigation • Foundation for CommissionADR • Legal sources of authority • Rule changes • Changes relating to settlements • Sharing experiences

  3. Presenters • David Meyer, general counsel, Avista • Donald T. Trotter, Asst. Atty. General • C. Robert Wallis, Dir., Adm. Law Div. • Disclaimer

  4. Foundations for ADR • RCW 34.05.060 • Informal settlements Strongly Encouraged • WAC 480-07-700 trough 750 • Procedural aspects of settlements • Policy Statement on ADR • Policy Statement, Docket No. A-950243

  5. Legal Foundations for ADR • Administrative Procedure Act • RCW 34.05.060 • Informal settlements • Subject to approval by agency order • Strongly encouraged – but not required • WAC 480-07-700 through 750 • Procedures for settlement • Policy Statement in A-950243 • Matters to consider in settlement negotiations

  6. ADR: Public policy concerns • Distinction between Court and Agency • Agency cannot delegate decision authority • WAC 480-07-700(2); see Adm. Law Manual • Commission must review parties’ informal settlements. RCW 34.05.060, WAC 480-07-700 • Commission may reject in whole or in part • Status of an Order Accepting Settlement • Not greater than any other Commission order • Commission can’t foreclose action by future commission – RCW 80.04.210, 80.04.200 • Commission can’t/can’t let parties amend a statute

  7. Effect of 2004 Rules • Evolutionary, not revolutionary • Codify practices and law relied on • Confidentiality clarified • WAC 480-07-710(4)(g), RCW 5.60..070 • Statute: negotiations under a written agreement are confidential

  8. Effect of 2004 Rules (Cont’d) • Timing for Review • 3 weeks to 1 month before desired effect • Logistics: scheduling, analysis, hearing, decision, order, compliance • Nature of Presentation • Inform the Commission for sound decision • Offer a representative to address • Describe and advocate in cover materials • Statutory tests met; consistent with public interest

  9. Achieving settlement • Factors affecting settlement • Commission support • Commissioners support the process even if they reject or modify the result • Assign settlement judge • When warranted? • Role of settlement judge • Facilitate parties own efforts to settle • Styles and approaches

  10. Achieving settlement (Cont’d) • Support from many parties • Even if hostile to each other, realize benefits in settlements • Long-term business relationships are supported in settlement, not litigation • Use of principled negotiation • Focus on parties’ interests, not positions • Pursue creative ways to achieve interests

  11. Achieving settlement (Cont’d) • Discussing settlement at the right time • Staff often needs to complete discovery and complete its case before engaging in principled negotiations • Negotiators who know parties’ interests and have authority to make decisions • Needn’t wait for decisions from persons who don’t have participants’ knowledge of discussions

  12. Deciding to seek settlement • Parties’ perspectives • What factors weigh in deciding whether to seek a settlement? • Do parties view decision differently? • Commission perspective • Should some cases not settle? • Nature of the issues, Need for education • Small differences, hard boiled litigation strategy

  13. Commission settlement experiences • Commission learning curve existed • Needs adequate settlement review • Need for review varies • Scope and time proportional to significance • Often needs pre-agreement notice • Postponing hearings may cause delay

  14. Settlement Judge Experiences • Mediator on parties’ side of exparte wall • At best, parties capable, creative, persistent, good faith, in public interest

  15. Challenges to settlements • An offer the Commission can refuse. • Parties so eager to settle that the deal has one or more suspect or illegal provisions • Premature settlements • They change hourly after submission • Superficially analyzed settlements • Their effect comes as a big surprise to parties • Imprescient settlements • Fail to foresee catastrophic unexpected events that render settlement contrary to public interest

  16. Understanding Is Increasing • Commissioners have seen settlements that worked, settlements that were later litigated • Better feel for what to look for • Better feel for when to ask modification • Commissioners better able to identify when they should not encourage settlements • Need baseline knowledge about industries and issues • Understand that Commissioners may need to make some calls

  17. Concluding observations and questions about ADR

More Related