MassUMA Blog - Massachusetts talks about the Uniform Mediation Act

Please read the following carefully, and then provide your comments. 

To comment, click on the headline of this post, then scroll to the bottom of the page to the section labeled “Leave a Reply”. Type in your comment in the box and click “Submit Comment”.

Background

The UMA Working Group and the Committee studying the Definition of Mediator and Mediator Training (“the Committee”) seek your comments and opinions through this blog as we craft recommendations for possible consideration by the Massachusetts Legislature regarding changes to the law defining mediator and mediator training. Please read the following carefully and post your comments and responses in the space provided below.

To date, the Committee has made a preliminary review of the relevant sections of the existing statute and the proposed legislation: MGL Ch. 233, § 23(c), paragraph 2, and UMA sections 2(1), 2(3), 9(c) and 9(f).

Survey

In September 2007, in an effort to broaden participation in the discussion, the Committee distributed an online survey to Massachusetts mediators through various organizational email lists. You can download a summary of the Online Survey Results, September 2007, in Word or in PDF.

Status Report

A consensus of the Working Group on this topic has not yet been reached. Through this blog we want to continue the conversation and include the wider community. Comments posted will be raised at Working Group meetings for consideration.

In the following paragraphs, we outline the current position of the Committee and proposed wording.

Thus far, while recognizing that the Working Group process is still ongoing, the Committee favors preserving the essence of MGL Ch. 233, § 23(c) with respect to mediator definition, training, professional experience and accountability, with the addition of clarifying language.

This standpoint arises from fundamental agreement among Committee members that:

1. Consumers and practitioners of mediation, and the community at large, benefit from the existence of professional standards and training requirements for mediators.
2. The existing statute encourages mediator training and the dissemination of effective mediation practices.
3. The present forum (i.e., the UMA Working Group process) does not lend itself to an exhaustive examination or determination of the question of mediator qualifications or certification. We therefore choose to limit the scope of our recommendations to language that upholds and clarifies the current statute:

Proposed Subcommittee Recommendation for UMA Section 2 (3) language:

A “mediator” shall mean a person not a party to a dispute who enters into a written agreement to participate with the parties to assist them in resolving their disputes and has completed at least thirty hours of training in mediation and who either has four years of professional experience as a mediator after such training or is accountable to a dispute resolution organization which has been in existence for at least three years.

Dispute resolution organization shall mean an organization with which neutrals are affiliated, through membership on a roster or a similar relationship, which administers, provides and monitors dispute resolution services. A program may be operated by a court employee or by an organization independent of the court, including a corporation or a governmental agency. A program operated by a court employee may include one or more court employees or non- employees or a combination of court employees and non-employees on its roster.

We look forward to a vigorous online conversation and invite both general and specific comments.

For instance, in your view, should mediation and mediator training be defined by statute in the first place? Do you agree with the above assumptions? Does the proposed wording reflect the assumptions?

More specifically, if you are in favor of statutory definitions:

What should be the minimum number of training hours? How should professional experience be measured? By number of years or by number of cases, as suggested by some survey respondents?

Please note the following points:

First, the issue of whether or not to recommend passage of the UMA with changes will be addressed and discussed only after the recommendations of all committees have been made, sent out for public comment and responses received.

Second, given that the current statute places the definition of mediator and mediator qualifications under the umbrella of mediator confidentiality, the final recommendation of the Committee may need to be reconsidered depending on future reports and recommendations by the Confidentiality/Privilege Committee of the UMA Working Group.

Please provide us with your responses, comments, questions, and feedback. (Comments are modified as an anti-spam measure but are not edited otherwise.)

To provide your comment, you can click on the headline of this post, then scroll to the bottom of the page to the section labeled “Leave a Reply”. Type in your comment in the box and click “Submit Comment”.

Thank you kindly for your interest and participation.