Arbitration / Training
The Training Course for Case Managers and Arbitrators
Lesson 61 - Appointment of Dispute Resolution Officer
- Dispute Resolution Officers (DRO) will be appointed by a Board motion
- Board and Arbitration team will discuss the nomination for a Dispute Resolution Officer [clarified by below ruling and motion]
- The Role of Dispute Resolution Officer is to report to Board and to be the voice of the Arbitration Team [clarified by below ruling]
There were two updates to the above:
A ruling (and later explanation) in a20150420.1 explains the role of DRO as a role within the executive and to be bound by board (the following is the explanation):
Officer positions are appointed by the board of CAcert Inc. in a delegation of some of its powers. As such all officers are bound by board instructions. The PolO, as in this case, is thereby the representative of the board to policy group charged with administrative tasks such as running the list and publishing policy decisions, but is firmly part of the executive, since he/she is both appointed as well as removed by board motion. The same holds true for the DRO. The DRO may, but does not have to be an arbitrator, however if he is an arbitrator he has to go on sabbatical for the duration of being DRO. The DRO is the equivalent to the minister of justice, and therefore clearly part of the executive. The precedent for these issues is to be found in our own CAcert history. There was a decision that being a board member and an arbitrator at the same time was not possible. The same goes for being an agent of the CAcert board that is bound by its motions. There are of course even more precedent cases in other realms of common-law: There is for example [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#The_rule_against_bias|The rule against bias]]. Which would preclude an officer to deal with any case where CAcert Inc. is a named participant (including account closures). And then (just as an example) there is the [[http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges|Code of Conduct for US Judges]] which makes a very similar argument: > A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, ... A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A role as an officer of CAcert Inc. being bound to obey all motions of the CAcert Inc. board, definitely undermines "the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of" arbitration.
Board has updated the above with motion m20160921.1:
Resolved, in order to fulfil any responsibilities that DRP imposes on board, we will accept a proposal by a majority of active arbitrators for their choice of DRO.