The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992 11 04 Letter Re: Proposed Interlocal Agreement on Mediation r-. ('; j j I I I I I I ~ I j j 1 l ;~ {' STENSTROM. McINTOSH. JULlAN. OOL8ERT. WHIGHAM & SIMMONS. P. A. ATTORNCYS AND COUNStLlOR$ AT LAW I ~CNNaH W. MclNToaH NCO N. JULIAN. "II. WlLUAJ4 L COI..8f:I'fT '"IlIA..... C. _HAM Ca.AY"I'ON O. a''''ll4ClNa M).~ ~. Io4eINTOaH OONNA La. I4OIN1'Oet1 WlLU4M 1;. I'IE..cHMllHN. .I". CATtfC""NC O. ~HMAHN ~ H. lo4eINTOaH aUN ""NK . aV/orE Ie ZOO wesT ..."aT rr"ca POST O""IC~ eox .&0". SANF'ORO, F'I..ORlOA 3l!!77Z....I!l"'1!l SNlro,,,, '-"0"1') 2".8'71 OP\.AHOO '<II07l .~llll. "1>:1( c.oo?) 2:ao.a:n8 TI-lOMM L WHIG......... ~....,..., DOVOLM OTtNOTIOOM ~ COUHM:L November 4, 1992 Mr. A.R. "DoC" Yore CITY OF LAKE MARY Post Office Box 950700 Lake Mary, Florida 32795-0700 Re: Proposed Interlocal Agreement on Mediation Dear Mr. Yore: I have f1nally obtained and reviewed ~ copy of what I believe the draft of the Interloeal Agreement on Mediation to be diseua.ed at this evening's CALHO m.et.ing al requested by you through Carol Edwards. My obaervatiorts are as follows. 1. The first WHEREAS should be deleted with regard to any reference as to Chapter 164, 230, 1$6 and Chapter 125. If the agreement is truly an interloeal agreement, the sole statutory authority for such agreement 1s found in Chapter 163. The fourth WHEREAS should be deleted. I would not think that it is appropriate to formally aCknowledge that Chapter 164 is inadequate. I do not believe that Chapter 164 is. in fact inadequate nor do I believe that the function of Chapter 164 i. to resolve the disputes prior to litigation as opposed to requiring governm.ntal agencles to discuss disputes in an effort to see that they may be settled prior to litigation. 2. 3. With regard to Section 3(4), I believe that the payment and attorney'. fees and costs is an inappropriate an unacceptable penalty to be evoked against a party which taila to comply with the requir....nts of the agreement. 1 believe that Section 3 (b) would be adequate ae long as the sanction of dismissal is deleted. I believe that an appropriate action would be abatement of litiqation until oompliance has been achieved. o r- r' 4. I believe that Section 4 puts the cart before the horse. I do not believe that is the responsibility of employed executives of governmental entitles to determine when litigation should be commenced but only to recommend litigation to the governing body. At that time the governing body can make a decision as to whether the exception set forth in Section 2(8) is applicable or whether it desires to evoke the agreement. The decision to evoke the agreement should be a decision made by the elected public officIals and not employed adMinistrative officers. I would therefore delete a majority of Section 4. I would amend 4(b) to say simply that this agreement shall be evoked by the governing body of each signatory hereto. 5. Section 5 seems reasonable. I think it is a qood objective to provide a forum for discussion between the staffs of the various entities involved in a dispute prior to litigation even though those staff. may have been involved in extensive prior discussions. I believe however, that Section 5 and 1 should be merged because in essence a facilitator is a mediator and facilitators/mediators qenerally charge in the range of $1250.00 to $150.00 per hour for their services. Essentially I believe that Section 7 duplicates Section 5. If 7 1s merged into 5 then Section 6 i8 acceptable. I further believe that any mediation should be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure a8 prescribed by the supreme Court of Florida. If those rules are adopted then essentially the time frame set forth in 5 and 7 can be deleted with the exception of the Initial time frame for the start of the proce.s after a party seeks to evoke the agreement. 6. I would restructure Section 8. Certainly, if the mediation resul ts in a proposal that the staffs of each entity are prepared to present to their respected body then there will be an opportunity for the elected officials to consider the propoiJed settlement agreement, debate it, modify it, etc. That process by its very nature will result in communications between the two govern1ng bodies and may well result in a joint meeting. As proposed, I believe the interlocal agreement contains many redundancies, extre.ely cumbersome, and is not calculated to bring issues to a speedy resolution or alternatively to litigation 1f necessary. One must remember that before disputes reach a level where a ihterlocal agreement should be applicable there will have been many discussions back and forth between the administrative staffs of the entities and even the entities themselves. For that reason, the mediation process should be fairly time constrained and task efficient. The whole theory of mediation is to provide a mechanism for parties to quickly, efficiently, and economically resolve disputes in a non-judicial forum. Although I believe the concept presented by the CALNO Agreement is a good concept, as I am ~ ~ o an ardent supporter of the mediation process, I do not believe that as framed it is quick, efficient, or inexpOrtsive. sincerely yours, STENSTROM, McINTOSH, JULIAN, COLB T, WHIGHAM' SIMMONS, P.A. Ul14n: ~ NNJ/kar