Water Wars

A settlement in an ongoing 25-year water war between Florida and Georgia has not yet been attained, but a move towards compromise was just announced. Special master, Ralph Lancaster, who was previously appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court to help resolve the dispute, said he was delighted to see both the word ‘settlement’ and the word ‘mediator’ in recent status reports, indicating a move to the formal ADR process of mediation. Lancaster already urged attorneys for each state to settle the water wars case amongst themselves, rather than risk an unsatisfactory outcome for all involved. Georgia's Governor set aside $20 million for the latest legal battle pitting Florida’s ailing oyster industry against Georgia’s right to use Chattahoochee River water across metro Atlanta. Florida states that Georgia’s overconsumption of water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, which includes Lake Lanier, is creating economic hardship, particularly on the oyster industry in the Florida Panhandle region's Apalachicola Bay. Georgia also seeks to maintain full use of the Flint River and its tributaries for farmers in southwest Georgia. The rivers join at the Florida border, becoming the Apalachicola River. Crucial to Florida's seafood folks is a fresh water-salt water balance for oysters to survive in the Apalachicola Bay. While there's been no material progress on a global settlement since last summer, Georgia now reportedly believes the best way to advance the process is "to engage a mediator acceptable to both sides who can create a framework for formal in-person discussions and periodic exchanges of information specifically directed to settlement.” Florida apparently welcomed the suggestion, along with the special master. See news stories here-- http://on-ajc.com/1NcbBY7 and http://bit.ly/213eZsn

Seminole Mediation

The Seminole Tribe of Florida formally requested mediation in its ongoing dispute with the state over whether it can still offer card games, including Blackjack, in the future. Five years ago, the parties entered into a 20-year compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to operate banked card games at most its facilities for five years. Lawmakers failed to pass a renewal of the compact or a new deal during this spring’s legislative session. Now, without the agreement renewed, the Seminoles find themselves within a 90-day period at which time they must discontinue such games. For five years of exclusivity, the Seminoles pledged to pay Florida a minimum of $1 billion during that period, an amount the tribe has actually exceeded. The tribe and its lawyers contend violation of exclusivity by allowing other gambling operators to operate banked card games. Last week, a mediation request stated that “The Tribe seeks to confirm: (1) its present right to continue offering banked card games for the remaining term of the Compact, which expires in 2030; (2) its right to stop making exclusivity payments to the State under the Compact and to instead make those payments into an escrow account; and (3) its right to expand the locations at which it is permitted to offer banked card games.” Last month, the tribe's chief sent the governor “notice of commencement of compact dispute resolution procedures” which outlined what the tribe considers violations of the agreement that expired without agreement. That letter included a claim the tribe has made for years regarding slot machines that look like Blackjack and Roulette and are authorized by state gambling regulators at non-tribal pari-mutuels. Reportedly, the tribe seeks to add other games, such as Craps and Roulette, as out-of-state casinos look for a foothold in Florida. The tribe is asking that a mediation conference take place within the next month. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1IAVhrm and http://cbsloc.al/1KwJKNC

Medicaid Mediation

In an unusual move, a federal judge denied the Florida Governor's request to order mediation with President Obama's administration over federal hospital funds for the Low Income Pool or LIP. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration, alleging it is withholding federal hospital funds because Florida won't expand Medicaid. He asked a judge this week to compel mediation, but the Obama administration responded that they have been engaged in ongoing and productive discussions and that mediation could delay a final decision. It is alleged that the Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by threatening to withhold Low Income Pool dollars if Florida did not expand Medicaid under the new federal healthcare law. Gov. Scott, Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Agency for Health Care Administration are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are the defendants. The Low Income Pool program is a supplemental Medicaid financing program. The federal government initially approved an extension for three years, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then announced it would not extend the Low Income Pool beyond June 30, 2015. Florida's legislature is in special session because it was unable to pass a budget during the regular session over whether LIP dollars should be included. The Florida Senate budget is $4 billion more than the House’s, including both LIP and Medicaid expansion that the House didn’t in its own proposed budget. The federal government advised Florida that it can expect to receive $1 billion in LIP funding for the 2015-16 year and $600,000 in the 2016-17 year. Gov. Scott claims the legislature has no final approval figure and that such delay is preventing lawmakers from completing the budget. The administration has reportedly given Gov. Scott a tentative decision to extend the funds for two more years at a much lower price. Gov. Scott wants to finalize the state budget by June 30th to avoid a state government shutdown. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1GC9PME and http://bit.ly/1C31Qky

Media Prompts Sunshine Law Mediation

Florida's Governor and cabinet members will mediate their differences next week in Tallahassee with more than a dozen news outlets in a lawsuit accusing officials of violating Florida's Sunshine Law. The mediation postpones a scheduled videotaped deposition of the recently ousted commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The sudden dismissal triggered the lawsuit, leading to a series of reforms designed to improve cabinet oversight of state agencies. Former FDLE Commissioner, Gerald Bailey, will likely repeat allegations of political interference by gubernatorial campaign staff and state officials who secretly arranged his ouster. Reportedly, news outlets will seek that high-level state officials post all text messages and emails on the state-run "Project Sunburst" website and to permanently prohibit state officials from using private email accounts to conduct public business. Media editors plan to attend the ironically confidential mediation session in the case on April 22, 2015. A former Florida Supreme Court justice has been brought in to mediate the lawsuit. Additional items up for negotiation are the adoption of policies to keep cabinet proceedings covered by the Sunshine Law, including a return to the recording and broadcasting aides' meetings. The parties will also discuss a prohibition on using liaisons or conduits to communicate about any official business. Finally, the suit seeks to void the appointment of Rick Swearingen, current head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and to conduct a full and open process to appoint a permanent leader. Discussions are to include the formation of an Open Government Commission, similar to the Ethics Commission, with the power to investigate alleged Sunshine Law violations. As Justice Brandeis once quipped, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Read more here-- http://bit.ly/1bbuGsn and http://bit.ly/1b5ElQy and see http://www.flgov.com/sunburst

ADR Section comments on ADR Rules & Policy Proposals

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is proposing amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Law Rules, and brand-new Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for which No Other Supreme Court Rules or Standards for Professional Conduct Exist. The Florida Bar ADR Section Executive Council has filed its comments this week in The Florida Supreme Court. Among the comments by the section is a criticism that there is no provision in the proposed rules which mandates that all communications of all "Other ADR Processes" participants are confidential and privileged, as set forth in the Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act. There is nothing that provides that decisions, awards, or evaluations are sealed (as are the "awards" in mandatory non-binding arbitration) and may not be considered by the presiding judge in the event that the dispute proceeds to trial. However, apparently the neutral, without agreement of the parties, can impose confidentiality upon the parties. New rule 16.100 (a)(2) states that the neutral upon commencement of an “Other ADR Process” session shall "inform the participants the extent to which communications may be confidential." The concept of an evidentiary "privilege" as to mediation communications, which is not the same as "confidentiality," is nowhere set forth in the proposals, nor do the proposed rules provide for any sanctions which can be imposed upon any party for breaching "confidentiality." In the proposal, “Other ADR Process” is defined as “[A]ny method used to resolve disputes other than litigation for which no other Supreme Court rules or standards of professional conduct exist.” The comment by the section specifically points out that rules 16.010 (b), 12.760 (d)(2), 1.840 (c)(2) incorrectly define a "Neutral" as an "impartial third party who participates in a dispute at the request of the parties or the court in order to help facilitate settlement or resolution of a dispute." The terms "Neutral" and "Impartial" are not one and the same. The term "Impartial" as defined in Rule 11.080 of the Florida Supreme Court Rules for Court-Appointed Arbitrators “means freedom from favoritism or bias in word, action, and appearance." The same definition appears in Rule 10.330 of the Florida Supreme Court Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed mediators. The term "Neutral" means not being predisposed to the resolution or outcome of the ADR process. As such, the proposed rules need to be drafted so as to comport with the existing Court Rules. No word on whether oral argument will be set in this matter. See more information here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml#altdispute

FLABAR ADR Section Spotlights Upcoming Mediation Week

Michelle Jernigan, Editor of The Florida Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section's News & Tips publication, has put forth a special edition featuring "Stories Mediators Tell" which is a theme of the American Bar Association's Mediation Week. She recounts that Florida's first Citizens Dispute Settlement Program began in 1975. In 1982, the Florida legislature passed a family mediation statute. In 1986, Florida's Supreme Court created the Florida Dispute Resolution Center to research and develop an infrastructure for a statewide ADR program covering all court contested matters. The following year, the Florida legislature passed one of the most comprehensive legislative ADR programs in the entire country. Since 1988, Florida courts have had authority to order parties to mediation. Jernigan writes that ADR procedures have now permanently altered the judicial culture of Florida. Most cases in Florida are voluntarily mediated at least once, and sometimes twice, in lieu of going to trial which has really become the alternative form of dispute resolution. Many parties seek to utilize pre-suit mediation before a lawsuit is even filed. Even litigants with contractual arbitration clauses frequently choose to mediate before submitting the dispute for final disposition to an arbitrator. Mediation Week will be celebrated nationally from October 12-18, 2014. See our ADR Section newsletter for more here: http://bit.ly/1v4cyYt

Mediation Week 2013

This week has been proclaimed by Governor Scott as Mediation Week in The State of Florida. In his proclamation, the governor stated, “Court programs use mediation to effectively and efficiently resolve disputes.” For the past couple of decades, Florida has led the field of alternative dispute resolution which has grown in acceptance, especially as litigation becomes more costly and lengthy with electronic discovery. There is certainly wide recognition that the majority of cases are resolved outside of the traditional adversarial process. Litigants, their attorneys and the judges they appear before routinely embrace multiple paths to settling lawsuits out of court, including mediation. Many jurisdictions are celebrating this week in conjunction with the American Bar Association's Mediation Week. This ABA initiative is cognizant of efforts in institutionalizing mediation as one of several appropriate dispute resolution processes, and one particularly utilizing self-determination of the parties. The American Bar Association puts out a toolkit of useful ADR materials you can find here-- http://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/resources/mediation_week_toolkit.html