§2171-F. Resolving conflicts; selecting mediator
If the vote of the municipal officers and the advisory referendum are in conflict, the municipal officers and the secession territory representatives shall meet to attempt to resolve issues related to the secession. If the municipal officers and secession territory representatives do not reach agreement on all issues within a reasonable amount of time, an independent 3rd-party mediator must be retained and the costs shared by the municipality and the secession representatives. The mediator must be knowledgeable in municipal management and municipal law as well as conflict resolution. [PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
If the municipal officers and secession territory representatives can not select a mutually agreed upon and qualified mediator within 30 days of reaching impasse on secession issues, the parties must petition the Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Service, created in Title 4, section 18-B, for mediation services. The Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Service shall: [PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
1. Mediator assignment. Assign a mediator who is knowledgeable in municipal management and municipal law;
[PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
2. Fee. Establish a fee for services in an amount not to exceed $175 for every 4 hours of mediation services provided;
[PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
3. Mediation schedule; notice. Establish the mediation schedule, ensure that proper notice is provided to all parties and ensure that the parties necessary for effective mediation are participating; and
[PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
4. Mediation report. Upon the completion of the mediation effort, file a written report with the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over state and local government matters. The report must provide the details of the mediation effort and any mediated agreement. In the event that the mediation effort does not result in the resolution of all issues, the mediation report must indicate to the extent possible what issues remain unresolved and why the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the dispute.
[PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1999, c. 381, §2 (NEW).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.