Instructions

for

Completing the Assessment Matrix

 

Primary Goal:

 

The Governor’s ADR Council is in the process of evaluating or assessing the nature of conflicts facing state agencies.  Ultimately, it is the Council’s task to recommend how alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can or should be introduced into state government.  The first step in the process of evaluation is to gather information about how agencies are currently doing business.

 

It is NOT our intent at this point to make assumptions about whether particular conflicts are amenable to alternative dispute resolution processes.  The attached matrix is designed to identify the types of typical conflicts that an agency faces, to identify how these conflicts are currently resolved, and to identify how individuals or groups inside and outside the agency take part in resolving the conflict or dispute.  

 

Return completed forms to your agency head no later than October 30, 2002 or as otherwise directed by a cover letter accompanying these directions.  Your agency has an ADR Coordinator who can field questions or comments.  Your Coordinator’s name and phone number appears on the cover letter accompanying these instructions.

 

Instructions:

 

1.                    The matrix is designed to collect information about each typical type of conflict in a “one page per conflict” format.  It is important, however, to use some discretion in identifying conflicts so that conflicts with differing paths to resolution aren’t “lumped” together.  For example, in the Tax Commission various kinds of issues arise with regard to vehicle license and registration.  Issues concerning a personalize plates should not be lumped together with disputes concerning a title and registration fee or property taxes.

 

As you identify and describe disputes, think in terms of the typical dispute or dispute resolution format rather than an extraordinary or extreme example.

 

2.                    There are two ways to use this matrix.  First, you may use hard copies of the form for each dispute and simply circle all applicable options that apply and write in any additional factors that are not already included on the form.

 

Second, we can supply you with an electronic copy of the form.  Using the electronic form, you can delete the options that do not apply, leaving only the factors that do apply.  Because this frees up space on the form, you may also add any brief narrative explanation.  This additional explanation is appreciated, but not required.

 

3.             The following is an explanation of the form:

 

Column 1:  identify the nature of the dispute.  Examples of how disputes might be identified:

               

                1.   New Motor Vehicle & New Powersport Vehicle Franchise Act franchisor and franchisee disputes (Disputes include termination or relocation of franchise, transfer of franchise, distances between franchisee locations, etc.)

 

                2.  Involuntary employee transfer or layoff.

 

3.     Denial of licensure issues (specify the type of license sought).

 

Column 2:  identify whether the dispute is INTERNAL (involving only parties within the agency),  INTER-AGENCY (involving parties within your agency and one or more other government agencies, whether state, local or federal), or EXTERNAL (involving parties or organizations that are non-governmental entities).  Note that each of these options are specified in one of the three rows on the matrix, and determines which row of the form that you should use for compiling information associated with this conflict.  That is, if it is an Internal Dispute, follow across row 1 to complete the form, and so on.

 

Column 3:  identify the role or roles that your agency or units within the agency typically play in the dispute.   If the agency plays more than one role, circle or include all that apply. 

 

Column 4:  identify the various parties that are typically involved in these disputes.  For instance, the parties to the dispute may represent themselves or they may be represented by attorneys, union representatives, or other representatives.  The decision makers may include commissions, boards or panels.  The media may follow this type of conflict closely.  Legislators or lobbyists may be typical players.  Mark all that apply and insert additional roles if appropriate.

 

Column 5:  What level of representation do the parties bring to the dispute?  Is this type of issue typically settled by office staff or is this a higher stakes issue where one or more of the parties brings representation to assist them?

 

Column 6:  Typically, what are the nature of discussions that arise in this type of conflict?  Is this matter resolved through telephone inquiries or simply correspondence, or does this type of issue frequently escalate to a higher level.  Circle all that apply.

 

Column 7:  Identify the level at which these conflicts are typically resolved.  Does the agency typically resolve these issues via conference or discussion, or do these matters move toward a more formalized resolution process such as adjudication?

 

Column 8:  Identify the first avenue of appeal.  If a party raises an issue and the issue cannot be settled at the lowest possible level within the agency, does that party have a right to an appeal to a board, commission, administrative adjudicator, or court?