Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Dispute Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves voluntary ADR certification board after debate; HB 75 passes 63–7
Summary
The Utah House passed HB 75 on Feb. 14, 1991, creating a voluntary certification process and board for Alternative Dispute Resolution providers after extended floor debate about board authority and regulatory overlap; the bill passed 63–7.
The Utah House on Feb. 14 approved House Bill 75, a bill to establish a voluntary certification system and an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) board for mediators and arbitrators, after extended questioning about the board’s scope and powers.
Representative John Lewis (sponsor) told colleagues the bill ‘‘is our opportunity to . . . simplify and supplement what goes on in our society relative to the resolution of disputes’’ and that the aim is voluntary certification so judges and litigants would have a roster of qualified ADR providers. Lewis said the measure is designed to be ‘‘expansive rather than exclusive’’ and to allow experienced practitioners who lack formal schooling to qualify.
Opponents and questioners pressed the sponsor on several points, including the bill’s definition of ‘‘unprofessional conduct’’ and whether the ADR board would encroach on existing regulatory boards. Representative Moody asked whether the phrase that business practices ‘‘determined by the division in consultation with the board to be deceptive, misleading, unethical’’ could shift authority away from existing professional boards; Moody said he was wary of broad delegation. Lewis replied that the term ‘‘board’’ in the bill refers only to the ADR board created by HB 75 and that ADR participation would be voluntary.
Representative Harwood and Representative Osler both described the bill as a first step to resolve smaller civil disputes more quickly; Harwood said the measure would give courts ‘‘a reasonable way’’ to involve ADR. Lewis noted the bill includes a tolling provision so that the statute of limitations would not run while parties engaged in court-ordered ADR.
After debate and summation, the House voted; HB 75 passed with a recorded tally of 63 affirmative votes and 7 negative votes. The sponsor said the bill does not change disciplinary rights of existing professional boards and emphasized that participation in ADR remains voluntary.
The bill now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
