Lost in Translation: California Community Dispute Resolution Programs Denied Funding
- Author Elizabeth Moreno
- Published December 6, 2006
- Word count 629
In 1986, the California legislature enacted a statute to fund a Dispute Resolution Program. In enacting this statute the Legislature recognized that the resolution of many disputes is unnecessarily costly, time consuming and complex when achieved through formal court proceedings. As a result, the legislature intended for the funds to be directed to the community to develop an informal resolution of disputes in a non-coercive dispute resolution forum, outside of the court system. The intent of the legislature has been lost and the funds are being directed toward court programs that favor the economically well off, specifically claims over $25,000, who have the financial resources to maintain costly and protracted litigation. The Dispute Resolution Program Act must be amended to restore the legislature's intent that the funds be used for Community programs for persons of all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The Legislature states in Business and Professions Code section 465 that the purpose of the program is to seek alternatives to costly legal process, by funding community-based dispute resolution programs reflective of the diversity of the communities to be served, funded partly by public funding and partly by users of these services on a sliding scale basis, but without cost to indigents.
However, some of the counties have lost sight of the Legislature's intent and have misdirected the funds away from under funded community programs to the detriment of the diverse communities and the socio-economically challenged. Some counties have chosen instead to fund court-connected programs, particularly claims over $25,000 that can generally only be accessed by economically sufficient persons.
For example, Los Angeles County ignores the legislative intent by giving priority to unlimited jurisdiction civil claims (over $25,000) by providing free services indiscriminately to all comers provided they are already in the litigation system. The Los Angeles court connected program specifically discriminates against Small Claims and low value ‘limited jurisdiction' cases (under $25,000 cases), by giving them the least priority and fails altogether to provide services ‘on a sliding scale basis'. The violation of legislative intent could hardly be clearer. Los Angeles County specifically limits funding for Small Claims and ignores the statutory purpose of racial, ethnic or socioeconomic diversity. By diverting funds to already well-funded unlimited jurisdiction cases, the County circumvents the statutory purpose by failing adequately to provide funding to programs for Small Claims and limited jurisdiction cases that involve disputes "between neighbors, domestic disputes and consumer-merchant disputes,' as specified by legislative intent.
Thus, the programs intended by the legislature to benefit from the funds, namely community programs involving disputes that have not already entered the court system and similar court-connected programs involving socio-economically challenged persons involved in low value limited jurisdiction and Small Claims disputes, and Youth Peer Programs, are suffering because funds are being diverted to programs serving economically prosperous, who receive dispute resolution services free of charge while paying handsomely for all other aspects of their litigation.
An enumeration of specific matters that may be referred to government-funded programs will prevent misuse of funds and uphold the statutory purpose. Business and Professions Code section 467.2 outlining the county's eligibility requirements for funding should be revised as follows: (b) Provision of neutral person, reflective of the diversity of the community in which they serve, adequately trained in conflict resolution techniques as required by the rules……. (c) Provision of dispute resolution programs on a sliding scale fee-paying basis, and without cost to indigents, with respect to any disputes that have not yet entered the court system, and limited jurisdiction and small claims cases.
By incorporating the Legislative intent of diversity of community volunteers and enumerating the specific disputes that can be eligible for Dispute Resolution Funds, the Legislature will finally create what it originally envisioned: a funded community-based dispute resolution forum for all persons of all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.
By Elizabeth A. Moreno, Esq, a Los Angeles attorney and mediator, who sucessfully resolves complex disputes involving employment, business, real property, and insurance issues. For more information go to http://www.eampc.com or contact morenolaw@eampc.com. .
Article source: https://articlebiz.comRate article
Article comments
There are no posted comments.
Related articles
- Out with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael: 230,000 Irish Children Living in Poverty
- Why Women of Color Need to Support Kamala Harris
- Equipping the Youth With the Skills to Survive
- The Dark Reality of Forced Prison Labor: Why I Stand Behind Proposition 6
- Analyzing the Leadership Qualities of Abraham Lincoln during Crisis Situations and Racial Legal Issues: Studies
- Exploring the System of Checks and Balances Among the Three Branches of Government Machinery
- An Analysis of the Political Landscape in Guatemala and Its Impact on Regional Stability
- Gossip! How Caryma Sa'd convinced Jeremy Mackenzie to work for the RCMP
- Analyzing the Cultural and Historical Significance of Mongolia in Relation to Its Socio-Political Context
- Left, Right, and Ridiculous
- The Effect of Brexit on the UK Fishing Tackle Industry
- A Visionary Leader for Somalia's Future: Mohamed Said Deni's Path to the Presidency in 2026
- Potential 2024 Padang Pariaman Regent Candidates Form Three Axes: High Chances of Fierce Competition
- Russia Gate-How It Happened
- How the Manhattan D.A. is changing Politics in America
- How Corruption is Destroying Development in Africa
- What Happens if Houthi vs US Led Operations takes another turn involving Russia and China? Regional wide impact.
- Why America Needs More Moderate Republicans
- From Importer To Exporter: The Shifting Geopolitics Of U.S. Energy Policy
- The Dark Side of Globalization: Inequality, Conflict, and the Struggle for Resources
- Escalation in the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Unpacking the Recent Hamas Attack
- What Frosts My Nuts: The End Time Has Come
- What Frosts My Nuts: Nixon had Big Balls but not P.B.J.
- The 2024 presidential election is already over.
- The Clown King of East Africa
- The Concerning Power Play of New York's Attorney General: A Threat to Its Politician and New Yorkers
- Who has the Right to Control another Adult's Life Without their Consent?
- Can the Charter of Democracy Save Pakistan’s Imperiled Democracy?
- Is Iran in a revolutionary situation?
- Why We Must Be Masters of Our Counter Culture