HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 919

BYRepresentatives Armstrong, Wineberry, Locke, Pruitt and P. King 

Authorizing a two-year dispute resolution project.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (14)

     Signed by Representatives Armstrong, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Hargrove, Heavey, P. King, Lewis, Locke, Moyer, Niemi, Patrick, Scott, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:     Do not pass.  (3)

     Signed by Representatives Brough, Padden and Schmidt.

House Staff:Harry Reinert (786-7110)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY MARCH 6, 1987

BACKGROUND:

The legislature as part of the 1984 Court Improvement Act authorized counties, municipalities, and non-profit corporations to establish dispute resolution centers to handle disputes outside of the judicial setting.  The dispute resolution centers are supposed to provide an informal and less adversarial process for resolving disputes.

The centers may be established by a city or county or by a non-profit corporation organized for the sole purpose of resolving disputes.  Prior to beginning operation, the city or county in which a dispute resolution center is located must adopt a plan for establishing a center for the mediation and settlement of disputes. The plan must include, among other items, procedures for filing requests for dispute resolution, ensuring that disputes mediated fit within criteria for appropriateness, ensuring voluntary participation, and informing the public about the dispute resolution process.

Services must be provided without charge or on the ability of a party to pay.  The center must require written agreements by the parties on the method to be used in resolving the dispute and the settlement arrived at, if any.  The written agreement in settlement may be introduced into evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings.

The center's records are confidential and may not be introduced into evidence in any judicial proceedings.  Communications made during the resolution process are privileged communications and may not be disclosed in judicial or administrative proceedings unless the privilege is waived by all parties.

Any person may withdraw from the dispute resolution process without any penalty or sanction.  The centers are authorized to seek funds from both public and private sources.  The statute of limitations is tolled from the time the parties enter into a written agreement to mediate a dispute until the time the parties enter into a settlement agreement or one of the parties withdraws.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The administrator for the courts is directed to contract for a two-year demonstration project in King and Snohomish counties on the effectiveness of dispute resolution centers.  The centers which are funded must be a non-profit corporation having a broadly based board of directors.  The project shall focus on reducing social tensions which lead to crime, promoting lasting settlements, and helping to reduce congestion in the King and Snohomish county courts.  The administrator for the courts shall report to the House and Senate judiciary committees on the results of the projects by December 1, 1989.

$345,000 is appropriated to the administrator for the courts for the dispute resolution center project.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill provided for a project in King County and appropriated $225,000.  The substitute includes Snohomish County and increases the appropriation to $345,000.

Appropriation:  $345,000

Fiscal Note:    Requested March 3, 1987

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Chief Justice Vernon Pearson, Washington Supreme Court; John Rule, Director, Snohomish County Dispute Resolution Center; Bud Norris, Snohomish County Council; Ron Main, King County Council.

House Committee - Testified Against: None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:     The dispute resolution centers are a cost-effective way to reduce the court caseloads.  The creation of a pilot project will help to show other counties how to best establish and maintain these dispute resolution centers.

House Committee - Testimony Against: None Presented.