{UAH} GABURUNGYI: Questions About Arbitration

Mr Gaburungyi,

I presume you are saying that my list of questions is childish.  So I hope that someone like you pushing for arbitration will take time to think through those questions and tell us the answers you have. Brushing them aside is not exactly a "brilliant and innovative" solution. i.e burying one's head in the sand is not exactly very innovative and brilliant. 

All my questions are ordinary preliminary issues that parties thinking of arbitration have to have considered before hand.  e.g you need to know how you'll pay, you need to know which parties will go to the arbitrator, you need to know which disputes will be taken to arbitration, etc. 

Reading some emails here leaves me wondering if many of you have actually taken time think this process through.  e.g many emails seem to suggest that only BoT decisions will be taken to arbitration and that the parties will be Wilson/Kwesiga side and the BoT.  Others seem to want the "Council 8" to be a party. Which side will Mr Wilson be? 

Are members free to go to arbitration too?  Many members have appealed to the BoT and did not like BoT decisions or BoT silence (the BoT has not ruled on anything since the Executive rejected the Kabagambe ruling).

Are members free to arbitrate decisions of the Executive? Can members go for arbitration regarding decisions of the "Wakou Council"? 

Saying that you'll first agree to go for arbitration before you agree on the parties is rather "childish" (to use your word).   

thanks

 

For a faster response please contact me at 415.789.6427

---

From: Timothy Gaburungyi <timothy.gaburungyi@gmail.com>
To: joseph.musoke@ymail.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:28 AM
Subject: UNAALIST Questions About Arbitration

Fellow UNAA Members,

The President's email below shows he has taken the time to think things through and is sharply focused on the goal - a united and functioning UNAA. That is mature leadership at its best.

The task before us is not to list challenges, problems, difficulties, hurdles etc. Even children can do that. We distinguish ourselves when we come up with brilliant and innovative solutions and right now, the President has a constitutionally backed proposal on the table and also the beginning of a road map to it. UNAA's membership is waiting on our leaders to consider this proposal.

I strongly agree with the President. In now way should we spend a cent of UNAA's membership or convention money to pay for this Arbitration. If anyone feels so strongly about their position they should put their money exactly where their strong feelings are. That in itself is a litmus test. We should not spend UNAA's money on an effort if we cannot justify digging into our individual pockets and spending our own money on it!!

Also for all the debates we have had in here, and the accusations and counter accusations of one member being on this side or the other, it is a little interesting that all of a sudden some members do not know what arguments they would articulate in arbitration.

My two cents

Gaburungyi

Sent from Windows Mail

From: Brian Kwesiga
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 5:08 AM
To: Timothy Gaburungyi

Mr. Mukasa,

The idea situation is indeed what you just described, a hope that either side of the debate can humble itself for the good of UNAA.

Yet, both sides are adamant that they are following the constitution.

So, unless we as an Association are prepared to go forward like this for the next 9 months until the AGM in San Diego; I still believe that external neutral arbitration is still the next best course of action.

UNAA, need not pick up the tab in the wrong term. Whichever side comes up short in the arguments before the mutually agreed upon arbitrator should pay for the arbitration, since both sides are so adamant about their righteousness. 

Just like in court cases, this eliminates frivolous lawsuits.

As to the questions Mr. Musoke raised, let us not begin disagreeing about what color to paint the living room before we even agree where to buy the house or not.

Those are details that can be hushed out in the negotiations once both sides commit themselves to binding arbitration.

From my conversations with both sides, it's become clear that no side wants to back down, so of we are saying no to mutually agreed upon arbitration, what is the alternative?

Brian M. Kwesiga

President and CEO,

Ugandan North American Association - UNAA

972.415.6372 | www.unaa.org | "United We Stand"

On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:00 PM, Benon Mukasa <kyeyune@aol.com> wrote:

Mr. Musoke those are thought provoking points and well laid out. UNAA does not have the money to go that route every time we disagree, and we are bound to disagree quite a bit, going forward. I hope we can humble ourselves and respect our own structures of governance and get along without outside prodding.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Musoke <joseph.musoke@ymail.com>
To: kyeyune <kyeyune@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 4:36 pm
Subject: UNAALIST Questions About Arbitration

1. who would pay for arbitration? Arbitrators charge as much as normal attorneys in their area. UNAA came out of Dallas with less than $700...that would give us about an hour or two of arbitration in California.  We might get more in rural States (may be 4 hrs?).

2. do we use convention money or membership fees?  e.g all our membership money was used to cover the Dallas convention loss. 

3. what disputes would go to arbitration? e.g when we don't like BoT decisions or when we don't like Executive decisions or when we don't like Council decisions or when we don't like EC decisions?

4. which parties would go to arbitration? e.g our leaders only? or any aggrieved member?

5. when would arbitration end? do we go whenever we don't like a decision (BoT, Executive, Council, EC, Local Organizing Committee, etc)..i.e do we outsource not only the BoT's role, but Executive and Council roles too? After all, I can see a situation when one disagrees with an Executive/Council decision, then goes to the BoT, the BoT makes a decision and then the loser asking for arbitration. 

Anytime a dispute is taken to the BoT, there will be two sides. As I have said before, there are NO draws when you take a dispute to a tribunal...one side is bound to lose. Should the losing sides keep going to arbitrators? 

Who would determine when we should not go to arbitration?  Would the decision to curb arbitration be taken to an arbitrator?

I know that Mr Gaburungyi misled us yesterday that decisions of an arbitrator have the force of law...but the truth is that arbitrators have NO power to make law.  The parties can agree that the arbitration will be binding on them...otherwise, arbitration decisions are appeallable to court. 

thanks

Ugandan North America Association

6257 N Mccormick Rd #118 Chicago, Il 60659

Email: info@unaa.org

Ugandan North America Association

6257 N Mccormick Rd #118 Chicago, Il 60659

Email: info@unaa.org

Ugandan North America Association

6257 N Mccormick Rd #118 Chicago, Il 60659

Email: info@unaa.org

Ugandan North America Association

6257 N Mccormick Rd #118 Chicago, Il 60659

Email: info@unaa.org