MEDIATION AND POST-ELECTION LITIGATION recognize driving the process as their chief role. So, for example, the facilitative mediator may make decisions about which issue will be discussed when, when (and if) private caucuses should take place, how broadly or narrowly the parties' dispute should be addressed in mediation, and so forth.9o By taking control of the process, facilitative mediators enhance the efficiency of dispute resolution, ensure that the full scope of the dispute is addressed, constructively enhance communication between the two sides, and assist the parties in generating realistic options. At the other end of the spectrum is what is often referred to as "evaluative" mediation.9I The evaluative mediator weighs in on substance. The evaluative mediator, for example, may give her opinion on the value of settlement, the strength of an argument, or the mediator's opinion of how a court might rule. Evaluative mediators might also suggest options for the parties to consider. Evaluative strategies are often employed to move the mediation forward, typically when the facilitative model reaches an impasse. Often evaluation is solicited by the parties.92 Mediators more comfortable with an evaluative role will weigh in on certain matters preemptively. Evaluative mediators view facilitative mediation as too passive, robbing 90 Leonard Riskin described a continuum in the role of mediators on the question of "problem definition" between those mediators who take a broad approach versus those who prefer to mediate only the narrow issue presented. See Leonard L. Riskin, Mediator Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques, 12 ALTERNATNES TO HIGH COST LlTIG. 111, 111 (1994) ("[a] mediator who starts with a broad orientation ... assumes that the parties can benefit if the mediation goes beyond the narrow issues that normally define legal disputes. Important interests often lie beneath the positions that the participants assert. Accordingly, the mediator [can] ... help the participants understand and fulfill those interests-at least if they wish to do so."). 91 For a view of the dangers of evaluative mediation, see generally Lela Love, The Top Ten Reasons Why Mediators Should Not Evaluate, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 937 (1997); see also Kimberlee K. Kovach & Lela P. Love, "Evaluative" Mediation Is an Oxymoron, 14 ALTERNATIVES TO HIGH COST LITIG. 31 (1996). 92 The need for case evaluation has evolved into a specialty commonly referred to as Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE). ENE "was first developed in federal district court in the Northern District of California" as a process by which a party (or parties) to a dispute seeks out an evaluation of their claim from an expert. Frank E. A. Sander & Lukasz Rozdeiczer, Matching Cases and Dispute Resolution Procedures: Detailed Analysis Leading to A Mediation-Centered Approach, ll HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 1, 13 (2006). ENE is seen as a settlement technique for disputes in which parties are far apart and might benefit from hearing from a neutral party how the law likely applies to their case or hearing an objective assessment of the strength of their case. See American Arbitration Association, Early Neutral Evaluation: Getting an Expert's Assessment, Practical Guidelines and Steps for Getting Started, available at http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=35761 (last visited Sept. 21, 2011). 347 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 347 2012