MEDIATION AND POST-ELECTION LITIGATION Secretary Ritchie understood the need to facilitate party agreement on issues of concern, in large part to enhance efficiency by avoiding court battles. Secretary Ritchie's office knew it could not heavy-handedly dictate the terms of the Recount Plan. Instead, Ritchie undertook to listen to concerns the parties raised on the call, seek out authority where possible on those issues from the AG representative, generate options to resolve those disputes, and create a final document reflecting agreement reached. Ultimately, the call produced the final Recount Plan that reflected the concerns and interests raised.1 35 Importantly, the conference call featured several characteristics not typical of mediation. First, the campaigns lacked the ability to define the terms of agreement. They could ask questions and make suggestions, but in the end the OSS, working with the AG's office, had the authority to dictate the Plan. Secretary Ritchie could take input and suggestions from the campaigns and rely on legal authority of the AG's office, but ultimately retained control over the document. 136 A second way that the call differed was the players involved. In most mediations, the parties and/or their attorneys meet privately with the mediator(s). So long as the parties have authority to settle, most mediators do not want others in the room. 137 In certain kinds of mediations, particularly of public disputes, mediators realize the importance of having a full set of interests represented at the table and will refrain from mediating until all interested parties are present. 138 135 According to Director Poser, the Recount Plan that the Secretary of State's Office submitted to the Canvassing Board represented changes and amendments produced as a result of campaign input during the call. Telephone Interview with Gary Poser, supra note 131; Recount Plan, supra note 133. 136 The State Canvassing Board, which signed off on the document as submitted, retained final authority over the document, but theoretically could have made changes to it. Telephone Interview with Gary Poser, supra note 132 . . 137 Note that some mediators prefer to mediate without lawyers in the room in deference to party autonomy and self-determination, and because lawyers often find the problem-solving orientation difficult. In at least two states, mistrust of lawyers in the mediation setting has culminated in statutes giving mediators the power to exclude lawyers from mediation sessions. See CAL. FAM. CODE § 3182(a) (2009); KAN. STAT. ANN.§ 23-603(a)(6) (1985). For a thoughtful discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of lawyer representation in mediation, see Jean R. Sternlight, Lawyers' Representation of Clients in Mediation: Using Economics and Psychology to Structure Advocacy in a Nonadversarial Setting, 14 OHIO ST. J. ON D1SP. RESOL. 269,275-331 (1999). 13 R Most mediators and court-mandated mediation programs require the presence of individuals on both sides with the authority to settle. In court-ordered mediation, accusations of bad-faith mediation can stem from failure of a party to send an individual 359 HeinOnline -- 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 359 2012