I’m just picking at replies here - as I said in the chatroom I think this is a
generally positive direction and want to thank the people involved.
(I did make two suggestions there)
> On 11 Jun 2021, at 15:18, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The Conduct Team will always hand its recommendation on Sanctions or
> > other Actions to the Board. The Board will discuss and vote on these
> > "in camera" (ie, not in public and not minuted).
>
> It seems like there's not much point having a conduct team if the board
> also has to relitigate their decisions. I'd just allow the board to
> delegate this authority fully (which presumably they could do anyways
> and this document doesn't curtail board power?)
>
>
> I was in two minds about this, so thanks for raising it.
>
> I went for Board ratification of decisions mostly for the ease of managing
> the authority, but also in part because then the Conduct Team becomes an
> investigatory and deliberatory team instead of both judge and jury.
>
> But you're right in that this might end up with Board relitigating the
> decisions rather than just providing the final go-ahead decision and acting
> as a blame deflector.
I think that if we were to find that the Board consistently disagrees with
decisions made by the Conduct Team, the Board would likely have to look at who
they’d put on the Conduct Team.
If the Board has to approve the Conduct Team’s decision by really looking at it
and considering if it’s reasonable, is that not basically going through the
appeals procedure pre-emptively?
I’m not sure I have a strong sensible opinion on this one, it seems non-trivial.
/K
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
