AZ067->AZ068 - 11.4 Discipline and Arbitration

[azrael]

Affects 11.4

AZ067 Create sub-section

Code: Select all

11.4 When a disciplinary or arbitration panel is formed, the Board will select 5 of the Governors (as per its code of practice) to sit on the panel.

What causes the panel to be formed? ‘selecting’ members doesn't sound very fair. selection could be random, or based on who hasn't suffered through having to sit on such a case before, or we could allow complainant and ‘accused’ to both select half the panel, with the selected panel members picking the last member. More debate and input needed.

AZ068 Create sub-section

Code: Select all

11.4.1 Discipline and arbitration panels are expected to work in a timely and non-discriminatory way.

In 11.4 or another subsection of 11 should include punishments that are in the remit to be levied. Examples: officially censured (declaration of your naughtiness but not much more), removal of good standing, ejected from the party without refund, removed from elected position (via a call for VONC – and if so mention it in 11.2.1, 11.2.2, and 11.2.3 ??)

[glambert]

I like the idea, if it's efficient in practice, that we select members at random, like Jury duty. I'd like it if we stuck by the same principle and had 5 random guv's to sit on the panel too, so that it was different every time.

[scuzzmonkey]

personally i think 2 guvs and 5 random members is a better mix.

[azrael]

Problem with random members is that we can expect governors to keep certain things private and not spill the beans about a particular 'case'. Normal members would be a lot harder to put under this sort of constraint.

[scuzzmonkey]

make it clear that speaking out about this thing is a disciplinary offence and a possible way of removing good standing.