board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

¶8: Appeals: VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 1 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: ¶8: Appeals: VOTING CLOSED
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:25 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
APPROVED TEXT

¶8 Appealing the Decision of a Jury

Only decisions that result in a penalty being placed upon a member can be appealed, and only by that member.

All requests for an appeal must be heard, and decisions made by an Appeals panel are final.

The Appeals panel will consist of four former administrators. Starting with the administrator whose term ended most recently, and moving in reverse order through terms served, former administrators will express their availability and willingness to serve until four of them are assembled.

A member will present their Appeal in writing to a current administrator, who will convene the panel of former administrators. Each member of the panel will review the original Hearing Thread to evaluate the merit of the Appeal. They may confer among themselves in private by PM or email. Agreement by three of the four members of the panel will constitute a decision. Their decision must state whether to uphold or overturn the decision of the jury, and whether to void, reduce or uphold the penalty imposed by the jury. Any factors which they took into consideration should be stated honestly in their decision.

The decision will be sent to the member by email, and posted in the original Hearing Thread twenty-four hours later. The names of the Appeal panel are posted with their decision.

Ideally, an Appeals process should not take longer than seven full days.

Jury decisions and penalties can be appealed under the following circumstances:
• A decision can be appealed if the Hearing procedure specified in the by-laws was not followed. If the Appeals panel decides that the member was disadvantaged in any way by a breach of procedure, such as failure of notification, failure to announce the close of the hearing, failure to pursue witnesses, etc., they may overturn the jury decision and void all penalties. The hearing must then be held again for that offense. The posting rights of the member cannot be restricted over the course of the second hearing until a proper jury decision has been reached.

• A decision can be appealed if the statement which opens the Hearing Thread, or the statement of the jury’s decision exhibits any bias based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, native language, gender, age or collateral relationships that administrators or jury members might have with the member in question either in person or on other websites. A jury decision can be overturned and all penalties voided in this case. If demonstrable bias exists, no second hearing will be held for the same offense.

• A decision can be appealed if new evidence comes to light before a penalty has expired.

• A decision can be appealed if there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that a violation occurred. The appeals panel can not overturn evidence. However, they can decide that the facts of the case do not justify a decision that the violation occurred.

• A penalty can be appealed if there were delays in executing the hearing, or if jury deliberations took longer than seems reasonable for the type of offense in question. This might happen if the responsible administrator was off-line at a critical time, or if witnesses did not appear promptly, or if jurors did not deliberate promptly. If the member upon whom the penalty was imposed was restricted to the Jury Room for the duration of the hearing, they may appeal for “time served” to be deducted from the penalty.

• A penalty can be appealed if the jury had discretion in determining the penalty, and the penalty they imposed is excessive by comparison with other penalties specified in the by-laws for similar offenses.
[approved May 17, 2005]

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 17 May , 2005 1:26 pm, edited 12 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:28 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
The text in blue is what has to be rewritten EDIT: the text in blue now shows the options up for consideration.

We had appeals submitted in writing to the Mayor, who selected three admins and handed the appeal to them.

The four together would read the records of the Hearing and reach a decision.

The Mayor is now out of the picture.

-How many admins should now be on the panel?
-How will they be selected?

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat 14 May , 2005 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:42 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Each member of the panel will review the Hearing Thread to seek confirmation of the Appeal.
This is unfamiliar language to me. Does this mean, they will review the Hearing Thread to assess the merit of the appeal?


and it is the responsibility of the Mayor to ensure that this is done.
I think it would be preferrable to eliminate this clause (per the previous discussion). I'm guessing I'll have to vote against anything that includes a description of this duty for Mayor.


If the Appeals panel decides that the member was disadvantaged in any way by a breach of procedure, such as failure of notification, failure to announce the close of the hearing, failure to pursue witnesses, etc., they may overturn the jury decision and void all penalties. The hearing must then be held again for that offense.
Would it be an option to not hold the hearing again for the offense? In other words, if the jury screws up, the member gets off?


-How many admins should now be on the panel?
-How will they be selected?

I'm fine with three, I'm fine with the Mayor choosing them.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:58 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: I think it would be preferrable to eliminate this clause (per the previous discussion). I'm guessing I'll have to vote against anything that includes a description of this duty for Mayor.

This clause is a clarifier. I can remove all of it, to avoid potential contradictions.

Would it be an option to not hold the hearing again for the offense? In other words, if the jury screws up, the member gets off?

This is just imo - some of the offenses are pretty serious and I would not like the member to get off scot free because of a procedural screw up, particularly as it looks likely to me that we will have lots of them. But I do want to ensure that the process is fair.

I'm fine with the Mayor choosing them.

Noted, but I can't put that into the text for the same reason I am removing a clause per your first comment above. We should try to avoid potential contradictions.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 4:15 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Quote:
I'm fine with the Mayor choosing them.

Noted, but I can't put that into the text for the same reason I am removing a clause per your first comment above. We should try to avoid potential contradictions.
I'm afraid I lost you there. The option of having the Mayor choose the admins for the appeals panel seems unrelated to procedural oversight of juries (so I don't see why the text can't refer to the Mayor choosing the panel).


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 4:40 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
We can't involve the Mayor in any procedural matter if he/she is also the overseer of procedure.

It's a fine point, but one I am keen to follow to the letter because overlap of responsibilities can easily create a magnitude of influence that no one foresaw.

Under the system proposed and rejected, the mayor whose term does not correspond in any way to the admins sat on the panel with the admins. Three out of four votes ensured that voting bias by the mayor alone could not sway the result. If the chosen admins were noticeably biased, there was another person who could say that the mayor's selection of admins threatened our principle of fair process.

Now it seems the mayor will be the overseer, and he/she should not also be allowed to judge his/her own fairness in the selection of the panel. The only way to avoid this is to select the panel some other way.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 4:52 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I see, thank you for that explanation.

I think it makes good sense to have the Mayor choose the admin panel for appeals (s/he being the person intimately involved with admin rotation and having that information at his/her fingertips), and is therefore another reason it makes bad sense to have the Mayor oversee hearings (thus disqualifying him/her from doing something that would so naturally fall under his/her purview).

So I'll wait to consider alternate proposals until the hearings text vote officially establishes that there is a conflict here.

Last edited by Cerin on Fri 13 May , 2005 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 5:08 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
So I'll wait to consider alternate proposals until the hearings text vote officially establishes that there is a conflict here.

Yes, that's what I'm doing too, and why I did not put this up as a Draft Ballot yet. It will require some back-and-forth when the other vote is finished.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 7:51 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I personally do not like the idea of admins hearing appeals, but I don't have an alternative suggestion short of forming a whole separate "appeals court" (which I don't think is practical) so I think I'll just stay out of this discussion.


Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 7:52 pm
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
I think I am following this, and I think I agree with the wording. :suspicious:

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:10 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laureanna, you 're not allowed to agree with the wording in blue. :)

It has to be changed if the Mayor ends up with the job of overseeing the jury. We need to come up with an alternative for this eventuality - how many admins, how would they be chosen.

Voronwe, if you think the appeals process should be a second, different jury, you can propose that of course. Though it seems to me that admins are more likely to be familiar with the charter than jurors are.

Right now we only have admins and jury members to pick from.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 8:57 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
If two admins called the initial hearing, that leaves only three available to serve for the appeal, at our present numbers and if there hasn't been any turnover. If we need four panelists, at least one person not presently an admin will certainly have to serve. Without a mayor to select them, we'll need a rule of some kind—say, the admins who most recently left office will serve if they can, and move backward down the list?

The admins themselves will have to line up the panel.

This seems clunky, but perhaps this procedure won't be needed very often.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:01 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim: say, the admins who most recently left office will serve if they can, and move backward down the list? ...This seems clunky, but perhaps this procedure won't be needed very often.

I'm afraid that it will end up being used after every jury decision. :neutral: But I think your solution is a good one, Prim. Go backwards down the list through the most recent admins.

If we do it that way, we can leave the contingencies in place - willingness and availability.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:05 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,

Thank you. I agree with your view on this.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:16 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
If two admins called the initial hearing, that leaves only three available to serve for the appeal, at our present numbers and if there hasn't been any turnover.
I was thinking that admin here meant anyone who has served as an admin (not just the people currently serving).


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 9:27 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Voronwe, if you think the appeals process should be a second, different jury, you can propose that of course. Though it seems to me that admins are more likely to be familiar with the charter than jurors are.
Jn, I honestly do not have an alternative proposal that I think would work any better.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 11:40 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin: right now the blue text says "three current admins."

Since we only have five, and the two who convened the original hearing can't hear the appeal, the first three members of the panel would be chosen automatically, by default.

If we need a fourth panel member, or if one of the current admins had no time for this, that's when we would start working our way backwards through former admins.

I like Prim's idea that we would simply pick people in backward order because it eliminates a discretionary selection process.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 12:18 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I lied. I do have an alternative suggestion.
Cerin wrote:
I was thinking that admin here meant anyone who has served as an admin (not just the people currently serving).]
That is my alternative suggestion. Have the appeals heard by a panel of former admins. I really don't think that current admins should be given that kind of power.

I also have a suggestion for an additional ground for appeal, based on my experience handling court-appointed criminal appeals:

• There was "insufficient evidence" to support the finding that a violation occurred. The appeals panel can not reweigh evidence. However, a jury decision can be overturned and all penalties voided if, even after all questions of credibility and other issues of disputed fact are resolved in favor of the juror's decision, the facts of the case still do not show that the violation occurred.

Let me give an example of what this means. Let's say that a member says that another member posted and then removed a graphic representation of Antonin Scalia sodomizing his wife. The other member denies it. If the jury believes that the first member is telling the truth, the appeals panel would not be able to overturn that decision based on the belief that the other member's testimony that he did not post the image was more believable then the first member's testimony that he did post it. However, consider a situation where the second member just posted a political cartoon that caricatured Scalia being asked by a law student about sodomizing his wife, but was in no way obscene. There is no factual dispute over whether he posted it, just a dispute over whether the image really was obscene. The jury finds that the member should be penalized for posting an obscene image. In a situation like that, I believe the appeals panel should have the right to reverse the jury decision on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the decision.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 12:46 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Cerin: right now the blue text says "three current admins."
There's careful reading for you! :oops:

Actually, I much prefer the idea of not having current admins involved in the appeals process. It seems to me to put more distance between the original hearing and the appeal.

I see that I am in agreement with Voronwe!

:banana: :banana: :banana: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 14 May , 2005 1:34 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Hey, that's a good idea, Voronwe!

I was also thinking all the time that if there should be four people on a panel that would just mean all the admins who are left.

But - who's going to pick the panel from among the former admins? :scratch

(The leftover procedure is so much easier! ;) :D )

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 4  [ 68 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 »
Jump to: