Archive:Ombudsman Appeals: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Gareth Leng
No edit summary
imported>John Stephenson
(categories)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ombudsman}}
{{Ombudsman}}
Appeals are governed by the following articles of the Charter.
'''Appeals''' are governed by the following articles of the [[CZ:Charter|Charter]].
 
''Article 41'':Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either:  
''Article 41'':Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either:  


1.New information is available; or  
1.New information is available; or  
2.A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.  
2.A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.  


''Article 42'' •An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:  
''Article 42'' •An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:  
1.one member appointed by the Editorial Council,  
1.one member appointed by the Editorial Council,  
2.one member appointed by the Management Council, and  
 
2.one member appointed by the Management Council, and
3.the Ombudsman or his/her designee.  
3.the Ombudsman or his/her designee.  


''Article 43'' An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions: it may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing; it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error; or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing. If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.
''Article 43'' An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions:  
 
it may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing;  
 
it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error;  
 
or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing.  
 
If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.
 
 
==To be clear==
Appeals will not be considered merely on the basis that you disagree with a decision, however cogent your arguments and regardless of whether I might agree with you or not. I will not overturn any decision that has been properly made, and is consistent with the Charter, even if I disagree with the decision.
 
[[Category:Ombudsman]]
[[Category:Archived Pages]]

Latest revision as of 05:57, 1 July 2014

Citizendium Ombudsman
Decisions | Referrals | Appeals | Guidelines | Archive

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Appeals are governed by the following articles of the Charter.

Article 41:Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either:

1.New information is available; or

2.A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.

Article 42 •An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

1.one member appointed by the Editorial Council,

2.one member appointed by the Management Council, and

3.the Ombudsman or his/her designee.

Article 43 An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions:

it may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing;

it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error;

or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing.

If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.


To be clear

Appeals will not be considered merely on the basis that you disagree with a decision, however cogent your arguments and regardless of whether I might agree with you or not. I will not overturn any decision that has been properly made, and is consistent with the Charter, even if I disagree with the decision.