Archive:Ombudsman Appeals: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
m (Protected "CZ:Ombudsman Appeals" [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
imported>John Stephenson
(categories)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ombudsman}}
{{Ombudsman}}
'''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:
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.
[[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.