Archive:Ombudsman Appeals: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Gareth Leng
No edit summary
imported>Gareth Leng
No edit summary
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 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.

Revision as of 13:04, 20 October 2010

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.