Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Cadence Theas
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:50 am

Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Cadence Theas »

During the election process, I sort of made a campaign promise regarding the idea of a grievance committee. What follows is a preliminary proposal for the RA, Chancellor, and citizens of CDS to consider. Thank you. Cadence

*************************************************************

Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee to resolve interpersonal conflicts and disagreements in CDS

Based on the reality that interpersonal interaction is frequently intersected by misunderstanding due to social and cultural differences, and different personal belief systems and values, and that this fact is exacerbated in Second Life by virtual communication methods and different language skills, the proposal is to form a citizen’s grievance committee that can act as a first level intervention to prevent these misunderstandings from creating larger conflicts or involving others who do not have a direct stake in the original conflict.

The hardest aspect to achieve in the grievance committee is impartiality and its conformation should be based on a process of representation—not electoral representation—but a different selection process such that there is not a preponderance of one social group. One method could be that each sim selects on a simple majority one person who could serve on the committee. But other proposals to conform the committee could be considered.

The committee should have the following characteristics:

1) Comprised of five members.
2) That the five members should not be holding an office in the RA or chancellery.
3) That the terms (3 months, 6 months, etc.) should be staggered to prevent the over-representation of one social group (one alternative is simple rotation of residents in a sim to serve 3 month terms—this would guarantee impartiality through a process of random rotation).
4) That the decisions and conclusions are binding recommendations insofar as the parties involved in the grievance process agree to follow the conclusions of the committee.
5) That the committee consciously asks for and considers all evidence, and that the parties involved agree to an investigation process and submit in good faith the evidence required.
6) That the committee recognize that they are representing the community and not the governing body of CDS, and that their considerations be based first on the social aspects of co-living in CDS, and second on complying with the citizenship obligations of being a member of CDS.
7) That the committee recognize that the goal is to work towards a harmonious co-living and that their conclusions and recommendations be directed toward this goal.

The committee’s relationship to government is an advisory one. It can suggest that a conflict is resolvable in a social pre-litigation phase through the grievance committee, or that the parties have not demonstrated a willingness to arrive at a social resolution and that the issue should be seen by the SC.

Because scheduling is difficult in CDS, the committee can adopt a method of the circulating document. Affected parties present the case before a majority of members (3), who then create the base document accompanied by documented evidence. This document will circulate through the committee with comments and addenda. The individual members of the committee also reserve the right to ask the different parties for other supporting evidences or documents, but also agree to share the question and the replies with all members of the committee. In the space of two weeks, a simple majority of the committee will convene with the different parties to offer its suggestions and recommendations. At this stage, an agreement can be made and formalized before the citizens represented by the committee, or an agreement to have the case reviewed by the SC where the decisions are binding.

It is the hope that this first intervention be sufficient to avoid many of the long term and often erroneously aggravated differences between different members and different social groups.

This is just a preliminary idea for a grievance committee.

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Rosie Gray »

I think this is a really good idea Cadence, and you've nicely worked it out. It would be really good to have a mediation body to go to with social grievances that crop up, before they escalate and need to be taken to the 'court'. I'd like to know what others think.

Last edited by Rosie Gray on Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
Victor1
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:20 am

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Victor1 »

Hold on...

*rummages around in my cupboard...*

Here ya go, one whole bag of red tape....

cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

Victor,

Red tape is what democracy is made of ! Long live red tape and down with dictatorships. Haste makes waste and good decisions come from long discussions and research and proper assessment and evaluations.

My opinion today is this is a great idea with much merit , let's send it to committee.

The weak link I personally see in Cadence's lovely proposal is that it relies on the personal views and motivations of 5 citizens. How do we know that the minority groups in CDS ( which may or may not be defined the same as minorities in rl) are represented and that political motivations are not carried out?

I know I wouldn't want certain groups of five people ... giving their unbiased and fair opinion about anything to do with me. (five apple pie loving citizens giving an opinion about which flavor of pie is right or wrong ) . This sort of set up can give the appearance of fairness and justify actions and opinions without being authentic and either wrongly convicting or just making the divisions worse.

So the idea that the members are static doesn't sit well with me. For something of this nature it seems an unbiased group could be created by letting each side in each instance in the discussion pick who they want to sit on the advisory committee? somewhat like a jury maybe. (eeek)

I applaud Cadence's wish to have a peaceful community where no one disagrees. There must be a balance of freedom of expression of ideas of all natures in a free society. Democracy in my view cannot be the result of one sided views. We need diversity of ideas. We need to be able to express ourselves whether we are at the top of the bell curve or an outlier in either direction.

The body created appears to be a bit of a "pre SC" to see if something needs to be brought? Or handled before taking it that far?

Perhaps Cadence could lead a committee that could explore her excellent idea of having avenues for participation of citizens in conflict resolution. Its a wonderful idea and could add a much needed flavor to the CDS.

Cleo
User avatar
josjoha
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by josjoha »

I also think this is a good idea. If something doesn't need to go to a court but get settled, that is great. Perhaps you could schematically see justice this way, where it progressively moves from a direct conflict to a court:

1 - A conflict between two people directly. A versus B

2 - A conflict is negotiated by two representatives of the conflicting parties. Rep-A versus Rep-B
3 - The conflicting parties call in a third, or a group, to help in the negotiation. A to C to B
4 - The representatives call in a third, or a group, to help: Rep-A to C to Rep-B.
5 - The representatives and/or the third group are given some credence or power to give a more or less binding ruling, by those involved, once they agree to the council that has been formed.
6 - There are no representatives anymore of either party in this third group, but they still decide together who will be this third group: A and B submit to the ruling by C.

7 - The State (public representative) creates this third group C, who is given power by the public power over A and B. At this point it's a normal public court in a democracy (the SC is not such a court, though.)

It is of course obvious that Rep-A and Rep-B can involve into atteurneys/lawyers for both sides, before a court; in which case they are not part of the Judicial team. I think though that it will be tough to find someone who will be agreed by both sides. But it doesn't always have to work, if it works sometimes that could be valuable. Another solution is that there is a committee of 5 volunteers or more, of which by election the competing parties choose who will fulfill the third party (C) role. The results of such hearings and conclusions could then be reviewed by the proper court (which CDS at the moment does not have, but in the future could still develop.) So that would be something like a Jury ! Should be interesting.

regards,
jos

www.law4.org Constitution & Revolution, live happy ever after ...
Lam Erin
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:00 am

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Lam Erin »

I agree in principle and with the main parts of the proposal but I propose certain amendments which i think would make it less bureaucratic and more flexible. My comments are

1.I think the term tribunal is more appropriate than the term committee.
2.We dont need 5 members to be involved. They are too many for a body which is less than a court and will make it too inflexible. I guess it will be also difficult to find 5 members. In my view there should be one person hearing and deciding the case at the first instance and if the parties arent happy they should appeal to a committee of 3 members. Hopefully, appeals will be rare. Overall we should appoint 3 members. Each case will be allocated to one of these members on a rotational basis otherwise on availability. The appeal panel will comprise the two members that were not involved in the first instance and an SC member as chair. If any of the tribunal members is unable to attend the appeal due to personal or other circumstances it will be replaced by a member of SC.

3. I dont think we need elections for this tribunal as the persons appointed need to possess some experience of conflict resolution or at least of managing human relations. Indicative jobs offering relevant skills include managers, lawyers, police officers, social workers, psychologists, sociologists or people with roles of responsibility in organisations, charities etc.
Any person considering itself suitable for the role should submit their application to the RA, which would consider the applications and make the appointments. I agree that current RA or SC members or the current chancellor should not be appointed. Also my suggestion is that at least one of the members should come from new citizens, which means citizens holding CDS citizenship for one year or less. The purpose of this should be to make the body more inclusive and to avoid having the old guard simply recycling its members also in the new body.

4. If the applications are more than the vacancies priority should be given to those who never held public office before. Again the purpose is to make the representation more inclusive.

5. Thee decisions of the tribunal shall be binding but the tribunal will not have the power to impose ban or suspension of citizenship. However it will have the power to issue warnings. About penalties I suggest cds to follow the penalties suggested by LL in their Community service standards. These are in the following order:
a. Warnings
b. If warning doesnt work then suspension of citizenship
c. If this doesnt work then ban either temporarily or permanently.

The tribunal will have the power to impose only warnings, which if not complied with would lead to referal to a CDS court for the imposition of the next level of sanctions. We need a new document meaning a new law for the court
The tribunal will also have the power to make binding recommendations and orders for removing offensive objects, adopting specific code of conduct etc Failure to comply with those would lead to similar referal as the above.

6. Appeals are allowed only on grounds of bias or personal interest on the side of the first instance judge.

the rest of the proposals are those made by Cadence. The complete proposal is quoted below.

Preliminary proposal for a grievance tribunal to resolve interpersonal conflicts and disagreements in CDS

Based on the reality that interpersonal interaction is frequently intersected by misunderstanding due to social and cultural differences, and different personal belief systems and values, and that this fact is exacerbated in Second Life by virtual communication methods and different language skills, the proposal is to form a citizen’s grievance tribunal that can act as a first level intervention to prevent these misunderstandings from creating larger conflicts or involving others who do not have a direct stake in the original conflict.

The grievance tribunal should have the following characteristics:

1) Comprised of 3 members appointed by RA from persons possessing the required skills and experience of managing human relationships or resolving conflicts. Indicative jobs offering relevant skills include managers, lawyers, social workers, police officers, psychologists, sociologists or people with roles of responsibility in organisations, charities etc.
2) That each case will be heard at the first instance by one tribunal member which will be deciding the case. If any of the parties is not happy with the decision it will have the right to appeal within 7 days for a new hearing to a panel comprising the two other tribunal members and a member of SC sitting as Chair. A second or third SC member can be appointed to the appeal panel if the two other tribunal members are unable to attend.
3) That appeals will be considered only if one of the parties claims bias on the side of first instance judge supported by convincing evidence accepted by the appeal panel or if one of the parties provides convincing evidence showing that the first instance judge had a personal interest in the case. All other grounds for appeal will be rejected.
4) That each case will be allocated to one of the tribunal members on a rotational basis otherwise on availability. Members having a personal interest in the case or who believe that they are not capable of deciding a case in an impartial manner (due for example to ideological bias) should pass the case to another tribunal member.
5) That the three appointed members should not be holding an office in the RA, SC or chancellery. At least one of the members should come from new citizens, which means citizens holding CDS citizenship for one year or less. If the number of applications for the office exceed the number of vacancies priority should be given to those applicants who never held office in a CDS body before.
6) That the term for each member of the tribunal should be 6 months. Renewal (partial or for all members) will be possible only if there are no new applications for the office at the end of the term and only for the period until new applications are sent to RA. An existing tribunal member cannot serve for two consecutive terms but will have the right to return for a new term after 6 months from the completion of its previous term. An existing tribunal member can serve for more than 6 months if no replacement is available and until such replacement is found.
7) That tribunal will have jurisdiction to hear and decide on all disputes arising between CDS citizens. The cases may be referred to it by either of the parties involved in the dispute or by RA, the Scientific Council or the Chancellor.
8) That Its decisions, conclusions and recommendations will be binding on the parties and any other cds citizen or body. The tribunal will have no power to impose ban, suspension of citizenship or fines but will have the power to issue warnings , order removal of offensive objects, observation of specified codes of conduct and generally any measure which in the discretion of the judge would help to restore the relationships of the parties and peace in the CDS community. The orders, decisions and warnings issued by the tribunal will be equivalent to the warnings followed in the Community Standards of Linden Labs to which CDS has subscribed according to its constitution. Failure to comply with the warnings or the other orders would result in a referral to the CDS Court, with request for suspension of citizenship or ban (temporary or permanent), following the practice suggested in the Community Standards of Linden Labs.
9) That the tribunal consciously asks for and considers all evidence, and that the parties involved agree to an investigation process and submit in good faith the evidence required.
10) That the members of the tribunal recognize that they are representing the community and not the governing body of CDS, and that their considerations be based on the evidence presented and take into account the social aspects of co-living in CDS and the citizenship obligations imposed by the CDS constitution and laws.
11) That the members of the tribunal recognize that the goal is to work towards a harmonious co-living and that their decisions, conclusions and recommendations be directed toward this goal.
12) That in case of any doubt about the interpretation of any of the above provisions, the Scientific Council will be asked to provide a relevant interpretative statement. Such interpretative statement can be requested only by the tribunal members or the RA.

People are welcome to make suggestions for amendments but i suggest these are made as soon as possible so we can incorporate them and submit it to the next RA for approval.
I personally dread the next time that Guilelme, Jos or myself will decide to mess with some fellow CDS citizen and we will have the whole CDS community drawn to our disputes.

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often". Winston Churchill
User avatar
josjoha
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by josjoha »

Lam Erin wrote:

1.I think the term tribunal is more appropriate than the term committee.

Agreed.

2. (...) In my view there should be one person hearing and deciding the case at the first instance and if the parties arent happy they should appeal to a committee of 3 members.

I am unsure about this, because you will often have that a case is decided not upon evidence or thoughts about justice, but who is friends with who (as recently strongly evidenced, where you can not even get obvious abuse of power punished in any way whatsoever). Cleo and Ceasar had an interesting idea that goes back to the way children choose teams for soccer: one side chooses someone, and then the other. It is noteworthy that if this is to be a mediation (negotiation) type arrangement, then the authority of this tribunal does not come from the State, but from an agreement of both parties to let their case be reviewed by a third group that they agree with to a degree; a kind of a jury hence. You could also use the reverse: both parties may choose the same amount of tribunalists to be scrapped. For example: each side chooses one person, the other side may issue one objection or accept, if the choice is objected to by the other side, then that side will choose another but this one can not be objected to. This has an interesting psychological effect, namely that there is a certain influence or acceptance over the other tribunalist of the opposing side, and that may give both side a measure of calmness about that other side (I don't know the english word, "gelatenheid" in Dutch ... "a sense of letting it be".)

There are issues with this too though. Everyone knows or can get to know each other in CDS, and hence the tribunalists will probably know both parties. In the real world that would mean the judge has to recuse himself already, because he priorly knows either party. The CDS is too small for that. Which means we will probably never have proper justice. People are just too unlikely to vote against their own friends. Hence what if the tribunal where to have 6 members, but someone can only get 2 friends to sit on it while the other manages to get 3 friends. The one with only 2 friends will then choose a random citizen, who will then be the contested price in the trial. It is likely that this person will ingratiate himself to the majority, making 3 or even 4 friends in the process. The trial then goes against the one with the fewest friends, and is decided not on evidence, law or common sense, but by the need to make and keep friends, which is particularly potent while enemies are made at the same time (a form of tribalism.)

Since it is such a key element in Justice that the judge does not know either of the two sides, or the ones giving evidence, it is perhaps an idea to seek such a tribunal from strangers. Like going to an infohub and selecting random citizens who want to earn 300,- lindens to hear a court case. This however is fraught with it's own dangers, such as the use of alts (which has already been proven to exist in CDS).

Just a random shot at it then because it seems so difficult: how about both parties select one tribunalist, and we will try to find a third person through some kind of strictly pre-defined random process that will resist our chance to select alts from people in the CDS *), and then we will start to ask these avatars if they want to sit in on a tribunal to earn 300,- lindens" ... many people in SL spend hours on end earning 1 linden from these sploders, 300,- to them is a fortune. They should also not know anyone in CDS.

We could let the stranger promise that they would try to do justice based on their own good conscience, and give a neutral verdict if the case was too unclear. We could pay the avatar half up front, and the other half if they seem to have participated.

We could then say: the case will be heard for *exactly* 30 minutes. A time-keeper is selected that both parties agree on, and they can set rules for that hearing (which after all is an idealized form of negotiation). Then there is a 15 minute break where the tribunalists may not speak with anyone about the case. Then there is another 10 minutes (for example questions/answers), then a 5 minute seclusion of the tribunal again, and then the verdict. That means it would last exactly one hour, which is something that we might be able to sell to strangers.

We might also add that once we select the stranger, that before we contact this stranger either side has the right to priorly reject that avatar. We can further say that the avatar must have a profile that is sufficiently normal, and does not have things on it that would make the avatar biased to either side.

5. Thee decisions of the tribunal shall be binding but the tribunal will not have the power to impose ban or suspension of citizenship. However it will have the power to issue warnings. About penalties I suggest cds to follow the penalties suggested by LL in their Community service standards. These are in the following order:
a. Warnings
b. If warning doesnt work then suspension of citizenship
c. If this doesnt work then ban either temporarily or permanently.

I think you need to be the most careful with citizenship, because included in citizenship is the right to trial and appeals. Hence under B someone would loose their rights. How about for repeated similar offenses:
a. Reprimand (saying it wasn't all that ok what happened, if the defendend says sorry the matter would be forgotten.)
b. Warning
c. Banning for between 1 hour to 1 month, depending on severety.
d. Another banning but longer.
e. Loss of citizenship, and on a register to not be able to apply for citizenship. I suggest we clean off someone from this list after say 3 years, because the court-case may still have been an injustice in itself and we shouldn't want to drag this after people in that case indefinitely.
f. Permanently banned (because it would then be an outsider, who comes into CDS to grief people; this too could be cleaned in 3 years.)

Let's not forget that SL works with real money, hence we can issue fines. A typical occurance in civil cases between citizens, is that one person pays the other for damages. The fine can first be payed to the court, who then payes the damage from it.

Another fun part possible: both contestants could donate a number of L$ to a pot, like 50,- L$ for a symbolic trial, or 500,- for a more serious one. Once the money is payed to a trusted 3rd party that promises to follow the ruling, this money is at the tribunal it's discretion to use in the verdict. It could for example award the pot to either side, or even say both are guilty and donate it to a good cause, or give it back to both parties if the case could not reasonably be resolved.

The tribunal will have the power to impose only warnings, which if not complied with would lead to referal to a CDS court for the imposition of the next level of sanctions. We need a new document meaning a new law for the court
The tribunal will also have the power to make binding recommendations and orders for removing offensive objects, adopting specific code of conduct etc Failure to comply with those would lead to similar referal as the above.

If it is a mediation type body, it's rulings can not be binding, and we don't even need an RA law - although we certainly could keep a law-type document handy for when people wish to engage in it. If it's more then mediation but like a lower court, we would need laws. However aren't we then riding into the wheels of this SC (which in my opinion should be reformed, in the direction of what you are saying even) ?

6. Appeals are allowed only on grounds of bias or personal interest on the side of the first instance judge.

I think this is too tight; there may be many reasons to appeal which could be sound. A benefit of it being a mediation type body is that it can't do any binding thing, and when it fails you can then start the first proper court case.

*) Some ideas on selecting a random avatar that isn't a CDS alt:

For example "the 5th letter of the headlines of three newspapers will be the three letters we type into avatar-search, skipping down past the first N to the length of the headline, if none are found we drop the last letter and try again, if none drop again, if none are found we'll use only the 2nd letter, if none only the 3rd, if none are found we'll use the 4th letter in each headline, and repeat, and so on. A problem is though to find avatars that are online & willing & fit our minimum requirenments ... maybe if we choose this method we need some more thinking on how we can randomly and efficiently find an unknown person who is willing to work for some money with minimum chances of accidentally selecting CDS alts ... we could have a list of popular infohubs or sploder/raffle-board places, throw an SL dice, go to that one and ask in open chat who wants to earn 300,- etc, and then if multiple respond we throw the dice again; but this risks ppl pre-positioning their alts in these known places ... But if the other method is too combersome maybe we'll need to take this risk. We could even use search as a random tool, by typing in something like sploder or club or hub. It may take some effort, but in return we might have something without ties to anyone, which is essential for a court case. Dice and search can also be combined, to reduce ppl to preposition their alts after they have already used search and know where the question would then be asked. A problem with this is that many owners of places have a problem with soliciting: someone going to their place and talk to visitors about another place. In that sense LL infohubs are better, because nobody cares about that there.

www.law4.org Constitution & Revolution, live happy ever after ...
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I understand that the RA has set up a commission to look at this issue. I think there are a number of questions of principle to consider before we get into developing a detailed proposal. Here are the issues as I see them:

  • 1. Is this mediation or arbitration?
    2. Is this voluntary or compulsory?
    3. Is this a professional service or an amateur one?

My preference is for voluntary, professional mediation. Here's why:

Mediation or arbitration?
I think the motives behind this proposal are sincere and intended to solve a problem that frequently occurs in online communities (and in RL too). We all have different communication styles and personality types and friction is highly likely especially where there is some element of misunderstanding. When you compound the elements of different cultural backgrounds and use of English as a lingua franca, even when for some it is a second or third language, then it is not surprising that problems will occur.

I'm not clear whether the original proposal was for mediation or arbitration though. They are very different things. I've had very positive experiences of mediation in RL where professionals speak to both sides who are in dispute and try to find common ground and a common language to explore the reasons for the dispute. The aim is not to decide who is 'wrong' or 'right', mediation involves no judgement on the part of the mediators. It enables people who are clashing to see why that might be and agree a way forward together. Arbitration is very different. I've seen it used, for example, where there is a labour dispute and strikes and other forms of action are being threatened or have taken place. Both sides agree that a neutral third party will listen to both sides separately and then make a judgement either for one side or the other or a compromise. Both sides agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator.

I think the kind of issues we face in the CDS would be most amenable to mediation as this helps people to keep talking to each other. People rarely feel satisfied when someone has determined 'you were wrong, the other party was right, now suck it up and drop the issue'.

Voluntary or compulsory?
Presumably, a referral to a grievance committee would take place from one of the parties to the dispute. Should we then force both parties into the process or allow them to choose whether to participate or not? I would not see the point of forced mediation! Both parties really need to be willing for this kind of process to work as it is about communication and understanding the impact your communication style can be having on the other person. Forced arbitration is also a bit unusual - perhaps in industries like the police where strikes are outlawed. I'd have some human rights issues with either forced mediation or arbitrations - the idea of being compelled to handle a dispute in a particular way seems like an unnecessary restriction on individual freedom so I would prefer any system to be voluntary.

Professional or amateur?
The kind of skills involved in both mediation and arbitration are specialist ones. I don't believe they could be implemented successfully by gifted amateurs or a random selection of citizens. Mediation involves a deep understanding of the common sources of misunderstanding, sensitivity to what is being communicated and to power relations and the way in which bullying and intimidation can take place. Arbitration is also a specialist skill which involves a semi-judicial function. It involves weighing up the sources of evidence and making a judgement about who is 'right', deciding on winners and losers or a compromise which will invariably favour one side rather than the other.

I think the problem with a grievance committee made up of CDS citizens is that it would be unlikely to have these professional skills. It's also likely, in a small community such as ours that there will be very few people who are not 'friendly to party A' or 'friendly to party B' and, in these circumstances, there is no way I would subject myself to their judgement. The risk is that a kangaroo court packed with your enemy's mates would just rule against you for no good reason.

So I would favour professional mediation, provided by people who are outside of the CDS and who have the relevant skills and experience to citizens who voluntarily seek their help to resolve a conflict.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Lam Erin
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:00 am

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Lam Erin »

I am posting here the draft legislation on the grievance committee which Cadence and I prepared. I will present it to RA today and will be open to public comments afterwards. I hope we can pass this into law in the next RA.

Grievance Committee: Proposal by Cadence Theas and Lam Erin

Jurisdiction:
The Committee will have jurisdiction to deal with the resolution of all conflicts between all cds citizens. This includes CDS government members when they are involved in private disputes (disputes unrelated to the exercise of their duties as members of the government).

The Committee will seek the amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties in dispute and will make recommendations, adopt decisions (whose legal significance will be explained below) or issue warnings only if the parties fail to agree to an amicable resolution between themselves.

Powers of the Committee:
The Committee will not be a court, which means that it will have no authority to impose a ban on CDS citizens or other sanctions. However its decisions, recommendations and warnings will have to be respected by the parties in the dispute.

Failure to comply with the Committee's decisions, recommendations or warnings could result in a referral by the Committee of the case to The Scientific Council for the imposition of banishment (temporary or permanent) or other sanction.

In case of referral to the SC the latter will not reconsider the merits of the case but only the appropriate penalty for non-compliance.

Membership

The body of the Committee will be comprised of 5 members approved by the Representative Assembly (RA). Any CDS citizen will be eligible to apply by submitting a CV to RA. Decisions will be based on candidate's qualifications and experience of conflict resolution. Lawyers, teachers, managers, psychologists, police officers, individuals with experience of managing human relations or of involvement in disciplinary bodies (professional or other) is an indicative list of qualified individuals. All cases will be considered and RA will decide on the basis of grounds of qualification and experience.

Current members of CDS government (the Chancellor, RA members or members of the Scientific Council) cannot be appointed. However, members of SC may be asked to join the Committee in case the latter is unable to form a full panel to hear a case (see below).

The Committee should have at least 1 and preferably 2 members appointed from new cds citizens (meaning citizens who have been in CDS for less than 1 year since their appointment). This will help to make the committee more inclusive and will help incorporate new CDS citizens.

Term

Committee members will be appointed for 6 months. The appointments are individual meaning that the 6 months will be measured for each member separately. The term for each member can be extended for another 6 months by RA. Extension can be given if there are no candidates to replace the member of the Committee leaving office or if the RA is satisfied with the performance of the the current member in the Committee.

Further extension will be possible only in exceptional circumstances if there are no candidates to replace the member/s of the Committee leaving office or if RA is satisfied that the member performs an exceptionally good job in the Committee.

Procedures

One member of the Committee will be appointed as duty judge. Duty judges will be appointed on rotational basis for 2 weeks each, from the members of the Committee. The SC will have the responsibility of publishing the list of duty judges.

A duty judge will serve as the first point of contact in case a complaint or request for conflict resolution is launched. Individuals wishing to complain or wishing to ask the Committee to resolve their dispute will have to contact the duty judge to state the facts of their case and provide the evidence. The duty judge will advise the parties on the procedures and on the evidence the Committee needs.
In case of individual complaint the duty judge will contact the individual/s against the whom the complaint has been made and will ask them to submit their own evidence. The duty Judge will not contact the latter party if the evidence provided by the complainant is very poor and therefore inadequate.

The duty judge would consult other committee members on these issues before acting.

Following the collection of the evidence by the parties the Committee will meet without the parties to discuss if there is a case to hear. The relevant panel will comprise 3 of the 5 members of thee Committee. Those will be appointed according to the rotation: the panel will comprise of the current duty judge the previous and the next duty judge according to the rotation.

The parties will have the right to ask for exclusion of one committee member each (for bias, personal interest in the case or other reason). In the latter case the two remaining Committee members will be appointed in the panel., Members of the Committee can also voluntarily ask to be excluded from the hearing of the case for the same reasons.

In case, following the exclusions or for other reasons, the Committee is unable to find 3 members to deal with the case it will ask the SC to send one or more of its members to join the panel.

The Committee panel haring the case will be chaired by the duty judge who was contacted by the parties and who collected the evidence. This judge will also be responsible for handling the communication with the parties on behalf of the Committee. The parties are prohibited from contacting directly the other panel memberso n issues affecting their case. All communications with the Committee panel have to take place through the panel Chair.

Following the collection of the evidence the Committee will make an initial assessment of the case. If they think the evidence is weak and inadequate will reject the case. If not they will arrange a hearing were the parties will be asked to be involved. CDS citizens are welcome to attend the hearing, which must be public (unless the parties point to specific reasons for which the hearing has to be private and the Committee accepts those reasons)..

Decisions, recommendation and warnings

The Committee will hear the parties and will seek a resolution to the dispute which is based on the evidence and fair taking into account also The need to maintain peace in the Community and protect the CDS constitution, its laws and the community standards.

If the parties can offer their own mutually agreed resolution to their dispute, the Committee will accept that resolution provided that it does not violate CDS laws and the constitution.

The Commission decision does not have to allocate blame to either of the parties. The Commission cannot impose sanctions on the parties but will recommend a course of conduct or action plan which the parties will have to follow. in order to restore peace in the community and the relationship between the parties.

The Commission will warn the parties that failure to comply with its recommendation or with the settlement agreed by the parties would result in them (or the part breaching the decision/agreement) being referred to the SC for imposition of sanctions.

Any breach of the Commission decisions, recommendations or warnings should be reported to the panel that made the decision. The panel will issue a second and final warning on the party or the parties to comply. Failure to comply with the second warning will result in automatic referral to the SC. for the imposition of sanctions on the individual breaching the warning.

Who can apply for resolution of the conflict

Eligible to apply to the Committee for conflict resolution are the parties involved in the dispute, injured third parties or the CDS government (The Chancellor, RA or SC) in case the conflict has broader community impact.

Appeals

Appeal against the Committee decisions to the SC are allowed only on the following grounds.
1.Procedural failures (e.g the Committee did not consider evidence provided by the appellant or did not invite the appellant to the hearing)
2. Bias or conflicts of interest: in case Committee member/s who heard the case was biased or had a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

No other grounds of appeal are allowed.

Failure to attend the hearing is not an acceptable reason for an appeal. The Committee should work with the parties to ensure that the hearing takes place at a date and time suitable for the parties.
If a party in the dispute is unable to attend the hearing they should inform the duty judge in advance and ask for rescheduling of the hearing. Failure to do so will result in the hearing taking place without this party. The Committee will still make a decision in this case and will use the evidence already sent to the Committee by that party.

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often". Winston Churchill
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Are you guys F-ing serious?!

Post by Bromo Ivory »

This is perhaps the most shameful piece of legislation I have seen in CDS let alone SL.

All that will happen is the "popular" people will gang up on the "unpopular" ones and get them banned.

If this has passed, I will work tirelessly to undo it.

I had no idea that our tolerance for dissent in a purportedly Democratic SIM is so low.

We shoudl be working out how to get along with others, not ban the ones we don't like.

I won't post any accusations of "Joseph Stalin" since that is a bit far, but you are on that path if this passes.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Preliminary proposal for a grievance committee

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Bromo

We have discussed this proposal in another thread here. I tend to share your concerns about it but it seems to have run into the ground.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”