22-08-2013, 11:39 PM
Why - and how - did the Standards Committee become involved in this imbroglio? So, local resolution could not come into play in the particular circumstances. But, even before the - too specific? - proposed re-drafting of its Operating Procedures were posted, the existing non-specific format already provided for any disaffected party to appeal to the SC; but no complaint came from that direction. Or, at any rate, that is what the Minutes of the Council meeting state: rather, it came ‘unusually’ from the very people who were responsible for dealing with whatever had happened, and moreover who were empowered to do just that. Whose decision was it to refer the matter to the SC and why? And why did the SC accept this brief? In its Operating Procedures, ‘S.5 Instigation of action’ states: The Committee will not instigate actions into alleged breaches of Code, except on receipt of a competent complaint.
The Minutes of the Council meeting report that the SC took no evidence but was satisfied by written submissions - though not from the alleged injured party, who was notified (of what exactly?) by way of courtesy. Instead, these submissions came from the very people charged with dealing with the matter, and unspecified ‘others’ - who might they be? In itself, an admission of guilt is not an adequate reason to stop looking. (Perhaps, what was meant here was rehabilitation is preferable to persecution?)
Is it any wonder that questions should be asked of the SC? As well as professing ideals in its Code, it needs also to project them. A greater degree of transparency would not go amiss.
The SC is not part of the CS Executive. Its Rationale states ‘its primary role will be to develop and promote ethical standards among players, officials and other parties. It is hoped that the promulgation of these standards throughout the game will be even more effective (than imposing penalties) in reducing the incidence of undisciplined and inappropriate behaviour.’
The reality it seems is that the SC is still traversing its learning curve. We the members should give it time to develop and mature.
Correct procedure is basic to good governance, but it must be sound and it must be seen to be so. Why else do our courts provide Press and Public benches but to ensure that not only is Justice done but that it is seen to be done. How does the SC plan to promulgate ‘ethical standards’ if it does not publicise them?
Note: This post is not intended to be a comment on Donald’s fine oratory above. Rather, my focus is on the importance of procedure.
The Minutes of the Council meeting report that the SC took no evidence but was satisfied by written submissions - though not from the alleged injured party, who was notified (of what exactly?) by way of courtesy. Instead, these submissions came from the very people charged with dealing with the matter, and unspecified ‘others’ - who might they be? In itself, an admission of guilt is not an adequate reason to stop looking. (Perhaps, what was meant here was rehabilitation is preferable to persecution?)
Is it any wonder that questions should be asked of the SC? As well as professing ideals in its Code, it needs also to project them. A greater degree of transparency would not go amiss.
The SC is not part of the CS Executive. Its Rationale states ‘its primary role will be to develop and promote ethical standards among players, officials and other parties. It is hoped that the promulgation of these standards throughout the game will be even more effective (than imposing penalties) in reducing the incidence of undisciplined and inappropriate behaviour.’
The reality it seems is that the SC is still traversing its learning curve. We the members should give it time to develop and mature.
Correct procedure is basic to good governance, but it must be sound and it must be seen to be so. Why else do our courts provide Press and Public benches but to ensure that not only is Justice done but that it is seen to be done. How does the SC plan to promulgate ‘ethical standards’ if it does not publicise them?
Note: This post is not intended to be a comment on Donald’s fine oratory above. Rather, my focus is on the importance of procedure.