Bill Proposal: Ombudsman Act

[Bromo Ivory]

Another Idea I'd like to propose

Given the tumuluous nature of relations within CDS, and how it sometimes turns nasty, I would like to talk about a possible "neutral party" approach that can work well if the right individual is found to do it. In some ways the SC performs this function, but the duties are wide enough, that some things the SC wouldn't want to get involved with, or a paritcularly sensitive matter, or one where the SC members would have a hard time getting involved with due to the tight knit relationship of the community, this might offer an alternate way of handling some issues.

I know what's below isn't terribly tight ... but I woud like to have a discussion on this as a possible draft of a law?

Ombudsman Act

The Office of the Chancellor shall nominate and the RA approve an Ombudsman to help mediate disputes between citizens. The term shall be until the next election, but can be reappointed and affirmed an unlimited number of times. The Ombudsman can only be removed "for cause" decided by the SC, "a crime of moral teriptude" decided by the SC or a vote of "no confidence" brought by the Chancellor and approved by the RA. The office shall have the authority to receive complaints of disputes between citizens, and will offer neutral mediation, or neutral investigation. The Ombudsman shall be required to keep all complaints and proceedings confidential, subject only to review by the SC in private meetings. The Ombudsman can make recommendations to the Chancellor, SC and RA, but the reports are advice for proceeding. In the case of a sensitive matter, the Ombudsman can stand in for a citizen that might feel reprisals. The Ombudsman must receive all complaints, but is under no obligation to act if he or she feels the claim is spurious.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Why is this better than NL 5-20 Arbitration Act?

NL 5-20 is much more flexible because it allows the parties in conflict to pick their own arbiter. Imagine that one or both parties actually mistrust the Ombudsman!

[Bromo Ivory]

Why is this better than NL 5-20 Arbitration Act?

NL 5-20 is much more flexible because it allows the parties in conflict to pick their own arbiter. Imagine that one or both parties actually mistrust the Ombudsman!

Because not all "conflicts" are appropriate for arbitration according to that law which is simply a method of dispute resolution. In cases of crimes being committed (a 3rd party observer), or abuse, or anything else where someone feels the possibility of retribution. The law doesn't cover those sort of cases with any sort of protection of a "whistleblower."

Plus the community at large can get into the unhelpful case of "victim blaming" and a lot of "well they deserved it" in the case of abuse or criminal conduct. THis would also allow TOS violations to be investiagted and acted upon as TOS violations and not disputes between people. Because a lot of bad things are not disputes.

The weakness of it all is the character of the ombudsman. Anyone who is politically active or rather outspoken (like me) is likely going to be a poor choice - since the ombudsman has to be approachable by anyone.