Talk:Archive:Ombudsman Appeals

Gareth, I must question some of this interpretation. From my understanding of the Charter text, and I drafted some of these sections, it was never the intent to have the Ombudsman be, other than in an extremely narrow sense, the final authority for appeals.

The model was, to a certain extent, taken from that of the U.S.Senate, where the Vice-President can only vote to break ties, although he may preside. In the case of the Appeals procedure, the preferred outcome would be that the MC designee and the EC designee would agree on the disposition of the appeal, so the Ombudsman would not need to vote. If they disagreed, the Ombudsman would break the tie, but even then, it's not a matter of the OMB making a ruling -- it's a matter of the OMB supporting the position of one designee.

My personal opinion, from the Charter work, is it was never expected for the OMB to be proactive, to be the authorityon interpreting the Charter, etc. If anyone was to be proactive, it was the ME. Some of the things we have experienced were not expected, and we need either interim rules or Chart amendments to deal with them.

For example, a mediator has to have the appearance and reality of neutrality. We don't want to cut off your wise comments, but I don't think the same person can be an early participant in increasingly heated discussion, and then try to mediate. What I believe would be a reasonable approach, if the OMB proper wanted to enter discussion, would be first to appoint an alternate mediator who will not participate in general discussion, but would act if mediation is requested. Personally, I don't think this needs the Charter to be amended, but others may not agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've said. I'm the final authority for appeals, no more. But those appeals have to be based on interpretation of the rules and the Charter. It's foolish to think that the Charter has to be modified or a new rule established in every case, the role of every judicial system is to interpret the law as written, and the law is changed only to alter interpretation built up by practice and precedent. It's my job to decide whether to hear appeals, and that decision has to be based on interpretation of rules and Charter. If there is a prima face case based on that interpretation, then there'll be an Appeals tribunal which itself will have to act by interpreting the rules and Charter. Those decisions then form precedents, that can only be changed by new rules and modifications to the Charter.

As for my role in mediation, that's only possible where the parties agree to my mediation. If I'm not asked, I have no role in mediation. But whether I'm asked or not, I have the same role as a Citizen to comment, and I never act as Ombudsman without declaring that. As you say, if you want mediation by someone else, then I will ask someone else, if the disputants also want mediation. But I haven't received any request from anyone in the case of Adolf Hitler.

You seem to be saying that if something can be seen to be inconsistent with the rules or Charter then it's inconsistent with the rules or Charter. No. If it can be seen to be consistent with rules or the Charter then it's consistent with the rules or Charter. That's where I stand.Gareth Leng 17:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)