Proposed Change: 18-01-09
 

C. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

Section 6.

Page 19

New 6.8  The Hearing Body shall consist of nine (9) members in good standing, five (5) of which shall constitute a quorum for hearing any disciplinary matter.  The Hearing Body shall be an independent hearing body and shall be appointed annually by the Board of Directors.  Each Hearing Body member shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years.  Each year, three members shall be appointed by the Board of Directors except for the first year of the Hearing Body’s existence which shall be as follows:  1) the Board of Directors will appoint three members for an initial one year term, after which three members will be appointed by the Board of Directors for a three year period, 2) the Board of Directors will appoint three members for an initial two year term, after which three members will be appointed by the Board of Directors for a three year term, and 3) the Board of Directors will appoint three members for an initial three year term after which three members will be appointed on a normal rotating basis.  The Hearing Body is authorized to replace any of its members for any reason by majority vote.  The members of the Hearing Body shall serve until their successors are appointed by the Board of Directors.

 Renumber subsequent paragraphs.

Section 16.  The decision and action of the NRHA Executive Board shall be final and binding upon all parties.  Any aggrieved party to any protest may appeal the decision of the Hearing Body upon the payment of a $500 fee to the NRHA within ten (10) days of the announcement by the Hearing Body of its decision.

In addition, change all places where it says “Executive Board” or “NRHA Executive Board” to “Hearing Body” from page 18 through 22.  In addition, the words “Executive Board” and “NRHA Executive Board” should be changed where they are found in the following rules:  6.7 and the old 6.8 and all the rules following through Section 17 on Page 22. 

 

Intent of Proposal (include additional pages as necessary):

In the course of the 2007 formal internal review of NRHA by the Organizational Review Task Force an evaluation of the judicial functions of the organization was conducted. It became evident in that process that the existing mechanism for bringing protests forward, evaluating those protests, passing judgment and formulating appropriate sanctions was cumbersome and time consuming for the entity charged with that responsibility,( The Executive Board). It was also apparent that the hearing process generally occupied a "second tier" level of emphasis on the EB( the legislative and management functions generally taking a larger share of energy than judicial). It was felt by the ORTF that the judicial component of EB function was not only viewed as a secondary function of the EB, but that it also was, by it's very structural nature lacking in autonomy. In response to these perceived flaws in the NRHA judicial mechanism the ORTF recommended the creation of a new independent Hearing Body for NRHA. 

 

The goals in creating an independent Hearing Body are:

  1. To relieve the Executive Board of the burden of conducting the judicial reviews for NRHA

  2. To establish an autonomous judicial body within NRHA with a purely judicial function

  3. To increase the expertise and facility with which the judicial process of NRHA is conducted

  4. To improve the actual and perceived legitimacy of judgments handed down by NRHA

 

The structure of the Hearing Body is:

  1. Nine members made up of three groups, each with three year terms.

  2. The members will be appointed by the Executive Board and approved by the Board of Directors

  3. Current EB or BOD members will not be eligible to be on the Hearing Body

  4. Each case brought forward by the protest mechanism will be randomly assigned on an evenly rotating basis to a member who will "manage" the case. This management function will include making sure that all clerical and presentation functions are met as the case goes through a two part process; A; Deciding if the protest has merit and therefore should be brought forward for a hearing and B; Conduct of a hearing of cases deemed to require such action

  5. After review all judgments resulting from the confidential votes of all nine members of the Hearing Body will be issued in written form by the case manager or a member assigned by the manager to perform that task.

  6. The members of the Hearing Body will, of course, be known but the identity of the manager of a specific case and the author of the report on that case will not be public knowledge.

  7. The individual or group upon whom the Hearing Body has passed judgment has /have the right to appeal that judgment to the Executive Board within ten days of the judgment and upon submission of a $500 fee to do so.