Complaint by the Chair is not covered.
There should be an opportunity for arbitration before issues escalate to the level whereby CC members are sanctioned, censured or whatever. Open and honest discussion with a neutral, external person could definitely help in some circumstances.
I don't understand your comment " Complaint BY the Chair is not covered". Do you mean, "Complaint ABOUT the Chair is not covered" because then I might agree, in many cases a member might want to complain about an "office bearer" but they could be extremely worried, it might be they are unhappy with all the office bearers and do not know who on earth they can send their complaint to. Hopefully, no-one would have a serious complaint that could not be dealt with at the next office bearers election....by not voting them in again! Agree that neutral arbitration could be a much better route in the first instance...
Should be something added in where there is a case that the member has no office bearers that they feel comfortable making a complaint to. This is where the link officer or someone similar should act as an impartial party to deal with it appropriately in the same way that the office bearers would should a complaint be made to them.
We followed the procedure and told we "done it wrong". We did it again, told it was "wrong again" and that we should have done it the first way.
It is worded in the loosest of ways that it can, and has, been interpreted with great variation. I don't feel that even officers understand or are clear on it.
The model scheme is silent on censure and it is a matter that should be handled by the board. In most places a censure and a suspension are different, but for community councils neither should really be hard-coded in a Scheme.
Complaint by the Chair is not covered.
There should be an opportunity for arbitration before issues escalate to the level whereby CC members are sanctioned, censured or whatever. Open and honest discussion with a neutral, external person could definitely help in some circumstances.
I don't understand your comment " Complaint BY the Chair is not covered". Do you mean, "Complaint ABOUT the Chair is not covered" because then I might agree, in many cases a member might want to complain about an "office bearer" but they could be extremely worried, it might be they are unhappy with all the office bearers and do not know who on earth they can send their complaint to. Hopefully, no-one would have a serious complaint that could not be dealt with at the next office bearers election....by not voting them in again! Agree that neutral arbitration could be a much better route in the first instance...
Should be something added in where there is a case that the member has no office bearers that they feel comfortable making a complaint to. This is where the link officer or someone similar should act as an impartial party to deal with it appropriately in the same way that the office bearers would should a complaint be made to them.
We followed the procedure and told we "done it wrong". We did it again, told it was "wrong again" and that we should have done it the first way.
It is worded in the loosest of ways that it can, and has, been interpreted with great variation. I don't feel that even officers understand or are clear on it.
The model scheme is silent on censure and it is a matter that should be handled by the board. In most places a censure and a suspension are different, but for community councils neither should really be hard-coded in a Scheme.
Again, an interesting topic that needs further discussion.
We have already used at Fort Seafield and Wallacetown
Agree with Cara answer.
Every CC member should be specifically trained in this regard so that there is no excuse for anyone to get the correct process wrong.