[blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[JOAN GERARD]

Hi Richard,

I actually had a long discussion last year with either Barry Rigal or a high
level TD when I found out that a Screening Director had over-ruled a "floor"
decision. I thought, at the time, that was wrong.  After hearing the
explanation and the procedure, I am more comfortable with what occurs.

 It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this happens, the
Screening Director goes back to the DIC of  that room where the decision was
made, explains the reason why he believes the decision was wrong by the TD's
and with agreement from the original decision makers - overturns the
original decision made. Obviously, this occurs only when new facts develop
during the screening process.

Best regards, Joan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: "JOAN GERARD" <joanandron at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Joan Gerard:
>
> [snip]
>
> >the Screening Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any
> >opinion offered would be strictly that -  an opinion..... The ACBL
> >tries to use some of its most competent directors for this Process.
>
> [snip]
>
> >(and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!)
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Some years ago some Screening Directors had a habit of not merely
> offering opinions, but actually changing a table Director's ruling
> upon a complaint from an aggrieved party.  Some years ago there was no
> consensus within ACBL management as to whether this practice should
> continue.
>
> Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has
> ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in
> effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors?
>
> Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors
> act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion?
>
> :-)
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch, DIAC
> 02 6225 6285
>
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This
email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
> privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities
other
> than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
> has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
> privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at
www.immi.gov.au
> See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>