[blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[JOAN GERARD]

Hi Richard,

I'm not anxious to go on and on about this point. But I do agree with the
fact that when  both sides are not able in some instances to give their side
to the Screening Director this is not advisable. It was, in fact, why I had
a problem.However,  I was assured that the instances of this are extremely
rare and that when they do happen , every attempt is made to find the
"non-appealing" side as quickly as possible.

In the role that I had, "Director of Appeals" representing the Board of
Directors, changing this method was not within my job description. This is
left up to the Chief Tournament Director and the Tournament staff. I might
bring this up to our Bridge Committee and see what they think . Will let
you know if there is any change in procedure. But I repeat that a reversal
of a TD ruling in Screening is definitely rare.

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: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> >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
>
> Hi Joan
>
> It seems to me that the procedure as described is not fully adequate.
>
> In a normal appeal both sides are invited to give their version of the
> facts.  In this de facto Screening Director appeal, the version of the
> facts is that of the complaining side and the DIC - the non-complaining
> side is apparently not consulted (unless you accidentally omitted to
> relate that step in the process).
>
>
> 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
>