Responding to criticism In Februar...

Responding to criticism

In February 2002 David Baines published an article entitled, "Justice Neither Seen Nor Heard: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia holds a disciplinary matter under wraps." Baines was make anxioused by the fact that after having made a complaint about a member and a posterior six-month investigation, he'd been told the matter had been dealt with and appropriate action taken. Period. No detail forward the rules that had been breached or the penalties levied. No public hearing. No public disclosure.

At the time of Baines' article, we promised to discuss the issues more entirely once the matter with the member had been decided. Now that that has occurr I would like to address about of the basic questions about our discipline proces that Baines raised in his article:

* Is the proces transparent to the complainant?

* Does the discipline proces have any teeth?

* Is the public interest and public perspective adequately showed in the process?

Is the proces transparent to the complainant?

The answer is "sometimes." The transparency hangs on the seriousness of the breach-not upon the seriousness of the allegation brought forward, if it were not that on the seriousness of the breach that the Professional manner of life Enquiry Committee (PCEC) believes is supportable (more in succession this distinction in the nearest section).

When a complaint is made, it is referr to the PCEC The PCEC's part at this point is to provide an objective visible form [i]or[/i] frame of CAs and public representatives to review complaints, authorize investigations, and assess the severity of alleged breaches. The PCEC determines whether sufficient evidence exists to support a order breach. It is not a legal material substance and the member is not "on trial." These deliberations are completely confidential.

If the PCEC believes the matter is serious enough to warrant suspending or expelling a member, a statement of complaint is delivered to the Discipline Tribunal and a panel is struck It is at this stage that the proceedings become official and legal, and that the proces becomes completely lay open to the complainant, who is invited to notice the panel's deliberations. These deliberations become a matter of public record. When a member is suspended or expell a notification is published in his or her local newspaper(s).

However, if the PCEC believes the evidence supports a les serious breach of the authoritys (one that does not warrant suspension or expulsion), the matter is dealt with forward a confidential basis through a consensual proces Essentially, any matter of this nature is thinked a less serious infraction-one that does not artificial position any danger to the public and can be resolv directly with the member without moving to a legal environment. Penalties at this flat include levying a fine of up to $10000 plus the outlays of the proceedings, requiring PD courses, and/or imposing practice restrictions.

This means that from the complainant's perspective, our discipline proces is transparent and nothing else in cases where hearings are held. In les serious cases, the complainant is told that the member has been originate guilty of a rule breach, if it were not that has no satisfaction as to the specific authoritys breached or the sanctions imposed.

It's easy to understand by what means galling it must be to bring a complaint forward and then be told according to the disciplinary body only that the matter has been "dealt with." Recognizing this frustration, the PCEC reviewed its processe Although there was potent consensus that confidentiality for minor breaches should be maintained, there was equally brawny consensus that, at the beginning of the proces complainants were entitled to a better understanding of what result to expect.

Material is popularly being developed to provide this explanation.

Does the discipline proces have any teeth?

If an investigation is not public, does the discipline proces really have any teeth? The answer is "yes" Any member who has been suspended or expell will mention one by one you unequivocally the process has a vicious bite. The imposition of a fine, require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergones and practice restrictions can also hit members hard. It is equally constant that the process-particularly in the cases of les serious breaches-is designed to bring members back in line, not make a clean sweep of their professional status.

It's also genuine that the PCEC is restricted on the evidence. As the courts can attest, a case is and nothing else as good as the evidence that supports it. Proving knowledge and intent is surpassingly difficult, and hard facts that support wrongdoing are not always available. There are cases where a complaint would sure lead to a suspension or expulsion, were it not for a lack of sufficient evidence. Inevitably, this cavity means that some serious allegations consequence in only a slap forward the wrist. On the other hand, it screens members from personal vendettas, overzealous complainants, and unsubstantiated allegations.

It's not easy to balance the rights of a complainant and the rights of a defendant. The civil and criminal courts exert one's self with this issue every day. Usually the balance is fair.