06-03-2012, 05:26 PM
Looking at this fresh as I have not been previously involved in this, I would make the following comments, which may prompt discussion:
Section 1 second paragraph - Personally I don't believe that this is needed given the jurisdiction detailed in paragraph 4.
Section 1- Last paragraph. It seems to be saying that the Standards Committee only has primary jurisdiction on PVG if it is not covered by associations and leagues. Is that the intention? What is the purpose of the mention of PVG?
Section 5 - "received within ten days" - within 10 days of what? There are a number of different options. I presume it is within 10 days of the complaint being made if by email.
Section 6 - I don't like the deletion of the word "normally". If an issue is serious enough to be raised at this level then I as a complainant would like the ability to take it straight to the top and not waste time with other routes. However I guess the word "appropriate" gives some wiggle room, but who decides on what is appropriate or not?
Section 6 - if other routes take more than 42 days to exhaust then the complainant would normally not be able to raise the issue with the Standards Committee? That does not seem correct. Should it be changed to "Complaints which refer to an incident which occurred more than 42 days before receipt of the complaint or 42 days after other routes have been exhausted will normally be time-barred."?
Section 1 second paragraph - Personally I don't believe that this is needed given the jurisdiction detailed in paragraph 4.
Section 1- Last paragraph. It seems to be saying that the Standards Committee only has primary jurisdiction on PVG if it is not covered by associations and leagues. Is that the intention? What is the purpose of the mention of PVG?
Section 5 - "received within ten days" - within 10 days of what? There are a number of different options. I presume it is within 10 days of the complaint being made if by email.
Section 6 - I don't like the deletion of the word "normally". If an issue is serious enough to be raised at this level then I as a complainant would like the ability to take it straight to the top and not waste time with other routes. However I guess the word "appropriate" gives some wiggle room, but who decides on what is appropriate or not?
Section 6 - if other routes take more than 42 days to exhaust then the complainant would normally not be able to raise the issue with the Standards Committee? That does not seem correct. Should it be changed to "Complaints which refer to an incident which occurred more than 42 days before receipt of the complaint or 42 days after other routes have been exhausted will normally be time-barred."?