[mr1303]

Quick question

I'm always intrigued by appeals. Yesterday at a certain congress somewhere there was one going on during the dinner break and I was hovering to see what was going on, when I was asked to leave.

Is this normal?

[RMB1]

mr1303, on 2013-January-07, 14:06, said:

I'm always intrigued by appeals. Yesterday at a certain congress somewhere there was one going on during the dinner break and I was hovering to see what was going on, when I was asked to leave.

Is this normal?

(Yes)

Rules (laws and regulations) govern who may attend appeals and the assumption is that you may not attend without permission. The committee (and in particular, the chairman) is a power unto themselves and may ask others to attend and can permit others to attend.

There is a certain amount of qualified immunity (not the right phrase - IANAL) concerning what is said at an appeal - having uninvolved observers may prejudice this.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2013-January-07, 14:06, said:

I was hovering to see what was going on, when I was asked to leave.

Is this normal?

No, it is far from normal. IME, appeals are held away from where people are hovering; or, people just naturally butt out of meetings to which they were not invited.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the venue. Many of the sectionals I attend don't have a separate space available for ACs to use.

[Siegmund]

You can always ask the committee chairman, or other person in charge of organizing the proceedings, if they mind if you watch quietly.

I did that, on a random evening, the first time I attended an NABC.

I watched in horror as Vancouver Appeal #5 unfolded before my eyes. (The "oh, *****" ruling from 1999. The writeup a few months later in the Bulletin said that 'two young Canadians' got more than they bargained for when they asked to watch -- Alaskans, not Canadians but close enough.)

It was informative, from a procedural standpoint. Highlighted the risks of having committees composed of people who don't know the rules, and relying on only one person to interpret the rules for the committee.

[paulg]

The dearth of appeals in Scotland means that we are always happy to have an observer if they are looking for experience of the process with a view to being on ACs in the future.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-07, 16:54, said:

No, it is far from normal. IME, appeals are held away from where people are hovering; or, people just naturally butt out of meetings to which they were not invited.

If they hold it away from where people are likely to hover, doesn't that suggest that they don't want spectators? So if someone did wander in, wouldn't it still be normal to ask them to leave?

Or were you just taking advantage of the small ambiguity in the OP to answer a different question from what he was obviously asking?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-January-08, 09:44, said:

If they hold it away from where people are likely to hover, doesn't that suggest that they don't want spectators? So if someone did wander in, wouldn't it still be normal to ask them to leave?

Or were you just taking advantage of the small ambiguity in the OP to answer a different question from what he was obviously asking?

Both those paragraphs are accurate

Even if the appeal is being held smack in the middle of the playing area during the dinner break, it would be obvious to me that it was a meeting to which I wasn't invited; and instinct would be to stay away. I also believe that the appelants' and committee's sometimes emotional interactions which don't become part of the official record needn't to be available to the rest of us.

[Bbradley62]

paulg, on 2013-January-08, 02:54, said:

The dearth of appeals in Scotland means that we are always happy to have an observer if they are looking for experience of the process with a view to being on ACs in the future.

Do you expect them to ask permission to observe (even if you would always give that permission), or are you comfortable with them hovering and eavesdropping? I suspect that hovering and eavesdropping would be more likely to lead to the observer either only partially hearing something, or hearing something out of context.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2013-January-08, 02:54, said:

The dearth of appeals in Scotland means that we are always happy to have an observer if they are looking for experience of the process with a view to being on ACs in the future.

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-08, 12:02, said:

Do you expect them to ask permission to observe (even if you would always give that permission), or are you comfortable with them hovering and eavesdropping? I suspect that hovering and eavesdropping would be more likely to lead to the observer either only partially hearing something, or hearing something out of context.

I'd expect them to ask. We tend to have enough space at our events to hold appeals in a quiet area and eavesdroppers get shooed away.

[mycroft]

I would, were I interested, ask the chairman if I could attend, and abide the decision.

Hovering and overhearing not only has the problem of maybe getting what you hear wrong, but if you've formally noted your arrival, and the chairman can formally note the attendance, then some of the more contentious things that are said in appeals may be moderated for the audience, and *if something leaks*, you can be asked formally about it, instead of the assumption being that "there was somebody nosing around for gossip I remember seeing".

Normally an appeal is closed to the committee, the appropriate TD(s) and Law expert(s), participants and witnesses; exceptions probably can and are made regularly, but the fact that it is closed session and the public response is the writeup is a key part of a successful appeals process.

Having said that, I wish I had been audience to an appeal or two before I had to Present at my first one.

[gnasher]

I think it's reasonable to allow observers when the committee is hearing the evidence and the views of the players, but not when the committee is deliberating.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2013-January-08, 09:44, said:

If they hold it away from where people are likely to hover, doesn't that suggest that they don't want spectators?

Not necessarily. The most important feature of the location for an appeal is that it is somewhere quiet, so that the appeal can be heard without external distractons.

[jallerton]

mycroft, on 2013-January-08, 12:46, said:

I would, were I interested, ask the chairman if I could attend, and abide the decision.

Hovering and overhearing not only has the problem of maybe getting what you hear wrong, but if you've formally noted your arrival, and the chairman can formally note the attendance, then some of the more contentious things that are said in appeals may be moderated for the audience, and *if something leaks*, you can be asked formally about it, instead of the assumption being that "there was somebody nosing around for gossip I remember seeing".

Normally an appeal is closed to the committee, the appropriate TD(s) and Law expert(s), participants and witnesses; exceptions probably can and are made regularly, but the fact that it is closed session and the public response is the writeup is a key part of a successful appeals process.

Having said that, I wish I had been audience to an appeal or two before I had to Present at my first one.

You make some good points.

I've been on a couple of ACs where we have had an observer at the request of the Chief TD. In each case, the observer was a trainee TD who was able to gain an insight into the appeals process.

[pigpenz]

when I ran appeals at the Reno Regional back in 1991 they were genrally held in private
I dont know what would happen if someone asked to observe.....generally I would assume it would
ok to observe until the committee goes into discussion with each other...as sometimes comments
might not want to be made public or at least go on record.


usually after the committee meets they go over the results with both sides explaining their deciscion
sometimes this helps and other times it doesnt smooth things over.

I was allowed at District Recorder to observe other Appeals Committees

[gordontd]

pigpenz, on 2013-January-09, 18:14, said:

usually after the committee meets they go over the results with both sides explaining their deciscion
sometimes this helps and other times it doesnt smooth things over.

We have a different process here in the EBU: the committee passes on its decision to the TD, who conveys it to the two sides. They are not supposed to try to discuss it directly with the AC.

[paulg]

gordontd, on 2013-January-10, 02:35, said:

We have a different process here in the EBU: the committee passes on its decision to the TD, who conveys it to the two sides. They are not supposed to try to discuss it directly with the AC.

We do the same in Scotland, the only difference being that the TD always knows where to find the Scottish appellants to relay the decision.

[WellSpyder]

paulg, on 2013-January-10, 03:52, said:

We do the same in Scotland, the only difference being that the TD always knows where to find the Scottish appellants to relay the decision.

Are you implying that Scottish ACs invariably reach a conclusion before the bar shuts?

[paulg]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-10, 04:16, said:

Are you implying that Scottish ACs invariably reach a conclusion before the bar shuts?

I don't really understand the concept of a bar shutting. Is this a southern thing?

[gordontd]

paulg, on 2013-January-10, 07:38, said:

I don't really understand the concept of a bar shutting. Is this a southern thing?

We should really start a group for people who over-identify with the country they move to, and forget their roots!

Maybe our resident EBU American would care to join you?