BOARDWATCH

Description

Synonymous: Probable Cause & Conviction Disciplinary decisions, whether board members realize it or not, are made at PC (Probable Cause) meetings. This continues as a conspicuous, unacceptable and dangerous deficiency in the NCAB system. Currently, the full board membership sits in judgement at PC (i.e., preliminary hearings held in the absence of the accused), where much more wisely in the past, only one member did so. That member would decide if there was merit to allegations, and then was excused from any potential future hearing or judgement on the case. Many years ago, the NC State Bar (for instance) easily anticipated and preempted catastrophes from the obvious defects of the NCAB's current system by the establishment of separate panels for the determination of Probable Cause Findings against their own members. A word of caution may be in order for some of our current board members: Their decision for their system should not be viewed by our Board as an admission that actual or potential constituents of their board/panels may be any less self-disciplined or any less scholarly than our own regarding legal matters and acceptable judicial protocol. It is widely expected that some NCAB Members may swear up and down that they remain whole unbiased from their original findings of Probable Cause against an appraiser and equally unbiased by the re-accountings over the months (e.g., Probable Cause Summary hardcopies, periodic "Pending Case" handouts, etc.,) of alleged infractions. During all this "pre-programming," they have never once heard from the accused appraiser and have never seen his/her written response to the complaint--everything has been "summarized" for them at the indiscretion of their investigative staff. The correct response to these Members is: "That's good. This means that you may be normal. By definition, individuals generally fail to recognize the existence of, let alone the extent of, their own biases." To suggest that members have no "investment" in the ultimate outcome (e.g., hearing judgement & sentence) is folly. Members are self-rewarded by the validation of their own "collective wisdom" through convictions whereby sharply-honed instincts and instant insights from the scantiest of "facts" from months before have again proven infallibly sound. Also such convictions offer certain absolution to any moral, ethical or legal anxieties or concerns created by the prospect of having PCed the unguilty. On a more practical level, with the work long completed, the actual hearing proceedings themselves present a potent boost to the ego for some, while providing an ideal setting for day dreaming, business planning or napping for others. And their "sure to lose" statistics are left intact as a solid deterrent for future respondents who might similarly dare "challenge their authority" or otherwise contemplate the inconsiderate wasting of their valuable time by not accepting offered consent decrees (i.e., signed confessions). Already in a state of "inherent conflict of interests" by jury and judging their economic competitors, as reported by the NC Board of Ethics, the current system at the Board invites (i.e.

Products & services

Similar companies nearby