QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 8:13pm)
The problem is not lack of process, the problem is the quazi-legal rubbish that James Forrester bequeathed to arbcom. Tools are not rights, and the motion should not worry about facts and findings, it should simply be:
"given recent events, we the members of the arbitration committee no longer have confidence in David's Gerard holding these tools. Since we grant them, we therefor remove them"
That says nothing about David Gerard, makes no "findings" but simply asserts that holding the tools is determined by retaining the (wholy subjective) confidence of the community-elected elected arbcom.
That probably would have been the cleanest finding. It is interesting that I recall under New York law, there is an obscure provision known as an Article 78 proceeding that, in part, states the decision of a body can be reviewed by a state court if it makes a:
QUOTE
...a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or...[emphasis mine]
Now, in NY, I'm told that 90% of the time these proceedings are brought against government agencies, but the other 10% of the time they are brought against private organizations, which in NY also includes unincorporated groups of more than 5 or 12 people who act with a common purpose (I don't have the exact language handy). I don't know what the laws of Florida, California, or the UK have to say about "arbitrary" actions, but it does seem odd that Mike would use a phrase that is a legal term of art in describing Arbcom's actions.