Difference between revisions of "California Judicial Committee August 2019 Appeal Relating to Motion to Suspend Membership"

From LPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(add ruling)
(add hearing details)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
* [[Bob Weber]]
 
* [[Bob Weber]]
 
* [[Susan Marie Weber]]
 
* [[Susan Marie Weber]]
 +
 +
==Hearing Details==
 +
 +
The scheduled start time was 6:30pm. The hearing was formally called to order at 6:35pm and adjourned at 9:03pm.
 +
 +
===Announced Agenda===
 +
 +
# Preliminary Business.
 +
# Opening statements by the appellants and respondents, in that order.
 +
# Questions for either side from members of the Judicial Committee.
 +
#Closing statements by the appellants and respondents, again in that order.
 +
 +
'''Time limits:'''
 +
Opening and closing statements combined will be limited to 30 minutes for each side. Each side may divide that time as they wish between their opening and closing statement.
 +
The time anyone is allowed to respond to questions will be at the discretion of the JC member asking the question, and will not count against their 30 minute limit.
 +
 +
===Attendees===
 +
 +
;Judical Committee
 +
* Joe Dehn (chair)
 +
* Dr. Matthew Pautz
 +
* Jill Pyeatt
 +
* Bob Weber
 +
* Susan Marie Weber
 +
;Appellants
 +
* Robert Imhoff
 +
* Jennifer Imhoff
 +
;Respondent
 +
* Mimi Robson (LPC Chair)
 +
;Other Members of LPC Executive Committee
 +
* Rick Dawson
 +
* Chuck Hamm
 +
* Steve Haug
 +
* Rebecca Lau
 +
* Brent Olsen
 +
* Jillian Olsen
 +
* Jon Prosser
 +
* Boomer Shannon
 +
* Joshua Smith
 +
* Paul Vallandigham
 +
;Other
 +
*Richard Brown (expert witness for respondent)
 +
*Emily Tilford (maker of original complaint)
 +
*Kennita Watson (member of Santa Clara County EC)
 +
 +
===Confidentiality===
 +
All attendees confirmed that they understood and agreed to the following statement regarding confidentiality presented by the Judicial Committee Chair:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
    Note that the issues raised in the current appeal do not directly require discussion of aspects of the broader matter which might require confidentiality, and I will be asking that everyone speaking during the hearing keep that in mind and do their best to speak in terms that address only the current issues. However, it is possible that some people will find it difficult to express their views on one topic without mentioning the other, or that somebody might simply slip up and say something on a confidential topic unintentionally. For this reason, I will be asking all participants, on the record, to agree to keep confidential any such information that comes up during this hearing, that is not otherwise available to them from some other source.
 +
</blockquote>
  
 
==Ruling==
 
==Ruling==

Revision as of 12:55, 6 September 2019

At its 10 August 2019 meeting, the LPC Executive Committee voted to suspend the memberships of Robert Imhoff-Dousharm and Jennifer Imhoff-Dousharm, who then appealed this action to the LPC Judicial Committee on the grounds that required process had not been followed before this action was taken.

Website

Timeline

  • Appeal Filed: 23 August 2019
  • Hearing: 5 September 2019 6:30pm (telephone conference)

Appellants/Petitioners

Appellees/Respondants

Members of Judicial Committee

Hearing Details

The scheduled start time was 6:30pm. The hearing was formally called to order at 6:35pm and adjourned at 9:03pm.

Announced Agenda

  1. Preliminary Business.
  2. Opening statements by the appellants and respondents, in that order.
  3. Questions for either side from members of the Judicial Committee.
  4. Closing statements by the appellants and respondents, again in that order.

Time limits: Opening and closing statements combined will be limited to 30 minutes for each side. Each side may divide that time as they wish between their opening and closing statement. The time anyone is allowed to respond to questions will be at the discretion of the JC member asking the question, and will not count against their 30 minute limit.

Attendees

Judical Committee
  • Joe Dehn (chair)
  • Dr. Matthew Pautz
  • Jill Pyeatt
  • Bob Weber
  • Susan Marie Weber
Appellants
  • Robert Imhoff
  • Jennifer Imhoff
Respondent
  • Mimi Robson (LPC Chair)
Other Members of LPC Executive Committee
  • Rick Dawson
  • Chuck Hamm
  • Steve Haug
  • Rebecca Lau
  • Brent Olsen
  • Jillian Olsen
  • Jon Prosser
  • Boomer Shannon
  • Joshua Smith
  • Paul Vallandigham
Other
  • Richard Brown (expert witness for respondent)
  • Emily Tilford (maker of original complaint)
  • Kennita Watson (member of Santa Clara County EC)

Confidentiality

All attendees confirmed that they understood and agreed to the following statement regarding confidentiality presented by the Judicial Committee Chair:

Note that the issues raised in the current appeal do not directly require discussion of aspects of the broader matter which might require confidentiality, and I will be asking that everyone speaking during the hearing keep that in mind and do their best to speak in terms that address only the current issues. However, it is possible that some people will find it difficult to express their views on one topic without mentioning the other, or that somebody might simply slip up and say something on a confidential topic unintentionally. For this reason, I will be asking all participants, on the record, to agree to keep confidential any such information that comes up during this hearing, that is not otherwise available to them from some other source.

Ruling

The LPC Judicial Committee voted to deny the appeal of Robert and Jennifer Imhoff-Dousharm, filed 23 August 2019, to overturn, on procedural grounds, the action of the Executive Committee in suspending their memberships.

The vote was 3 to 2. Voting not to overturn the action were Dr. Matthew Pautz, Bob Weber, and Susan Marie Weber. Voting to overturn the action were Joe Dehn and Jill Pyeatt.

This appeal was based on objections to the procedures followed by the Executive Committee before voting on the suspension. In making this ruling, the Judicial Committee specifically did not address the merits of the suspension itself. Arguments and evidence relating to such issues as guilt or innocence of any wrongdoing or the appropriateness of membership termination as a penalty were not considered as part of this proceeding.

This decision should not be seen as in any way prejudicing the right of the appellants to appeal the suspension itself, as provided for in Bylaw 5, Section 6, or the outcome of any such appeal.