本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛This year, we received 10 complaints about the board itself. Complainants are often bewildered by the jurisdictional arguments and procedural rules they face during the board's review process, as well as its inability to deal with their core concerns.

In a recent CFSRB decision, a board member considered the strictures of the
current complaint scheme, and observed that:

…the Board does not participate in assessing the validity of any complaints
on their merits, nor is there anything for the Board to overturn or quash in
such a process. The Board’s only substantive remedies are to redirect
the complaint for further review or to order a CAS to provide written
reasons for its “decision,” i.e. the decision whether to take further
action at the completion of the complaints process.

The board member went on to note that people who raise concerns about
the conduct of CASs end up confused when they find that the board’s “review” is
restricted to consideration of procedural allegations. He noted that an independent
investigative model – i.e., using an ombudsman or similar body – had been rejected in
favour of an adversarial model in which “complainants bear the burden of advancing
their complaints within the very organization about which they are complaining.” He
added that complainants might feel vulnerable and fear retribution for participating in
the complaint procedure.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net