![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 49. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 4:53:35
DR. Hsiung,
As pertaining to the new rules that you have made, is there a procedure to follow to initiate your dialog to impeach a deputy? If so, could you post that procedure for one here to follow?
Lou Pilder
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:57:08
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 4:53:35
> DR. Hsiung,
> As pertaining to the new rules that you have made, is there a procedure to follow to initiate your dialog to impeach a deputy? If so, could you post that procedure for one here to follow?
> Lou PilderHmm.
Interesting question.
- Scott
Posted by muffled on September 13, 2006, at 7:20:46
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:57:08
Posted by wishingstar on September 13, 2006, at 7:41:33
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 4:53:35
I dont usually post over here on admin, but I just felt the need to right now...
In my opinion, I feel like the deputies are doing a great job. They have a job that is difficult - difficult because there are so many subjective, hard calls to make, difficult because they are here for their own support as well and are trying to walk a very fine line between "authority" and "poster", and difficult because they often have many friends here themselves and it can be emotionally difficult to sanction people you care about (for me anyway). No, theyre not perfect, but I truly dont think anyone on this board (or elsewhere) could do this job with 100% perfection. It's just too subjective, with the human factor involved and all. Of course this is just my opinion.
{{deputies}}
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 8:00:56
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by wishingstar on September 13, 2006, at 7:41:33
> I dont usually post over here on admin, but I just felt the need to right now...
>
> In my opinion, I feel like the deputies are doing a great job. They have a job that is difficult - difficult because there are so many subjective, hard calls to make, difficult because they are here for their own support as well and are trying to walk a very fine line between "authority" and "poster", and difficult because they often have many friends here themselves and it can be emotionally difficult to sanction people you care about (for me anyway). No, theyre not perfect, but I truly dont think anyone on this board (or elsewhere) could do this job with 100% perfection. It's just too subjective, with the human factor involved and all. Of course this is just my opinion.
>
> {{deputies}}
Yes.{{deputies}}
- Scott
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2006, at 8:21:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by SLS on September 13, 2006, at 6:57:08
Could someone explain what impeachment is? We don't have it in the UK, and the only thing I know about it was when Clinton was impeached over the Monica Lewinsky scandal..
It sounds, to me, a very legal term that would see a deputy stripped of their "title" and role.
If my understanding is correct, I hope that a) we all get to have a say (as in act as the jury), and b) it is only ever requested for the most serious infractions. I know there have never been such infractions by a deputy so far, so I have faith it will never be needed.
Can anyone correct me please?
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 8:26:41
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-impch, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 4:53:35
Friends,
It is written here,[...serious infractions...]
There are generally agreed upon infractions of officials behavior that are considered to be serious infractions.
If you would like a list of these generally considered serious infractions, you could email me if you like and then make your own determination as to what are serious infractions or not in a mental health community.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:53:45
In reply to impeachment?, posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2006, at 8:21:04
>
> It sounds, to me, a very legal term that would see a deputy stripped of their "title" and role.
Basically. That's the end result, at least.
>
>
> Could someone explain what impeachment is? We don't have it in the UK, ...Well, you kinda do have it there, just not the way we have it here...
From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Anglo-French empecher, enpechier to ensnare, impede, prosecute, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office c : to remove from office especially for misconduct
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>"From Wikipedia:
"In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement.
Impeachment occurs rarely enough for many in a country to misunderstand its nature. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.
One tradition of impeachment has its origins in the law of England and Wales, where the procedure last took place in 1806. Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many nations around the world, including the United States, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, and the Republic of Ireland."
Posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:56:01
In reply to impeachment?, posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2006, at 8:21:04
Just a little bit from another perspective:
There are rules in place at this site for the protection of posters here. Those rules include not posting things that might lead others to feel accused or put down.
I can't imagine anything that would lead a deputy to feel accused or put down more than a question about impeachment.
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 11:07:53
In reply to You know what bothers me about this thread?, posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:56:01
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674449.html
Not sure how this fits in with impeachment.
Also see Dr Bob's new post about two worlds.
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2006, at 12:41:53
In reply to Re: impeachment? (long) » NikkiT2, posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:53:45
So, my understanding is that the final decision rests with a vote of the "house" as it were.. is that corect?
Could you maybe explain to me how it could be used here, in your understanding?
Oh, and I agree with your second post. I've been through the board today, and I think I am missing the threads where the option to impeach was discussed.
I feel very pretty today.. ;)
Nikki
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 12:52:13
In reply to You know what bothers me about this thread?, posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:56:01
It's not any worse than email asking you to resign.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 8:26:41
Friends,
There is written here about impeachment of a deputy.
This thread, innitiated by me, is about the administrative procedure {in view of the new rules} as to what the previous procedure was.
The previous procedure could be compromised now by the new rules pertaining to URLs and such.
Now here is a post by Dr. Hsiung that describes the previous procedure.
I ask:
A. could we use the same procedure?
B. If not , then what?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/475558.html
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 13:58:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:06:41
In reply to A (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 13:58:12
A
If the objection is to an action taken in the course of deputorial duties.
If the objection is to anything else, see
B
Follow the new procedures for objections to link URL's regarding the reason for your request, although I suppose general calls for impeachment can be made on the board, unless Dr. Bob rules otherwise.
Emailing Dr. Bob and the deputies has worked ok in the past hasn't it?, so you have the weight of past practice behind you, and should feel free that you won't be in any trouble for calling for deputorial resignations or impeachment by email. I don't see how any of the rules has changed in that regard.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:29:21
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
Friends,
It is written here,[...deputies doing a good job...]
Well, that is not usually the issue for impeachment, although the general poor job performance could be a reason to innitiate impeachment.
Many think that William Jefferson Clinton was doing a good job, but was there not an issue outside of his performance that innitiated the impeachment procedings? And Andrew Johnson and some that resigned thinking thst they could be impeached- Richard Nixon? And Spiro Agnew?
There are some generally accepted reasons that are used to impeach an official that are outside the fact that the official may be doing an overall good job. These reasons overide the official's ability to do his/her job.
we recently had an assistant supt. of schools here arrested for drunk driving. The school board impeached the assistant superintendent who had an excellant job performance. The school board's argument was that the employee's conduct, even outside the rhelm of emplotment was deterimental to the school. This is in the courts now and I think that the assistant supt. will prevail in this case.
But there was a teacher that called a student a name in class and was terminated (impeached). That teacher had an excellant job performance. The teacher lost on appeal.
You see, officials generally are held accountable in a different standard than non-officials because they generally are in a position of trust to others. The school board's argument against the assistant supt. is that the school does not endorse drunkeness and hold the employees to be exemplers.
A woman teacher here in a private religious school was recently terminated because the school held that only men can teach the bible to others.She had taught for many years and had a good performance record.
But in U.S. Supreme court vs Bob Jones University, the court did not accept their doctrine that those that belived in inter- racial marrige could be barred from being admitted to the college because their policy was racist and aginst the public's interest, even though it was a private school. This is an interesting opinion and was brought by the IRS to exclude the university from having a tax favore as a religious institution.
So there are issues of the public's interest as well as job performance?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:29:21
Lou, you wouldn't be accusing deputies of being in violation of their morals clause, would you?
I might be forced to take umbrage if that's your meaning.
Or are you merely saying that impeachment can be called upon for any reason at all having nothing to do with job performance? I would have to agree with that, and take no umbrage at all.
I mean after all, the poor woman did nothing wrong by being born with two X chromosomes.
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:43:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Please overlook previous reference to taking umbrage. Should have checked my dictionary definition first. My apologies.
What I meant to say is that I will be very angry.
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:44:35
In reply to Whoops., posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:43:48
It does say perceived. Which I suppose would be ok.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:59:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Dinah,
You wrote,[...the..woman did nothing wrong by being born with two X chromosomes...].
If you are referring to the woman that the religious school terminated because their policy is that only men can teach the bible to others?
You also wrote,[...you wouldn't be accusing deputies in violation of their moral clause, would you?..]
No.
I innitiated this thread because of the new rules in relation to URLs being posted. I have read your reply to me in the other post, and I think that you are saying that Dr. Hsiung's previous post about impeacmnet is still the same, with the exception of posting a URL of the deputies post?
Now that I have more infomation, now I can procede with Dr. Hsiung's policy about impeachment.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 15:13:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Dinah,
Are you saying that impeachment can be called upon for {any} reason..having nothing to do with job performance?
There are generally accepted criteria for innitiating impeachment in different countries for public officials. There are definitions for school employees and others that are employed by states and municiplities.
But as to my meaning that impeachment could be innitiated for reasons other than job performance, the answer is yes.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:27:22
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:59:49
No, I mean that any objections to posts or posters should be emailed. But that if you have problems with official actions of a deputy in her deputorial capacity, then I think Dr. Bob exempts that from the rule.
So if you think a deputy should be impeached for something they did while using official language, and saying that they were acting as deputy for Dr. Bob, I think you can bring that up here.
If you have a problem with something a deputy did in their dual role as poster, the same rules apply as to all posters. Email it.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:38:01
In reply to Re: You know what bothers me about this thread?, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 12:52:13
I do empathize with you about that, Mel. I was never fond of those messages, either.
Still, I suppose we are all free to make those types of requests. (Dr. Bob is free to set consequences if necessary, but that's another issue). We can even call for "impeachment", resignation, or termination of someone just because we don't like the feelings they expressed or the rational reactions they have to our words.
We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil.
That doesn't mean that the request has merit.
I'm glad that in courts, organizations, boards, etc. whether the request has merit is usually assessed to some degree before undertaking any impeachment proceedings or similar action. I think that initial "screening" is a good thing. Otherwise, society would be impeaching right and impeaching left all day long, every day, and never get anything done.
Wouldn't that be cheerful? ;)
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 17:06:47
In reply to Anyone can call for impeachment » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:38:01
"We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil."
I'm not left handed.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 17:12:44
In reply to Re: Anyone can call for impeachment » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 17:06:47
> "We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil."
>
> I'm not left handed.I'm not left handed either. ;)
And you're not that other stuff that I've read, either. Never thought you were. Never saw any evidence to suggest it, either.
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.