|
Chapter 12 Factors affecting
deliberation
12.1 Resignation from Membership
In situations in which a charged member resigned from ITAA
membership in the face of an Ethics Committee investigation, and a violation of
the Code of Ethics is subsequently proven, any publication of the findings and
actions of the Ethics Committee shall include the fact of the member's
resignation.
12.2 Action during Litigation
Whilst civil or criminal litigation pending against members
might not be a bar to the consideration of complaints by ITAA, the ITAA Ethics
Committee will not normally proceed with complaints until the civil or criminal
actions have been finalised. It shall be within the discretion of the Ethics
Committee whether to proceed during the course of litigation or to wait until
its completion. The time period between the lodgement of a formal complaint to
the ITAA and the resolution of the civil or criminal litigation will not be
counted in any time limits for the ITAA ethics processes.
12.3 Findings of Other Professional Associations,
Regulatory Bodies, and Courts as the Basis for a Finding of a Violation the
Code of Ethics
It is incumbent for members to maintain their good standing
with other professional associations to which they belong and with regulatory
boards which have jurisdiction over their professional practice, as well as to
avoid conduct which could lead to conviction of felonies or misdemeanours
related to their qualifications or functions. When a member has been
disciplined by another professional association or regulatory board, or
convicted of a felony or a misdemeanour related to his or her qualifications or
functions by a court, it is the policy of the ITAA Ethics Committee and/or
hearing board that the Committee will review the situation.
12.4 Respondent's Demonstration of Evidence to Overcome
Presumption
In order to overcome the presumption of an ITAA member not
maintaining their good standing with other professional associations or with
regulatory bodies which have jurisdiction over their professional practice or
conduct, the respondent must prove to the hearing board's satisfaction one of
the following:
12.4.1 A Flawed Process
That the process was so flawed that the finding of the
association or board is not entitled to a presumption of correctness (for
example, demonstrated bias of one of the decision makers, failure of the body
to allow the respondent to be heard, etc.).
12.4.2 Action Too Severe
That in the case of a disciplinary action by an association
or board, the action was far in excess of the respondent's conduct.
12.4.3 Absent Evidence: The Hearing Board's Recommended
Action
In the absence of compelling evidence of one or both of the
above, the ITAA hearing board and/or Ethics Committee will not question or go
behind the finding of the association, board, or court, and will move on to its
decision about what disciplinary action it will recommend.
12.4.4 Other Charges Based on Actions by Disciplinary
Bodies
On occasion, when a respondent is charged by the Ethics
Committee with an alleged violation of the Code on the basis of the action by
another association, board, or court and the Committee also decides to charge
the respondent with additional alleged violations of the ITAA Code of Ethics
growing out of facts related to the charge of violation, then the following
principles will be applied:
i. Clear Evidence
If the evidence is clear concerning these other alleged Code
of Ethics violations, the hearing board and/or the Ethics Committee may make a
finding of violations.
ii. Disputed Evidence
However, if there is a dispute concerning the facts of these
other alleged violations, the hearing board and/or the Ethics Committee at its
own discretion may decide to drop the other alleged Code of Ethics violations
and rely solely on the finding of the other professional bodies regarding the
alleged violation/s. Since the hearing board and/or the Ethics Committee must
carefully allocate its limited resources to conduct investigations, it is
appropriate for them to limit investigations in cases where there is a serious
factual dispute and no clear allegation of violation.
|
