I read through this and really believe you're missing my point.
1) I agree there's a problem.
2) I agree that "something" should be done.
3) I disagree with the approach espoused in this document, specifically with
the granting of plenipoteniary powers to the ombudsman without necessary,
well-defined, agreed upon procedures and without sufficient checks and balances.
I'm at this point unclear why we're jumping to this approach rather than first
getting the "investigate, mediate and recommend" parts of a typical ombudsman's
job up and working. If, at a later time, that approach isn't sufficient to
resolve the accumulated issues, we can then talk about adding teeth to the
process and figuring out whether to place them with the ombudsman, or in some
other process.
Mike
At 06:45 PM 3/19/2014, Ofer Inbar wrote:
What I see here is a catalogue of ways things could possibly go wrong
with a process like this in place, if it were mishandled, and the
worst case happened. Balanced against an implied hypothetical status
quo which is merely the absence of these potential problems. It seems
to me a perspective firmly grounded in the notion that the status quo
is problem-free, and that any slight possibility of a significant
problem with a procedure intended to address the situation is
therefore a reason not to implement that procedure. My impression is
that the status quo is rife with problems and needs to be addressed,
so we're weighing the potential for an occasional problem against the
certainty of frequent problems now. That perspective seems missing
from this objection.
I also think some of this catalogue of potential problems is based on
a misreading of the current proposal, but that's a separate issue that
a few other people have already addressed.
-- Cos