- Email: [email protected]
A Code of Conduct for Members
A Code of Conduct for Members At the last Annual General Meeting held in Harrogate, 4 November 1989, a significant change in the Constitution was approved by Members present, following a motion put forward by the Vice President, Dr PH Whitehead and seconded by Mr RA Cooke. The proposed amendment to the Constitution related to Clause 19:
The Council may remove a Member from the Society other than for non-payment of subscription if in the opinion of the Council the interests of the Society require it. Such a matter may be referred to the Council in writing by not less than twenty Ordinary Members. The motion proposed: a) that Rule 19 of the Society's Constitution dated November 1988 be deleted. b) that Rule 19 of the Society's Constitution read as follows:
The Society shall have a Code of Conduct binding on all members. Any complaint made about a member concerning professional conduct will first be examined by the Membership and Ethics Committee existing at that time, who shall decide the merits of the complaint prior to referring it to a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee shall comprise the President or another designated officer of the Society, two members of Council and two Ordinary Members who are not members of Council, which shall be constituted as the need arises. The findings of this Disciplinary Committee will be referred to Council who, if in their opinion the interests of the Society require it, may remove or suspend that Member from the Society. The Code of Conduct referred to in this proposal is as detailed on page 00 of this Journal. Dr Whitehead in proposing the motion said that no better justification for the change could be found than that given in the President's address to the Society in 1988. "The introduction of a Code of Conduct and disciplinary machinery to enforce it, would enhance the professional status of forensic science. With the introduction of various Diplomas and the probable widening role of the Society as a major accreditating and standard-setting body in technical expertise, possession of its Membership will be increasingly recognised as qualifying a forensic scientist for employment in many countries. With this role must also go the responsibility for maintaining standards of professional and personal conduct, for if Society Diplomas become instrumental in gaining appointments and promotions for scientists, then the Society has a duty to see that such qualifications continue to be held in good repute by the recipient Members for the rest of their professional careers." [I]. Dr Whitehead then said that unhappily on occasions members found themselves at odds with another. At present members have only Clause 19 to initiate action against another member whose behaviour in their view is not acceptable. This clause is not a very sophisticated way of handling such sensitive matters. While not intended to show bias against any particular group within the Society, clearly those official bodies who employ large numbers of scientists in one location are able to co-ordinate action against another member much more easily than the individual JFSS 1990; 30(1): 59-60
59
forensic scientist in private practice. Further it does not give Council a range of options to pursue in the event of a complaint. The whole basis for our proposed change is to ensure that Council has the mechanism to investigate any complaints of one member against another in a manner that is not only fair but is seen to be fair. Two members felt that the existing Clause 19 was perfectly adequate, and had strong reservations about the proposed changes. Godfrey Lee pointed out that membership of this Society is not a qualification and should not be used as such, yet the proposed change appeared to invite abuse of this principle. David Patterson, speaking as one of those who drafted the original constitution, said that the meeting was being asked to approve a serious change in the Society's conduct of its affairs. Should the proposed new Rule 19 be approved, it was essential that there be a full discussion, open to all Society Members, on the purpose and contents of the Code of Conduct before it was adopted. The motion was approved by a large majority and will take effect as from the Annual General Meeting 1990.
Reference 1. Knight B. Ethics and discipline in forensic science. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1989; 29(1): 53-59.
JFSS 1990; 30(1): 59-60
The Council may remove a Member from the Society other than for non-payment of subscription if in the opinion of the Council the interests of the Society require it. Such a matter may be referred to the Council in writing by not less than twenty Ordinary Members. The motion proposed: a) that Rule 19 of the Society's Constitution dated November 1988 be deleted. b) that Rule 19 of the Society's Constitution read as follows:
The Society shall have a Code of Conduct binding on all members. Any complaint made about a member concerning professional conduct will first be examined by the Membership and Ethics Committee existing at that time, who shall decide the merits of the complaint prior to referring it to a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee shall comprise the President or another designated officer of the Society, two members of Council and two Ordinary Members who are not members of Council, which shall be constituted as the need arises. The findings of this Disciplinary Committee will be referred to Council who, if in their opinion the interests of the Society require it, may remove or suspend that Member from the Society. The Code of Conduct referred to in this proposal is as detailed on page 00 of this Journal. Dr Whitehead in proposing the motion said that no better justification for the change could be found than that given in the President's address to the Society in 1988. "The introduction of a Code of Conduct and disciplinary machinery to enforce it, would enhance the professional status of forensic science. With the introduction of various Diplomas and the probable widening role of the Society as a major accreditating and standard-setting body in technical expertise, possession of its Membership will be increasingly recognised as qualifying a forensic scientist for employment in many countries. With this role must also go the responsibility for maintaining standards of professional and personal conduct, for if Society Diplomas become instrumental in gaining appointments and promotions for scientists, then the Society has a duty to see that such qualifications continue to be held in good repute by the recipient Members for the rest of their professional careers." [I]. Dr Whitehead then said that unhappily on occasions members found themselves at odds with another. At present members have only Clause 19 to initiate action against another member whose behaviour in their view is not acceptable. This clause is not a very sophisticated way of handling such sensitive matters. While not intended to show bias against any particular group within the Society, clearly those official bodies who employ large numbers of scientists in one location are able to co-ordinate action against another member much more easily than the individual JFSS 1990; 30(1): 59-60
59
forensic scientist in private practice. Further it does not give Council a range of options to pursue in the event of a complaint. The whole basis for our proposed change is to ensure that Council has the mechanism to investigate any complaints of one member against another in a manner that is not only fair but is seen to be fair. Two members felt that the existing Clause 19 was perfectly adequate, and had strong reservations about the proposed changes. Godfrey Lee pointed out that membership of this Society is not a qualification and should not be used as such, yet the proposed change appeared to invite abuse of this principle. David Patterson, speaking as one of those who drafted the original constitution, said that the meeting was being asked to approve a serious change in the Society's conduct of its affairs. Should the proposed new Rule 19 be approved, it was essential that there be a full discussion, open to all Society Members, on the purpose and contents of the Code of Conduct before it was adopted. The motion was approved by a large majority and will take effect as from the Annual General Meeting 1990.
Reference 1. Knight B. Ethics and discipline in forensic science. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1989; 29(1): 53-59.
JFSS 1990; 30(1): 59-60