Administrative and Skelly Hearings - Research Paper Example

 Administrative hearing In every workplace, there are policies that are established to deal or help in solving some of the employer-employee misunderstandings. The policies also govern or control all the activities taking place at a work place, hence, creating a good relationship among the staff. Due to the prevailing rules and policies within an institution or workplace, there are set punishments attached to them in case of violation. Actually, an employee is first given a notice of his or her mistakes and later charged or placed on a trial board for the approval or the disapproval of the charged allegations. This is actually called a ‘skelly hearing’. According to the book by Carter and Christine, skelly hearings, are always set to help in protecting some of the rights of employees in an organization. This hearing is believed to be based on justice and should favor both the alleged employee and the employer (Lens, 2009). Actually, some of the people whose presence is considered in this hearing according to the “Administrative Law and Politics” novel are some of the top officials of an employee’s workplace. An example is how the various shareholders carry out their laws of governance. The shareholders of the Pennington Property Company LLC, which owned the Manhattan apartment building, brought an action on behalf of the company against their management regarding the lease and consequential sale of the organization property at price considered to be below the market value (Lens, 2009). Those in charge of the company decided to lease one of the crucial assets of the company and later sell at an amount considered to be below the property’s market value. The plaintiffs who owned 25% of the company felt aggrieved by this move by the directors and they decided to take action and took the matter to the New York Supreme Court seeking declaration by the judge that the sale as well as the lease were void and unauthorized, therefore, should be immediately terminated. The property in question was the company’s principal asset and as such, the shareholders expected the directors to act with due diligence and care when handling the issues related to the property. According to the shareholders their cause of action was motivated by the fact the company directors did not seek their ratification for the second leasing of the property and above all consequent sale of the property below the market price was illegal and unconscionable. When the matter was brought into the New York lower court (the New York Supreme Court) the judges dismissed the claim by the plaintiffs claiming that members of the LLC have no right to remedy the wrongs suffered by the company (Lens, 2009). The judges claimed that members of the Limited Liability Company had no right to launch a derivative action against the company. The matter was later appealed in the New York Appellate Court. The issue of the case The imminent issue in the case of Tzolis v. Wolff is whether the judges in the lower courts were right to deny the plaintiffs right to file a lawsuit; a right that would see them defend the company, something that those in control of the Pennington Property Co. LLC failed to do. Outcome The New York Appellate Court reversed the decision of the lower court. In a majority opinion, the judges decided that the members of the Limited Liability Company do not lose their right to derivative action on behalf of the company, despite the fact that such a right is not expressly contained in the Company’s Act. In other words, the New York Appellate Court decided the members of the limited liability company could bring legal action on behalf of the company when the faithless directors refuse to act as required. According to the majority judges, the legislative history in relation to derivative, was too ambiguous to an extent that they would infer the Legislature was aimed at eliminating or limiting the derivative suit by the members of LLC on behalf of the company. Reasoning New York Court of Appeal majority judges issued their opinion based on case law that is rulings made by judges previously. Using the remedy in the majority, judges claimed that the issue of derivative action on behalf of the company has been a significant component of the general corporate law as early as 1832. This means that the right to bring derivative suits on behalf of the company was created by case law rather than statute. As such, the lower court erred when they dismissed the case on the basis that it was not recognized in the legislation that created Limited Liability Company. Dissent Judge Read dissented the ruling by the majority judges claiming breach of separation of power which a key component of the constitution. According to the dissenter, the majority judges’ decision is tantamount to rewriting the law by adding a right, which the legislators-senate had decided to ignore when restructuring the company Act. Comment It is important that the individuals charged with the responsibility of controlling and managing Limited Liability Companies ensure that they act in the best interest of the company. The directors of Pennington Property Company LLC did not act in the best interest of the company when they leased the property of the company and, consequently, planning to sell the property at a price lower than the prevailing market value notwithstanding that the property was the principal asset of the company. For instance, a real investigation into a case can be seen in that of homicide.Various measures are implemented when it comes to investigation concerning homicide. The rapid growth in scientific research has paved way through which investigations can be carried out successfully. Being involved in a particular investigation as a police psychologist calls for one’s dedication and acting professionally in order to succeed in the entire investigation process. The application of a psychological autopsy is widely used in the investigation towards discovering the offenders responsible for the homicide. With this kind of understanding, this paper precisely investigates homicide of a mayor. Inclusively in the paper is an in depth description of the roles played in the investigation, the purpose and use of a psychological autopsy, the various steps undertaken in carrying out psychological autopsy, and recognition of the psychological issues experienced by the officers and families. The carrying out of the investigation will be made possible with the help of a police psychologist. In this sense, as a police psychologist there are several roles which need to be accomplished accordingly with immediate effect. It should be noted that the police psychology is always concerned with solving issues particularly concerning to public safety in order to facilitate peaceful coexistence. Various roles played by the police psychologists in the investigation will involve the recognition of deception, undercover interviewing, behavioral analyses of the scene, and report analyses. In order to come up with clear information concerning the problem faced, it will be important to recognize the deception involved following these actions (Zhao, 2011). This will in turn call for the undercover consultation, which will be aimed towards facilitating the necessary and required information for the success of the investigation. The behavioral analyses of the homicide will be followed towards getting the truth behind the action done. Finally, the report analyses will be produced respectively after the entire process has been done. Some of the mentioned practices above tend to be the possible solutions and examples of how a skelly hearing should be carried out. Psychological autopsy can also help in cases where the alleged employee meets his or he untimely death. This been the case, psychological autopsy readings for study points frequently on the use of multifaceted steps to guarantee that the information is dependable and convincing (Zhao, 2011). The police psychologists responsible for the investigation should follow the steps and an outline where the appropriate information from the whole procedure is documented. With connection to this, the gathered information should be verified with accuracy and any important data excluded should be affirmed as absent. Any alterations in original results that may change the end of the account should be obtainable with the clarification on how the latest search transforms the original ones into the results. The written report will entail information like the mayor’s private information, particulars of death, mayor’s history, and death history of the mayor’s family, interpersonal associations, changes prior to death, informants, personality description, and lethality. This information is important because it serves as evidence, which has been obtained from the use of the psychological autopsy technique. As evidence, the information presented in the report can be stored for future reference in case where issues arise concerning the death of the mayor. Additionally, the information is useful since it guides the police psychologists in determining the cause of the death and those responsible for it. The report information is usually part of the investigation and, thus, is usually supposed to be presented for public awareness concerning the death of the victim. The psychologists should be conscious of the moral anxiety coming from the appliance of this technique of investigation. This been the case, the privacy issues of the informants and decedents should be thoroughly taken into explanation. As well, the researcher should be conscious and reasonable to the truth that the relatives may be at diverse phases on the inconsolable course. This been the case, the police psychologists should accomplish the examination not only without forcing queries and answers but also through being attentive for the need of psychological hold up of the informants. References Lens, V. (2009). Confronting Government After Welfare Reform: Moralists, Reformers, and Narratives of (Ir)responsibility at Administrative Fair Hearings. Law & Society Review, 43(3), 563-592. Zhao, C. (2011). An Analysis of Procedure in Selection of Representatives from Hearings: Take the Price Hearing in Z city as Case. Studies In Sociology Of Science, 2(2), 57-61. Read More