it's a simple affair to make sure there is fairness in the process, an appeals system, a review board, a random peer-jury selection process, all of this happening out of the way of official business
That's actually a hell of a lot of work; you're describing a mini-court system.
The best approach may be a process in which the standard for "convicting" someone is lower (say, "clear and convincing evidence") and the procedure is very informal, but the penalties are light enough (maybe you just don't get to speak at meetings for a while) that it's not a huge issue if you get it wrong.
Yes I agree, while I do believe the system I described is necessary for any organization that wants to tangle with capital on a national scale, it should only be used for severe cases that affect large segments of a party, while the majority of offenders can be dealt with by the structured informal system you described
Redundancies and dual systems that are tied to different scaled tiers are always a sign of decent organizational capacity and responsiveness
That's actually a hell of a lot of work; you're describing a mini-court system.
The best approach may be a process in which the standard for "convicting" someone is lower (say, "clear and convincing evidence") and the procedure is very informal, but the penalties are light enough (maybe you just don't get to speak at meetings for a while) that it's not a huge issue if you get it wrong.
Yes I agree, while I do believe the system I described is necessary for any organization that wants to tangle with capital on a national scale, it should only be used for severe cases that affect large segments of a party, while the majority of offenders can be dealt with by the structured informal system you described
Redundancies and dual systems that are tied to different scaled tiers are always a sign of decent organizational capacity and responsiveness