Appendix B discusses a mock trial case concerning whether an employee’s readjustment of their property tax assessment was a deliberate or unintentional act. Each witness in the case provides substantial evidence confirming a breach in protocol by the appellant, Wilson Worker. However, there is no evidence to accurately assess the appellant’s argument, in regards to whether his policy violation was an inadvertent mishap vs. a blatant attempt to exploit the system. In my experience, a disciplinary board supplements a criminal hearing when a company doesn’t have the capacity or the evidence to elect for prosecution of a member. As this mock trial, lacks legal guidance often associated with board hearings (i.e., documentation that provides legal definitions, guidance on what constitutes a breach in protocol, and qualifications for retention), I will base my recommendations on the available facts to provide the most appropriate course of action.

The Facts vs. Uncertainty

The trial introduces four testimonies, Estimate Value, Guy Noir, Wilson Worker, and the written statement of Tom Tenure. As each testimony dabbles into the …show more content…
The decision of the board resides in the foundation of fact, refraining from relying on speculations. The board is unaware of whether Wilson intentionally altered tax property data for personal gain. The board does not have any concrete evidence of a conversation between Tom Tenure and Wilson Worker discussing the parallel system and the real system. The board cannot prove Tenure’s “anonymous” report was vindictive in nature and pre-mediated from a 2012 event. Moreover, the MIS manager may or may not have disseminated a note to Wilson indicating that data entry during the software upgrade would become finalized in the system. There is no evidence to corroborate the stories of Tom Tenure or Wilson Worker, in regards to what was discussed during the case period. Therefore, the board must weigh the actions of Wilson before November