I don’t think the policy is problematic. The policy has a review process in place to consider each specific case on its own merits.
That’s what the panel was there for. If the panel rubber stamps any measures put in place by the policy without consideration to specific factors of the case, then IMO the panel is not serving its purpose. (I do not know, nor am I implying that this is the case)
If the panel makes a decision without hearing from the person that has been suspended, you could wonder if the panel gave this any consideration beyond what triggered the suspension to begin with. (I do not know, nor am I implying, that this is the case)
We have to have laws and policy. But we also need opportunities for people to look at specific circumstances when these policies are implemented. That’s why the panel is part of this process.
I think many felt that the panel would become aware of information that justified removing the suspension at this time, and that they would remove it. They did not. Was that because they felt it was the RIGHT thing to do or because it was the EASY and SAFE thing to do?
I do not know the answer to that question. Nor do I really have an opinion on their motivation. But I think that’s the important question as it relates to the policy and the resulting legal action by TSJ’s people.
Btw. Im not a lawyer.