USASF Professional Responsibility Code 2019-2020 9.0 | Page 22
22
REVIEW PROCESS
1. Based on the classification of membership of the accused, a non-
biased Review Committee will be assembled for each complaint
utilizing the following criteria:
a. Region the complaint originates and potentially impacts.
b. Removal of any potential conflicts of interest or bias.
2. The Sergeant-at-arms provides copies of both Non-Compliance
Agreement Form filed by the accuser and the response of the
accused to the Review Committee immediately following formal
written response from the accused.
3. The Sergeant-at-arms will schedule a conference call with the
Review Committee to review all submitted documentation. The
Review Committee will:
a. Review all documentation provided by every party
involved.
b. Either rule on the case with the information provide or
make a recommendation for additional inquiry prior to
ruling
c. Recommend specific sanctions directly to the USASF
Board of Directors for cases where the accused is found
in violation of any USASF policy, code, requirement or
standard.
4. The results of the Review Committee’s findings, as well as the
recommended sanctions (when applicable) are presented by the
Sergeant-at-arms to the USASF Board of Directors to confirm
and levy penalties.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Each instance for review will be evaluated to determine and identify
any potential conflict of interest. Conflict of interest arises when
a Board Member or committee person’s duty of loyalty to the
organization comes into conflict with a competing financial and/or
personal interest that he or she may have regarding the specific case
being reviewed. Full disclosure of all potential or perceived conflicts
must be identified by the Disciplinary/Compliance Chairman and
those members must recuse themselves or may be disqualified by
the Chairman or the Director, from any involvement in the case.
The Disciplinary Chairman will verify that all inferences of conflict
have been removed prior to proceeding with the review. USASF
Review Committee Members must identify and distinguish between
situations that give the appearance of a conflict and those that involve
a material conflict where a board and or/committee member has a
direct or indirect financial interest in transactions with the party filing
the non-compliance case or the party responding.
The Disciplinary Committee Chairman may, based on the
recommendations of the committee, request recusal of a Board and/
or Committee Member if Board and/or Committee Member is directly
involved in the specific case and/or provided documentation to the
committee for evidence. The Chairman and the Sergeant-at-arms
have the ultimate responsibility to eliminate any potential conflict of
interest. This includes recusing any member of the Board of Directors
from the penalty phase if there is evidence or cause to believe there
may be an inference of impropriety or conflict of interest.
PENALTY
The USASF Board of Directors will provide clear direction regarding
the levying of penalties for noncompliance or misconduct including,
but not limited to, the use of fines and or restriction of privileges for
various periods of time on cases that do not have previous precedent
set. The USASF Review Committee will present the information and
recommend appropriate action. The Review Committee is only given
the authority to recommend penalty/sanction. The USASF Board
of Directors may confirm the Review Committee’s recommended
penalty/sanction or modify the penalty/sanction. The USASF Board
of Directors is responsible for levying all penalties and/or sanctions.
They cannot, within their authority, overturn the finding of the
committee.