"Lazarus2
May be it is cause for another thread, but I would be interested in what other industry people think the appropriate pedigree for an expert witness should be?
The first "drafting gate" would be, do you want acidemics to comment on behalf of industry on this matter, or should it be left for the practitioners.
One of the problems that seems to occur here, is that training providers endorse their own training packages on behalf of industry. Their level of practical knowledge and experiance seems limited to entry level competancies and falls well short of the transfere to the daily grind of practical tree work.
If "expert" witnesses were selected from a similar process I see there always being an expensive clash created in court. The other unfortunate fallout would be the precidents that may be set, by the outcomes of such proceedings. It should not be that the argument with the most money wins."
By Graeme McMahon
Thought I'd start a new post with this Graeme.
In the UK, we now have a situation called 'The Single Joint Expert':
http://www.resolveit.co.uk/single.htm
This places even more importance on one point of view. However, as far as I am aware, there isn't a thorough procedure for checking technical competence of these 'experts'. This doesn't mean they are all bad, just as it doesn't mean they are necessarily finger on the pulse or suitably experienced.
I feel the industry should decide its own panel of experts. However, with the industry essentially governed by volunteers here, it means larger companies can afford more leverage on the industry. Others trade time for inflating their ego. Everyone else isn't aware and just gets on with their job regardless. A few have the best intentions but are misguided/inexperienced. Normally there is an ulterior motive. Hardly a visionary and democratic approach toward industry best practice. A very critical view, I know, but not far off the mark.
Experienced and up-to-date practitioners, by necessity, MUST take these roles. Too much emphasis on beureaucratic procedures for importnat posts, is turning off practical, measured and articulate candidates perfetcly fit for the post. Its already happening with the national training and education system, across all industries.
I've made some comments allied to these points in this article (UK based):
http://www.treemettlenexus.com/article8.html
There are further points I have to add, but its Friday evening, and my beautiful wife to be is in need of (and very deserving of) attention. Best I see to that!
May be it is cause for another thread, but I would be interested in what other industry people think the appropriate pedigree for an expert witness should be?
The first "drafting gate" would be, do you want acidemics to comment on behalf of industry on this matter, or should it be left for the practitioners.
One of the problems that seems to occur here, is that training providers endorse their own training packages on behalf of industry. Their level of practical knowledge and experiance seems limited to entry level competancies and falls well short of the transfere to the daily grind of practical tree work.
If "expert" witnesses were selected from a similar process I see there always being an expensive clash created in court. The other unfortunate fallout would be the precidents that may be set, by the outcomes of such proceedings. It should not be that the argument with the most money wins."
By Graeme McMahon
Thought I'd start a new post with this Graeme.
In the UK, we now have a situation called 'The Single Joint Expert':
http://www.resolveit.co.uk/single.htm
This places even more importance on one point of view. However, as far as I am aware, there isn't a thorough procedure for checking technical competence of these 'experts'. This doesn't mean they are all bad, just as it doesn't mean they are necessarily finger on the pulse or suitably experienced.
I feel the industry should decide its own panel of experts. However, with the industry essentially governed by volunteers here, it means larger companies can afford more leverage on the industry. Others trade time for inflating their ego. Everyone else isn't aware and just gets on with their job regardless. A few have the best intentions but are misguided/inexperienced. Normally there is an ulterior motive. Hardly a visionary and democratic approach toward industry best practice. A very critical view, I know, but not far off the mark.
Experienced and up-to-date practitioners, by necessity, MUST take these roles. Too much emphasis on beureaucratic procedures for importnat posts, is turning off practical, measured and articulate candidates perfetcly fit for the post. Its already happening with the national training and education system, across all industries.
I've made some comments allied to these points in this article (UK based):
http://www.treemettlenexus.com/article8.html
There are further points I have to add, but its Friday evening, and my beautiful wife to be is in need of (and very deserving of) attention. Best I see to that!
