Anthony,
I cannot speak for what Michael thinks, but I can offer my own answers
to your questions.
> What Jon has to accept as fact is that the Camarilla Council has sustained a
> disciplinary action regarding Jason and his ability to function as a part of
> the ST chain. His job is to act accordingly. Whether or not you believe
> Jason was in the wrong, and whether or not Jon believes Jason was in the
> wrong, Jon's job to to act as if Jason was in the wrong.
Jon's obligation is to follow the rules of the Camarilla. While he
should not violate those decisions of his superiors which he is obliged
to follow, that does not mean he is not free to exercise his own
discretion when he is explicitly authorized to do so. Jon may be
required to enforce Jason's punishment, but is not compelled to agree
with it.
The Camarilla Council ruled that six months was a long enough time for
Jason to be barred from holding office. If Jon disagrees with that, it
is within his authority to extend that penalty, but that is a decision,
not an obligation.
> You claim that our domain took the "high road." Was this before or after we
> began to openly insult every officer in the chain above the local level?
I'm not aware that "we" "openly insult[ed]" every officer in the chain
above the local level. I, personally, have made comments critical of
three individual officers--the MST, the Club Director, and the
RST--based on their specific actions regarding this matter, and only
after each refused to cooperate with reasonable and appropriate requests
from this domain. Michael, as an individual, has also made similar
criticisms of those particular individuals, as have one or two others.
Regardless, those are the comments of individuals. I don't want you
taking credit for my comments, and I doubt that you want to take the
blame for them.
The Domain has pursued every possible option outlined in the Membership
Handbook, and did so in a polite and responsible way. The fact that a
few individuals later publicly expressed their frustration with the
refusal of Camarilla officers to follow the Membership Handbook does not
change the fact that we "took the high road."
> You claim that this incident is in violation of the MH and the CoC. Which
> part of the investigation violated either of these texts? Which part of
> Jon's standing policies violate either of these texts?
I assume that Michael was referring to the original punishment, not to
Jon's decision to extend it. I cannot say specifically what he was
referring to, but it seems to me that he could have meant:
* The fact that Alex did not bother to go through a disciplinary action
to fire Jason and Strauss, despite citing what were clearly disciplinary
reasons for removing him
* The fact that Alex fired Jason despite an unambiguous conflict of
interest
* The fact that Jason was not allowed to hold his office until the
election could be completed, even though there was no emergency that
required his immediate removal
* The fact that no investigation was held
* The fact that Jason did not, in fact, do any of the things cited as
reasons for punishing him
* The fact that Jason was not allowed to appeal before his punishment
took effect
> You claim that this incident may have broken US law. Which part of a private
> organization with an internal conflict and dispute resolution system and
> internal officer checks and balances broke US law, and which law prevents
> private organizations from determining it's own officers?
I would assume that Michael is referring to the fact that failing to
follow those internal conflict and dispute resolution systems would be a
breach of contract.
> You specifically state that you do not believe Jon should support the
> policies and decisions of the Camarilla. Do you believe we would be better
> off if officers in this organization did whatever they pleased, whenever
> they pleased?
I assume we can all agree that there are times when an individual should
follow rules or decisions they disagree with, and times when an
individual should refuse to go along with a clearly inappropriate
decision.
Personally, I think this crossed the line somewhere around when it
became clear that Jason had not done any of the things he was accused
of, and that Alex and Charles were not actually interested in presenting
an actual reason for punishing Jason. But different people do,
inevitably, draw the line in different places.
> You propose that we skirt the disciplinary action by allowing our domain to
> slip into Black status. Do you believe all such disciplinary actions should
> be skirted, or that ours is a special case? What makes this disciplinary
> action so important?
I fail to see how that would be "skirting" the disciplinary action.
Jason is still being punished in precisely the way Charles demands.
This disciplinary action is important because it has become increasingly
clear that Jason's only real "crime" was disagreeing with the MST. I,
for one, would prefer not selecting a DST to selecting a fake DST who
can't actually pass the Domain's feelings on to his superiors for fear
of getting fired.
> You pose a question (which I presume is rhetorical) regarding Jon and his
> ability to make decisions on his own. Do you believe that Jon actively has a
> vendetta against the domain, or do you believe he is doing his job?
At every substantive opportunity, Jon has used or threatened to use his
discretion to the detriment of the Domain. I don't care to speculate on
why he has done so.
Henry Towsner
US2003112558