Anthony,=20
Letting this go away would simply mean to allow Jason into the
election. In doing so, Jon would not break any rules. In actuality,
barring Jason from the election is simply Jon's perogative.
Dan Murphy
US2002023585
PS i do not suggest that someone breaks the rules (but if i did, i
would surely do so on this list).
On 8/27/05, Henry Towsner <henryt@...> wrote:
> Anthony,
>=20
> I cannot speak for what Michael thinks, but I can offer my own ans=
wers
> to your questions.
>=20
> > What Jon has to accept as fact is that the Camarilla Council has sustai=
ned a
> > disciplinary action regarding Jason and his ability to function as a pa=
rt 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 th=
e
> > wrong, Jon's job to to act as if Jason was in the wrong.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > You claim that our domain took the "high road." Was this before or afte=
r we
> > began to openly insult every officer in the chain above the local level=
?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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."
>=20
> > You claim that this incident is in violation of the MH and the CoC. Whi=
ch
> > part of the investigation violated either of these texts? Which part of
> > Jon's standing policies violate either of these texts?
>=20
> 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
>=20
> > You claim that this incident may have broken US law. Which part of a pr=
ivate
> > organization with an internal conflict and dispute resolution system an=
d
> > internal officer checks and balances broke US law, and which law preven=
ts
> > private organizations from determining it's own officers?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > You specifically state that you do not believe Jon should support the
> > policies and decisions of the Camarilla. Do you believe we would be bet=
ter
> > off if officers in this organization did whatever they pleased, wheneve=
r
> > they pleased?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > You propose that we skirt the disciplinary action by allowing our domai=
n to
> > slip into Black status. Do you believe all such disciplinary actions sh=
ould
> > be skirted, or that ours is a special case? What makes this disciplinar=
y
> > action so important?
>=20
> I fail to see how that would be "skirting" the disciplinary action.
> Jason is still being punished in precisely the way Charles demands.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > You pose a question (which I presume is rhetorical) regarding Jon and h=
is
> > 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Henry Towsner
> US2003112558
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>