Tom,
Allow me to explain it this way. Someone is put into
prison for imbezzlement. They go out and apply for a
job as say a bank teller. Would you hire that person
or would you be wary and hire someone else instead?
Look at it from that light.
Jason's decision was upheld by the Camarilla Council
as a whole. Basically saying that he was guilty. Now,
after he is "released" or able to hold office again,
do you consider the application? That is basically the
situation here.
Since he was "convicted" and the decision upheld...
now we have to go from there.
This does not mean that a primary officer must remove
his application for an assistant position, but an
officer can remove his application from consideration
for a primary office.
Does this make sense?
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
--- Tom Black <arsenacho@...> wrote:
> On 8/27/05, Jed Stancato Camarilla Email
> <xavier_oconnor@...> wrote:
> > I did say that I would look at disciplinary
> actions as
> > a consideration, but I also qualified that in the
> > sense that if it was a less than recent
> disciplinary
> > action (aka roughly 6 months to a year), I would
> > dismiss it when considering people. Coming off
> fresh
> > from disciplinary action and then applying for
> > position, I too would remove that member from
> > candidacy because they have not had the chance to
> > return to the camarilla at large. Jon is not doing
> > anything contrary to what I said... in fact he
> would
> > be in line with my thoughts on it as well.
>
> Why is there redundancy here? The punishment is
> specifically to
> prevent Jason from holding offices.
>
> Once that punishment (as altered by the Council) is
> fulfilled, why is
> he being further impeded in the same fashion for
> another 6 months? Or
> was the effect of the change to reduce his effective
> sentence from 18
> months down to 12?
> --
> Tom Black * arsenacho@...
> US2002-02-1951
>