On 8/27/05, Jed Stancato Camarilla Email <xavier_oconnor@...> wrote:
> 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.
I do understand the justification for this particular policy.
> Does this make sense?
Everything you said does make sense, but does not answer my concern.=20
Please allow me to rephrase so I may approach the issue more directly.
Jason's punishment was to explicitly prevent him from holding a position.
When that punishment expires, why is it being extended (effectively)
by the choice of superior officers? The expressed punishment by the
Council is that he be not allowed to hold position for 6 months. This
particular choice (and they chose to change it from the orginal
punishment for a reason, I assume) is being altered by choice of Jon
by choosing to extend the punishment [effectively] another 6 months.
How is that following the desire of the Council?
As an additional question: do you begin to ignore past disciplinary
actions when the date of action is 6 months past, or the date of
punishment's end is 6 months past?
Ex: A member is suspended for a year. After they come back from
suspension, do they wait 6 months more to be eligible for a position
(by R*'s effected policy), or since the date of the actual action is 6
month's past, that member would be free to be elected?
Thank you for the time and consideration, Jed.
--=20
Tom Black * arsenacho@...
US2002-02-1951