Tom-
To clarify, the decision, as held by the Camarilla Council, was that Jason
can't hold a position for six months. This decision is binding within their
perview- the Camarilla.
Jon, our RST, has a policy regarding recent disciplinary actions and
positions as storytellers. His policy, which went into effect before Jason's
disciplinary action, was that anyone who has had a recent discipinary action
will not be holding a storyteller position.
In this case, the position that is being discussed, DST of Pittsburgh, falls
under both perviews. Jason, bound by the Camarilla Council's decision,
cannot hold an office for 6 months. However, due to the longer restriction
placed by the RST, it also happens that Jason could not hold a position such
as DST of Pittsburgh because of his recent discipinary action.
Jon is not disagreeing with nor overturning the Camarilla Council's
decision. What he is doing is enforcing a similar policy that has stricter
prerequisites for storytellers within the region.
Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request]
US2003021263
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Black" <arsenacho@...>
To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
> 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.
> 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.
> --
> Tom Black * arsenacho@...
> US2002-02-1951
>
>
>
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>