I suppose this has already been addressed, but I want to point out that this isn't quite the right analogy.
This was a suspention. It's like a police officer being put on traffic detail for a few months as a punishment. He's still involved, he just has no power, and must serve his sentence. When his time is up, he is free to resume his old position as a beat cop, without them saying, "Well you've been away from the beat cop position for a while, let's leave you on traffic for a while longer until you are ready." This would make no sense. Similarly, if this is the reason why Patten is being excluded it makes equally no sence.
I know Jon won't hear this, but I've thought of him as just doing his job before. Now it seems like more, and I worry.
-Tom Bolster
House of the Unknown
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home
> page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/.URqlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> Visit our Domain Website at: http://www.steelshadows.com Yahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>