Elect someone who will be a figurehead for Jason and let him be an
ADST...maybe? id still like to see Jon use his head in this one
though.
Dan Murphy
US2002023585
On 8/27/05, Thomas Ian Bolster <tib@...> wrote:
> I suppose this has already been addressed, but I want to point out that t=
his isn't quite the right analogy.
>=20
> This was a suspention. It's like a police officer being put on traffic d=
etail for a few months as a punishment. He's still involved, he just has n=
o power, and must serve his sentence. When his time is up, he is free to r=
esume his old position as a beat cop, without them saying, "Well you've bee=
n away from the beat cop position for a while, let's leave you on traffic f=
or a while longer until you are ready." This would make no sense. Similar=
ly, if this is the reason why Patten is being excluded it makes equally no =
sence.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -Tom Bolster
> House of the Unknown
>=20
> > 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. Wou=
ld
> > you hire that person or would you be wary and hire someone else inste=
ad?
> > Look at it from that light.
> >
> > Jason's decision was upheld by the Camarilla Council as a whole. Basica=
lly
> > 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 f=
rom
> > there.
> >
> > This does not mean that a primary officer must remove his application f=
or
> > 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 wa=
s
> >>> 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 chanc=
e
> >>> to return to the camarilla at large. Jon is not doing anything contra=
ry
> >>> 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 preve=
nt
> >> 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 wa=
s
> >> the effect of the change to reduce his effective sentence from 18 mont=
hs
> >> down to 12? -- Tom Black * arsenacho@... US2002-02-1951
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit our Domain Website at: http://www.steelshadows.com Yahoo! Groups
> > Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>