On 8/30/05, Jed Stancato <xavier_oconnor@...> wrote:
> ****I would say an additional 6 months. The reason being is that the memb=
er
> is fresh back from being found guilty of a violation of rules. To allow t=
hem
> to immediately run again is, in my opinion, like saying that they have
> completely learned their lesson and there is not a chance this could happ=
en
> all over again. The additional six months doesn't mean the member could n=
ot
> serve as an assistant at the local level though to help show that they ha=
ve
> changed their way of working.
Ah, okay. While I personally think that is redundant to the original
punishment, it does allow my to understand the reasoning behind your
policy. Thanks again.
--=20
Tom Black * arsenacho@...
US2002-02-1951