Tom,
Let me say I can and do understand and appreciate
where you are coming from there. It does seem
redundant when you look at it.
But it gives a person a chance to show that they will
not do the same thing that they were removed/suspended
for in the first place all over again.
I've seen repeat offenders. One of them actually ended
up having to be expelled because he would not learn
from his past mistakes and just kept building on them.
I'm not saying that Jason would be like that... but it
is something that is considered... at least by me
because I have seen it.
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
--- Tom Black <arsenacho@...> wrote:
> On 8/30/05, Jed Stancato <xavier_oconnor@...>
> wrote:
> > ****I would say an additional 6 months. The reason
> being is that the member
> > is fresh back from being found guilty of a
> violation of rules. To allow them
> > 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 happen
> > all over again. The additional six months doesn't
> mean the member could not
> > serve as an assistant at the local level though to
> help show that they have
> > 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.
> --
> Tom Black * arsenacho@...
> US2002-02-1951
>