(Back from the weekend camping trip, and getting emails in my mailbox
again. Hopefully it's consistant.)
On 9/3/05, Henry Towsner <henryt@...> wrote:
> Thanks your for clarification. It does, as I'd feared, raise a f=
ew
> more questions though.
> Jason was charged with ten specific things (the document at
> http://www.math.cmu.edu/~hpt/DST/5.22.5.html). Which of those,
> specifically, did the Camarilla Council determine that Jason had done?
To be honest, I pretty quickly came to realize that the email quoted
above barely applied to Jason, if at all, but rather was a description
of what Alex thought Mike was guilty of. In that email, Alex did not
effectively communicate how the issues were related to Jason. (All in
my opinion, of course).
> Also, in terms of failure to cooperate, in what way did Jason fai=
l to
> cooperate with Alex?=20
Alex asked for an application to go through the system as a
notification. Jason did not fulfill this request. Note that this was
only one of two elements that I mentioned, with the other being that
Jason didn't manage his assistant very well. Either in isolation would
have resulted in a different vote from me - only with both combined
did I think our resolution was appropriate. I should also mention that
fulfilling a request under protest is a time-honored tradition, and
one that I have even used myself.
> For that matter, how did Mike "fail to cooperate"
> with Alex? I agree that the e-mail he sent to Steel Shadows was
> inappropriate, but I have trouble seeing how it could be termed a
> "failure to cooperate."
I haven't looked thoroughly at Mike's situation. If and when it goes
to the Council officially, then I'll examine it in detail.
> The six month suspension from holding office the Camarilla Counci=
l
> awarded is listed as a penalty for a Severe Offense. How did the
> Council reach the determination that this was an appropriate level?
> Certainly the other offenses listed--threatening a member, unwanted
> sexual contact, and so on--seem to be much more serious.
First, I see "Inability to hold Camarilla offices for up to six
months" marked down under major offense, not severe, right alongside a
six-week full suspension and the loss of 750 prestige points.
Was this a "major offense?" I don't think so, but that bullet point
under the suggested consequences was never intended to be used in
isolation for a major offense, but rather tacked onto the suspension
and prestige loss. The whole section was written during a time when
you rarely got suspended without prestige loss, and rarely lost
prestige without suspension, so the idea of using only one bullet item
without the others was kind of foreign. I guess we're breaking new
ground.
In looking at the whole situation, this was an issue that solely
applied to execution of the duties of office. It doesn't make Jason a
bad member by any stretch of the imagination, and shouldn't affect his
characters. It seemed inappropriate to levy a suspension or prestige
loss, but it did warrant action. Personally, I pegged it at around a
moderate offense, and extended the time without office while negating
any prestige loss or full suspension. I can't speak for how anyone
else arrived at the six month figure, of course.
> Finally, as Dan noted, Jason was deprived of a number of rights d=
uring
> the process. American courts would consider that alone grounds to throw
> out the disciplinary action entirely. Since the Camarilla Council did
> not, what other actions are being taken to rectify this?
The American court system works much differently than Cam disciplinary
actions. Much, much, much differently. Between case law and the
complexity of the statutes, judges often don't have a choice but to
throw out cases due to procedural or technical issues - we don't do
that, but rather take them on a case by case basis. There is no
"getting off on a technicality" in the Cam.
As for making sure doesn't happen again, I'm in the process of writing
how-to guides for both investigations and disciplinary actions that
officers can use - that should cut down on the number of mistakes
being made in that department. I imagine Charles can say more about
how this particular situation is resulting in changes, but I can only
speak to the national level.
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/