On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:18 -0700, US National Coordinator wrote:
> 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).
I'm confused. Jason was accused of doing certain things. He appealed
them. Either he committed one of the things he was charged with, in
which the Council should be able to point out at one or more items from
that list and assert that he did those, or he did none of them, in which
case the appeal should have been decided in Jason's favor.
Are you saying that the Council actually determined that he did none of
the things he was accused of, but instead that he'd done something else,
and decided to punish him for that? Did the Council inform him of these
new charges and give him a chance to respond to them?
I appreciate that the Council may feel that Alex meant to charge Jason
with something different, but it seems to me that it is incumbent on an
officer to communicate charges to someone being punished, not on the
member to read the mind of the officer and appeal what the officer meant
instead. This seems even more striking in this case, where Jason asked
Charles Bailey if there were any more details, and Mr. Bailey
specifically affirmed that the original statement was adequate.
> > Also, in terms of failure to cooperate, in what way did Jason fail to
> > cooperate with Alex?
>
> Alex asked for an application to go through the system as a
> notification. Jason did not fulfill this request. Note that this was
How could Jason fail to fulfill the request? He never had the
opportunity, given that it never reached the mid-approval level.
> 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.
How is that not what Jason was doing?
> 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.
Given that Jason took several actions regarding Mike, I don't see how
the Council could have determined that Jason's actions were culpably
negligent without some sort of investigation of what Jason should have
done instead.
> 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.
Perhaps my original question was not clear enough. I'm glad that steps
are being taken to prevent future similar events, but that doesn't
really help with the current situation. What is being done for Jason to
rectify the appalling way he was treated during this process? The
Camarilla Constitution suggests that Mr. Bailey's actions are grounds
for removal from office. Is that going to be done? Is Mr. Bailey being
punished in some other way for violating Jason's rights? If not, what
is being done?
Henry Towsner
US2003112558