Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:41:33 -0400

Back
Previous Next

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:57 -0700, US National Coordinator wrote:
> It didn't change mine. If I were a VST, and I saw my boss making
> comments like that on the application, I wouldn't touch it with a
> 10-foot pole until the situation got resolved one way or the other. By
> the same token, the DST supervises the VSTs as well, and should have
> been addressing any lack of activity on the VST's part as well. So
> while it may be an indication that the VST is also at fault (though
> perhaps not; I don't know), it doesn't indicate that the DST is any
> less at fault. To me at least.

So, you're saying that if an officer is ordered to do something they
don't support, they should do it under protest, but if they actually
express their protest openly, that becomes "failing to cooperate"?

Dale hasn't approved it because he's waiting for answers to some
questions he asked months ago. Are you saying that Jason is culpable,
to the point of punishment, for failing to order Dale to approve the
item without getting his questions answered--even though it had only
been pending a few weeks, less time than many other approvals have
waited at various levels at various times?

> I presume Alex, David, and Jon have reasons for not having instructed
> the VST to deal with the app in a timely manner, possibly because they
> were waiting for the appeal to conclude, though that's pure conjecture
> on my part.

So, Jason's failure to instruct Dale to address the matter is obviously
criminal, and grounds for punishment without ever asking him why he
didn't, while Jon and David's failure to do the exact thing for four
times as long is so obviously reasonable that it requires no
justification?
I fail to see why an appeal like this could possibly be viewed as an
obstacle to the approval process.

Henry Towsner
US2003112558


Back
Previous Next