On 9/6/05, Henry Towsner <henryt@...> wrote:
> > "1. Failure to follow direct instructions from a superior officer."
> > [to a limited degree]
>=20
> Could you please point to what instructions Jason failed to follo=
w?
He was instructed to process the application as a notification, not an
approval. The application is still pending. I would say that qualifies
as a failure to handle it as a notification (which should not require
much time for deliberation).
> > "9. Failure to deal appropriately with the improper conduct of a
> > subordinate officer (ADST) after being repeatedly informed of the
> > impropriety by a superior officer."
>=20
> This is simply false, as Jason was never informed of any impropri=
eties.
I think the MST's emails made it very clear that he considered the
comments made to be lacking in propriety. I don't think any reasonable
person would interpret "highly inflammatory and unprofessional
accusations" as anything other than having some impropriety present.
At this point, it also looks like you want to argue semantics and
technicalities rather than the substance of the case. This decision of
the Council, though, wasn't about whether Alex was or was not correct
(Charles gets to deal with that) - it was about whether Jason Patton
acted appropriately. While the problems were pretty minor, my opinion
(and apparently the majority of the Council) was that Jason's actions
warranted a break from office. Not a year's worth, but still a break.
I also feel personally that the whole situation was not handled very
well in general, but that's outside my official scope of authority, so
that's about all I'm going to say here about that purely personal
opinion of mine.
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/