On 9/6/05, Henry Towsner <henryt@...> wrote:
> So, you're saying that if an officer is ordered to do something t=
hey
> don't support, they should do it under protest, but if they actually
> express their protest openly, that becomes "failing to cooperate"?
That's not even close to what I said.
Refusing to implement a decision by a supervising ST means that the ST
chain is free to find someone else to hold your position who can
follow policy.
Implementing that decision, but with respectful comments that you
disagree with the decision, is not (in my opinion) worthy of any form
of disciplinary action. (Doing so disrespectfully may be a CoC
violation, but I think we all know that.)
Or, in other words, doing it under protest is fine. Not doing it at
all is not fine.
> 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?
Again, no, I didn't say that. Jason is culpable for the unrelated
reasons I stated before. Dale's actions in this case don't change
Jason's culpability one way or the other.
> So, Jason's failure to instruct Dale to address the matter is obv=
iously
> 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.
Again, nowhere did I use Dale's actions or lack thereof as any
justification for any punishment. Similarly, it is not a very good
justification, I think, to avoid any punishment.
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/