On 9/6/05, Charlie Collins <cwc+@...> wrote:
>
> As for it being something that "should not require much time for
> deliberation", I disagree.
> This application violated the Addendum, and therefore questioning and
> discussion should not be unexpected.
> The Addendum also allows exceptions to the itself with MST
> approval, and of course the MST has the power to rewrite the document if =
he
> so chooses.=20
Given the second quote here, I'm having trouble seeing where it
violates the Addendum for the MST to make an exception for this
application.
> If there *was* a direct and explicit order to
> approve it, then I wonder why Dale was not given similar instruction, and
> why Jason was fired before he had the *opportunity* to not comply.
Jason did not simply fail to process the application - he appeared to
be actively resisting it. I would hazard a guess, though it's only a
guess, that Alex didn't want to punish Dale for not taking his
supervisor to task.
> As far as I am aware, Jason referred the "improper conduct" to Strauss'
> Chapter Coordinator and asked Strauss to refrain from commenting in the
> Database. Since he both referred CoC issues to the coordinator side and
> took steps to prevent the same issue from happening again, in what way di=
d
> he fail to deal appropriately with the situation? What *should* he have
> done differently, and why were his actions deemed outside of the realm of=
a
> reasonable discretion on his part and into the realm of "failing to deal"
> with the incident.
According to Strauss' chapter coordinator, and the chapter report
filed, the only matter referred to the coordinator chain was BCCing an
email to the domain list. Nothing else.
> I know that by now, you and many other officers, are sick of the domain o=
f
> Pittsburgh latching on like bulldogs and asking question after question,
> but it is just our frustration at wanting details. So many of the
> accusations have been passed from person to person as fact that we worry
> that some of his transgressions have grown in the telling, and it makes i=
t
> seem to us (regardless of truth) that the matter was insufficiently
> investigated. While we may be arguing semantics in some cases, it is
> because we are trying to isolate the facts and details from the things th=
at
> we have been told. We are trying to get a refined explanation where we ca=
n
> clearly see what went wrong. We would greatly appreciate it if you could
> provide those details so that we can understand the situation, and restor=
e
> our faith in the system.
Though my own role is limited, being only one vote of six on the body
that reviewed one element of the decision, I'm trying to at least make
more information available than was before. I'm not in a position to
speak about everything, but at least my little corner of things will
hopefully be more transparent when I'm done.
--=20
Wes Contreras, US2002022038
US National Coordinator
cam.usnc@...
http://www.camarilla.us/