5/23/05

Back

On 5/22/05, Jason Patton wrote:
> Mr. Teodorescu-Badia and Mr. Bailey,
>
> The members of PA-008 D have repeatedly asked for information concerning the
> punishment that you handed down. I assumed that after Mr. Strauss and I
> waived confidentiality that the charges that were leveled against the two of
> us would be presented. I have discussed this matter with my Chapter
> Coordinator and have found no rule against making this public so have
> included it to keep the membership informed of the situation.
>
> I have been informed that the full list of charges are:
>
> 1. Failure to follow direct instructions from a superior officer.

Possible... but what exactly? What were you instructed to do, and when?

> 2. Failure to communicate as instructed by a superior officer.

That might be true, you were late with your reply that one time, when he issued an ultimatum.

> 3. Failure to respect the Camarilla's Storyteller chain.

As in "you did things outside of your power as an ST" (which isn't true) or as in "you voiced a negative opinion of higher level STs" (which, if it's a crime, we should all be suspended for ten years).

> 4. Failure to respond in a manner pertinent to the issue in question.

So they're miffed that you jacked a notification item discussion to instead talk about the attitude of the MSTs office as a whole.

> 5. Invoking miscellaneous grievances immaterial to the instructions issued
> by a superior officer.

Which I guess is a continuation of four, not that we know what instructions are being referenced.

> 6. Ignoring confirmations from the coordinator chain (Club Director) that
> instructions from a superior officer were legitimate, and responding in an
> improper manner (see 10).

Does the CD count as being part of the Coord chain? I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that it's debatable. This one, more than anything else, is an excuse to get the number of "things you've done wrong" higher. "Didn't do X" and "still didn't do X when the big boss told him to" are the same thing.

> 7. Replying to ST-level communication in a deceitful manner, sending emails
> to the NST/RST/MST/CD using 'blind carbon copy' to the Domain list without
> informing the individuals in question that this communication had been made
> public without their permission.

That was Strauss. That was once to the MST. That was investigated. That was found to be an accident.

> 8. Disclosing confidential approvals database communication (set at 'Low'
> visibility) to the membership at large in the 'BCC' mail listed in 7.

Again, that's redundant and again, that was investigated and found to be accidental.

> 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.

I can't speak for repeatedly, but other than that, this looks solid. This here, this might be a legitimate complaint.

> 10. Repeated insubordinate behavior and offensive language used in responses
> to direct instructions from a superior officer, even after confirmation from
> the coordinator chain.

Is anyone else worried that "repeated insubordination" suddenly appears on the first action against the member in question? How does one repeatedly do something when the incident in question is the first dealings that have occurred between the mentioned parties? I also highly doubt that "offensive" language has been used by anyone in these exchanges. As we all know, that' s Murphy's job.

- Donald Sheldon US2002022644
Flippancy is the only defense I have against my brain self destructing.

Back