On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 17:54 -0400, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> Simply because someone is exercising the power he was granted through
> follow-the-rules elections does not make it abuse, though it is easily and
> frequently perceived as such by anyone disadvantaged by any decision. Jon
> has kept lines of communication open, has been far more than reasonably
> accomodating to our situation, and has continually stated that he will
> accept whatever decision we come up with, whether he likes it or not. The
> *only* thing he has done is accepted that a precedent (color status) is
> binding in this situation and pointed out that there might be a
> consequence.
Arbitrarily revoking a VSS is an abuse of power. You say that it would be following precedent to do so because the DST hasn't reported, but that's simply not the case. There's a precedent for closing the Domain in that situation (although that is, let me emphasize, merely a guideline, and not even a particularly formal one), but that's not Jon's decision.
Jon's threat to suspend our VSS' is a threat to invent a new rule, and apply it to coerce us. I, for one, am sick of his repeated attempts to justify his actions by claiming that vague or non-existent guidelines tie his hands, while showing no interest at all in following the actual, written rules of this organization. There is no precedent and no rule forcing Jon to remove one of our VSS' because we don't have a DST; if he does that, it's because he chooses to do it.
> Out of curiosity, Henry- If the Council finds against Jason, what are you
> going to do?
I haven't decided.
> As the resident expert, can you educate us on what can prevent someone
> from participating in an election, by how many different ways someone can
> achieve this hallowed status, with special attention to the varied methods
> of arguing pro or con for each particular situation? I honestly think that
> that would be useful for this discussion.
The relevant section is the Camarilla Constitution, section 10.3: "A member of the Camarilla USA has the right to apply for any elected or appointed office within the administrative or storytelling divisions in which he is a member, including positions on the Camarilla USA Council."
That is to say, running for office is a right of membership in the organization. (Formally, it's just the right to apply, but Jason isn't allowed to apply for office.)
Section 14.1 of the Camarilla Constitution adds that, as a result of a disciplinary action, members can lose some or all of their rights as members.
"There are three types of disciplinary action in the club: partial or full suspension of membership access and participation; partial or full loss of membership benefits and awards; and temporary or permanent revocation of membership."
This is the only way in which a member may lose membership privileges.
The Membership Handbook specifies the procedures involved in a disciplinary action. This includes an investigation, and a number of rights members have which must be respected (p. 71-77). Given that these procedures were utterly ignored, there has been no disciplinary action, thus my assertion that Jason is being improperly prevented from running for office. I suppose an alternate position would be that Jason is being properly prevented from running in response to an improperly handled disciplinary action; however given that there appears to have been no effort at all by the Club Director to treat this action as a disciplinary action, it appears that it was intended as an arbitrary exercise of authority, which is simply without power.
Henry Towsner
US2003112558