8/10/05

Back

Charlie,

I can see your points here. I have elaborated my thoughts below. :)

--- Charlie Collins wrote:
> I think that we can all understand that many
> policies have a hefty amount
> of judgment call in them. However, that isn't
> actually what many people in
> this domain are objecting to. The objection is to
> policies that are being
> presented as binding, even though they are not
> written. The statements of
> "I feel action X is appropriate in this case" and
> "policy Y dictates that I
> take action X despite my personal feelings" are very
> different. As an
> example, we have been given the impression that
> going "into the black"
> because of not reporting has the default result of a
> domain being folded.
> If that is the case, then it should be written
> somewhere. I don't mean
> that it needs to be written in stone, but that it
> should be mentioned along
> with the fact that it is ultimately a judgment call.
That is indeed a sensible point. I can see where you are coming from. Indeed it makes sense that a policy that is not written should not be presented as binding. Many things that are done and taken as as "unwritten rules" or "unwritten policies" have resulted from precedents set by others. An example would be removal of domain status for domain behavior (I am not applying this to Pittsburgh). This actually happened. I remember being part of that precedent being set. There was no policy in place... there was only a decision based upon evidence provided and the decisions of the officers involved. Another example has been chapters and domains that have gone black for no reports. There is no policy for how to handle that... but precedent has set that black chapters and domains traditionally are folded absent of a good reason why they should not be.

> A rule does no good if the people who are expected
> to follow it don't know
> of its existence. And a personal judgment presented
> as "organizational
> policy" creates a lot of confusion and often mutates
> into an "unwritten
> rule" as more and more people come to believe that
> the policy was actually
> created at some time.
I agree. It is hard to follow a rule you do not know about and cannot find somewhere. Allow me to present an example though that may help. Tax court. There are cases where the IRS expects you to handle something a certain way. However, the tax court has overturned the IRS before on things. The Tax Court has set a precedent. This precedent is then used in future dealings with a taxpayer choosing to go against the approved IRS method. If the taxpayer uses the method that the tax court ruled in favor of, the IRS can still challenge it, and have it taken into tax court again where it will likely be upheld again. Basically, a precedent being set... and continued use of that precedent cause it to become an "unwritten rule" that can be used by taxpayers. Obviously, because it is Tax Court, you can research it and then use it as a reference for your reason to go against the approved IRS methods. Therefore, in a way, it is written. In the Camarilla many of the "unwritten rules" have come to pass because of a precedent that has been set and used again by coordinators and/or storytellers. But, I definitely agree that unwritten rules are very hard to abide by if no one else knows about them.

> It is my opinion that it is very important that
> things that are actually
> rules and policies be written down and available to
> everyone who might need
> to know them. How else are we to know when something
> is policy or just a
> rumor that got started from a misunderstanding?
Definitely sensible. But, you want to be careful how much you put in writing. Not necessarily because of the legal issues... but more because of how much information you might be dealing with. Some policies can end up taking up pages and pages and pages of book space. I'm sure that if you take all the "unwritten rules" and "unwritten policies" and write them down... I'm sure that we would end up with so much information that it would be insane.

Again, not trying to be argumentative or anything... just presenting my thoughts. :)

Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator

Back