> In this I agree with you completely. I don't
> believe that all of the
> things that are unwritten policy should be written
> down and taken as hard
> rules. What I'm actually trying to get at is that
> many of these things are
> currently (and perhaps correctly) in our rules as
> uses of discretionary
> authority. Our officers are given fairly broad
> powers, and can certainly
> exercise them when they feel that they should.
> However, I feel that when
> they do so, they should make sure that they are in
> fact doing that rather
> than blindly following something that they think is
> a rule, or that they
> present as a rule.
I 100% agree with you here Charlie. If we make a
decision and there is no hard or fast rule, we should
say that we are following a precedent already set...
or in the case of no rule or precedent saying that we
our interpretation of the rules is how we came to
this. Obviously, the latter here is likely to be
appealed if the decision is not liked... but then
others in the chain can either ratify the decision or
choose to overturn the precedent. :)
> If one presents the complete reasoning behind a
> decision (barring of course
> some issues of privacy) then everyone can work
> productively towards fixing
> the actual problem, or can discuss whether some
> details are in fact the
> problems that they appear to be. If one only
> reveals one aspect of the
> reasoning (such as a domain missing a bunch of
> reports), then it takes much
> longer for everything to be resolved.
Understandable and agreeable. One thing to remember is
in disciplinary actions, they aren't public knowledge
because it protects the privacy of the member(s)
involved. For example, my regional report. There is a
disciplinary actions section in it. If you notice,
each month that section (that the region sees) says
"Deleted" or "Removed" or something to that effect. My
complete report, including disciplinary actions is
sent to a list for the regional and national reports.
This is done to protect the privacy of a member either
under investigation or who has had a disciplinary
action levied against them. Mainly, the reason for
this is that because after a disciplinary action is
served, they are supposed to be able to return to the
club without the past action being used against them
(with the caveat that they do not break the rules
again or if they are applying for an officer position,
it can be reviewed to make sure that the officer will
not be a problem officer in the future).
I like discussions like this Charlie... because it gives us a chance to really understand where each other is coming from. :)
Sincerely,
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
"If I could reach up & hold a star for everytime you've made me smile, the entire evening sky would be in the palm of my hand." - Misty Bownds