Henry,
If I may address your points.
And please. keep in mind that I am not trying to be mean or anything. I am merely presenting responses to your points. :-)
_____
From: steelshadows@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steelshadows@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Henry Towsner
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:27 PM
To: steelshadows@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [steelshadows] Clarificiations
I finally finished updating the website with all the discussion that's
happened recently. It may not matter much if the Council is about to
reach a ruling, but there were a few pieces of misinformation that got
stated several times by various people, so I thought I'd try to clear
those up.
1) Camarilla rules require that the domain be disbanded/that our venues be shut down if we don't report for 6 months
This is purely an informal, unwritten guideline. That means it somewhere less binding than the rule that prohibited Charles Bailey from barring Jason from office or the guideline that prohibits the penalty from taking effect until his appeal is done. It would not be a "special exception" for the Cam Council or Jon to not enforce this; in fact, it requires active, positive action for either of these things to happen-- the default state is that nothing happens, even if the Domain goes into the black.
---In all honesty, RCs are asked at 6 months by the national coordinator or his delegated assistant what is going on with the chapter/domain that reaches six months without a report. Having been that assistant, I know this to be fact. I used to email the RCs who had black chapters or domains from coordinator reporting non-compliance. The "default" state as you call it is actually not true. The NC had authorized me, back when I was ANC: Chapters to close chapters and domains that had reached black status for report non-compliance. So the default is not always the case.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any precedent at all for shutting down VSS' due to a missing DST. Perhaps there are cases I'm not aware of, but in the cases where the Camarilla Council has not shut down a domain for lack of reporting, it's my understanding that the RST's have not interfered. Given that, it would be a new policy, not enforcing an old policy, for Jon to close our venues. (Again, I'm not familiar with all the precedent, so perhaps there are cases that would support this action.)
---As Jon is the RST. VSS's are his ballywick and I will not touch on them.
This is not to say that it's necessarily wrong for the Council or Jed to take those actions, and they certainly have the authority to do so. I just want to be clear about the distinction between things people are obligated to do, things people should do, and places where they are free to exercise discretion.
---While it is not wrong for us to close a chapter or domain. we do look at the factors. Obviously, there is more than just reporting that we look at. We look at overall willingness to work with regional on things, actions of the members as a whole, reporting, etc. As I said at the meeting on Saturday, reporting is only one component we look at. though it is an important one.
2) The Domain is about to enter Black status
Assuming no reports are filed, we enter Black status on November 7. That means that we could vote None of the Above in the current election, hold a third election with the same schedule, and elect someone with a week and a half to write reports. So, while we should of course be aware of that possibility, it's not particularly imminent.
---While you may have time. I would not suggest trying to utilize it in that fashion. As I pointed out to people on Saturday and vice versa, the *perception* of that action would appear as if the domain were trying to work against the rules and their spirit. This also has the appearance that the domain is trying to work against regional. Now, while that might not be the case. the appearance would be there. In many cases, perception becomes reality. I do my very best to keep perception from becoming my reality. I would hope though, that you, as a domain would not do something that others would perceive as what I said a sentence ago.
3) The Domain is responsible for the first election being dragged out
At the Domain meeting, we voted to ask Jon to extend the application period. No indication was given that we wanted to extend the rest of the election. As far as I can tell, there was some kind of miscommunication along the way, and Jon instead delayed the wrong part of the election. I'm fairly certain that this was a genuine accident, but in no way does the Domain hold responsibility for the election being so delayed (indeed, several people clarified what the Domain wanted after the schedule was announced).
---Since I was not involved in that vote. I will not comment here.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Sincerely,
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator