From mcgregor@u.washington.edu Mon Jan 15 15:12:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: from homer26.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.01/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA02975; Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:12:11 -0800 Received: by homer26.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.01/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA16933; Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:12:09 -0800 X-Sender: mcgregor@homer26.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:12:09 -0800 (PST) From: "M. Mcgregor" To: Ben Jacobsen Cc: uwracing@u.washington.edu Subject: Executive Powers Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mr. President and Members at Large: I have an important issue to discuss on open lines. First off, I would like to address this issue in general, and give all of you the opportunity to reflect. Then I will await your reply for a brief period. After that period has expired, I will start dicussing details: Responsibilities The representatives of an organization are intrusted with deciding on the routine affairs of the general body. Therefor the rep. should know the desires of the constituancy and the primary goals of the organization. When tough issues arise, it is not necessary for a rep. to resolve the problem alone or amoungst a small body of reps. The rep(s) should inform the general body on the details of the issue, await their consultation, then take the appropriate measures. Sometimes this means making decisions amoungst the representative body, and other times it means putting the issue to a vote of the general body. Regardless of the out come there exsists a standard for addressing any given issue. Professionalism One of the factors that complicates resolution, is the personal relationship between parties involved. Concern should be taken for the rights and repution of the parties involved, which implies that a delicate manor should be excercised to control all confrontations. The bottom line is that all issues, regardless of there rank, should be resolved. And it is the policies of the organization that must prevail in the end. Misconduct There are many of the school of phylosphy, whom agree that: It is the intentions associated with misconduct, which form the bases of a damage assesment, not the sum of real damages. For, misconduct is an issue of morality and interperatition. The sum of real damages is factored into deciding the degree punishment and retribution. Misconduct often leads to some level of distrust. And it is trust between members of an organization that binds the parties together. Once the trust has been broken the body begins to degenerates. The sooner a resolution is formed and a plan is executed, then the lesser the accumulative damage. Treaties Often relationships are formed between an organization, and other parties. The objective of these relationships is to provide some convienance (sic) to both parties. When an act of misconduct crosses the boundaries of an agreement with an outside party, then this act becomes detrimental to that relationship and others (be they present or future relationships). It is the responsibility of the source to correct all damages. This may mean losing some face, when informing another organization that an abuse effecting them originated from your organization. But let us consider the alternative. If this other organization discovered that the plan it agreed to was abused and they were never informed, then they would be justified in concluding that the abuse was sanctioned and intentional. Abuse When I was a kid, the old folks use to have a saying: "Crime doen't pay." As much as one would like to believe, sometimes it pays in real profits. But the statement comes from a desire to express an ideal, that an abuse of trust should not pay in terms of what we value most. What do you value? If you don't protect what you value, then who will? -member .