Regional Disciplinary Report Regarding Official Complaint Filed by EEL 7/13/11

[techres]

Hello all,

One of the functions of an RC is to maintain and support the states in that region so that they can become a working group all working towards the same goals of Appleseed.  As such, one of the responsibilities of the RC is to mediate situations between members of different states.  This usually can be done quietly and through SC's but on occasion the differences bubble up strongly enough that an RC has to get involved.  This is one of those moments.

On 7/13/11 I received an official complaint from EEL regarding a PM sent by Colycat to instructors inside of IL.

At my request, I received an official response from Coly regarding EEL's complaint that same day.

Having received both I have asked both to give me time to review both procedure and the case of the complaint itself.  At this time, the procedure has been decided by Coly's SC, myself as RC and the HRC with Fred in observance.

First I will post the complaint, the reply and the decision on procedure.  After that I will post my decision in detail. 

Thank you for your patience in this,
Techres, RC
Great Lakes Region

[techres]

This is the formal complaint filed by EEL and received by me.  Please note that I asked EEL to be specific in his complaint so that I could review it carefully:

techres,
Consider this a formal complaint against SI and Advisory Board person Colycat. 
1.  On several occasions he has posted on threads that were a direct violation of CPR.  He has removed several
     of them from those threads when requested.  At least 1 post probably would have been cause for banishment
     from Appleseed.
2.  He has sent numerous PMs that were both inflammatory and condescending.
3.  His most recent PM, sent to certain IL instructors was a blatant attempt at a coup.  The fact that it was sent only
    to select individuals reinforces that this was a subversive, intentional act.
4.  He has "spoken ill of a fellow Appleseeder" on more than 1 occasion.
5.  He has forwarded PMs (PRIVATE messages) on several occasions without permission.
6.  His actions as an Advisory Board member are reprehensible, at best. 
7.  As an AB member, he is held to a higher standard than the average Appleseeder.
8.  I believe these actions fall under the "more serious" offense as outlined below.

What constitutes a "more serious" offense?
An offense that has the potential to produce irreparable damage to the reputation of either a fellow volunteer or the program.  (emphasis added) More serious infractions at an event would require more involvement up the Chain of Command.  A more serious forum infraction will be handled by the moderators of the board in which the infraction took place, the Regional Coordinator (RC) and Head Regional Coordinator (HRC) when appropriate, the Advisory Board (AB), and the National Director.

His attempts at dividing and stirring up unrest in the Illinois cadre has seriously harmed the Illinois program.  He has given new life to the issues that we had previously resolved back in March.  As a member of "National", he has broken the all important trust between "labor and management".

Respectfully,
EEL

That is the entirety of the complaint.

[techres]

This is the formal rebuttal filed by Colycat and received by me.  Please note that I asked Colycat to be specific in his complaint and keep to the points in the complaint so that I could review his rebuttal carefully:

I guess I will address the charges against me using EEL's numbered point.

1   Probably true, In conversations with EEL, he brought up some and I either did an edit or removed them.  We used to talk as friends.

2   Probably need some details here.  The only one that comes to mind is to tell Boba to get a clue or get out.  This morphed in FB "to get the F out."

3   The email sent to certain instructor's in IL was deliberate.  There are instructors who I have brought all from IIT1 to near red hat.  Several, I would have given the full instructor status, but for a directive from IL.  "Only they can make RH's."  My intention was to let them know that they can petition for an effective SC.  Ill. Is important to me, as it is where I meet all the great people in AS when I was getting started.

4   Can't really answer this charge, with out details.

5   PM's are not private messages, unless the author tells me other wise.

6   Hard to respond to this charge, with out details.  I guess the AB board would be able to address this.

7   I am still the same at times, a very stupid man that I have always been.  Being on the AB board, if anything has made me a worse person.

8   This is the meat, I quess.  I have never done anything to harm the program or to damage the reputation of a fellow  AS brother.  Never. 
I do not believe that I have done anything to harm the program in IL.  Judging by the "blue flue" in the state, nothing was resolved at the March meeting. Am I mad at some of the instructors in IL, you bet I am.  The statement sent out by the SC, informing all instructors that they are not covered for anything,  was grounds for dismissal, in my opinion.  As it was totally false and did nothing other than to pit Fred against the instructors.

It is my opinion that IL is totally responsible for everything that is wrong in their state.

Now I would like to address this statement from an earlier PM.  From EEL,,,

Consider it a formal complaint.  Just got this from an IL instructor:  "I would support a petition to remove Colycat from his "National" position due to a vote of no confidence in his ability to lead and inspire others in a matter befitting Appleseed and for a general lack of good character and integrity necessary for anyone working in a "National" role."

I think that I should be a little proud of the state of WI.  When I got my first hat, WI had one shoot.  In June Ornell and Guy were the instructors.  November, I got the most prestigious club in the state to hold an AS in Oct.

Fast forward about 21 years, WI has a great staff.  No one is un happy, other than we wish we could do better.  I think we had the largest to date, for a Fred IBC.

I will stand on my record and on the caliber of the instructors that I have mentored in this state and MN.

Respectfully,

Colycat

This is the rebuttal that I received.  It has only been edited to remove a repeat of EEL's complaint and to add quotes around the quoted material - all to make it easier to read.

[techres]

Since there is no specific course of action listed for dealing with an SI from one state complaining against the SI of another state, I felt the most appropriate action was to keep this as a regional situation despite calls for dealing with it as a state issue as well as others calling for it to be dealt with as a national issue.

EEL's call for this to be treated as a "more severe" situation is not an option as that language does not directly relate to this situation:

A more serious forum infraction will be handled by the moderators of the board in which the infraction took place, the Regional Coordinator (RC) and Head Regional Coordinator (HRC) when appropriate, the Advisory Board (AB), and the National Director.

First of all, there is no forum "in which the infraction took place" as the initiating event here was a PM.
Second of all, per the policy the HRC, AB's and ND's involvement are "when appropriate" and not "required absolutely".

Thus the language of the policy simply does not fit EEL's initial request in his complaint, but an "appropriate" process is none the less required.  As a

In order to confirm my opinion as to the correct course of action, I brought together the SC of WI (Dragonfly), the HRC (Hawkhavn), and the ND (Fred) and gave them my analysis and advised course of action:

I have reviewed both the initial complaints and the disciplinary rules and find both wanting in their exact application to this situation.

The first issue is the one about which disciplinary model is most accurately applicable to this situation.  Two have been argued: 

1. Dragonfly, a complaint has been lodged against one of your instructors and as such you are the lead with me available to help you.  This is the norm for a simple complaint against an instructor.

2. Hawkhavn, a complaint has been lodged against a national worker and as such you are lead with me and the RC's as the judging body.  This is the norm for a simple complaint against a national worker acting in that capacity ("a complaint against national").

Personally, I find both models wanting.  First of all - Coly is both an instructor and a national worker.  He does not give up his rights as an individual and his freedom of speech for being a SB, a RH, or a National worker.  That is a no-go.  At the same time, Coly is not just a random instructor - he is an SI and a senior member of the WI leadership.  Additionally, EEL is not just some random Instructor either.  He also is an SI and nominally is the acting SC whenever Garand69 is off the forum.  For both of these reasons, this complaint really cannot be handled just within WI.  It is too regional for that.

As such, I believe the proper tool is the one designed for SC's which leaves the decision making authority to the RC since the issue is, in fact, a regional issue just as an SC/SC fight would be.  That is what I believe most fair and closest to the spirit of the posted Disciplinary policy.

I welcome, quickly, your agreement or disagreement on this procedural decision.  In essence, I am asking each of you to waive your rights to lead this proceeding and instead leave it to me as the RC to do.

Once I have this, if it exists, then I can move onto the next step which is the actual statements taken from EEL and Coly.

Trying to do this by the book,
Techres

P.S. Fred, you are included both as witness and as ND who has all final veto powers.  I assume you will speak up if you disagree with anything.

That same morning I received PM's from each agreeing to my course of action and waiving their claim on leading this proceeding. 

[techres]

The Decision

A Preliminary Comment from the RC:

I would point out that this review and any actions taken or comments made are being forced onto me by the two actors involved in this situation.  Coly and EEL both own this situation as well as the time and energy that has been expended into this report.

As RC this sort of situation would be most easily solved by telling both participants to "stop fighting on the playground during recess" and move on.  I was greatly tempted to do exactly that, however since accusations were made, counter accusations returned, and an official complaint lodged, I will do my duty as RC to decide in this matter.  I also fear that if I do not talk these issues out, they will simply re-emerge again down the road.


The Decision Process Is As Follows:

I will deal with these items one by one, in the numerical order given by EEL.  I will NOT include comments from others than the two individuals involved.  I will keep to these points carefully in order to make this brief.  NOTE I asked EEL to be specific in his complaint as well as Colycat in his rebuttal, and such will address EEL's exact complaints as made and those points Colycat made in direct rebuttal.

Point 1: Violations of CPR.

I see no examples of CPR violations in Coly's postings or the PM in question.  No examples are given, and I have yet to see one.  If there is one in the future, I would advise that be sent to the head of the moderation team for addressing, but since no examples were given, I see no actionable complaint in this point.

Point 2: Inflammatory & Condescending PM's.

I see no examples of previous PM's given in this point and thus have nothing to look at specifically.  I know that in the difficult times of the spring, many people from many sides sent many extremely inflammatory PM's, emails, posts on facebook, and many other comments - however the agreement in the Ottowa meeting, later ratified in the RFC was that those issues were all expunged in the amnesty that Fred offered.  Therefore they are not applicable in any current complaint.  The very clear point, and social contract, of that agreement was that past issues would be past and not brought up again.  It is my hope that everyone will hold to both the letter and spirit of that agreement. 

As for the PM that Colycat sent to some of the instructors of IL, it was stupid.  For those in the leadership of IL, I am sure it was upsetting as it was aimed at lobbying for changing their filling of the leadership positions in their state.  In the same way seeing political or campaign literature may upset any incumbent, I understand the emotional response.  At the same time, the facts of the PM determine if it reaches the level of inflammatory.  Personally, if I read such a PM about Yellowhousejake, I would have laughed and just moved on but not been upset.  At the same time the act of sending it was not likely to have a positive effect in IL even if that was Colycat's intent.  It is definitely not something I would have expected from a seasoned member of this organization, but all too often see in my region and for which I have less and less patience.

We cannot survive stupid any more than we can survive petty squabbling.  It must end so that we can become the professionals our nation needs.

Point 3:  "Attempted Coup" as a "subversive, intentional act".

I have no doubt that Coly's act was intentional.  He says that it was deliberate.  The fact that he did so is not by definition subversive.  Subversive is defined as: "Seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution."  His PM clearly intended to inform IL instructors what their options were under the systems and policies of the institution of Appleseed.  Individuals do not constitute institutions.  They may be established in that institution, but they are not themselves the institution.

As for coup, that is defined as "A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover."  While Coly's information definitely was not supportive of the current leaders of IL, it was not a "sudden appropriation of leadership" in any logical fashion.  Since he used no power other than words with other instructors I am unconvinced this was an attempted coup.

Point 4:  Speaking Ill of a fellow Appleseeder.

EEL has not made a specific complaint here but a general comment.  In doing so he has given no specific example that is actionable.  I will only add that I hear many people speaking ill of many others far to often.  I am not going to ask for more info on this point as the volume of "pot calling the kettle black" from all sides would be overwhelming.

And none of it would be productive.

Point 5: The sharing of "private messages".

Let me clear up this common misconception.  PM means personal message.  PM does not mean private message:



Anyone who wishes to specifically ask another person to keep something confidential is welcome to do so.  That is a personal contract of confidence.  To assume every comment made in a PM is a binding contract of confidence is unwise for the sender, and unfair to the receiver.   

Point 6: Reprehensible Acts on the AB.

This claim has been made with no fact or specific point of reference and is thus not actionable in the complaint.  I will note that the complaint itself risks appearing in violation of Point 4 itself since it is unsupported.  In any event, I will simply disregard it for lack of evidence given.

Point 7: Higher Standard for AB Members   

I agree that members in leadership positions should be held to higher standards of leadership.  I believe that to be true of AB members, WLX members, RC's, SC's and other senior members in leadership positions of each and every state.  That is a true measure, but it is one that still has to be met with fact.

Currently I have seen more than my fair share of claims that others should be held to the highest standards.  I would warn anyone stating this that that comment is a double edged sword and that the claimant also will be held to the high standards of leadership themselves.

In this case the drama has reached a point that I no longer see a pair of leaders, but instead see a drama filled squabble that is, in part, best settled by no further contact between the parties and that both should know that if they continue this, both will be held to those high standards they demand of each other.

Point 8: "More Serious" Offense

The essential claim is that Coly's PM was an act that "attempts at dividing and stirring up unrest in the Illinois cadre has seriously harmed the Illinois program."  Additionally, it "has given new life to the issues that we had previously resolved back in March."  Finally, Coly, "[a]s a member of "National", he has broken the all important trust between "labor and management".

The are two parts here: intent & result.

Intent: Did Colycat intend to harm the Illinois program?  His response indicates that he believed that his act would, in fact, help the IL program.  The issue then becomes is the current leadership of IL the same as the IL program?  Colycat would say no, EEL would say yes.

This is an important point to understand at this time in the program.  Once we were small and the people and position appeared as one.  But as we have grown, Appleseed has become a true organization aware that positions that are filled by people who fulfill the responsibilities of those positions.  As such, it is important that everyone understand that that a person and a position are not one and the same.  If it were so, then we would run the real risk of monarchies and fiefdoms where positions are filled perpetually by the same people no matter the performance they created.  That is disastrous to any organization.

Result: Did Colycat injure the IL program?  EEL claims that Colycat has given life to old angers, and Colycat counter claims that the the state was already in that condition as made clear by a "blue flu" in the state.

The only way to know is to run the numbers and see what they say.  I ran these numbers from the schedules of 2009, 2010, and first half of 2011.  I picked senior leadership and a sampling shoot bosses in IL and looked for patterns.  These were my results as of last Friday:













From these what I can see are several instructors who had, at the time of Colycat's PM, severely dropped off of their workload to the point of near dormancy.  I also see others who picked up tremendous workload to the point of risking the dangers of burnout.  The additional lack of signing any new shoots since April was also telling.  If these were the numbers that Coly looked at, then I see where his analysis came from. 

Now, I am not singling out IL for not doubling their shoots, or their shooters.   Every state in the union is faced with shoots that are full in one case and then have only 2 or 3 shooters in another.  It has happened in IL, IN, WI, KY and beyond our region.  That measure is not being applied here at all because we are all in the same situation.  Additionally, few have managed to double outright at this time.  However, the effort to sign, promote, and staff is still the responsibility of the leadership in every state.  That measure is applicable to all and is the source of the concerns that I see in the numbers above.

As to the lasting effect of Colycat's PM, that is up to the instructors of IL.  The path of their state is theirs to make.  If either combatant in this fight continues, the damage continues.  If either uses this dust up to position themselves and their people against another persons or groups in Appleseed, then that sin is upon their own head.  The future here is what is made of it and I cannot see that it is determined by Colycat's PM.

Our Appleseed State program is just that: a program.  It is built up of positions that are filled by people, and it is a mistake when people and positions get confused as one and the same.  Given the information above, it would seem that among many there was already a problem in IL and Colycat was acting on it - although not in the appropriate manner.  For some Colycat's PM is likely to upset, and others may balm.  But I do not find it uniquely causal to IL's future as claimed.

I will note that after this complaint was made there has been more communication and effort made from the leadership of IL to their RC than before.  If that is the lemonade we make, then so be it. 

As To The Additional Comments from Coly:

I will not be commenting on the specific counter complaints from Coly that are from a PM not directly included in this complaint.  I am only dealing with the complaint made by EEL and the rebuttal points from Coly that directly relate to EEL's complaint points.

Decision:

I simply am unable to find clear evidence to support much of the complaint petition as filed as actionable.

Points 1, 2, 4, and 6 are unsupported and undocumented, leaving them unable to be fact-checked and thus non-actionable. 

Points 3 and 5 are incorrect by definition. 

Point 7 is a statement of fact that all should be wary of and respectful to, but in and of itself is not actionably applicable. It would only be applicable if there was proof of "crime" in another point.  If I lower the standard to make what has happened an offense, then I have to apply that to far more leaders in my region than just Colycat and that will do no one any good at this time.  If this stuff continues I will have to reconsider this decision.  I hope that is not necessary.

Point 8 is also factually inaccurate as it fails in the test of "intent" as well as "effect".  The facts of IL as listed above, instead, support Coly's rebuttal and as such require this point be left as lacking support to the complaint.  In the measure of effect, none was specifically demonstrated as causally linked to Colycat's PM alone.

As such, I do not find any items within this complaint that are sufficient to support any direct disciplinary against Colycat alone as requested in the complaint.

Disciplinary Action Advised:

None at this time, other than the following:

(A) Ask both Colycat and the leadership of IL (EEL, Garand69 & Pappy) to stop this inappropriate fighting now.  This incident began with Colycat's PM but it is far from the first and both sides have had their chance to poke the other with sharp sticks on more than one occation. It ends now.  If it continues, there will be regional level consequences.  I have utterly lost patience with unproductive and unprofessional drama that plagues this region and saps the minimal resources that we have to save a nation with.

(B) Specifically ask Colycat to make EXTREMELY clear when he speaks as an individual and when he speaks on behalf of the AB, or SI's, or WI.  That tension, and concern should be true for any of the hard workers of Appleseed who have taken on dual, triple or even more roles in this program.  While no worker loses their right to free association and communication, it is wise for the good of all that clarity be a goal.  This is true for all workers, I single out Colycat in this instance because of this PM, but all should take the lesson and learn from it.

(C) Fully expect that this would end any additional unsolicited emails concerning the state coordinator process of election/retention in regards to IL.  That is a request in the form of a statement for all.  Understand it as a statement.

Final comments:

It is my hope that this matter is concluded.  I have given copies of this review to Colycat's SC, the HRC, and the ND for review and they have waived any right to veto it's conclusions and decision on disciplinary action.

I would ask everyone to go back to what truly matters here: our students, our shoots, and the nation we are trying to save.

They deserve our every effort,
Techres, RC
Great Lakes Region.