🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jan31.165013@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
> In article <1991Jan30.025554.2081@dcs.simpact.com>, jeh@dcs.simpact.com writes:

> Hmm. Nobody asked me to sign anything but the registration form. 

The issue seems to be that current procedures drop the ball WRT
pre-registration. The case in point involves on-site registration where the
policy is implemented as intended.  The incident alerted the Board to this and
they are working on fixing the pre-registration problem.

> "All Registrants: by registering, all attendees agree to abide by the
> Canons of Conduct" -- Registration packet, book II, page 4, large type.
> 
> "Canons of Conduct are policy that has been implemented to allow for the
> revocation of symposium registration of those attendees who have been
> obviously disruptive and/or have attempted to sabotage or vandalize
> machines and/or software WHILE AT SYMPOSIA." (emphasis mine)  --
> Registration packet, book II, page 4, column 2 at the top.
> 
> Thus there IS a policy for revoking registration, and this person did
> not violate that policy. The board broke its own rules.

Am I correct that "SYMPOSIA" is a plural?  That is, it refers to more than the
current one?  If so, I refer you to first hand reports posted by Jeff Killeen
over on DECUServe where he positively states that the individual in question
*was* found crashing systems on the exhibit floor at a previous symposium. In
that case Jeff reports the individual was ejected from the symposium along with
two others involved in the same case, and the current policy including the
notice on the back of the badge about "property of DECUS" was instituted to
better cover the need to do the same sort of thing in the future.  In other
words this individual in particular was the start of all this some years ago.

Jeff's report matches my own less direct recollection of the incident in
question although I did not know the names of the individuals involved at the
time.  This is the first I have made the connection between that incident and
the more recent ones that have been so widely reported.  Unless you want to
question Jeff's direct, and most definite report of the background it would
seem the Board indeed did have the right under the policy cited to revoke the
badge and eject the individual when he was recognized.

Keep in mind the DECUS By-laws have always given the Board the right to approve
membership applications and to revoke membership as the Board saw fit.  You may
or may not like this By-law, but remember it was approved by the membership. 
You may well want to keep this in mind when the anticipated By-law change that
is now in the works comes to a vote.  Don't just rubber stamp it.  Think about
it and debate it.

> I can only speak for myself, so consider this. Suppose I attended DECUS
> and had my badge yanked (I can't say why this might happen, as the board
> apparently have criteria they don't deign to share with the membership)
> and was sent packing. My company pays for my trips to DECUS. The
> registration fee (which was refunded) is not even the majority of the
> expense of the trip. My company is out much money, having received no
> value in return. This doesn't make me look real good. I kinda doubt they
> refunded the guy his hotel bill, airline fare, meals, etc.

It has been reported a number of times the individual was based locally so the
expenses were pretty small in this case.  I have not seen any indication if
this was taken into account in the Board's action, but no doubt it makes a
difference as to what kind of action the individual might be likely to take to
recover damages.  If he can't show much out of pocket loss he is much less
likely to spend the time and money to go after DECUS.

> --
> Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
> (uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
> (800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

Through the By-laws we give the Board great latitude to deal with things like
this.  The only check and balance for the membership is the electoral process.
Basically, the Board members have been refusing to talk about what they did.  I
suggest those who are concerned should be sure it is an issue in the upcoming
election and I suggest they withhold their votes from any candidate, challenger
or incumbent, who fails to address the issue to their satisfaction.  That is
the only real recourse any of us have.  Lets leave it at that.

Bob Hassinger
hassinger@lmrc      ...ccavax!lmrc!hassinger