It is my view that the the person given the year probation was given a fair punishment for the "wearing of the apron" yet for some reason nobody seems willing to talk about this guy.
I don't bring "Fred" into the picture because it doesn't fit my thesis. I don't publically agree or disagree with your statements regarding the disparity between his punishment and mine, but I am referring to a different disparity, plain and simple. To me, this is about all the people who say "The apron hurt the product or integrity of KCBS." I think false score cards hurt it more. Plain and simple.
In all three cases, all three were given equal oppurtunity to defend themselves and their actions. All three did so for an extended period of time directly to the BOD in closed session.
This is not completely true. In my case, along with the other two involved, we were given the opportunity to call in and
answer questions. The rest happened in "executive executive session" without us present. There is a pretty far cry from answering questions to defending ourselves. We were never told the exact accusations levied against us, nor ever given a chance to "defend" ourselves. A majority of the questions that they asked were about protecting themselves too: "When did you put the apron on? Who saw you with the apron? Is there any way that you can prove that the reps and promotor knew you had it, or can we get out of this without punishing them?" The last one is an exaggeration, but that was the gist of most of them.
Some examples, as I mentioned above, some one told the BOD that the mayor of the town was embarressed over the incident, but I was not told that until after the fact, and of course I found it to be untrue. Another example, some one (the same person?) told the BOD that at that competition I threatened or attacked some one with a knife.
THAT IS A BOLD FACED LIE. I was not informed of that accusation until months later, and again, never got the chance to defend myself against it. The BOD just accepted it as fact and didn't even tell me about it. For the two motions that were brought up (only one voted) to reduce my punishment, I was never invited to speak on my own behalf. Who knows what other slanderous BS any one told the BOD and they used to punish me without informing me?
A majority of them not once, but twice, saw fit to punish 2 of 3 people invoved in the same act much more harshly then the other participant. In that they based their decision on information and evidence above and beyond what we as the public have access to, then I am going to trust their decision.
As I mentioned above, it was information not available to me either, and at least some of it was untrue. When I told a member of the BOD that the mayor told me he was not embarressed, he was shocked. Also, it's worth noting, that the two motions made since the punishment (of which I'm aware) were for me only, not the other two involved.
dmp
