Let's take this one step at a time. It will likely be long, but such is life.
I agree with you that we should compare punishments, just not the 2 you choose to use. I dont think that punishments should be looked at in a vacuum I think they should be compared to others with similar circumstances. Once again the ones you have chosen do not meet that criteria and the one that is similar is being ignored.
I honestly think it's fair to say that we agree to disagree on this. It's not that I think my punishment relative to "Fred's" was fair, but I think it's a bigger deal when comparing the punishment from an apron to falsifying scores. Like I said, agree to disagree. That horse is dead, butchered, and being fed to dogs as I type this.
I am not sure what inaccuracies and misconceptions you are refering too. Am I wrong in thinking that you are no longer part of the KCBS?
I did not quit KCBS after the punishment. I was already not a member. Maybe a small difference, but the way you characterized the situation, it sounded like I stopped paying dues because of the punishment, when in fact, I stopped paying dues because in 2011 the KCBS promised a free membership to Sam's Club on their website if I joined. After I joined and couldn't get the free membership, the KCBS office staff said that they just hadn't updated the website (and did that day). I felt cheated and lied to, so I didn't re-up the next year. I never slammed the KCBS publically for it because I thought it was petty, but a member of the BOD said in this forum that he would refuse to take action on things I wrote in this forum because I wasn't a member.
I do not think that the KCBS took your membership into account when they doled out your punishment. While that punishment may have been harsh, I am sure that it was done legally and within the scope of powers the the BOD possesses.
You are wrong, at least to a point. I don't know what was discussed in August of last year, but in September or October when one of the members of the BOD who voted to punish me tried to make a motion to reduce the punishment, some one on the board argued that it shouldn't be done because I wasn't a member. Yeah, it happened in Executive Session, but I know about it. Don't expect any one to confirm or deny it, but it happened, and I don't think it was legal according to government.
You will have to excuse me if I do not consider asking you to pay the $35 fee for membership that everyone else in the world also has to pay as extortion. I stand by my remarks that you are no longer a part of the organization and continue to critcize from without.
You'll have to forgive me if I disagree with you. You'll also have to forgive the IRS if it violates the law. You do not have to be a member to compete, and I am banned from competing. Why should I have to join to change that? They are unrelated, except for those who want to increase the bottom line of the company.
The fact of the matter is that as head cook you are responsible, like it or not. A member of your team did something inappropriate, you get the blame. Like it or not thats how it is. You not liking or accpeting that fact is not going to change it. In fact IMO your continued refusal to accept this further demonstrates your unwillingness to accept and abide by the established rules.
Sadly, you are wrong again. Contrary to popular belief, the 2012 KCBS rules
do not indicate that a head cook is responsible for everything his team does. A lot of people want it to say that, but it just doesn't. I encourage you to read the first two sentences of those rules. They say that the entire team is responsible "jointly and severally" which means that any person on the team
can be held responsible for any other's actions, including guests. While that certainly opens up the door for me to be punished for him, it is not the same thing as saying that I
am responsible for everything he does. As much as people want it to mean that the board was obligated to hold me responsible, it means something different.
Thoughout this thread you have claimed no responsibility for the act and consistently claimed you were wrongly accussed, yet you freely admit to offering an apology to the organizer and mayor for the same act. To me that is ambiguous at best, proclaiming to one side you didn't do anything and apologizing for it to another.
So the apologies. The two days after the competition, I called every one I knew on the BOD to apologize that the incident had happened. I was sorry to them that they had to go through an emergency meeting on account of the incident. I also called the organizer to apologize to her. It doesn't mean that I admitted culpabillity for it, but I felt badly that the whole thing happened. Keep that in mind the next time some one claims that if I had apologized to the board I would have been punished lighter.
The day after the punishment was handed out, some one on the board who voted to ban me called me up in order to explain why. One of the things he said was that the board was told that the mayor of the town was embarressed because of not only the incident, but also the publishing of a photograph of it. I didn't take the photo, didn't publish it, and have honestly never seen it (nor do I want to). My former teamate didn't take or publish the photo either. I felt that the honorable thing to do was to call him and apologize for his embarressment, even though I didn't do it. The funny thing is that he has twice told me that he was not embarressed...
some one lied to the BOD. Still, I apologized because I was sorry for some things that happened. I don't think that means that I was responsible for it. You may disagree.
Why is it that you continually skirt the fact that another person involved in the same incident also received a much lesser sentence and continue to use Mr Ashford's punishment as a comparison?
I don't think I've skirted it. I've explained what happened. To me, the point of this thread is that submitting false score sheets is worse than wearing the apron, worse than providing said apron, and worse than being a team captain in that situation. My point is comparing those two punishments. Your point is to compare two different punishments, and it honestly sounds like subterfuge to me. Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
dmp