I quite agree, but the money in charge is so much more than you or I can imagine.
They wish nothing to damage their reputation and risk any bad financial impact John Fenton was a fine man, however in the larger scheme of things, it was much easier, politically expedient and perhaps cost-efficient to sacrifice John despite what the community preferred. Morally, it's a crime. Legally, it's politics. And so it goes...AGAIN! :) On 6/7/07 5:13 PM, "S. Sharrieff Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, UCD: what's wrong with agreeing that he'd made a mistake, and > letting him get back to his excellent work a bit wiser? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Siano > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:50 PM > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? > > I don't think we've learned anything substantial beyond the loss of John > > Fenton. > > When the news broke, there were any number of accounts, and any number > of theories. In the first place, _did _Fenton have his crew do anything > for the Knox campaign that day? I've heard tales that the kid who'd > _claimed_ this had rescinded his claim, and Jannie Blackwell called it a > > lie, but I ain't heard any solid answers on this. > > And _if_ it happened, then why? Well, it doesn't seem likely that Fenton > > or UCD are closet Knox supporters, and I recall Lewis Wendell getting > flak for something involving Michael Nutter a few months back. It seems > far _more_ plausible, to me, that someone under Knox or Blackwell > might've asked John for some effort, and John may have agreed merely to > be a decent guy. After all, it was a community event... and nobody who > wants good relations with the community wants to piss off the local City > > Councilperson. If _that_ was the case, then both Fenton and UCD were put > > in a bad position. (I am not surprised that the people complaining about > > UCD haven't pursued this alternate theory.) > > If this did come down to an error in judgment on John's part... then > firing him is a severe black mark against UCD. The guy does a great job. > > He's probably the one asset UCD has that's universally praised around > here. (And yes, I suspect many UCD 'critics' are privately ecstatic that > > Fenton's gone; makes their hobby even easier.) So, UCD: what's wrong > with agreeing that he'd made a mistake, and letting him get back to his > excellent work a bit wiser? > > So UCD followed institutional procedure; whether or not Fenton did > anything wrong, it _could_ become a problem for UCD, so Fenton had to > go. It's safer that way. But it makes UCD look pretty bad. We like to > think of a community as something that's a bit more, well, > understanding. Look at the petition that waas organzied in support of > John Fenton. Decent community managers would have considered that, or > addressed it. Who wants a community managed like a corporate culture? > > (Of course, all of the above is _moot_ if it turned out that Fenton > really _did_ abuse his authority to support Knox, screaming "Yes! I did > it! I loved doing it! And I'd do it again! Muhahahaha!" at his > interrogators during the investigation.) > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > > > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
