Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
The Board members decided for whatever reason to allow him to evade the long-established policy. We announced the clinics at every meeting and emphasized there would be no exceptions.
But there was one.
In good conscience I could not serve on a Board that would turn its back on a rule of procedure.
|
This IS new information (I think): the board had announced that there would be no exceptions.
In hindsight, perhaps you would agree that such an announcement was not wise. In politics (in the broad sense, including association politics) and ethics both, rules are typically general rather than universal. That is, they allow exceptions.
You have allowed medical exceptions in the past, and scheduled 2 meetings this year so that if a guy were sick on one weekend he could still attend the other. But then: what if one of your best were sick for 10 days over both clinics? Maybe you'd like to make an exception?
One reason that exceptionless rules are unwise is that usually we are not smart enough to imagine all of the possible exceptional cases in advance.
If I might make a suggestion: rather than disallow exceptions, you might announce that exceptions will be considered only prior to the clinics, and only upon submission of documentation of the reason for not attending. Such a policy, in conjunction with providing alternative clinic dates, would discourage and deter requests for exceptions without ruling them out in advance.
None of this addresses the specific case of Hector. I take it that this is all blood under the bridge at this point. I am sure that I don't know enough about Hector or the people involved to say anything helpful about the specific case. Others have pointed out that Hector might be lying, or might be taking advantage of status in the association, but then the case would be easy, since we could say that even on the merits the case shouldn't have been an exception. Assuming that Hector had a genuinely good case for an exception points up the badness of the "no exceptions" rule.
You say you resigned because your conscience dictated allegiance to the procedure. Fair enough. There is a point at which one might say: we said no exceptions, and even if that was a mistake (note to next year's board), we must stick to that for the sake of credibility.
On the other hand, if an exceptionless rule WAS a mistake, does it serve justice and fairness to insist on enforcing the mistaken rule?
These discussions usually generate a lot more heat than light. The main reason I think that the exceptionless rule is a mistake is that it might force you to choose between goods: credibility and (let's assume) fairness to Hector. If Hector's request were on the up-and-up, then that's in fact the choice you confronted.
No doubt you'll gain perspective on this issue with time.