Well, I pay attention to it. When I'm serving as a ranger and people ask for the f*** word to be edited out of a thread title, I look at the charter to see if I'm allowed to do that. When someone accuses someone else of a personal attack, I look at the charter to see what I'm allowed to do. When someone goes on a rampage and disrupts the entire board, I look at the charter to see what I can do. When I served as a juror in the hearing, you can darn well be sure I looked at the charter. I studied it!
I said this to the other rangers, but I'll repeat it here for the benefit of all (whatever that benefit may actually be
). I had something I wanted to do to the person(s) involved in this latest blow-up. I think I could justify it decently based upon what we already have in place in the charter. I was just waiting to hear from the other rangers before acting. That didn't happen and now the time has passed, I think.
I am not happy about that, mind you, because I think people need to be held accountable for their actions, and I think--no, I
know--that has not happened in this case.
But I am considering drawing up a protocol for this type of situation that I think future rangers could use if this happens again. It doesn't require a charter amendment. Now, repeated violations probably should be addressed in a charter amendment.
No one ever mentioned changing the charter and applying the changes retroactively, so I want to lay your concerns to rest, Estel. I can't think of anyone here who would be so unfair.
It seems like I had more to say, but now I can't remember it.
Lali