Poor Technician Workmanship Question (kinda long)

[JIMRPT@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 25/08/01 3:09:03 AM, baldyam@sk.sympatico.ca writes:

<<" Sweeping this type of thing quietly under the carpet, regardless of the
resolution, is not wholly acceptable in my book.">> 

If anything I said led you to believe that I thought it should be "swept 
quietly under the carpet"(sic) then I failed to get my point 
across.............what I said was "quickly, quietly and 
completely".............

"Quickly" because this person does harm PTGs image and the image of all  
local techs...........also a "quick" resolution of this persons status as an 
RPT or even a member would be best for PTG and 'all' members.......... at the 
very least serving notice that such alleged behavior is 'not' acceptable.

"Quietly" because PTG, or PTG members, should not be handling 'legal' matters 
in public as this too harms PTGs image...cat fights are never pretty no 
matter the justification. The only options open to PTG are:
1. Ignore.
2. Investigate.
3. Return a finding of innocent or guilty
    If found guilty PTG can only do the following.
a. Reprimand.
b. Suspend membership
c. Throw the sorry dog out of PTG. :-)

 PTG can no longer...... hang, draw and quarter, drown or tar and feather 
miscreants as we could in the good old days! :-)

 <<" Do we collectively want to be associated with this type of  person?   I
think not.">>
I agree.
    
<<"Should this type of practice have serious repercussions for
the perpetrator?   I think so.">>
 I agree but.......the limits we are faced with have only to do with 
membership and membership status and these are only as "serious" as the 
meaning of the membership status to the 'alleged' perpetrator. Any 
civil/criminal remedy rests solely with the customer.

<<"  If poor quality ethics, and standards are dealt with fairly, but very
firmly and openly, it will be deterent to others, letting everyone know
this type of practice will not be tolerated. ">>

In PTG investigations and trials are held in confidence, with only the 
parties actually involved participating...... but the results are announced 
to the world at the Annual Council meeting and I think that this is "open" 
enough........but that is just my opinion.
 
 The chapter of the original poster has 19 members who are of RPT 
status...minus of course the alleged miscreant. This leaves 18 RPTs in that 
Chapter plus the RVP to deal with this person and their alleged misdeeds and 
there is where it should be handled...not on the internet.
Jim Bryant (FL)