From: "Kyle Cassidy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [UC] A UCD world record
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:21:52 -0400
Though I've admonished others for speculating, it makes sense to me that
Councilwoman >Blackwell asked John to help out at a neighborhood picnic and
he did, because they've helped out >at neighborhood picnics and block
parties before and it's one of the nice things that UCD does. >And later
that afternoon, knowing that there were going to be people there, she
brought Tom >Knox by; campaigning politicians are drawn to a crowd. That
series of events makes sense to me >and, I don't think, conflicts with any
of the evidence. I certainly don't think John would have done >anything he
knew to be unethical.
One thing I would like to know, which we probably never will, is "what does
_set up the rally_ >mean?" does it mean they set up a moon bounce and then
when Tom Knox shows up later that >day, the moon bounce changed from part
of a neighborhood picnic to part of a campaign rally? Or >does it mean they
put Knox signs in the ground and handed out flyers? One's obviously
unethical >or even illegal, and the other, though I'm not a lawyer, seems a
lot grayer. All of this seems to >hinge on that question and we have
precious little evidence to go on. But, it's all behind us now >and I don't
know we're getting anywhere constantly going over something that's over and
has >worked itself out.
kc
Kyle,
Your "speculation" comes closest to what I believe actually happened. After
all, that was the Saturday before Election Day, where politicians were
visiting all sorts of public community events. I personally saw Jannie and
Tom Knox at the Spruce Hill May Fair that same day, and saw or heard people
talk about other candidates appearing there. Plus, campaign posters were in
almost every public space leading up to Election Day, and Malcolm X Park was
no exception. None of that meant that John was responsible for whatever led
the student to make the accusation that he did.
But, it's all behind us now and I don't know we're getting anywhere
constantly going over >something that's over and has worked itself out.
Except that now John Fenton's reputation has been damaged despite the fact
that there is a plausible second explanation for the events. Was this an
honest mistake? Were there so many ovelapping events going on in the park
that day that it was hard to tell exactly what he was being asked to assist
with? Was this like any number of prior events he had been asked to assist
with without controversy?
Everyone treats as gospel the spin that John Fenton was a loose cannon
employee that was solely respnsible for wrongdoing. Once heat was placed
on UCD, they dropped their once-model employee like a hot potato. Even
people who praised John to the hilt when he could be used as pro-NID
propaganda were the first to turn their backs on him and condemn him as
guilty as soon as the allegations came to light.
Within days of the allegation, John was suspended and all of the locks at
UCD were changed, pending an entirely in-house "investigation". It's not
clear who conducted the investigation, who was questioned, whether the
persons investigating or being questioned had some ax to grind against John,
wanted his job, or some such, or whether witnesses who had been at Malcolm X
Park were questioned. Three weeks after the initial suspension, and one day
after Jannie Blackwell publicly ripped into UCD, UCD issued a press release
stating that John was obstructing the investigation. Finally, UCD issued a
statement concluding that John Fenton violated various UCD rules, but
without stating any facts that supported the conclusions. Oh, and
confidentiality rules prevented any discussion of what those facts could be.
For those of you who may not see any problem with what I'm saying, just
substitute "George Bush" " Dick Cheney" and "Iraq", "US Attorneys", or
"Scooter Libby" for the facts in this case, and then tell me whether you
would trust the outcome of such an "investigation".
Now that the so-called investigation is over, it's now being treated as
irrefutable fact that John Fenton was some kind of dangerous rogue employee
who was only pretending to be efficient, effective and concerned about his
job and the community. Boy, he sure had us fooled, didn't he?
John Fenton was royally screwed.
Karen Allen
----
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>.
