|
|
||
|
|
June 3, 1975 TO: By-Law Amendment
Commitee Members FROM: Walter Cox,
Commitee Member RE: Policies and
their Enforcement We have during our several
meetings been discussing policy and whether or not standing policies in The
Stelle Group are in effect enforced. The statement has been made by several
trustees that policies are not enforced, that compliance is purely voluntary,
and that this is in keeping with our interim definition: “Policy A
general guide for decision making and individual actions based upon the basic
principles or purposes of the organization.” I would like to present this evening two examples which I
believe clearly pinpoint why I believe policies are in fact being indirectly
enforced in The Stelle Group, even though the statement has been made that
compliance is purely voluntary. The first example concerns the “School Policy,” with
particular reference to the clause, “The student who does mediocre work, or
who has not been imbued by his parents with the need for proven personal
excellence in order to be worthy of working for the Brotherhoods in Stelle,
or who has failed to acquire the social and moral attributes of a well-balanced
youngster, may not stay in Stelle beyond his eighteenth birthday.” I am not
questioning here the authority of the Admissions Committee in deciding the
acceptability of an applicant, but when that Admissions Committe goes on to
state, “This means that you will be expected to leave Stelle by August 10,
1975.”, then that seems to me to be an over-extension of the authority of the
Admissions Committee and an interference in the personal environment of Rolf
Raillard, who may not wish to leave his family until his education prepares
him for living on his own in the world at large It also seems to me an
interference in Kurt and Hanna Raillard’s environment to the extent that they
are responsible for Rolf until he reaches age 21, as has been stated repeatedly
in Stelle. Illinois State Law may recognize an eighteen-year-old as an adult,
but if his parents consider themselves responsible for him until he is
twenty-one and wish to provide the benefit of a strong home until that time,
then I believe asking him to leave constitutes a direct interference. “The seventh law states that no
individual shall have the right to operate in the environment or personal
affairs of another unless asked to do so by that person. The commonwealth or government
may do so only where criminal or treasonable intent can be proved., or the
civil rights of another have been violated..” “The sanctity of the home shall be
kept inviolate..... The Sun Rises, p.330 (both quotes) It would seem to me that the Admissions Committe might
rightfully reject Rolf’s application for membership. His education by The
Stelle School might also be discontinued.. But to say, “This (“it is the
decision of the Admissions Committee that for the time being your application
for membership be denied..”) means that you will be expected to leave Stelle
by August 10, 1975 (Rolf’s eighteenth birthday is on August 9, 1975), then to
assume compliance in the last paragraph with, “While you are living outside
of Stelle, Rolf...” seem to me to be over-extensions of their authority of
the Admissions Committee Enforcement is not direct, as by the right of
the Admissions Committee; but rather indirect by assuming that the Admissions
Committee has the right to expect Rolf to comply. I have used the word
“insidious” at another meeting (“insidious - operating or proceeding
inconspicuously but with grave effect” The American College Dictionary).....I
must insist that I believe that word applies to the indirect enforcement of
this policy in Rolf’s case. The second example concerns the “Rework and Restitution
Policy Statement” with particular reference to, “Should an individual not
excercise the self-discipline and responsibility of a mature person in
initiating restorative action to balance a KARMA debt he has incurred, it
becomes the responsibility of his supervisor if work related, or the
individual inconvenienced to insure that restorative action is taken.” Policies and their Enforcement (con.) Please review the material relative to Carl Blaetz alleged
rework. Carl Blaetz and his supervisor had a disagreement as to
whether he was in fact responsible for a poor printing job. Carl refused to
accept responsibility for the quality of the job, yet he was invoiced by
Stelle Industries, Inc. He was also sent a “Stelle Industries, Inc. Rework
and Restitution Agreement” (completed except for his signature), even though
he had already stated that he was unwilling to accept responsibility. He
asked that the invoice be cancelled and reaffirmed his belief that the
responsibility was not his. He was told that the invoice would be regarded as
a bad debt. Then he was given two alternatives, 1. resignation as production
manager or 2. taking the matter to a higher authority. Carl chose the latter,
the invoice was voided as per Carl’s request, and he was relieved as
production manager of Stelle Graphics. Being in a supervisory position myself, I concurr with the
idea that it is the supervisor s responsibility to point up situations to the
employee which may be his rework. An individual may, at that point, accept
responsibility, or reject same. If he rejects the responsibility, the
supervisor nay say to the employee, “All right, that’s your risk to run, but
in my mind it is still your responsibility.” The employee may at that point
wish to take the matter to a higher authority to see that his good name is
protected. But to invoice an individual who has not willingly accepted
responsibility for alleged rework, then say that the invoice “will be written
off as a bad debt” if not paid, is to put undue and indirect pressure on an
individual because he either has to pay or forever have the record show him
as being in debt to Stelle Industries, Inc. I have quoted Sidney J. Harris
who used the words “debase” (‘debase - to reduce in quality or value, The
American Standard Dictionary) and “dehumanize” (“dehumanize - to deprive of
human character”, Human - that which is, or should be, characteristic of
human beings”, The American Standard Dictionary). I believe that the
procedure which was followed in Carl Blaetz’ case takes a basic principle
(The First Lemurian Law, “No one nay profit at the expense of another”.) and
uses it to justify pressure tactics which, in effect demand payment to
protect one’s reputation. This I call debasing. Furthermore, to state “I will
accept your resignation anytime, or you may take this matter to a higher
authority in Stelle Industries, Inc.”, rather to clearly state to an
individual that it is his right to appeal the decision of his
supervisor, is to me dehumanizing. Such may not be the intention of the creators of policy,
but I feel I must say that in my opinion “policies” are, in fact, being
indirectly enforced in Stelle in a manner which I feel is insidious, debasing,
and dehumanizing. Sincerely, Walter Cox, Committee Representative |
|
|
|
|
|
