7 Comments
User's avatar
Mike's avatar

Rob, your comments and suggestions are heading us in the right direction. In my opinion these members must have their reputations restored and they need to be made whole.

Thank you for always giving your readers an out of the box viewpoint for their consideration.

Expand full comment
Lisa Martin's avatar

Amen!

Expand full comment
Sandy's avatar

Another amazing hopeful write up. I didn’t know this story. Thank you for making this so available for all of us.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

Aren't these changes prospective? That has been my experience when there are changes to the COE. While this may add an advantage to any civil suit, I'm not so sure it would be possible to charge a COE viloation based on this change retrospectively. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on all of this...just pointing out what I beleive is the reality about how the COE works.

Expand full comment
Rob Hahn's avatar

They charged Wilson with a 10-5 violation for something he posted in 2015. Goose, gander.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

Didn't know that. Not sure how they got away with charging someone with a violation based on an action that took place before it was in the COE. That alone is problematic and the board counsel should have advised them otherwise. The only thing I can think of is that it was still visible after the speech code was approved, but that to me would seem to be a stretch. It's all Orwellian...

Expand full comment
Rob Hahn's avatar

Indeed it was, which is why I think holding those people accountable is necessary for healing.

Expand full comment