Disciplinary Actions regarding Patel and Havens

DMS General
#1

The Board has met to consider the findings of two panels created to find if one recently filed complaint against Kevin Patel and three complaints against Mark Havens represented acutal violations of DMS policy as well as what sanction is appropriate upon a finding of a violation.

The minutes are located here:
https://dallasmakerspace.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Directors_Meeting_20200715_Special_Meeting

The Patel Complaint was straightforward and resulted only in his removal from the position of Chair of the Digital Media Committee. Committee chairs are reminded that Dallas Makerspace email must be used for official communication and that personal email addresses cannot be set as administrators of DMS groups. Additionally, when reminded of the rules by DMs infrastructure, the best way to resolve differences of opinion is not flat-out refusal to follow policy. All questions regarding the use of DMS email should be directed to @Team_Infrastructure.

The Havens Complaints were considerably more complex. TLDR: the Panel found that two of the three Complaints represented violations of DMS policy and the board found that these violations, within the context of prior actions of the Board of Directors and his behavior during this complaint process, leads to the conclusion that Mr. Havens has not learned from his past mistakes and is likely to continue violating policy if he is allowed to maintain his membership. These violations have had or have the potential to harm the mental heath and/or professional reputation of DMS members. That membership is, therefore, revoked and Havens is permanently expelled from Dallas Makerspace.

A more detailed written decision can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gYmjRTNwdB8A0cBjrs3CzI6MXqStJlsY/view?usp=sharing
(you will need to be logged in to a DMS acount in g-suite to view)

19 Likes
#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

4 Likes
#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like
#4
7 Likes
#5

Ironically, I believe this ban inaugurates the true test of the blue tape ideology. All of the possible ways that we could test their beliefs regarding culture, the present board, and member attendance at DMS were confounded by their own agitation. Now that the strongest agitators at DMS are gone, it will be easier to assess the situation objectively and determine exactly where the kernels of truth in their proposals actually are.

1 Like
#6

I’m rather concerned at the removal of two candidates just hours before the Election.

I have seen the comments of these two and others who form what can only be call a Political Party and disruptive or not, this casts doubt on the validity of the election.

2 Likes
#7

One candidate.

7 Likes
#8

This is someone who could possibly be a Board member? Again, Timing…

2 Likes
#9

If we are having problems perhaps we should clean house before we have an election

1 Like
#10

Kevin is still a “member in good standing” and eligible for a Board seat (as well as accessing DMS facilities, tools, etc,).

If I read the OP correctly, he’s only been removed as Committee Chair of Digital Media.

5 Likes
#11

He is still on the ballot, could still be elected, could still serve. Nothing happened except he was removed as Chair of Digital Media, which he served on at the pleasure of the Board.

2 Likes
#12

He’s still a member in good standing, and still on the ballot.

3 Likes
#13

I’m not making a stand for or against Kevin, but I do question someone who was removed from one office being elected to a higher one.

#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

3 Likes
#15

In the case of Mr Havens, he chose to engage in this behavior during an election as part of his campaign, thus conveniently eluding any pre-election housecleaning.

4 Likes
#16

Just to be clear on your statement, the unlisted ones?

#17

Well I clearly don’t know what I don’t know so I can’t answer that. I’ve watched videos others have posted links to.

I’d love to see a video that contains intimidation because I haven’t seen one yet. Someone PM me.

#18

Of note, this is basically the same tactic he used in 2016. He went after board members then in an attempt to create a “conflict of interest” as he could claim that the people he harassed could not be impartial and that he could not be banned since a majority of the board at the time was “part of the complaint”. He also tried to use the election itself as cover for his trolling/harassment, claiming that his actions were “campaigning”. At the time, he was “campaigning” for someone who wasn’t running and didn’t want to be used by Mark. The board in 2016 saw through Mark’s antics and the tactic failed.

This time around he ran himself, perhaps believing that he could employ the same trolling but get away with it for once. I’m glad that his time harassing and trolling the organization has finally come to a close.

16 Likes
#19

Mark and only Mark had control over what he did and when. The timing of the upheld complaints was driven only by the actions of Mark. Being close to an election doesn’t nullify the code of conduct.

14 Likes
#20

I just saw one of the private videos. The one addressed to James.

It contains nothing that could be considered intimidation by any definition of that term.

For the record, I don’t have any strong opinions in support of or against Mark.

3 Likes