Michael Kaplan wrote:
>Sounds like New Legalism to me. If this is a public agency, why wouldn't
>there be a public record, even if the case was closed?
Michael,
The NYS investigator explained to me that his agency is
required to keep investigations confidential to protect
both complainant and target until the initial inquiry
is completed and either referred to the next step of
investigation or dismissed. Only when disciplinary action
is taken does the matter become a public record.
I was satified with the fairness of procedures described in
detail by the investigator. These are available in writing
from NYS but I do not have a copy.
By the way, when I swamped the investigator with documentation
on my work with Scialo, he somberly warned that I might have
faked it in these computer-fakery days. Nice, that skepticism:
he's absolutely correct about what these machines can virtual.
But are not ink and paper and publishers and museums and awards
just as misleading, for renderings and bibles and reputations
and prizes, eh, or is that: just as reliable as ever to bring
in jobs from faking-it clients and regulatory agencies who
insist on confidentiality of their crimes and misdemeanors?
Now then, I remind that I only publicly skewer the few of my clients
who try to bribe me to crime and misdemean, that is, offer too low
a fee for the disneyfication of the day.
Anyone read Hugh Hardy's, gulp, fee-hardy defense of fake
preservation in February Record? Now that new legalism
par excellence.
>Sounds like New Legalism to me. If this is a public agency, why wouldn't
>there be a public record, even if the case was closed?
Michael,
The NYS investigator explained to me that his agency is
required to keep investigations confidential to protect
both complainant and target until the initial inquiry
is completed and either referred to the next step of
investigation or dismissed. Only when disciplinary action
is taken does the matter become a public record.
I was satified with the fairness of procedures described in
detail by the investigator. These are available in writing
from NYS but I do not have a copy.
By the way, when I swamped the investigator with documentation
on my work with Scialo, he somberly warned that I might have
faked it in these computer-fakery days. Nice, that skepticism:
he's absolutely correct about what these machines can virtual.
But are not ink and paper and publishers and museums and awards
just as misleading, for renderings and bibles and reputations
and prizes, eh, or is that: just as reliable as ever to bring
in jobs from faking-it clients and regulatory agencies who
insist on confidentiality of their crimes and misdemeanors?
Now then, I remind that I only publicly skewer the few of my clients
who try to bribe me to crime and misdemean, that is, offer too low
a fee for the disneyfication of the day.
Anyone read Hugh Hardy's, gulp, fee-hardy defense of fake
preservation in February Record? Now that new legalism
par excellence.