The policy says life and is quoted in one of Valentine's posts.
Regarding other options, most people so far seem to agree that
1) zero tolerance doesn't work in general, there should be more flexibility
2) going against stated policies is worse than having a zero tolerance policy - in no small part because it makes even any future reformed policy suspect and not to be counted on
3) therefore, if the board wants to change their policy they need to change it going forward and enforce the policy as it was written at the time that Walling committed the acts
There has also been mention of it possibly making sense to create a petition system for banned persons to ask to be reinstated - as part of any future changes to the policy - and many people (myself included) saying that it would be acceptable to apply this to people that have been banned before the petition process was put in place.
I would also say though, that this needs to be universally applied and that the process needs to be clear and as transparent as possible. I also know I'm not the only one to make O.o face at Walling being automatically reinstated after only two years - in a case like this, especially one where the policy at the time of his acts was zero tolerance, it really needs to be Walling's responsibility to petition to be let back in and the burden of proof should be on him to demonstrate changed behavior. The Board is taking on more than they can or should have to handle by making it their responsibility to extend the ban if they find evidence of no change in behavior. And also two years is not very long.
Regarding the guy from WFC - keep in mind that often times the first report is almost never the first incident and that the first report often makes other people feel safer coming forward. It's possible that WFC guy's banning might have been a result of multiple reports, not just what you witnessed.
no subject
Regarding other options, most people so far seem to agree that
1) zero tolerance doesn't work in general, there should be more flexibility
2) going against stated policies is worse than having a zero tolerance policy - in no small part because it makes even any future reformed policy suspect and not to be counted on
3) therefore, if the board wants to change their policy they need to change it going forward and enforce the policy as it was written at the time that Walling committed the acts
There has also been mention of it possibly making sense to create a petition system for banned persons to ask to be reinstated - as part of any future changes to the policy - and many people (myself included) saying that it would be acceptable to apply this to people that have been banned before the petition process was put in place.
I would also say though, that this needs to be universally applied and that the process needs to be clear and as transparent as possible. I also know I'm not the only one to make O.o face at Walling being automatically reinstated after only two years - in a case like this, especially one where the policy at the time of his acts was zero tolerance, it really needs to be Walling's responsibility to petition to be let back in and the burden of proof should be on him to demonstrate changed behavior. The Board is taking on more than they can or should have to handle by making it their responsibility to extend the ban if they find evidence of no change in behavior. And also two years is not very long.
Regarding the guy from WFC - keep in mind that often times the first report is almost never the first incident and that the first report often makes other people feel safer coming forward. It's possible that WFC guy's banning might have been a result of multiple reports, not just what you witnessed.