On Tuesday, February 8th I met with the Senior Coordinator and the following conversation occurred (from the best of my recollection, assisted by notes I made at the time).
(SC): I met with the person you had the problem with last week. He admitted carrying out the attack, and was very apologetic.
(Me): Oh, he apologized to you, did he? Why? Had he attacked you, too?
(SC): . . . er, no, I mean he apologized that office time had been taken up, the inconvenience, and . . .
(Me): Ah, I see. So he didn't apologize for the attack, then?
(SC): . . . well, er, no, but he said you had rubbed him up the wrong way.
(Me): So that means he believes the attack to have been justified. Doesn't it?
(SC): . . . well, er, anyway, he has been given a verbal warning that if it happens again, he'll be excluded from the Center.
(Me): So you admit he has shown no indication that he understands that what he did was wrong, yet you are going to let him stay around to take another shot at me, this time with the benefit of practice?
(SC): . . . er, well, he has no history of difficulties with other patrons.
(Me): Really? Did you speak to David, who has seen him having confrontations with other people in the past?
(SC): . . . er, no, I didn't feel any need for past references to add to my understanding of the situation.
(Me): So you're telling me that if a pattern of antisocial behavior should emerge you will treat this more seriously, but you aren't interested in examining any evidence that a pattern might already exist?
(SC): . . . er, well, er,. . .
Dear Reader, please don't be too hard on the Senior Coordinator. Any of us may find ourselves suddenly presented with evidence that we might have made a wrong decision. What was it that JFK said, 'An error only becomes a real mistake if it is allowed to go uncorrected.'?
Trouble is, we're not always 'big' enough to admit our errors, are we? And if we don't admit an error, we're not going to be able to correct it. Then it can grow into a serious problem.
Have you ever taken on a challenge which turns out to be a bit more difficult than you anticipated? And you haven't felt comfortable asking for advice or guidance in case you lose face in the eyes of your colleagues? Or maybe you fear that by reversing a bad decision you think people won't respect your judgment in future? I know it has happened to me. Not so often nowadays, because I'm more experienced in life generally, but when I was younger, my God what a daft young 'so-and-so' I sometimes was!
Perhaps we sometimes feel, deep down, that we may be a bit under-qualified for the role we've taken on, but keeping our job is the most important thing, we've got to pay that mortgage, feed that baby, etc.
A simple verbal warning was inadequate for the seriousness of the attack I had suffered. And anyone concerned for the safety of visitors to the Center in general would suspect that my attacker might be a 'ticking time bomb' who could go off at any time. But I knew that pressuring the Senior Coordinator would not be productive. Rubbing someone's nose into the mess they've made isn't nice. I recalled that we had worked well together in the past in addressing various issues around the Center, so I decided to back off a little and try to suggest a way out – a reason for the decision to be reversed so that nobody would have to lose face.
The Senior Coordinator was clearly uncomfortable to have been shown how foolish it was simply to give a verbal warning to the volatile and dangerous person who had attacked me, while allowing him to continue to attend the center and choose his moment to strike again.
However, I felt the best way to get this thing corrected was to provide a good reason for reversing the decision, perhaps something which could not have been known at the time that the wrong choice was made. Once the full facts were known, with this new information the initial decision could be reconsidered, and nobody would have to lose face or admit an error.
When my wife and I arrived in the USA just over a year ago, we had a 'travellers' insurance policy from the country we had just left. We intended to replace it with proper domestic US medical insurance coverage once we had settled down here. That foreign insurance policy expired on February 2, three days before the attack. I had not managed to arrange a replacement, so we were effectively uninsured.
My attacker had shown no remorse for what he had done, and in fact indicated that he believed he had been justified in attacking me. Now he was being permitted to continue to attend the Center where he could await another opportunity to ambush me. If he attacked me again he would merely be subject to exclusion for a short time. But if I were injured, what would the penalty be for my wife and me, with no medical insurance?
Financial ruin? Homeless, and living on the street?
The Senior Coordinator was not in possession of this information about our lack of insurance coverage when the initial, wrongheaded decision was made. Now that it was known, the much more serious impact of another attack could be understood, and anyone would agree that it would clearly be irresponsible to allow the possibility of something like that occurring again.
It was a fig-leaf. Something with which the Senior Coordinator could cover up the embarrassment of having made an error. Anyone with half a brain would jump at this chance. Dear Reader, do you think that the Senior Coordinator was bright enough to see this?
The fact you are reading this page should suggest the answer. But my frustration at being confronted with stupidity was soon replaced by disgust and outrage at what I was about to discover regarding the true character of this Senior Coordinator person . . .