Open Letter & Formal Appeal to the South End Rowing Club Board
Subject: Why the 60‑day suspension based on “door‑propping” should be withdrawn—and how to fix the policy, protect the Club, and move forward
From: Micah Blumberg
Date: October 2025
Executive Summary
I am appealing the Board’s September 10 decision to impose a 60‑day suspension. The case turns on four pillars that protect every member and the Club itself: (1) no specific written rule was cited; (2) the evidence does not establish intent or duration; (3) the process omitted required safeguards and records; and (4) the penalty is disproportionate. The constructive remedy is straightforward: withdraw the suspension or convert it to a neutral, non‑disciplinary policy reminder, and if the Board wishes to regulate this area, adopt a clear prospective door policy by a 2/3 vote, publish it via official channels, and post signage.
You can access all of the Appeal Exhibits here: https://github.com/n5ro/serc
I will also publish this appeal as an open letter at Silicon Valley Global News so the record is transparent and the lessons are durable. The point is not to inflame, but to ensure the Club’s approach to discipline models good governance—today and, as future readers study SERC’s history, for the long run.
No admission: Nothing in this letter admits identity, conduct, or intent. My requests concern governing documents, evidence limits, process integrity, proportionality, and a constructive remedy.
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub… https://github.com/n5ro/serc/blob/main/Exhibit%20M%E2%80%94%20%E2%80%9CBenefit%20of%20the%20Doubt%E2%80%9D%20(Code%20of%20Conduct)%20%26%20Harmless_Benign%20Conduct.pdf
I. What this case is—and is not
This appeal is not about culture wars or personalities. It is about anchoring discipline in written standards, evaluating what the evidence actually proves, and observing the Club’s own procedures—the same guardrails that keep SERC fair, credible, and well‑run. Your own handout framed the four pillars succinctly; this letter expands and documents them for the record.
Appeal Handout — Suspension Bas…
I am aware of—and I am concerned about—the perception that a President’s core team can bend procedures to pursue personal disputes. As a matter of good governance, the way to dispel that perception is to decide only on a cited written rule, follow the Procedures to the letter, and calibrate the outcome proportionately. Publication of this letter ensures the record reflects precisely that request.
II. Authority to discipline requires a written, adopted rule
The By‑Laws authorize penalties only for violations of written by‑laws, rules, or procedures. Rules must be adopted or interpreted by a 2/3 vote and then communicated to members prospectively. Your own materials likewise emphasize that values language in the Code (e.g., “respect”) does not substitute for a specific rule. Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub… https://github.com/n5ro/serc/blob/main/Exhibit%20M%E2%80%94%20%E2%80%9CBenefit%20of%20the%20Doubt%E2%80%9D%20(Code%20of%20Conduct)%20%26%20Harmless_Benign%20Conduct.pdf
In this matter, the suspension was imposed without citing a specific section in force on August 19. In correspondence, the President stated that “the Board is not agreeing to base its decision on whether a rule explicitly forbade [the] conduct”—a posture that conflicts with the governing documents’ rule‑of‑decision.
Requested finding: Without a cited written rule in force on August 19, the record does not support a disciplinary penalty. The appropriate next step is prospective rulemaking if the Board wishes to regulate this area.
III. Evidence limits: what the video cannot establish
The interior clip does not establish intent to leave a door unsecured, does not tie any duration to me, and does not bridge a later observation back to what appears on screen. Benign explanations remain fully plausible on this record. Presence at ~9:15 pm falls within permitted presence hours (entry until 9:00 pm; members must leave by 11:00 pm), so the “after‑hours” aggravator does not apply to presence alone.
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Your rebuttal materials note the same evidentiary constraints and hours framing. The Board should decide on the record, not inference.
IV. Process integrity: gaps that undercut confidence
The Procedures contemplate a neutral investigation with basic safeguards. Among them:
Joint interview of complainant + member. The Procedures say investigators “will always” conduct interviews jointly; that did not occur in the written record shared with me.
Complete file. The packet I received lacked the incident report, door/PDK logs, and the camera access audit log (who accessed footage, when, and with what authorization). These objective anchors are standard completeness.
Requested correction: Cure the process gaps—identify/include the complainant for a joint interview; append the incident report, PDK logs, and camera audit log to the file for Board review before any decision.
V. A category error: momentary door contact ≠ vandalism/property damage
Breaking a window is per se destructive with clear intent and harm; a brief contact near a doorway can be benign, inadvertent, or operational (e.g., moving an item). Equating these categories collapses important distinctions and invites arbitrary enforcement, particularly where no written rule exists
The right answer to ambiguity is education and prospective policy, not retroactive punishment.
VI. Proportionality: why 60 days is out of scale
The Procedures provide a spectrum of outcomes—from No Action through Expulsion—and even invite creative, lower‑impact remedies when they better fit the facts. On a record with no cited rule, no harm shown, and ambiguous intent, a 60‑day suspension is disproportionate and unnecessary to achieve compliance.
A proportionate approach focuses on clarity and compliance: neutral notice, signage, and a prospective rule—tools that produce safety without controversy.
VII. Climate and perception: why process matters even more now
Context matters. Member correspondence in the record flags concerns about bullying, censorship, and a tense moderation climate—exactly the kind of environment in which strict adherence to written standards and clean process prevents a discipline case from looking like a personal vendetta.
Exhibit K — Member Statement on…
To preserve public confidence, please decide only on cited written standards in force on August 19 and a complete record—not on assumptions or a shifting set of expectations.
Exhibit K — Member Statement on…
VIII. Governance lesson learned (Exhibit O): costs when process is loose
In a 2020 lawsuit naming SERC, the federal docket reflects no merits judgment against the Club and an early settlement posture; a later sworn declaration states SERC paid $6,500 to settle. The governance takeaway is simple: discipline anchored to clear written rules and careful process minimizes risk and cost; ad‑hoc enforcement does the opposite.
IX. The constructive remedy (resolution without litigation)
A practical off‑ramp is on the table and aligns with the By‑Laws and Code:
Withdraw the 60‑day suspension (no finding; remove any notation); or
Convert to a neutral, non‑disciplinary policy reminder (no finding; not for progressive discipline); and
If desired, adopt a clear prospective door policy by 2/3 vote, publish via official channels, and post signage.
This approach is legal, principled, and reputationally safe.
X. Record clarity & recusal
For transparency—whatever the outcome—please identify the exact written section (by‑law/rule/procedure) your decision rests on. If none exists, the minutes should say so plainly so the record is accurate. Any Board member who is a fact witness in this matter or who has advocated a disciplinary outcome should recuse to preserve neutrality.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
XI. Scope control and consistent communications
If questions drift to topics outside the noticed charge (e.g., “tag‑in”), I respectfully request a section‑and‑adoption‑date citation before answering; otherwise, let’s keep the record focused on the charged conduct and the rules in force on August 19. If a policy is to be announced, it should be issued through official Club channels, not unsanctioned lists, so every member receives the same notice.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
XII. Closing
I’m asking the Board to demonstrate the best of SERC governance: rules first, complete record, measured remedy. Please withdraw the suspension—or convert it to a neutral reminder—and move swiftly to adopt a clear, prospective door policy with signage and notice. I will support and help communicate any policy the Board adopts through official channels.
Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Finally, because I believe in SERC and in transparent governance, I will publish this appeal at SVGN to preserve an accurate public record of what we did—together—to protect the Club and its members.
— Micah Blumberg
(This letter admits no identity, conduct, or intent.)
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Appendix A — Anticipated Questions & Answers
Q1. Is that you in the video?
A. Yes—the video appears to show me. I don’t recall the precise sequence of that evening, and I would not intentionally leave a Club door unsecured; what matters is that discipline must rest on a specific written rule in force on Aug 19, and the clip does not establish negative intent or any duration attributable to me.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Q2. Did you wedge the door—yes or no?
A. The video appears to show me briefly setting an object near the threshold; I didn’t intend to leave any door unsecured and I don’t recall more than that. There was no cited written rule in force on Aug 19 forbidding brief, momentary contact at the door, and the proper response in an uncodified, ambiguous situation is education and a prospective policy—not punishment.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Q3. The door was found ajar later. Doesn’t that prove your intent?
A. The record doesn’t bridge the time gap or tie that later observation to me; innocent explanations remain just as plausible on this footage. The right fix is a clear prospective door policy with signage so expectations are unmistakable.
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q4. Do you think holding a door open is acceptable?
A. I support keeping the Club secure. In an uncodified area, the Code directs benefit of the doubt and education; if the Club wants a bright‑line rule, it should adopt one by vote and publish it to members.
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Q5. Isn’t “door‑propping” like vandalizing property?
A. Breaking a window is per se destructive; a moment at a threshold can be benign or inadvertent. Treating them as equivalent is a category error and not how proportional discipline is supposed to work.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
B. Rules, authority & hours
Q6. Why can’t we discipline under the general Code of Conduct?
A. Because penalties must track written by‑laws, rules, or procedures actually in force at the time. Values language guides tone; it doesn’t replace a duly adopted standard for specific conduct.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Q7. Are you saying there was no rule against leaving a door ajar?
A. The Board’s own letter acknowledged no explicit rule; discipline should rest on a cited section, not on after‑the‑fact “logical extensions.”
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Q8. What about “after hours”?
A. Presence at 9:15 pm is within written hours (entry until 9:00 pm; members must leave by 11:00 pm), so “after‑hours” aggravation does not apply to presence alone. Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Q9. If we posted reminders on a social group, isn’t that notice?
A. Official notice comes through Club website/direct emails/newsletter and through adopted rules—not unsanctioned channels—so members know the standard in advance. (That’s why I support adopting and noticing a clear policy now.)
Appeal Handout — Suspension Bas…
C. Evidence & process
Q10. Why press for door/PDK logs and a camera access audit?
A. Objective records keep the file complete and reliable; otherwise, people are asked to infer. Clean process protects everyone, including the Club.
Appeal Handout — Suspension Bas…
Q11. Why does the complainant’s identity or a joint interview matter?
A. The Procedures contemplate a joint complainant‑member interview and a complete record; it’s a basic fairness safeguard to avoid misunderstanding and ensure neutrality.
Appeal Handout — Suspension Bas…
Q12. Are you just looking for technicalities?
A. No—written rules and complete records aren’t technicalities; they’re the foundation of fair governance and consistent enforcement.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
D. “Tag‑in,” entry, and scope
Q13. Did you properly tag in that night?
A. I don’t recall my method of entry that evening. If tag‑in is relevant, please cite the section and adoption date that made it disciplinable on Aug 19; otherwise, I request we stay within the noticed charge.
Q14. Shouldn’t “no tag‑in log” be enough?
A. Absence of a log line isn’t proof of a person’s conduct; that’s why the underlying logs and device‑health context matter if the Board wishes to rely on them.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
E. Intent, remorse & tone
Q15. Are you willing to apologize?
A. I’m sorry for any concern this caused, and I fully support door security. The way to help members is to adopt a clear prospective rule and communicate it.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q16. If you didn’t intend harm, why not just accept a short suspension?
A. Proportionality matters: where the rule is uncited, intent is ambiguous, and harm isn’t shown, a suspension is out of scale; a neutral reminder plus a clear policy is the right tool.
Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
F. Climate, moderation & perceived retaliation
Q17. Are you accusing the Board of retaliating?
A. I’m not asking the Board to adjudicate motives; I’m asking it to decide on written standards, facts, and process so there’s no appearance of selective enforcement in a tense climate.
Exhibit K — Member Statement on…
Q18. Why include member complaints about bullying in your file?
A. To underscore why neutral process and proportionate outcomes matter right now; the exhibit is context, not proof of any allegation.
Exhibit K — Member Statement on…
G. Remedy & commitments
Q19. What outcome are you asking for—bottom line?
A. Withdraw the suspension; or convert it to a neutral, non‑disciplinary policy reminder (no finding; not for progressive discipline); then adopt a clear door policy by 2/3 vote, publish it, and post signage.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q20. Why is that better for the Club than a punishment?
A. It aligns with the By‑Laws, honors benefit of the doubt in an uncodified, ambiguous situation, and protects the Club’s reputation and costs while creating durable compliance.
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q21. Will you follow a future door policy if we adopt one?
A. Absolutely—clear, written rules with signage are how all of us succeed together. Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q22. If we don’t withdraw, what should our minutes reflect?
A. For clarity, please identify the exact written section (if any) the decision rests on; if none exists, the minutes should state that plainly. That transparency protects the Club’s record.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
I. Proportionality details (for directors who ask)
Q26. Where does 60 days sit on our sanction ladder?
A. Near the top; the Procedures list No action, Oral/ Written warning, Suspension up to 90 days, and Expulsion—with flexibility to propose other outcomes. Sixty days is disproportionate on this record.
Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
Q27. What framework should guide calibration?
A. Clarity of rule, culpability, harm, history/notice, process completeness, and mitigation. On each of these factors, a neutral reminder + prospective policy fits best. Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
J. Closing cluster (short answers that always pivot)
Q28. Are you sorry?
A. I’m sorry for any concern and I support stronger door security—with a clear rule members can follow.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q29. Are you undermining the Board?
A. I’m advocating governance by written rules and clean process—that protects the Board and the Club.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Q30. Are you threatening to litigate?
A. My preference is to resolve this internally with a neutral reminder + prospective policy; clarity in the minutes about any rule basis keeps the record straight either way.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q31. Will you help communicate the new policy?
A. Absolutely; I’ll help explain it and point people to the official channels.
Exhibit N — Remedy Proposal (Re…
Q32. One sentence on why to withdraw?
A. Because no specific rule was cited, intent isn’t proven, process gaps remain, and proportionality calls for education plus a prospective rule.
Exhibit J — No Authority to Pen…
Exhibit M— “Benefit of the Doub…
Appeal Handout — Suspension Bas…
Exhibit L— Proportionality & Sa…
Q33. What’s the most constructive next step tonight?
A. Withdraw or convert to a neutral, non‑disciplinary reminder and direct a clean, 2/3‑vote policy adoption with signage and official notice.