No edit summary |
No edit summary Tag: sourceedit |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{icons|s5}} |
{{icons|s5}} |
||
{{sidebar |
{{sidebar |
||
⚫ | |||
− | |name=Section 1.12 |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|seasons=[[Season 5|5]] |
|seasons=[[Season 5|5]] |
||
− | | |
+ | |episode="[[Day 5: 4:00pm-5:00pm]]" |
+ | }} |
||
⚫ | |||
'''Section 1.12''', also known as the "incapacity clause," was a part of the [[24: The Official CTU Operations Manual|Official CTU Operations Manual]] that stated that it was acceptable to remove a high-ranking official from their position if they are deemed mentally unfit for duty. |
'''Section 1.12''', also known as the "incapacity clause," was a part of the [[24: The Official CTU Operations Manual|Official CTU Operations Manual]] that stated that it was acceptable to remove a high-ranking official from their position if they are deemed mentally unfit for duty. |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Day 5 == |
== Day 5 == |
||
Convinced by [[Audrey Raines]] that [[Lynn McGill]] was impeding CTU's investigation of the day's terrorist threat, [[Curtis Manning]] had Security escort McGill to holding. This action was based on the firing of CTU techie [[Carrie Bendis]], the imprisoning of [[Bill Buchanan]], and the attempted imprisoning of [[Chloe O'Brian]], [[Edgar Stiles]], and Curtis Manning. Manning then called [[Division Command]] to inform them of his actions and a full review of McGill's conduct was initiated. |
Convinced by [[Audrey Raines]] that [[Lynn McGill]] was impeding CTU's investigation of the day's terrorist threat, [[Curtis Manning]] had Security escort McGill to holding. This action was based on the firing of CTU techie [[Carrie Bendis]], the imprisoning of [[Bill Buchanan]], and the attempted imprisoning of [[Chloe O'Brian]], [[Edgar Stiles]], and Curtis Manning. Manning then called [[Division Command]] to inform them of his actions and a full review of McGill's conduct was initiated. |
||
− | |||
− | [[File:S5e10f09.jpg|left|thumb|180px|[[Lynn McGill]] is relieved using Section 1.12]] |
||
<br clear="left"> |
<br clear="left"> |
||
Line 18: | Line 16: | ||
The extract from the Official Manual states the following. |
The extract from the Official Manual states the following. |
||
− | {{cquote|CTU's agency charter permits the removal of the highest ranking official at CTU |
+ | {{cquote|CTU's agency charter permits the removal of the highest ranking official at CTU if he or she is deemed mentally unfit for duty. In this case, the incapacity clause of Section 1.12 must be invoked by the next-to-highest-ranking officer. The person in question may be detained and removed from the floor, but this action must be reviewed as soon as possible by District personnel. To be found just, the action must meet the following requirements or be supported by the following evidence: |
* Two or more witnesses - other than the second-highest-ranking official - attest that, prior to his or her removal, the highest-ranking official had demonstrated erratic behavior, poor judgement, or questionable conduct that would jeopardize CTU personnel or the active protocol. CTU review boards have ruled that "erratic behavior, poor judgement, and jeopardy-inducting conduct" is behavior such as: |
* Two or more witnesses - other than the second-highest-ranking official - attest that, prior to his or her removal, the highest-ranking official had demonstrated erratic behavior, poor judgement, or questionable conduct that would jeopardize CTU personnel or the active protocol. CTU review boards have ruled that "erratic behavior, poor judgement, and jeopardy-inducting conduct" is behavior such as: |
||
** Abusive, profane and inciting language or physical actions directed at CTU personnel. |
** Abusive, profane and inciting language or physical actions directed at CTU personnel. |
||
Line 30: | Line 28: | ||
=== Important === |
=== Important === |
||
Employees are reminded that any superior who is relieved of duty under section 1.12 should still be treated with courtesy, even while being detailed. District draws a sharp distinction between superiors removed under the incapacity clause and those removed under suspicion of being a mole or traitor. Do not confuse the two.}} |
Employees are reminded that any superior who is relieved of duty under section 1.12 should still be treated with courtesy, even while being detailed. District draws a sharp distinction between superiors removed under the incapacity clause and those removed under suspicion of being a mole or traitor. Do not confuse the two.}} |
||
+ | |||
⚫ | |||
[[Category:Day 5]] |
[[Category:Day 5]] |
||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 10:20, 19 December 2015
Section 1.12 | |
---|---|
Used by: | Curtis Manning |
Season(s): | 5 |
Episode: | "Day 5: 4:00pm-5:00pm" |
Section 1.12, also known as the "incapacity clause," was a part of the Official CTU Operations Manual that stated that it was acceptable to remove a high-ranking official from their position if they are deemed mentally unfit for duty.
Day 5[]
Convinced by Audrey Raines that Lynn McGill was impeding CTU's investigation of the day's terrorist threat, Curtis Manning had Security escort McGill to holding. This action was based on the firing of CTU techie Carrie Bendis, the imprisoning of Bill Buchanan, and the attempted imprisoning of Chloe O'Brian, Edgar Stiles, and Curtis Manning. Manning then called Division Command to inform them of his actions and a full review of McGill's conduct was initiated.
Identifying an Unstable Superior[]
The extract from the Official Manual states the following.
“ | CTU's agency charter permits the removal of the highest ranking official at CTU if he or she is deemed mentally unfit for duty. In this case, the incapacity clause of Section 1.12 must be invoked by the next-to-highest-ranking officer. The person in question may be detained and removed from the floor, but this action must be reviewed as soon as possible by District personnel. To be found just, the action must meet the following requirements or be supported by the following evidence:
ImportantEmployees are reminded that any superior who is relieved of duty under section 1.12 should still be treated with courtesy, even while being detailed. District draws a sharp distinction between superiors removed under the incapacity clause and those removed under suspicion of being a mole or traitor. Do not confuse the two. |
” |