It has been moved by Tina Vickery and Seconded by Les Shockey that further action on motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the Naming of the NWPL SC Representative, the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval of the CC/SC Guidelines document agenda items have been dealt with. Those in favor of postponing action on motion 2009/10-23, as listed above, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

I second this motion. Les Shockey SEMA SC Rep Tina S. Vickery wrote: > Knowing that we are operating under a tight time line, I move that motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the following agenda items are dealt with: > > ** Naming of NWPL SC Representative > ** Appointment of permanent Secretary > ** CC/SC Guidelines document approval - (with or without changes to the proposed document). > > I make this motion mindful that had the "MOTION 2009/10-23 - Call the Question" passed the subsequent vote would have probably failed and we wouldn't be in this position. I also realize that the Motion to Table 2009/10-23 failed due to our collective frustration of the complexities of the ramifications, and concerns of the wording of the motion across the project as well as our collective wish to complete our work on this issue once and for all. > > So, in an effort to move the agenda onto issues that have been in the queue for a period of time that requires our attention relevant to the upcoming election period, bylaw mandated time frames of appointment of the NWPL SC Representive of the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board and other Project business, I make this motion to postpone MOTION 2009/10-23 until their completion. > > Tina Vickery > Representative at Large. > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

AGREE Pauli Smith NENC CC Rep ----- Original Message ---- From: Sherri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thu, April 29, 2010 7:58:09 PM Subject: [BOARD] Motion to Temporarily Postpone motion 2009/10-23 It has been moved by Tina Vickery and Seconded by Les Shockey that further action on motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the Naming of the NWPL SC Representative, the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval of the CC/SC Guidelines document agenda items have been dealt with. Those in favor of postponing action on motion 2009/10-23, as listed above, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org<http://usgenweb.org/> Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Knowing that we are operating under a tight time line, I move that motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the following agenda items are dealt with: ** Naming of NWPL SC Representative ** Appointment of permanent Secretary ** CC/SC Guidelines document approval - (with or without changes to the proposed document). I make this motion mindful that had the "MOTION 2009/10-23 - Call the Question" passed the subsequent vote would have probably failed and we wouldn't be in this position. I also realize that the Motion to Table 2009/10-23 failed due to our collective frustration of the complexities of the ramifications, and concerns of the wording of the motion across the project as well as our collective wish to complete our work on this issue once and for all. So, in an effort to move the agenda onto issues that have been in the queue for a period of time that requires our attention relevant to the upcoming election period, bylaw mandated time frames of appointment of the NWPL SC Representive of the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board and other Project business, I make this motion to postpone MOTION 2009/10-23 until their completion. Tina Vickery Representative at Large.

Agree Alice Allen NENC CC Rep *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/29/2010 at 8:58 PM [email protected] wrote: >It has been moved by Tina Vickery and Seconded by Les Shockey that further >action on motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the Naming of the NWPL SC >Representative, the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval >of the CC/SC Guidelines document agenda items have been dealt with. > >Those in favor of postponing action on motion 2009/10-23, as listed above, >please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with >"disagree". > > >Sherri Bradley >National Coordinator >USGenWeb Project >Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message

AGREE R/S Larry Flesher SWSC SC Rep ----- Original Message ---- From: Sherri <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, April 29, 2010 7:58:09 PM Subject: [BOARD] Motion to Temporarily Postpone motion 2009/10-23 It has been moved by Tina Vickery and Seconded by Les Shockey that further action on motion 2009/10-23 be postponed until the Naming of the NWPL SC Representative,  the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval of the CC/SC Guidelines document agenda items have been dealt with.  Those in favor of postponing action on motion 2009/10-23, as listed above, please respond with "agree".  Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It has just come to my attention that when the Standard Rules page was updated after motion 2009/10-07 was passed that there was an oversight that needs to be corrected.  Motion 2009/10-07 modified the second paragraph of section B of the Standard Rules/Grievance Procedures.  When the update was made to the page, the first paragraph of that section was deleted inadvertently.  The original wording of that first paragraph needs to be re-added to the Standard Rules page and to the current motion being discussed. When the floor is available, I will move that the original wording be re-added to correct this situation. Larry Flesher SWSC SC Rep

Is there currently a motion on the floor? Thanks. Colleen

Again, I guess I'm missing something here. Sherri why are you pushing so hard to get this motion through? Please help me to understand. Colleen On 4/28/2010 9:41 AM, Cyndie wrote: > The vote on tabling the motion was over before I had a chance to vote, but > based on what has transpired I was and still am in favor of tabling it. We > can make a separate motion which just sets a time line for appeals. If > others feel that particular items from the motion have merit, maybe we need > to look at them individually instead of trying to make multiple changes at > once after the EC agenda items are addressed. > > Cyndie > SP Rep. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > So, do you have alternate wording to suggest to cover your points, Cyndie, > and/or a suggestion for what pieces of this revision/update you'd suggest > dropping? I added the references to the fact that the confidentiality > should never extend past the end of the grievance based on discussion that > had occurred on various project lists. > > As I said earlier, this is your motion - I just put this up to try to make > it easier to see what the suggested changes were. > > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Cyndie > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > I agree with Linda's statement: > " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of > taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a > grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral > issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively > freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, > particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." > > I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from > knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. > For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance > procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality > situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to > cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. > > If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like > a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), > why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in > continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. > What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the > completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, > the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an > impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the > grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this > way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not > peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). > > I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about > completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to > not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. > There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't > understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some > sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be > notified. > > I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. > > Cyndie > SP Rep. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Linda Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > Resending - this bounced. Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: > > - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an > effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting > our attention. > > - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - > not just in my region. > > I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of > taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a > grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral > issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively > freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, > particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. > > While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent > of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received > input from numerous others that agree). > > I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the > results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of > continuing this discussion at this time. > > Linda > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with > exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? > > I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to > consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance > Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different > situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file > from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from > the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a > grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a > project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) > > Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion > is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the > loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of > times an appeal can be filed should also be added. > > Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the > suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the > possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the > grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be > the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was > filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. > > If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave > them on the agenda as a separate item. > > So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? > > Thanks, > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. > > Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis > and W. David Samuelsen > > Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, > Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina > Vickery > > Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger > > Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and > seconded by Alice Allen. > > > > Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with > "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". > > > > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at<http://usgenweb.org> > http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> > http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Annie and Alice bring up some valid points. I agree with them both; table the motion. Colleen On 4/28/2010 1:07 AM, DC & Alice Allen wrote: > My biggest reason to vote for tabling this for now is exactly what Annie brings up--the EC item on the agenda. > > The GC item is complicated, we've been dealing with it for a long time in one way or another. I think we need to put it aside to work on more pressing things. While this is *pressing* in its own right, I can see us still dealing with it right up to election time with no movement on the EC stuff. > > Alice > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/27/2010 at 6:44 AM [email protected] wrote: > > >> I would like to see all of it done at once. And we need to get on with it >> so we can move to the EC item on the agenda - there is an election very >> soon. >> >> AnnieG >> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Sherri<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up >>> with >>> exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? >>> >>> I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to >>> consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance >>> Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different >>> situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file >>> from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated >>> >> from >> >>> the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for >>> >> filing >> >>> a >>> grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from >>> >> a >> >>> project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) >>> >>> Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The >>> >> suggestion >> >>> is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the >>> loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number >>> of >>> times an appeal can be filed should also be added. >>> >>> Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the >>> suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the >>> possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about >>> >> the >> >>> grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would >>> be >>> the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was >>> filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. >>> >>> If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll >>> >> leave >> >>> them on the agenda as a separate item. >>> >>> So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sherri >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of Sherri >>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 >>> >>> With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. >>> >>> Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda >>> >> Lewis >> >>> and W. David Samuelsen >>> >>> Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, >>> Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina >>> Vickery >>> >>> Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger >>> >>> Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. >>> >>> >>> Sherri Bradley >>> National Coordinator >>> USGenWeb Project >>> Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >>> Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of Sherri >>> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 >>> >>> A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and >>> seconded by Alice Allen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond >>> with >>> "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sherri Bradley >>> National Coordinator >>> USGenWeb Project >>> Information about the USGenWeb Project at<http://usgenweb.org> >>> http://usgenweb.org >>> Advisory Board Agenda<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> >>> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in >>> the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in >>> the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Motion 2009/10-23 is still on the floor. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colleen Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Another question... Is there currently a motion on the floor? Thanks. Colleen USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The motion to table this issue failed when eight of your fellow AB members voted against it. That indicates, at least to most, I would think, that the desire to see this item dealt with by your fellow AB members exists. That's not "Sherri" pushing anything. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colleen Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Again, I guess I'm missing something here. Sherri why are you pushing so hard to get this motion through? Please help me to understand. Colleen On 4/28/2010 9:41 AM, Cyndie wrote: > The vote on tabling the motion was over before I had a chance to vote, but > based on what has transpired I was and still am in favor of tabling it. We > can make a separate motion which just sets a time line for appeals. If > others feel that particular items from the motion have merit, maybe we need > to look at them individually instead of trying to make multiple changes at > once after the EC agenda items are addressed. > > Cyndie > SP Rep. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > So, do you have alternate wording to suggest to cover your points, Cyndie, > and/or a suggestion for what pieces of this revision/update you'd suggest > dropping? I added the references to the fact that the confidentiality > should never extend past the end of the grievance based on discussion that > had occurred on various project lists. > > As I said earlier, this is your motion - I just put this up to try to make > it easier to see what the suggested changes were. > > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Cyndie > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > I agree with Linda's statement: > " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of > taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a > grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral > issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively > freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, > particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." > > I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from > knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. > For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance > procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality > situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to > cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. > > If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like > a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), > why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in > continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. > What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the > completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, > the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an > impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the > grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this > way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not > peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). > > I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about > completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to > not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. > There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't > understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some > sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be > notified. > > I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. > > Cyndie > SP Rep. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Linda Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > Resending - this bounced. Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: > > - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an > effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting > our attention. > > - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - > not just in my region. > > I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of > taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a > grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral > issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively > freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, > particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. > > While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent > of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received > input from numerous others that agree). > > I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the > results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of > continuing this discussion at this time. > > Linda > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with > exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? > > I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to > consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance > Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different > situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file > from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from > the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a > grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a > project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) > > Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion > is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the > loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of > times an appeal can be filed should also be added. > > Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the > suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the > possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the > grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be > the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was > filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. > > If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave > them on the agenda as a separate item. > > So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? > > Thanks, > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. > > Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis > and W. David Samuelsen > > Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, > Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina > Vickery > > Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger > > Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > > A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and > seconded by Alice Allen. > > > > Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with > "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". > > > > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at<http://usgenweb.org> > http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> > http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For the record, it has just come to the attention of the Advisory Board that an inadvertent omission occurred when Standard Rule V.B., Committee Business, was updated after motion 2009/10-07 was passed. The first paragraph of Section B was deleted when the update was made to the second paragraph. (Motion 2009/10-07 only involved the only the second paragraph of section B.) I have corrected the omission and reinserted the first paragraph where it belongs and have requested that the Grievance Committee Procedures posted at http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html also be corrected. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

The vote on tabling the motion was over before I had a chance to vote, but based on what has transpired I was and still am in favor of tabling it. We can make a separate motion which just sets a time line for appeals. If others feel that particular items from the motion have merit, maybe we need to look at them individually instead of trying to make multiple changes at once after the EC agenda items are addressed. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 So, do you have alternate wording to suggest to cover your points, Cyndie, and/or a suggestion for what pieces of this revision/update you'd suggest dropping? I added the references to the fact that the confidentiality should never extend past the end of the grievance based on discussion that had occurred on various project lists. As I said earlier, this is your motion - I just put this up to try to make it easier to see what the suggested changes were. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I agree with Linda's statement: " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be notified. I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Lewis Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Resending - this bounced. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting our attention. - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - not just in my region. I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received input from numerous others that agree). I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of continuing this discussion at this time. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of times an appeal can be filed should also be added. Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave them on the agenda as a separate item. So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? Thanks, Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis and W. David Samuelsen Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina Vickery Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and seconded by Alice Allen. Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Colleen, it can't be tabled, whether there are valid points or not in your opinion. The majority of the AB members indicated that they did not want the motion to be tabled, as indicated by the failure of the motion to table. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colleen Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Annie and Alice bring up some valid points. I agree with them both; table the motion. Colleen On 4/28/2010 1:07 AM, DC & Alice Allen wrote: > My biggest reason to vote for tabling this for now is exactly what Annie brings up--the EC item on the agenda. > > The GC item is complicated, we've been dealing with it for a long time in one way or another. I think we need to put it aside to work on more pressing things. While this is *pressing* in its own right, I can see us still dealing with it right up to election time with no movement on the EC stuff. > > Alice > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/27/2010 at 6:44 AM [email protected] wrote: > > >> I would like to see all of it done at once. And we need to get on with it >> so we can move to the EC item on the agenda - there is an election very >> soon. >> >> AnnieG >> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Sherri<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up >>> with >>> exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? >>> >>> I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to >>> consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance >>> Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different >>> situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file >>> from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated >>> >> from >> >>> the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for >>> >> filing >> >>> a >>> grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from >>> >> a >> >>> project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) >>> >>> Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The >>> >> suggestion >> >>> is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the >>> loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number >>> of >>> times an appeal can be filed should also be added. >>> >>> Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the >>> suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the >>> possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about >>> >> the >> >>> grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would >>> be >>> the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was >>> filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. >>> >>> If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll >>> >> leave >> >>> them on the agenda as a separate item. >>> >>> So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sherri >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of Sherri >>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 >>> >>> With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. >>> >>> Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda >>> >> Lewis >> >>> and W. David Samuelsen >>> >>> Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, >>> Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina >>> Vickery >>> >>> Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger >>> >>> Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. >>> >>> >>> Sherri Bradley >>> National Coordinator >>> USGenWeb Project >>> Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >>> Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of Sherri >>> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 >>> >>> A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and >>> seconded by Alice Allen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond >>> with >>> "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sherri Bradley >>> National Coordinator >>> USGenWeb Project >>> Information about the USGenWeb Project at<http://usgenweb.org> >>> http://usgenweb.org >>> Advisory Board Agenda<http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> >>> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in >>> the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in >>> the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would second a motion to set the time line for appeals and table the rest. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 The vote on tabling the motion was over before I had a chance to vote, but based on what has transpired I was and still am in favor of tabling it. We can make a separate motion which just sets a time line for appeals. If others feel that particular items from the motion have merit, maybe we need to look at them individually instead of trying to make multiple changes at once after the EC agenda items are addressed. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 So, do you have alternate wording to suggest to cover your points, Cyndie, and/or a suggestion for what pieces of this revision/update you'd suggest dropping? I added the references to the fact that the confidentiality should never extend past the end of the grievance based on discussion that had occurred on various project lists. As I said earlier, this is your motion - I just put this up to try to make it easier to see what the suggested changes were. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I agree with Linda's statement: " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be notified. I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Lewis Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Resending - this bounced. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting our attention. - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - not just in my region. I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received input from numerous others that agree). I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of continuing this discussion at this time. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of times an appeal can be filed should also be added. Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave them on the agenda as a separate item. So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? Thanks, Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis and W. David Samuelsen Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina Vickery Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and seconded by Alice Allen. Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

So, do you have alternate wording to suggest to cover your points, Cyndie, and/or a suggestion for what pieces of this revision/update you'd suggest dropping? I added the references to the fact that the confidentiality should never extend past the end of the grievance based on discussion that had occurred on various project lists. As I said earlier, this is your motion - I just put this up to try to make it easier to see what the suggested changes were. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I agree with Linda's statement: " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be notified. I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Lewis Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Resending - this bounced. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting our attention. - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - not just in my region. I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received input from numerous others that agree). I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of continuing this discussion at this time. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of times an appeal can be filed should also be added. Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave them on the agenda as a separate item. So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? Thanks, Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis and W. David Samuelsen Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina Vickery Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and seconded by Alice Allen. Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree with Linda's statement: " I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB from knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, like a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, not peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged to not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be notified. I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. Cyndie SP Rep. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Lewis Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Resending - this bounced. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: - We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been an effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued awaiting our attention. - Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - not just in my region. I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the equivalent of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received input from numerous others that agree). I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing the results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of continuing this discussion at this time. Linda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number of times an appeal can be filed should also be added. Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would be the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave them on the agenda as a separate item. So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? Thanks, Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis and W. David Samuelsen Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina Vickery Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and seconded by Alice Allen. Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with "agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Cyndie, Thank you for putting my feelings into words much better than I could. I am in full agreement. Alice NENC CC Rep *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/27/2010 at 7:01 PM [email protected] wrote: >I agree with Linda's statement: >" I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of >taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a >grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral >issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively >freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, >particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself." > >I do not see anywhere in the current procedures where it forbids the AB >from >knowing that a grievance has been filed and knowing who the parties are. >For some reason, only this session has confidentiality in the grievance >procedures been interpreted this strictly. I feel that confidentiality >situations are very case by case and trying to procedure us to death to >cover every circumstance is causing more problems than it is helping. > >If there is something extremely wrong happening in a grievance process, >like >a person is being discriminated against (violating XIV.F.3 of the bylaws), >why do they have to wait for an appeal to report it? This may result in >continued discrimination throughout the process that could be prevented. >What if a CC is replaced (violating XIV.F.2 of the bylaws) prior to the >completion of a grievance? The way confidentiality is being interpreted, >the AB will not know this until the grievance is over, so it is an >impossible situation to enforce. I really do not think the writers of the >grievance procedures intended for confidentiality to be interpreted this >way. I feel it was meant to cover the discussion of the matter grieved, >not >peripheral issues (as Linda nicely worded it). > >I don't understand what purpose releasing information publically about >completed grievances serves. This may cause people who have been wronged >to >not file a grievance because they don't want it publicized to everyone. >There have been demonstrated reasons given for the AB to know, but I don't >understand why anyone else needs to know unless there is a penalty of some >sort, such as MNIGS. In that case, the parties who need to know can be >notified. > >I am, however, in favor of a timeline for submitting an appeal. > >Cyndie >SP Rep. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Linda Lewis >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:43 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [BOARD] FW: RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > >Resending - this bounced. Linda > >-----Original Message----- >From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:50 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > >I am in favor of tabling this item for the following reasons: > >- We've spent a long time on this item and in my opinion, it has not been >an >effective or productive use of our time; many more items are queued >awaiting >our attention. > >- Each proposed change seems to be met with controversy in the membership - >not just in my region. > >I will further state that I am not now, nor ever have been, in favor of >taking confidentiality to a paralyzing nth degree with regard to a >grievance. Grievants cannot seek assistance from anyone with peripheral >issues due to the extreme confidentiality definition. This very effectively >freezes areas of the project which can result in a negative impact to all, >particularly those involved in a grievance and the State itself. > >While grievances are a very important mechanism, they are not the >equivalent >of a murder trial and should be more like a civil case (IMO - have received >input from numerous others that agree). > >I am in favor of setting the time limits and I am in favor of publishing >the >results but I am not in favor of the previous motion nor am I in favor of >continuing this discussion at this time. > >Linda > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Sherri >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:07 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > >OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up >with >exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? > >I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to >consider since we're reworking this anyway. First, from the Grievance >Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different >situations. The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file >from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from >the Project. (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing >a >grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a >project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) > >Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated. The suggestion >is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the >loopholes and have complete closure on the issue). A limit to the number >of >times an appeal can be filed should also be added. > >Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the >suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the >possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the >grievance should be released. The suggested info to be made public would >be >the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was >filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. > >If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave >them on the agenda as a separate item. > >So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? > >Thanks, >Sherri > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Sherri >Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > >With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. > >Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis >and W. David Samuelsen > >Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, >Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina >Vickery > >Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger > >Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23. > > >Sherri Bradley >National Coordinator >USGenWeb Project >Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org >Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Sherri >Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 > >A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and >seconded by Alice Allen. > > > >Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond >with >"agree". Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". > > > > > >Sherri Bradley >National Coordinator >USGenWeb Project >Information about the USGenWeb Project at <http://usgenweb.org> >http://usgenweb.org >Advisory Board Agenda <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> >http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in >the subject and the body of the message > > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in >the subject and the body of the message > > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in >the subject and the body of the message > > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in >the subject and the body of the message > >USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message

Errr... see if the wording is better, please. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 Larry, please see if the rewording that I've done (in blue font with the original changes in red). If anyone has a better idea for rewording this, please let me know - this is your motion, not mine. I'm simply trying to facilitate the discussion by making it easy to see what the final version would be so that this agenda item can be completed. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Flesher Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 In this paragraph from the mockup: 6 - When the team is seated, the parties shall be so advised by the Mediator. Everyone will be reminded that the grievance confidentiality extends to all parties (including the mediators, arbitrators and GC members) from the time the grievance process begins and that failure to abide by the confidentiality of the grievance process is grounds to automatically and immediately lose the grievance. The parties shall have seventy-two (72) hours to submit to the Mediator a written statement of their position on the issues of the dispute. The mediator shall provide the position statements to the team members for their review. The second sentence seems to be incomplete. Failure to maintain confidentiality "by the parties" is grounds to lose, etc., but a similiar failure "by the mediators, arbitrators, and GC members" should not be grounds to lose, but should result in some penalty to the individual failing. I believe another sentence is required to explain the penalty for failure "by the mediators, arbitrators, and GC members". Larry Flesher SWSC SC Rep ----- Original Message ---- From: Sherri <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 12:54:48 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 In the interest of letting everyone see what's been suggested I've put up a mockup of the changes to the rules.  Maybe this will allow us to see more clearly the suggested changes.  The mockup is at http://kykinfolk.com/temp/amended-standard-rules-4-27.htm - does this help? Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 OK, can we please have those that have issues with this motion speak up with exactly what you are having issues with and suggest wording changes? I've also received a few of comments from others that you may want to consider since we're reworking this anyway.  First, from the Grievance Committee, the timing for filing a grievance is different for different situations.  The suggestion is to change it to a straight 14 days to file from the incident occurred or was discovered or someone is terminated from the Project.  (This suggestion is because the stated time frame for filing a grievance can be subject to interpretation if the person is removed from a project but is still a member of USGenWeb through another project.) Second, a time limit for filing an appeal should be stated.  The suggestion is 10-14 days for that, too (so that we can actually close all of the loopholes and have complete closure on the issue).  A limit to the number of times an appeal can be filed should also be added. Third, and we've all heard this from more than a few members, is the suggestion that once the grievance process is complete (including the possibility of filing an appeal), that at least basic information about the grievance should be released.  The suggested info to be made public would be the names of the parties involved, whatever the reason the grievance was filed and the resolution of the grievance and any appeals. If you don't want to include these things, just let me know and we'll leave them on the agenda as a separate item. So, can you please speak up so that we can keep this moving? Thanks, Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BOARD] RESULTS: Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 With 12 members voting, the motion to table motion 2009/10-23 fails. Those voting to table the motion: Alice Allen, Colleen Pustola, Linda Lewis and W. David Samuelsen Those voting against tabling the motion: Ann Allen Geoghegan, Dale Grimm, Denise Wells, Jeff Kemp, Larry Flesher, Les Shockey, Pauli Smith and Tina Vickery Those not voting: Cyndie Enfinger Discussion will continue on motion 2009/10-23.  Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [BOARD] Move to Table Motion 2009/10-23 A motion to table motion 2009/10-23 has been made by David Samuelsen and seconded by Alice Allen.  Those in favor of tabling motion 2009/10-23 temporarily, please respond with "agree".  Those opposed, please respond with "disagree". Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at  <http://usgenweb.org> http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda  <http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php> http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message