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 > >

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