Ken's comments are well taken and I can't argue that we are following to the letter RRs. But circumstances between face to face board meetings and online board meetings are different. Also, if only occasional grievances were to be heard RRs could easily be applied. But considering the number of grievances already stacked up unheard a standing committee can function to sort through and move the process along. If the committee feels that RRs should apply to any given grievance then that would be their recommendation to the Board and then RRs could kick in. Many grievances can be resolved by individual Board members if they take the time to answer complaints promptly and civilly. Since the election I have gotten several messages of concern from CCs which if they been had been ignored might have resulted in complaints being filed. Like Tim, Teri and others have pointed out in the past in different ways. RRs are a guide and if we slavishly try to follow every dictate nothing would get done. I am not wedded to any particular approach to this problem. My motion is just one possible solution, a standing committee to sort through and make recommendations to the Board. We have volunteers who are willing to participate and help the Board to better manage their responsibilities. The more we rely on our volunteers the quieter and more harmonious this Project will become. We have to reach a point where the "them" is removed from "us and them". Joe kshort wrote: > > Ya'll are still going about this the wrong way and I am not the only one to > notice. I several msgs from concerned CC's about this. Here is one > suggestion, and it just happens to comply with RROO and our bylaws. > > Think about it. > > Ken > > This is a gross violation of parliamentary procedures and bylaws as well. > For a very good reason, the bylaws clearly specified any grievance be sent > to a member of the Board and referred to a OUTSIDE grievance committee. > Under NO circumstances should a NC or any one else be on such committee. > Please refer to Section 60 of the RRoR. > > The procedure is quite clear - the committee has to be either 3 or 5, > nothing more. And the members have to be DISINTERESTED. Having a CC from > each region will practically destroy the whole process. No impartiality > whatsoever. > > In case of the USGW it should be like this: > 1. Grievance from a state/region is sent to a Board member. > > 2. The Board (UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE should void it except clearly frivolous > ones) authorize the committee immediately and appoint 3 to 5 CC plus a SC > from different regions except that region that is affected to ensure > absolute impartiality. The identity of the members of that grievance > committee is not announced on any list whatsoever to ensure impartiality > and unstained. > > 3. The recommendations from that committee should be made without undue > delay (within 10 days is the general rule) to the Board. > > 4. Under NO circumstance the Board be allowed to make any action worse than > what the committee recommends (the RRoR does NOT allow it,) equal or lesser. > > 5. That committee is dissolved immediately. > > And throughout the whole process, the grievance must start at > the very bottom. -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm