Background: Two CC's have separately sent email to their Board reps lodging a formal grievance against their SC, alleging that the SC has been publicly belittling some of the CC's on the state list and causing discord within the state. One of the CC's has requested that the SC "be removed from the USGenWeb Project". The other has simply asked if there is "any way we can get some relief from this situation." It is Advisory Board policy that details of any grievances or complaints, including naming of names, be discussed only on the unarchived BOARD-EXEC-L, to both protect the good name of anyone who might be unfairly accused, and to protect "whistle blowers" from possible reprisals. It is also Board policy that all general discussion of issues, principles, and USGenWeb By-Laws and procedures take place on the publicly searchable BOARD-L, because all project members have a right to take place in the formulation and implementation of USGenWeb policies and procedures. The USGenWeb Project has been structured to give state projects a great deal of autonomy. The national level has very little ability to interfere with the leadership or internal functions of state projects. In particular, the By-Laws regarding the selection and removal of State Coordinators are in Article XII: ****************************************************************** Section 5. State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws. State projects shall be highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance procedures within the state Section 8. State Coordinators shall be elected to those positions by the local-level coordinators within the state. Section 9. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to possible removal by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory Board and a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within the state. A quorum of 75% of the Local Coordinators shall participate in order for the vote to be binding. ****************************************************************** Ref http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html By Section 9, it is impossible for the Advisory Board to remove a State Coordinator from office without the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within that state. And by Section 8, since states can elect their own SC's, presumably they could have a recall vote and select a new SC by whatever procedures are set up in that state, without even involving the Advisory Board. I recognize, however, that an SC is potentially in a position to place obstacles to a vote on his or her removal from even taking place. (For example, an SC has the ability to remove county links from the state page. CC's might be reluctant to publicly ask a recall vote, for fear that their county pages might be delinked in retaliation.) Section 9 should therefore perhaps be interpreted as a mechanism by which the Advisory Board can *require* that a recall vote be taken at the state level, without the CC's having to go public on their state list as calling for one. But I would be reluctant to do anything so potentially divisive as to initiate an Advisory Board vote under Article XII Section 9 without first trying other more conciliatory ways of resolving the situation, and if that fails, without first ascertaining that dissatisfaction among the CC's of that state was widespread. No sense stirring things up with a recall vote if only a distinct minority of the CC's in the state are unhappy with their choice of SC. Does anyone have any idea as to (A) what procedures we can use to arbitrate grievances short of using the "big stick", and (B) how we might determine whether a grievance initially submitted by one or a small number of CC's has the widespread support of other CC's in their state? On (B), I can think of asking that the CC privately circulate a petition and come back to us if they get the signatures of some threshold percentage of CC's in their state. On (A), I'm not sure. (Please make sure that any answers sent to BOARD-L do not contain identifying details.) Teri Pettit