Comments on the general subject of removal of an SC from office below: -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:45 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Policy on CC grievances against SC >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." > <snip> >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. Yes, Article XII Section 9 is clear in that the board cannot unilaterally vote to remove an SC from office - and that is as it should be. It requires 2/3rd of the CCs in the state in addition to 2/3rd of the board. What is not specified is *what order* this needs to happen. Would the board make its vote, and then (if the board voted that removal was warranted) toss it over to the CCs to see if they agree? Or should the board only take the step of voting once the CCs have *completed* their own vote to remove? If there is an atmosphere of intimidation in a state, the CCs may be unwilling to initiate such an action for fear of reprisal. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the board would act first to take the steps for possible removal of any SC. We need first, in any case, to be sure that such a removal is desired by most of the CCs of the state in question before we take any action at all. This could possibly be accomplished by a petition (in which the CCs are requested email these wishes to their AB rep and these notes would be forwarded to BOARD-EXEC, where the identities of the petitioners can be verified but not made public), or even through some kind of informal, internal statewide poll. Removing a State Coordinator is a huge step, and should not be taken lightly (I know it has not been in the case we are currently discussing). If it needs to happen, it should be as a result of very strong evidence of the desire of the state's CCs, careful consideration by the board, and finally, a confirming formal vote of those CCs. Shari Handley