At 01:00 PM 4/8/03 -0300, Derek wrote: > >>What I can say is this: Our State Coordinator, Tim Stowell, is being >>railroaded through this. At *no time* has the process been fair. At *no >>time* has the NC acted in any fashion that was not underhanded and completely >>and totally unfair. > >And it was 100% fair to those whom Tim Removed? I believe I'm correct when I say that's 3 folks. Ms. Graham - Upson Ms. Woods - Council Ms. Webb - Dawson Ms. Graham - used language unbecoming in any professional situation. Ms. Woods - was removed from the Council for she had no reason to be there. I mistakenly refered to the FGS as a Special Project when in fact it is not but rather her private project. She had been placed on the Council when she was asked to do the Unknown Queries project. After some time she said she wouldn't be able to do that and the project was passed along to Margie Daniels and subsequently is handled via Boards. Ms. Webb - was removed as CC when her page for over 10 days indicated it was an independent page - not associated in any way with GAGenWeb. I wrote asking her about it, never received a reply until I saw it as a complaint on 3/20. If you're gonna speak fair - perhaps you should ask these folks about such - were they fair to GAGenWeb with their actions or lack thereof? >>What are the complaints against Tim? They are bogus and ridiculous. They >>are nonjusticiable and are completely lacking in any form of merit >>whatsoever. They are complaintsa regarding the dismissal of an ASC who broke >>protocol and effectively attempted to start a mutiny (noting that the ASC and >>RC's serve at the pleasure of the SC and are subject to removal at any time >>without cause). They are complaints regarding the dismissal of a CC who >>could not create a document in html format if she wanted to, let alone ftp >>the document. They are complaints by a CC who came forward in defense of her >>cousin with such vulgar language that a sailor would be embarassed (but not a >>Marine - sorry, I remain true to my NAVY roots - Go Jolly Rogers!). > >But it was okay for that CC to serve this Project and host a page for some >time. Then it's discovered she can't do the job and is removed with no >regard to the work that she has done, or managed to get done. I gather you are speaking of the Jackson County CC that resigned 12/27? This person was put in place by the former RC for the Northeast Region - Mr. Giddeon. All the while he was RC - he did her pages, told her she had no need for the password for the account since she couldn't do webpages and wouldn't know how to begin. She did no work other than transcriptions which the RC placed online for her as well. >Although I despise swearing, and occasionally slip myself, it isn't against >the law to swear. Should someone be reprimanded for swearing to a fellow >Volunteer in this Project, yes. Should it mean their dismissal, no. There >needs to be some middle ground. True as far as swearing goes - but to sexually harrass is. >The point is every issue can be seen from 2 sides. Did some things need to >be corrected, certainly. Did they call for dismissal, well I guess that is >what we are voting on. I contend that the dismissals were unfair and too >harsh a punishment for volunteers and that they did not meet the allotted >warning times within our ByLaws. Why were these people removed before they >had their day in 'court' Some actions require immediate action - but - in this instance as well as in the instance regarding the Jackson CC the RC council did approve by majority vote that the actions were warranted. I rarely make unilateral decisions with regards to GAGenWeb but seek counsel of others - to make sure that I'm reading the situation correctly. The RCs can testify to the fact that while some have suggested x action on my part with regards to y situation, I have from time to time departed from their suggestion in an effort to peacefully resolve a situation. >>In closing, I urge you to vote your conscience. My conscience tells me that >>the charges against Tim are trumped, brought by malcontents (such as a former >>ASC who could not wait any longer to become SC, so he started a mutiny). >>Because my conscience tells me these things, voting my conscience means to >>not even go to the polls on this issue and to send a message to the NC that >>his dirty pool and dastardly acts are not welcome here. If you agree with >>me, then I urge you to vote your conscience by not voting. > >I am NOT a malcontent. > >I am opposed to abuse of power and removal of volunteers before they have an >opportunity themselves to this process of defense, that you claim is denied >to Tim. Hypocrisy is the greatest crime, you want afforded to Tim, what he >did not give to the CCs he removed. Removal, like you and others claim for >him, should be the last resort, you have not proven that it was the last >resort afforded those Dismissed from GA. Try as I might you've lost me in your last paragraph for your terms seem to turn on themselves so that what point you were trying to make got lost. Suffice it to say that dismissed CCs (2) had rights under our Guidelines to appeal to the Council but chose not to. They went to National who wasted 2 months of my time to basically say nothing happened. Then we have another complaint signed by more 'new' led down the primrose path CCs with encouragement from some from the National scence. And so we have arrived here. Some folks have also misconstrued what I said in my note of 4/7: I said in part: "I remind you that you have the absolute right to speak your mind by NOT voting. If we do not have a quorum, it will send a message to the AB that you believe they have handled this situation improperly." Some folks think I said don't vote. I did not say that. What I said was that you have options - you can vote (yes, no, present) you can not vote This holds true in every election in the USA. You don't have to vote if you don't want to. You can vote if you do want to. Why 'present' was included in 02-23 as a valid choice - I don't know or remember if it was discussed but it seems to me to be a wasted vote. So let me be perfectly clear - Vote your convictions - Vote - YES if you wish to have an election to replace me as your SC Vote - NO if you wish things to remain as they are pending Guidelines revision Vote - Present if you wish your vote to Not Count or Don't vote if you have better things to do with your time, don't want to be involved or for whatever other reason you can come up with and live with. Tim