Jeanne, Thank you for coming forward with this. I very much liked, and continue to like, your suggestion for that very reason. As I said to you in my reply email, I appreciate the time, thought, consideration and CARING that went into your suggestions (and there were many GOOD suggestions). Likewise, I like Jeff's suggestion, at least in part. And I also appreciate the time, thought, consideration and CARING that went into his suggestions. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Jeanne Arguelles" <ejarguelles@msn.com> To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:20:46 -0500 Subject: [GAGEN] Re: Grievance Committee > I'll fess up... it was me who suggested that the grievance committee > be comprised (in part) of a rotating board of CCs. This was in > addition to a chairperson and other "permanent" committee members > (permanent could mean a two-year term, or whatever) who would bring > stability, experience and guidance to the group. > > The reason for that suggestion was to provide a sort of "jury of our > peers" that could be called to duty if/when a grievance is filed. > This would ensure that grievances are heard by a group of unbiased > volunteers with no motive other than solving the problem at hand. > It would also prevent people from having a "grievance" against the > grievance committee, because it wouldn't always be the same people > making the decisions. > > Whichever system is adopted, I think the formation of a grievance committee > will be a positive addition to the guidelines. I appreciate all the > thought that the Guidelines Revision Committee is putting into this. > > Jeanne Arguelles > > > In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > > > > > I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea > > > that > > > has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each > Region > > > serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being > > > rotated > > > among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has > served > > > on > > > the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more > development, > > > but > > > *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. > > > > Richard, I'm glad to see there is agreement on the need for a Grievance > > Committee/Council. However, I would have to disagree with the suggestion > of > > rotating CCs from each Region serve a 3 month term. A few concerns come > to > > mind. > > > > First, every CC may not wish to serve on the Council. Probably not a big > > hurdle but one we should be aware of. > > > > Second, not every CC would have enough experience in the GAGENWEB to serve > on > > the Council making precedent setting decisions which will affect this > project > > for years to come. > > > > Finally, three months is simply not a long enough term. The three month > > suggestion worries me as to the extent the serious nature of this > Grievance > > Council will play with the GAGENWEB project. My suggestion was as > follows: > > > > "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have > > experience within the GAGENWEB. This council would replace the > > current appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process. > > This council would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, > > ASC for action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final > and > > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the > > guidelines." > > > > Because of the roll of the council in my proposed format, it would not be > > prudent to have each member serve such a short term. This council is > > designed to be a balance to the office of SC. As such, it is very > important > > that council members serve for a length of term equal to or longer than > the > > office of SC. Establishing a three month term, rotating among CCs could > bring > > the appearance of being able to manipulate the system. Also, a three > month > > term on this council would not bring stability to the grievance process. > > > > In another email discussing electing RCs vs appointing RCs, you supported > > appointment and used an analogy of the president appointing his cabinet > > members. This is exactly what we have now in the GAGENWEB project. The > SC > > has appointed people to serve in various positions, i.e., RC and ASCs. > AND > > we have an established Grievance Committee. This established Grievance > > Committee is charged with the task of answering appeals on actions of the > > RCs, ASCs, and SC. > > > > The issue has been that this Grievance Committee is made up of these > > appointed people, i.e., RCs, ASCs, and SC. In the simplest terms and > using > > your analogy, this would be the same as the president's decision being > > appealed and he turns to his appointed cabinet members and asks, "Did I do > > anything wrong?" > > > > Continuing this analogy lets imagine the majority of the cabinet says, > "Yes, > > you did wrong." Then the president un-appoints the dissidents and asks > > again, "Did I do anything wrong?" > > > > This is the potential situation we have now in the GAGENWEB project and > one > > that must be corrected. It is because of this potential situation I > > recommend a Grievance Council made up of experienced CCs only. A council > > with no mix of appointed members. A council who will not be swayed to > make a > > decision because of the shortness of their term of service. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Jeff Johnson > > > > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > > Do you have a suggestion to include in our taglines? If so, please write > > GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com > > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, online information. ------- End of Original Message -------