Jeff, One reason that the idea I discussed was suggested is that it is our experience that there are generally very few people who actually want to volunteer for anything. With the Guidelines Revision Committee, we got lucky to have both the number and the quality of volunteers that we had. Interestingly enough, we called for volunteers for a committee to review the grievance procedures a little over a year ago and (I believe) had one person who volunteered. Likewise, we asked for volunteers for a different committee and had no volunteers. If the grievance committee served on rotating terms (and perhaps 3 months is a bit short), then it would require that everyone get involved. Keep in mind that we have only had one true grievance to date (there may have been a second grievance that was never forwarded and there was one that was dropped). I know that we could fill a slate of 100 elected officials in this state today. But what about a year from now? Are you aware that there have been some SC elections where there were NO NOMINATIONS? There is a vacant position on the AB from the Tombstone Project because no one wants to volunteer to run for that position. I still like the suggestion, and I would like to email back and forth with you either privately or on this list (I only offer off-list so as to keep email from being over-filled) and see what we can put together on this. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Johnstien@aol.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:13:54 EDT Subject: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions (grievance coucil response to questions) > 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 ------- End of Original Message -------