At 09:13 AM 5/6/03 EDT, Johnstien@aol.com wrote: > "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." Speaking personally for myself and not any other cc's.... The project needs the SC, with the appointed RC's to help with the project, and a Grievance Committee made up of cc's that serve on a rotating basis to balance the process. Unless there is a big change in the attitude of the CC's, there would come an election and there would be no one to run. We have a problem now getting the cc's to vote. How are we going to get them to run? I was the last elected RC in the project. The next ones were appointed when only two CC's came forward to run for the two positions that were open. Some of us almost begged people to run. I tried behind the scenes in private email to get some of the cc's to run. Almost to the person, they told me they didn't have time. <g> So.... elect the SC. Appoint the RC's. And set the grievance committe up on a rotating basis with each county serving a 3 month term. When a county comes up for serving on the committee, and that cc has not got enough time (experience) or some other problem exists that would prevent them from serving on that term, let them drop to another slot on the next round, or a later round. If we can get the guidelines, the Bill of Rights, and other qualifications set up, this committee will be in name only. The only function it will have is to meet and find there is nothing to do, enjoy a virtual cup of coffee, and go back to mining data. Hopefully we would not have a problem to need them. Course then I might be just daydreaming......... <g> Wyndell Taylor

I guess that I more or less agree with Wyndell. I believe a shorter term will get more of the mass of CC's involved in the process. If the length of time is going to be measured in multiple years I think there will be many who simply say "I don't have the time to do that". That said I wonder though if a somewhat longer term like 6 months with half of the grievance council going off every three months wouldn't work better. I think if you have a situation where you start from scratch every 3 months with this group any sort of continuity will be lost. You in effect will have a situation where every quarter there is a new group looking(virtually) at each other over their coffee and going "well what do we do now" I think the other thing gained out of a staggered thing like this is that a group of CC's working together gets to familiarize themselves every so often with a different mix of CC's. You go on the council and meet half a committee (or council) that has been in place for 3 months and is already up to speed and after 3 months you get to work with another yet group of CC's when you have had 3 months in place. I really believe that meeting and working with other CC's may be as much of a "healing" process as anything else. I don't think that meeting(albeit online) and working with a group where you meet some different personalities and work with them can be anything but beneficial for all of us. As several have said "just my opinion" Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wyndell Taylor" <gagenie@bellsouth.net> To: <GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions (grievance coucil response to questions) > At 09:13 AM 5/6/03 EDT, Johnstien@aol.com wrote: > > "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." > > Speaking personally for myself and not any other cc's.... > > The project needs the SC, with the appointed RC's to help with the project, > and a Grievance Committee made up of cc's that serve on a rotating basis to > balance the process. > > Unless there is a big change in the attitude of the CC's, there would come > an election and there would be no one to run. We have a problem now > getting the cc's to vote. How are we going to get them to run? > > I was the last elected RC in the project. The next ones were appointed > when only two CC's came forward to run for the two positions that were > open. Some of us almost begged people to run. I tried behind the scenes > in private email to get some of the cc's to run. Almost to the person, > they told me they didn't have time. <g> > > So.... elect the SC. Appoint the RC's. And set the grievance committe up > on a rotating basis with each county serving a 3 month term. When a county > comes up for serving on the committee, and that cc has not got enough time > (experience) or some other problem exists that would prevent them from > serving on that term, let them drop to another slot on the next round, or a > later round. > > If we can get the guidelines, the Bill of Rights, and other qualifications > set up, this committee will be in name only. The only function it will > have is to meet and find there is nothing to do, enjoy a virtual cup of > coffee, and go back to mining data. Hopefully we would not have a problem > to need them. > > Course then I might be just daydreaming......... <g> > > Wyndell Taylor > > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > This list is for volunteers of the GAGenWeb Project. If you wish to address only the GAGenWeb Board, send your email to: > <GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> >