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 >