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