MNIGS

The below rather suspicious message was found on the SW list:

> From: xxxxx xxxxx
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 11/8/2009 10:59:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Agenda Item: Private
> Grievance Committee mail list
>
> I don't think this is a good idea.
>
> One of the primary reasons for establishing the GC, was
> to take the issue of grievances out of the hands of the
> AB, and we have already seen this fail, when the
> previous NC told the GC that someone who volunteered
> as a mediator wasn't acceptable to the NC ... whereas
> the NC / AB are supposed to have nothing to do with
> the selection of mediators & arbitrators. This was done
> when the NC was not subbed to the GCs private list ...
> who knows how else an NC might interfer, or try to
> control the GC, if the NC were subbed?
>
> Secondly ... the confidentiality clause in the GC
> Procedures only addresses the volunteer members of
> the GC, not the NC as an ex-offico member, because the
> Procedures voted into place by the Membership don't
> include the NC being subbed to the GC private list. I'm
> sorry if it sounds like I don't trust NCs, my reason is in
> the above paragraph.
>
> Thirdly ... the NC / AB already can't even address the
> most basic elements of the GC, in that the current GC
> Chair does not qualify to be on the GC in the first place,
> according to the Bylaws & GC Procedures voted into
> place by the Membership.
>
> xxxxx
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: xxxxx xxxxx
> > To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> > Date: 11/5/2009 7:28:40 PM
> > Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Agenda Item: Private
>> Grievance Committee mail list
> >
> > Any comments/questions/discussion concerning the
> > following agenda item currently under discussion?
> >
> > Agenda Item: Private Grievance Committee mail list:
> > Discussion of requirement to subscribe the NC and/or
> > alternate AB member and under what circumstances.
> >
> > You can follow the discussion here:
> >
>> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/
> >read/USGENWEB-ALL/2009-11/1257466547

What makes it suspicious? Several members of the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator are subscribed to the SW list, and none asked about the chair of the Grievance Committee not being quallified to be a member of the GC.

We checked out the claim of xxxxx xxxxx and discovered that members of the GC "must have a minimum of one year's continuous service as a Member in Good Standing of either a State Project or a recognized Special Project of the USGenWeb Project," according to the Grievance Committee Procedures.

According to the USGenWeb bylaws a Member In Good Standing is one, "serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." The chair of the Grievance Committee, NCGenWeb State Coordinator Diane Siniard, is known to have expelled at least two CCs with no fair hearing. Having a fair hearing before being expelled is a USGenWeb Rights of Members.

Since the Advisory Board is well aware of the actions of Diane Sinard, we can only assume that the AB approves of her actions, and is of the opinion that a State Coordinator willfully violating the Rights of Members serves "as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project."

We have a different opinion. We believe that any State Coordinator who willfully violates the rules of the USGenWeb, is a part of the USGenWeb corrupt leadership and should be declared an Member Not In Good Standing.

The Advisory Board condoning the actions of corrupt State Coordinators by refusing to do anything about those situations, will become a serious issue haunting the AB and the USGenWeb.

Mary White