Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

Stalking The Truth

Stalking The Truth

April 29, 2010

Massacre Part 2/4


Saturday Night Massacre
-- Part 2

Donated by
http://usgenweb-cc.org/index.html

Email #8

Copy of an email. [Explanation: The AB is not supposed to interfere in Grievance issues. That is the responsibility of the Grievance Committee]

(begin)

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 3/6/2010 5:16:55 AM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance

What am I missing? Is he saying that he's previously submitted this grievance? I don't remember seeing anything about it - did it get this far? This also needs to be assigned a grievance number and to be posted on the Status page.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com
On Behalf Of Mike & Diane
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:50 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance

Hi all,

Here is another grievance that has been received.

Diane

-------Original Message-------
From: Diane Siniard
Date: 3/4/2010 1:54:33 PM
To: Mike & Diane Siniard

Subject: Fw: Resubmittal of grievance

========================================

Email #9

[Explanation: Copy of email that shows the National Coordinator reportedly injecting herself into the Grievance Procedure.]

(begin)

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 10:37:14 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation

And I'm supposed to stay out of it, too, but you get my two cents again. Declaring anyone MNIGS is a disciplinary hearing and, at least to my understanding, must be handled by the AB. The AB must appoint who's going to do the investigation and the hearing - it could be AB members, it could be the GC, etc., but the GC can't arbitrarily decide they're going to declare someone MNIGS, no matter how much we'd all like to. You can suggest as a decision that they be declared MNIGS but I'm not sure how well that would fly.

My suggestion - send [name removed] an email letting her know that the acceptance of the grievance did not follow the GC procedures, which state that a specific rule, policy, procedure or bylaw must be listed that was broken by whomever the grievance is filed against, in this case, [name removed]. Give her a time limit to reply and identify said rule, procedure, bylaw and/or policy that he broke and explain that if can't produce one that the grievance will have to be retroactively rejected. This is no reflection on any of the GC members, nor upon [name removed], but the rules do have to be followed. Mind you, the rule, policy, etc. that was broken is not limited to the USGenWeb Project rules, bylaws, etc., but also include the NCGenWeb rules, policies, etc, too. I agree - we're all tired of dealing with [name removed] and methinks everyone would like to see him gone. But when action is taken to start the process with a hope of a successful end, all of the I's have to be dotted and the t's crossed. Down off my soap box now. I'm toddling back to the woodstove to see if I can get thawed out. At this point, I'm not holding out much hope.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com
On Behalf Of Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:11 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation

Hi all,

I know I am supposed to stay out of this conversation, but, how about this. It was in Pat's email and I think we should entertain this idea.

Quote

OTOH, I think there are grounds for declaring him MNIGS. I found two USGW sites for which he is CC, i.e

XXGenWeb, XX County
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~XX/
Last updated 28 May 2008

and

XXGENWEB XX County last updated 12 Jul 2007
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/XX/

The definition of "in good standing" is contained in Article VI, Section I "in good standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly to email, actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information, maintaining their Website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project.

It seems to me that failing to update a website in 2 and 3 years respectively is a failure to meet the responsibilities of a USGW CC. I would suggest that if this avenue is pursued, the sites be archived as they exist at the present time so that comparisons to any subsequent claims could be made.

I also found our Parliamentarian's (2005) opinion on MNIGS
http://www.usgenweb.org/business/AB-10-2005.shtml#anchor6
I do not have a copy of Sturgis, but the opinion seems to suggest that even without USGW policy on expulsion and/or definition of MNIGS, under Sturgis, a member may be terminated if he "fails or refuses to work within the framework of the organization". While [name removed] conduct in contacting members of NCGenWeb does not violate any law, rule, or policy, it could be interpreted as an attempt to disrupt the business of the NCGenWeb, therefore a failure to work within the framework, blah, blah.

Pat Asher

Unquote

Now USGenWeb has no formal policy on what a "member not in good standing means. On this issue Sturgis only states that, ‘Discipline may consist, for example, of requiring a member to appear before the governing board and explain certain actions or pay a fine, or a member may be reprimanded or suspended from membership for a limited time. A membership can be terminated and a member expelled because of violation of an important duty to the organization, a breach of a fundamental rule or principle of the organization, or for any violation stated in the bylaws as a ground for expulsion. In general, termination of membership is justified if a member fails or refuses to work within the framework of the organization.’ (Sturgis pg. 224)

Now, I can't find anything on the XX state page for their coordinators about guidelines, etc. [name removed], do y'all have any [missing word] for how often you are supposed to update your sites, etc? Kansas doesn't really have much as far as requirements either, they still have Teresa Lindquist as a CC and she hasn't touched her site since 2007. So, maybe y'all can discuss this as an option, it is totally up to the group. Butting out again,

Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From:
Date: 2/9/2010 9:47:35 PM
To:
Cc: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation

You will absolutely not resign and leave me with this. :) My point was not to cause you or anyone any headaches. If we are honest with ourselves, I would imagine it was accepted because we are simply tired of [name removed]. Unless someone else can tell me why we accepted it? It is my opinion that we should recall it and stop the arbitration. If there was nothing to mediate, there is nothing to arbitrate.

========================================

Email #10

[Explanation: Copy of email that reportedly shows another instance of the NC injecting the AB into Grievance Committee business.]

(begin)

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/10/2010 6:13:28 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation

I doubt seriously that anyone here would disagree with you. But, one of the requirements that has to be met when filing a grievance is that "A specific citation or reference to the USGenWeb Project Policy, Procedure, or By-Law, or XXGenWeb Project, Policy, Procedure, or By-Law which alleged to have been violated" must be listed when filing the grievance. As obnoxious, harassing, ranting, and childlike that [name removed] is, there's not a specific rule that says that harassment of any project member by another is not acceptable. There is already an item specifically dealing with this that is on the agenda. There's one item ahead of it in line, but hopefully it won't be too long before it's at the top of the list to be dealt with. When/if that rule is in place, the options for dealing with [name removed] and his ilk will greatly increase, including the option of filing grievances against him and not getting caught as [name removed] was this time.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com
On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:27 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation

I know one person who thought this was worthy of working through, ME and here is what I said when we began to discuss this issue. "I do believe this grievance has merit, it also will open a HUGE can of worms, but it is time to do so I believe."

The man blatantly ignored copyright, he harrassed the entire XXGenWeb and has been doing so for at least 5 years. We must deal with this and we must do so in a way that says, rules count, responsible behavior counts. rude and obnoxious can never trump responsible behavior.

On 2/9/2010 8:19 PM, wrote:

I'm biting my tongue off, but what else can we do. I'm going back through the emails tonight and try to figure out what triggered an acceptance. This grievance has been a nightmare from the beginning. I seriously can't remember, perhaps it was because we were corresponding about two grievances at the same time and lines become crossed. Not trying to find excuses, but this went terribly astray.

If I said something out of turn and caused it, I don't know. if anyone Feels I caused it, than I respectfully will offer my apology and remove myself from this position.

> ---- <@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, as far as I'm concerned... We can stop the call for
>> arbitration. If we can't find what rule was broken then
>> we should have rejected the grievance.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:57 PM, [xxxxx] wrote:
>>
>>> [xxxxx], when [name removed] reported back to us,
>>> she made that statement, that she could find no
>>> statue of our bylaws being broken. Unless someone
>>> can point out a bylaw being broken by an alleged
>>> disruption of XX cc's, or one of the other points
>>> she made, I see no option other than, retracting the
>>> grievance for lack of stated rule violation. I prayed
>>> that we could have this discussion before moving
>>> forward, but someone either by mistake or reason
>>> beyond my understanding called for arbitration.
>>>
>>> ---- <@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gang... A little note from our dear friend. Let's
>>>> examine his point please. Since we never did say
>>>> what rules he broke when we accepted the
>>>> grievance, I would be interested in the groups
>>>> thoughts of how to respond to this.
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: xxxxx@mindspring.com
>>>> Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM
>>>> Subject: Due Process Violation
>>>> To: xxxxx@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> The acceptance of Grievance by the Grievance
>>>> Committee, and allowed to be accepted by the
>>>> NC/AB, violates my rights of due process. The
>>>> accused (myself) has the right to know what the
>>>> charges are against me. In accordance with the
>>>> Grievance Bylaw& Procedures voted into place
>>>> twice by the AB, and once by the membership,
>>>> it is not a valid grievance because it fails to state
>>>> what the charges are (what rules I allegedly
>>>> violated).
>>>>
>>>> Due process is best defined in one word -- fairness.
>>>> Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions,
>>>> statutes and case law have provided standards for
>>>> fair treatment of citizens. These standards are
>>>> known as due process. When a person is treated
>>>> unfairly, he is said to have been deprived of or
>>>> denied due process.
>>>>
>>>> Due process embodies a system of rights based on
>>>> moral principles so deeply imbedded in the
>>>> traditions and feelings of our people, as to be
>>>> deemed fundamental to a civilized society as
>>>> conceived by our whole history. Due process is
>>>> that which comports with the deepest notions of
>>>> what is fair and right and just.
>>>>
>>>> Due process extends to all persons, and are
>>>> guaranteed to all those accused of a crime. I have
>>>> the fundamental right to be clearly informed of
>>>> the nature and cause of the charges against me.
>>>>
>>>> Daryl

========================================

Email #11

[Copy of email reportedly showing AB involvement on the Florida Grievance]

(Begin)

[Diane notes: These next ones will be the Florida fiasco]

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 10/11/2009 7:16:48 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Mediation mailing list

I've got it set up, who needs to be subbed? (I set it us as a yahoo group, but it's private so won't be seen by everyone and I have to approve subscriptions, so those not authorized can't get in where they don't belong)

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:17 PM
To: Sherri Bradley
Subject: Mediation mailing list

Sherri,

Can you have a mailing list set up for the mediation of Grievance or should I attempt it?

Thanks!

Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

========================================

Email #12

[Diane notes: Copy of email and continuation of the Florida Issue]

(begin)

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 11/17/2009 12:07:10 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'; 'Joel Newport'; 'Laverne Tornow'
Cc: 'Tina S. Vickery'; contact@kempchronicles.com
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009/08-15

[name removed],

You are subscribed to the yahoo group that was set up for the hearing of this grievance. There have been no messages on the list - I'll send a test message in a moment so that you can verify that you're subscribed.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:46 AM
To: Joel Newport; (name removed)
Cc: Tina Vickery; Sherri Bradley; contact@kempchronicles.com
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15

First off, grievances may not be discussed with anyone who is not named in said grievance nor with anyone that is not on the Grievance Committee. I remind you of Section 5F- Grievance Process: All discussion regarding the issues during the grievance process is to be considered privileged and private, and shall not be disclosed during or after the process by either the team or either party, except as allowed by these procedures.

That being said, I will not discuss anything further on this grievance until we find a mediator. I have put out calls for mediators and we are awaiting someone to volunteer. I have also periodically sent you emails to let you know we are awaiting volunteers. I am sorry that we cannot make anyone volunteer, nor can we randomly select members from the project to serve as arbitrators or mediators. This is strictly volunteer service.

Diane Siniard

Grievance Committee Chair
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From:
Date: 11/17/2009 11:16:51 AM
To: Joel Newport
Cc: Tina S. Vickery; Sherri; Mike & Diane; contact@kempchronicles.com
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15

The team I am referring to was the list of 3 arbitrators / mediators that was presented to me as the people who would be handling the greivance. Then I received a cryptic message that stated I would have to contact the GC in reference to my greivance, which I did. I was told they were rejected and I asked by whom and why and have received NO RESPONSE to that. The apparently rejected people were Dorman Holub, Pat Asher, Ellis Michaels and John Quigley. I never received an answer as to why or who rejected this team. I was informed to subscribe to a yahoo group for this purpose, attempted to do so and could not. I was conveniently forgotten and have no idea what if any communication ocured on this list prior to my finally being subscribed to it. All I know is that I rejected no one, I had no reason to do so as I knew none of them and that is as it should be. Others were apparently privvy to my communication regarding this, but I was not privvy to any communication regarding this team or the rejection thereof of any members.

I have heard nothing at all since October about anything and have apparently been either unsubbed from the list/group or it has been deleted. As the Plaintiff (person bringing the greivance) I should be privvy to ALL communication regarding this greivance that the defendants are privvy to and that includes any objections to members of the team. Since that time only one token attempt at a call for volunteers has been made with no indication if any volunteers have come forward.

It is my personal opinion that there should be a pool of several volunteers, not just 3-4 people, so that situations like this do not occur. I also, from reading the Greivance Procedure over and over again, believe that is also the intent of the procedure, to have a ready pool to choose from. It would be akin to a Jury Pool. Each month a percentage of the registered voters are randomly selected for jury duty. As trials are set up, members are empaneled 6 for regular court 12 for circuit court plus 2-4 alternates, each side gets to participate in a jury nullification process which is PUBLIC, by asking questions of the panel to ascertain if they have prior knowledge of the case before them. Even in a closed case(non public procedure such as child custody etc) BOTH sides are present during nullification and each side gets to CHALLENGE 1/2 of the jury in the presence of the body of the whole by asking questions of the individual members of the panel. Meaning that there are no secret communications from any of the participating parties and nullification of ONE member of the jury does not mean that ALL are dismissed only that one which was nullified and then one of the alternates fills the slot vacated. YOU DO NOT GET A CHANCE TO NULLIFY the alternates IF you are the one who challenged the panel member, however the opposing side does have the opportunity to challenge a replacement. It is done this way so that as impartial a panel as possible is chosen.

As stated previously, I have not been kept informed of anything as regards this greivance other than persons were rejected.

[name removed]

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: [name removed]
Cc: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Grievance

[name removed],

The original team I am assuming you are referring to is the Grievance Committee. This group can only decide if a grievance is valid or not. They do not mediate or arbitrate the case, that is handled by another volunteer. Unfortunately in an all volunteer organization, it takes time for someone to step forward to handle a situation. We are looking and you are not forgotten.

GC Assistant Chair

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM, wrote:

> It has been quite some time since anyone has
> communicated with me regarding my greivance so
> I thought I would drop a line to find out. What is
> going on? I would have assumed I would have been
> kept in the loop as to what is happening. The last
> communication I had from anyone was on October
> 31 when you told me you were awaiting volunteers.
> What was wrong with the original team that was
> presented?
>
> [name removed]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike & Diane
> To: [name removed]
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:37 PM
> Subject: Grievance
>
> [name removed],
>
> I need you to subscribe to this mailing list:
> grievance-mediation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com;
> this will be for the mediation / arbitration of this
> grievance. The only people that will be subbed are you,
> the mediator, arbitrators, the GC Rep, and the people
> named in the grievance. It is a private list and the info
> posted is not to be shared with anyone outside of this
> grievance.
>
> Thanks!
> Diane Siniard
> Grievance Committee Chair
> NCGenWeb SC
> NCGenWeb CC
> NCGenWeb Special Projects

========================================

2 comments:

Charles Barnum said...

The readers may be missing the point. Did anyone on the AB ever say,
"Lets make sure this volunteer is treated fairly and gets a fair and impartial hearing?"

No, they did not. They instead were trying to find ways to crush the volunteer, and do whatever it takes to bring him to his knees.

The grievance procedure has been fixed for years. Volunteers are little more than bags of garbage to be thrown out if they stand up for the bylaws.

Anonymous said...

What's going on in Email 9? I wish more commentary had been supplied. Just from a casual reading, it looks like a grievance had been filed against someone who had projects in two states, but when filed, there was no reference to a project rule or bylaw the member had broken...and then some folks in the correspondence seem to be trying to find something that would make the person the grievance had been filed against, a member not in good standing. If this happened, would such not be unfairly helping the person who filed the grievance prop up their grievance, making it more solid? I thought the whole purpose of the GC was just to HEAR grievances in a totally impartial setting. However, the mere suggestion of declaring someone a MNIGS based upon their sites not being updated in two or three years seemed sort of grasping at straws to me, and was quite laughable. If that is the case, a sizable fraction of the project in several states would be MNIGS. Am I misreading something here?