Saturday Night Massacre -- Part 3
Donated by
http://usgenweb-cc.org/index.html
http://usgenweb-cc.org/index.html
Email #13
Florida related emails continued. (Note: These emails continue to point out the involvement of the AB in the Grievance Process.)
Copy of email.
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 11/17/2009 2:25:44 PM
To: xxxxx; 'Mike & Diane'; 'Joel Newport'
Cc: 'Tina S. Vickery'; contact@kempchronicles.com
Subject: RE: Grievance
[name removed],
I think all of us recognize your frustration with the process. You’re not being ignored, nor is your grievance being ignored. Your grievance has been accepted. I’m speaking without any direct knowledge of the issues, but if the mediators weren’t rejected by you, my guess would be that the ones you filed the grievance against rejected them. Additional mediators are being sought. Please allow the grievance committee some time to complete this task.
Does 30 days to get this accomplished seem reasonable to you, if an update is sent to you in a couple of weeks? Obviously, if mediators are found before then, you’ll be notified of such. In the meantime, please refrain from discussing this with anyone so that there aren’t confidentiality issues added to the rest of the issues to be dealt with. Failure to abide by the GC procedures could affect the outcome – and I know that you don’t want that to happen.
It’s unfortunate that there is not a pool of mediators and arbitrators – but we can’t force anyone to volunteer for either of these jobs, nor can we arbitrarily volunteer someone like the army does (i.e. We need volunteers - you and you and you volunteer
Once again, please give the GC the 30 days to find additional mediators, and you’ll get an update in two weeks, if I have to hound Diane to make sure she or Joel send it.
Thanks,
Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
========================================
Email #14
Florida related continued
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 12/9/2009 9:54:20 PM
To:
Cc: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15
As you’ve been notified by Diane Siniard, the Grievance Committee Chairperson, a grievance was filed against you all by a former CC of the XXGenWeb Project. The AB was contacted by Diane Siniard because there has been less than acceptable cooperation by the group of you in trying to move this grievance forward into mediation.
I will remind you all that per the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, Grievance Procedures and Appeals Process, that the Grievance Committee is tasked with administering a fair, orderly and timely resolution of a grievance. Article XIV, Section 6 (2) states that when a member is dismissed from a position in a State, Local or Special Project, that the position may not be filled until the expiration of the time for that member to file a grievance and that when the said member files a grievance, that position may not be filled unless the grievance resolution calls for the member to lose the position.
The Standard Rules, Section V, Grievance Procedures also states the following: “When a conflict arises between two members of the USGenWeb Project that cannot be resolved informally, either party has the option of requesting a review of the dispute by the Grievance Committee. It further goes on to state that the final decision of the Grievance Committee is binding on all parties.
I realize that XXGenWeb is incorportated, but your Project, therefore all of you, are members of the USGenWeb Project. This is proven by the fact that the XxGenWeb Project displays the logo of the USGenWeb Project, as well as participating in the annual elections that are held. Grievance 2009/08-15 was filed within the 14 day time limit stated in the Grievance Committee Procedures, so the fact that you’ve all been named in the grievance cannot be ignored or allowed to continue to languish due to the fact that Mr. [name removed] has made some rather sweeping statements that he is speaking for you all as a group, but there’s been no proof of this authorization for him to speak for the rest of you. Ms. Siniard has requested the information and responses from the group, but has met with no success in receiving a response.
When you all were notified that a grievance had been filed, you were also notified that the grievance process is covered by confidentiality rules as stated in Section 5F states: “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.” The AB has received several reports that the confidentiality of the process, as required by the bylaws and Grievance Procedures, has been breached. This is a serious problem and cannot continue to occur.
[name removed] has indicated in at least a couple of messages that he speaks for the group, yet in others, he says he is speaking only for himself. He has stated that he rejects the first mediator assigned, [name removed], and will continue to reject ANY mediator that is presented.
I need to hear from EACH of you, SEPARATELY, if there is a spokesman for the group, and if so, whom it is. You should all realize and know that the Advisory Board takes the responsibility of ensuring that there is an operating the Grievance Process very seriously. It is not something that can be ignored, or only responded to if it appears that one side or the other is the one that will prevail. If you fail to act in good faith in regards to complying with the member-approved Grievance Procedures, the Advisory Board is ready to consider disciplinary action against those named in this grievance that fail to participate in the process.
Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
========================================
Email #15
Florida related continued
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 12/18/2009 5:31:54 AM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: FW: Grievance Update
OK, could you please ask [name removed] why she didn’t name all of the XXGenWeb board members as a group instead of just some of them? It’s one of the supposed “reasons” that they won’t respond to accept a mediator and that some aren’t responding when asked to explain why they won’t reply to any emails about the grievance. Without this info, I’m not sure we will get anywhere, and if the AB is asked to intervene I’m sure the answer will be required as an explanation.
Thanks,
Sherri
-------Original Message-------
From:
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 2:50 AM
To: Sherri
Subject: Re: Grievance Update
Sherri,
As the Greivance Chair has not asked for any information as to why some people were charged and others not, it would be presumptious of me to to send information that has not been requested. It would leave an implication of having discussed the greivance with people which is verbotten, from my understanding. If asked I will certianly answer any questions, but it is also my understanding that any questions would come from the mediation/arbitration team and to my knowledge there is not yet such a team.
Basically my hands are tied as I have not been contacted by any GC member regarding my greivance for several weeks. I have no clue what has gone on, what is currently going on as no one communictes with me on ANYTHING.
[name removed]
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherri
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: Grievance Update
OK, you're actually right. Would you please provide the information to Diane, then?
Thanks,
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: Re: Grievance Update
Sherri,
First let me just say I am very sorry to hear you have been ill. I know how those respiratory bugs can seem to hang on forever and a day and if you don't allow proper resting time after you think it is gone, it will relapse on you and each successive bout will be longer to recover from as your immune system is down. (personal experience speaking here as a victim of a similar situation and as a healthcare provider).
I appreciate your contacting me, but I am confused. Diane stated that nothing regarding the greivance was to be discussed with anyone other than the GC, I was expecting to hear from the GC in reference to the grievance.
I will be glad to respond to your questions as long as I can have full assurance that doing so is not a violation of the greivance procedure. For reference I have included a pertinent snippet from Diane's last correspondence with me in November when I cc'd you, Jeff and Tina on my inquiry as to its status. The full email including headers is below my signature.
[snip]
Again 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. Note that it states DURING the process. Since your grievance has been accepted we are in the midst of the process. Again you are reminded that Sherri, Tina and Jeff are not involved with this grievance and should not be involved with any correspondence.
[/snip]
[name removed]
-----Original Message-----
To: "Joel Newport"
Cc: "Tina S. Vickery"
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15
Again 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.
Note that it states DURING the process. Since your grievance has been accepted we are in the midst of the process. Again you are reminded that Sherri, Tina and Jeff are not involved with this grievance and should not be involved with any correspondence.
I also ask you to take note that the last email you received from me was on October 31, 2009, 17 days ago. That is hardly a long period of time without any communication of letting you know what is going on. Prior to that it was October 21, October 17, October 16, etc. I have copies of the emails as well as your replies to them as well as some read receipts.
I am scheduling some surgery today so Joel might be the one to contact you more frequently than I in the next few weeks depending on the date set for my surgery. If you need copies of the emails I have sent to you as well as your replies of them I can forward them to you, just let me know. I will be leaving home around 2:30 PM EST to go to the doctor and probably will be gone for a couple of hours at least. I will send them to you if needed as soon as I hear from you or as soon as I possibly can.
Diane
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherri
To: [name removed]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Subject: Grievance Update
Hi [name removed],
I just wanted to give you a quick update on the status of the grievance and offer an apology. I've been down with some sort of respiratory bug for the last 3 months. Just when I think I might have it licked, it comes back. My stamina to get things done has just disappeared and getting the letters sent out to the XX bunch was one of the things I didn't get done when I'd planned to.
I've heard back from a couple of the XXGenWeb members named in the grievance. I do have one question, though. Is there a reason that you named only some of the XXGenWeb board by name in the grievance and didn't name some of them? I'm getting comments about that and don't have a clue what they're referring to. If you could enlighten me, I'd sure appreciate it. That would also make it easier for me to respond to the replies that I'm getting.
Thanks,
Sherri
========================================
Email #16
Florida continued.
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 12/29/2009 1:55:47 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Grievance
OK, that works for me. I hadn't thought of that.
I'll write them all once again either later tonight or tomorrow morning and lay it out for them. Then we'll do what we need to to force the issue with the AB.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:50 AM
To: Sherri
Subject: Re: Grievance
Sherri,
If an amendment were to be done it would have needed to be done before the 10 days expiration after filing. So, if we ask her to do an amendment they can call that the amendment was done way after the 10 day grace period for filing the amendment and call for a disqualification of this grievance and ask for it to be dismissed for this reason. This is [name removed] pulling anything he can to get this grievance thrown out. [name removed] has every right to name whomever she wants in this grievance, the XXGenWeb board cannot dictate to her or to us who she can or cannot name in her grievance which is what they are trying to do this is against our procedures which is a violation of these procedures. I think we should let the grievance stand as is and insist that they either participate in the grievance process or the AB will step in and take it from there. I believe that is the only options we have at this point.
Christmas was good, I hope yours was as well. I go back to the Dr today for my knee. Going to either light a fire or ask to go see someone else. The hammer pounding my knee with every step and constant pain is getting really old.
Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 12/29/2009 9:52:32 AM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: Grievance
Diane,
The XXGenWeb board is refusing to recognize [name removed] grievance, even with my input, because she names individuals in stead of the entire board. What do you think about having her to revise the grievance to state that it’s against the XXGenWeb board, specifically xx, xx, xx (list names)? She didn’t file against the entire board to start with because some of the board members supported her. I really don’t know what else to do.
If we do this and they still refuse to participate it’s time to get the entire AB involved.
Hoep you had a good holiday and are feeling better.
Sherri
========================================
Email #17
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 1/4/2010 9:06:56 PM
To:
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009/08-15
[name removed],
There are several problems with your response to my previous email.
It is the choice of the grievant as to who is named in a grievance. [name removed] chose not to include the entire board in the grievance she filed, and that is entirely her right. There is no requirement that a grievance must be filed against an entire group of people, as you and [name removed] are trying to claim.
You don’t have the choice of whether you are bound by the confidentiality of the grievance process. The bylaws and Grevience Procedures clearly state that the process is confidential and can’t be discussed outside of the involved parties, the mediators and others directly involved in the process. Your claim that you have the right to discuss this with all of the XXGenWeb CCs or with the rest of the board of XXGenWeb is not valid.
You were all subbed to the mail list that was set up for the grievance mediation. All involved parties, on both sides, the assigned mediator and the GC representative were subbed. The mediation was ready to move forward as far as the Grievance Committee was concerned, until [name removed] notified Diane that he, speaking for all of the rest of you, would not accept the identified mediator. He went on to state that ANY mediator assigned would be deemed unacceptable. I don’t understand your statement that you were waiting for the mediation to move forward since the only reason that it hadn’t begun was because of [name removed]’ actions.
The USGenWeb Project’s Grievance process was approved by the entire membership. It is not your right to refuse to participate in the grievance process by stating that “it won’t work” for you. All USGenWeb Project members are covered by and required to follow the process. You must follow and abide by the procedures as USGenWeb Project members.
The ball’s now in your court. If you’re ready to proceed with the grievance, as filed, by accepting a mediator and participating in the member-approved grievance procedures, we’ll move forward with the mediation step of the grievance. Should you all continue to refuse to accept an assigned mediator and/or to participate in and abide by the USGenWeb Project’s grievance procedures, the next step will be that the Advisory Board is asked to step in and disciplinary action be taken against each of you individually for this refusal.
You have until 9:00 p.m. on 7 January 2010 to decide what you want to do and let me know.
Sherri Bradley
Natonal Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
-------Original Message-------
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:26 PM
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net;
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15
Dear Sherri,
As President/SC of XXGenWeb Project, Inc. And also as a co-named person, I am writing to you on behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the XXGenWeb Project, Inc., in my official capacity. This is our official corporate communication and should be deemed to be a consensus response.
[name removed] sent a list of things we wished clarified. None has been answered so far. I have been very happy for him to respond to the grievance requests. Anyone with objections would have sent a message stating that to Diane.
We are very willing to answer for our actions as a Board. That is the way the XX Statutes say it is to be done. However, we are not willing to engage in defending any action against the individuals named in this claim that was not committed by, and could not have been committed by, any one of us, or any combination of us, because there is no mechanism by which the claimed action could have been committed by those individuals.
The grievant was dismissed by the BOARD under due process, strictly following our bylaws and the applicable XX statutes. There is no mechanism for some collection of individuals to dismiss a member. We are not a street gang; we are a deliberative body. It is not possible for the named individuals to defend themselves against such a claim, because none of the named defendants dismissed the grievant. She was, in fact, dismissed by a majority vote of the Board after extended debate and deliberation in her presence.
Therefore, this action is null and void because it does not name the appropriate party.
[name removed] has put both the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. And us individually in her grievance making it hard to leave the other members of the board out of the process. I am sure you can see our dilemma. Reading in the mediation section it seems these questions are to be decided before we start mediation.
Sec 5 F-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.
From Section 6-The mediation process is confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless ALL parties agree to the contrary.
This statement is not going to work with our process. The outcome of the deliberations will have a direct bearing on every single member of XXGWP. If you side either way, the membership has a right to know what affects them individually. This procedure is not a personnel problem. It is an attempt to dispute our bylaws which were crafted by [name removed] and 2 others. This process has been in front of our whole membership from the beginning. The motion was brought on the Board list where the membership may read-only and [name removed] posted to the Membership list so they were all aware of what the Board was doing. The decisions of the Board action have been clearly shown to our membership. How can you now state our members are not to know what you have done to our project?
Sec. 5F - When the team is seated, the parties shall be so advised by the Mediator. We have seen one person unsub from the list. Who was that person? That is all we have seen. We have been waiting for some indication that the Grievance process is ready to go forward.
[name removed] provided Diane with the applicable XX Statute and also our bylaws. There has been no response from Diane indicating any decision. All we have had was notice that we were subbed to a list. No other instructions have been forthcoming. We thought Diane would respond to [name removed] questions.
He suggested she check with legal counsel to see if the USGW position was correct and said he was awaiting a reply. These were preliminary to our joining the mediation process. USGW guidelines says one of us is to respond to the mediation not all- is that correct?
The questions and answers are to be before the mediation process begins. Once his questions have been addressed and proceedure corrected, we are more than happy to go forward as stated above. Is not Laverne to also be subbed to this process? Her name has not appeared on any email so far which suggests she has not signed in.
This is not a statement of any answer to the charges. I am merely trying to find out what is to happen next. I have never been involved in anything like this and want to do it correctly.
[name removed]
President/SC XXGenWeb Project, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri
To:
Cc: 'Mike & Diane'
Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:53 pm
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15
As you’ve been notified by Diane Siniard, the Grievance Committee Chairperson, a grievance was filed against you all by a former CC of the XXGenWeb Project. The AB was contacted by Diane Siniard because there has been less than acceptable cooperation by the group of you in trying to move this grievance forward into mediation.
I will remind you all that per the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, Grievance Procedures and Appeals Process, that the Grievance Committee is tasked with administering a fair, orderly and timely resolution of a grievance. Article XIV, Section 6 (2) states that when a member is dismissed from a position in a State, Local or Special Project, that the position may not be filled until the expiration of the time for that member to file a grievance and that when the said member files a grievance, that position may not be filled unless the grievance resolution calls for the member to lose
the position.
The Standard Rules, Section V, Grievance Procedures also states the following: “When a conflict arises between two members of the USGenWeb Project that cannot be resolved informally, either party has the option of requesting a review of the dispute by the Grievance Committee. It further goes on to state that the final decision of the Grievance Committee is binding on all parties.
I realize that XXGenWeb is incorportated, but your Project, therefore all of you, are members of the USGenWeb Project. This is proven by the fact that the XXGenWeb Project displays the logo of the USGenWeb Project, as well as participating in the annual elections that are held.
Grievance 2009/08-15 was filed within the 14 day time limit stated in the Grievance Committee Procedures, so the fact that you’ve all been named in the grievance cannot be ignored or allowed to continue to languish due to the fact that Mr. [name removed] has made some rather sweeping statements that he is speaking for you all as a group, but there’s been no proof of this authorization for him to speak for the rest of you. Ms. Siniard has requested the information and responses from the group, but has met with no success in receiving a response.
When you all were notified that a grievance had been filed, you were also notified that the grievance process is covered by confidentiality rules as stated in Section 5F states: “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.” The AB has received several reports that the confidentiality of the process, as required by the bylaws and Grievance Procedures, has been breached. This is a serious problem and cannot continue to occur.
[name removed] has indicated in at least a couple of messages that he speaks for the group, yet in others, he says he is speaking only for himself. He has stated that he rejects the first mediator assigned, [name removed], and will continue to reject ANY mediator that is presented.
I need to hear from EACH of you, SEPARATELY, if there is a spokesman for the group, and if so, whom it is. You should all realize and know that the Advisory Board takes the responsibility of ensuring that there is an operating the Grievance Process very seriously. It is not something that can be ignored, or only responded to if it appears that one side or the other is the one that will prevail. If you fail to act in good faith in regards to complying with the member-approved Grievance Procedures, the Advisory Board is ready to consider disciplinary action against those named in this grievance that fail to participate in the process.
Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
========================================
Email #18
-------Original Message-------
From: Bradley, Sherri S Ms CIV USA MEDCOM IRACH
Date: 1/27/2010 9:36:33 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: RE: 2009-08-15 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
OK, I'm going to go with stating that it was originally rejected and that she rewrote and resubmitted within the allotted 10 days. That's the only way a grievance can "officially" be rewritten and resubmitted. XX's asked to see the original grievance and I'm not going to grant that request as nowhere in the procedures does it mention rewriting because the committee couldn't understand what she'd originally submitted.
I'll send this to them tonight so we can try to get moving on this. It sure would be nice to get this off of all of our plates.
I don't know if you've been following the discussion on AB-CHAT (usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com) or not, but we're immediately dealing with the confidentiality issue and when the grievance officially "starts". We'll get to the other things after we clear the alias/harassment discussions. At least this deals with the biggest headache right now.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:18 AM
To: Bradley, Sherri S Ms CIV USA MEDCOM IRACH
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: Re: 2009-08-15 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Sherri,
As it was originally written we couldn't understand a word of it so I asked her to rewrite it then we accepted it. In the original grievance she left parts out, left parts blank, etc so that we couldn't follow it and had no clue what she was talking she also brought up things that we couldn't and can't have authority over (hacking) so we had her rewrite it. We didn't even get into a vote we just asked her to rewrite it while we were still in discussions. There was no rejection, just a simple request because we couldn't read and understand the grievance as it was written.
To put it mildly the first grievance was a mess so we basically asked her to remove the references to the hacking, and to her husband since he isn't a member of the Project and to make it easier to read and understand. She did so and had it back to me in the 10 days alloted for the rewrite.
Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects
-------Original Message-------
From: Bradley, Sherri S Ms CIV USA MEDCOM IRACH
Date: 1/21/2010 9:40:36 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: 2009-08-15 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Diane,
We have an issue with [name removed]’s grievance if I’m reading things right. She submitted the grievance and the committee discussed it. Was it accepted before it was rewritten or after? (Rejected then resubmitted and accepted on the second submission?) If it was accepted and then rewritten (for whatever reason), we’ve got a problem.
The Grievance Procedures clearly state that the grievance can be rewritten and resubmitted if it’s rejected, but do not include anything about the grievance being accepted and then rewritten. Because this is not in the GC Procedures, we can’t allow it. The grievance, as originally submitted, is the one that we must use. [name removed] can bring up the clarifications, additional info, etc. During mediation and/or arbitration, but the correct “version” of the grievance is the one we must go with.
Please let me know which scenario the grievance falls under ASAP so that I can get to pushing the XXGenWeb folks to get this done.
Thanks,
SHerri
========================================
No comments:
Post a Comment