Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

Stalking The Truth

Stalking The Truth

May 01, 2010

Massacre Part 4/4

Saturday Night Massacre
-- Part 4

Donated by

Email #19

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 1/31/2010 6:46:07 PM
Subject: RE: greivance

[name removed],

I’m sorry to have taken so long to get back with you. I’ve gone over and over the GC procedures and the USGenWeb Project bylaws and they are going to be the guide that must be followed to settle this grievance.

The original grievance will not be provided as it was not accepted by the Grievance Committee. The grievance, as accepted by the committee, is the only one that will be dealt with.

Per the USGenWeb Project bylaws, Section XII, E (, states may develop their own bylaws so long as they DO NOT CONFLICT with the USGenWeb Project bylaws. Since the USGenWeb Project has in its bylaws the Grievance Procedures, those are the ones that must be followed.

Per the USGenWeb Grievance Procedures, section XIV, F.2, when a member is dismissed from a position in a state project, that member’s position may NOT filled unless the grievance resolution against the member calls for the member to lose that position. Reviewing the XXGenWeb list of counties, all of Laverne’s counties have been reassigned to others. This action is clearly against the bylaws until this grievance is resolved.

The ball’s in your court. If you’re ready to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, a mediator and arbitrators will be assigned and this grievance will move forward toward resolution. If you choose not to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, this will be referred to the Advisory Board for them to handle.

Sherri Bradley

National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project

-------Original Message-------
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:59 PM
Subject: greivance

Hi Sherri,

I am going to respond to you in line. Before we begin the mediation process we want several things made clear to us. After it is started we understood we could not question things.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri
Sent: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: Grievance

[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.


1.) The grievant stated: "I am asking for a review and arbitration of the actions taken by the XXGenWeb Project, Inc., board of directors against me as XXGenWeb has no Greivance system in place."

[name removed] has clearly stated she is asking for a review of actions taken by the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. Board of directors. How is it possible that she can then remove some of them when she clearly states them in her beginning premise. This is one problem with which we are dealing. She cannot countermand her request in the same document. She was correct according to XX Law with her opening statement as she well knows. Perhaps someone on USGW advised her to change her words.

[name removed] was the one who told us from the beginning if we were acting as the board, there was no way to make us individually liable for doing our jobs. She stressed that many times as we were debating our incorporation. XX Statutes confirm what she told us. We have requested you speak with an
attorney familiar with XX Law as we would not want you to break any XX Laws in this matter.


"You don’t have the choice of whether you are bound by the confidentiality of the grievance process. The bylaws and Grievence 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."


2.) We have awaited notice that a new mediator was seated as requested. All we viewed as far as email was the unsubbing of someone from the group. Who was that person and what position was he/she in? That is what we have been waiting for. That question was asked in an earlier email and you failed to comment on it.

3.) We want to see the original grievance filed since that was the initial complaint no matter how it was rewritten. The date remains tied to that first document. It is our right to see what has been presented. If other documents have been added we need to view those also.

4.) In the USGW grievance procedures it states: The review at this level should assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true, and the determination of the viability of the grievance made based upon the assumption that the complaint is true and a review of the by-laws, policies, or procedures alleged to have been violated.

Has the grievance committee read the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. By-laws at /volunteers/bylaws.html particularly noting: Article III Section F -

Any member who fails to abide by these bylaws or acts to the detriment of the Project may have membership terminated by the Board. Board approval must be obtained before re-admission of a member whose membership has been so terminated.

Maintain the physical presence of FLGenWeb on the Internet, oversee Special Projects, provide technical support as needed and other duties as required.


Any officer or director who fails to perform the duties of the position in a satisfactory manner may be removed from office by the Board.

If these were read, how was a grievance allowed to be filed? We ask for a dismissal of the grievance based on your guidelines.


"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."


I stated in my letter to you we were ready to participate. We certainly want to abide by your laws but we also have to abide by the laws of the State of Florida. We are hoping that those 2 can work side by side to see this process completed shortly as it did with our action that precipitated this grievance. We take very seriously the grievance that she has brought. The Board did not make the decision with haste. We spent over a week deliberating and Laverne was subbed to the list the whole time and posted copiously. Now we have spent hours making sure that we have the facts accurate.


"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 ediator 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."


We, as was stated before, have been ready to proceed. We have been waiting for a USGW response to the things [name removed] brought forth to begin with. Once we have the things understood by our group, then we can in good conscience proceed. We are dismayed that you have only mentioned one thing [name removed] requested and not all of them. I hope the communications after we start are more easily handled.


"You have until 9:00 p.m. on 7 January 2010 to decide what you want to do and let me know."

We want answers to our questions before we begin. We are also expecting to hear that the grievance has been dismissed per your guidelines. After looking at our bylaws as stated above, there can be no doubt that we acted within the bylaws when the Board acted, thus, the grievance is not valid.

We have not been in contact with [name removed] and feel he is out of communication range at present as he is several times a year.

[name removed],
President/State Coordinator,
XXGenWeb Project, Inc. spokesperson.

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:26 PM
To:; Cc:
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 Laverne 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 procedure corrected, we are more than happy to go forward as stated above. Is not [name removed] 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
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, Dorman Holub, 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 #20

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/6/2010 9:23:47 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Re: Grievance Response

Go with the mediation.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 7:52 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: Fw: Re: Grievance Response


Since they are still threatening to tell the membership about this grievance do you think I should go ahead and inform the AB or try to go ahead with another mediation and see what they do?

NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
Date: 2/5/2010 4:56:47 PM
Subject: Re: Grievance Response


I have talked with the Department of State for the State of XX. The only way to file this greivance is in a court of law and the judge upon hearing the grievance and reading the statute would throw it out. This statute is to protect the director from any personal liability in the perfomance of their duties. The statute is very specific in this matter.

The attorney has so far not returned my call.

Ample documentation can be presented that would show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the board acted as it should and that the charges were valid.

We do not wish to sever our relationship with you but if you continue in this process against the XX Statutes, our membership will have to be told and they can vote how they wish us to proceed.

We will proceed under protest unless our attorney advises us otherwise. We have been ready for some time with rebuttal of all of the charges. I understand [name removed] has to prove her case agains us not the other way around.

[name removed]


Email #21

------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/22/2010 9:42:19 PM
To:; 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Grievance


[name removed] and the rest of the XXGenWeb Board members have already have these questions answered, by both Denise and me (or should it be I?). To wit, they were told that:

· They will not be provided with a copy of the original grievance that was rejected and resubmitted within the 10-day time period, nor will they be provided a time line as they’ve requested in an effort to try to figure out a way to wiggle out of this action.

· They were told that [name removed] can/could file a grievance however she wanted – against the board as a whole, or against individual members. If she chooses not to include some Board members, for whatever reason, it’s her prerogative to do so.

· Their state project has the USGenWeb Project logo on it and they purport to be a part of this Project. They don’t get to make their own rules or be treated differently than any other state project.

· That we will not be seeking legal advice as they told us to do. This is a volunteer project and if their state project is going to be a part of it, we require that they follow the bylaws. The bylaws clearly state that no state project bylaws can be in conflict with the USGenWeb Project bylaws.

· The Grievance Procedures specify that either of the parties can object to any assigned mediator or arbitrator that is a part of the “team”, but do not state that a party can object to the grievance itself.

· The bylaws, in section, XIV, F.1 clearly state: “A member may choose to act as his or her own representative, or may select someone to act as his or her representative.”

· With the bylaws stating that a representative may be appointed during the process, [name removed] being advised of the details of the grievance as [name removed]’s representative is an acceptable action. The XXGenWeb Board insisting that they also be allowed to present notice to the entire XXGenWeb Project membership is not acceptable.

· If they refuse to participate in the grievance process then the grievance will be decided in [name removed]’s favor and the AB will be asked to step in and enforce the resolution on the XXGenWeb Project. This would include de-linking the state if they refuse to participate in the grievance process in good faith. Stonewalling the grievance more than they’ve already done will not be tolerated. They were told to that this was non-negotiable.

· All XXGenWeb members named in the grievance have sent me notices that [name removed] would be their representative in discussing the grievance. I now see that [name removed] is trying to stonewall the whole thing by stating he will refuse any mediator and/or arbitrator assigned. That’s what got me involved in the first place as they were running Diane around in circles by refusing to participate in the grievance in good faith. That was back in September/October. We’re no further along than we were then.

(Not mentioned, but it may come up) That because XXGenWeb did not have a grievance process in place when [name removed] was removed from the project, the grievance being filed with National was the correct course of action. It matters not if they now have a grievance process in place, it is not retro-active so they can’t go back, now, and put her dismissal through their brand new, created just for this, grievance process so they are not responsible to the USGenWeb Project.

I agree, their actions are definitely intended to hold up the grievance process.


------Original Message-------
From: Shirley Cullum
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:38 PM
To: Sherri Bradley; Diane Siniard
Subject: Fw: Grievance

I need help/advice on the request from Fran.


On Mon, 2/22/10, xxxxx wrote:
Subject: Grievance
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 10:38 AM


I can see you already have the previous email stating what we want to know.

Please provide us with the timeline of events from August 5 forward until now.

Thank you,
[name removed]



Anonymous said...

In requards to Sherri Bradley, you set up the private list used for the grievance process-is or was this a proper thing for you to have done,the grievant did in fact breach her own grievance,at the beginning she CCd several others when even filing said grievance,is or why was this allowed to continue and it was done at least 2 times. again in Oct. she was granted extended time for a rewrite( again)how many rewrites is one person allowed in the first place? the grievant again breached her own grievance when she again CCd the SEMARep,Tina and yourself as well as one or 2 others and grievant even went as far as to argue the point in Nov. of how they did not consider the grievance in effect since she did not consider it started,she was told several time that the grievance was in effect as soon as it was excepted-so what part of this did not make it to the AB members or did they ignore this as well? The grievant did in fact breach their own grievance and Yet Sherri,continued to go forward with said grievance,not pulling a stop to it when the grievant picked an arguement with 2 GC members,so why Sherri did the USGW want Florida so bad that the GC -NC-and the AB members would hide all these facts from the rest of us? and why was said grievant Never at any one time during the entire process ever made to provide one item of proof as to the charges they made against the other parties,Why,( Oh I remember now,you controled the list ) is it or was it not to have been the grievant who was to bare the burden of proof. you yourself held the ownership of that private list used for the entire grievance process-I now ask you what other abilities did you hold by being the owner of that list? editing ability,cutting off members of the GC so they would not know what was being said? not allowing some kind of info hit the list so when it was turned into the AB they would only have the kind of info you yourself would allow them to have.And why did the AB members not act on the fact they were handed those e-mails sent in by Diane,everything they needed to know was in those e-mails and they turned their heads to all those facts,Why,because they were told it was the way Diane did it,she broke a trust you guys had that she nor anyone else would reviel what went on during any type of meeting held by the office,so her proof was dismissed,she may not have done things in a proper manner,but the fact is Diane stood up and yet the AB allowed her best efforts to go down the drain and for what, a person who could not tell the truth if you wrote it out on paper for her to read.You delinked an entire state project for one person,Why? not because it was an honest decision,nothing honest about that entire process and you even went as far as to charge 2 others with stuff that was never done because the grievant breached their own grievance,so it did not count,nothing counted from that moment on,but still you and Tina carried on and allowed an state to be delinked when you knew the entire time the state would never know because you controled that list,it would never be known.And why did not one of those persons the grievant CCd during her own process never stand up for what was right? I think I have counted about 5 different people listed in those e-mails who were or are all guilty of knowing about this grievance from the beginning and what went on during the process and not one stood up for what was right and sit back while an entire state was delinked for one person.How wrong.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice that the grievant never had to prove the charges she made? How is this if our own bylaws state the burden of proof is on the grievant. Why was she not made to do this? and it does appear to me that she breached her own grievance,How Stupid is that? and it also looks like she sent that thing out to several people when she filed it,and Denise is she not a sema rep? and did she not say anything about being CCed ? and Jo was CCed to,and Tina, I am looking and I see at leat I think 5 people on that thing,how can she do this and yet not get busted for it and the grievance stoped in its tracks? Who does she have in her pocket? looks like Tina may have something hanging over her head to go this far out to hide her involment and the grievants breach of her own grievance- Again" How Stupid is that "