Massacre Part 4/4

Saturday Night Massacre -- Part 4

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

Email #19

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 1/31/2010 6:46:07 PM
To:
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
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 (http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml), 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
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net
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
To:
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
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 -
RESIGNATION, TERMINATION, AND REINSTATEMENT:
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.

Article VII- DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
Section A - DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:
Maintain the physical presence of FLGenWeb on the Internet, oversee Special Projects, provide technical support as needed and other duties as required.

and

Article IV - OFFICERS
Section E - NONFEASANCE:
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-----
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 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
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, 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.

Sherri

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

Sherri,

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?

Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From:
Date: 2/5/2010 4:56:47 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com;
Cc: kyvitals@windstream.net; joelnewport@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Grievance Response

Diane,

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: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net; 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Grievance

Shirley,

[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.

Sherri

------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.

Thanks,
Shirley

On Mon, 2/22/10, xxxxx wrote:
From:
Subject: Grievance
To: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net, grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 10:38 AM

Shirley,

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]

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

Massacre Part 3/4

Saturday Night Massacre -- Part 3

Donated by
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 ). Sometimes I think it would make everyone’s job easier.

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" , "[name removed]
Cc: "Tina S. Vickery" , "Sherri Bradley",
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

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

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

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