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

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

Massacre Part 1/4

Saturday Night Massacre -- Part 1

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

First is presented an introduction from the Web master. The remainder is composed of notes from the Web master or Diane, followed by evidence. Everything was received by the Web master from Diane in a series of emails, designated as "Email #1" and etc. Email #1 is Diane's introduction.

Mary White

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

The Saga of the
Saturday Night Massacre in the USGenWeb
Saturday, April 24 2010

In a shocking move, Diane Siniard reported on the CC Genealogy Discuss list (and from other sources) some not-so-nice proceedings in USGenWeb (USGW). Diane was a respected member of the Grievance Committee of USGW when these emails were generated. The politics got too much for her. She resigned and joined another genealogy project. It was reported that her current posts were not printed on any official USGW email list even though she remained a CC for that project.

Some of what follows may need an explanation. We will add an explanation sparingly when needed for clarity's sake. Note: Some spacing changes were made to the emails to fit this format and ease of reading. The webmaster of this web site cannot confirm any statements made in the following emails. They are reported as events. The following emails are numbered only for ease of identifying them herein. As you read, you may conclude the Advisory Board is more interested in finding ways to crush a volunteer than to give him or her a fair and impartial hearing based on the rule of law. Others may conclude the AB has a right to do anything it wishes. That is the reader's choice.

Note: this email list = is merely an old list that is used today by the Advisory Board (AB). The name of it has no current meaning.

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

(Begin)

Email #1

Diane wrote on 4/24/2010 at 12:13 PM

Hi all,

As some of you know I used to be the NCGenWeb State Coordinator but due to the directions the board was heading and the decisions that were being made behind my back as well as behind the backs of the CC's I chose to resign after due pressure from some of the board members. I removed all of my sites from their servers, moved them to the Rootsweb servers, sent my resignation letter to the NCGenWeb Business list and resigned. Katherine Benbow then proceeded to start an email writing campaign slandering me to all of the SC's in the USGWP and Nola started one with the researchers telling them I had stolen the information, it would no longer be available online, I was not a real person, etc. Little does Nola know that most of the people she sent the emails to I had met in person, are a relative of mine or we have had extensive phone conversations and we have exchanged family photographs, histories, etc. Boy was she made a fool of!

I then started receiving harassing phone calls and emails from members of the board as well as one of the "honorary board members". They also started posting some not so nice messages on mailing lists and message boards and researchers were not very happy about this.

Some of them wrote an email and asked me to forward to the NCGenWeb Board which I did with a note stating forward as requested. I was then attacked by a pack of wolves called the NCGenWeb Board as well as their "honorary board member". They were relentless in their attacks until I said some things back and then told them the conversation was over I wanted nothing more to do with them. I received a couple more phone calls afterwards. Then nothing further. A few days later I received an email from a researcher that my sites were being copied by NCGenWeb and that some of their information had been copied even though they had been emailed by one Nola Duffy and she told Nola in no uncertain terms that her work had better not be copied or there would be trouble. Nola wrote back and said she respected that and they wouldn't copy it. Well, as you would expect NCGenWeb did in fact copy this person’s work as well as many other researchers information. I received a lot of emails of complaints about it. I told them I would take care of it. So, I wrote to each member of the AB and explained to them about the copyright violations, sent them copies of the emails from Nola Duffy and this researcher where she had plainly stated do not copy my information, as well as an email from another researcher stating the same thing and links to ever page that had been copied as well as the link to the original page on my site.

Well, needless to say later that same day I found another entire site copied by the Co-State Coordinator Deloris Williams. She copied the whole site page by page up to and including photographs which we all know are completely covered by copyright laws to the photographer or the person that owns the photographs.

So, again I wrote to the entire AB to let them know this. Sherri wrote me back stating they would need more than 24 hours to make a decision.

Meanwhile Tina Vickery started Emailing me demanding that I send her all of the emails that I received from researchers stating I could have their work posted on my sites. There was no way in hell I was going to send these to her for NCGenWeb to be able to get the email addresses of all of my researchers to contact them and spread more lies than what they had already done. So I ignored every single one of Tina's emails because I had already spoken with the researchers and had their permission to have the information on the sites no matter where the sites were housed.

Then Sherri and Tina came back and said that NCGenWeb had permission to copy any and all pages from any of my sites that they so desired.

Well, needless to say I was very po'd. I pulled the United States Copyright Laws Title 17 and copied each one pertaining to me and the sites and emailed them to Tina, Sherri and each member of the NCGenWeb Board stating that they are breaking United States Copyright Laws and I once again demand that my information be removed from every single one of the NCGenWeb county sites up to and including graphics and backgrounds that I use on my sites and how I compile the information.

Needless to say I have never heard a word back from any of them because they all know they are guilty as hell. The laws can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

Now, I can still visit various sites within the NCGenWeb and still see some of my pages used on their county sites so they are still breaking the US Copyright Laws and obviously they are being backed by the National Coodinator and the Representative at Large.

This is why the USGWP has earned such a horrible reputation, because they will break their own bylaws of copyright as well as those of the United States of America.

I do have the email from Sherri stating NCGenWeb can copy my information if anyone needs it for further proofs. You can also check the NCGenWeb Pender County site, Lenoir County site, Wayne County site, Craven County site, and I am sure there are others and match them up to mine hosted on Rootsweb and located here:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nctttp/countylist.htm
to see the blatant copyright violations.

I hereby demand the resignation of Sherri Bradley and Tina Vickery on the grounds of them breaking the USGWP copyright bylaws as well as the US Copyright Laws Title 17.

Yes, Tina I do still have some projects within USGW. Much to your surprise I must say because you blatantly stated I resigned from all of my projects which is another blatant lie on your part.

Diane Siniard

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

Email #2

[Explaination: This is a copy of an email reportedly created by the NationaL Coordinator (NC) of USGW. It shows that the NC may have been engaged in a violation of USGW operating procedures involving a CC (volunteer) and member of the Advisory Board (AB). Specifically, the AB is forbidden to involve itself in grievance procedures.)

(begin)

From: Sherri
Date: 1/30/2010 9:23:01 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009-10-15

I personally think she'd be very good as long as the grievance doesn't involve Colleen, Gail Kilgore or David Samuelsen.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:19 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009-10-15

Just FYI, Vikki Gray just volunteered to be a mediator / arbitrator so we have her now as well. She is a paralegal in real life. Her email:

Hi Diane. Having recently been involved in a grievance I realize the importance of this volunteer. I would be willing to serve on the grievance board in the future. I have a background in law (I am not a lawyer - more like a paralegal). If you want help, give me a holler.

Thanks,

Vikki Gray
Alaska State Coordinator
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

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

Email #3

(begin)

1:04 PM

As you can see, Tina was putting her 2 cents into GC discussions when she was the NC which is a serious violation of the GC rules and procedures. Also, she is a member of the state that the GC was discussing, therefore, she should have let us know so we could have removed her from the mailing list.

Another violation of GC rules and procedures.

We had to bring it to the attention of Tina and Scott Burow to get Tina to turn the mailing list over to the GC as it should have been done in the first place. The NC is supposed to be on read only status, but they sure do discuss the grievances with the GC.

See the GC rules and Procedures:
http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html

Section 2 - Committee Business:
The second list will not be archived, and is considered strictly confidential. Only Committee members will be subscribed to this list. Any questions or concerns related to specific grievances will be raised ONLY on the confidential list. The confidential list may NOT be used for public business, or in an effort to avoid public disclosure. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety in the case of an appeal of the Grievance Committee decision to the Advisory Board, the National Coordinator will not be subscribed to the confidential list or be eligible to vote on matters related to specific grievances. The National Coordinator will have full voting participation in other Grievance Committee business.

Notice it says the NC will NOT be subscribed to the confidential list. Hmmmm

Sherri is subbed now and Tina was when she was NC. They are blatantly breaking the Procedural rules aren't they? Shame on you Tina and Sherri!

Also, here is the proof of where she told me to not use someone as a volunteer for the GC.

Now once again I demand the resignation of Tina Vickery. I have proofs of Sherri Bradley breaking these some procedures which I will be forwarding shortly.

See the NC and RAL aren't as honest as they want you to believe are they?

Diane Siniard

-------Original Message-------
From: Tina S. Vickery
Date: 3/6/2009 11:01:25 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: Re: [GC] Mediator

Diane,

I don't know how to say this so I am just going to. I have it on very good authority/suspicion that Jenny Walker is an alias for Esse Frye/Sarah Hughes. I have been struggling with this all day. I realize that the GC has the ability to choose arbitrators and mediators on a case by case basis but I can't in good conscience sub a suspected alias to the GC list for arbitration of a grievance. Did you get any information from Jenny as to her qualifications to serve in this role and her positions within the project?

As NC, I am the chair of the Advisory Board.

Tina

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike & Diane"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GC] Mediator

Tina,

We do not have a mediator at this point in time. We had one but they were called away to outside obligations, another is part of XXGenWeb so cannot mediate in this particular grievance.

Diane
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From: Tina S. Vickery
Date: 3/6/2009 10:41:17 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Broken Links

What happened to the mediation step .. That is before arbritration isn't it?

Tina

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike & Diane"
To: ;
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [GC] Broken Links

Robert,

We are going to go ahead and move this grievance into arbitration. I have contacted Tina to subscribe the 2 volunteers that are willing to arbitrate for us and as soon as I hear from her that they are subscribed I will send them all of the documentation, summations, etc so they will have all of the evidence for this grievance. They will then come up with a resolution, send it to me and we will discuss it and let (names removed to protect confidentiality of participants of grievance) know of the outcome of the arbitration.

Diane
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

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

Email #4

[Explanation: This shows the NC excludes members of the AB from discussions of various issues. This may not be proper according to parliamentary rules]

(begin)

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 11/17/2009 1:53:49 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Fw: Grievance

The confidentiality issue has been brought to the AB members EXCEPT Colleen & Gail (kicked them out while it's discussed). I'll let you know within the next 72 hrs - that's the time limit I set to start with (had to give them a length of time to be 'legal').

I'll email [name removed to protect confidentiality] in a minute and reiterate exactly what you sent - don't know if it will make any difference or not though.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:39 PM
To: Sherri Bradley
Subject: RE: Fw: Grievance

If we are going to get [name removed to protect confidentiality] on the confidentiality issues then we might Not need to. Totally up to you, might not be a bad idea, I am sure we will Need one for mine as well...joy joy.

Between the 3 of these I am about ready to drive to wherever they live and Shake the crap out of them smack them across the face and say wake up and Read can't you see that it plainly states you can't say anything during the Process or after?! LOL Before fine and dandy talk all you want but after it Is accepted or it is rejected or whatever then you can't say squat. I guess Some people just don't get it.

NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 11/17/2009 1:34:22 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Fw: Grievance

Do you need me to set up another mail list for this grievance?

Sherri

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

Email #5

(begin)

1:21 PM

[Diane notes: Sherri again breaking GC rules and procedures.]

-------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

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

Email #6

(begin)

1:35 PM

[Diane notes: Now they have removed me from the Discuss list for not being a member of the USGWP even though I still maintain a site within the USGWP. They think they know all but little do they know a member of the AB still has me in their state!]

Betsy, please resub me as I am still in the Project.

Tina,

I think I had every right to respond to the vindictiveness of the email that you sent through earlier and the inferences you made towards me that were totally uncalled for and very rude. I for one would like an apology for the uncalled for attack. I have never not once posted anything directly towards you on any public mailing list until today after your vicious comments.

Yes, your Gates County WWII info was an oversight, and I did remove it, but the rest of the material is not yours to tell me what to do with and I notice you are linking to my site even though it is offline. I see you went in and copied it from the server even though I had it offline. Isn't that still called copyright violations? I changed every single page on that website before it was ever moved. Not one single page was as you had left it It was all compilations of my own doings.

Hmmm sounds like another Title 17 to me.

-------Original Message-------
From: Tina S. Vickery
Date: 4/24/2010 4:10:41 PM
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS]

[Diane notes: Speaking of copyright violations well, needless to say I was very po'd. I pulled the United States Copyright Laws Title 17 and copied each one pertaining to me and the sites and emailed them to Tina, Sherri and each member of the NCGenWeb Board stating that they are breaking United States Copyright Laws and I once again demand that my information be removed from every single one of the NCGenWeb county sites up to and including graphics and backgrounds that I use on my sites and how I compile the information. Needless to say I have never heard a word back from any of them because they all know they are guilty as hell.]

Diane I never recived your email so I am sorry you are po'ed. What I do remember is asking you quite politely if I recall to remove the Gates County NCGenWeb Project pages that clearly was copied lock stock and Barrel to TTTP, not only was my name on them when they were absconded over to TTTP, but they had my copyrighted material (WWII military enlistment list Duly featured.) You very courteously dealt with my specific Gates County issues and actually stated it was an oversight, in fact you took Gates County totally off-line. your parting gift to NCGenWeb Project that you lead so lovingly lead was to take off-line many county sites. I not only intervened on my own behalf but the behalf of the NCGenWeb Project in my role as Representative At Large of the project.

I have and can provide the emails if you wish to refute what I have said. I will be happy to supply them to you or to this list, whichever you and/or the List administrators allow. I will not debate with you Diane, I wish you well in your future endeavors.

As an aside, I am surprised you have posted to -Discuss, are you still a member of USGenWeb?

Tina

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

Email #7

(begin)

1:39 PM

[Diane notes: I do believe I have enough ammunition against Sherri sticking her nose into some of the grievances to raise everyone's eyebrows about her and probably enough to get her removed from office for breaking confidentiality as well as being involved in grievances when she shouldn't have been. I did swear to a vow of confidentiality when I joined the GC and I have always stood by my word so I will try not to break it even now but I will pass along information to all of you that will show you that Sherri was knee deep to a giraffe standing on top of his head in the grievances as well as basically telling us in which direction we should go. As far as whether or not she was involved in the mediations and arbitrations that I do not know. I was never involved with those, was not privy to any of the emails or information discussed during them I was only told of the final outcomes. Now, I do know for fact that Sherri set up the mailing lists so I am sure she probably read every single email that went thru and more than likely emailed Pat and told her what to say when and how to proceed. (if my instincts are right). I can send you proof of her setting up the mailing lists, I asked her to do so and that won't break any rules or confidences. Matter of fact here is one such example:]

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 12/22/2009 9:46:13 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'; 'Sherri'
Subject: Mediations Mail list

Hi Diane,

I’ve created the private mail list for the mediation phase of grievance 2009-10-15. It’s a yahoo group, the group’s name is grievance_2009_10_15.

To subscribe, the parties and the mediator will need to send a message to
grievance_2009_10_15-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Once I get the subscription requests, I’ll approve the members and then the mediation can begin. I’ll also send the info to Pat when I get back to the other computer. I don’t have her email address on this one.

Sherri

[Diane notes: Here is where she stuck her nose into a grievance that we were getting ready to discuss that she shouldn't have been involved with. The NC is supposed to be subbed but not participate in any of our discussions.]

-------Original Message-------
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 3/6/2010 12:21:46 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance

He had submitted it to me and left a blank in where it says bylaws broken so I asked him to fill that in and send it back to me. It will be Grievance 2010/03/01

Diane

-------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.

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

NCGenWeb again

The below was received as a "comment" but we consider it much more than that, and so is presented here. More people like the below brave soul should speak out. Some USGenWeb leadership believe the way to end corruption within the Project is by sweeping it under the rug. This Blog helps to prove that doing so, means it will come back to haunt you, forever available via a simple Google search.

Mary White


From: Anonymous
Sent: 4/22/2010
Subject: New comment on NCGenWeb Part 5/5

I am a NCGenWeb CC and I was told that I could adopt one of the counties Diane maintained and if I did so that I could copy all of the pages on the site that she has online for it. I couldn't believe that the new State Coordinators would tell me to violate US Copyright Laws, but she (both of them) told me plain as day to copy any page from Diane's site that I wanted to because Tina and Sherri said that it was OK for us to do so.

Can't NC be sued for this? If I was Diane I would hire a lawyer and go after NCGenWeb for violating her copyrights because they are telling us the CC's to copy anything from her sites that we want and that there isn't anything Diane can do, but I read the US Copyright laws and it just isn't true. Diane can sue the pants off anyone that copies her pages and win!

I just can't believe that the National Coordinator is allowing our board to violate United States Laws like that! If the State Coordinators continue to push us CC's to copy Diane's sites I know quite a few of us are going to be quitting the NCGenWeb Project. We have even discussed joining Diane's new project. Looks like she has a nice new one coming along and I am sure she won't push copyright violations, rules or any of the other mess that Katherine and Deloris and especially that Jo Branch is pushing down our throats.

The so called County Site Procedures were voted in in December or January yet every time I go look at them something new has been added or changed without the CC's being made aware of it. I swear the board loves to do stuff behind our backs and we thought it was Diane all along.

Hell, I remember Jo Branch even brought an alias into the NCGenWeb who called themselves IT. Now if some of the CC's didn't put up a stink about that! They kept asking who IT really was and Jo would never say. Well, one person filed a motion to have IT removed so IT quit. Then Jo Branch cussed Diane out for not sticking up for IT. Seems to me since they were after Susan Jones thinking she was an alias that Jo shouldn't have cussed Diane out over IT being an alias does it? Kind of two faced don't you think?

Yes, Diane told me who IT really was after she resigned, and that Jo cussed her out for not sticking up for IT, but little did Jo know, Diane did stick up for IT and had a lot of very nice things to say about IT. But Jo was out to get Diane from day one and any excuse to get on Diane about something she jumped at the chance whether it was true or not.

Jo needs a huge lesson in asking questions first and leaping last. She is such a bitch for the way she did Diane over the IT fiasco!

Looks like the true culprits are really showing their colors now and it wasn't Diane at all! I wish she would have stayed and fought them, there are a lot of us that feel the same way but we are so scared to say anything for fear of being locked out of our sites. You know that is what they were going to do to Diane don't you? Oh yes, they were going to kick her out, take her sites and lock her out of them.

It just isn't fair the way we are being treated or the way she was treated. We are all scared to death to even breathe wrong for fear of being kicked out and locked out of our sites forever since some of them are on "their" server. I wish I had left mine on Rootsweb servers, then I wouldn't have to worry about them getting their hands into my account and locking me out, althought they would probably copy my stuff like they are doing Diane's.

It is bad enough they have the passwords to my accounts which I don't think they should have. Some of us have commented on that, but we are ignored as usual. Just like we were ignored when we spoke up about Diane's term being granfathered in for her regular two year term, we were ignored when we still had questions about the bylaws and they just closed discussions and opened voting. They just LOVE to ignore us!

Shame shame shame on NCGenWeb Board Members! The NCGenWeb Board is a bunch of liars and thieves! Looks like they are laying in the same bed with certain members of the AB! I hope they each get back tenfold what they have dished out. I have even had researchers to email me about how rude the state coordinators have been in replies to emails to them and that they were then blocked so they couldn't respond.

What is the NCGenWeb Board so scared of? Is it the truth? Hmmmm ... kinda makes you think doesn't it?

Mutt & Jeff

So much corruption, so little time

Before we return to continue my last post about Mutt & Jeff, I have just been informed that this Blog now has closer to 300 subscribers than 400. I am not allowed to know exactly how many we have nor who they are. After all, I certainly would not want my posts to be biased. Especially since one of the new subscribers is an official of the Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS) which the USGenWeb is (currently) allegedly a member of.

Now on to Mutt (Dale 'FraudMan' Grimm) and Jeff 'Fruit Loop' Kemp. But first, the name calling by members of the Advisory Board disclosed in my previous post, is still being permitted on USGenWeb lists by USGenWeb National Coordinator Sherri 'BradyBunch' Bradley with Tina Vickery using the SouthWest Regional list to call Daryl Lytton, "You are a tedious, boring, arrogant and an ignorant individual" much to the delight of Mr. Lytton, who treasures every moment Tina endears him. Tina is the USGenWeb Representive At Large.

Before we get to Mutt & Jeff we have an important announcement to make. We are going to be exposing some USGenWeb corruption at the highest levels. There is so much to tell, we may resort to brief posts here and link them to our associated Web site for more details. This involves the National Coordinator, the Representive At Large, the USGenWeb Grievance Committee, and other prominent members. Welcome to the real USGenWeb, FGS!

In other news, I have received two comments on my NCGenWeb posts, which I thought important enough to Blog about than leave them as comments. They will be presented tomorrow.

Amd now for Dale 'FraudMan' Grimm, the OHGenWeb State Coordinator allowed a seat on the AB even though he does not fit the description of Member In Good Standing, as required by the USGenWeb bylaws to be on the AB. Dale has been informed several time that his OHGenWeb state pages has an altered "OHGenWeb Email Code of Ethics" voted into place by the CCs years ago.

You will no longer find it named "Code of Ethics" because it has been altered by either Dale Grimm, or the previous SC, Sandra Quinn, in an attempt to hide the fact that Quinn broke the "Code of Ethics" when she expelled Daryl from the OHGenWeb. Dale Grimm has so far refused to restore the original version to the OHGenWeb state pages. That's not all of Dale's grim corruption, but how he earned the "FraudMan" title will remain for another post.

As for Jeff "Fruit Loop" Kemp, he is another member of the AB supposedly a MIGS. However, Jeff is also a NCGenWeb CC who has been caught voting to approve NCGenWeb rules which are in conflict with the USGenWeb bylaws. According to the USGenWeb bylaws, states can develop their own rules as long as they do not conflict with the bylaws, and the bylaw duty of the AB is to perform the duties of the bylaws.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, huh Jeff? Speaking of web, Jeff is also the USGenWeb Webmaster. However, he is unable to find the broken link on the USGenWeb Bylaws page although he has been told about it several times. The broken link is to the USGenWeb Project's Official Copyright Policy.

We now say farewell to Dale and Jeff. As is my practice I subscribe people-of-interest to my posts, then un-subscribe them when no longer interesting.

Mary White