BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-06 > 1023753117


From: "Jana Black" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Questions for Madame NC
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:51:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020610182801.0269cec0@pop.east.cox.net>


Comments below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Holly Timm [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Questions for Madame NC


At 02:44 PM 6/10/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote:

>1) Upon what authority does the NC and two AB members think they can
>handle a formal grievance kept secret from the rest of the AB?

It was not being kept secret by any means, there was some preliminary
discussion about who would investigate it. Ron as CC Rep would normally
be
a natural choice but he had reservations about doing so as he is
peripherally involved and has spoken out as a CC in GAGenWeb. The other
normal choice would be the SC Rep (since there is no second CC Rep at
present) but Tim as SC of Georgia is most certainly involved in the
issue
and thus least appropriate of all and, as a direct party in the matter
was
not included in the discussion of who should investigate. Ron suggested
Teresa or I investigate but we both felt we were biased. That was
yesterday.

The normal process is for the Representative to whom a grievance has
been
presented (which should be a CC or SC Rep for the region) posts the
grievance to Board-Exec. Instead, Teresa, the RAL posted a preliminary
message from John Rigdon regarding the matter to the Board list itself.

JMB: it sounds like you are saying that the RAL sat on the grievance
before you saw it, is that correct? The AB surely did not receive it
until 6 days later. If so, the RAL has misrepresented the situation to
the rest of us in this statement: "The following formal grievance was
forwarded by Ron to Holly and I on June 3. It is presented here for
your consideration. We have discussed it and have decided that due to
our histories with Tim and/or Keith, it would not be appropriate for us
to be actively involved in contacting the parties in seeking a
resolution."

So, was the grievance sent to you and Ron on the 3rd of June or not? If
you all received it, it is your job as NC to direct the RAL to post the
grievance to EXEC, or to post it there yourself if she refuses.
Otherwise, upon what authority do you, as NC, the RAL and the CC Rep
have for "preliminary discussion" without first informing the AB? This
is called "operating in secret" and is the *very* thing that the RAL has
slammed accusations at the AB for doing over the years. Either there is
more than one way to operate in secret or someone has twisted the facts.

>2) Why did it require six days and public questioning from other AB
>members in order to make the rest of the AB aware of this grievance?

Ask the representative to whom it was presented why it was not yet
posted
to the Exec list. For my part I wished to have some information
beforehand
as the moment anything appears on either list certain parties run away
with
it leaving sense and reason behind.

JMB: Gee, that is why we have EXEC, so that any and all questions can be
put on the table and sorted before inflammatory information is
circulated *at_large*. Good idea, tho, I will ask the RAL.

>3) Will you hold the RAL (one of the parties handling this in secret)
>accountable for selectively publishing claims in the DBS to make it
>appear that it was the rest of the AB that was derelict in its duties?

It has been stated over and over and over that I and we, the AB, have no

power to selectively silence anyone off this list. I have control of
this
list and the Exec list and the State Coordinator list, and no other main

lists. I have neither the authority nor the power nor the desire to
punish
any one of you, including you Jana, for statements made elsewhere.

JMB: In other words, *you* cannot see your way clear to do anything
about what the RAL posts, regardless of what your AB had suggested since
the beginning of this AB term? I did not suggest we can silence her "off
this list." Holding her accountable means holding the RAL to her word,
for example, as asserted on Board-L today. If the RAL does not print
corrections to her misinformation, you can, as NC take steps to correct
the situation by taking her off the lists she uses as fodder for
misrepresentation and you can offer, as NC, a public reprimand that
until the RAL chooses to keep her word and offer the corrections, she
will remain unsubbed. It is the Project's reputation that is at stake
and "holding one accountable" is merely natural consequences for chosen
actions, not punishment - shrug.

>Respectfully Submitted,

No Jana, it is not respectful, it is accusatory and presumptive, as
usual.

Holly Timm, National Coordinator

JMB: Not sure what you mean by "it," however if "it" equals my
questions, you are incorrect. The questions I submitted *were* submitted
respectfully. They were asked looking for respectfully offered answers
that would clear up the confusion. Looks like what has happened
unfortunately is that the opposite has been achieved, at least until
more information is offered to clarify the truth. I think the AB
deserves to know who withheld the grievance. The RAL, or the RAL
together with the NC and another AB member.


This thread: