BOARD-L ArchivesArchiver > BOARD > 2003-06 > 1055879892
From: "Phyllis Rippee" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:58:12 -0500
References: <001301c334fb$364c1fa0$1e73a00c@wchs> <003401c33505$15259900$1b78f842@donkelly>
Your comment about mnigs being used like a baseball bat: Perhaps, if we can
reach a consensus and get it to apply on both levels, there could be
something about a member could not be declared mnigs who has already
accepted a nomination to run for national office. That might get sticky,
but it would prevent politics for politics' sake.
But, if we try to make it appealable (is that a word?) from State level to
the AB, the AB can sustain it, but can the AB do anything to over-rule it?
Sustain would place mnigs at both levels. Not agreeing with it could only
leave the XX ruling in place and allow the CC to still participate on the
national level, as things now stand.
Idea: We set it up so that if XXGenWeb member is declared mnigs and
appeals, the AB will hear the evidence and vote to sustain or reject the
mnigs finding. If a majority of the AB does not believe the mnigs is
warranted, the members of XXGenWeb could vote to sustain or reject mnigs.
After all, it would ultimately be the XXGenWeb members who should be
offended, or not. Also, the mnigs would have to exhaust all XXGenWeb
|Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS by "Phyllis Rippee" <>|