BOARD-L ArchivesArchiver > BOARD > 2003-06 > 1055887858
From: "Don Kelly" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:10:58 -0700
References: <001301c334fb$364c1fa0$1e73a00c@wchs> <003401c33505$15259900$1b78f842@donkelly> <000901c3350a$c8fbdc00$6472a00c@wchs>
As a CC it helps me to work up to a problem, but as an administrator
work down to the problem. I guess it helps others too if it gets them to
looking at both sides of a problem.
Consensus: Sticky it is. First, is NIGS a rule or more of a guideline or
Example: Why label one NIGS if what they are guilty of is copyright
violation, or guilty of making the SC angry, or of being a troublemaker?
I think it needs to be used less often.
If a state violates it's own rule/policy/procedure for political rather
than administrative reasons, OR is in conflict with USGW rules, OR if
the state version is not in writing, then the state has no place to hang
it's hat, and the AB upon appeal has competent jurisdiction.
I hope I said it all here, and YES, appeallable is a word.<GRIN>
Paragraphs two and three both lead in a positive direction.
Bottom line, I spoke earlier of 50 states being in agreement. I visited
many states today and none have the NIGS rule, written or otherwise, and
several who answered, will not deploy that rule in their state.
So it appears few people have been labeled NIGS, and many states will
not use NIGS as a tool to punish people.
Yet if the procedure at national level were clearly defined and adopted,
then NIGS could only be deployed by a state if it did not conflict with
the official definition/procedure, and it wouldn't affect states who
don't use NIGS at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phyllis Rippee" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
> Your comment about mnigs being used like a baseball bat: Perhaps, if
> 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
> but it would prevent politics for politics' sake.
> But, if we try to make it appealable (is that a word?) from State
> the AB, the AB can sustain it, but can the AB do anything to over-rule
> Sustain would place mnigs at both levels. Not agreeing with it could
> leave the XX ruling in place and allow the CC to still participate on
> 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
> 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
> After all, it would ultimately be the XXGenWeb members who should be
> offended, or not. Also, the mnigs would have to exhaust all XXGenWeb
> avenues first.
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Board-L minutes and voting records are located at:
|Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS by "Don Kelly" <>|