BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2003-06 > 1056060263


From: "Jana Black" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <a05200f07bb1740ad53f9@[64.251.140.30]>


I think that would require a Bylaws change.... But, technically, yes.
Jana

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry G. Flesher [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:29 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MNIGS


Jana-
I like your suggestion - can this mediation process be made mandatory
prior to involving the entire AB?

Larry


>Hi Larry,
>
>The only thing I would add to what you have offered is that perhaps
>this appeal process could fall under the "jurisdiction" of the
>Mediation Team as follows:
>
>A Mediation Team member will rotate into the "chair" position and a
>committee will be formed including one person of choice representing
>the appealing CC and one person of choice representing the "state"
>(chosen by the SC) plus 4 more members from unrelated states in each
>region. It would be this team that would "hear the evidence and vote to

>sustain or reject the MNIGS finding" then present the findings to the
>AB. My reasoning is that otherwise, I am concerned that 1) the AB will
>never ever do anything but deal with personnel issues, 2) this will
>offer another way for more CCs to be involved at levels larger than the

>county level 3) it will leave the AB table clear to address other
>business.....
>
>Jana
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry G. Flesher [mailto:]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:27 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
>
>
>May I comment on Phyllis' idea:
>
>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 avenues first.
>
>First step: XX state declares a member mnigs by whatever procedure
>used in that state. (Is a procedural rule that a nominee for any
>USGenWeb office may not be so declared a good idea?)
>
>Second step: mnigs member, at his/her option, appeals declaration to AB
>
>Third step: AB hears evidence and votes to sustain or reject
>
>Fourth step: Should the AB vote to sustain, the member also becomes
>mnigs at the Project level. Should the AB vote to reject, an vote of
>the XXGenWeb members for sustainment should be required. (Of course,
>nothing prevents XX state from holding such a vote at any time during
>the process).
>
>The mnigs status should have a time limit and a specific description of

>the behavior which sustained the mnigs status. Procedure should
>require the mnigs member to institute dissolution of mnigs status by
>personal request, including a statement that the offending behavior
>will not occur again. Should no request be forthcoming from the mnigs
>member after the established time limit, the status would remain in
>effect.
>
>Larry Flesher
>SW/SC SC Rep
>
>
>==== BOARD Mailing List ====
>Want to know Who's Who in USGenWeb? Visit:
>http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho-index.html
>To update your information, contact
>
>
>==== BOARD Mailing List ====
>Archives for Board-L are located at:
>http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board


==== BOARD Mailing List ====
Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at:
http://www.usgenweb.com/official/standing-procedures.html


This thread: