BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2003-06 > 1056133609


From: "Jana Black" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MNIGS
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:26:49 -0700
In-Reply-To: <000501c3373c$fb255880$8672a00c@wchs>


Hmmm, I like your logic here, Phyllis! I also agree that a definition of
standards is an excellent idea... Perhaps Don could get permission for
us all to review what Sharyl Ferrall devised in Iowa as an "in-the-door_
agreement potential CCs have to "sign" to qualify to become a volunteer
- the standards are well stated.

Jana

-----Original Message-----
From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: [BOARD-L] MNIGS


First: No, it does not require a bylaws change to make mediation
mandatory. It is the mediation process itself that makes it voluntary.
The bylaws just state that the AB may be called upon to mediate and the
mediation process was put in place to give a procedure if the AB is thus
called on.

So, because it is a procedure, it would be much easier to "amend" the
mediation procedure than try to change a bylaw.

Second: Do you want to just leave the ambiguous word "standards" in
place with no definitions and concentrate on the punishment phase of
mnigs?

IMHO: As long as there is ambiguity, those who have a little authority
over others, can use mnigs as a weapon ranging from personal dislike to
political reasons.

Phyllis Rippee
SW/SC CC Representative


==== BOARD Mailing List ====
Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received:
http://www.usgenweb.com/about/awards.html

This thread: