BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2005-08 > 1123333543


From: "Angie Rayfield" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Motion 05-13: Grievance Procedures Committe (Kelly Motion)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:05:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <020e01c599bc$b55b5450$7601a8c0@scott>


As I've pointed out, I don't think it's fair to be having this
discussion right now -- the special projects have no representation, and
there other AB members that are on vacation and unable to take part,
which leaves their constituents without a voice as well. But since I
don't want to lose my opportunity to discuss, I'll go ahead.

Scott makes very good points, and I would support his suggestions with
no reservations. I hope that he will reconsider his reluctance to
propose an amendment by substitution and make such a motion.

Angie Rayfield
SEMA SC Representative
It's kick-off day!
http://kc.kintera.org/phoenix/angelarayfield/
Help me Train To End Stroke!

>-----Original Message-----
>
>Don, with all due respect, I think the Board rejected the
>"throw out the
>baby with the bathwater" version of the GPC last month.
>
>I fail to understand the need to reinvent the wheel. There
>was an existing
>GPC who at least had some framework of ideas and the
>background to work
>with. Some members of that committee have resigned and need
>to be replaced,
>and others need to be added from outside the AB. Why demolish
>the existing
>Committee, rather than simply expanding it?
>
>Again, you're giving a single person dominion over the
>composition of the
>committee, and setting up a private mail list for discussion. With
>something as important as the Grievance Procedures are,
>something that has
>the potential to effect every member of this project, a
>diverse group of
>opinions should be on the committee, not an elite hand-picked
>group. What
>discussions that could possibly take place on this committee should be
>unarchived and private? Have you not seen how this fosters
>distrust and a
>lack of faith in the process by the membership?
>
>This process should be transparent. If I make a suggestion and the
>committee considers it a bonehead idea then the committee
>should have the
>fortitude to say "Scott, that's a bonehead idea" in public.
>If they're not
>able to do that, then step one of forming this committee
>failed. One list
>is needed only. When the committee is to discuss a specific
>item amongst
>themselves, let it be moderated so that only the committee can
>speak at that
>time, but keep the discussions out in the open where the
>members of this
>project can see them and know how these procedures were developed.
>
>I don't want to make an amendment by substitution all over again, but
>suggest the following as an alternative motion for discussion
>which could be
>made into a motion at a later time.
>
>"The current grievance procedures committee continue to be
>seated, and that
>those AB members having resigned or who are no longer on the
>AB be replaced
>with volunteers from the AB. The committee would be expanded
>to 15 members,
>to be chosen by the current committee members from volunteers from the
>project membership in good standing, with the slate approved
>by the AB, and
>that future vacancies in the committee be similarly filled by project
>volunteers until the committee achieves membership of no more
>than 5 AB
>members and up to 10 non-AB members.
>
>Further, that an email list be established for use of the
>committee, and
>that the list discussions be archived and permanently open to
>all project
>members. That during the discussion of grievance procedures,
>the list may
>be moderated during specific discussion by the committee
>members, but shall
>be open for posting by all subscribers at all other times.
>
>The committee will submit a complete set of proposed grievance
>procedures no
>later than ninety days after being seated. The AB will vote on
>whether to
>adopt the procedures in their entirety by a yes-or-no vote, with a 2/3
>majority required for passage."
>
>
>I think six weeks might be a little short to develop a quality
>proposal, but
>I do believe it could be done in 90 days.
>
>
>Scott Burow
>

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005


This thread: