BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2007-08 > 1187871647

From: "Scott Burow" <>
Subject: [BOARD] Motion 07-18 - Amendment to Motion 02-12 - DISCUSSION
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:20:47 -0500

It has been moved by Mike Peterson and seconded by Karen De Groote-Johnson
that the decision of the Advisory Board regarding the appeal of Teresa
Lindquist of Motion 02-12 be adopted and that Motion 02-12 be amended.

The motion is numbered 07-18 and is open for discussion. If you have no
discussion, please advise by stating "no discussion".

Motion 07-18 is as follows:

I move that the following be adopted as an amendment to Motion 02-12:

"After reviewing all the information and evidence presented in the Teresa
Lindquist appeal to rescind Motion 02-12, the AB finds the following:

Before proceeding with a review upon appeal, the Advisory Board has a
responsibility to examine its ability and authority to review the decision
made by the prior Board in Motion 02-12. The only mention of a Motion to
Appeal in Sturgis relates to a motion to appeal the decision of the chair.
This motion is not applicable to the current situation in that the action
being appealed is not a decision of the chair. Parliamentary law and common
law recognize the inherent right of members to have redress for decisions
that address their status or standing as a member of the organization, and
recognizes the inherent right of the organization to amend and correct
errors which may have been made in both procedure and fact. The Board must
also consider the intent and content of Motion 02-12 at the time of its
passage, and the intent of the Advisory Board at the time, which made
provision for appeal. It must be concluded that under Sturgis,
parliamentary law, and common law an appeal can be made of Motion 02-12 in
order for the member to have redress and to correct any errors that may have
been made.

Disciplinary action against members is an inherent right of the organization
(Sturgis, p. 222-224). For the purpose of the current appeal regarding the
findings of Motion 02-12, the Advisory Board has reviewed the materials
available, the written appeal of Ms. Lindquist, and the evidence presented.
This opinion will address the two pertinent sections of Motion 02-12, which
are entitled Decision and Penalty in order to be consistent with the wording
in Sturgis. All items not claimed to be in error in the appeal have been
judged to be true and accurate.


The finding of the Advisory Board in Motion 02-12 is affirmed as to the
statement that Teresa Lindquist exhibited total disregard and disrespect as
evident in her public posting of executive session correspondence, betraying
the trust of fellow board members and all members of the project that have
brought concerns and grievances forward.

Ms. Lindquist in her appeal does not contest that finding.


Ms. Lindquist contests the imposition of the status of Member Not in Good
Standing, based upon the opinion of a previous Advisory Board's
Parliamentarian, D. Joshua Taylor, that it is invalid as it does not contain
an ending date, and is, therefore, permanent. The Advisory Board finds that
Motion 02-12 validly imposed the status of Member Not In Good Standing for
the acts as described in the decision. That penalty, however, was improperly
applied in that it did not include a termination date or a method for the
member to otherwise regain her status as a Member in Good Standing in lieu
of a termination date.


Having found the penalty phase of the Advisory Board in Motion 02-12 to be
improperly applied, it is the duty of this Advisory Board to amend, adjust,
or otherwise correct the application of the penalty, taking into account the
period of time that has elapsed since the imposition of the original
disciplinary action and the contributions of the member which may serve to
mitigate the need or the nature of the consequence imposed.

The Advisory Board notes that after almost 5 years the publication of
executive session correspondence leading to Motion 02-12 remains publicly
posted. The Advisory Board finds that the passage of time has not reduced
the disregard, disrespect, and betrayal of that action.

The Advisory Board notes that Ms. Lindquist contacted the Board on May 21,
2007 and stated. "I am not interesting [sic] in having the Board lift my Not
In Good Standing status. I want the Board to recognize and correct the
illegal actions taken by its predecessor and rescind Motion 02-12." This
Board will comply with the request of Ms. Lindquist in part, and will
correct the improper application of an otherwise validly imposed penalty.

A breach of trust among members is unfortunate and a breach of trust among
elected officers is intolerable. A breach of trust and confidentiality
between an elected officer and the members of an organization is a travesty
and should never be taken lightly.

It is the finding of the Advisory Board that the penalty assessed in Motion
02-12 be amended to read as follows:

"Teresa Lindquist will be made a Member Not In Good Standing for a period of
10 years, retroactive to the initial date of Motion 02-12 on July 12, 2002.

If Ms Lindquist desires to have that status lifted prior to the expiration
of that time, she may do so by communication of the following to the
National Coordinator:

1. That she has permanently removed all confidential executive session
correspondence from public view and will cease to distribute any materials
that were held in confidence by the Advisory Board at the time of her
participation without the consent of those members involved.

2. That she is prepared to accept responsibility for the violation of trust
and confidence placed in her by making a public apology to the membership
for her actions.

3. That she is willing to be a contributing member of the USGenWeb Project
as evidenced by her ability to abide by the bylaws, rules, and procedures
established for all members of the project.

Should Ms. Lindquist choose to have the status of Member Not in Good
Standing lifted and to comply with the conditions stated above, she will be
placed on a probationary status for a period of one (1) year. During her
period of probationary status she will answer to the Advisory Board for any
actions which are not in compliance with accepted project policy or
membership. During that probationary year if Ms. Lindquist engages in any
actions that the AB finds to be out of compliance with the probationary
rules herein and accepted project bylaws, rules, and procedures established
for its members, the penalty will be reinstatement of the Member Not In Good
Standing status until July 12, 2012."

Scott Burow
NC - USGenWeb Project

This thread: