BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2007-08 > 1187876631


From: Karen De Groote-Johnson <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Motion 07-18 - Amendment to Motion 02-12 - DISCUSSION
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:46:30 -0600
References: <02e501c7e580$09c2bb80$7301a8c0@scott>
In-Reply-To: <02e501c7e580$09c2bb80$7301a8c0@scott>


No discussion
Karen De Groote-Johnson
NWP CC Rep

Scott Burow wrote:
> 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.
>
> REGARDING THE DECISION REACHED IN MOTION 02-12:
>
> 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.
>
> REGARDING THE PENALTY ASSESSED IN MOTION 02-12:
>
> 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.
>
> OPINION OF THE ADVISORY BOARD AND RESOLUTION:
>
> 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
>
>
> USGenWeb Project information can be found at: http://www.usgenweb.com
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>

This thread: