BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2010-03 > 1268864564


From: W David Samuelsen <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD] Fw: MOTION 2009/10-22 Motion to Augmentthe GrievanceProcedures
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:22:48 -0600
References: <1D3FCC2D7DC6455EBAF04E0A04C025BF@TinaSVickeryPC>
In-Reply-To: <1D3FCC2D7DC6455EBAF04E0A04C025BF@TinaSVickeryPC>


there are problems. This motion specifically deals with the breach of
confidentiality.

1. EXACT who are the judge and the jury in breaking of confidentiality.
It can not be the GC since members of the GC are prone to breaking it as
well.

2. Who should be the judge and the jury. It can not be the AB. The AB
must remain neutral without any hint of clique of majority tainting the
process.

3. There is no clear due process to prove untentional or intentional breach.

The Parliamentarians (both groups - American Institute of
Parliamentarians and National Association of Parliamentarians) have very
low tolerance of inclusion of anything to do with due process in the
bylaws to begin with so don't entertain any notion of amending the bylaws.

David Samuelsen

On 3/16/2010 5:28 PM, Tina S. Vickery wrote:
> Shared with permission. Thank you Pat for your comments.
>
> Tina Vickery
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Asher"<>
> To:<>; "Tina S. Vickery"<>; "Sherri"
> <>;<>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [BOARD] MOTION 2009/10-22 Motion to Augment the
> GrievanceProcedures
>
>
>> At 11:55 PM 3/15/2010, W David Samuelsen wrote:
>>> Tina,
>>> Since you asked and Sherri hasn't said yet....
>>> There is one thing wrong with the motion.
>>> "Where is the due process to PROVE the breaking of confidentiality?"
>>> No reference to Sturgis.
>>
>> David,
>>
>> The motion makes an addendum to the existing grievance procedures. It
>> does not replace the existing procedures and all of the existing
>> procedures remain in effect.
>>
>> The question of breaking confidentiality would not even come up unless
>> some proof was brought to the attention of the grievance Team, for
>> example, an email from a party to the grievance sent to someone who was
>> not a party to the grievance.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Who are "all parties" beside mediators, arbitrators and GC?
>>
>> The "parties" are defined in the Introduction to Section V. GRIEVANCE
>> PROCEDURES and are the USGW member filing the grievance, and the USGW
>> member against whom the grievance is filed. Note each "party" may consist
>> of more than one individual.
>>
>>
>>
>>> All boil down to discretionary powers by who? Who decides?
>>
>> The grievance Team (mediator, arbitrator, and GC Rep) would decide, just
>> as they decide on the merits of a grievance. Their recommendation is not
>> final, but is submitted to the entire grievance committee for review and
>> approval or rejection.
>>
>> If the Team's recommendation is approved by the Committee, either party
>> still has the right of appeal to the AB.
>>
>>
>> Pat Asher
>> ARBenton CC
>> Permission granted to forward
>
> USGenWeb Advisory Board Agenda: http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.shtml
> -------------------------------
> 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: