USGW-GC-L Archives

Archiver > USGW-GC > 2006-02 > 1139056710


From: merope <>
Subject: Re: [USGW-GPC] Procedures
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 07:38:30 -0500
References: <04ce01c6200f$e7bfc1e0$3a281b41@D51XKD11> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601230717210.20833@saltmine.radix.net> <010201c6294a$688abf80$7301a8c0@scott>
In-Reply-To: <010201c6294a$688abf80$7301a8c0@scott>


Nice work! Now, here's my comments.:)

First section

You say: "Upon receipt by the Grievance Committee, both parties are
bound by any agreement reached in the grievance process, or if no
agreement can be reached, by the final decision of the
grievance/arbitration team when approved by the Grievance Committee."
Suppose one party to the grievance [presumably the defendant] refuses to
participate? How can you bind a party to some future outcome just based
on receipt of the grievance?

Qualifications section

You say: 'Volunteers must have a minimum of one year's continuous
service as a Member in Good Standing of either a State Project or a
recognized Special Project of the USGenWeb Project." This wording will
get you into trouble. Those of us who are MNIGS are only MNIGS at the
national level. I am not only in good standing in my state project, my
SCs love me. The wording should be clarified to specify that the
designation comes from the national level.

Committee membership section:

You say the committee will have seven members, but you list only six.
Is the seventh open to anyone?

Committee business section:

You use the term "billet announcement" in this section and nowhere
else. It should be defined. Or better yet, changed to something else.
The word "billet" refers to assignment of quarters to military personnel.

Grievance Process section:

You say: "Grievances against the local grievance project of a State or
Special Project which has its own member-approved process for resolving
grievances." Huh? I am not at all sure what you are trying to say
here. Is this the part where, for projects that have local processes,
you will only hear a grievance if it alleges that those processes were
violated? If so, rewording will make this clearer. Also,
"member-approved" is an iffy statement. An SC could slap together
something, post it, and say its the state rules, without ever having the
members approve it. How would you know? Will the GC just accept these
on face value, or will there be some looking into state guidelines to
see whether they fit the criterion of being "member-approved"? If not,
just drop the term.

Overall comment on procedures: Did I miss it, or has the usual process
of allowing the parties to a grievance to have advisors assist them been
dropped?

-Teresa

Read All About It: http://dailyboardshow.blogspot.com



Scott Burow wrote:

> Good morning. There have been some great suggestions thrown out, and
> a lot of discussion about issues. Thank you for your comments and
> input into this process.

[snip]

This thread: