USGW-GC-L Archives

Archiver > USGW-GC > 2006-02 > 1139084417


From: "Don Kelly" <>
Subject: Re: [USGW-GPC] Procedures
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:20:17 -0800
References: <04ce01c6200f$e7bfc1e0$3a281b41@D51XKD11> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601230717210.20833@saltmine.radix.net> <010201c6294a$688abf80$7301a8c0@scott> <43E4A046.4060109@radix.net> <011501c629c2$4ce68d90$7301a8c0@scott>


And if one refuses to participate, will the case then be decided by default?
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Burow" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [USGW-GPC] Procedures


> Good questions, and I'll do my best to reply from my point of view.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Probably 'receipt' is not the correct word to use here, but perhaps those
> of you less linguisticly challenged than I can come up with a better one.
> The intent is that the outcome of this process is binding on all parties.
> We need to look at the big picture and realize what happens to this
> process in the future. Once completed it will be presented for approval
> by the elected officials of this project. If approved, these procedures
> become policy. Binding mediation/arbitration becomes the official policy
> of the project. We're all bound by the official policy of the project.
>
> As far as a person refusing to participate, the process covers that. Move
> such a situation through the process. Mediation obviously fails since
> there is only one party involved, thus it moves to arbitration. Per the
> procedures:
>
> "The decision of the arbitration team will be based on the information and
> evidence submitted, and failure of one party to participate in the
> arbitration process will result in the decision being made against the
> non-participating party in accordance with the information presented."
>
> If one party refuses to participate, the information will be from only one
> side of the complaint. If that's all that is presented, and a violation
> of the by-law, policy, or procedure cited is proven by the information,
> the outcome of the arbitrators will be in accordance with the information
> presented. Simply put ... the one who participates will win. In Court,
> it's called a default judgment.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> So noted, and you're correct about that. It should be phrased "a member
> in good standing of the USGenWeb Project.
>
>>
>> Committee membership section:
>>
>> You say the committee will have seven members, but you list only six. Is
>> the seventh open to anyone?
>>
>
> Yes, it would be open to anyone other than an AB member. As the AB is the
> avenue of appeal from the GC, it would be a conflict of interest to have
> an AB member as a participant in the proceedings. This is the reason that
> the NC, as an ex-officio member of the GC, being barred from activity with
> any specific grievance before the committee, and why a committee member,
> if elected to the AB during his/her term, must resign from the committee.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The wording was from the original proposal and I believe that it refers to
> specific assignments to a particular grievance. A billet assignment would
> be that "XX is assigned as Committee Member, XX as mediator, and XX and XX
> as arbitrators to grievance 06-01." I doubt there would be any objection
> to changing 'billet assignment' to 'case assignment', 'grievance
> assignment' or something of that nature.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, if a local process exists, the GC will not re-hear that grievance,
> only review it to determine whether the local process was followed. The
> paragraph below that should be indented as 5(a) and is meant to be an
> explanation of the limitation. Again, if those less linguistically
> challenged than I can phrase it better ... please do so.
>
>>
>> "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.
>>
>
> "Member approved" means to me that procedures were adopted by a vote of
> the membership in that state or project at some time in the past. When we
> were writing our ILGenWeb procedures for grievances, we reviewed the
> existing processes in projects that had them. I can't think of one which
> was not labeled as being "Adopted by the membership on (date)". Perhaps
> I'm assuming that this was done by vote of the members, but that was my
> impression. By including the phrase we're intending to prevent the
> situation that you describe.
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> No, it's not there, but it hasn't been dropped either, it's just not
> included. This is one of the issues needing discussion from folks more
> knowledgeable than I.
>
> My experience with mediation and arbitration all revolves around the legal
> system, but there are far more types of mediation and arbitration out
> there. In my experience, a representative (in my case, a lawyer) is not
> directly involved in a mediation. That's directly between the parties in
> a controlled setting to try to resolve some of the issues before it
> reaches the Courtroom. What can be agreed upon is then sent to the
> representatives so that they know what is and is not resolved. The
> arbitration (again, in my case a hearing before the judge who rules on the
> case) is where the representatives become involved, and the goal there is
> to resolve the outstanding issues that were not resolved at the mediation
> stage. (Of course, the representatives know this is the case, and advise
> the participants what to accept and what not to accept in the mediation
> process, so we can't say they're really not involved.)
>
> I do not know where the representative should be included in this type of
> process, so it's not in there at all, but on my list of things to ask
> about.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> ==== USGW-GC Mailing List ====
> This is a permanently archived list. Please do not discuss confidential
> information.
>
> ==============================
> Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for
> ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx
>
>

This thread: