From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 11:55:36 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21748 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:39:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OFdHcd012477 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:39:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OFctc16814; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 08:38:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 08:38:55 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Feb 24 08:38:54 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:41:32 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1622 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: edbe8bda28aab204d976600ef77afaf4 Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance (appended below). 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or fight it out at the state level. 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation. I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the above should come close so would each and every board member please reply with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can hammer out the specific wording of the response. Holly From: "Terria Baynor" Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to bylaw stipulations. Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure whichever is appropriate. 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's are chosen 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the successor unless abandoned. (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get along with each other) 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question (Wayne). 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain the national website. I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions Terria Baynor hoji@skantech.net Kelly Courtney Blizzard kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 18:02:00 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03468 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OI7xcd026691 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OI7NF14726; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:07:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:07:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Feb 24 11:07:23 2002 Message-ID: <008801c1bd5d$cd199aa0$4c28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:05:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance---Terria Baynor/Kelly Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1623 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4d543611c8396582fab2f08528689cec 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or fight it out at the state level. Comment: I would recommend changing the word "power" to "authority"; "chooses" to "thinks best suits the interests of the NCGenWeb Project; and delete what follows "co-cc." And, for those unhappy with the way things are currently set up in regard to the bylaws, etc. that in their estimation makes the AB 1. A hallucination, 2. A toothless dog, 3. A joke. 1. I may be somebody's worst nightmare but I'm a real person. 2. I have my own teeth except for the 4 wisdom teeth that had to be pulled because there wasn't enough room in my mouth for them. AND.....3. Well, 2 out of three ain't bad! Phyllis From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 18:02:00 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04389 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OILicd028013 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OILHc28960; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:21:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:21:17 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Sun Feb 24 11:21:16 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020224130416.01737bd0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:04:16 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1624 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3d23533646caebea0e599bb407aed97b At 10:41 AM 2/24/02 -0500, you wrote: >Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > >There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance >(appended below). > >1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's >choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to >the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or >unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might >be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. No. >2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she >chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or >fight it out at the state level. Yes. >3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the >matter and makes no recommendation. Yes. Tim From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 18:02:00 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05473 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OIbicd029571 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OIata17040; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:36:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:36:55 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Feb 24 11:36:55 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Mistaken Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:31:39 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020224045127.0085e6d0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1625 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e772271a0d1a8b847b2e6a9451e469d8 Your conversations with Jeffrey. Actually you said "bits" in a couple of posts. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 1:51 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Mistaken At 11:34 PM 2/23/02 -0800, Jana wrote: > Kathy, we need to come out of >EXEC (as Tim did a bit today on ALL) and tell CCs the truth... the AB is a >hallucination as an entity that can make a difference and CCs need to be >directed back to their states to duke it out there. What post of mine are you referencing? Tim From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 18:02:00 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13430 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OK7acd008433 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OK7AJ25780; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:07:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:07:10 -0700 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Feb 24 13:07:09 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020224113209.009f3ec0@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:01:21 -0800 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1626 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6d219472d3084f2bc5f95ef432664b29 At 10:41 AM 2/24/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > >There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance >(appended below). > >2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she >chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or >fight it out at the state level. I would change the wording: "Respond to Terria and Kelly that unless specifically prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-cc. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving conflicts at the state level. -Isaiah From ???@??? Sun Feb 24 18:02:00 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25042 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1OMo3cd024888 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1OMn5k15039; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:49:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:49:05 -0700 X-Original-Sender: TVick65536@aol.com Sun Feb 24 15:49:04 2002 From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <91.18cb2718.29aac7d4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:48:52 EST Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1627 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f536461f8333ef1a1b3ec4b2d03b20a9 In the spirit of compromise, I recommend #1. Tina In a message dated 2/24/2002 10:39:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 06:20:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10816 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1P2UMcd019781 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1P2TTa00524; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:29:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:29:29 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Sun Feb 24 19:29:29 2002 Message-ID: <011a01c1bda4$2f5880a0$38a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:28:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1628 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5b0ecc10eb722ed648496546a2303cd3 Forgetting what we THINK as CC's and as SC's which has been proven here to completely prejudice and cloud judgment as to what is really right and what is really fair, we should think in terms of not what we are or who we represent but only as what this Project is suppose to stand for and what is understood by those that want us to do better than has been done before. That is as a bottom up representation. The CC's are the least heard and the worse treated. SC's stick together and Special Projects are just there. In trying to do what is best for any and all CC's, who have and may again find themselves at this crossroad I suggest #1 Ron > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 06:20:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA12079 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1P2mOcd021917 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1P2lsd17078; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:47:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:47:54 -0700 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Sun Feb 24 19:47:54 2002 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:46:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <011a01c1bda4$2f5880a0$38a028d8@hppav> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <5VzzKD.A.nKE.aXae8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1629 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 108fc40be123518d93374330243489d6 My choice is #1. 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 06:20:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA16541 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1P3kNcd028276 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1P3jij31497; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:45:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:45:44 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Sun Feb 24 20:45:44 2002 X-Originating-IP: [64.108.117.35] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:45:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2002 03:45:46.0257 (UTC) FILETIME=[E84F8810:01C1BDAE] Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1630 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ee19797d2caa20305f6df0413517e6b6 #1 I think this is the best option. I don't think we should have the illusion however that this will be followed through. We can only suggest, Saron still has the option to do as she wishes, we can only try to get her to see reason. Jana, I don't know where you get your idea that all the SC's are power crazy. You never have been part of the COGenWeb. I have asked my CC's even if they would accept my choice for ASC. I always listen to my CC's, and even get complaints about asking for votes on things all the time. Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of >NCGenWeb >Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:41:32 -0500 > >Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > >There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance >(appended below). > >1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's >choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to >the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or >unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might >be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 06:20:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA17703 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:57:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1P3vZcd029268 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1P3v2w11096; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:57:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:57:02 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Sun Feb 24 20:57:02 2002 Message-ID: <00e901c1bdb0$abb5d9c0$95f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:58:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1631 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9be0a4faddff410d0b09c89b8f637f83 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. Kathy Heidel "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told." Old Cherokee Saying From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:01 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20748 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PHD5cd021976 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PHCPx25352; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:12:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:12:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 10:12:24 2002 Message-ID: <005f01c1be1f$c5561060$9bf499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:13:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1632 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9902442c248428ef85e2616bb51dbda3 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 34 Holly, I am changing my recommendation after going back and reviewing emails of all of the AB members and the Bylaws to Option #3. We have no authority in forcing NC to comply with these allegations. At first I thought perhaps it would be the "Right thing to do" but after further reflection I don't think I was correct in forming this opinion. It is not my place to tell the SC she has to do anything, our Bylaws do not give the AB that "Right". Terria will have to accept Sharon's decisions and if Terria chooses to share the information with Kelly that is up to her. I would still advise that they form their own set of Standing Rules and thus eliminate any problems which may come up in the future. Ron since you are already a CC, and feel very strongly about this matter in NC perhaps you might be able to encourage and present this to the NC Discuss List. Likely by working with the SC and the CC's you will be able to form a Standing Rules Committee in NC and address these problems. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: 24 February, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb > Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > > There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance > (appended below). > > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > > 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she > chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or > fight it out at the state level. > > 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the > matter and makes no recommendation. > > I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the > above should come close so would each and every board member please reply > with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from > the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once > a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can > hammer out the specific wording of the response. > > Holly > > From: "Terria Baynor" > Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to > bylaw stipulations. > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 > > I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal > grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a > County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. > > We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to > the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure > whichever is appropriate. > > 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's > are chosen > > 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" > choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the > successor unless abandoned. > (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to > work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get > along with each other) > > 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question > (Wayne). > > 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) > > 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing > Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. > > 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in > the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. > > Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: > Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: > addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state > projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if > necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain > the national website. > > I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority > of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the > AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions > > Terria Baynor > hoji@skantech.net > > Kelly Courtney Blizzard > kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com > > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:01 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03177 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PIshcd006193 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PIs3530332; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:54:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:54:03 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 11:54:02 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:47:40 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1636 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 67d0212cc57717c18d1c757ca7d19c4b I think #1 is the correct reply and it is my choice. Should Sharon refuse, the AB can then follow up with #2 and suggest that Terria and Kelly attempt to work to gain further CC support to create an in-house solution. On the other hand, I gather that quite a few members of this assembly believe that 3# is the actual truth and I think that is very sad for the USGW Project. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:42 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance (appended below). 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or fight it out at the state level. 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation. I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the above should come close so would each and every board member please reply with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can hammer out the specific wording of the response. Holly From: "Terria Baynor" Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to bylaw stipulations. Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure whichever is appropriate. 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's are chosen 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the successor unless abandoned. (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get along with each other) 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question (Wayne). 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain the national website. I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions Terria Baynor hoji@skantech.net Kelly Courtney Blizzard kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:01 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28060 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PIBccd000240 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PIB8i10661; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:11:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:11:08 -0700 X-Original-Sender: mo-bogart@att.net Mon Feb 25 11:11:08 2002 Message-ID: <010a01c1be27$ec649020$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:41:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1633 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 8ccfd16ae2cf6f2cd5b3ea5116ec521f #3 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb > Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > > There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance > (appended below). > > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > > 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she > chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or > fight it out at the state level. > > 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the > matter and makes no recommendation. > > I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the > above should come close so would each and every board member please reply > with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from > the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once > a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can > hammer out the specific wording of the response. > > Holly > > From: "Terria Baynor" > Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to > bylaw stipulations. > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 > > I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal > grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a > County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. > > We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to > the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure > whichever is appropriate. > > 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's > are chosen > > 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" > choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the > successor unless abandoned. > (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to > work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get > along with each other) > > 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question > (Wayne). > > 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) > > 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing > Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. > > 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in > the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. > > Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: > Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: > addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state > projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if > necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain > the national website. > > I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority > of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the > AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions > > Terria Baynor > hoji@skantech.net > > Kelly Courtney Blizzard > kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:01 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29378 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PIMscd001884 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PIMKL24734; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:22:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:22:20 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Feb 25 11:22:19 2002 Message-ID: <001901c1be29$122f2260$d6967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:20:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance----Terria Baynor and Kelly Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1634 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 7c87eab998cead791df599d56f05bd74 After careful consideration of the difference between the choices of #2 and #3, I believe that #3 more nearly represents my opinion. Therefore, I'm switching my opinion to #3. Phyllis From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:01 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29775 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PIQAcd002376 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PIPIk28461; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:25:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:25:18 -0700 X-Original-Sender: bremerr@oclc.org Mon Feb 25 11:25:18 2002 Message-ID: <90D12689EF7A0543AB11426D75D6ABC51A9452@oa4-server.oa.oclc.org> From: "Bremer,Robert" Old-To: "'Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com'" Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC o f NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:24:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1635 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b2554f23729424da227b464428bea788 My choice would be #1 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:05 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16175 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PKkAcd022323 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PKjXI08572; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:45:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:45:33 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@mccallie.org Mon Feb 25 13:45:32 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020225154613.008136b0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:46:13 -0500 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] North Carolina vote Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1637 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 258937794f600ec915ca538b7a8f2501 I'm voting more specifically for option 3. Tim --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 17:10:05 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19457 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PLDLcd026376 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PLCaM27677; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:12:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:12:36 -0700 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Feb 25 14:12:36 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225125756.009fad00@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:07:36 -0800 Old-To: board-exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Subject: [Board-Exec] North Carolina Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1638 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f14f55b67f7fead96664ef8a77acc7fe After reviewing everything that has been said regarding the situation in North Carolina, I still believe very strongly that CCs should have the widest possible latitude in choosing their co-workers and replacements. I still believe that the state projects also have an interest in who becomes a member of their organizations, so they also have a stake. People who want total autonomy should work independently instead of joining organizations. However, since the bylaws do not give the Board the authority to interfere in how state projects choose their personnel, I will change my vote from #2 to #3. -Isaiah From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 18:09:47 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00544 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PMoZcd010391 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PMmvu22452; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:48:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:48:57 -0700 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Mon Feb 25 15:48:56 2002 Message-ID: <007c01c1be4e$8d8191d0$6401a8c0@Diane> From: "Diane M. Parsons" Old-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:48:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1639 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4a63c49c06771759fd53660f800c8a3c I have to go with #1..with the strong suggestion that Sharon, Kelly & Terria work together. Diane Parsons > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:42 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of > NCGenWeb > > > Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > > There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance > (appended below). > > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > > 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she > chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or > fight it out at the state level. > > 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the > matter and makes no recommendation. > > I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the > above should come close so would each and every board member please reply > with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from > the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once > a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can > hammer out the specific wording of the response. > > Holly > > From: "Terria Baynor" > Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to > bylaw stipulations. > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 > > I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal > grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a > County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. > > We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to > the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure > whichever is appropriate. > > 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's > are chosen > > 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" > choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the > successor unless abandoned. > (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to > work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get > along with each other) > > 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question > (Wayne). > > 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) > > 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing > Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. > > 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in > the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. > > Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: > Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: > addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state > projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if > necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain > the national website. > > I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority > of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the > AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions > > Terria Baynor > hoji@skantech.net > > Kelly Courtney Blizzard > kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com > > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 18:54:44 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05652 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1PNeocd017071 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1PNe4k10049; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:40:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:40:04 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Mon Feb 25 16:40:03 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225173843.04727c10@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:41:40 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1640 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 271d4bf251ecfd271a07d66669162946 I will have to go with #3 since you won't let me combine #1, #2 and #3. I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. Betsy > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:42 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of > NCGenWeb > > > Discussion has digressed significantly on the grievance before us. > > There are several options available to us on our response to the grievance > (appended below). > > 1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate or > unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might > be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > > 2) Respond to Terria and Kelly that the SC has the power to do as she > chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and that they must accept this or > fight it out at the state level. > > 3) Respond that the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the > matter and makes no recommendation. > > I realize that none of these may meet your opinion precisely but one of the > above should come close so would each and every board member please reply > with a choice of the above adding brief comments as to any variation from > the choice made. None of the above are intended as the final wording, once > a consensus is reached regarding the general thrust of our response, we can > hammer out the specific wording of the response. > > Holly > > From: "Terria Baynor" > Subject: Resending: Formal Grievance/Request for State Aid according to > bylaw stipulations. > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500 > > I, Terria Baynor and Kelly C. Blizzard would like to file a formal > grievance against my SC, Sharon Williamson. She has denied my rights as a > County Coordinator to choose an assistant as shown below. > > We would like to request that the AB aid in our state project, according to > the bylaws, to remedy the situation with mediation or a grievance proceedure > whichever is appropriate. > > 1) There is no rule in NC requiring the SC's approval when Co-CC's or CC's > are chosen > > 2) Precedence in our state has been established that the SC does not "ever" > choose Co-CC's; they are chosen instead by the CC as well as the > successor unless abandoned. > (This being a free choice by the CC, given the fact that they have to > work with each other and must have a basic trust and ability to get > along with each other) > > 3) I (Terria Baynor) am the official CC for the county in question > (Wayne). > > 4) I have chosen Kelly as my Co-CC (as is my right to do so) > > 5) Sharon has refused to respect my choice of Co-CC and is thus preventing > Kelly from fulfilling her responsibilities as a Co-CC in the project. > > 6)Sharon's actions are in violation of the spirit and tradition in > the USGenWeb of a "bottom up" organization. > > Article VI, Section 3 of the bylaws state: > Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: > addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state > projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if > necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain > the national website. > > I am requesting your aid in my state project to define the authority > of the CC, SC, and AB of this project. According to the Section above, the > AB does have the power to challenge any of the CC's or SC's actions > > Terria Baynor > hoji@skantech.net > > Kelly Courtney Blizzard > kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com > > > > > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17265 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q1vpcd004128 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q1tna17691; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:55:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:55:49 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 18:55:49 2002 Message-ID: <018f01c1be68$dd720d40$89f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225173843.04727c10@mail.1starnet.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:56:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1641 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 99b8c664cb4317d96640e6d9a0587165 Betsy is right, We really had no choice, we can recommend and encourage but we can not force a SC to do anything. This was one of the reasons I felt torn. I know 2 of the people involved and they are good CC's and good people, and I happen to enjoy Kelly's honest, brutal approach to a problem, but that is not the point. This is why last night I came to the conclusion that attempting to write "Scopes" that were just going to be filed away and never see the light of day again should come to a halt. We need to address the real problems Now. Because if we don't others will as is evident on ALL. Yes I know they are chomping at the bit, but don't you realize this is what we, at least we new members said we wanted to do the most and promised we would accomplish? All that we have done is fiddle and Rome is burning. Ron, I truthfully meant what I said about organizing the CC's in NC and get some standing rules in place so that Kelly and Terria have something to back them up with. We can't because we do not have the authority. Now if we had gone ahead and revised a few of the Bylaws, they would have at least had some faith that we meant what we said last year. If we had drawn up a few Guidelines there might have been rules already in place to guide either the SC's or the CC's as it is now, no one has anything and can expect nothing. If I would have gone ahead with the Newsletter......? Tina...Did you have Brochures for GenTech? Tim were you able to cement anything with the Bylaws? Teresa how far along are the Guidelines? This is what is lacking. We are wasting time on IF. Let's Work Let's quit dragging our feet. Forget the busy work that some had planned for us to do, to keep those of us who had planned to work on these projects, from working on our goals and perhaps completing them in time for them to be voted on by the General Membership. I believe if we pass my motion and get busy we will accomplish many of our goals and ideals. Then we won't have to turn away legitimate requests from the Members of the Project. I am ashamed of what I have not been able to do and I am very frustrated with the fact that we are not helping our Project and letting our membership down......again. I for one have had enough how about the rest of you? let's get going... Kathy Life is not a race but a journey to be savored each step of the way. From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18823 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2FRcd006231 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2Aq824182; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:10:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:10:52 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Mon Feb 25 19:10:51 2002 Message-ID: <029c01c1be6a$bec86720$7ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225173843.04727c10@mail.1starnet.com> <018f01c1be68$dd720d40$89f499cd@sasnak.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:10:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1643 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cebc4dd167e1698009ca5707225e89c0 Problem is Kathy, There is no option to this. There is no way to organize anyone. The list we are allowed to post to, not all the CC's are on it because it isn't mandatory, so you are just talking to maybe less than half of them. If you say anything that even smells of organizing to try and do something that will threaten in any way the current hierarchy, you are labeled a trouble maker and the leadership comes after you. At least a statement from the Board is something that at least gives the CC, some shadow of hope that maybe someone cares and is listening. At least the attempt is much better than throwing our hands up and saying we are powerless and so we just admit it and go on. As has been said, if we are the toothless, then maybe we need to disband and let the states run themselves with a webmaster to maintain the national links and admit we have nothing better to do. What difference does it make anyway. If we can't help, then we can only hinder. We can't have it both ways. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA19695 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2RBcd007591 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2Pub07494; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:25:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:25:56 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Feb 25 19:25:56 2002 X-Originating-IP: [64.108.117.88] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:25:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2002 02:25:57.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[ECA2C440:01C1BE6C] Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1645 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 37495d6788c939f1640323b1bc3b433e Boy, I sure feel invisable now. Mary Ann >From: "Jana Black" >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs >SC of NCGenWeb >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 > >Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only Teresa >and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. > >Jana > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20894 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2escd009145 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2eJA30269; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:40:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:40:19 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 19:40:19 2002 Message-ID: <001d01c1be6f$1e2d0a00$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: "Board-Exec" Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:41:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1646 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 091c6eb871ca72473b600c26643a74f0 Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to Rule on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will gladly change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how this can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know I have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the last to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been for me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you fine, I am not your Judge you are. Kathy "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told." Old Cherokee Saying From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20961 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2gicd009481 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2gCW32065; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:42:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:42:12 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 19:42:12 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:34:52 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <02a201c1be6b$3f14f240$7ea028d8@hppav> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1648 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 45a7cfd426958f8f163000625da12a43 Hmmm, thank you for the correction, Ron. This is the second time I have not gotten a copy of something written by Mary Ann - was it to Exec? And, what was Mary Ann's opinion? I have gone thru my mail and have no message.... the rest is up to the NC, then. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:maplecreek_99@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:14 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Mary Ann indicated her choice yesterday and Teresa has sent hers to Holly. It is up to Holly as to whether she will post Teresa's to the list. She does not want to use this list and she has gotten a hard time from others when she posts her feeling privately to everyone, so she sent her choice to Holly and a copy to me. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21217 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2jOcd009749 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2fQT31437; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:41:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:41:26 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 19:41:26 2002 Message-ID: <002301c1be6f$4657efe0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:42:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1647 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 95bb8eb27f505ca2faa6d8d9d58dc240 Consider yourself very fortunate Mary Ann. Bet you borrowed Harry Potter's Cape Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb > Boy, I sure feel invisable now. > > > Mary Ann > > > >From: "Jana Black" > >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs > >SC of NCGenWeb > >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 > > > >Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only Teresa > >and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. > > > >Jana > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21539 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2nxcd010234 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2mNQ04662; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:48:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:48:23 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Mon Feb 25 19:48:23 2002 Message-ID: <030c01c1be6f$fce99ba0$7ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <001d01c1be6f$1e2d0a00$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:47:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1649 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c8a68d36cf1df87bd5856a75dd6193f1 I was not trying to imply that it was up to you Kathy I was just responding. And I think that the section that tells us that : Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or appeals, This section alone allows that we are to handle issues as they arise and that we are to advise and mediate. Advising suggests that we proclaim our position on the matter and make our recommendation as to what we think should be happening in the matter. This alone gives us the right to select #1 and even strongly recommend that it be followed through. That's all, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:41 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22212 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2xHcd011310 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2nGr05522; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:49:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:49:16 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 19:49:15 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:41:54 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002301c1be6f$4657efe0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1650 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a1b6b38725904db834aa68381a4d7d70 Mary Ann, I am sorry - as I said, I never got a copy of a post that was from you and referred to by others a week or so ago regarding infrequent input. I am not sure what is going on but you were under HP's cape in my mailbox - sorry! Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:43 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Consider yourself very fortunate Mary Ann. Bet you borrowed Harry Potter's Cape Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb > Boy, I sure feel invisable now. > > > Mary Ann > > > >From: "Jana Black" > >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs > >SC of NCGenWeb > >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 > > > >Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only Teresa > >and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. > > > >Jana > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22379 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q30Hcd011403 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2xdw13269; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:59:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:59:39 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 19:59:39 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:52:16 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001d01c1be6f$1e2d0a00$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1651 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a1ac398eea61dbdacabd3412b329f81b Hi Kathy, 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for the Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly in the first place. 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use it, give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not follow what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what you think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or advise??? Do You? For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the best long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us want to be in. But I am just one voice. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to Rule on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will gladly change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how this can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know I have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the last to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been for me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you fine, I am not your Judge you are. Kathy "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told." Old Cherokee Saying From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22941 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q37Ycd012372 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q366c06481; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:06:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:06:06 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 20:06:06 2002 Message-ID: <007001c1be72$b89360a0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:07:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1652 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 19bad0b2430241ca2b9665309166d3ae Jana, Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > Hi Kathy, > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for the > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly in > the first place. > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use it, > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not follow > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what you > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > advise??? Do You? > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the best > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to Rule > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will gladly > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how this > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know I > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the last > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been for > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > Kathy > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves > to be told." > Old Cherokee Saying > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24103 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q3K1cd013964 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q3JH424705; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:19:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:19:17 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 20:19:16 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:11:44 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <007001c1be72$b89360a0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1654 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a84facd33d9b86a1f489d4f7bc0bbe4c Yes I did, after Betsy first said she thought we "could recommend" and I agree with her, we *can* recommend/advise and I think we owe it to our constituents to do so.... Infact, I will go a step further to say I agree with Betsy completely... I think we ought to combine ALL 3 statements as one paragraph: The AB recommends that Sharon Williamson, SC of NC will recognize In fact choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The SC has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. However the AB acknowledges that the SC does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the only options currently available to CCs is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The AB has determined after carefully consulting the USGW Project Bylaws that it in fact has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:07 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Jana, Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > Hi Kathy, > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for the > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly in > the first place. > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use it, > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not follow > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what you > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > advise??? Do You? > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the best > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to Rule > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will gladly > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how this > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know I > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the last > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been for > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > Kathy > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves > to be told." > Old Cherokee Saying > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24141 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q3Kbcd014043 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q3B1D12432; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:11:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:11:01 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Mon Feb 25 20:11:01 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:12:41 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly In-Reply-To: <007001c1be72$b89360a0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1653 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 70fa611b1967cf40f140b6f94948bc8b Yes, I chose #3 because it doesn't seem possible to combine all of the answers which is what I really prefer. Betsy At 09:07 PM 2/25/2002, you wrote: >Jana, > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? >Kathy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for >the > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly >in > > the first place. > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use >it, > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not >follow > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what >you > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > advise??? Do You? > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the >best > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to >Rule > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will >gladly > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how >this > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know >I > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the >last > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been >for > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > Kathy > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit >themselves > > to be told." > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24775 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q3SZcd015017 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q3QgR29489; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:26:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:26:42 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 20:26:42 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:19:08 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <_7Vtk.A.qMH.yBwe8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1655 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e5b526c37c79024c362b5da802b386cb Grrr, so much for my spell checker's accuracy: The AB recommends that Sharon Williamson, SC of NC will recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, in fact the SC has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. The AB acknowledges that the SC does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the only options currently available to CCs is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The AB has determined after carefully consulting the USGW Project Bylaws that it in fact has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or advice. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:12 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Yes I did, after Betsy first said she thought we "could recommend" and I agree with her, we *can* recommend/advise and I think we owe it to our constituents to do so.... Infact, I will go a step further to say I agree with Betsy completely... I think we ought to combine ALL 3 statements as one paragraph: The AB recommends that Sharon Williamson, SC of NC will recognize In fact choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The SC has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. However the AB acknowledges that the SC does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the only options currently available to CCs is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The AB has determined after carefully consulting the USGW Project Bylaws that it in fact has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:07 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Jana, Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > Hi Kathy, > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for the > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly in > the first place. > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use it, > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not follow > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what you > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > advise??? Do You? > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the best > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to Rule > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will gladly > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how this > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know I > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the last > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been for > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > Kathy > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves > to be told." > Old Cherokee Saying > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24825 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q3Tdcd015083 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q3Sxk31349; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:28:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:28:59 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 20:28:58 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:21:23 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1656 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 8ff9676545b0f491bca54b7b5f3ac14e Well, I agree with you... read my attempt and see what you think... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:13 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Yes, I chose #3 because it doesn't seem possible to combine all of the answers which is what I really prefer. Betsy At 09:07 PM 2/25/2002, you wrote: >Jana, > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? >Kathy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for >the > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly >in > > the first place. > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use >it, > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not >follow > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what >you > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > advise??? Do You? > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the >best > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to >Rule > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will >gladly > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how >this > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know >I > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the >last > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been >for > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > Kathy > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit >themselves > > to be told." > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA26916 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q3tVcd018035 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q3sTB17567; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:54:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:54:29 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Feb 25 20:54:29 2002 Message-ID: <010b01c1be79$7a96ada0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:55:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1657 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b953bc453e992c1336bd33251aa644d8 Jana, You can recommend, advise, beg, cajole, as much as you would like, it will not change the facts. Sharon is the SC. And until there are changes on the State and National level your hands and mine are tied, like it or not. I would love to tell them, all three women to adjust, adapt, grow-up but it would be like "whistling in the wind" they each have chosen to not listen, reason, or compromise. I have no objection to anyone attempting to ease this situation but it all goes to the fact that we can do nothing but what the SC wants to do. I don't like it but no one has taken the time to change it. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 9:11 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > Yes I did, after Betsy first said she thought we "could recommend" and I > agree with her, we *can* recommend/advise and I think we owe it to our > constituents to do so.... Infact, I will go a step further to say I agree > with Betsy completely... I think we ought to combine ALL 3 statements as one > paragraph: > > The AB recommends that Sharon Williamson, SC of NC will recognize In fact > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The SC has the authority to moderate or unsub > Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done > with any other NCGenWeb CC. However the AB acknowledges that the SC does > have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the > only options currently available to CCs is to accept this or fight it out at > the state level. The AB has determined after carefully consulting the USGW > Project Bylaws that it in fact has no standing whatsoever in the matter > beyond recommendation. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:07 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > Jana, > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? > Kathy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jana Black" > To: > Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for > the > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly > in > > the first place. > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use > it, > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not > follow > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what > you > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > advise??? Do You? > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the > best > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to > Rule > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will > gladly > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how > this > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know > I > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the > last > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been > for > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > Kathy > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit > themselves > > to be told." > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28246 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q47lcd019453 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q47BG20946; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:07:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:07:11 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 21:07:11 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:59:27 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <010b01c1be79$7a96ada0$a8f499cd@sasnak.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1658 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 54a79c76707c34731dadb53b8b797524 Kathy, I am speaking in the most gentle way. I agree with you that we will likely not stimulate change, but it is the job of the AB to at least try... it is not about the final outcome, it is about standing up for what we do think is correct and to "advise" or recommend" it. The CCs need to know that while the AB may think they are correct, our hands are tied by the limits of authority given the AB. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:56 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Jana, You can recommend, advise, beg, cajole, as much as you would like, it will not change the facts. Sharon is the SC. And until there are changes on the State and National level your hands and mine are tied, like it or not. I would love to tell them, all three women to adjust, adapt, grow-up but it would be like "whistling in the wind" they each have chosen to not listen, reason, or compromise. I have no objection to anyone attempting to ease this situation but it all goes to the fact that we can do nothing but what the SC wants to do. I don't like it but no one has taken the time to change it. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 25 February, 2002 9:11 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > Yes I did, after Betsy first said she thought we "could recommend" and I > agree with her, we *can* recommend/advise and I think we owe it to our > constituents to do so.... Infact, I will go a step further to say I agree > with Betsy completely... I think we ought to combine ALL 3 statements as one > paragraph: > > The AB recommends that Sharon Williamson, SC of NC will recognize In fact > choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to > the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The SC has the authority to moderate or unsub > Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done > with any other NCGenWeb CC. However the AB acknowledges that the SC does > have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the > only options currently available to CCs is to accept this or fight it out at > the state level. The AB has determined after carefully consulting the USGW > Project Bylaws that it in fact has no standing whatsoever in the matter > beyond recommendation. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:07 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > Jana, > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? > Kathy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jana Black" > To: > Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for > the > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly > in > > the first place. > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use > it, > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not > follow > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what > you > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > advise??? Do You? > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the > best > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to > Rule > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will > gladly > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how > this > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know > I > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the > last > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been > for > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > Kathy > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit > themselves > > to be told." > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28479 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q4B5cd019843 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q48W122656; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:08:32 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 21:08:32 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:00:50 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1659 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ab3dbde1b1a0a9c17fbcb7e024303a9d Hmm, my corrected version seems not to be posting... I apologize in advance if it comes thru twice. This is version #3 and my last correction.... Jana: The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, the USGW Project Advisory Board reminds Terria and Kelly that, in fact, the North Carolina State Coordinator has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC). The Advisory Board also acknowledges that the State Coordinator does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the only options currently available to County Coordinators is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The Advisory Board has determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in fact, has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or advice. -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:13 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Yes, I chose #3 because it doesn't seem possible to combine all of the answers which is what I really prefer. Betsy At 09:07 PM 2/25/2002, you wrote: >Jana, > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? >Kathy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for >the > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly >in > > the first place. > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use >it, > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, recommend > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not >follow > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what >you > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to go. > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > advise??? Do You? > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the >best > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s 2 > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to >Rule > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will >gladly > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to bend > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how >this > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as a > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you know >I > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the >last > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been >for > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold the > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am a > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > Kathy > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit >themselves > > to be told." > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA28514 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q4BZcd019904 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q4B7f24057; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:11:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:11:07 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Feb 25 21:11:07 2002 X-Originating-IP: [64.108.117.16] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:11:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2002 04:11:09.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E92A4F0:01C1BE7B] Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1660 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b0ad57a803cdca7f1984d607ce309a63 How did you Guess? Mary Ann >From: "Kathy Heidel" >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs >SC of NCGenWeb >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:42:45 -0600 > >Consider yourself very fortunate Mary Ann. Bet you borrowed Harry Potter's >Cape >Kathy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" >To: >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:25 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs >SC >of NCGenWeb > > > > Boy, I sure feel invisable now. > > > > > > Mary Ann > > > > > > >From: "Jana Black" > > >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard >vs > > >SC of NCGenWeb > > >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 > > > > > >Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only >Teresa > > >and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. > > > > > >Jana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29335 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q4IRcd020828 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q4HnG27539; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:17:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:17:49 -0700 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Mon Feb 25 21:17:48 2002 X-Originating-IP: [64.108.117.16] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:17:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2002 04:17:50.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DEC72B0:01C1BE7C] Resent-Message-ID: <8RgHQD.A.MuG.txwe8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1661 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c63aca0d1967a72d91dd87ed4014a74e Ok, I guess I was using his cape. What I chose was #1 but I also stated I don't think we should be under any illusions about Saron following through even if we do ask. But the right thing is to ask her to do so. I also asked why you felt the SC's have so much power? I have always asked my CC's for their input in any decisions that affect the whole state project. I even asked them to approve my choice for ASC. Making sure HP's cape is back where it belongs. Mary Ann >From: "Jana Black" >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs >SC of NCGenWeb >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:41:54 -0800 > >Mary Ann, I am sorry - as I said, I never got a copy of a post that was >from >you and referred to by others a week or so ago regarding infrequent input. >I >am not sure what is going on but you were under HP's cape in my mailbox - >sorry! > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:43 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard >vs SC of NCGenWeb > > >Consider yourself very fortunate Mary Ann. Bet you borrowed Harry Potter's >Cape >Kathy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" >To: >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:25 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs >SC >of NCGenWeb > > > > Boy, I sure feel invisable now. > > > > > > Mary Ann > > > > > > >From: "Jana Black" > > >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard >vs > > >SC of NCGenWeb > > >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 > > > > > >Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only >Teresa > > >and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. > > > > > >Jana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > Mary Ann Hetrick SC for COGenWeb Project NW/Plains SC Rep. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA00215 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q4Vccd022023 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q4UaM05591; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:30:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:30:36 -0700 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Feb 25 21:30:36 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225202444.009ff450@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:30:00 -0800 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1662 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b3aab510fef831e18efb17b6ed6c190e At 08:00 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Hmm, my corrected version seems not to be posting... I apologize in advance >if it comes thru twice. This is version #3 and my last correction.... Jana: > >The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State >Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and >subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the >NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, the USGW Project Advisory Board reminds >Terria and Kelly that, in fact, the North Carolina State Coordinator has the >authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State >Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with >any other NCGenWeb CC). The Advisory Board also acknowledges that the State >Coordinator does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition >of a co-cc and the only options currently available to County Coordinators >is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The Advisory Board has >determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in >fact, has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or >advice. I think it would be horribly irresponsible for us to encourage or suggest the SC and CCs "fight it out at the state level." We should be encouraging these people to "work together." This kind of language was irresponsible and prejudicial and a disservice to the Board members when it was first posted by the NC as one of the options and it still, is no matter what you combine with it. -Isaiah From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA01452 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q4licd023714 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q4hX819931; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:43:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:43:33 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 21:43:32 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:35:51 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225202444.009ff450@imap.cs.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <5dIxzB.A.U3E.1Jxe8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1663 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e7beac6bf0218c12b639613de6dfea80 Hi Isaiah, I see your point. How about changing "fight it out" to "settle it" Jana -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:30 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly At 08:00 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Hmm, my corrected version seems not to be posting... I apologize in advance >if it comes thru twice. This is version #3 and my last correction.... Jana: > >The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State >Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and >subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the >NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, the USGW Project Advisory Board reminds >Terria and Kelly that, in fact, the North Carolina State Coordinator has the >authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State >Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with >any other NCGenWeb CC). The Advisory Board also acknowledges that the State >Coordinator does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition >of a co-cc and the only options currently available to County Coordinators >is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The Advisory Board has >determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in >fact, has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or >advice. I think it would be horribly irresponsible for us to encourage or suggest the SC and CCs "fight it out at the state level." We should be encouraging these people to "work together." This kind of language was irresponsible and prejudicial and a disservice to the Board members when it was first posted by the NC as one of the options and it still, is no matter what you combine with it. -Isaiah From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 06:03:16 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA16334 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q86Pcd012431 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q84s700988; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:04:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:04:54 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Feb 26 01:04:53 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020225190301.013263a0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:03:01 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020224102115.023d7790@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1664 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6283c00e6e4a5cedaeabdffb93f8dd79 At 10:47 AM 2/25/02 -0800, you wrote: >I think #1 is the correct reply and it is my choice. Should Sharon refuse, >the AB can then follow up with #2 and suggest that Terria and Kelly attempt >to work to gain further CC support to create an in-house solution. > >On the other hand, I gather that quite a few members of this assembly >believe that 3# is the actual truth and I think that is very sad for the >USGW Project. > >Jana Why is it sad that members vote their convictions? While I may not agree with how others vote - I do respect their right to vote as they see fit. Perhaps I'm mistaken but didn't one of the tenets posted recently state that we would not berate others for their votes? Tim From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18339 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q29Qcd005493 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q28BR22593; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:08:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:08:11 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Feb 25 19:08:10 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:01:02 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <018f01c1be68$dd720d40$89f499cd@sasnak.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <9wGXmD.A.xgF.K4ue8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1642 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9de9cab92def09b7f7afb995cb63c888 Hi Kathy, If you agree with Betsy, why would we not do what she suggested and *advise* Sharon using choice #1, as the Advisory Board???? Then put the ball in her court and go from there. At least we will have offered our opinion, our advise, as apparently is our real job. Unless I missed a finger or a toe, we are now deadlocked with only Teresa and Mary Ann unheard from.... it is up to the NC. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:57 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Betsy is right, We really had no choice, we can recommend and encourage but we can not force a SC to do anything. This was one of the reasons I felt torn. I know 2 of the people involved and they are good CC's and good people, and I happen to enjoy Kelly's honest, brutal approach to a problem, but that is not the point. This is why last night I came to the conclusion that attempting to write "Scopes" that were just going to be filed away and never see the light of day again should come to a halt. We need to address the real problems Now. Because if we don't others will as is evident on ALL. Yes I know they are chomping at the bit, but don't you realize this is what we, at least we new members said we wanted to do the most and promised we would accomplish? All that we have done is fiddle and Rome is burning. Ron, I truthfully meant what I said about organizing the CC's in NC and get some standing rules in place so that Kelly and Terria have something to back them up with. We can't because we do not have the authority. Now if we had gone ahead and revised a few of the Bylaws, they would have at least had some faith that we meant what we said last year. If we had drawn up a few Guidelines there might have been rules already in place to guide either the SC's or the CC's as it is now, no one has anything and can expect nothing. If I would have gone ahead with the Newsletter......? Tina...Did you have Brochures for GenTech? Tim were you able to cement anything with the Bylaws? Teresa how far along are the Guidelines? This is what is lacking. We are wasting time on IF. Let's Work Let's quit dragging our feet. Forget the busy work that some had planned for us to do, to keep those of us who had planned to work on these projects, from working on our goals and perhaps completing them in time for them to be voted on by the General Membership. I believe if we pass my motion and get busy we will accomplish many of our goals and ideals. Then we won't have to turn away legitimate requests from the Members of the Project. I am ashamed of what I have not been able to do and I am very frustrated with the fact that we are not helping our Project and letting our membership down......again. I for one have had enough how about the rest of you? let's get going... Kathy Life is not a race but a journey to be savored each step of the way. From ???@??? Mon Feb 25 22:06:11 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA18792 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:15:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1Q2F4cd006181 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:15:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1Q2ERp26659; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:14:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:14:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Mon Feb 25 19:14:27 2002 Message-ID: <02a201c1be6b$3f14f240$7ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:13:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1644 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a518cea55b51c038fbd1aa3bc35225fa Mary Ann indicated her choice yesterday and Teresa has sent hers to Holly. It is up to Holly as to whether she will post Teresa's to the list. She does not want to use this list and she has gotten a hard time from others when she posts her feeling privately to everyone, so she sent her choice to Holly and a copy to me. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA29076 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QBVXcd000375 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QBSKM01527; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:28:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:28:20 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Feb 26 04:28:19 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020226061707.02fd4a90@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:30:59 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1666 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 7236f3abbd890a0247165d86470090fa I see no reason whatsoever to get so complicated. There is no reason why this board can not simply respond with it's recommendation as directed to do so by the bylaws. We need say nothing more than the first sentence "The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria Baynor's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly Blizzard to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the voluntary NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list if Ms. Blizzard chooses to be on it." Ms. Williamson is of course free to ignore the Advisory Board's recommendation and there is no need to state the obvious which actually smacks of taking back our recommendation. At 08:00 PM 2/25/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >Hmm, my corrected version seems not to be posting... I apologize in advance >if it comes thru twice. This is version #3 and my last correction.... Jana: > >The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State >Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and >subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the >NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, the USGW Project Advisory Board reminds >Terria and Kelly that, in fact, the North Carolina State Coordinator has the >authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State >Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with >any other NCGenWeb CC). The Advisory Board also acknowledges that the State >Coordinator does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition >of a co-cc and the only options currently available to County Coordinators >is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The Advisory Board has >determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in >fact, has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or >advice. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:13 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > >Yes, I chose #3 because it doesn't seem possible to combine all of the >answers which is what I really prefer. > >Betsy > > >At 09:07 PM 2/25/2002, you wrote: > >Jana, > > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? > >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jana Black" > >To: > >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for > >the > > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly > >in > > > the first place. > > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use > >it, > > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, >recommend > > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not > >follow > > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what > >you > > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to >go. > > > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > > advise??? Do You? > > > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the > >best > > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s >2 > > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > > > Jana > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to > >Rule > > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will > >gladly > > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to >bend > > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how > >this > > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as >a > > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you >know > >I > > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the > >last > > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been > >for > > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold >the > > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am >a > > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > > Kathy > > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit > >themselves > > > to be told." > > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA29832 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:45:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QBjWcd001721 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:45:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QBDRu26514; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:13:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:13:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Feb 26 04:13:15 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020226061321.033f75d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:15:55 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020225202444.009ff450@imap.cs.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020225211200.03ba2b50@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <1z9ImD.A.DaG.S32e8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1665 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3aa8ced2f3a478eb16def0c9422fee30 At 08:30 PM 2/25/02 -0800, Richard Harrison wrote: >I think it would be horribly irresponsible for us to encourage or suggest >the SC and CCs "fight it out at the state level." We should be >encouraging these people to "work together." > >This kind of language was irresponsible and prejudicial and a disservice >to the Board members when it was first posted by the NC as one of the >options and it still, is no matter what you combine with it. You are mistaken if you believe I felt the specific words I chose to explain the different options to you all here on this list were the precise words to be used in our actual repsonse. In fact, I specifically said "None of the above are intended as the final wording" From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA01248 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QC9Scd003859 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QC97J19200; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:09:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:09:07 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Feb 26 05:09:06 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020226071137.00d25750@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:11:47 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Fwd: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of NCGenWeb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1668 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 56a8b41c31592d9dd2414a965d720d1d >Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:45:49 -0500 >From: merope >Subject: Fwd: [Board-Exec] Grievance - Terria Baynor/Kelly Blizzard vs SC of > NCGenWeb >X-Sender: merope@radix.net >To: Holly Timm >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >X-postini-filters: (S:0.7937800 ) > > > > >>1) Recommend to the SC, Sharon Williamson, that she recognize Terria's >>choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and >>to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list with the suggestion that she can moderate >>or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as >>might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05173 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QHfQcd017734 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QHexj27118; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:40:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:40:59 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Feb 26 10:40:58 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:32:11 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020225190301.013263a0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1669 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f13e4acfa6808f28a4339d2dc9ca53b6 Tim, You misunderstood my meaning, and I am glad you are giving me the chance to clarify. I am not referring to how anyone voted, I am referring to the *situation* as sad. I think it is quite sad that "the AB has determined it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation." I do not think this *situation* is in the best long term interests of the USGW Project. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:03 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote At 10:47 AM 2/25/02 -0800, you wrote: >I think #1 is the correct reply and it is my choice. Should Sharon refuse, >the AB can then follow up with #2 and suggest that Terria and Kelly attempt >to work to gain further CC support to create an in-house solution. > >On the other hand, I gather that quite a few members of this assembly >believe that 3# is the actual truth and I think that is very sad for the >USGW Project. > >Jana Why is it sad that members vote their convictions? While I may not agree with how others vote - I do respect their right to vote as they see fit. Perhaps I'm mistaken but didn't one of the tenets posted recently state that we would not berate others for their votes? Tim From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14185 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QIuBcd027904 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QIqlW01100; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:52:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:52:47 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Feb 26 11:52:46 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:43:35 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020226061707.02fd4a90@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1670 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9ec8f955d451ed269a21f3368237933f Yes, Holly, that is exactly what I said in the first place - send out option #1. However, I am a team player and when others commented, I tried to come up with a compromise - shrug. And, I disagree with you, to combine the statements, is not "taking back our recommendation," it is clarifying and informing our constituents of the true status of AB authority. It may be obvious to you, however, based upon the CC comments recently, it is certainly not obvious. In fact, the wording of Terria's grievance tells me they are expecting the AB to demonstrate clout that we do not in fact have. The AB, IMHO, needs to respond, and by combining all three statements, we are recommending and advising as well. But, it is at the last, up to you. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:31 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly I see no reason whatsoever to get so complicated. There is no reason why this board can not simply respond with it's recommendation as directed to do so by the bylaws. We need say nothing more than the first sentence "The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria Baynor's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly Blizzard to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the voluntary NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list if Ms. Blizzard chooses to be on it." Ms. Williamson is of course free to ignore the Advisory Board's recommendation and there is no need to state the obvious which actually smacks of taking back our recommendation. At 08:00 PM 2/25/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >Hmm, my corrected version seems not to be posting... I apologize in advance >if it comes thru twice. This is version #3 and my last correction.... Jana: > >The USGW Project Advisory Board recommends that Sharon Williamson, State >Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and >subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the >NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. However, the USGW Project Advisory Board reminds >Terria and Kelly that, in fact, the North Carolina State Coordinator has the >authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State >Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with >any other NCGenWeb CC). The Advisory Board also acknowledges that the State >Coordinator does have the power to do as she chooses regarding recognition >of a co-cc and the only options currently available to County Coordinators >is to accept this or fight it out at the state level. The Advisory Board has >determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in >fact, has no standing whatsoever in the matter beyond recommendation or >advice. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:13 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > >Yes, I chose #3 because it doesn't seem possible to combine all of the >answers which is what I really prefer. > >Betsy > > >At 09:07 PM 2/25/2002, you wrote: > >Jana, > > Did you not see the number 3 on Betsy's response? > >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jana Black" > >To: > >Sent: 25 February, 2002 8:52 PM > >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > > Hi Kathy, > > > > > > 1) I did not say *rule,* I said *advise* (as in Advisory Board). As for > >the > > > Bylaws, we can just use the Section of the Bylaws quoted by Terria/Kelly > >in > > > the first place. > > > 2) I never said to follow Sturgis the letter, I just want to try to use > >it, > > > give it a chance and adapt it where it does not work. > > > 3) I am not trying to get you to bend, you said you agree with Betsy and > > > Betsy said she thought we could "recommend" ... I used the word "advise" > > > after someone pointed out we are only an Advisory Board. To me, >recommend > > > and advise are one and the same. I merely questioned why you did not > >follow > > > what Betsy said, since you agree with her.... obviously you will do what > >you > > > think is right and you certainly have my respect any way you choose to >go. > > > > > > Question: I do not see the Bylaws not allowing the AB to recommend or > > > advise??? Do You? > > > > > > For me it has nothing to do with friends, it has to do with what is the > >best > > > long term proposition for the Project as a whole. Sharon may tell us to > > > forget it, and she is apparently well within her rights to do so. But, I > > > would at least have the AB publicly state its opinion first so our > > > constituents know our opinion. If Sharon refuses, then we can combine #s >2 > > > and 3 and state them. We will have shown we tried. > > > > > > I think that to come out just with #3 will create a situation none of us > > > want to be in. But I am just one voice. > > > > > > Jana > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:42 PM > > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Terria and Kelly > > > > > > > > > Jana and Ron, Where in the Bylaws do you find a sentence allowing us to > >Rule > > > on this Request? If you find it and it "squares" with Sturgis I will > >gladly > > > change my recommendation. I have been able to locate any such statement. > > > Jana, you want us to follow Sturgis to the letter, but you want me to >bend > > > to suit your interpretation of what is "Right". I do not understand how > >this > > > can be done and still follow the Bylaws and Sturgis. It is not that, as >a > > > person I would not like to do what my heart says is right, but as you >know > >I > > > have to follow "Rules" also. And Ron Why is this up to me? I am not the > >last > > > to vote nor did I hide my reasons. You know how difficult this has been > >for > > > me, and I hate letting friends down, but ultimately if I do not uphold >the > > > Bylaws as we know them this will come back and bite me. Either way I am >a > > > loser and as such about to toss it all. If you can make it right for you > > > fine, I am not your Judge you are. > > > Kathy > > > "The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit > >themselves > > > to be told." > > > Old Cherokee Saying > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21547 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QJuScd006552 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QJtMu22923; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:55:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:55:22 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Feb 26 12:55:22 2002 Message-ID: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:53:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1671 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ffcc41160c9987d64e3da6f89736b3d3 Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of opinions in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear cut 2/3 majority........ where do we go from here? Phyllis From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24524 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QKK2cd009907 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QKJEV28036; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:19:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:19:14 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Feb 26 13:19:14 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:09:47 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1672 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 977323d30fc5e1cb7368e1a115bd3ac5 Hi Phyllis, This is another reason I tried to create a compromise statement as both Betsy and Kathy indicated they would prefer not to choose #3 with an acceptable alternative.....shrug... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:53 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of opinions in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear cut 2/3 majority........ where do we go from here? Phyllis From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26650 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QKZ7cd012213 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QKYW912575; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:34:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:34:32 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Feb 26 13:34:31 2002 Message-ID: <00e101c1bf05$2e07f660$95f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:35:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1673 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 60d53c65e9b31f6f3ccec8c45f068fa7 Well Jana, All jokes aside this series of questions was in my opinion another example of Exercises we were expected to go through. As was planned way back in Aug, according to a few of the AB, that we, meaning the new AB members would be given busy work to keep us occupied. If you will all recall Teresa's "As You Wish" article in her DBS it was stated so and of course she would know as she was there in that Chat Room. Well it worked and worked so well that Jeffery has taken over the Bylaws and I would guess that from rumbles I have heard others are working in other areas such as State Guidelines and etc. Maybe a few played the wrong hand? Oh Well. Now What? Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: 26 February, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > Hi Phyllis, > > This is another reason I tried to create a compromise statement as both > Betsy and Kathy indicated they would prefer not to choose #3 with an > acceptable alternative.....shrug... Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:53 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting > members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of opinions > in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state > "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear > cut 2/3 majority........ > > where do we go from here? > > Phyllis > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 18:10:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA02204 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1QLHScd018600 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QLGV423818; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:16:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:16:31 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Feb 26 14:16:30 2002 Message-ID: <012e01c1bf0b$0b574a20$95f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <00e101c1bf05$2e07f660$95f499cd@sasnak.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:17:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1674 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f9b48801fe9515a5a8e02b2c7473a220 Sorry Teresa, This was not on your DBS you posted it to each of us Sent: 22 October, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: As you wish Almost but not quite the same, Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: 26 February, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance > Well Jana, > All jokes aside this series of questions was in my opinion another > example of Exercises we were expected to go through. As was planned way back > in Aug, according to a few of the AB, that we, meaning the new AB members > would be given busy work to keep us occupied. If you will all recall > Teresa's "As You Wish" article in her DBS it was stated so and of course she > would know as she was there in that Chat Room. Well it worked and worked so > well that Jeffery has taken over the Bylaws and I would guess that from > rumbles I have heard others are working in other areas such as State > Guidelines and etc. Maybe a few played the wrong hand? Oh Well. Now What? > Kathy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jana Black" > To: > Sent: 26 February, 2002 2:09 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > Hi Phyllis, > > > > This is another reason I tried to create a compromise statement as both > > Betsy and Kathy indicated they would prefer not to choose #3 with an > > acceptable alternative.....shrug... Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:53 AM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > > > Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting > > members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of > opinions > > in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state > > "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear > > cut 2/3 majority........ > > > > where do we go from here? > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Feb 26 19:17:36 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20714 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1R04Gcd011830 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1QNxbS24381; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:59:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:59:37 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Tue Feb 26 16:59:36 2002 Message-ID: <020501c1bf21$93b938e0$97a128d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:59:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1675 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 846fc45345c4f93cc861b0ae43035484 Well, I would presume then, since there is no clear cut 2/3, if that is what we are held to, then the Chair will have to do as with the Committees and use her best judgment and handle the response herself without regard to this Board. Since she is responsible for the "day-to-day" operation of the "entire" Project and without a functional AB, which does obviously lack the ability to direct anyone to do anything, that she has full authority to act on her own in response to the situation that was before us. Of course she would be free to take the advise given to her of the AB, since we can only advise anyway, and then formulate a response on behalf of the PROJECT. It would be our decision individually as to whether we chose to support her decision, however since we can only advise, then our support is really moot. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting > members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of opinions > in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state > "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear > cut 2/3 majority........ > > where do we go from here? > > Phyllis > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Wed Feb 27 06:22:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18199 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1R5MKcd019683 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1R5Hm721086; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:17:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:17:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Feb 26 22:17:47 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020226190014.008de100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:00:14 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20020225190301.013263a0@mail.chattanooga.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1676 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9ec6923a60115fcf6fd1e9f2f7bc581b At 09:32 AM 2/26/02 -0800, you wrote: >Tim, > >You misunderstood my meaning, and I am glad you are giving me the chance to >clarify. I am not referring to how anyone voted, I am referring to the >*situation* as sad. I think it is quite sad that "the AB has determined it >has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation." I do >not think this *situation* is in the best long term interests of the USGW >Project. > >Jana What's really sad is that a couple of folks 'claimed' to have an issue with a State Coordinator; 'claimed' they were unjustly treated and then went out to every list available to trash the State Coordinator. Somehow I don't see that these two 'ladies' were victims but rather folks trying to rile things up in an area where they as a tiny minority weren't getting their way so they figure they must ruin the experience of the other 98% of the coordinators who don't have a problem with the current administration. These 'ladies' and others of like ilk - are they really the best for the long term interests of the Project? Tim From ???@??? Wed Feb 27 06:22:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA19181 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1R5ZNcd020993 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1R5YcI29818; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:34:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:34:38 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Feb 26 22:34:38 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:22:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020226190014.008de100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1677 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 45ccb2d596f37f95d94e7550d7c33b0e Hmmm, sounds like you have a lot more information than some of us. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:00 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance - vote At 09:32 AM 2/26/02 -0800, you wrote: >Tim, > >You misunderstood my meaning, and I am glad you are giving me the chance to >clarify. I am not referring to how anyone voted, I am referring to the >*situation* as sad. I think it is quite sad that "the AB has determined it >has no standing whatsoever in the matter and makes no recommendation." I do >not think this *situation* is in the best long term interests of the USGW >Project. > >Jana What's really sad is that a couple of folks 'claimed' to have an issue with a State Coordinator; 'claimed' they were unjustly treated and then went out to every list available to trash the State Coordinator. Somehow I don't see that these two 'ladies' were victims but rather folks trying to rile things up in an area where they as a tiny minority weren't getting their way so they figure they must ruin the experience of the other 98% of the coordinators who don't have a problem with the current administration. These 'ladies' and others of like ilk - are they really the best for the long term interests of the Project? Tim From ???@??? Wed Feb 27 18:07:27 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15878 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1RGH8cd028821 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1RGDLi17517; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:13:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:13:21 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Feb 27 09:13:21 2002 Message-ID: <005601c1bfa9$5d11a420$c4967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: References: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> <020501c1bf21$93b938e0$97a128d8@hppav> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:11:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1678 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 7de528bd3f37f1ba4d8f580bddc02185 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 14 Actually, Ron, for Holly to act in the way you suggest would be in direct violation of the bylaws. Since you constantly preach that you want things "done right", why would you encourage the NC to act contrary to the rules? The bylaws state that it takes a 2/3 majority to rule on any issue and it also makes a reference to "grievance issues". So, the writers of the bylaws seem to see grieveances as issues. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Eason To: Sent: 26 February, 2002 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance > Well, > > I would presume then, since there is no clear > cut 2/3, if that is what we are held to, then the > Chair will have to do as with the Committees > and use her best judgment and handle the response > herself without regard to this Board. > > Since she is responsible for the "day-to-day" > operation of the "entire" Project and without > a functional AB, which does obviously lack the ability > to direct anyone to do anything, that she has > full authority to act on her own in response to > the situation that was before us. > > Of course she would be free to take the advise > given to her of the AB, since we can only advise > anyway, and then formulate a response on behalf > of the PROJECT. > > It would be our decision individually as to whether > we chose to support her decision, however since > we can only advise, then our support is really moot. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phyllis Rippee" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:53 PM > Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > Since the bylaws state that issues require a 2/3 majority of the voting > > members (with 9 constituting a quorum) and since the expressions of > opinions > > in regard to what to do about the grievance issue (which the bylaws state > > "grievance issues") amounted to 8 for #1 and 6 for #3....which is no clear > > cut 2/3 majority........ > > > > where do we go from here? > > > > Phyllis > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > From ???@??? Wed Feb 27 18:07:27 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00923 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1RMaFcd023274 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1RMZUx32742; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:35:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:35:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Wed Feb 27 15:35:29 2002 Message-ID: <00e601c1bfde$fbcc4e00$10a128d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> <020501c1bf21$93b938e0$97a128d8@hppav> <005601c1bfa9$5d11a420$c4967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:34:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1679 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6798898bea52b01c389663dfa0182361 Phyllis, Yes, that is what the Bylaws say. And I would never encourage her to do anything that was contrary to right. Saying she will or could, is no where near your interpretation of me "encouraging" her to do anything. My point is, there was no 2/3 majority which in my view takes the matter out of the hands of the AB. The AB was unable to solve or resolve the issue. Therefore, they have tried and failed. The fact that an issue is still a problem for two ladies in North Carolina does not go away. And has been done by others, including our most recent NC, Holly can take the bull by the horns and interpret the Bylaws as saying she needs to issue a ruling so as to protect the very basics of what we are suppose to be about, which is trying to be fair to all and ensure that all are treated fairly. Many of you thought the SC needed to be protected thereby preserving her reign of power. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Others felt that the AB has no ability to issue a statement asking the SC to do anything. Although that idea is incorrect, those who believe it are entitled to their opinion. Possibly a few approached the whole thing as an SC and would have voted against it anyway, I don't know, but that is fine, they are entitled to their opinion. None of it makes one person right over another. But, there is a more right choice. Just as in multiple choice tests, there are often instructions that say, "choose the answer that is more right". Not that the others are wrong, they may be right too. But there will always be a *more* right answer. In this case, it would be to ask that if there has been a certain criteria, then it should be one that is applied to all persons equally. No one else in North Carolina has had to go through the process of being voted on to be allowed to participate as a Co-CC. This is provable! Therefore, without newer guidelines, such as is now being introduced in Georgia, we should be asking the State Coordinator to act in a fair and equitable way by using the same criteria that has been used in the past. It is not being used now, because it is the hope of the SC, that the CC's will side with her and vote against the Co-CC. This is biased and should not be. The SC claims that this has nothing to do with whether or not she likes the Co-CC, but is merely to allow all the CC's the chance to voice their opinion. However that is not the criteria that has been used in all cases prior to this which makes it prejudicial. So, it is obvious that the Board will not be able to handle this matter. Does that make the matter any less viable? I don't think so. So what happens now? If the AB cannot handle the matter because they cannot agree what is right, then what do you propose? That we just say we couldn't agree and we're sorry but the AB doesn't have any authority anyway, even if we did agree and so your grievance is moot? My opinion is that, if the AB cannot agree to "handle the issue" then Holly would need to use her own inherent authority of "Taking care of day to day business" and issue her own statement in the matter. Since we cannot come to any agreement nor can we issue a statement without one, it will have to fall to the only one that can. Since past NC's, including Tim have created precedence for Holly's now inherent authority, I don't see any other way it will get handled. We should all be thankful, that since we are incapable, we still have someone that is. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Thu Feb 28 06:00:31 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04218 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1S3Pdcd000055 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1S3OvT19669; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:24:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:24:57 -0700 X-Original-Sender: TVick65536@aol.com Wed Feb 27 20:24:56 2002 From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <15e.985ec94.29aefd07@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:24:55 EST Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Board Secretary Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: <5rqpkC.A.OzE.IMaf8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1683 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1d9c305a60fcc75c3967de26df7f559d Mine as well, excellent choice Holly. Tina Vickery In a message dated 2/27/2002 10:21:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, maplecreek_99@yahoo.com writes: > Holly, > > You have my acceptance of your choice > for Board Secretary. > > Ron Eason > > > From ???@??? Thu Feb 28 06:00:31 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04534 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:29:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1S3TTcd000385 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:29:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1S3SR723280; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:28:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:28:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Feb 27 20:28:27 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020227222857.02907340@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:31:15 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1684 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f6f90643a9f95888cc1fbc71e1a3dc27 I am not ignoring the results on the grievance but am considering what to do next. I will post on it tomorrow evening if not sooner. From ???@??? Thu Feb 28 06:00:39 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA24094 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1S7b7cd025725 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1S7aRp10679; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:36:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:36:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Feb 28 00:36:26 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020227234358.0091eb30@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:43:58 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <00e601c1bfde$fbcc4e00$10a128d8@hppav> References: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> <020501c1bf21$93b938e0$97a128d8@hppav> <005601c1bfa9$5d11a420$c4967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1692 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b4c14f00e2f55b2f7476104968382d91 At 05:34 PM 2/27/02 -0500, Ron wrote: >My point is, there was no 2/3 majority >which in my view takes the matter out of the >hands of the AB. The AB was unable to >solve or resolve the issue. Therefore, they >have tried and failed. How do you call it failure when the AB has spoken - that we are divided as to the best course of action or lack thereof? Therefore, if we are divided - then there must not be convincing evidence one way or the other for either the grievance makers or the SC. >The fact that an issue is still a problem for two ladies >in North Carolina does not go away. And has been >done by others, including our most recent NC, Holly >can take the bull by the horns and interpret the Bylaws >as saying she needs to issue a ruling so as to protect >the very basics of what we are suppose to be about, >which is trying to be fair to all and ensure that all are >treated fairly. If the NC chooses to speak to this matter - then the NC will need to say that it is the ruling of the NC only - for it would not be the ruling of the AB. >Many of you thought the SC needed to be protected >thereby preserving her reign of power. That's your >opinion and you are entitled to it. Others felt that the >AB has no ability to issue a statement asking the SC >to do anything. Although that idea is incorrect, those >who believe it are entitled to their opinion. Possibly a >few approached the whole thing as an SC and would >have voted against it anyway, I don't know, but that is >fine, they are entitled to their opinion. None of it makes >one person right over another. Sorry I don't see the SC as having a reign of power. I doubt SCs see themselves in that light nor does much of anyone else. When you say 'Others felt that the AB has no ability to issue a statement asking the SC to do anything.' and that they are entitled to their opinion - you tell them/us they are incorrect? Did you ever stop to think they might feel the same about your persuasion? Then you seem to flip to the other side by saying 'None of it makes one person right over another'. Just what are you saying? >But, there is a more right choice. Just as in multiple >choice tests, there are often instructions that say, "choose >the answer that is more right". Not that the others are >wrong, they may be right too. But there will always be >a *more* right answer. In this case, it would be to >ask that if there has been a certain criteria, then it should >be one that is applied to all persons equally. No one >else in North Carolina has had to go through the process >of being voted on to be allowed to participate as a Co-CC. >This is provable! Therefore, without newer guidelines, >such as is now being introduced in Georgia, we should >be asking the State Coordinator to act in a fair and equitable >way by using the same criteria that has been used in the >past. It is not being used now, because it is the hope of the >SC, that the CC's will side with her and vote against the >Co-CC. This is biased and should not be. The SC >claims that this has nothing to do with whether or not she >likes the Co-CC, but is merely to allow all the CC's the >chance to voice their opinion. However that is not the >criteria that has been used in all cases prior to this which >makes it prejudicial. > >So, it is obvious that the Board will not be able to handle >this matter. Does that make the matter any less viable? >I don't think so. So what happens now? If the AB cannot >handle the matter because they cannot agree what is right, >then what do you propose? That we just say we couldn't >agree and we're sorry but the AB doesn't have any authority >anyway, even if we did agree and so your grievance is moot? I'd propose that we tell the parties involved that we cannot come up with an agreed upon solution and that the matter revert back to the State. However, I would also state further that since the SC has offered to hold the poll of the NC CCs regarding this matter that the representatives of this Board that are there will be monitoring the situation to make sure that said promise is kept and will report back to this assembly the status of such and/or if it doesn't happen in a timely manner that we will review our positions here. Is that satisfactory for a start - a bridge to comprimise? >My opinion is that, if the AB cannot agree to "handle the >issue" then Holly would need to use her own inherent authority >of "Taking care of day to day business" and issue her own >statement in the matter. Since we cannot come to any agreement >nor can we issue a statement without one, it will have to >fall to the only one that can. > >Since past NC's, including Tim have created precedence for >Holly's now inherent authority, I don't see any other way it >will get handled. We should all be thankful, that since we are >incapable, we still have someone that is. >Ron Tim From ???@??? Thu Feb 28 18:12:38 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA15734 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1SMuncd018626 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g1SMuFa25211; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:56:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:56:15 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Thu Feb 28 15:56:15 2002 Message-ID: <010401c1c0aa$f7ca7b20$0ca128d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <000701c1beff$39846380$18967a3f@wchs> <020501c1bf21$93b938e0$97a128d8@hppav> <005601c1bfa9$5d11a420$c4967a3f@wchs> <3.0.5.32.20020227234358.0091eb30@mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:55:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1697 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 176ebff536015aadc9801c85649d692c > How do you call it failure when the AB has spoken - that we are divided as > to the best course of action or lack thereof? Therefore, if we are divided > - then there must not be convincing evidence one way or the other for > either the grievance makers or the SC. > Because we are dividided does not necessarily have anything to do with evidence. The task as was given to us, (in my opinion), was to decide whether the CC was being treated fairly, imparitally and in the same manner as all that have gone before. She is not. That evidence was admitted. > > If the NC chooses to speak to this matter - then the NC will need to say > that it is the ruling of the NC only - for it would not be the ruling of > the AB. > And if that is what she has to do, it is better than what has come from this board. To be afraid of saying something because someone might quit is not a good reason for not doing what is right. > > Sorry I don't see the SC as having a reign of power. I doubt SCs see > themselves in that light nor does much of anyone else. When you say > 'Others felt that the AB has no ability to issue a statement asking the SC > to do anything.' and that they are entitled to their opinion - you tell > them/us they are incorrect? Did you ever stop to think they might feel > the same about your persuasion? Then you seem to flip to the other side by > saying 'None of it makes one person right over another'. Just what are you > saying? > No Tim, it is not saying they are incorrect. Whatever reason you or anyone else has for not admitting that she is being treated diffently, when that fact has been presented, is not understandable to me, but you have the right to choose whatever you want to, right or wrong, it is not up to me to decide which you are. All I know is that you have your opinion and I have mine, as do others here. If I were to say you are wrong, you will say you are right; if I say I am right, you will say I am wrong! I give up worrying about it. So you can decide who is right or wrong. As for me, I will leave it to say, you have your opinion and I have mine. > > I'd propose that we tell the parties involved that we cannot come up with > an agreed upon solution and that the matter revert back to the State. > However, I would also state further that since the SC has offered to hold > the poll of the NC CCs regarding this matter that the representatives of > this Board that are there will be monitoring the situation to make sure > that said promise is kept and will report back to this assembly the status > of such and/or if it doesn't happen in a timely manner that we will review > our positions here. > > Is that satisfactory for a start - a bridge to comprimise? > It would be if this was something that had not already been used as a tool to try and keep her out in the first place. You choose to forget that a couple of us have been in that state and we know what has and has not been done before, (in regards to allowing new co-CC's) This method has not been one of them. I KNOW, I went through it. Therefore it is not a fair method of judgment. The same method that is and has been used in the past should be the method that is used in this case. It is not! Thinking it is a compromise is nothing more than saying you just want to allow the SC to do whatever they want, even if it is unfair to the CC. In my opinion, to judge someone for a position based on your personal feelings about that person, as the only measure, is wrong. To use measures to try and keep them out of the position, that have not been used on anyone else, is wrong. To refuse to allow all people the same level of rights and consideration is wrong. If the SC had since created a new set of guidelines covering this issue and it clearly stated that the SC would use such and such as a means to decide on new CC's and co-CC's as follows. 1. I will check the history of each person within the Project 2. I will talk to all current and past SC's 3. I will look at any current county pages 4. I may or may not conduct a poll of the current CC's in NC. Then I would not have a problem saying to anyone. That the guidelines are posted and they are within their rights to follow them. However there is no state guideline, on precedence. We have been told by the SC that she has prejudged the situation and that she will only do such and such, which is something she has never held anyone else to before now. Now you may wish to see that as fair. I do not. Obviously there are a few others that also do not. And as everything goes in life, we all live with our decisions. I hope that helps you understand a little better. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Thu Feb 28 19:35:57 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24992 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g210Nlcd000175 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g210Lvr13658; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:21:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:21:57 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Thu Feb 28 17:21:56 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020228184527.00c4d100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:24:39 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1698 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b3cf6a1fd83b0dcb7c47e381ac2c375c With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make no recommendation. I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 00:04:26 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12453 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g241mnAp018049 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g241iF322012; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:44:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:44:15 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Mar 3 18:44:15 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 20:00:27 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1699 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 28d61fc0790d9c8054454af2f133c870 May I please have comments on this? Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make no recommendation. I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 00:04:26 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14759 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g242LLAp021167 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:21:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g242Gsf29735; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:16:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:16:54 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Sun Mar 3 19:16:53 2002 Message-ID: <01db01c1c322$88b2ad00$83a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:15:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1700 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 32e1d0bb39be552935a726d11bffffae Holly, I have no problem with your proposal and your verbiage. Thanks, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:00 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > May I please have comments on this? Thank you. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do > nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for > the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* > decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the > results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 > board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 > felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make > no recommendation. > > I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board > decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes > Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on > which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. > > Holly > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 00:04:26 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21092 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g243kXAp029185 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g243g4527536; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:42:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:42:04 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Mar 3 20:42:03 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:02:46 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1701 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 339bfd9f4234d0233255ebcd0ea5a0e6 If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely honest. Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be constructive, I could live with the following: "8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot to do so." I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on this. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance May I please have comments on this? Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make no recommendation. I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 00:04:26 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23790 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g244MAAp002463 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g244Hj801215; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:17:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:17:45 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Sun Mar 3 21:17:44 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:18:56 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1702 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4fac49e4ab56c9bc0d4b3c1298a9a98f Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but it wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to combine all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't agree on anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree whether I voted that way or not. Betsy At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy >said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB >has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely >honest. > >Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be >constructive, I could live with the following: > >"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC >should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter >and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to >find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot >to do so." > >I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally >and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you >write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for >all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on >this. > >Jana > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > >May I please have comments on this? Thank you. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--------- >With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do >nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for >the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* >decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the >results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 >board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 >felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make >no recommendation. > >I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board >decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes >Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on >which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. > >Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 07:13:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA26997 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2451pAp006042 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g244vIE12849; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:57:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:57:18 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Mar 3 21:57:17 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:15:10 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1703 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5e4c4d10d556b278cd71b582f85a7829 Betsy, So how would you word it to include your thoughts??? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:19 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but it wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to combine all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't agree on anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree whether I voted that way or not. Betsy At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy >said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB >has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely >honest. > >Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be >constructive, I could live with the following: > >"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC >should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter >and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to >find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot >to do so." > >I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally >and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you >write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for >all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on >this. > >Jana > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > >May I please have comments on this? Thank you. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >--------- >With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do >nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for >the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* >decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the >results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 >board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 >felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make >no recommendation. > >I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board >decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes >Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on >which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. > >Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 18:20:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA00353 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24MudAp001519 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24Mpnp21372; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:51:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:51:49 -0700 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Mar 4 15:51:49 2002 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:51:38 -0500 From: isaiahharrison@cs.com Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Message-ID: <1BB75267.37D209C5.C6F73CC1@cs.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1707 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a35194960f63032de24e388e57e4728d "Phyllis Rippee" wrote: >I agree with Betsy. We were given three choices. Those choices have been >made. There was no clear-cut decision and the parties involved should ONLY >be told that the grievance issue failed. > >That should be what is done "officially" by the NC. > >Whatever other statement the NC decides to make on the issue to any of the >three parties involved, should not have any AB sanctioning appearance >indicated. Therefore, whatever the NC has to say as a possible solution, >should be contained in a separate email and should be preferenced with "In >my opinion...." > >Phyllis > In general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis. -Isaiah From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 18:20:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01804 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24N6VAp003036 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24N1rm09146; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:01:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:01:53 -0700 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Mar 4 16:01:53 2002 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:01:45 -0500 From: isaiahharrison@cs.com Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Message-ID: <659280A0.0FAE6141.C6F73CC1@cs.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1708 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5c797ffcd654009bd76a1456a09fdf36 "Phyllis Rippee" wrote: >Holly, > >You can word things any way you wish as long as the parties involved know >that it came from YOU. > >I most certainly do not back your tacking a statement on suggesting that >Sharon take an action that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB >members as required in the USGW P Bylaws. > >Phyllis > > I agree. -Isaiah From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03326 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:20:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24NKMAp004764 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24NFlH15047; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:15:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:15:47 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Mon Mar 4 16:15:46 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:16:55 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1709 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b286522c6e78de4604f5aaea2c9fdc84 Strange, I thought I had done that already: Betsy said on 2/26/02: I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. You want it formalized? Okay, try this: The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the County Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-CC. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving conflicts at the state level. Betsy At 10:18 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a >little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do >anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. > >I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but >it wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to >combine all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't >agree on anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree >whether I voted that way or not. > >Betsy > >At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >>If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy >>said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB >>has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely >>honest. >> >>Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be >>constructive, I could live with the following: >> >>"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC >>should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter >>and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to >>find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot >>to do so." >> >>I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally >>and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you >>write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for >>all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on >>this. >> >>Jana >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >>Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance >> >> >> >>May I please have comments on this? Thank you. >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------- >>With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do >>nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for >>the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* >>decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the >>results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 >>board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 >>felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make >>no recommendation. >> >>I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board >>decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes >>Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on >>which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. >> >>Holly > From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03550 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24NLZAp004972 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24NGrt16801; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:16:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:16:53 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Mar 4 16:16:53 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:01:56 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <7TRz_B.A.aGE.lBAh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1710 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f2f3a4abff4a7ad020bfb720a30d8046 Continuing to think about this.... I do agree that whatever gets said be worded as "AB Advice and recommendation" and I think that what gets written needs to state our total opinion. Actually, I just went back to read what got us off the track of combining the three true statements and Holly, I have to disagree that it is "complicated" to combine the statements. It is accurate to combine them as they do constitute the total opinion and advice of the AB. The more I think, I do not see it as a good idea for the NC to make any statements separately. As Betsy said, we did come to conclusions and our recommendation and advice comes as a result of it. I think there is a way to say what we want that does not set the NC apart from the rest of us, which I think is better for us all. I am still in favor of creating a combined statement and in fact, I withdraw my "vote" for #1 as it is not a complete assessment of my opinion. I cannot vote for any of the three statements on their own and I apologize for not making that clear in the first place. I also agree that it serves no purpose to list numbers regarding who voted what way. There was no clear cut consensus of opinion because of all the facts, but I do not think the grievance failed, I think asking us to choose between the three statements failed. We need to come up with wording we can *all* live with. Here again is what I think a fair statement could look like: "Given that the USGW Project Advisory Board has determined after careful consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in fact, has no standing in this grievance beyond recommendation and advice, it is the recommendation of the USGW Project Advisory Board that Sharon Williamson, State Coordinator of North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The Advisory Board acknowledges however, that the State Coordinator does have the prerogative to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the only option currently available to County Coordinators is to accept this or resolve at the state level. If the NC-SC does choose to follow the AB recommendation, she also has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if the State Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems (just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC)." If you can come up with a better way to say it, please offer it.... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:19 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but it wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to combine all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't agree on anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree whether I voted that way or not. Betsy At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy >said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB >has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely >honest. > >Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be >constructive, I could live with the following: > >"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC >should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter >and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to >find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot >to do so." > >I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally >and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you >write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for >all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on >this. > >Jana > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > >May I please have comments on this? Thank you. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >--------- >With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do >nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for >the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* >decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the >results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 >board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 >felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make >no recommendation. > >I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board >decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes >Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on >which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. > >Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA04528 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24NWtAp006353 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24NSBA03213; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:28:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:28:11 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Mar 4 16:28:10 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:12:41 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1711 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: abe8cbd96a75d9cc0cc57e93ea74aaa1 Gee Betsy - we ended up pretty close - I had forgotten about having a NC CC vote.... I can live with what you have written nicely, or you can use what I wrote and add the NC/CC vote part Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:17 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Strange, I thought I had done that already: Betsy said on 2/26/02: I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. You want it formalized? Okay, try this: The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the County Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-CC. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving conflicts at the state level. Betsy At 10:18 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a >little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do >anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. > >I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but >it wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to >combine all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't >agree on anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree >whether I voted that way or not. > >Betsy > >At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: >>If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy >>said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB >>has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be completely >>honest. >> >>Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be >>constructive, I could live with the following: >> >>"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC >>should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter >>and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to >>find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot >>to do so." >> >>I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally >>and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you >>write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for >>all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on >>this. >> >>Jana >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >>Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance >> >> >> >>May I please have comments on this? Thank you. >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- >>--------- >>With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do >>nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for >>the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* >>decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the >>results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 >>board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 >>felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make >>no recommendation. >> >>I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board >>decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes >>Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on >>which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. >> >>Holly > From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 12:07:04 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA12925 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24FgWAp005371 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24Fc8q22273; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:38:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:38:08 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Mar 4 08:38:07 2002 Message-ID: <009901c1c392$38cbb3c0$4928c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:35:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1704 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e32ce900d7068162a925c43def7d9c8d I agree with Betsy. We were given three choices. Those choices have been made. There was no clear-cut decision and the parties involved should ONLY be told that the grievance issue failed. That should be what is done "officially" by the NC. Whatever other statement the NC decides to make on the issue to any of the three parties involved, should not have any AB sanctioning appearance indicated. Therefore, whatever the NC has to say as a possible solution, should be contained in a separate email and should be preferenced with "In my opinion...." Phyllis From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 18:20:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23643 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24LnFAp022529 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24LhVx20842; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:43:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:43:31 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Mon Mar 4 14:43:30 2002 Message-ID: <00a001c1c3c5$811b2ce0$dfa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <009901c1c392$38cbb3c0$4928c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:42:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1705 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 756b097afaa883ff4ac13b2c88cd87aa Holly, In actuality, you can address and word the statement how you best interpret it. That the majority agreed with you in their vote would lend support for the idea that they would probably want to send a message that made a strong suggestion to abide, as you laid out in your rough draft, without any implication that we were neither forcing her, nor that we were powerless to do so. Claiming a failed issue sends the exact same message as, that we are neither able to handle matters of such importance as well as not capable of enforcing one. Neither of which is true. There is some sort of defeatist mentality going on which claims we have no power, when just the opposite is true. It has been demonstrated by past NC's as well as past Boards. They de-linked a whole Project without power? There is power, it has just always been selective in it's use. If no one here can agree with your verbiage, then I would suggest that possibly you may want to create a statement based on what has transpired and a suggestion, such as you already presented, and allow those that wish to add their name to it, do so. If others do not, then that is their choice. Thanks, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > I agree with Betsy. We were given three choices. Those choices have been > made. There was no clear-cut decision and the parties involved should ONLY > be told that the grievance issue failed. > > That should be what is done "officially" by the NC. > > Whatever other statement the NC decides to make on the issue to any of the > three parties involved, should not have any AB sanctioning appearance > indicated. Therefore, whatever the NC has to say as a possible solution, > should be contained in a separate email and should be preferenced with "In > my opinion...." > > Phyllis > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 18:20:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27723 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24MU3Ap027977 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24MPZX12302; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:25:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:25:35 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Mar 4 15:25:35 2002 Message-ID: <001701c1c3cb$20844000$c3967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:22:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1706 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5367fe688e7e5ec9c6041852a4956b85 Holly, You can word things any way you wish as long as the parties involved know that it came from YOU. I most certainly do not back your tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required in the USGW P Bylaws. Phyllis From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06928 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g24NvFAp009411 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:57:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g24NqfT16811; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:52:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:52:41 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Mar 4 16:52:40 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304184503.00e435b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:55:28 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <009901c1c392$38cbb3c0$4928c141@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1712 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6c5c494c2493d1f0a17be0e49c83e928 At 09:35 AM 3/4/02 -0600, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >I agree with Betsy. We were given three choices. Those choices have been >made. There was no clear-cut decision and the parties involved should ONLY >be told that the grievance issue failed. and that is a slap in the face to the 8 (simple majority) who voted to say that Sharon should recognize Terria's choice and sub kelly to the state lists... >That should be what is done "officially" by the NC. > >Whatever other statement the NC decides to make on the issue to any of the >three parties involved, should not have any AB sanctioning appearance >indicated. Therefore, whatever the NC has to say as a possible solution, >should be contained in a separate email and should be preferenced with "In >my opinion...." To repeat myself: "I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there." I not only said "PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION" and emphasized it as "NOT AS A BOARD DECISION" but also did not in any way shape or form even hint that anyone else join me in making such a statement, that was Jana's suggestion. Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07961 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2507lAp010650 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g2503AM05805; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:03:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:03:10 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Mar 4 17:03:10 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304185747.00bf4b00@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:05:56 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1713 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ecb85e9228402f80b4d8dd12b3433916 At 02:01 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >Continuing to think about this.... I do agree that whatever gets said be >worded as "AB Advice and recommendation" and I think that what gets written >needs to state our total opinion. Actually, I just went back to read what >got us off the track of combining the three true statements and Holly, I >have to disagree that it is "complicated" to combine the statements. It is >accurate to combine them as they do constitute the total opinion and advice >of the AB. The more I think, I do not see it as a good idea for the NC to >make any statements separately. As Betsy said, we did come to conclusions >and our recommendation and advice comes as a result of it. I think there is >a way to say what we want that does not set the NC apart from the rest of >us, which I think is better for us all. 7 of us (now that you have wavered and withdrawn your support for #1) saw no need to add any disclaimer regarding board powerlessness or inability to support the CC in this instance and felt that using a suggestive word such as recommendation accurately addressed the situation ... of the other 7, some were flat out for no opinion at all and others like yourself were for combinations of some sort. >I am still in favor of creating a combined statement and in fact, I withdraw >my "vote" for #1 as it is not a complete assessment of my opinion. I cannot >vote for any of the three statements on their own and I apologize for not >making that clear in the first place. I also agree that it serves no purpose >to list numbers regarding who voted what way. There was no clear cut >consensus of opinion because of all the facts, but I do not think the >grievance failed, I think asking us to choose between the three statements >failed. We need to come up with wording we can *all* live with. No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is both fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way and X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to completely agree on everything. >Here again is what I think a fair statement could look like: It is already clear that not everyone agrees with your combined statement. >"Given that the USGW Project Advisory Board has determined after careful >consultation of the USGW Project Bylaws that it, in fact, has no standing in >this grievance beyond recommendation and advice, it is the recommendation of >the USGW Project Advisory Board that Sharon Williamson, State Coordinator of >North Carolina recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly to the >read-only NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. The Advisory >Board acknowledges however, that the State Coordinator does have the >prerogative to do as she chooses regarding recognition of a co-cc and the >only option currently available to County Coordinators is to accept this or >resolve at the state level. If the NC-SC does choose to follow the AB >recommendation, she also has the authority to moderate or unsub Kelly from >the Discuss list if the State Coordinator decides Kelly does cause problems >(just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC)." > >If you can come up with a better way to say it, please offer it.... >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] >Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:19 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > >Nope. I don't find for the CC. I find that both sides need to give a >little. I don't agree with the wording that the board can't do >anything. We can advise, we can't demand/order/whatever. > >I don't think you should list a vote total in your response. Sorry, but it >wasn't a yes/no vote and I didn't vote for 1, 2, or 3. I voted to combine >all of them. Listing numbers just contributes to "the board can't agree on >anything." I can go along with the majority, so I CAN agree whether I >voted that way or not. > >Betsy > >At 09:02 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: > >If memory serves, this is still missing one element. Both Betsy and Kathy > >said they would prefer to find for the CC except for the fact that the AB > >has no standing to do so. I think that needs to be included to be >completely > >honest. > > > >Also, I object to using the word "whatsoever," it is overkill. Trying to be > >constructive, I could live with the following: > > > >"8 of the 14 Advisory Board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC > >should be recognized and 6 felt that the AB has no standing in the matter > >and should make no recommendation. Two AB members said they would prefer to > >find for the CC, but given that the AB has no standing, decided it was moot > >to do so." > > > >I would also like to see the text of what you choose to write up personally > >and to have the option available for those of us who agree with what you > >write to add our names to it if we so choose. I think it is important for > >all SCs and CCs to hear where we stand and to know how hard we worked on > >this. > > > >Jana > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] > >Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:00 PM > >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > > > > >May I please have comments on this? Thank you. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- > >--------- > >With 8 for supporting the CC in this grievance and 6 for saying we can do > >nothing we certainly do not have the 2/3rds majority to reply finding for > >the CC but neither do I believe it is honest to say we can arrive at *no* > >decision. What we can do is respond to the involved parties with the > >results (as opposed to "decision"). What we can say is that 8 of the 14 > >board members felt that the CC's choice of Co-CC should be recognized and 6 > >felt that the AB has no standing whatsoever in the matter and should make > >no recommendation. > > > >I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board > >decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes > >Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on > >which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there. > > > >Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08546 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g250DqAp011412 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g2509GR31015; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:09:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:09:16 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Mar 4 17:09:16 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304190701.00e4ae40@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:12:05 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1714 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 0b51f0edc1c3de57e58e4df7a6da006c At 05:16 PM 3/4/02 -0600, Betsy Mills wrote: >Strange, I thought I had done that already: >Betsy said on 2/26/02: >I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. I >also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make the >decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't have >the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. Thank you Betsy, this comes closer to the true feelings of the Board. I have edited it a little to come up with what I believe is a true and accurate representation and have posted it below your version. >The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the >SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe >Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the >NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the >Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any >other NCGenWeb CC. > >Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the >CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. > >The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria >to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the County >Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited the SC has >the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-CC. States are >encouraged to develop written rules regarding the rights and >responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving conflicts at >the state level. --------------------- The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance. Seven members recommend outright that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. Further, the remaining seven Advisory Board supported either recommending that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges or that the Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by these recommendations or some combination of these two or even all three options, some including thoughts to the effect that that power lies with the County Coordinators of North Carolina and that unless specifically prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-CC. --------------------- Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09341 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g250MKAp012356 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g250HjP09842; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:17:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:17:45 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Mon Mar 4 17:17:44 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304181807.04935d00@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:18:53 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304190701.00e4ae40@mail.bright.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1715 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 747d3d894e68fe045d5bdc34c69f7558 So, why do you have to use the numbers? Where did you count me? Betsy At 06:12 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >At 05:16 PM 3/4/02 -0600, Betsy Mills wrote: >>Strange, I thought I had done that already: >>Betsy said on 2/26/02: >>I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. I >>also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make the >>decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't have >>the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. > >Thank you Betsy, this comes closer to the true feelings of the Board. I >have edited it a little to come up with what I believe is a true and >accurate representation and have posted it below your version. > >>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the >>SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe >>Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the >>NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the >>Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any >>other NCGenWeb CC. >> >>Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the >>CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. >> >>The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria >>to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the County >>Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited the SC >>has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or co-CC. States >>are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the rights and >>responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving conflicts at >>the state level. > >--------------------- >The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance. Seven members recommend >outright that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of >co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to >the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L >list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she does >cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. > >Further, the remaining seven Advisory Board supported either recommending >that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly >should be allowed full CC privileges or that the Advisory Board has no >power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by these >recommendations or some combination of these two or even all three >options, some including thoughts to the effect that that power lies with >the County Coordinators of North Carolina and that unless specifically >prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or >co-CC. >--------------------- > >Holly > > > From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09905 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g250SlAp013194 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:28:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g250O8U22062; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:24:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:24:08 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Mar 4 17:24:07 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304192615.04053290@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:26:55 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304181807.04935d00@mail.1starnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304190701.00e4ae40@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1716 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3cf8f39243a7610bae904ea924fe4a8f At 06:18 PM 3/4/02 -0600, you wrote: >So, why do you have to use the numbers? Where did you count me? in the last paragraph where I said "or some combination of these two or even all three options" >Betsy > >At 06:12 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >>At 05:16 PM 3/4/02 -0600, Betsy Mills wrote: >>>Strange, I thought I had done that already: >>>Betsy said on 2/26/02: >>>I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. >>>I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make >>>the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we don't >>>have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do anything. >> >>Thank you Betsy, this comes closer to the true feelings of the Board. I >>have edited it a little to come up with what I believe is a true and >>accurate representation and have posted it below your version. >> >>>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the >>>SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe >>>Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the >>>NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the >>>Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any >>>other NCGenWeb CC. >>> >>>Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the >>>CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. >>> >>>The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or >>>Terria to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the >>>County Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited >>>the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or >>>co-CC. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the >>>rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving >>>conflicts at the state level. >> >>--------------------- >>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance. Seven members recommend >>outright that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of >>co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to >>the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L >>list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she >>does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. >> >>Further, the remaining seven Advisory Board supported either recommending >>that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly >>should be allowed full CC privileges or that the Advisory Board has no >>power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by these >>recommendations or some combination of these two or even all three >>options, some including thoughts to the effect that that power lies with >>the County Coordinators of North Carolina and that unless specifically >>prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement >>or co-CC. >>--------------------- >> >>Holly >> >> From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11244 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g250hnAp015035 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:43:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g250eCY17098; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:40:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:40:12 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Mar 4 17:40:11 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:20:46 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304184503.00e435b0@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1717 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a00b5540097925a97121a1c3471737b4 Good grief Holly, lighten up! This does not have to be a slap at anyone.... and I am certain Phyllis's statement was not intended that way. Let's figure out something we all can live with... yes, I suggested you let us see specific wording before anything goes out at all, thinking it would be a way (for those who chose) to show general support. More importantly, my point was to prevent semantic dissension after the fact that would further destroy this Project. There was nothing you were going to say that many of us did not already go along with, therefore it should have AB backing and be stated by the group. Nothing we say is a decision, it is advice and recommendation.... and we should do it as a group. As I read replies from both Betsy and Phyllis and thought further, I realized I had let myself get further and further away from what I really thought would be best.... e.g., that we create a comprehensive statement we can all live with. By forcing myself to choose one of those three choices, I was not being entirely honest with my constituents. As Betsy has pointed out, even if we did not have a 2/3 vote, we are all adult enough to go along with the majority and include a "minority" statement as well. I believe that AB integrity is best expressed in a complete statement that summarizes all our conclusions and thus leads to our recommendations. It is important for everyone to know not only our advice, but also how we arrived at it. Wording can certainly be created to do this.... at this point, I favor Betsy's "formal attempt" before my own, but neither one may yet be perfect for us all.... we can do this together and what a breath of fresh air it would be all around! Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:55 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance At 09:35 AM 3/4/02 -0600, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >I agree with Betsy. We were given three choices. Those choices have been >made. There was no clear-cut decision and the parties involved should ONLY >be told that the grievance issue failed. and that is a slap in the face to the 8 (simple majority) who voted to say that Sharon should recognize Terria's choice and sub kelly to the state lists... >That should be what is done "officially" by the NC. > >Whatever other statement the NC decides to make on the issue to any of the >three parties involved, should not have any AB sanctioning appearance >indicated. Therefore, whatever the NC has to say as a possible solution, >should be contained in a separate email and should be preferenced with "In >my opinion...." To repeat myself: "I would then like to add as my personal recommendation (not as a board decision) that a compromise be considered in which Sharon recognizes Terria's choice of Co-CC and subs her to the read-only list (NCGenWeb-L) on which Kelly can not "make trouble" as no one but Sharon can post there." I not only said "PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION" and emphasized it as "NOT AS A BOARD DECISION" but also did not in any way shape or form even hint that anyone else join me in making such a statement, that was Jana's suggestion. Holly From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14795 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:25:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g251OwAp019750 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g251K2l06067; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:20:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:20:02 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Mar 4 18:20:01 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:59:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304185747.00bf4b00@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1718 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 30ec429bed50f7ac674caab3fd7bb34e Holly, comments below - Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 4:06 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance 7 of us (now that you have wavered and withdrawn your support for #1) saw no need to add any disclaimer regarding board powerlessness or inability to support the CC in this instance and felt that using a suggestive word such as recommendation accurately addressed the situation ... of the other 7, some were flat out for no opinion at all and others like yourself were for combinations of some sort. JMB: Call it what you want, I call it "reconsidering after further reflection ..." In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than one name in several places): #1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa #2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy #3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy Then today, after reading Betsy and Phyllis' posts, Isaiah said, "In general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis." Then he agreed with Phyllis in not backing you "tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required in the USGW P Bylaws." Surely you agree we never had any consensus on any one of the three choices you offered us but quite a few combos of several of the above... *thus* the need for a combined statement. No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is both fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way and X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to completely agree on everything. JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the post where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care what the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I did - kudos, Betsy! >If you can come up with a better way to say it, please offer it.... >Jana Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within the rules they have. From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20936 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g252eXAp028316 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g252ZmE11514; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:35:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:35:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Mon Mar 4 19:35:47 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304202557.0293f340@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:36:29 -0600 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304192615.04053290@mail.bright.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304181807.04935d00@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020304190701.00e4ae40@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20020304170525.00d3bf00@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303221450.02ea6470@mail.1starnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020303194905.03579880@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1719 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 959c6f720648a128ee90915347c09de3 Madame Chair, I respectfully ask that if you are determined to use numbers that we be allowed to vote publicly on the board-l mailing list. I also request that you list the combined statement as a 4th choice. Betsy At 06:26 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >At 06:18 PM 3/4/02 -0600, you wrote: >>So, why do you have to use the numbers? Where did you count me? > >in the last paragraph where I said "or some combination of these two or >even all three options" > > >>Betsy >> >>At 06:12 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >>>At 05:16 PM 3/4/02 -0600, Betsy Mills wrote: >>>>Strange, I thought I had done that already: >>>>Betsy said on 2/26/02: >>>>I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. >>>>I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make >>>>the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we >>>>don't have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do >>>>anything. >>> >>>Thank you Betsy, this comes closer to the true feelings of the Board. I >>>have edited it a little to come up with what I believe is a true and >>>accurate representation and have posted it below your version. >>> >>>>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the >>>>SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe >>>>Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the >>>>NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the >>>>Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any >>>>other NCGenWeb CC. >>>> >>>>Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the >>>>CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. >>>> >>>>The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or >>>>Terria to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the >>>>County Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited >>>>the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or >>>>co-CC. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the >>>>rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving >>>>conflicts at the state level. >>> >>>--------------------- >>>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance. Seven members recommend >>>outright that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of >>>co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and >>>to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L >>>list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she >>>does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. >>> >>>Further, the remaining seven Advisory Board supported either >>>recommending that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether >>>or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges or that the Advisory >>>Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by >>>these recommendations or some combination of these two or even all three >>>options, some including thoughts to the effect that that power lies with >>>the County Coordinators of North Carolina and that unless specifically >>>prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement >>>or co-CC. >>>--------------------- >>> >>>Holly >>> > > From ???@??? Mon Mar 04 22:01:18 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21882 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g252q5Ap029533 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g252lEQ25005; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:47:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:47:14 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Mar 4 19:47:14 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:20:13 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020304202557.0293f340@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1720 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 8b2dfce1c89735224dc32ef4e2c9ef83 Holly, I echo Betsy's statement. What purpose do you think it serves to include the numbers unless you represent them including the true mix they were? Actually, to be accurate, you would have to say that 10 of us agree with #1, 5 with #2 and 7 with #3. I do not object to including them all, but it seems simpler to just leave off the numbers. OPINION (nothing personal): Betsy's wording is clearer and flows better than yours does. Your last paragraph is one big run-on sentence Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 6:36 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Madame Chair, I respectfully ask that if you are determined to use numbers that we be allowed to vote publicly on the board-l mailing list. I also request that you list the combined statement as a 4th choice. Betsy At 06:26 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >At 06:18 PM 3/4/02 -0600, you wrote: >>So, why do you have to use the numbers? Where did you count me? > >in the last paragraph where I said "or some combination of these two or >even all three options" > > >>Betsy >> >>At 06:12 PM 3/4/2002, you wrote: >>>At 05:16 PM 3/4/02 -0600, Betsy Mills wrote: >>>>Strange, I thought I had done that already: >>>>Betsy said on 2/26/02: >>>>I really do think we could recommend that Sharon sub Kelly to the list. >>>>I also think we can recommend that Kelly allow the other CC's to make >>>>the decision (per Isaiah's rewording), and I think we can state we >>>>don't have the authority to step in and arbitrarily force anyone to do >>>>anything. >>> >>>Thank you Betsy, this comes closer to the true feelings of the Board. I >>>have edited it a little to come up with what I believe is a true and >>>accurate representation and have posted it below your version. >>> >>>>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance and recommends that the >>>>SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of co-cc and subscribe >>>>Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and to the >>>>NCGenWeb-Discuss-L list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the >>>>Discuss list if she does cause problems just as might be done with any >>>>other NCGenWeb CC. >>>> >>>>Further, the Advisory Board recommends that Kelly and Terria allow the >>>>CC's to vote as to whether or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges. >>>> >>>>The Advisory Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or >>>>Terria to abide by these recommendations. That power lies with the >>>>County Coordinators of North Carolina. Unless specifically prohibited >>>>the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement or >>>>co-CC. States are encouraged to develop written rules regarding the >>>>rights and responsibilities of CCs and SCs and procedures for resolving >>>>conflicts at the state level. >>> >>>--------------------- >>>The Advisory Board has discussed this grievance. Seven members recommend >>>outright that the SC, Sharon Williamson, recognize Terria's choice of >>>co-cc and subscribe Kelly in read-only mode to the NCGenWeb-l List and >>>to the NCGenWeb-Discuss-L >>>list. Sharon may monitor and unsub Kelly from the Discuss list if she >>>does cause problems just as might be done with any other NCGenWeb CC. >>> >>>Further, the remaining seven Advisory Board supported either >>>recommending that Kelly and Terria allow the CC's to vote as to whether >>>or not Kelly should be allowed full CC privileges or that the Advisory >>>Board has no power to force either Sharon or Kelly or Terria to abide by >>>these recommendations or some combination of these two or even all three >>>options, some including thoughts to the effect that that power lies with >>>the County Coordinators of North Carolina and that unless specifically >>>prohibited the SC has the authority to veto the choice of a replacement >>>or co-CC. >>>--------------------- >>> >>>Holly >>> > > From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:25:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA00830 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25BVuAp017170 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25BRZl07868; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 04:27:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 04:27:35 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Mar 5 04:27:34 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305062915.03a0e700@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:30:17 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1721 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 348ad431209bf9b01ceac7a391141f0c This was sent yesterday evening but does not appear to have made it to the list so I am resending. At 03:59 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than one >name in several places): > >#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa >#2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy >#3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy More accurately described: #1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Robert, Diane, Mary Ann, Teresa #2 - (no one chose this alone) #3 - Vicki #1 & #2 - (no one chose this combination) #2 & #3 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis #1 & #3 - Kathy #1,2 & 3 - Jana, Betsy So actually one could say that those choosing #1 alone have a 2/3 rds majority over any other choice or combination of choices >Then today, after reading Betsy and Phyllis' posts, Isaiah said, "In >general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis." Then he agreed with Phyllis in not >backing you "tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action >that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required in >the USGW P Bylaws." I require no backing whatsoever to make any statements attributed solely to me. >Surely you agree we never had any consensus on any one of the three choices >you offered us but quite a few combos of several of the above... *thus* the >need for a combined statement. As you can see by the accurate breakdown above, the ONLY consensus (rather than 2/3rds majority) is for #1 alone. >No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is both >fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way and >X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to >completely agree on everything. > >JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to >offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the post >where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care what >the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I did - >kudos, Betsy! To combine all three is not a fair representation but actually represents the choice of only two. >Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards >have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within the >rules they have. there is no rule that we can reply to a grievance with an accurate description of a split opinion From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:25:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA01056 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25Ba7Ap017519 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25BVmq09003; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 04:31:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 04:31:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Mar 5 04:31:47 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305063333.03a13670@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:34:30 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1722 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3f129f23f1ca0fdf8bcf2c1f830ed44f nor apparently did this one make it on to the list, seems that for a brief period anything sent to this list (and perhaps others) bounced back to the sender At 03:20 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >Good grief Holly, lighten up! This does not have to be a slap at anyone.... >and I am certain Phyllis's statement was not intended that way. It does not seem to be appropriate to me to take lightly someone stating that the clear choice of half of this board specifically for #1 be set aside and count for nought. >Let's figure out something we all can live with... yes, I suggested you let >us see specific wording before anything goes out at all, thinking it would >be a way (for those who chose) to show general support. More importantly, my >point was to prevent semantic dissension after the fact that would further >destroy this Project. There was nothing you were going to say that many of >us did not already go along with, therefore it should have AB backing and be >stated by the group. Nothing we say is a decision, it is advice and >recommendation.... and we should do it as a group. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being accurate and clearly stating the divided answer. If this were not a grievance and thus a confidential discussion, others besides the board would know what the vote numbers were and I see no reason to hide this from those involved with the grievance. >As I read replies from both Betsy and Phyllis and thought further, I >realized I had let myself get further and further away from what I really >thought would be best.... e.g., that we create a comprehensive statement we >can all live with. There has been no agreement by those who voted for #1 to water down their opinion by a comprehensive statement. >By forcing myself to choose one of those three choices, I was not being >entirely honest with my constituents. As Betsy has pointed out, even if we >did not have a 2/3 vote, we are all adult enough to go along with the >majority and include a "minority" statement as well. I believe that AB >integrity is best expressed in a complete statement that summarizes all our >conclusions and thus leads to our recommendations. It is important for >everyone to know not only our advice, but also how we arrived at it. a summarized homogenized statement does not express our advice or how it was arrived at, it actually expresses the viewpoint of only half this board or less who wanted all three choices. From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15317 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25Eh7Ap007557 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25EcK912326; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:38:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:38:20 -0700 X-Original-Sender: mo-bogart@att.net Tue Mar 5 07:38:20 2002 Message-ID: <00ab01c1c453$82b4c820$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305063333.03a13670@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:39:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1723 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e53ea015a9ce75ad2e33191c53b1e280 Just remove my vote. Thanks, Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:34 AM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > nor apparently did this one make it on to the list, seems that for a brief > period anything sent to this list (and perhaps others) bounced back to the > sender > > At 03:20 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: > >Good grief Holly, lighten up! This does not have to be a slap at anyone.... > >and I am certain Phyllis's statement was not intended that way. > > It does not seem to be appropriate to me to take lightly someone stating > that the clear choice of half of this board specifically for #1 be set > aside and count for nought. > > >Let's figure out something we all can live with... yes, I suggested you let > >us see specific wording before anything goes out at all, thinking it would > >be a way (for those who chose) to show general support. More importantly, my > >point was to prevent semantic dissension after the fact that would further > >destroy this Project. There was nothing you were going to say that many of > >us did not already go along with, therefore it should have AB backing and be > >stated by the group. Nothing we say is a decision, it is advice and > >recommendation.... and we should do it as a group. > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with being accurate and clearly stating > the divided answer. If this were not a grievance and thus a confidential > discussion, others besides the board would know what the vote numbers were > and I see no reason to hide this from those involved with the grievance. > > >As I read replies from both Betsy and Phyllis and thought further, I > >realized I had let myself get further and further away from what I really > >thought would be best.... e.g., that we create a comprehensive statement we > >can all live with. > > There has been no agreement by those who voted for #1 to water down their > opinion by a comprehensive statement. > > >By forcing myself to choose one of those three choices, I was not being > >entirely honest with my constituents. As Betsy has pointed out, even if we > >did not have a 2/3 vote, we are all adult enough to go along with the > >majority and include a "minority" statement as well. I believe that AB > >integrity is best expressed in a complete statement that summarizes all our > >conclusions and thus leads to our recommendations. It is important for > >everyone to know not only our advice, but also how we arrived at it. > > a summarized homogenized statement does not express our advice or how it > was arrived at, it actually expresses the viewpoint of only half this board > or less who wanted all three choices. > > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24421 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25G4XAp018588 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25FwO727208; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:58:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:58:24 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Mar 5 08:58:24 2002 Message-ID: <007201c1c45e$356a1880$29967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:50:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: <0Im5OB.A.9oG.gsOh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1724 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a0b8f743b6be7da60b440c464eaa67d3 Holly, If we follow your line of reasoning, then the next time we have an 8 to 6 vote on a motion, you will declare the motion passed.....even though it is contrary to the USGW P bylaws. I am not trying to slap anyone's face. I'm just trying to point out that we do have a set of bylaws to follow. In one place the bylaws stated that issues must have a 2/3 majority to pass and in another place it talks about "grievance issues." An issue, is an issue, is an issue. It would appear that with a bit of tinkering with words, you could have a clear-cut 2/3 majority to base a reply on. As for my being for #2, I withdrew that and changed to #3.....so don't count me in there twice, nor anyone else who changed their opinion. What counts is the final "vote." Phyllis From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA02191 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25HDNAp027872 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25H8ms04960; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:08:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:08:48 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Mar 5 10:08:48 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305120442.0266d100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:11:34 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <007201c1c45e$356a1880$29967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1725 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 575119fe02f0fce6d37399150e155dcc At 09:50 AM 3/5/02 -0600, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Holly, > >If we follow your line of reasoning, then the next time we have an 8 to 6 >vote on a motion, you will declare the motion passed.....even though it is >contrary to the USGW P bylaws. No Phyllis, I am not trying to declare it "passed" I was simply clarifying Jana'a outline of the figures. If it was my intent and purpose to declare it passed, I would have done so. The difference here is that grievance votes are normally held confidentially on Exec not on Board-L where anyone can see that although a motion may not have managed to pass, less than a majority was against... the exact extent of the individual Board members intentions are clear there. To respond to this grievance with a homogenized statement minimizing the amount of support for the CC's position is inappropriate. >I am not trying to slap anyone's face. I'm just trying to point out that we >do have a set of bylaws to follow. In one place the bylaws stated that >issues must have a 2/3 majority to pass and in another place it talks about >"grievance issues." An issue, is an issue, is an issue. I am not performing an end run around the bylaws. >It would appear that with a bit of tinkering with words, you could have a >clear-cut 2/3 majority to base a reply on. As for my being for #2, I >withdrew that and changed to #3.....so don't count me in there twice, nor >anyone else who changed their opinion. What counts is the final "vote." I went solely by the listing Jana provided in an attempt to illustrate my point an effort I have obviously failed at as you are now off on making it appear that I am doing away with the 2/3rds majority which I am not. Holly From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA27429 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25KhuAp027810 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:43:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25Kd0c25742; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:39:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:39:00 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Mar 5 13:38:59 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:48:48 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305062915.03a0e700@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1726 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4aa8f20c50293ed24f69dcedf5718a74 Comments below.... -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:30 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance This was sent yesterday evening but does not appear to have made it to the list so I am resending. At 03:59 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: >In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than one >name in several places): > >#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa >#2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy >#3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy More accurately described: #1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Robert, Diane, Mary Ann, Teresa #2 - (no one chose this alone) #3 - Vicki #1 & #2 - (no one chose this combination) #2 & #3 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis #1 & #3 - Kathy #1,2 & 3 - Jana, Betsy So actually one could say that those choosing #1 alone have a 2/3 rds majority over any other choice or combination of choices JMB: Or you can say that the questions you gave us to choose from did not accurately fit with our opinions. >Then today, after reading Betsy and Phyllis' posts, Isaiah said, "In >general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis." Then he agreed with Phyllis in not >backing you "tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action >that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required in >the USGW P Bylaws." I require no backing whatsoever to make any statements attributed solely to me. JMB: You miss my point which is, in the best long-term interests of the Project for the AB to figure out how to best and most accurately respond with wording that most accurately does reflect our opinion and advice. >Surely you agree we never had any consensus on any one of the three choices >you offered us but quite a few combos of several of the above... *thus* the >need for a combined statement. As you can see by the accurate breakdown above, the ONLY consensus (rather than 2/3rds majority) is for #1 alone. JMB: Merriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: con.sen.sus Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin, from consentire Date: 1858 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so. You do not have unanimity nor do you have group solidarity here. >No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is both >fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way and >X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to >completely agree on everything. > >JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to >offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the post >where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care what >the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I did - >kudos, Betsy! To combine all three is not a fair representation but actually represents the choice of only two. JMB: So ask the question of everyone and see what answer you are given..... Betsy offered an excellent suggestion to do so last evening. >Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards >have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within the >rules they have. there is no rule that we can reply to a grievance with an accurate description of a split opinion JMB: 1) there is no rule that denies this either and if we are to serve our constituents best, our job is to offer an accurate reflection of the solidarity we can offer. To do anything else is premature, inaccurate and does not serve the Project well - shrug. From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29004 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25Kx0Ap000015 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:59:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25KsBQ18886; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:54:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:54:11 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Mar 5 13:54:10 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:03:45 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305120442.0266d100@mail.bright.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1727 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1a5065dc07d055f9fa44a5e4f365de53 comments below -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:12 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance To respond to this grievance with a homogenized statement minimizing the amount of support for the CC's position is inappropriate. JMB: there is a huge difference between homogenized and complete! My yogurt comes with fat at the top, I can mix it in or remove it as the mood sways me.... I choose to buy it without fruit as I prefer to use fresh fruit. You may prefer pre-mixed or non-fat yogurt or yogurt with fat at the top, yogurt in the middle and fruit at the bottom... it is all in the choice we make. The point here is to offer the complete range of possibilities so our constituents can see how hard this kind of recommendation/advice is to give. Instead of using numbers, it* might* be fair and accurate, IMHO, for you to say "a majority of AB members, but not a consensus recommend...." (so you have the substance of the yogurt AND leave the cream for those who want it) could work to demonstrate the support for CCs on this AB within the limiting constrictions of the "working environment" (the Bylaws) we have which protects positions of all involved parties. >It would appear that with a bit of tinkering with words, you could have a >clear-cut 2/3 majority to base a reply on. As for my being for #2, I >withdrew that and changed to #3.....so don't count me in there twice, nor >anyone else who changed their opinion. What counts is the final "vote." I went solely by the listing Jana provided in an attempt to illustrate my point an effort I have obviously failed at as you are now off on making it appear that I am doing away with the 2/3rds majority which I am not. Holly JMB: OK, so if you follow Betsy's suggestion of last night and have us all now offer just what our opinions truly are we can move forward and get this done, right??? We all have "lousy first attempts", Holly. Luckily in a group such as ours, we also have the benefit of the balance we each offer to each other "to get it right" before we make public fools of ourselves . From ???@??? Tue Mar 05 18:26:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10901 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25MfnAp014360 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25Ma8v24311; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:36:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:36:08 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 15:36:07 2002 Message-ID: <011201c1c496$03379f80$7fa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:35:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1728 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: db861569a395c149998ad0164044a401 First, The vast majority of your/our constituents are not going to, nor should they be expected to see what yours or our recommendation or advise is. It is destined for 3 individuals. Two of them referred to as CC's, one referred to as SC. If in fact the entire constituency was to see the vote, I would dare say that they would be dismayed that CC's, whom are in the majority, might be treated as second class, down the poll from an SC, whom in this case happens to be in error. We can all disagree about the error part, but the fact is, there is a separate standard being used for this CC and co-CC, that has not been used for others. There is also no new requirement for such standards which would leave precedence on the side of the CC. If any CC finds themselves in this dilemma, they would never be willing to come forward and ask for help, if they were to see that the Board cares more for SC rights to do as they see fit, rather than a CC's right to expect same treatment across the board as others have received. Expecting such same treatment is nothing more than any of us would expect in any area of our life. If someone, over you at your job, did not like you and used a standard different than had been used before to keep you from getting a promotion. Yet that standard was not posted or even placed in the company records, you would feel cheated and discriminated against. So will these CC's. It is not about, "getting the big bad SC", as some will assume, it is about trying to maintain an equal playing field for everyone. Biases and unequal standards have been the death hold of this Board and Project for a very long time. Trying to keep them equal is what we all should be working for. As I said before, Georgia, as an example is creating a new set of State requirements. When all is said and done, they will be approved and posted. At that point, no CC can or should expect to be treated with any other standard expect what is now established by those new guidelines. Unless there is something that may come up in the future that is not covered by them, in which case, the precedence from previous years, should be applied. There should be no difference here. But some wish to make it different. Why? We have a few claiming we have no authority here to tell the SC to do anything. There was no authority for the EC to place discipline on Teresa, but this body chose to allow it to happen. When even a proclaimed Parliamentarian spoke and said it was not right and not allowed, this body chose to do it anyway. I just don't get the backward and forwards decisions that makes one wrong right, and some other right wrong. We can go back and forth till the cows come home. But something has to be said, and Holly is correct, that watering down the statement to make someone feel okay or not include numbers to make it even less identifiable, just seems to be weird. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 00:07:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15157 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g25NKXAp019914 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g25NFsn05427; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:15:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:15:54 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Mar 5 16:15:54 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:19:46 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <011201c1c496$03379f80$7fa028d8@hppav> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1729 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1396bb237cfa5725bed052e498291811 comments below, snipped to make reading easier, I hope - Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:maplecreek_99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:35 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance First, The vast majority of your/our constituents are not going to, nor should they be expected to see what yours or our recommendation or advise is. It is destined for 3 individuals. Two of them referred to as CC's, one referred to as SC. JMB: Will this not be posted on Board-L and ALL-L? If in fact the entire constituency was to see the vote, I would dare say that they would be dismayed that CC's, whom are in the majority, might be treated as second class, down the poll from an SC, whom in this case happens to be in error. We can all disagree about the error part, but the fact is, there is a separate standard being used for this CC and co-CC, that has not been used for others. There is also no new requirement for such standards which would leave precedence on the side of the CC. JMB: You may be correct here, but we are "stuck" given the current bylaws.... we need to let people know the truth of AB status so they can Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\grass roots movement for change if that is what they choose to do." It is not about, "getting the big bad SC", as some will assume, it is about trying to maintain an equal playing field for everyone. JMB: I do not disagree with you in principle here, but we have a very long way to go before an even playing field will ever be status quo in this Project.... meanwhile, we have to do the best we can... the precedence from previous years, should be applied. Ron JMB: and Ron, in your opinion, just what is that precedent???? From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 00:07:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04219 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g262bdAp013877 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:37:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g262bAK28773; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:37:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:37:10 -0700 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 19:37:09 2002 Message-ID: <017101c1c4b7$6012f940$7fa028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:33:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1732 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4eb4d8a8015560dbfaf83b055f864e62 > comments below, snipped to make reading easier, I hope - Ron > ------------------- > JMB: Will this not be posted on Board-L and ALL-L? > No, I wouldn't think so. Even after we are done, I presume it is still a confidential matter on our behalf. Others that have been here for previous grievances would know. > > JMB: You may be correct here, but we are "stuck" given the current > bylaws.... we need to let people know the truth of AB status so they can > begin a grass roots movement for change if that is what they choose to do. > Some things, such as grievances I do not think we have the leeway to make anything known to our majority constituents. It is between the parties to let anything be known to others. > > JMB: I do not disagree with you in principle here, but we have a very long > way to go before an even playing field will ever be status quo in this > Project.... meanwhile, we have to do the best we can... > For me, the best we can do, is anything that helps create that level playing ground, starting from the day we took office. To say we are without authority is throwing up our hands and claiming neutrality. We don't have the luxury of being neutral. It is our duty to try and make fair and equal resolution in every situation, if at all possible. > > JMB: and Ron, in your opinion, just what is that precedent???? > Precedence in the petition before us, says that no other CC or co-CC had to be approved by a vote of anyone in order to assume the duties for a county. I am in North Carolina, I was added, first as a co-CC, in September 2000. I then became the lead CC, with the others as co-CC. I was not voted on and no one that has taken over or become co-CC's since then have been voted on. It is something that was added, by Sharon's own admission, because she did not want Kelly. Precedence does not support this action. Our Bylaws do not support this type of action. And saying it's okay just because we want to preserve the status or authority of the SC is not fair and it is not equal treatment. Right or wrong, will not change some peoples mind about the situation. Just as with the vote pertaining to the EC and Teresa, right or wrong, authority or not, did not matter. The only thing that matters is the subject and the sanctity of preserving certain sacred cows. Sorry, those cows need to be butchered and served to those that want to live in the past and not try to cope with reality. People were amazed that certain others were voted onto this Board, and these types of issues are the very reason that it happened. Those that are doing the voting are trying to tell someone that there are things that have been wrong and they want them set straight. Waiting to allow for time to heal all wounds does not work, when we continue to create new ones. There is Precedence Jana. Some don't want to see it. Some don't care. Some do. But ignoring it does not make it right and saying it isn't so does not make it right either. Treating someone differently because of whatever reason does not make anything right. It is prejudicial, period. No one has to like it, but it's fact. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 00:07:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04413 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g262exAp014244 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g262eRj00650; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:40:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:40:27 -0700 X-Original-Sender: TVick65536@aol.com Tue Mar 5 19:40:27 2002 From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <78.230b9184.29b6db2d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:38:37 EST Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1733 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: eff0cbf24c3f64957137e0673db759e4 The only comment I have is that it is an issue that was presented on -all, therefore a known and watched issue on Board-L. That being the case, the outcome, however it is presented to the parties involved will appear there, and will be disseminated, regardless of our "personnel issue" stance. That sadly, is the product of the not trusting in the process. I have given a lot of thought to that process. I have learned over the course of my involvement with the USGenWeb Project that I can only be *reponsible* for my words, my actions, and my reactions. And take it from one who knows, that it can be an eye-opening and startling experience when what is said is misrepresented. Even as carefully as words are chosen, they can just a carefully be misconstrued. Having said that, bottom line is that we can all do only the best that we can do. I think most of us, have sided with the CC's choice of Co-CC, and the remedy to sub her to the lists. We also acknowledge that the SC is within her rights (without guidelines at the state level) to ignore us, but the same is true of the CC and Co-CC. Just because the Co-CC is not recognized by the SC and not-subbed to the lists does not in any way preclude her from participating within the county. Last time I checked USGenWeb Project was a volunteer organization, and all volunteers, recognized or not, were welcomed and appreciated. Tina In a message dated 3/5/2002 5:40:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, maplecreek_99@yahoo.com writes: > First, > > The vast majority of your/our constituents are not going > to, nor should they be expected to see what yours or our > recommendation or advise is. It is destined for 3 individuals. > Two of them referred to as CC's, one referred to as SC. > > From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 00:07:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA05124 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g262msAp015216 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g262kce11265; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:46:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:46:38 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Mar 5 19:46:38 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020305183145.016ba4f0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:31:45 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <00a001c1c3c5$811b2ce0$dfa028d8@hppav> References: <009901c1c392$38cbb3c0$4928c141@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <9SXeZC.A.zvC.OMYh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1734 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ff2f74796fb45c0540d6ab374490cb3d At 04:42 PM 3/4/02 -0500, you wrote: >Holly, > >In actuality, you can address and word the statement >how you best interpret it. That the majority agreed >with you in their vote would lend support for the idea >that they would probably want to send a message that >made a strong suggestion to abide, as you laid out in >your rough draft, without any implication that we were >neither forcing her, nor that we were powerless to do so. > >Claiming a failed issue sends the exact same message as, >that we are neither able to handle matters of such importance >as well as not capable of enforcing one. How can you claim this is a successful issue? If an issue is not successful is it not a failure? Is this a matter of great importance? No, in the long run it is not. Where do you see where the Board can enforce a decision? >Neither of which >is true. There is some sort of defeatist mentality going on >which claims we have no power, when just the opposite is >true. It has been demonstrated by past NC's as well as >past Boards. They de-linked a whole Project without power? >There is power, it has just always been selective in it's use. A group seeming to claim 'manifest destiny' allowing it could do as it pleased ran off with copies of files that had been entrusted to the Project, set up their own little fiefdom and we subsequently shown the door by the AB. That this 'group' refuses to this day to accept the reality of the situation, seemingly seeing through rose colored glasses their vision of reality doesn't make it any less so not real. >If no one here can agree with your verbiage, then I would >suggest that possibly you may want to create a statement >based on what has transpired and a suggestion, such as you >already presented, and allow those that wish to add their >name to it, do so. If others do not, then that is their choice. > >Thanks, >Ron My choice has been and remains to tell the SC that I will support her decision in this matter whatever that might be. As SCs are ultimately responsible for the state of their State's project - so too should the buck stop with them. If there are enough CCs that disagree with the administration of a state they have redress under the Bylaws. To hammer a SC over the head because of one or two persons disgruntlement is unfair not only to the SC but to the other 99% of the CCs in the State. Contrary to what some AB members may think, I believe most SCs feel this way. Tim From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA19671 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26CcoAp011116 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26CcSh17434; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:38:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:38:28 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Mar 6 05:38:27 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020306063538.00a5e580@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 06:35:38 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020305062915.03a0e700@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <8XN31.A.KQE.E3gh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1737 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e7a136c4c14e29683cbca099c409bd25 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 At 10:48 AM 3/5/02 -0800, you wrote: >Comments below.... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] >Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:30 AM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > >This was sent yesterday evening but does not appear to have made it to the >list so I am resending. > >At 03:59 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: > >>In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than one >>name in several places): >> >>#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa >>#2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy >>#3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy > >More accurately described: > >#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Robert, Diane, Mary Ann, Teresa >#2 - (no one chose this alone) >#3 - Vicki >#1 & #2 - (no one chose this combination) >#2 & #3 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis >#1 & #3 - Kathy >#1,2 & 3 - Jana, Betsy I changed mine to #3 only. >JMB: You miss my point which is, in the best long-term interests of the >Project for the AB to figure out how to best and most accurately respond >with wording that most accurately does reflect our opinion and advice. Then put me down as #3 only. >>JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to >>offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the post >>where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care >what >>the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I did - >>kudos, Betsy! > >To combine all three is not a fair representation but actually represents >the choice of only two. > >JMB: So ask the question of everyone and see what answer you are given..... >Betsy offered an excellent suggestion to do so last evening. > >>Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards >>have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within >the rules they have. > >there is no rule that we can reply to a grievance with an accurate >description of a split opinion > >JMB: 1) there is no rule that denies this either and if we are to serve our >constituents best, our job is to offer an accurate reflection of the >solidarity we can offer. To do anything else is premature, inaccurate and >does not serve the Project well - shrug. I offer no solidarity on this matter. I choose to have an opinion different from the majority and no amount of sugar coating is going to change my opinion. Accept that. I certainly accept the opinions of those who differ from mine even though I don't agree with them. It seems to me that you, Jana, wish everything to be neat and tidy - the real world just isn't that way. From the poll taken obviously some of the Board feel strongly in favor of option 1, others option 2 or option 3 or some combo of all 3. So let me state my personal position for you: - the CC has the right to select any person they wish to assist them in any capacity. - the SC has the right to approve/disapprove those members they wish to accept in their project as voting members (ie full rights as a CC/co-CC/asst CC) regardless of past incidents in the absence of written rules within the state. I use the term 'voting members' for that is the only difference I see between a volunteer/transcriber/contributor and someone who wishes further rights. I am NOT saying that once a person has been accepted as a CC/co-CC/asst CC that the SC has the right to deny them the right to vote. - the AB has the right to mediate differences of opinion between the various parties, but has no power to force any of the parties to abide by the decision of the AB. We are not binding arbitrators but mediators. - the parties who bring the grievance have options as well. If the AB rules against them, they can either accept the ruling or they can try to get the other CCs in the state to agree with them. - the party or parties the grievance is brought against can either accept the AB's guidance or they can tell the AB to go fish. In this particular incident, since the SC has said she would do a poll of the CCs to determine their feelings in this regard, I believe that that is the best choice. However if the AB thru the NC or if the NC orders the SC to do otherwise, then I hope the SC tells the AB and/or NC to go fish. Tim From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA19681 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26CcvAp011129 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26CcU317528; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:38:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:38:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Mar 6 05:38:30 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020306065139.00a5e980@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 06:51:39 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <011201c1c496$03379f80$7fa028d8@hppav> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1738 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 179a6abfc849f3423239005acf5b2d33 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3 At 05:35 PM 3/5/02 -0500, Ron wrote: >First, > >The vast majority of your/our constituents are not going >to, nor should they be expected to see what yours or our >recommendation or advise is. It is destined for 3 individuals. >Two of them referred to as CC's, one referred to as SC. Oh so you naively believe this won't be a topic in your RAL's yellow digest? >If in fact the entire constituency was to see the vote, I would >dare say that they would be dismayed that CC's, whom are >in the majority, might be treated as second class, down the >poll from an SC, whom in this case happens to be in error. That's your opinion. >We can all disagree about the error part, but the fact is, there >is a separate standard being used for this CC and co-CC, that has not >been used for others. There is also no new requirement for >such standards which would leave precedence on the side >of the CC. Each person that volunteers for an area should be scrutinized before being accepted - for some folks only want a site to sit on it - gen socs for one; others don't know squat about html/ftp no do they want to learn - they just want to help; some folks apparently only grab a county long enough to vote in a region then vanish shortly thereafter. Why shouldn't SCs have the right to pick and choose who they wish - when there are a number of candidates? Shouldn't the SC be seeking the best possible folks? >If any CC finds themselves in this dilemma, they would never >be willing to come forward and ask for help, if they were to >see that the Board cares more for SC rights to do as they see >fit, rather than a CC's right to expect same treatment across the >board as others have received. Expecting such same treatment >is nothing more than any of us would expect in any area of our life. >If someone, over you at your job, did not like you and used a >standard different than had been used before to keep you from >getting a promotion. Yet that standard was not posted or even >placed in the company records, you would feel cheated and >discriminated against. So will these CC's. I doubt many states do have 'posted' guidelines regarding how the SC or whomever selects CCs. >It is not about, "getting the big bad SC", as some will assume, >it is about trying to maintain an equal playing field for everyone. >Biases and unequal standards have been the death hold of this >Board and Project for a very long time. Trying to keep them >equal is what we all should be working for. As I said before, >Georgia, as an example is creating a new set of State requirements. >When all is said and done, they will be approved and posted. >At that point, no CC can or should expect to be treated with >any other standard expect what is now established by those new >guidelines. Unless there is something that may come up in the >future that is not covered by them, in which case, the precedence >from previous years, should be applied. Would you then agree that not everything - every issue that comes before a SC is written down? A how to approach x item? I can't say for other SCs only for myself - but when I find such a quandry, I often seek the advice of others as do CCs when they seek my advice on how to handle situations they face. >There should be no difference here. >But some wish to make it different. Why? >We have a few claiming we have no authority here to >tell the SC to do anything. There was no authority for >the EC to place discipline on Teresa, but this body chose >to allow it to happen. When even a proclaimed >Parliamentarian spoke and said it was not right and not allowed, >this body chose to do it anyway. >I just don't get the backward and forwards decisions >that makes one wrong right, and some other right wrong. Well you know not all of us have arrived - some of us are still imperfect. We make decisions based on a variety of things, input from various sources. Will we always get it right? No, we won't for we will disagree with the perfected ones from time to time. So those of you who are perfect, please give the rest of us imperfect ones the benefit of the doubt from time to time - we've not yet arrived. >We can go back and forth till the cows come home. >But something has to be said, and Holly is correct, that >watering down the statement to make someone feel okay >or not include numbers to make it even less identifiable, >just seems to be weird. The NC can say whatever she wants to on this matter as far as I'm concerned. I've spoke my piece. Tim From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA25530 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26Dp3Ap019461 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26Doem24114; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:50:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:50:40 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Mar 6 06:50:40 2002 Message-ID: <009001c1c516$14498740$88f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:51:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1741 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 13eb77889c73d12fbb8c9b01ea253956 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 8 Jana, I prefer # 3 as stated in my last vote, I had changed my selection after reading more information. Actually as stated I was uncomfortable with all three. But I am not going to rehash this. Please put me down for #3 only. Kathy Now this is just my opinion only. If we take it upon ourselves to censure Sharon or Terria or even Kelly we have set ourselves up for "Precedence" and will be required to follow through and handle other States with problems. This is really not fair to any of us as there are no Guidelines in place to allow for a clear-cut Rule. Until we have Guidelines and an outline of steps or whatever our hands are somewhat tied in this and we have opened up a powder-keg of problems. Have you thought that perhaps since Holly and Ron are members of the North Carolina Project that this may be misconstrued as a reason as to why we were voting for Censure of Sharon? or even Terria. This in mind I personally believe that this is a very tight rope we are walking and should consider each step from several points of view. Tina is correct...this has already been taken up on ALL. And with 2 of the AB members ruling on this we need to exercise care. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:48 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > Comments below.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:30 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > This was sent yesterday evening but does not appear to have made it to the > list so I am resending. > > At 03:59 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: > > >In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than one > >name in several places): > > > >#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa > >#2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy > >#3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy > > More accurately described: > > #1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Robert, Diane, Mary Ann, Teresa > #2 - (no one chose this alone) > #3 - Vicki > #1 & #2 - (no one chose this combination) > #2 & #3 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis > #1 & #3 - Kathy > #1,2 & 3 - Jana, Betsy > > So actually one could say that those choosing #1 alone have a 2/3 rds > majority over any other choice or combination of choices > > JMB: Or you can say that the questions you gave us to choose from did not > accurately fit with our opinions. > > >Then today, after reading Betsy and Phyllis' posts, Isaiah said, "In > >general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis." Then he agreed with Phyllis in > not > >backing you "tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action > >that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required in > >the USGW P Bylaws." > > I require no backing whatsoever to make any statements attributed solely to > me. > > JMB: You miss my point which is, in the best long-term interests of the > Project for the AB to figure out how to best and most accurately respond > with wording that most accurately does reflect our opinion and advice. > > >Surely you agree we never had any consensus on any one of the three choices > >you offered us but quite a few combos of several of the above... *thus* the > >need for a combined statement. > > As you can see by the accurate breakdown above, the ONLY consensus (rather > than 2/3rds majority) is for #1 alone. > > JMB: > Merriam-Webster Online: > Main Entry: con.sen.sus > Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s > Function: noun > Usage: often attributive > Etymology: Latin, from consentire > Date: 1858 > 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by > most of those concerned > 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of > opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes > the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy > that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is > clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so. > > You do not have unanimity nor do you have group solidarity here. > > >No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is both > >fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way and > >X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to > >completely agree on everything. > > > >JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to > >offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the post > >where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care > what > >the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I did - > >kudos, Betsy! > > To combine all three is not a fair representation but actually represents > the choice of only two. > > JMB: So ask the question of everyone and see what answer you are given..... > Betsy offered an excellent suggestion to do so last evening. > > >Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards > >have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within > the > >rules they have. > > there is no rule that we can reply to a grievance with an accurate > description of a split opinion > > JMB: 1) there is no rule that denies this either and if we are to serve our > constituents best, our job is to offer an accurate reflection of the > solidarity we can offer. To do anything else is premature, inaccurate and > does not serve the Project well - shrug. > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA26209 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26DxGAp020671 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26Dw0105651; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:58:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:58:00 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Mar 6 06:57:59 2002 Message-ID: <009b01c1c517$1a73c940$88f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <009001c1c516$14498740$88f499cd@sasnak.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:59:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1742 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: dc8525e047a4a6320f69f79d8136e16a Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Sorry, travel hangover ;o} I should have said: > Have you thought that perhaps since Holly and Ron are members of the > North Carolina Project that this may be misconstrued as a reason as to why > we were voting for Censure of Sharon? or even Terria. This in mind I > personally believe that this is a very tight rope we are walking and should > consider each step from several points of view. Tina is correct...this has > already been taken up on ALL. (And with 2 of the AB members also members of North Carolina P any ruling on this should be with extra care. Holly and/or Ron could be accused of improperly handling this complaint. ) > Kathy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jana Black" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:48 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > Comments below.... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:30 AM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > > > > > > This was sent yesterday evening but does not appear to have made it to the > > list so I am resending. > > > > At 03:59 PM 3/4/02 -0800, Jana Black wrote: > > > > >In re-reading the posts, here is the "yes" count I get (note more than > one > > >name in several places): > > > > > >#1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Kathy, Robert, Jana, Diane, Betsy, Mary Ann, Teresa > > >#2 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis, Jana, Betsy > > >#3 - Tim, Kathy, Vicki, Phyllis, Jana, Isaiah, Betsy > > > > More accurately described: > > > > #1 - Tina, Ron, Pam, Robert, Diane, Mary Ann, Teresa > > #2 - (no one chose this alone) > > #3 - Vicki > > #1 & #2 - (no one chose this combination) > > #2 & #3 - Tim, Isaiah, Phyllis > > #1 & #3 - Kathy > > #1,2 & 3 - Jana, Betsy > > > > So actually one could say that those choosing #1 alone have a 2/3 rds > > majority over any other choice or combination of choices > > > > JMB: Or you can say that the questions you gave us to choose from did not > > accurately fit with our opinions. > > > > >Then today, after reading Betsy and Phyllis' posts, Isaiah said, "In > > >general, I agree with Betsy and Phyllis." Then he agreed with Phyllis in > > not > > >backing you "tacking a statement on suggesting that Sharon take an action > > >that was NOT approved by the necessary number of AB members as required > in > > >the USGW P Bylaws." > > > > I require no backing whatsoever to make any statements attributed solely > to > > me. > > > > JMB: You miss my point which is, in the best long-term interests of the > > Project for the AB to figure out how to best and most accurately respond > > with wording that most accurately does reflect our opinion and advice. > > > > >Surely you agree we never had any consensus on any one of the three > choices > > >you offered us but quite a few combos of several of the above... *thus* > the > > >need for a combined statement. > > > > As you can see by the accurate breakdown above, the ONLY consensus (rather > > than 2/3rds majority) is for #1 alone. > > > > JMB: > > Merriam-Webster Online: > > Main Entry: con.sen.sus > > Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s > > Function: noun > > Usage: often attributive > > Etymology: Latin, from consentire > > Date: 1858 > > 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY > on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at > by > > most of those concerned > > 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of > > opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that > takes > > the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a > redundancy > > that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it > is > > clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so. > > > > You do not have unanimity nor do you have group solidarity here. > > > > >No, actually we don't need to come up with a combined statement. It is > both > > >fair and accurate to state that X number of board members felt one way > and > > >X number another way. It is not required nor even human for us to > > >completely agree on everything. > > > > > >JMB: Of course we do not have to agree on everything, but we do need to > > >offer a fair representation of what we all did think. I have seen the > post > > >where you say you like what Betsy came up with ....I really do not care > > what > > >the specific wording is and, I do think Betsy did a better job than I > did - > > >kudos, Betsy! > > > > To combine all three is not a fair representation but actually represents > > the choice of only two. > > > > JMB: So ask the question of everyone and see what answer you are > given..... > > Betsy offered an excellent suggestion to do so last evening. > > > > >Betsy came up with a better way to say it! Cool! I am happy! Often boards > > >have to make mixed statements because they are limited to working within > > the > > >rules they have. > > > > there is no rule that we can reply to a grievance with an accurate > > description of a split opinion > > > > JMB: 1) there is no rule that denies this either and if we are to serve > our > > constituents best, our job is to offer an accurate reflection of the > > solidarity we can offer. To do anything else is premature, inaccurate and > > does not serve the Project well - shrug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18171 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26HJZAp017335 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26HFXI04440; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:15:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:15:33 -0700 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Mar 6 10:15:32 2002 Message-ID: <00a901c1c532$25111e00$d7967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:12:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1744 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 68348699bb90c92e3a7f0762e8123bac Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 19 Ron and Tina......I was NOT welcomed with open arms when I came into the Project. My SC was also the NC at the time.....knew absolutely nothing about me, but was positive that I would not be satisfactory material to participate in the USGW P because of where I worked. The fact is that an SC is given the authority to run his/her state and the AB is "toothless" under the bylaws. That CAN change with the bylaws being changed, but at this point in time.....all we can do is recommend a course of action. What is so puzzling to me is the fact that we were given three choices and told that the wording could be changed. Holly wants to "compromise" and have Sharon sub Kelly to the list in "read only" mode. YET, Holly does not seem to be inclined to try to compromise on the wording with some of us who would be willing to work with her to do so. You're probably wishing the MO SC had never accepted me. But, I was given a chance on "I'll be watching basis.".......I would suggest that we send Sharon, Terria and Kelly a statement that will acknowledge that the current bylaws gives discretionary authority to the SC; never-the-less we recommend that Kelly be placed on probationary status for 4 months; and assure Sharon that by doing this, she will not have to accept Kelly as CC of that county should Terria decide to give it up. I see no need to indicate that the AB was divided and how.....IF we can come up with a statement that at least 2/3 of us agree on. Besides, if we get a chance to see what Kelly's qualifications are, she might be too busy as AB Secretary to take on co-CC duties with Terria. Phyllis From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA06155 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26JeRAp005522 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26JdP206407; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:39:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:39:25 -0700 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Mar 6 12:39:24 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:50:10 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020306063538.00a5e580@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <-ZK_DC.A.8jB.tBnh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1745 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4efbd163bc8b0530747f8fe737fdf950 Snipping for reading ease - comments below. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:36 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance > >JMB: 1) there is no rule that denies this either and if we are to serve our >constituents best, our job is to offer an accurate reflection of the >solidarity we can offer. To do anything else is premature, inaccurate and >does not serve the Project well - shrug. I offer no solidarity on this matter. I choose to have an opinion different from the majority and no amount of sugar coating is going to change my opinion. Accept that. I certainly accept the opinions of those who differ from mine even though I don't agree with them. It seems to me that you, Jana, wish everything to be neat and tidy - the real world just isn't that way. From the poll taken obviously some of the Board feel strongly in favor of option 1, others option 2 or option 3 or some combo of all 3. JMB: Nope, ask my family, "neat and tidy" is not me I am waaay more used to piles (but I do know what is in each of those piles) Tim, you are actually making my point, we do *not* have solidarity, therefore what we say needs to represent all opinions, including minority views as well as majority views. The whole reason I posted the numbers was that I suspected several of you would need to clarify.... for myself, I need to clarify again and say I am in favor of wording that combines the essence of ALL THREE statements... I see Holly changed my opinion to only include two in her second analysis - that is incorrect. My point was not to *stop supporting* #1, it was to be sure my voice was truly represented as supporting wording to present all three statements. So let me state my personal position for you: - the CC has the right to select any person they wish to assist them in any capacity. JMB: agreed - the SC has the right to approve/disapprove those members they wish to accept in their project as voting members (ie full rights as a CC/co-CC/asst CC) regardless of past incidents in the absence of written rules within the state. I use the term 'voting members' for that is the only difference I see between a volunteer/transcriber/contributor and someone who wishes further rights. I am NOT saying that once a person has been accepted as a CC/co-CC/asst CC that the SC has the right to deny them the right to vote. JMB: agreed - the AB has the right to mediate differences of opinion between the various parties, but has no power to force any of the parties to abide by the decision of the AB. We are not binding arbitrators but mediators. JMB: agreed - but I'd say *attempt* to mediate - shrug - the parties who bring the grievance have options as well. If the AB rules against them, they can either accept the ruling or they can try to get the other CCs in the state to agree with them. JMB: agreed - the party or parties the grievance is brought against can either accept the AB's guidance or they can tell the AB to go fish. JMB: agreed - but I would say advice and recommendation rather than guidance In this particular incident, since the SC has said she would do a poll of the CCs to determine their feelings in this regard, I believe that that is the best choice. However if the AB thru the NC or if the NC orders the SC to do otherwise, then I hope the SC tells the AB and/or NC to go fish. Tim JMB: I have no opinion as to whether it is the best choice as I am not familiar enough in NC, but I agree that the SC can tell the NC or the AB to go fish. Now Tim, given this analysis, why would you only give the CCs and SC benefit of #3???? The above is soooo much more exact and shows the careful thinking that this AB engages in before offering advice and recommendations.... and, it is NOT neat nor is it tidy..... Jana From ???@??? Wed Mar 06 17:34:25 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22737 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g26M1QAp024667 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g26Lww927189; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:58:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:58:58 -0700 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Mar 6 14:58:58 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020306165645.03a2f9e0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:01:52 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: <009b01c1c517$1a73c940$88f499cd@sasnak.net> References: <009001c1c516$14498740$88f499cd@sasnak.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1746 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 561a6ed57555ba03eb723409e52b1380 At 07:59 AM 3/6/02 -0600, Kathy Heidel wrote: >Sorry, travel hangover ;o} I should have said: > > Have you thought that perhaps since Holly and Ron are members of the > > North Carolina Project that this may be misconstrued as a reason as to why > > we were voting for Censure of Sharon? or even Terria. This in mind I > > personally believe that this is a very tight rope we are walking and >should > > consider each step from several points of view. Tina is correct...this has > > already been taken up on ALL. >(And with 2 of the AB members also members of North Carolina P any ruling on >this should be with extra care. Holly and/or Ron could be accused of >improperly handling this complaint. ) I am not a member of NCGenWeb and have not been for over two years, since several months before Sharon ever became SC. I am still on that state list by courtesy just as I am on several state lists, states I have never been a CC in. Holly From ???@??? Thu Mar 07 06:03:36 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA27981 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g274IcAp011066 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g274IAB14535; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:18:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:18:10 -0700 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Mar 6 21:18:10 2002 Message-ID: <017101c1c58f$3aab8900$93f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <009001c1c516$14498740$88f499cd@sasnak.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20020306165645.03a2f9e0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:19:07 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <6KCypC.A.5iD.Couh8@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1763 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d8861b61a201b5c3e7fd112453c5094c I apologize Holly, I thought you had said you were, I likely misunderstood were and am ;o} . Kathy > I am not a member of NCGenWeb and have not been for over two years, since > several months before Sharon ever became SC. I am still on that state list > by courtesy just as I am on several state lists, states I have never been a > CC in. > > Holly > > > From ???@??? Thu Mar 07 17:34:24 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA01663 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g27CYDAp026500 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g27CXq518151; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:33:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:33:52 -0700 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Mar 7 05:33:52 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020307062813.00854370@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 06:28:13 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20020306063538.00a5e580@mail.chattanooga.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1769 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f4fa40870e2885ecd2bfc684d438b93f Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5 At 08:50 AM 3/6/02 -0800, you wrote: >Snipping for reading ease - comments below. Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] >Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:36 AM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Grievance >JMB: I have no opinion as to whether it is the best choice as I am not >familiar enough in NC, but I agree that the SC can tell the NC or the AB to >go fish. >Now Tim, given this analysis, why would you only give the CCs and SC benefit >of #3???? The above is soooo much more exact and shows the careful thinking >that this AB engages in before offering advice and recommendations.... and, >it is NOT neat nor is it tidy..... > >Jana Because #3 of the choices given best reflects my thoughts on the matter. My opinion is just that, my opinion. We all come to this with our own opinion, and yes, Ron, our prejudices - for those are based on our experiences of dealing with people knowing that not all folks want a level playing field - that most fields aren't level and if they are leveled quickly assume a new unevenness. It may not be right in the eyes of the local priest but he/she knows that the mankind they serve are not perfect, will never be perfect, that they will make mistakes, that sometimes those mistakes will be corrected and sometimes they won't. They live with that reality, yet choose to continue to work with us even though we are not perfect. Tim