I agree with the idea of a Grievance Committee chairman being appointed by
the SC at the beginning of a term, to serve for the same term as the SC.
I think it would be better if volunteers were lined up at the beginning of
a term, even if they had to be replaced during the term (in case someone
could not serve). Asking for volunteers after a grievance has been filed
invites persons who may be biased toward one side or another.
Barbara's idea of six committee members strikes me as a bit large, but I
have no objection to that number, if that is what the committee wants.
Vivian
At 12:58 AM 3/7/05 -0600, you wrote:
Deborah wrote:
> I could see having a chair who could call
> on people who have volunteered to act on the committee when needed.
That's a good idea. A standing committee, comprised of a set group of
people, might be perceived as a clique that always votes in favor of their
friends. Having a different "jury" for each grievence situation would
ensure a fair and unbiased hearing.
Questions:
Would a Grievence Committee Chair be elected, or appointed by the SC?
How many people would be needed on the committee for each situation? Would
the chairperson have a vote, or just oversee the proceedings?
Would the chairperson call for volunteers at the time a grievence is filed?
Or would he/she prepare a list of willing volunteers at the beginning of
his/her term, and then select a committee from that list when the need
arises?
Jeanne