I agree with Jeanne that a probationary period is not the same thing as
Member Not In Good Standing. Probationary period should be for newbies and
CCs who are not complying with CC responsibilities.
MNIGS should be reserved for behavior not necessarily related to
maintaining Web pages and fulfilling CC responsibilities.
Obviously, we need to spell out these two terms (probation and MNIG)
somewhere in the bylaws.
Jeanne's steps for notifying a CC sound fine. Having some method for
proving that the SC warned the CC is a good point. Copying correspondence
to a Grievance Committee chairman would work. Copying to the ASC or RA
might not work, since those persons could be perceived as biased.
Vivian
At 12:17 AM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Hi girls,
I keep trying to send this through the list, but it hasn't come
through. Of course, now that I send it to you this way, it'll come
through the list, right? :) ~Jeanne
> A county coordinator may be removed for failing to uphold his/her
> responsibilities. The coordinator shall have a four-month probation period
> to comply with requirements, after which the coordinator will be dismissed
> and his/her counties will be put up for adoption. The state coordinator has
> the authority to extend the probation period to allow for mitigating
> circumstances.
Sounds very good.
> Questions:
> Is this probation period similar to the current national Member Not In Good
> Standing status?
My feeling is, no. I think of the four-month period as just a chance for
the CC to get his/her act together. As we all know, people get sick, get
tied up with work or family, etc. If someone has been a good CC up to that
point, I don't think they need to be "punished." They may just need to be
warned that if they can't fulfill their responsibilities in four months,
they may be removed. I think that's sufficient incentive for most CCs to
either comply with requirements, or voluntarily give up their county (which
would be preferable to forced removal).
A few thoughts/questions:
From past experience, we know that a CC's removal can result in a lot of
dispute. For example: let's say the SC notifies a CC of the probationary
period; the CC doesn't comply within four months, and his county is put up
for adoption. The CC then says he was removed unfairly, claiming that he
wasn't given proper notice, or didn't receive the email, etc. How can we
prevent the appearance (or actual instance) of an unfair removal?
Should we spell out certain steps that the SC must take? Should there be a
record somewhere, to prove that the SC has warned the CC? Here are a couple
ideas:
In the instance of a probationary period, the SC will contact the CC three
times; once at the beginning of the probationary period, stating the reason
for the probation; again in the middle of the period (at 2 months); and
again one week before the conclusion of the probationary period. A copy of
the SC's communications will be cc'ed to the grievence committee [or
chairperson of the grievence committee?].
That way, the CC has not only been given 4 months to comply, but has had
plenty of "reminders"... and there is a record of the communication, should
the removal be brought before a grievance committee.
What do you all think?
Jeanne