Hello, ladies,
Sorry to join this discussion so late, but I was involved in a grievance
hearing. The first part of the hearing has ended. At some later time, we
move on to the second step, so I may have to set bylaws aside to deal with
that. Of course, if I do have to step out of the room for a bit, you don't
have to wait on me to proceed.
After the motion and second is when discussion on the motion takes place,
so no need for apologies. The logic is that you can't discuss a specific
motion until it's on the table.
While Jeanne is very kind to call me a "wordsmith" (high praise in my
trade), I don't think I did a very good job of saying what I meant to say.
My goal here is for us to discuss whether or not we need to include
language in our bylaws that establishes a minimum acceptable code of
conduct. I don't know if this is even possible. I don't think we can
realistically define or legislate "nice." We certainly cannot include in
the bylaws examples of every behavior that might be considered not-nice.
However, we as an organization should have some recourse if people are so
not-nice that they are harming the project. The question then is, should
we/can we establish ground rules for behavior and, if so, how?
USGenWeb adopted the Sturgis rules, which say:
Procedures for the discipline and expulsion of members should be
included
in the bylaws. However, every organization has the inherent right to
discipline, suspend, or expel a member for valid cause, even if provisions
for doing so are not included in the bylaws.
Can we include "procedures for discipline" without first spelling out what
is expected?
Is something like the proposed wording of the new USGenWeb bylaws sufficient?
"Causes for removal by constituents may include, but is not limited to, the
following offenses:
gross dereliction of duty, excessive failure to participate in Advisory
Board votes, ethics violations, or conduct characterized by a lack of
fairness and good faith such as disparaging, bigoted or grossly offensive
behavior that could be injurious to the project, its members or
representatives."
I also agree that we need to keep it simple. Does everything above
contradict that? :-)
Vivian
At 05:42 PM 1/17/2005 -0600, you wrote:
> We have a motion to accept the CC responsibilities as written.
Do we have
a
> second?
Sorry to bring up discussion when a motion has already been made, but....
Vivian the wordsmith suggested a wonderful phrase to perhaps include
somewhere in the Bylaws, and I wonder if it might not fit well under CC
Responsibilities? The phrase is: "courteous, helpful and cooperative
interaction with researchers and fellow members." What do you all think?
Jeanne
>
> At 10:00 AM 1/17/2005, Deborah wrote:
>
> >>>>~ Maintain county website as required in the site requirements
listed
in
> >>>the P&P, uploading data when appropriate and keeping links up to
date
> >>>~ Respond to communications from researchers, SC, ASC, RA
> >>>~ Answer roll call
> >>>~ Report change of email address to SC and/or RA
> >>>~ Subscribe to the GAGen-L or GAGen-D (digest mode) mailing list
> >>>~ Follow USGenWeb guidelines for CCs:
> >>>http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/CCguidelines.shtml
> >
> >I move that we accept the proposed CC responsibilities as written above
>
>
>