Thanks for forwarding the NC message to the list Nathan. I would like to
share with all the wonderful CCs in MT my response to the NC message you
have just read. There was a post by Jeff Scism that had some realistic
ideas on how to fix this problem thru ByLaws changes in response to the NC
post as well as a few other smaller posts. If anyone would like to see the
ABChat posts and don't feel like going to the archives or signing up for the
mailings, just let me know and I will send them to you.
Thanks much,
Karen in Iowa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen De Groote-Johnson" <europatb(a)iowatelecom.net>
To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Problem with non-resolution of Grievances
When I was elected one of the CC Reps of the NWPlains region, I
assumed
that I would be respresenting the concerns and rights of my fellow CCs at
the national level. Imagine my surprise at finding that the tone of this
project is one where the SC is the ultimate power, with no checks and
balances if there is a problem and you have a single minded SC. CCs
actually have no viable recourse if they have been treated wrong short of
a grievance. CCs are the back bone of this project and without them,
there would be no project as we know it today.
I have always worked in a "Team Leadership" environment at the state
level. I have never had to worry about Suzy SC taking a dislike of me and
canning me but I know this exists in our project. There needs to be
checks and balances for the SC, much like the requirements of the CC. The
states that have their own ByLaws possibly have that protection in place.
The states that do not have ByLaws must defer to the national ByLaws. If
the USGW ByLaws contain no protection for the CC and if you live in a
state that does not have ByLaws then this affects YOU.
Right now the only recourse for a CC is to win a grievance and the only
option of the AB is to delink a state in the worst cases. Rather drastic
measures when a few rules and guidelines can be put into place giving both
the SC and CC options in cases of disagreements in addition to the
grievance process.
In an organization such as ours we are bound to find many personalities.
There are many abrasive personalities out there doing wonderful jobs in
their counties. Personalities should not be a basis for dismissal. I
have worked with fellow CCs that marched to their own drummer, could get
downright mean and have really ticked me off in the past. Not in a
million years would I recommend they be fired from their county. The
project's core goal is to provide free, online genealogical resources for
researchers. I don't care who is the CC as long as they are doing their
job. It just takes a little (or alot) of personnel management to work
with those CCs.
Many CCs don't want to get involved in "politics" or so I have been told.
I think if the CCs take a little time out of their transcribing right now,
to fix this current problem and add protection for themselves, then they
can go back to what they do best and not have to worry. I ask that all
CCs take time to write to their AB representative or ANY AB
representative. Give us some feedback on what we can do and what your
state can do to fix these injustices in our system. This project has been
around for 10 years now and she needs a little dusting off and spiffing
up. That is part of life. Anything that doesn't grow and change with the
times will die. I for one don't want the USGenWeb project dying when we
could do something about it.
Incidentally, all SCs are CCs too so I am talking to you too. Most SCs I
know have respect for the grievance process and will conform to the
findings of the AB. It is those SCs that feel they are the last word and
they can do what they want despite AB recommendations, that are the CC
concern.
Please feel free to email me or another AB member privately if you are a
CC and are concerned about this situation. I know all the AB members
would also welcome CC input on a private level if you are a little timid
about discussing in a group setting.
Thanks for listening and lets fix this old girl right now!
Karen De Groote-Johnson
NWP CC Rep
Webster Co IAGenWeb CC
Humboldt Co IAGenWeb Co-CC
Grundy Co IAGenWeb CC
Glacier Co MTGenWeb CC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Haas Davenport" <lhaasdav(a)cox.net>
To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: [ABChat] Problem with non-resolution of Grievances
> The Project's by-laws assign certain duties to the AB. Article VI
> (Duties of the Advisory Board), Section 3, lists one of the AB's
> duties as: "advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances
> or appeals."
http://www.usgenweb.com/volunteers/bylaws.shtml
>
> Over the years, acting under this section of the by-laws the AB
> has heard grievances and rendered recommendations to the parties
> of a grievance. However, once the AB rendered its recommendations
> it has been up to the parties of the grievance whether or not to
> follow the AB's recommendations. The by-laws do not give the AB
> the authority to enforce its recommendations. This situation has
> resulted in frustration on both sides - the AB and the members.
>
> This AB was recently involved in a grievance filed by a CC
> against an SC over the delinking of the CC. The AB members
> hearing this grievance rendered a set of recommendation, one of
> which was for the SC to relink the CC. The SC declined to
> implement the recommendations, citing past precedent that an SC
> has the right to delink any CC they wish and there is no
> requirement for grievance recommendations to be implemented.
>
> The decision of the SC resulted in yet more grievances being
> filed and e-mails from members demanding that the AB "do
> something."
>
> The AB has discussed this situation in Exec (the place to discuss
> grievances) and after extensive discussion has decided to bring
> this issue of non-resolution of grievances to open discussion to
> try to find a workable solution to the problem.
>
> A gentle reminder to everyone: As you discuss this issue please
> be careful not to include any particulars of the grievances or
> the parties involved.
>
> Linda HD
>