----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Lewis" <webmaster(a)cottonhills.com>
To: <USGENWEB-SW-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: RE: [USGenWeb-SW] Redirection
I too request a vote of No. I think this is a very good first attempt,
and
is getting close, however too much control and too little options. I also
agree with much of what Karen says below.
Linda K Lewis
CC Linn Co KSGenweb
CC Riley Co KSGenweb
Cemeteries @ Johnson Co KSGenweb
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Mitchell [mailto:km1109@ghvalley.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:01 PM
To: USGENWEB-SW-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Redirection
I have to agree with Betty. Please vote NO.
I also resent the attitude that I'm not smart enough to decide something
like this by myself. Not only that, but who are these "mediators"? Do they
have legal training as mediators? What credentials do they have that would
out-weigh the common sense of the members of this project? These are
supposed to be volunteers of the project, that just happen to volunteer to
be a mediator. What type of training do they have, or are they going to
get,
that they will have a more thorough understanding of all of this than the
rest of us? Are their educational degrees going to supersede the ones they
are attempting to "advise"?
This is not about the GPC committee as individuals. This is about a
procedure that is poorly written and quite insulting to every member of
this
project. Sorry guys, I think you need to take it back to the drawing board
and re-word it to address us as adults and intelligent human beings.
Respectfully,
Karen Mitchell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty Brooks" <betbrooks(a)centurytel.net>
To: <USGENWEB-SW-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Redirection
Second Time NO based on this statement I just read:
"This phrasing will do the same thing, and remove the responsibility of
the
"committee to insure
**a person knows the ramifications of their decisions**
while at the same time preserving the integrity of the process."
If a person isn't smart enough to know results of their own decisions,
first, they probably aren't a CC/LC. This is the height of egotism IMO.
Personally, I totally resent this attitude of "we know best what is good
for you"....the Committee should have no interest in the making of of
this
type decision much less any say so in it. . More said, the worse it sounds
overall.
Sorry, too many flips flops in answers overall.
BB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs(a)getgoin.net>
To: <USGENWEB-SW-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Redirection
> Based on what has been discussed, I think I've got this synopsis correct:
>
> It seems that what is presented is a set of procedures that establishes a
> committee with 99.9% totalitarian authority. It takes the entire
grievance
> process away from the AB....which has been indicated is what is wanted.
>
> Well, maybe not quite "entire" in that the AB will appoint the initial
> members of the committee and then will be "allowed" to okay replacement
> members named by the GC. <somewhere I'm hearing faint echoes of charges
of
> a "core group" running the Project> And, the AB will be
"allowed" upon
> appeal to review the decisions made by the GC but only to see if any
> mistakes were made in following the rules.....which are to be interpreted
> only by the GC itself.
>
> And, if it turns out that the general membership, or any AB
> representative
> sees a need to modify a portion of the Procedures, they cannot do so as
only
> the GC can modify anything....including not only the procedures, but the
> bylaws amendment itself......which makes the process required to be
followed
> on whatever level in the Project a grievance is being handled even if not
in
> the actual hands of the GC for which the procedures are written.
>
> Furthermore, because of a bylaws change <if approved> in regard to who
> may
> or may not serve as a representative for an accuser or accusee, any right
to
> file a grievance against the representative in regard to actions during
the
> GC's handling of the situation must be forfeited.
> ________________
>
> So, as your SWSC CC Rep. please tell me how you wish me to cast a vote.
I
> will abide by what a majority of my constituents indicate they wish.
>
> Phyllis Rippee
> SWSC CC. Rep. and Candidate
>
>
> ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
> USGenWeb Newsletters
>
http://www.usgenweb.org/newsletter/index.shtml
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.9/382 - Release Date: 7/4/2006
>
==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
To unsubscribe, send a message to USGENWEB-SW-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the one word, unsubscribe. If you are subbed to the digest,
send it to USGENWEB-SW-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
The CC representatives for the SW-SC region are currently Phyllis
Rippee <wchs(a)getgoin.net> & Bettie Wood <nana321(a)earthlink.net>.
The SC representative is Larry Flesher <lflesher(a)fidnet.com>
==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
To browse the mail list archives, go to
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-SW/