Is it normal practice to post a motion within two business days, and leave
it posted for only three business days? True, the motion says a minimum of
three days, but who determines how long it will remain posted? And, does a
five day voting period include weekends?
Don Kear
CC Carroll County
CC Putnam County
CC Van Wert County
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandra Quinn" <ohgen(a)alltel.net>
To: <ohgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:01 PM
Subject: [OHGEN] [Fwd: Re: [STATE-COORD] Grievance Procedures
AmendmentProposal]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Grievance Procedures Amendment Proposal
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:38:25 -0500
From: Paul D. Buckley <pauldbuckley(a)worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: state-coord(a)rootsweb.com
To: <state-coord(a)rootsweb.com>
References: <04cc01c73cf8$1d39c630$7301a8c0@scott>
Scott,
It appears that there are no "misperceptions" contained in the previous
message to which you replied. Facts stated in the message reflect, and
undenied by your message, are that the AB is currently considering placing
a
bylaw amendment proposal before the project membership. The previous
message correctly states that the AB may propose a bylaw amendment only
when
it is an urgent matter. The "urgency" is questionable, to say the least,
since it was put forth by an outgoing board some six months ago and the
current board - and now this list - is still fretting over the wording of
it.
Paul Buckley
ASC NCGenWeb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Burow" <sburow(a)swbell.net>
To: <usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>; <state-coord(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: [STATE-COORD] Grievance Procedures Amendment Proposal
>I believe there are two misperceptions being passed along which
>complicates
> what is essentially a very simple motion.
>
> First, the AB is not making a determination that this is an urgent matter
> in
> the current motion. The Advisory Board, in motion 06-14 last August,
> made
> a
> determination that the amendment would be proposed under this section of
> the
> bylaws, and the issue of urgency was discussed on the lists and among the
> board members at that time. That motion passed. The motion currently
> before the board is not 'why' or 'how' an amendment is being
proposed,
> but
> whether this specific amendment is the one that will be proposed under
> the
> decision made.
>
> Urging members to advise their AB Representative to vote no on Motion
> 07-03
> serves to reject this version of the amendment. Rejection of this motion
> does not absolve the AB of it's responsibility to propose another
> amendment
> in the future. The AB is bound by the decision of 06-14 Should it fail,
> the board will take this version back for revision and ultimately present
> it
> to the membership with the issues raised being resolved.
>
> It is being stated that presentation of the amendment in this manner is
> contrary to the bylaws. This also is a misperception. Five state
> sponsorship is one method, and proposal of urgent matters is another
> method
> and both are authorized by the bylaws. The apparent objection to this
> action is obviously based upon the definition of the word 'urgent' - and
> is
> narrowly being construed with only one of the many definitions - the one
> meaning 'time sensitive or immediately pressing'.
>
> The AB last August, and the current board recognizes that there are far
> more
> meanings to the word urgent that apply to this situation, and why was
> considered 'urgent' to proceed, including 'called for',
'crucial',
> 'essential', 'important', 'necessary', 'salient',
'serious', 'vital', and
> 'weighty'.
>
> The issue of the rights of individuals, and in this case the rights of
> members in this project, can in no way be considered unimportant,
> unnecessary, or trivial. Anytime a process or a procedure is instituted
> without providing for guarantees of the rights of individuals who may be
> involved in those processes it is a crucial and serious matter. It has
> been
> made more pressing and important by the seating of the Grievance
> committee
> who will institute the process. This is not a question of expedience,
> but
> a
> matter of insuring that the rights of members are guaranteed at the onset
> of
> the process and and a guarantee that the only way that those rights could
> ever be taken away is by a vote of the members themselves.
>
> The only real requirements for using this provision is that the issue be
> significant enough to demand the attention of the AB and the Members and
> important enough that failing to act will affect the well-being of the
> project. .
>
>>From my point of view, to guarantee people legitimate rights that they
> deserve but will be denied if we don't act, is always urgent and affects
> the
> well-being of the project and is of utmost importance to it's members.
> Ultimately, the decision on whether this proposal becomes part of the
> bylaws
> is up to the membership - where it should be.
>
> Scott Burow
> NC - USGenWeb Project
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> STATE-COORD-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
STATE-COORD-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/634 - Release Date: 1/17/2007
4:45 PM
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
OHGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message