-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [STATE-COORD] Grievance Procedures Amendment Proposal
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:04:33 -0600
From: Scott Burow <sburow(a)swbell.net>
Reply-To: state-coord(a)rootsweb.com
To: <usgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>, <state-coord(a)rootsweb.com>
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
--
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