Transcript Part 2
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 12:09:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Cyndie,
You said: This hearing was announced at the conclusion of another hearing conducted by the Advisory Board. Hearings, appeals and other important personnel issues have taken priority by the Advisory Board as past precedent. The charges presented included evidence which the Advisory Board felt warranted a hearing. Any other implications of the motives of the Advisory Board are hearsay as this hearing has not started yet and no determination has been made.
Please verify by email that I understand your statements as intended:
1 - The charges were brought against me by Sherri Bradley, National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project.
2 - The AB held a closed hearing to determine that there was sufficient evidence from Sherri to hold a disciplinary hearing and further that no transcription of that hearing is going to be made available to me.
3 - I agree that the disciplinary hearing being held by the AB has not begun I contend that a hearing has already been held to determine that a disciplinary hearing is warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 7:57:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Diane,
I am not the appropriate person to answer #1 & #2 as I am the chair of the hearing only. The determination to have the hearing was prior to my assignment as chair and I'm not the responsible party for the process of determining if a hearing will be held.
Regarding #3: I have provided an outline of the process and indicated that we are currently in the Administrative Tasks part of the process. The responsible party for the process of determining if a hearing will be held would need to respond to the second part of your question.
Since you have directed this to me, you will need to indicate if you wish for Sherri to respond to the questions that do not pertain to me.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Cc: Linda Blum-Barton
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 1:45:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Yes, Sherri or whomever is the person that can answer my questions please answer them.
Thank you Cyndie.
Diane
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:21:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Sherri,
I'm going to defer Diane's questions regarding this process prior to acceptance of the hearing to you.
Thanks,
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Cc: Linda Blum-Barton
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:06:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Linda Blum-Barton is my advisor for this hearing. Please subscribe her to the list.
Thank you,
Diane
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:22:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Linda Blum-Barton has been subscribed to the list as requested.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:26:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Thank you.
Diane
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:35:29 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement
Linda,
All Advisory Board members and Diane Siniard have indicated that they are present and have been asked to agree to the following Confidentiality and List Rules. All Advisory Board members have agreed. Diane has until 7:00pm EDT today to agree. Please read through and respond as to if you agree to the Confidentiality and List Rules below. If you and Diane agree to these terms, you will be placed in moderated status as Diane’s advisor. As Diane’s advisor, you may then communicate with Diane only regarding this hearing. If you do not agree to the terms, you will be unsubscribed from the list.
Cyndie
From: Cyndie
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:04 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement
Please respond that you agree or disagree with the following Confidentiality statement and Hearing List Rules (for example, I agree with the Confidentiality Statement and I agree with the Hearing List Rules).
Confidentiality Statement:
Do you agree that this hearing is considered closed and all matters discussed are to remain confidential to all not present for this Hearing.
Hearing List Rules:
Do you agree to the following list rules?
1. All information/statements will be restricted to matters directly relevant to the charges.
2. Harassment of witnesses or other parties will result in a warning. Repeat occurrences will result in the loss of the right to question witnesses, moderation of messages and possible expulsion from the hearing.
3. Advisors, if present, are restricted to advising and may not make statements or ask questions during the proceeding. Advisors are moderated on the list by default.
4. Any person who is disruptive or fails to abide by the hearing procedures or rules set by the chair may be removed.
5. Witnesses may be subscribed to this list to give testimony. The list may be moderated until the subscribed witness agrees to Hearing Confidentiality and the Hearing List Rules
Cyndie
=========================
From: Linda Blum-Barton
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 3:26:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement
I do agree to retain the confidentiality of this list and to abide by the List Rules.
Linda Blum-Barton
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 3:51:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement
Thank you Linda BB. You are now moderated on this list.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 3:40:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement
I agree to retain the confidentiality of this list and to abide by the list rules
Diane
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 8:49:02 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] FW: [BOARD-EXEC] Formal Request for Disciplinary Hearing
I know this is jumping the gun as far as the agenda, however to answer to Diane's question 1, I filed the following formal request for a hearing (below). I am prepared to discuss the charges in detail at the appropriate time in the hearing.
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Lewis
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:22 PM
To: board-exec@rootsweb.com
Subject: [BOARD-EXEC] Formal Request for Disciplinary Hearing
I request that the Advisory Board conduct a disciplinary hearing for Diane Siniard, member of COGenWeb and MOGenWeb, for the charge of breaching the confidentiality of Grievance 2009-08-15 for which Ms. Siniard served as the Chair of the Grievance Committee.
This is evidenced by:
1) the sharing of private GC communications with parties involved in Grievance 2009-08-15 as demonstrated within the evidence submitted to the AB for the resulting disciplinary hearing against two FLGenWeb, Inc. members.
2) the posting of private GC communications to the archived SWSC list that included the name of a party to Grievance 2009-08-15. See
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273937350
This breach of confidentiality is in direct violation of Section A, Subsection Qualifications, Paragraph 3 of the Grievance Committee Procedures voted into effect by the membership
(http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html):
"Because grievances are considered personnel matters, all volunteers must state that they are willing to abide by strict confidentiality requirements. Volunteers must also state that they understand that violation of this confidentiality agreement will mean immediate expulsion from the Grievance Committee, and could result in determination of Member Not in Good Standing by the Advisory Board."
Ms. Siniard maintains the following USGenWeb member sites:
- COGenWeb: La Plata Co (http://cogenweb.com/laplata/)
- COGenWeb: San Miguel (http://cogenweb.com/sanmiguel/)
- MOGenWeb: MO in the Civil War (http://www.mogenweb.org/mocivwar/)
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
=========================
From: Sherri
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 9:19:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: [BOARD-EXEC] Formal Request for Disciplinary Hearing
Thank you, Linda, for taking ownership of the charges. Had I reiterated that I had not filed the charges, I'm sure that I would not have been believed by those that were not there when the request for this hearing was made.
Sherri
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 9:30:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: [BOARD-EXEC] Formal Request for Disciplinary Hearing
Could I please have question # 2 answered:
2 - The AB held a closed hearing to determine that there was sufficient evidence from Linda to hold a disciplinary hearing and further that no transcription of that hearing is going to be made available to me.
Diane's question 1, I filed the following formal request for a hearing (below). I am prepared to discuss the charges in detail at the appropriate time in the hearing.
Question # 1 answered by Linda K. Lewis
Regarding #3: I have provided an outline of the process and indicated that we are currently in the Administrative Tasks part of the process. The responsible party for the process of determining if a hearing will be held would need to respond to the second part of your question.
Question # 3 answered by Cyndie
Diane
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 9:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Diane,
Linda has addressed your first statement when she stated that she was the one that requested the disciplinary hearing be held.
As to the second statement, the AB did as it is supposed to do with personnel issues - it was brought up on EXEC and the majority of the AB felt that a hearing was warranted. Other than that, no decision was reached as to innocence or guilt.
As for your third statement, all I can say again is that no "hearing" was held on EXEC. A hearing requires that the accused be given the opportunity to present evidence that would show their side of the actions mentioned in the charges. That is where we're at. Obviously the hearing could not be "held" on EXEC as not all participants would be able to be subscribed to that list.
Sherri
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 9:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Cyndie,
I believe the Diane's three statements have been addressed.
Sherri
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:26:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
So, again, I ask, am I to assume I will not be given a transcription from the EXEC list of this discussion?
Diane
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Thu, July 8, 2010 9:08:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
You are correct that you will not be receiving a transcript of any discussion on EXEC. As you are aware, each board member must agree to maintain the confidentiality of EXEC when they take office. Those that choose not to agree to maintain the confidentiality are not subscribed to the list.
Having said that, there was no decision of innocence or guilt, as I mentioned below [above]. There was a general consensus that a hearing was warranted and should be convened and that's where we are at.
Sherri
=========================
From: AnnieG
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:51:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Since Cyndi has already given us an agenda, I would think the best time to answer or ask these questions would be when she opens the hearing tomorrow.
AnnieG
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:47 PM
To: board-exec@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Tampa Bay RR is back on the email black list and I am no longer able to receive Cyndie's messages. Last time this happened it took well over a month as it is very difficult to get my email host to let through anything blacklisted. The only way I can see Cyndie's messages is if someone replies to one and includes the full text.
Linda
The content of this message is confidential and intended only for current USGenWeb Advisory Board members subscribed to the BOARD-EXEC list.
=========================
From: Denise Wells
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:51 AM
To: Linda K. Lewis; board-exec@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Could someone else forward those to you?
Denise
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM
To: Denise Wells
Subject: RE: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Yes. This will really be a pain for the hearing - if Cyndie requests something of me I will have to depend on someone else responding or forwarding it to me. I've already put in an initial trouble ticket but it is an issue that only roadrunner can actually solve.
Linda
=========================
From: Denise Wells
To: board-exec@rootsweb.com; board@rootsweb.com; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 1:32:18 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Linda has a problem with receiving email from Roadrunner. Does anyone want to take on forwarding Cyndie's emails to Linda until this problem gets worked out?
I can forward as I see them and am able, but with packing, moving, selling and working, not sure if I will stay on top of that to make the commitment, and there is no sense in more than one person doing this and then Linda ends up with duplicates of everything to read.
What does the group think?
Denise
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:36:30 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Opening Statement
The disciplinary hearing involving Diane Siniard is now open. All parties have responded present and have agreed to the list rules and confidentiality.
Cyndie Enfinger
Hearing Chair
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:42:11 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Evidentiary Phase
We will start with the evidentiary phase as indicated in the hearing outline. Below are the charges presented to the membership and recorded with the Secretary.
At this time the Advisory Board may present any evidence and identify any witnesses who may provide evidence regarding these charges.
Cyndie
[repeat of charges omitted --mw]
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 12:25:20 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I object to Linda K Lewis being a member of this disciplinary hearing, she should be recused from the hearing panel and from voting as a member on the disciplinary hearing board.
To wit: Linda K Lewis brought the charges to the Advisory Board, she should only be called upon to present evidence and make any statements necessary as a witness.
I also object to her being a voting member of this disciplinary hearing due to her stated "verdict" on the SW regional mailing list as evidenced here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1277832719
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
=========================
From: Denise Wells
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 3:53:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Respectfully,
I see no problem with Linda's statement as provided by Diane. A
statement is not a "verdict.".
Given this type of objection, I would anticipate that you might find something to object to with respect to each and every AB member. Each of us was elected to serve on this board and represent all ccs and scs throughout this project. That is what we are here for and intend to do.
Irrespective of your or anyone else's opinions, I have found that this group of AB members has been one of the most objective I've seen. We do not always agree and I would want to err on the side of the sheer number of members instead of attempting remove any of them from this hearing as it would be more in your best interest than attempting to potentially alienate members which could also work to your detriment in any vote.
Just my opinion. Not a verdict.
Again respectfully,
Denise Wells
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 5:36:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have seen David's comment regarding Diane's objection below. Are there any other comments on Diane's objection?
Cyndie
=========================
From: Larry Flesher
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 5:57:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
The facts are:
Linda requested the hearing, and delineated the charges to be heard.
Linda has stated that she will maintain confidentiality and follow the hearing rules (as did everyone else)
Linda has stated that she does not have an issue which would prevent her from being objective (as did everyone else).
In my opinion, no reason exists to exclude her from the hearing. Her one vote will not overpower the majority, unless she can "sell" her position (if she actually has one) to the majority (as does sometimes happen in a jury room).
Larry
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 5:57:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have received Denise's comments also.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Pauli Smith
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:06:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I haven't seen David's comments, did I miss something? Other than that, I think that Larry said it well. I see no problem with allowing Linda to continue to be a participating member of this hearing. As Larry said, her one vote will not be able to overpower the majority unless she has an agenda and can really sell it.
Pauli Smith
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:16:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I went back and looked and it was sent to me direct. It had the Usgwconf-2 prefix on the subject, so I assumed it went to the list.
This is to everyone. . . If you have comments, please share them with the group. If you are not willing to share them with the group, then please do not expect them to be considered.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Denise Wells
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:17:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have not seen any comment from David. I made a comment but haven't seen davids.
Denise Wells
=========================
From: AnnieG
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 6:52:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I haven't seen David's post either but I agree with Larry.
AnnieG
=========================
From: DC & Alice Allen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 8:26:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have not seen David's comment, but I have nothing to add.
Alice
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 12:13:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I agree with Larry, Pauli and Annie. I see no reason that Linda should be removed from the hearing based solely on the fact that she brought the charges.
Sherri
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 11:39:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Cyndie,
at your request:
She has a very valid point. Prosecutor, Complainter, witness, Judge and Jury all in one. Linda has to be removed as member of the panel as well as voting completely. Otherwise, if allowed, will be deemed completely corrupt in worst manner by many.
David
=========================
From: Colleen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 12:17:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I half agree with David. Allow Linda to present and witness her case, but that's it; she should not participate in the vote. It's the only way to prevent a charge of corruption, etc.
Colleen
=========================
From: Jeff Kemp
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 1:54:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I agree with the statements made by Larry. Linda should remain. It should be her decision whether to stay or remain herself.
Jeff
=========================
From: Dale Grimm
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 8:30:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Prosector? I was not aware there was one.
Judge? If anyone would fit that title, it would be Cyndie.
Jury? A member along with a dozen others.
Complainter, witness? Possibly. But I fail to see how allowing the person making the complaint offer "testimony" can be considered corrupt. Perhaps David can explain himself there.
As far as voting - it's a bit early to tell. We have no indication of any vengeance here. And she has affirmed that there is nothing to prevent her from participating.
We cannot go around banning members from participating based on
insinuations.
Dale
=========================
From: Bill
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 8:34:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
'siyo,
At this point, I do not see any reason why Linda K. could or would not perform on these committee proceedings according to the highest mores and moral conduct and thus, I say that it is totally up to her to serve or not serve on this hearing. Corruptness evolves from personal agendas and thus far I see none. These issues have been in the "wind" [so to speak] from before I was appointed to this AB and are following a path that should be taken in order to either put them to rest. If anyone wants "fairness" then these proceedings must also be brought to conclusion. The future will become the past.
Sgi,
Bill Oliver
=========================
From: Dale Grimm
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 8:40:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
There was no "verdict" on the list posting.
And I have seen nothing to indicate any conflict of interest.
I believe Linda to be intelligent and honorable enough to know if she should vote or abstain.
Dale
=========================
From: DC & Alice Allen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 11:54:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
At this time I also see no reason for Linda K to not participate as she sees fit. In our time together on the AB I have not seen any indications of her not being fair on anything we've worked on. I don't believe this would be any different for her.
Alice Allen
NENC CC Rep
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 12:12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I stand by my objection.
Before this hearing panel votes on my objection, I would further point out that this hearing had already been announced and Linda K Lewis had agreed to the confidentiality of these proceedings before this post was made on the South West South Central Regional mailing list, an official mailing list of The USGenWeb Project. My contention is that it does show her prejudice regarding these proceedings in addition to the fact that she is the complainant in this matter. In a legal proceeding, the complainant nor the prosecutor has a vote on the jury. Gathered from the statements made on this list, it appears she will also be the prosecutor.
Without Prejudice,
Diane Siniard
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 12:14:28 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Madam Chair,
I have a couple of administrative questions before proceeding 1 - Could you explain the make up of this hearing panel and include the participation level of each person subbed to this list please?
ie, is Sherri Bradley subbed to this list as ex-officio chair because of her position as National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project and would vote in case of a tie or does she have full voting rights on this panel?
Are you, as Chair of this hearing panel, a voting member? Or do you vote in the case of a tie?
What are the voting parameters to determine the outcome of this hearing? Will a quorum be required of this panel ? Is it a 2/3 vote? a simple majority?
Since Sturgis is not being followed in this matter, will the determination of this committee be brought to the full membership of this project for a vote?
Repectfully,
Diane Siniard
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 1:42:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Diane,
The members of this panel have already been listed and an outline of the process has already been provided. Sturgis does not give any guidance on the level of participation of each participant. It is reasonable to assume that each participant may present evidence and ask questions as outlined.
Regarding Sherri, Ex Officio is mentioned but not defined in the USGenWeb Bylaws, Standard Rules or Special Rules, therefore Sturgis is consulted. According to Sturgis, page 178, in the section Ex Officio Members of Committees: "Unless other provisions are adopted, an ex officio member is a regular working member of a committee, is counted in determining the quorum, and has all the rights and responsibilities of any other member of the committee, including the right to vote."
Regarding me, the USGenWeb Bylaws, Standard Rules and Special Rules are silent on the matter of committee chairs, therefore Sturgis is consulted. According to Sturgis, page 177, in the section Selection of the Committee Chair it states: "Unlike the presiding officer of an assembly, the chair of a committee takes an active part in its discussion and deliberations." I do not see mention of voting here, but I believe it has been precedence that the chair does not vote unless there is a tie. If someone else has a source that gives a definite answer on this, please share a reference.
Regarding voting, the Bylaws state. "B. Issues shall require a 2/3 majority, of those board members voting, to pass."
It is incorrect that Sturgis is not being following here. The following Special Rule applies and the issue of following Sturgis has already been addressed:
"II. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY.
The parliamentary authority is The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis (current revised and updated edition), modified within USGenWeb Special Rules to adapt to the particular needs of conducting a meeting via an electronic internet mailing list."
Sturgis states on page 225 regarding hearings in the section Penalty: "The decision may be approved by a majority vote of the legal votes cast at the meeting" Sturgis conflicts with the Bylaws here regarding vote requirement, but legal vote would equate to the voting members of the Advisory Board that participated in the hearing. It has been past precedence that disciplinary votes are conducted by the Advisory Board and not presented to the full membership. The USGenWeb Special Rules also state "The Advisory Board electronic meeting is an USGenWeb official assembly.", further indicating that the Advisory Board vote represents the full membership.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 2:18:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have reviewed the comments regarding this objection and looked at this situation from various perspectives. I did not take this lightly. I know that no matter what I rule here, someone is going to negatively judge me and I can live with that as this is not about whether people like me or not. With that in mind, I still intend to display my rational behind this in an attempt to show that I feel this was made in fairness.
These are the points that I've weighed.
>From the perspective of Linda KL's position:
- There appears to be no personal interest/gain for Linda KL in the outcome of this hearing to make her biased.
- Linda KL's only involvement in the charges made was participation in the Gries/Smith hearing. This appears to have been done out of concern for the rules and protection of the grievance process and not out of vengeance.
- Linda KL indicated she had no reason to recuse herself from this hearing, furthering the case for a lack of bias.
- Sturgis gives the AB the right (page 222) to select committee members.
>From the perspective of Diane's position:
- Both the charges made and the message to the SW list could be perceived as an accusation of guilt even though no definitive statement of guilt was made.
- In a legal trial, the accuser would not be also permitted to be on the jury.
- Allowing the person making the charges to also vote on them could be construed as unfair play.
In light of that, I believe that Linda KL should be a participant during the entire Evidentiary phase as a witness due to her participation in the hearing related to these charges and as the presenter of evidence supplied within the charges. While I feel that Linda KL is honest and would not be biased, putting myself in Diane's shoes I can also understand her perspective and for that reason I think it would be best if Linda KL did not vote in this hearing.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 1:43:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Thank you for weighing in on both sides and coming to a fair decision.
Diane
=========================
From: Pauli Smith
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 6:11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Cyndie,
I think you have weighed the needs of both sides and come up with a good compromise. Like you said, there will be some on either side who probably will not be happy, but then in this case, I think that is inevitable.
Pauli
=========================
From: DC & Alice Allen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 9:21:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Good call, Cyndie. Thank you.
Alice
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 8:29:22 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Presented Evidence
The charges presented provide the following evidence. I'm number these as AE#, which can be used to reference them if needed:
AE1 - A link to the USGENWEB-SW Mailing list:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273937350
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 8:41:33 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Requested Evidence
The following charges have been made. At this time, evidence should be presented to support these claims. If witnesses are needed to present evidence, they should be identified at this time as well:
1) the sharing of private GC communications with parties involved in Grievance 2009-08-15 as demonstrated within the evidence submitted to the AB for the resulting disciplinary hearing against two FLGenWeb, Inc. members.
A link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list was presented for the following as evidence. If there is a additional evidence that should be provided as well
2) the posting of private GC communications to the archived SWSC list that included the name of a party to Grievance 2009-08-15.
Evidence should also be presented to show that Diane Siniard agreed to the following confidentiality agreement/requirements as a member of the Grievance Committee as mentioned in the charges:
This breach of confidentiality is in direct violation of Section A, Subsection Qualifications, Paragraph 3 of the Grievance Committee Procedures voted into effect by the membership (http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html
"Because grievances are considered personnel matters, all volunteers must state that they are willing to abide by strict confidentiality requirements.
Volunteers must also state that they understand that violation of this confidentiality agreement will mean immediate expulsion from the Grievance Committee, and could result in determination of Member Not in Good Standing by the Advisory Board."
Cyndie
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 1:52:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Requested Evidence
The Advisory Board should also indicate how long you feel it will take to present this evidence.
Diane will be asked for a timeline to submit evidence when it is time for the Respondent to present evidence.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 12:20:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Requested Evidence
Cyndie,
Do you want a copy of the evidence from the disciplinary hearing for Fran Smith and Dennis Gries, sent through on this list so we're sure everyone has a copy? If so, I'll be glad to forward it.
Sherri
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 12:25:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Requested Evidence
Yes, not everyone here participated in that hearing, so it would be appropriate to provide any relevant documentation here.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 1:42:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Respectfully, I have to disagree on Sturgis being followed. Not by you in this hearing but prior to this hearing:
Sturgis page 174 was broken: "Failure or refusal to disclose necessary information on matters of organizational business" is a valid cause for removal from office. This hearing should have been posted on the Board list at the same time my hearing notice was sent to me but it was not. It was posted several hours later. I have asked the AB repeatedly to look into this and I have been ignored.
I also believe that Sturgis pages 9 & 10 are being broken by the timing of this hearing:
"Fairness and Good Faith
"All meetings must be characterized by fairness and by good faith. Trickery, overemphasis on minor technicalities, dilatory tactics, indulgence in personalities, and railroading threaten the spirit and practice of fairness and good faith. If a meeting is characterized by fairness and good faith, a minor procedural error will not invalidate an action that has been taken by an organization. But fraud, unfairness, or absence of good faith may cause a court to hold any action invalid. Parliamentary strategy is the art of using legitimately the parliamentary principles, rules, and motions to support or defeat a proposal. It includes, for example, such important factors as timing, wording of proposals, choice of supporters, selection of arguments, and manipulation of proposals by other motions. Strategy, ethically used, is constructive; however, if it involves deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation, railroading, or denial of rights of members, it is destructive and actually illegal."
In 1776 John Hatsell, the famous British parliamentarian, wrote, "Motives ought to outweigh objections of form." The interpretations of the courts make it clear that the intent and overall good faith of the group are of more importance than the particular detail of procedure used in a given instance. The effectiveness and, in fact, often the existence of an organization are destroyed if its officers or members condone unfairness or lack of good faith.
I believe dilatory tactics, railroading and intimidation are being used in this hearing.
1 - The AB is no longer a jury of my peers. - Intimidation.
2 - Dilatory tactics are being used in my opinion because this hearing notice was served right after I announced I was running for the National Coordinator position and not within the time limits allowed by the project's own Grievance process.
3 - I believe I am being railroaded because I have pointed out that both the National Coordinator, Sherri Bradley and the RAL member of the Advisory Board, Tina S Vickery have bypassed the bylaws and Grievance Committee Procedures by participating in discussions on the GC private mailing list
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 2:15:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Diane,
These questions are outside the scope of my duties as the Hearing Chair as these events occurred prior to my appointment and commencement of this hearing.
I believe that these questions have already been asked and answered, but if Sherri, as National Coordinator, or Linda K. Lewis, as the requestor, has a response, they may do so.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 1:45:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
I rise to a Point of Order
Madam Chair,
Don't we need to discuss the time frames before the presentation of evidence so we know how long it is going to take each side to present evidence and witnesses?
III. Evidentiary Phase: Time to be agreed upon ( ). (Disciplinary Hearing Panel and Respondent(s) should be prepared to estimate time needed)
Respectfully,
Diane Siniard
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 2:04:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Diane,
The verbiage indicates "should be" prepared to estimate time needed. This may need to be flexible based on questions and circumstances around obtaining evidence or including witnesses.
I have requested a time estimate from the Hearing Panel to present evidence in an email sent previous to this one. Evidence may continue to be submitted by the Hearing Panel as these processes are not mutually exclusive and changes in timelines may occur throughout this process.
If you wish to give a time estimate to present your evidence now, you may, but you may also wait until the Hearing Panel has concluded presenting evidence.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 2:17:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing
Cyndie,
Completely understandable. I was just wanting some basic timeline of how long it would take.
I have some serious doctor appointments coming up in the near future where I will not be available for a few days afterwards and I was trying to figure all of this in so I could let you know in advance if my appointments and downtime would interfere in this or not. Just some FYI I am currently barely able to walk with some memory loss, and serious body jerking problems we thought was MS but found it was not. Now they are thinking Parkinson's, so sometimes I get bedridden for a few days from it. My husband knows to email Linda, and I will ask her to let you know if this happens. I will also let you know if this stretches out into the date for my procedure and I am bedridden from it as well.
Sorry to get personal but thought you needed to know if I disappear and don't answer you and to explain why I really wanted the timeline on this. Linda and I will get together and work up a timeline on ours and I will get back with you.
Thanks again,
Diane