Transcript Part 4

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:23:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Diane,

Your request is out of order as it conflicts with the list rules that have been agreed upon by all participating members.

Cyndie

-----Original Message-----

From: Diane Siniard

Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 PM

To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Point of Order

In conducting the hearing the committee should preserve decorum and fair play....

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:32:16 AM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Warning: David Samuelsen and Linda K. Lewis

Per the agreed upon list rules:

Harassment of witnesses or other parties will result in a warning.

Any person who is disruptive or fails to abide by the hearing procedures or rules set by the chair may be removed.

This is a warning to David Samuelsen and Linda K. Lewis.

You have both submitted messages with direct personal accusations which is disruptive to this process. Continued arguments will result in moderation.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:41:04 AM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing Panel Evidence

The following evidence has been submitted:

AE1 - A link to the USGENWEB-SW Mailing list in the presented charges:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273937350

AE2 - Attachment submitted by Sherri Bradley titled "Statement by Dennis J.doc", email dated 7/12/2010, size 58kb.

AE3 - Attachment submitted by Sherri Bradley titles "Grievance 2009-08-15.doc", email dated 7/12/2010, size 3MB.

Any additional evidence to support the charges should be submitted by 7:00am, Thursday July 15th, or reason provided along with needed time frame to submit after that time. This does not mean that additional evidence may not be submitted if requested during questioning.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:57:21 AM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from Panel Members and Respondants

Questioning by the Hearing Panel may begin after 7:00am, Thursday, July 14, 2010. Because this is a virtual environment, please follow these guidelines:

- One question per email.

- Use a unique subject line for each question (ie. Cyndie Panel Question #1, Cyndie Panel Question #2, etc.) Try not to make it too long or it may get truncated by some email.

- Do not change the subject line when responding to a question or asking a follow-up question to an original question.

- When responding to a message, you may remove some previous content to keep the message from bouncing due to size, but please keep at least the original question and any pertinent information that you are responding to.

- Multiple questions may be asked (ie. you do not need to wait for an answer to submit another question).

- Follow-up questions may be asked.

- If two similar questions are asked, the chair reserves the right to combine them into one under a new subject name.

- The respondent, Diane, may ask cross examine questions to a particular question after answering the question. Please add the work CROSS to the subject line.

Questions, comments or requests regarding these guidelines should be submitted by 6:30AM, Thursday, July 14, 2010.

Cyndie

=========================

From: W David Samuelsen

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 1:36:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Yes but AFTER written and adopted an adaption of the procedures. NO such procedure in Standard Rules or Special Rules at all.

And Sturgis is very clear about it, written rules.

David

On 7/14/2010 4:21 AM, Cyndie wrote:

> David,

> You need to go back and read what I quoted from Sturgis,

> specifically: ....

=========================

From: Diane Siniard

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 2:12:13 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Madam Chair,

My request is in order according to the consent agenda.

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.

4. Any person who is disruptive or fails to abide by the hearing procedures or rules set by the chair may be removed.

Per Sturgis:

4. Hearing: In conducting the hearing the committee should preserve decorum and fair play, restrict evidence and testimony to the written charges, and uphold the right of the accused member to presenta defense, to cross-examine witnesses, and to refute charges which have been made.

Furthermore, for everyone to think about,

What can the presiding officer do to prevent strife within an organization?

When a discussion becomes personal, and members are allowed to comment on the motives, competence, or character of other members. It is the duty of the presiding officer to stifle such behavior immediately by ruling it out of order. Failure to do so may result in the development of a full-blown personal feud, which can plague an organization for years to come.

Mistakes most commonly made by presiding officers

Failure to stifle promptly out of order remarks, such as nongermane discussion or derogatory comments about another member

Allowing discussion to become to informal, bypassing the chair, thereby causing the chair to lose control

The most common mistake of presiding officers, however, is trying to "play it by ear," conducting a meeting without a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedure. In other words of the noted parliamentarian George Demeter, "It is the duty of the presiding officer to know the rules of parliamentary law and basic parliamentary practice. There is nothing more pitiable than one who is ignorant of parliamentary law trying to preside over an assembly; the more intelligent the assembly, the sadder the spectacle."

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Siniard

Without Prejudice

----- Original Message ----

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:23:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Diane,

Your request is out of order as it conflicts with the list rules that have been agreed upon by all participating members.

Cyndie

=========================

From: AnnieG

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 3:48:07 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] More Evidence

Sorry for the delay Cyndi - I was out of town over the first part of the week.

AnnieG

Diane sending message to SW - message from the private GC mail list accusing the GC/AB of breaking the rules by reappointing Jo Branch to The GC

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1275774348

Response to Tina's noting that she'd sent a message from the private GC mail list to SW

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1275790572

More posts on SW that contain messages from the private GC mail list and parts of the disciplinary hearing from the FL folks

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276664500

Statements from Diane that she'd broken the confidentiality, but she'd been resigned from the GC for a while

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276700509

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276999618

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGenWeb-NW/2010-06/1277407316

Posts to SW like the original charge

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273939379

Offers to list members to send a document that contains our "supposed violations" of the bylaws & procedures

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273939379

Diane's campaign page where she admits to breaking the confidentiality of the GC private list and sending copies of emails to the FL folks. There is a link from this same page that allows anyone that visits her page to download a copy of all of the "proof" that she has (that is from the confidential GC list or her position on the GC).

http://cogenweb.com/laplata/nccamp2.htm

=========================

From: Diane Siniard

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 5:33:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] More Evidence

I object to the evidence presented by AnnieG as it is not on the agenda and therefore must be withdrawn.

I demand that the panel adhere to the charges that are set in the agenda without further debate and that the chair preform their discretionary duty by rejecting all of AnnieG's testimony and evidence as being out of order and that a ruling be passed that no more such evidence be entered that is not in accordance with the agenda.

Respectfully Submitted,

Diane Siniard

Without Prejudice

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 5:58:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....

Diane,

As indicated on Monday July 12th:

"There has been more than ample time for each party to express objections regarding the holding of this hearing and the hearing process itself. Any party that has additional objections to the holding of this hearing and the hearing process itself must present all objections by Tuesday, July 11, 2010, by 9:00PM EDT. No objections on this matter will be considered beyond that time."

Your requests are related to this hearing and the hearing process itself and will not be considered as they are out of order. Your continued objections and requests on matters that have already been addressed or matters related to the holding of this hearing or the hearing process itself will be considered disruptive and a failure to abide by hearing procedures.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:02:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement

This serves as a reminder to Linda Blum Barton that as listed below:

"As Diane's advisor, you may then communicate with Diane only regarding this hearing."

A message from Linda Blum Barton sent to the list has bounced. It will not be considered.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:24:27 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing Panel Evidence

Of the evidence submitted by AnnieG, only the evidence related to the specific charges made will be entered as evidence as follows:

AE4 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list referencing the Gries/Smith hearing:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276664500

AE5 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list referencing the Gries/Smith hearing:

http://archiver.rootsweb..ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276700509

AE6 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list referencing the Gries/Smith hearing and this hearing:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276999618

AE7 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list that references this hearing:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGenWeb-NW/2010-06/1277407316

AE8 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list that references the Gries/Smith grievance:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-05/1273939379

AE9 - Link to Diane Siniard campaign page which references this hearing:

http://cogenweb.com/laplata/nccamp2.htm

Links regarding the appointment of Jo Branch to the GC are outside the specific charges made..

Cyndie

=========================

From: Diane Siniard

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:37:32 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement

The reply from Linda B was an accident. She hit reply when she meant to hit forward. After she sent the message she did go in and delete it form the mailman server.

Diane

Without Prejudice

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 8:52:17 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Hearing Confidentiality, List Rules and Agreement

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Linda K Lewis

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 9:19:47 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Offline today

Just fyi - some of you know I've been working as a census enumerator through all our normal 90+ degree temps (humidity here is always 80% or higher), but the past two days our temps jumped to 100s and with 93% humidity and no breeze the heat index was over 125.. I got so incredibly thirsty I did the very bad thing I know better than to do - I gulped cold water - and became very violently ill. I'm just up long enough to tell y'all I'm down. Hope to be back up and enumerating and online tomorrow.

Getting a good taste of what our poor forefathers when through with census and it isn't pretty. I will never ever cuss that lousy enumerator in Philly in 1900 who did such a crappy job on all my ancestors - I now bow to him and ate a large slice of Humble pie.

Linda K. Lewis

=========================

From: AnnieG

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 2:10:12 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] More Evidence

Here is some more -

AnnieG

Ann Allen Geoghegan

http://www.genwebstalkers.blogspot.com/

For the Mary White blog and

http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/home/new-site/gcc

For the companion website

http://genwebstalkers.blogspot.com/2010/06/gc-corruption.html

Diane offering to send the grievance committee messages with others

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 6:30:14 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Hearing Panel Evidence

From the second message submitting evidence from AnnieG, the following will be entered as evidence as follows:

AE10 - Link to a website genwebstalkers.blogspot.com which references the disciplinary hearing:

http://genwebstalkers.blogspot.com/2010/06/gc-confessions.html#comments

AE11 - Link to sites.google.com page with heading Grievance Committee Confessions with links to emails which include those from the Gries/Smith grievance:

http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/home/new-site/gcc

I did't see a reference to the Gries/Smith grievance or hearing in the last link, so I did not enter it as evidence.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 6:40:10 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Cyndie Question #1

Diane,

In AE6 - Link to the USGENWEB-SW mailing list referencing the Gries/Smith hearing and this hearing:

http://archiver..rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2010-06/1276999618

You stated:

"I am not a member of the GC and haven't been since March. I didn't release the emails until June, so I wasn't on the GC when I did that either. So the AB cannot say I am a member of the GC and I broke confidentiality."

Can you please point to the rule or procedure that indicates that confidentiality ends when one is no longer a member of the Grievance Committee?

Cyndie

=========================

From: Diane Siniard

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 8:20:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Cyndie Question #1

Madam chair,

I requested a time frame from the panel and my question has not been answered. I asked for 15 days after the panel finished presenting their case and that has not been answered. My request for a Parlimentarian has been ignored. The deadline for submitting evidence was 7:00 am Thursday July 15, 2010 for the panel. There are certain items that were requested that have not been produced.

So, without these questions being answered and/or evidence provided I am exercising my parlimentary right to have all questions presented and I will answer them when I present my case, evidence and witnesses.

Respectfully Submitted,

Diane Siniard

Without Prejudice

=========================

From: Sherri

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 8:59:56 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Evidence Request

Cyndie,

In regards to your request for me, as National Coordinator, to provide proof that Ms. Siniard agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the GC Committee and its business, I do not have that proof. Ms. Siniard was already a member of the GC when I took office as NC and as such I did not have access to any old messages from the GC private mail list. The best I can come up with is her (Diane's) statement in some of the emails that have been entered as evidence already that she was aware that she'd broken the confidentiality by posting the messages she had.

Sherri

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:26:50 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Cyndie Question #1

Diane,

The questioning phase has started, but I have not yet requested an estimated time for questions. As some of the evidence has just been presented, it is reasonable to assume that members of the hearing panel will need to review that evidence prior to knowing what, if any, questions they will ask. Since you have indicated that you do not intend to answer any questions until you present your case, the time for questions will likely be short.

The issue regarding Parliamentarian has already been addressed. If you did not receive that response, please let me know and I'll resend it.

Cyndie

----- Original Message -----

From: Diane Siniard

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:21 PM

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Cyndie Question #1

Madam chair,

I requested a time frame from the panel and my question has not been answered. ....

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:32:02 AM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

Hearing Panel,

Diane has indicated that she will not answer questions until she presents her case.

Please respond to the following:

- If you do not have any questions, please indicate such

- If you do have questions, please indicate when you expect to have them submitted.

Based on your responses, a deadline to submit questions will be given. You may continue to ask Linda K. Lewis questions, as a witness, during this time and Linda may answer accordingly.

Cyndie

=========================

From: DC & Alice Allen

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 7:22:03 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

Cyndie,

At this time I have no questions.

Alice

=========================

From: Denise Wells

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 7:27:33 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I am drafting some questions this evening. Thank you.

Denise

=========================

From: Denise Wells

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 8:14:12 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Questions for Diane

1. Did you request permission from any of the parties prior to your publicizing and releasing the confidential emails that were in your care and control during the time period that you were the chair of the GC, or at any time afterward? If not, why?

2. Is there some reason that you believe confidentiality of information and/or emails and/or documents in your control did not survive your tenure as the chair of the GC?

3. If you felt that the grievance procedure was being compromised, why did you not file a grievance against the person you believe was compromising the confidentiality of the process?

4. If you felt that the grievance procedures were being compromised, why did you continue to engage in conversation with the NC as exhibited in some of the released emails?

5. If you felt that the grievance procedures were being compromised, why did you ask questions of the NC for guidance as exhibited in some of the released emails?

6. Given that there are numerous possible ways to deal with this issue, why did you choose to publicize and release confidential emails from a grievance process which were in your care, custody and control from the time you were chair of the GC?

7. Why should you not be punished because of your actions in releasing confidential emails from the GC?

8. Why did you find it necessary to include the names of the parties to the grievance?

9. If you felt that the bylaws were being violated by the NC, did you discuss that matter with the NC at the time that the actions occurred? If not, why not?

10. Do you trust the CCs who actually rendered the decision in the grievance? If not, why not?

11. Was there any direct communication between the mediator and/or arbitrators and the AB or the NC with respect to the issues in the grievance?

12. If you allege that there was direct communication between and/or among the NC and the mediator and/or arbitrators, and it is not just hearsay, please provide us with a copy of those specific communications, including all headers from each and every email that you allege was a direct communication with the mediator and/or arbitrators.

13. Please explain how any communications alleged in your response to No. 12 above were influenced by that communication.

14. What communication occurred between the NC and the mediator and/or arbitrators about the grievance that you allege influenced the decision rendered in this grievance? Please provide those specific emails and explain your position that the NC influenced the decision rendered in this grievance.

15. If there occurred communication between the NC and the mediator and/or arbitrators, and you were acting as the chair of the Grievance Committee, please explain what actions you took to cause communication to cease between them? Please provide a copy of each email wherein you attempted to intercede in the matter.

16. If communications occurred between the NC and the mediator and/or arbitrators in this grievance and you failed to intercede at that time, please explain your failure to take any action to alter the situation.

17. Since the primary thrust of the entire grievance process is to separate the AB from the mediator and/or arbitrators, and if, as you allege, such communications occurred to cause the NC to influence the decision, why did you fail to correct the matter at that immediate time?

18. Do you allege that confidentiality only extends to the time period during which you filled the position of chair of the GC?

19. Why do you believe that you have the right to break confidentiality AFTER you resigned your position as chair of the GC? Does not confidentiality mean confidential? Is there a time limit on confidentiality?

I reserve the right to pose additional questons until the question period expires.

Denise Wells

SEMA CC Rep

=========================

From: Pauli Smith

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 8:18:37 PM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I do not have questions at this time, but reserve the right to ask some later if needed. Denise has already covered the ones I wished to ask.

Pauli Smith

NENC CC Rep

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 8:43:20 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I have no additional questions at this time.

Cyndie

=========================

From: AnnieG

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 9:15:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I have no additional questions at this time.

Ann Allen Geoghegan

AnnieG

NWPL CC Rep

=========================

rom: Dale Grimm

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 9:26:57 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

Denise pretty much covered everthing - I have no questions at this time.

Dale

=========================

From: Lesley L Shockey

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 9:53:32 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I believe that Denise has ask any of the questions that I would like answered.

Les

SEMA SC Rep

=========================

From: Colleen

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:03:59 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

1. What prompted you to release confidential emails?

2. You say the NC repeated injected herself into multiple grievances. Do you have more examples? If so, please provide the emails with headers as evidence.

3. What repercussion(s) did you expect to happen when you released the confidential emails?

4. How do you feel the actions you took will reflect on you should you be voted into the NC position? Can you be trusted in that position?

5. What punishment, if any, should be exacted upon you - or anyone else mentioned in the confidential emails you released?

I may have other questions later and reserve the right to ask them later, if needed.

Colleen Pustola

NWPL CC Rep

=========================

From: Linda K Lewis

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:50:22 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

No questions. Linda K Lewis

=========================

From: Sherri

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:00:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I have no additional questions at this time.

Sherri

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 7:05:06 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

Colleen,

Diane has objected to evidence outside the scope of the charges being presented, specifically evidence presented from grievances other than the Gries/Smith grievance and hearing identified in the charges. That objection has been upheld and the evidence in question not accepted. That ruling applies to everyone, so #2 below [above] is out of order and any evidence submitted that is outside the scope of the Gries/Smith grievance and hearing will not be accepted.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Larry Flesher

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 10:12:17 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from Panel Members and Respondants

I have no questions at this time.

Larry

=========================

From: W David Samuelsen

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 12:06:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from Panel Members and Respondants

I have no questions at this time except for 1 or 2 for Sherri in light of her comment about a supposed email.

Will I be allowed to ask a question or 2 of Sherri?

David Samuelsen

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 1:29:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from Panel Members and Respondants

David and all hearing panel members:

As long as your questions are related to the charges being considered in this hearing and they are not personal attacks or other violations of the list rules, then yes, you may ask questions of other hearing panel members.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:32:49 AM

Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions from the Hearing Panel

I have not seen a response from

Jeff Kemp

Bill Oliver

Tina Vickery

If you did send a response, can you please resend as I do not see it in any inbox or spam related folders. If I do not see a response by 6:30am EDT , Tuesday, July 20th, it will be assumed that you have no questions.

Cyndie

=========================

From: Cyndie

To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org

Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:39:28 AM

Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Respondant Presents Case

I intend on moving on to the next step of this hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, July 20th, at approximately 6:30am.

At that time, Diane, you may present any witnesses, evidence and respond to the questions asked by the Hearing panel. For your convenience, those questions have been consolidated and listed below.

Diane, you have previously indicated that you wish for "15 days after the panel finished presenting their evidence". Can you please indicate why you need this much time? I'm not clear why any more than 7 days would be needed.