Part 3/3
From: Bradley, Sherri
Date: 1/21/2010 9:40:36 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: 2009-08-15
Diane,
We have an issue with Laverne’s grievance if I’m reading things right. She submitted the grievance and the committee discussed it. Was it accepted before it was rewritten or after? (Rejected then resubmitted and accepted on the second submission?) If it was accepted and then rewritten (for whatever reason), we’ve got a problem.
The Grievance Procedures clearly state that the grievance can be rewritten and resubmitted if it’s rejected, but do not include anything about the grievance being accepted and then rewritten. Because this is not in the GC Procedures, we can’t allow it. The grievance, as originally submitted, is the one that we must use. Laverne can bring up the clarifications, additional info, etc. during mediation and/or arbitration, but the correct “version” of the grievance is the one we must go with.
Please let me know which scenario the grievance falls under ASAP so that I can get to pushing the FLGenWeb folks to get this done.
Thanks,
SHerri
==============================
[Diane comments: Was it really 10 days or not? You be the judge...remember the posting of the grievance earlier...]
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 1/21/2010 10:18:24 AM
To: Bradley Sherri
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: Re: 2009-08-15
Sherri,
As it was originally written we couldn't understand a word of it so I asked her to rewrite it then we accepted it. In the original grievance she left parts out, left parts blank, etc so that we couldn't follow it and had no clue what she was talking she also brought up things that we couldn't and can't have authority over (hacking) so we had her rewrite it. We didn't even get into a vote we just asked her to rewrite it while we were still in discussions. There was no rejection, just a simple request because we couldn’t read and understand the grievance as it was written.
To put it mildly the first grievance was a mess so we basically asked her to remove the references to the hacking, and to her husband since he isn't a member of the Project and to make it easier to read and understand. She did so and had it back to me in the 10 days alloted for the rewrite.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Bradley, Sherri
Date: 1/21/2010 9:40:36 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: 2009-08-15
Diane,
We have an issue with Laverne’s grievance if I’m reading things right. She submitted the grievance and the committee discussed it. Was it accepted before it was rewritten or after? (Rejected then resubmitted and accepted on the second submission?) If it was accepted and then rewritten (for whatever reason), we’ve got a problem.
The Grievance Procedures clearly state that the grievance can be rewritten and resubmitted if it’s rejected, but do not include anything about the grievance being accepted and then rewritten. Because this is not in the GC Procedures, we can’t allow it. The grievance, as originally submitted, is the one that we must use. Laverne can bring up the clarifications, additional info, etc. During mediation and/or arbitration, but the correct “version” of the grievance is the one we must go with.
Please let me know which scenario the grievance falls under ASAP so that I can get to pushing the FLGenWeb folks to get this done.
Thanks,
Sherri
==============================
From: Bradley, Sherri
Date: 1/27/2010 9:36:33 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: RE: 2009-08-15
OK, I'm going to go with stating that it was originally rejected and that she rewrote and resubmitted within the allotted 10 days. That's the only way a grievance can "officially" be rewritten and resubmitted. FL's asked to see the original grievance and I'm not going to grant that request as nowhere in the procedures does it mention rewriting because the committee couldn't understand what she'd originally submitted.
I'll send this to them tonight so we can try to get moving on this. It sure would be nice to get this off of all of our plates.
I don't know if you've been following the discussion on ABCHAT (usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com) or not, but we're immediately dealing with the confidentiality issue and when the grievance officially "starts". We'll get to the other things after we clear the alias/harassment discussions. At least this deals with the biggest headache right now.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:18 AM
To: Bradley, Sherri
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: Re: 2009-08-15
Sherri,
As it was originally written we couldn't understand a word of it so I asked her to rewrite it then we accepted it. In the original grievance she left parts out, left parts blank, etc so that we couldn't follow it and had no clue what she was talking she also brought up things that we couldn't and can't have authority over (hacking) so we had her rewrite it. We didn't even get into a vote we just asked her to rewrite it while we were still in discussions. There was no rejection, just a simple request because we couldn t read and understand the grievance as it was written.
To put it mildly the first grievance was a mess so we basically asked her to remove the references to the hacking, and to her husband since he isn't a member of the Project and to make it easier to read and understand. She did so and had it back to me in the 10 days alloted for the rewrite.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Bradley, Sherri
Date: 1/21/2010 9:40:36 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; kyvitals@windstream.net
Subject: 2009-08-15
Diane,
We have an issue with Laverne’s grievance if I’m reading things right. She submitted the grievance and the committee discussed it. Was it accepted before it was rewritten or after? (Rejected then resubmitted and accepted on the second submission?) If it was accepted and then rewritten (for whatever reason), we’ve got a problem.
The Grievance Procedures clearly state that the grievance can be rewritten and resubmitted if it’s rejected, but do not include anything about the grievance being accepted and then rewritten. Because this is not in the GC Procedures, we can’t allow it. The grievance, as originally submitted, is the one that we must use. Laverne can bring up the clarifications, additional info, etc. During mediation and/or arbitration, but the correct “version” of the grievance is the one we must go with.
Please let me know which scenario the grievance falls under ASAP so that I can get to pushing the FLGenWeb folks to get this done.
Thanks,
Sherri
==============================
From: Sherri
Date: 1/31/2010 6:46:07 PM
To: franmuse@aol.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: RE: greivance
Fran,
I’m sorry to have taken so long to get back with you. I’ve gone over and over the GC procedures and the USGenWeb Project bylaws and they are going to be the guide that must be followed to settle this grievance.
The original grievance will not be provided as it was not accepted by the Grievance Committee. The grievance, as accepted by the committee, is the only one that will be dealt with.
Per the USGenWeb Project bylaws, Section XII, E (http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml), states may develop their own bylaws so long as they DO NOT CONFLICT with the USGenWeb Project bylaws. Since the USGenWeb Project has in its bylaws the Grievance Procedures, those are the ones that must be followed.
Per the USGenWeb Grievance Procedures, section XIV, F.2, when a member is dismissed from a position in a state project, that member’s position may NOT filled unless the grievance resolution against the member calls for the member to lose that position. Reviewing the FLGenWeb list of counties, all of Laverne’s counties have been reassigned to others. This action is clearly against the bylaws until this grievance is resolved.
The ball’s in your court. If you’re ready to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, a mediator and arbitrators will be assigned and this grievance will move forward toward resolution. If you choose not to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, this will be referred to the Advisory Board for them to handle.
Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
From: franmuse@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:59 PM
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net
Subject: greivance
Hi Sherri,
I am going to respond to you in line. Before we begin the mediation process we want several things made clear to us. After it is started we understood we could not question things.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri <usgenwebnc@windstream.net>
To: franmuse@aol.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 9:06 pm
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009/08-15
Fran,
There are several problems with your response to my previous email.
It is the choice of the grievant as to who is named in a grievance. Laverne chose not to include the entire board in the grievance she filed, and that is entirely her right. There is no requirement that a grievance must be filed against an entire group of people, as you and Dennis are trying to claim.
*******
1.) The grievant stated:
> I am asking for a review and arbitration of the actions
> taken by the FLGenWeb Project, Inc., board of directors
> against me as FLGenWeb has no Greivance system in place.
Laverne has clearly stated she is asking for a review of actions taken by the FLGenWeb Project, Inc. board of directors. How is it possible that she can then remove some of them when she clearly states them in her beginning premise. This is one problem with which we are dealing. She cannot countermand her request in the same document. She was correct according to FL Law with her opening statement as she well knows. Perhaps someone on USGW advised her to change her words.
Laverne was the one who told us from the beginning if we were acting as the board, there was no way to make us individually liable for doing our jobs. She stressed that many times as we were debating our incorporation. Florida Statutes confirm what she told us. We have requested you speak with an attorney familiar with Florida Law as we would not want you to break any Florida Laws in this matter.
*******
You don’t have the choice of whether you are bound by the confidentiality of the grievance process. The bylaws and Grievence Procedures clearly state that the process is confidential and can’t be discussed outside of the involved parties, the mediators and others directly involved in the process. Your claim that you have the right to discuss this with all of the FLGenWeb CCs or with the rest of the board of FLGenWeb is not valid.
You were all subbed to the mail list that was set up for the grievance mediation. All involved parties, on both sides, the assigned mediator and the GC representative were subbed. The mediation was ready to move forward as far as the Grievance Committee was concerned, until Dennis notified Diane that he, speaking for all of the rest of you, would not accept the identified mediator. He went on to state that ANY mediator assigned would be deemed unacceptable. I don’t understand your statement that you were waiting for the mediation to move forward since the only reason that it hadn’t begun was because of Dennis’ actions.
*******
2.) We have awaited notice that a new mediator was seated as requested. All we viewed as far as email was the unsubbing of someone from the group. Who was that person and what position was he/she in? That is what we have been waiting for. That question was asked in an earlier email and you failed to comment on it.
3.) We want to see the original grievance filed since that was the initial complaint no matter how it was rewritten. The date remains tied to that first document. It is our right to see what has been presented. If other documents have been added we need to view those also.
4.) In the USGW grievance procedures it states:
The review at this level should assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true, and the determination of the viability of the grievance made based upon the assumption that the complaint is true and a review of the by-laws, policies, or procedures alleged to have been violated.
Has the grievance committee read the FLGenWeb Project, Inc. By-laws at http://www.flgenweb.net/volunteers/bylaws.html particularly noting:
Article III
Section F - RESIGNATION, TERMINATION, AND REINSTATEMENT
Any member who fails to abide by these bylaws or acts to the detriment of the Project may have membership terminated by the Board. Board approval must be obtained before re-admission of a member whose membership has been so terminated.
Article VII- DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
Section A - DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
Maintain the physical presence of FLGenWeb on the Internet, oversee Special Projects, provide technical support as needed and other duties as required.
and
Article IV - OFFICERS
Section E - NONFEASANCE
Any officer or director who fails to perform the duties of the position in a satisfactory manner may be removed from office by the Board.
If these were read, how was a grievance allowed to be filed? We ask for a dismissal of the grievance based on your guidelines.
*******
The USGenWeb Project’s Grievance process was approved by the entire membership. It is not your right to refuse to participate in the grievance process by stating that “it won’t work” for you. All USGenWeb Project members are covered by and required to follow the process. You must follow and abide by the procedures as USGenWeb Project members.
*******
I stated in my letter to you we were ready to participate. We certainly want to abide by your laws but we also have to abide by the laws of the State of Florida. We are hoping that those 2 can work side by side to see this process completed shortly as it did with our action that precipitated this grievance. We take very seriously the grievance that she has brought. The Board did not make the decision with haste. We spent over a week deliberating and Laverne was subbed to the list the whole time and posted copiously. Now we have spent hours making sure that we have the facts accurate.
*******
The ball’s now in your court. If you’re ready to proceed with the grievance, as filed, by accepting a mediator and participating in the member-approved grievance procedures, we’ll move forward with the mediation step of the grievance. Should you all continue to refuse to accept an assigned mediator and/or to participate in and abide by the USGenWeb Project’s grievance procedures, the next step will be that the Advisory Board is asked to step in and disciplinary action be taken against each of you individually for this refusal.
*******
We, as was stated before, have been ready to proceed. We have been waiting for a USGW response to the things Dennis brought forth to begin with. Once we have the things understood by our group, then we can in good conscience proceed. We are dismayed that you have only mentioned one thing Dennis requested and not all of them. I hope the communications after we start are more easily handled.
*******
You have until 9:00 p.m. on 7 January 2010 to decide what you want to do and let me know.
We want answers to our questions before we begin. We are also expecting to hear that the grievance has been dismissed per your guidelines. After looking at our bylaws as stated above, there can be no doubt that we acted within the bylaws when the Board acted, thus, the grievance is not valid.
We have not been in contact with William Zehner and feel he is out of communication range at present as he is several times a year.
Fran Smith, President/State Coordinator,
FLGenWeb Project, Inc. spokesperson.
==============================
[Diane comments: Is he right? Did Laverne fail to file on time?]
From: dgries@comcast.net
Date: 2/1/2010 3:02:45 AM
To: Sherri
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com; franmuse@aol.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net
Subject: Re: greivance
Hi Sherri -
I've been away and occasionally checking emails, and trying to tune out this grievance stuff, but my timing may have been perfect just now.
Again, my comments are mine, and not for the group, but are we not back at our initial objection:
1. You state below that the original grievance was not accepted.
2. You state that only the accepted grievance is on the table.
3. Therefore, it appears that the timing of the second (or greater) grievance filing is controlling, and no carryover of timing of the first can be considered.
4. The first two statements are per you, and then we apply the USGW rules.
5. The "accepted grievance" is outside of the timing permitted by USGW rules, and must be dismissed.
6. We previously noted this to your attention.
7. Of course, any action by the FLGWP, no matter where it falls, as to the grievance, is beyond appeal.
Fran, for the group, please reiterative this sequence of logic to Sherri as controlling for the FLGWP.
dennis
==============================
[Diane comments: Taking back control of the grievance...]
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/4/2010 11:25:40 AM
To: Wilda Murphy
Cc: Sherri; dgries@comcast.net; franmuse@aol.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Re: greivance
I have no such emails. I have heard from Dennis stating he speaks for everyone and then he doesn't, then from Fran stating she speaks for everyone but I have not heard from the rest of you stating that anyone has been giving the authority to speak for you.
You each still have until Friday, February 5, 2009 5:00 PM EST or I will be contacting the Advisory Board.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
-------Original Message-------
From: Wilda Murphy
Date: 2/4/2010 10:06:43 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: Sherri; dgries@comcast.net; franmuse@aol.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Re: greivance
Diane,
Why are you expecting to hear from each of us? You already have statements from us indicating that Fran Smith is our spokesman. That has not changed.
Wilda Murphy
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike & Diane wrote:
Dennis et all:
The original grievance was re-written within the 10 days specified within the USGenWeb bylaws and Grievance Committee Procedures: Section 5C - Grievance Process & Section 5D - Grievance Process http://gc Usgenweb.org/procedures.HTML
If the reason that the grievance was not accepted was due to the initial complaint not fulfilling the requirements of subsection C of this Section, the member will have 10 days to amend or correct any deficiencies in the initial complaint and resubmit it to the Grievance Committee Chair.
This was done within the allotted time frame so IS a valid grievance. This will be the only grievance used and the only grievance discussed and seen by you or anyone else. It will not be dismissed and will be followed per the USGenWeb bylaws and Grievance Committee Procedures and FLGenWeb will be expected to follow the USGenWeb bylaws and Procedures for Grievances or as Sherri stated previously this will be referred to the Advisory Board for them to handle this situation.
Is FLGenWeb ready for this to move into mediation/arbitration at this time or should I notify the Advisory Board of your non-compliance in this issue? 6 months is long enough to drag this out enough is enough.
I expect an answer from each of you by Friday, February 5, 2009 5:00 PM EST.
If none are forthcoming I will be contacting the Advisory Board.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
==============================
[Diane comments: Obviously Sherri did a lot of emailing behind my back and didn’t include me at all...what is up with that...more breaking of the rules!]
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Date: 2/4/2010 9:01:38 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com; ldrbelties@earthlink.net
Cc: PMcSWAIN@tampabay.rr.com; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; lyzehner@knology.net; dgries@comcast.net; wildamurphy@gmail.com; franmuse@comcast.net
Subject: Re: greivance
In a message dated 2/4/2010 11:27:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, garebel@roadrunner.com writes:
> I have no such emails. I have heard from Dennis stating he
> speaks for everyone and then he doesn't, then from Fran
> stating she speaks for everyone but I have not heard from
> the rest of you stating that anyone has been giving the
> authority to speak for you.
Diane,
Sherri requested we send them to her. I guess they never got to you.
I am to be the spokesperson. I have responded to Sherri's email and she replied to me.
Fran
==============================
[Diane comments: I then got confirmations from 3 members...yes only 3]
My last responce for the request from Sherri- went to Sherri, I did not know it was to go to both or either or the other-
Peggy
Sherri, and or Diane
As a member of this group that has been improperly targeted as individuals in response to a legal corporate board action, I am hereby notifying you that our President and State Coordinator, Fran Smith, is acting on my behalf when she communicates with you, the Grievance Committee or the Advisory Board on the subject of this grievance.
Peggy McSwain
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wilda Murphy
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net
Sherri,
As a member of this group that has been improperly targeted as individuals in response to a legal corporate board action, I am hereby notifying you that our President and State Coordinator, Fran Smith, is acting on my behalf when she communicates with you, the Grievance Committee or the Advisory Board on the subject of this grievance.
Wilda Murphy
Diane
Fran our President is my spokesperson in regard to this grievance
Mike Flood
==============================
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Date: 2/4/2010 11:32:48 PM
To: lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net; garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Grievance Response
Diane,
Laverne Tornow, a resident of the State of Florida, and a former member of FLGenWeb Project, Inc., a Florida Corporation, has brought an action against the said Florida Corporation, trying to have Directors of said corporation held accountable individually for actions which the State of Florida says is not her right. (see Florida Statute 617.0830 (4) below)
We respectfully request that you reject this grievance. This puts USGenWeb in a positon of condoning the breaking of Florida Law if the grievance goes forward.
We have enjoyed our good relationship with USGW through the years and are sorry to see it deteriorating.
Please note the two exceptions to Sherri's comments.
#1. Sherri wrote: Per the USGenWeb Grievance Procedures, section XIV,F.2, when a member is dismissed from a position in a state project,that member’s position may NOT filled unless the grievance resolutionagainst the membercalls for the member to lose that position.
Response: We did not remove her from a position, we removed her from membership.
#2. Sherri wrote: Reviewing the FLGenWeblist of counties, all of Laverne’scounties have been reassigned to others. This action is clearlyagainst the bylaws until this grievance is resolved.
There were no counites there. Laverne removed them from the project.
USGW XIVGrievance Procedures F.2 says: (in the sentence following Sherri's quote)Nothing should prevent the unlinking of the member's website and establishing a temporary website pending resolution of any grievance. We did not unlink her websites. How is this against USGW for the sites to go back up.
While we value your diligence in taking action concerning a member, in this case there is an error. Laverne admonished each officer and director to read the Florida Statutes in 2008. She even pointed out several for our specific needs.
Florida law specifically states:
Florida Statutes under Corporations Not for Profit 617.0830 General Standards for directors.--
(1) A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee:
(a) In good faith;
(b) With the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and
(c) In a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
(2) In discharging his or her duties, a director may rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by:
(a) One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;
(b) Legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the persons' professional or expert competence; or
(c) A committee of the board of directors of which he or she is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
3) A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
(4) A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office incompliance with this section.
The action taken was per our bylaws:
Article F - RESIGNATION, TERMINATION, AND REINSTATEMENT
Any member who fails to abide by these bylaws or acts to the detriment of the Project may have membership terminated by the Board. Board approval must be obtained before re-admission of a member whose membership has been so terminated.
There can be no grievance filed according to these four statements.
Fran Smith, Spokesperson
President/SC FLGenWeb Project, Inc.
[Diane comments: Are the Florida people right in this? I think they are and I think we royally screwed up]
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/5/2010 1:49:46 PM
To: lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net; Franmuse@aol.com
Cc: Sherri; Joel Newport
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Fran et all:
This is a valid grievance and therefore will not be rejected.
Sherri was correct when quoting:
XIV. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS
F.2. When a member is dismissed from a position in a State, Local, or Special Project, that member's position may not be filled until the expiration of the time for that member to file a grievance. When the said member files a grievance, that position may not be filled unless the grievance resolution against the member calls for the member to lose that position. Nothing should prevent the unlinking of the member's web site and establishing a temporary web site pending resolution of any grievance.
The sites you have in place of Laverne's look like permanent sites, not temporary sites or sites up for adoption.
Also per the FLGenWeb site these are the only sites up for adoption:
Counties Available for Adoption
Indian River (Local Assistant County Coordinator wanted)
St. Lucie (Local Assistant County Coordinator wanted)
Union (Local Assistant County Coordinator wanted)
This is clearly a violation of the Grievance Committee Procedures and Appeals Process. I also see no mention of Laverne being the previous coordinator on any of the sites that mention the previous coordinators.
Again, I would like you to reread the section E - Grievance Process
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/standard-rules.shtml
Which is also located here:
http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html
Section 5A - Grievance Process, Section 5B - Grievance Process, Section 5C -
Grievance Process, Section 5D - Grievance Process, etc.
So, once AGAIN according to the USGenWeb Bylaws and Grievance Procedures this is a valid grievance and we will not be rejecting nor dropping this grievance.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
==============================
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Date: 2/5/2010 4:56:47 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net
Cc: kyvitals@windstream.net; joelnewport@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Diane,
I have talked with the Department of State for the State of Florida. The only way to file this greivance is in a court of law and the judge upon hearing the grievance and reading the statute would throw it out. This statute is to protect the director from any personal liability in the perfomance of their duties. The statute is very specific in this matter.
The attorney has so far not returned my call.
Ample documentation can be presented that would show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the board acted as it should and that the charges were valid.
We do not wish to sever our relationship with you butif you continue in this process against the Florida Statutes , our membership will have to be told and they can vote how they wish us to proceed.
We will proceed under protest unless our attorney advises us otherwise. We have been ready for some time with rebuttal of all of the charges. I understand Laverne has to prove her case agains us not the other way around.
Fran
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/6/2010 10:30:02 PM
To: lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net; Franmuse@aol.com
Cc: kyvitals@windstream.net; joelnewport@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Once we assign another mediator to this grievance he or she will be contacting each of you to begin the mediation of this grievance.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
-------Original Message-------
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Date: 2/6/2010 10:09:40 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com;
pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; dgries@comcast.net
Cc: kyvitals@windstream.net; joelnewport@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Hi Diane,
We are wondering if Laverne has joined the grievance. We have not seen an email stating that she has.
We also would like to have an outline of the procedure that will be used for the grievance. How many times may each side speak, etc.
Thanks,
Fran
==============================
From: dgries@comcast.net
Date: 2/9/2010 3:25:48 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: Sherri; Joel Newport; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; Franmuse@aol.com; dgries@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Hello Diane, I again call your attention to Sherri's comments that the first grievance submitted by Laverne was rejected, and in her words is deemed to have never occurred.
If so, then there is no time linkage to the second one, which is dated out of bounds per USGW rules.
Since it is time barred, there is no reason to consider the precise process that we took, and the the precise sites.
Again, I'm afraid that you, Diane, are not considering the legal aspects of what Sherri, and the USGW rules are stating.
You also are blatantly ignoring the fact that this was a corporate board action, and not an action by one or more individuals.
There are laws that cover us. I have had a review of an experienced corporate attorney.
This now is dragging on toward my return back home on Feb 15.
I suspect that he, when I bring him up to date, will be asking me things like, just like the FLGWP has a person for service of process, who do we (I) serve on the USGW. So, assuming that the USGW is not incorporated, I will need the names and home addresses of any and all officers and directors of the USGW so if needed, we can consider injunctive relief.
I trust that I will be provided with that not later than Feb 15.
thank you
Dennis Gries, Treasurer, FLGWPI
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/10/2010 1:35:19 PM
To: dgries@comcast.net
Cc: Sherri; Joel Newport; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; Franmuse@aol.com; dgries@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Grievance Response
Dennis,
We are in the process of assigning another mediator to this grievance. We should be moving into mediation before Friday, February 12, 2009.
I have repeated myself over and over that this is a valid grievance, the 2nd grievance was filed within the 10 days specified within the USGenWeb bylaws and therefore is a valid grievance according to the USGenWeb bylaws. Also, per the USGenWeb and GC Rules and Procedures it does not state that someone has to name specific board members as a whole or anyone else, it is totally up to the person filing the grievance as to whom they name.
Am I to assume that you are now threatening to bring a law suit against us for accepting this grievance and that you are not willing to participate in this process? If so, please by all means feel free to do so, but please know that by not participating in the grievance process I will contact the Advisory Board and let them know of your threat of a law suit and possible refusal to participate in the grievance process.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/10/2010 3:59:06 PM
To: dgries@comcast.net; lyzehner@knology.net; mikeflood301@yahoo.com; pmcswain@tampabay.rr.com; wildamurphy@gmail.com; Franmuse@aol.com; Laverne Tornow
Cc: Sherri Bradley; Joel Newport
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15
This is to inform each of you that Grievance 2009/08-15 has been assigned a mediator, arbitrators and a Grievance Committee Representative. The mediator will be contacting you to commence the mediation part of this grievance. After they contact you, you will need to inform them who will be speaking for you as a group or if each of you will be speaking for yourselves.
As of right now Section 5-F Grievance Process is in effect: http://gcusgenweb.org/procedures.html
All discussion regarding the issues during the grievance process is to be considered privileged and private, and shall not be disclosed during or after the process by either the team or either party, except as allowed by these procedures.
If this procedure is broken it will be brought to the Advisory Boards attention.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
==============================
[Diane comments: Is this where the lies came into play? Take note of what I said in this email as well as the date of notification of the change of email address]
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/12/2010 9:54:26 AM
To: Sherri Bradley
Subject: Re: FW: Grievance for Laverne Tornow
Sherri,
Her email never bounced but I will forward it to this email address as well.
I gave you Pat's email in the emails that were subbed the other day, so she should be subbed already.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/12/2010 5:27:30 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: FW: Grievance for Laverne Tornow
Diane,
See below in reference to contacting Laverne. I'll let you pass it on to the mediator and will sub Patrice when you verify that you want me to.
I'm working today and don't think I have access to yahoo to add her to the group, but can do it when I get home later tonight.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: genealogy@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:52 PM
To: ldrbelties@earthlink.net
Cc: Denise Wells; Laverne Tornow
Subject: Grievance for Laverne Tornow
Hi Sherri,
I just spoke with Laverne and she can be contacted via email at lhtornow@gmail.com. She will not be able to check email on a regular basis as her mother is very ill and that takes most of her time.
She can be called at (number removed) and can be texted at that phone number also.
I do speak with Laverne on a regular basis and am willing to act as intermediary and I do so with her full permission. You can confirm that by phone or email if necessary. I am aware of the confidentiality of the grievance procedure and will abide by it. I am also well aware of the facts precipitating the grievance. I am a member of the FLGenWeb Board and have been since 2008.
I'll be glad to assist in any way that I can.
Rel@ively,
Patrice
[Diane comments: Never to be heard from again...?]
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 2/12/2010 9:56:31 AM
To: lhtornow@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: Grievance 2009/08-15
Forwarding this to your new email address.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
From: Laverne Tornow
Date: 2/14/2010 1:58:53 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: Re: Fw: Grievance 2009/08-15
Diane,
Patrice Green will be acting as my intermediary as I am currently responsible for my mother's care and do not have access to a computer at this time. Her email address is genealogy@cfl.rr.com.
Laverne Tornow
==============================
[Diane comments: Using email addresses that no one knows to listen in on grievances? Not very cool Sherri!]
From: Pat Asher
Date: 2/19/2010 2:21:16 PM
To: Sherri
Cc: Diane Siniard
Subject: List for Grievance 2009/8-15
Hi Sherri,
Who is Nana Bradley, nana2landon@yahoo.com and why is she subscribed to the Grievance-mediation list?
That wasn't one of the names in the Grievance.
Thanks,
Pat Asher
==============================
From: Sherri
Date: 2/19/2010 10:48:34 PM
To: Pat Asher
Cc: 'Diane Siniard'
Subject: RE: List for Grievance 2009/8-15
Nana2landon is me - and I'm subbed as the owner of the group. This is an email address that rarely is checked, and especially if I know that there is discussion ongoing dealing with any grievances.
Sorry - I forgot not everyone knows all of the email addresses that I use.
Sherri
==============================
[Diane comments: Speaking out when in mediations...breaking bylaws or not?]
From: dennis gries
Date: 2/22/2010 9:30:51 PM
To: grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com
Cc: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net; Mike & Diane; Sherri
Subject: RE: [grievance-mediation] Grievance 2009/8-15 Preliminaries
Can't be any more explicit than as Laverne phrased it:
From: Laverne Tornow
Date: 9/25/2009 2:16:53 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: Joel Newport
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15
I am asking for a review and arbitration of the actions taken by the FLGenWeb Project, Inc., board of directors against me as FLGenWeb has no Greivance system in place. The FLGenWeb Inc. 501 (c) 3 application narrative
says:
"The FLGenWeb Project is a confederation of Florida County genealogical/history websites, maintained by numerous individuals, including the Officers and Directors in Part V below. All members of the Project are volunteers. We are a unit within the 50 states and DC network of USGenWeb org"
(snip)
This very clearly states that the actions are of the FLGenWeb Project, Inc. board of directors.
What is unclear about this?
The actions are clearly stated to be by the board of directors. A board of directors is a whole. That Laverne further down in the Grievance chose to state just the six who voted for the motion at hand and the decision that she is alegedly aggrieved by is inconsequential. The Grievance clearly states that it is an action by the Board.
So, the entire Board must be named.
Assuming this can result, then Patrice Green, as a member of the board cannot reasonably act as recently suggested. Any Board of Directors, faced with a renegade action like that would promptly ask for a resignation or remove the person from the Board. I am not suggesting anything as to membership.
There was no time period stated in the email of Saturday morning, and 72 hours is a time elsewhere so that any objection and confirmation that I hope that she will make of this posting, should be timely. You cannot arbitarily state that a time has passed.
Of course, other than the Patrice issue, this was brought to the GC time and time again. Please buck this back to whoever. I've copied a couple of folks.
The objections about having a legal corporate action challenged anyplace but in the Florida courts are still at hand,but I suppose that if our Corporation is made the party instead of the six persons, and of course, Fran, as our President will clearly speak for all of us, then we do need to give honor to the concepts of the USGW review. Fran, please note the we do have a very particular grievance process: any member who has the support of at least 15% of the members can call a special meeting for any purpose. One purpose surely would be an entire membership review of a grievance. Can't be any more democratic than that - far more so and effective than any appointed grievance computer.
yours
dennis
From: grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Pat Asher
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:48 PM
To: grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [grievance-mediation] Grievance 2009/8-15 Preliminaries
At 07:06 PM 2/22/2010, dennis gries wrote:
> Furthermore, the actions of the individual officers and
> directors who vote on a motion, may only be challenged if
> the individuals are carrying out an illegal act under State
> or Federal statutes.
You are misinformed.
A member of an organization has rights, but also has obligations to the organization. Members are obligated to abide by the Bylaws and Rules of the organization. They may not pick and choose which ones they wish to honor.
USGW Standard Rules, Section V. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.
Introduction: When a conflict arises between two members of The USGenWeb Project that cannot be resolved informally, either party has the option of requesting a review of the dispute by the Grievance Committee. The final decision of the Grievance Committee is binding on all parties.
Standard Rules, Section V, E. 3. d.
The following types of grievances will be handled by the Grievance Committee:
d. Grievances by a USGenWeb Project member against another USGenWeb Project member located within the same State or Special Project when there is no local Grievance Procedure to follow in that State or Special Project.
Standard Rules, Section V, E. 8.
The burden of proof of a violation of the by-law, policy, or procedure cited in the initial complaint is on the person making the allegation. The decision of the arbitration team will be based on the information and evidence submitted and applicable USGenWeb and XXGenweb Project by-laws. Failure of one party to participate in the arbitration process will result in the decision being made against the non-participating party in accordance with the information presented.
In fact, what I saw of the complaint dated Sep 24 was that the first line on it was FLGenWebProject, Inc. (or something very close to that). We, as a corporation were the named party. The USGW has chosen to ignore this, and this is improper, and can never be brushed aside.
The Grievance presented to this Team lists:
Fran Smith, SC (President FLGenweb Project, Inc)
William Zehner, ASC (Vice President FLGenweb Project, Inc)
Dennis Gries, (Treasurer FLGenweb Project, Inc)
Peggy McSwain, Representative at Large (RAL FLGenweb Project, Inc)
Wilda Murphy, Panhandle Representative (Panhandle Representative FLGenweb Project, Inc)
Mike Flood, West FL Representative (WestFL Representative FLGenweb Project, Inc)
I believe that Fran Smith, in one or more of her writings has clearly stated that with or without repeating what I wrote previously, or now, that this is the position of the FLGWPI. But, I will step aside, and let her, upon receipt of this, determine whether she wishes to reconfirm this.
The Grievance Team is not privy to previous correspondence you may have had with the Grievance Committee or others, nor should we be. Under USGW Bylaws and Rules, both parties may present evidence to support their position. Mediation consists of trying to find common ground between the parties based on the evidence presented. Arbitration is a hearing, and judgment is rendered based on the evidence presented.
Since Fran is the spokesperson for the Board, and she has offered no timely objection to the Team members, I see no reason we can not proceed with the position statements as required and will expect them to be filed no later than
16:04 GMT, Thursday 25 Feb 2010
Pat Asher
Mediator
==============================
[Diane comments: Notice Sherri still can’t get my damn name right!]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/22/2010 9:42:19 PM
To: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net; Mike & Diane
Subject: RE: Grievance
Shirley,
Fran and the rest of the FLGenWeb Board members have already have these questions answered, by both Denise and me (or should it be I?). To wit, they were told that:
* They will not be provided with a copy of the original grievance that was rejected and resubmitted within the 10-day time period, nor will they be provided a time line as they’ve requested in an effort to try to figure out a way to wiggle out of this action.
* They were told that Laverne can/could file a grievance however she wanted – against the board as a whole, or against individual members. If she chooses not to include some Board members, for whatever reason, it’s her prerogative to do so.
* Their state project has the USGenWeb Project logo on it and they purport to be a part of this Project. They don’t get to make their own rules or be treated differently than any other state project.
* That we will not be seeking legal advice as they told us to do. This is a volunteer project and if their state project is going to be a part of it, we require that they follow the bylaws. The bylaws clearly state that no state project bylaws can be in conflict with the USGenWeb Project bylaws.
* The Grievance Procedures specify that either of the parties can object to any assigned mediator or arbitrator that is a part of the “team”, but do not state that a party can object to the grievance itself.
* The bylaws, in section, XIV, F.1 clearly state: “A member may choose to act as his or her own representative, or may select someone to act as his or her representative.
* With the bylaws stating that a representative may be appointed during the process, Patrice Green being advised of the details of the grievance as Laverne’s representative is an acceptable action. The FLGenWeb Board insisting that they also be allowed to present notice to the entire FLGenWeb Project membership is not acceptable.
* If they refuse to participate in the grievance process then the grievance will be decided in Laverne’s favor and the AB will be asked to step in and enforce the resolution on the FLGenWeb Project. This would include de-linking the state if they refuse to participate in the grievance process in good faith. Stonewalling the grievance more than they’ve already done will not be tolerated. They were told to that this was non-negotiable.
* All FLGenWeb members named in the grievance have sent me notices that Fran would be their representative in discussing the grievance. I now see that Dennis is trying to stonewall the whole thing by stating he will refuse any mediator and/or arbitrator assigned. That’s what got me involved in the first place as they were running Diane around in circles by refusing to participate in the grievance in good faith. <sigh> That was back in September/October. We’re no further along than we were then. ?
(Not mentioned, but it may come up) That because FLGenWeb did not have a grievance process in place when Laverne was removed from the project, the grievance being filed with National was the correct course of action. It matters not if they now have a grievance process in place, it is not retro-active so they can’t go back, now, and put her dismissal through their brand new, created just for this, grievance process so they are not responsible to the USGenWeb Project.
I agree, their actions are definitely intended to hold up the grievance process.
Sherri
From: Shirley Cullum
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:38 PM
To: Sherri Bradley; Diane Siniard
Subject: Fw: Grievance
I need help/advice on the request from Fran.
Thanks,
Shirley
--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Franmuse@aol.com wrote:
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Subject: Grievance
To: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net, grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 10:38 AM
Shirley,
I can see you already have the previous email stating what we want to know.
Please provide us with the timeline of events from August 5 forward until now.
Thank you,
Fran
==============================
[Diane comments: This is when the Big C was reported for the first time]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/24/2010 5:23:10 AM
To: Pat Asher; Mike & Diane
Cc: Shirley Cullum
Subject: RE: Fw: RE: [grievance-mediation] Grievance 2009/8-15 Preliminaries
Either Shirley or Diane should notify the AB formally. It should come as an email stating that the confidentiality was broken and by who so that I can forward it to the whole AB.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Asher [mailto:pjroots@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:06 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Cc: Sherri; Shirley Cullum
Subject: Re: Fw: RE: [grievance-mediation] Grievance 2009/8-15 Preliminaries
At 09:53 PM 2/22/2010, Diane wrote:
> Dennis has just broken the confidentiality agreement of the
> mediation process by copying Sherri and I on this email.
> Granted I am on the GC and Sherri is the NC, but he is not
> supposed to be copying or speaking to ANYONE outside of that
> mediation about what is going on. The AB needs to be
> informed of this.
I paraphrased your words of wisdom and passed them on to Dennis
through the list.
Will you or Shirley be notifying the AB or am I required to do that?
Pat
==============================
[Diane comments: This is the last email I have on Florida, I resigned 3 days later]
From: Bradley, Sherri
Date: 3/7/2010 9:05:13 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: Dennis
Diane,
If you haven’t already done so, please drop Shirley a line so the Arbitrators are aware of Dennis’ breaches of confidentiality. I don’t know if it would affect their decision, but it very well could.
Thanks,
Sherri
==============================
[Diane comments: These were sent to me by the Florida members. They are quite interesting and show what was going on with the AB as well as the lies that Tina told during their bogus hearing where they were railroaded. I do have their permission to use them also]
From: franmuse@comcast.net
Date: 4/30/2010 9:16:32 AM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: AB post
Since you aren't there to see the fun, here it is. As shown, it went out at 3AM. lol
Subj: [FLGW-A&P] Grievance 2009/08-15
Date: 4/30/2010 3:03:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Reply-to: flgwap@googlegroups.com
To: ldrbelties@earthlink.net, tsvickery@gmail.com, cyndiee@tampabay.rr.com, dale@kbanet.com, dcaallen@pacifier.com, pauli1028@msn.com, ladyaudris@earthlink.net, anniegms@gmail.com, wvgenweb@wildblue.net, usgwsema@gmail.com
CC: semaccrep@gmail.com, lflesher@yahoo.com, dsam52@sampubco.com, webmaster@cottonhills.com, flgwap@googlegroups.com, jquigley2@gmail.com, joelnewport@gmail.com
To the Members of the AB,
This grievance should have never gone through Nov 17th at the latest. Mrs. Tornow was reprimanded 3 times during this day alone that she had breached the confidentiality. She continually posted to 3 or more people not a part of the mediation process. She was reprimanded each time.
She proceeded to say that since the GC had not gone forward with the grievance she was not bound by confidentiality. Wrong surmise and she was told that she was wrong. She argued with them several more times. Then she proceeded to tell the GC how to run their show.
On Nov. 17th the GC should have declared the grievance for FLGW citing Mrs. Tornow's numerous breaches of confidentiality. She cc'd Sherri, Denise, Jeff, Vicki in most of the posts she made between Aug. 10 and Nov. 17. Why was the grievance not terminated at this point. The AB is not to be involved in the grievances.
We have documented evidence that the dates Tina used to convince us that the filing of the grievance was within the allowed dates were not correct. She either made them up herself or someone told her to use those erroneous dates. She stated that the notification of grievant not correct and she was not notified. It was not. That email address has been used for at least 2 years that we are aware of and we were told it was older than that. The mail was not returned as undeliverable.
We also have proof that the NC intervened in the grievance process. She set up and owned the private lists where our grievance was heard. She had access to every post to it. After she had broken the rules, the AB made a change of grievance rules in the middle of our grievance to allow her to see them. She has posted to many of the GC members telling them how she wanted the grievance problems settled. She also emailed us and made us think we could email her. Then the GC tried to say we were breaching confidentiality.
We prefer to deal with the situation directly and privately with the USGW. We do not care how you straighten this mess out as long as our name is cleared. By your reversal of the decision, that can be the end of it. The bottom line is we cannot reinstate the grievant to our FLGW Project, Inc. since we followed our bylaws which were not in conflict with USGW or the state. USGW should have looked a bit more to see that the evidence was there to declare for FLGW.
We came to you expecting fairness as it says in the USGW bylaws. We were embarrassed and ridiculed. Our time has been wasted since the confidentiality was broken from the first email made by the grievant and almost daily after that. It should never have been allowed. We want there to be no taint on FLGW at all. No decision against us singly or as a project as a result of this fiasco.
There is blatant misuse of the powers of the NC, RAL and the grievance process as followed by the GCTeam members. For the reasons stated, the decision against us for a breach of confidentiality is not going to be allowed to stand unnoticed. Someone has tried to ruin the good name that FLGENWEB has held all these years for some purpose we cannot fathom. That is not right. It is up to you how this plays out.
Your decision is due to us in 72 hrs. You response will be due Monday May 3 at 9:00 a.m. EDT.
Thank you
Fran Smith
SC/President/FLGenWeb Project, Inc.
Spokesperson for Grievance 2009/08-15
==============================
[Diane comments: Now if you take notice, all of this is going on a month after I left the GC, how can Sherri say this happened while I was on the GC? This proves right here that is a big fat LIE!]
From: franmuse@comcast.net
Date: 4/29/2010 6:21:47 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: Re: email
Thanks for the info. She did make a comment once that because of the way the server worked she couldn't do the yahoo talk feature. Patrice and Denise were using it to see how it worked and she got a little put out because they were talking and she couldn't hear what they said. I could hear but had no mike that worked. I have never heard of an email going astray to her but it does happen to others sometimes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike & Diane
To: franmuse@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:16:03 PM GMT
Subject: Re: email
Her email didn't bounce. I think it was a lie that she didn't receive the first one as I sent the second one to the exact same address as I did the first one.
I know she had help rewriting it, we thought it was Daryl but now I know it wasn't so it had to be Patrice.
She started breaking confidentiality when she started bringing in members of the AB. They are not supposed to be involved in any grievances. It is part of the Grievance procedures.
I told her to rewrite the whole thing that we couldn't understand it and to leave out the hacking and the parts about her husband since he isn't a member.
-------Original Message-------
From: franmuse@comcast.net
Date: 4/28/2010 6:44:48 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: email
Diane,
Did you check your email spam or other places to see if you had her email returned to you or any indication that she might not have received. it. I will bet you that she didn't write that thing at all but that Patrice did.
Every time I think we have a valid objection, I find it was ok.
the other one I don't know about yet is----exactly which post do you feel made her break confidentiality.
Did you notify them of something missing from the bylaws- was that the sub c that was corrected by Sherri?
thanks,
Fran
==============================
From: Franmuse@aol.com
Date: 4/27/2010 8:05:12 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: Emails
Diane,
Per the email you just got from comcast, you can see I didn't see the one that extended the time. That would have had to come from you knowing she was having a problem meeting the deadline.
Anyway- I was lied to by Tina, however it happened. Either she did or someone told her a lie which she carried thru with.
I have spent all afternoon going thru them and sorting sorta. lol The one you have done will be better I am sure.
So now what do we do.
Fran
==============================
[Diane comments: Now here is the one that proves Tina lied during the hearing of the Florida Grievance before the AB. Got you Tina whether you like it or not! You lie you get caught!]
From: franmuse@comcast.net
Date: 4/27/2010 7:42:37 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Thanks- anything I missed?
We have them now. I have spent all afternoon working on the emails also. I have one that I am not sure you remember about.
Either Tina flat lied or someone else did.
Sept 10- Diane sent 2 emails. One to Laverne's correct address and one to the GC group saying she had done it
Sept 14 she notified the group she had not heard from Laverne
Sept 15 Jo Branch asked if there was a deadline on the rewrite.
Sept 15 Diane says re-file by 20th or it will be rejected.
From: Mike & Diane
Subject: Re: [GC] Grievance 2009/08-15
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 7:03 PM
If she doesn't re-file by September 20th it will be rejected. As of now just leave the status blank. I sent a message through the archived list yesterday stating that it was on hold waiting for a rewrite. I also resent the message a few minutes ago letting her know of the 10 days to get the rewrite to us.
I haven't seen hide nor hair of her on any of the mailing lists lately. (which is extremely strange!)
Diane
Now look at Tina's dates. No emails shown with time stamps.
From Tina to me
.. On 15 September 2009 the Grievance Committee rejected the grievance, which was sent back to Ms. Tornow and would have allowed 10 days for her to resubmit with the missing information.
.. On 20 September 2009 it was discovered that the original rejection notice was sent to the incorrect email address, so Ms. Tornow was given an additional 5 days (giving Ms. Tornow the allowed 10 days to respond) as the error of the Grievance Committee Chair should not result in punitive damage in regards to Ms. Tornow's grievance, which would have made the resubmitted grievance due by 30 September 2009.
.. On 25 September 2009 Ms. Tornow resubmitted the grievance which was ultimately accepted and which was sent to the FLGenWeb members named in the grievance as the grievance of record.
Check
I checked Laverne's email below, it is the right one. The 10th is the date, not the 15th as stated above.
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 9/10/2009 11:16:01 AM
To: Laverne Tornow
Cc: Joel Newport
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15
Laverne,
We are having an extremely hard time reading and understanding your grievance. Could you please rewrite it and include:
A. Full name & project affiliation of the member bringing the complaint;
b. Full name & project affiliation of the member the complaint is against;
c. The exact nature of the complaint, including the date that the incident occurred;
d. What steps or actions the member has taken to this point, if any, to resolve the situation outside of the grievance process;
e. What actions/reparations that the project member desires as a result of the grievance;
f. A specific citation or reference to the USGenWeb Project Policy, Procedure, or By-Law, or XXGenWeb Project, Policy, Procedure, or By-Law which alleged to have been violated.
Also, please exclude anything that includes the hacking, copyright violations, etc because those are not something we handle. Those have to be taken up through other alternatives. We cannot get info based on Federal Investigations, so all of the info dealing with this aspect and the copyright issues have to be removed from the grievance.
This grievance will be placed on hold until we get the corrected information
Also, do not BCC or CC anyone (other than Joel or I) with the emails we will share back and forth. If this is done it is a violation of the GC procedures up to and including our confidentiality and we will not be able to continue on with this grievance due to the breaking of our bylaws and rules.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Mike & Diane wrote:
> OK all, I have just written Laverne and asked her to rewrite
> the grievance excluding anything to do with the copyright
> violations and the hacking. I have also reminded her not to
> share the emails from us with anyone else. If you see or
> hear of any of the emails from the GC or about this grievance
> being shared by her with anyone please let me know
> immediately.
>
> So, this one is on hold until she gets the rewritten version
> to us.
>
> Diane
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 9/14/2009 9:29:03 PM
To: usgw-gc@rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGW-GC] Grievance 2009/08-15
As of September 14, 2009 Grievance 2009/08-15 is on hold until we receive a rewritten version. Grievant was informed September 10, 2009 at 11:10 am EST.
Diane Siniard
Grievance Committee Chair
[Diane comments: OK my friends this ends the Florida grievance. Were they treated fairly or did we mess up? You see that Sherri took total control of it a couple of times and I was left out of discussions. I truly believe she needs to be reprimanded for that. I also believe Laverne needs to be brought up on charges for breaking the big C as well. However, with her belonging to the clique I guess we will never see it happen...they will both continue to get away with whatever they want.]
==============================
[Diane comments: This one was quite fun...]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/8/2010 11:13:15 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: RE: Grievance 2009/12-30
Diane,
I set it up as a google group this time. I've subbed everyone listed below so it's up to you all now.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:28 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: Grievance 2009/12-30
Sherri,
Whenever you get the time can you go ahead and set up a mailing list for Grievance 2009/12-30 and sub the following please:
Nola Duffy: nduffy@patch.net
Daryl Lytton: dlytton@mindspring.com
Mediator ~ Pat Asher: pjroots@att.net
GC Rep ~ Robert Sizemore:
Arbitrator ~ Vikki Gray: akgenweb@yahoo.com
Arbitrator ~ Ellis Michaels:
I just sent Pat a copy of the grievance and asked her to contact Daryl and Nola to see if they approved of her for their mediator and if so gave her a spill to send to them to begin the mediation process so Daryl couldn't call her out on anything on that. I made sure to follow the book on it and quoted bylaws, etc and made it all legal sounding, etc. Here it is:
Pat, remember to ask both parties if the approve of you as being the moderator giving them 24 hours to do so. If they do accept you as moderator then go ahead and send them this:
You have 72 hours, as per the USGenWeb Grievance Committee bylaws -
Section 5F to submit a written statement to me as the mediator concerning your position on the issues of the dispute. You are to submit your written statement to me and to me only as pursuant to the Grievance Committee bylaws.
I will need all emails that you sent the (persons name here) from the point of the grievance was noted until the last email that you sent (persons name here). I will also need all emails that (persons name here) sent to you from the point of the grievance until your latest email.
I need all pertinent information for the grievance.
The bylaws of USGenWeb
http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml
Section XIVF.1 - "a member may choose to act as his or her own
Representative OR may select someone to act as his or her representative.
It is the opinion of the mediator using the USGenWeb bylaws that although an assistant can help with the writing of the grievance, the USGenWeb bylaws does not allow for an assistant AND the member to both act/respond at the same time.
I am Emailing both parties of the grievance today requesting written statements with evidence according to the bylaws of the USGenWeb Grievance committee.
Both parties will have an opportunity to provide me with the facts of Grievance 2009/12-30. At the end of the 72 hour period or if I have received the written statements of both partiesI will email that the materials have been received.
As you are aware, the mediation process is confidential. No facts discussed in mediation is to be discussed under any circumstances. No part of the mediation may be discussed in a forum with other parties. No part of the mediation may appear on websites. No part of Grievance 2009/12-30 may be discussed either in written oral Internet or any other electronic or paper form unless we are in the mediation process. If you (the persons name here) will agree to this confidentiality - Please signify so in an email to me.
As a matter of conscience, the mediator will signify upon your agreement to the confidentiality to the chair of the GC that you have agreed. In the opinion of the mediator - if said confidentiality is violated - it will be a matter for the Advisory Board to decide.
The USGenWeb is committed to fair treatment of all of their members. It is with dignity and respect that I involve myself in the mediation process and I hold all members of this grievance with the same dignity and respect. It is in good faith that I hope to find an amiable resolution to this grievance
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions about the procedures of the mediation process.
Sound good? :)
Thanks!
Diane
==============================
[Diane comments: Butting in again?]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 3:36:06 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: RE: NC Rules
OK, where are the ones from BOARD EXEC? I'm so sick and tired of dealing with him and a couple of others that it is not funny. <sigh>
No, there's not anything anywhere about harassment of members. It's on the agenda to be dealt with shortly, but it's not there yet.
I don't know what to tell you about Nola's grievance. She really doesn't provide reference to a rule, policy or bylaw that he's broken. Because of that, I don't think we'll ever be able to uphold a decision since the procedure was not followed when the grievance was accepted. I'll leave it up to you all how you want to proceed. If it does go forward as a grievance, you'd better be sure that there's a valid reason that can be found for accepting the grievance or when he appeals (and you know he will), the AB can only look at the procedures and whether they were followed.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:40 PM
To: Sherri Bradley
Subject: Re: NC Rules
Robert and I talked a little about this on the phone and we discussed the possibility of possibly going after him for MNIGS. Pat did mention this as well in her email and I think it would be a good possibility that we could get him on this due to the fact that he hasn't updated his sites in years.
Also, isn't there something somewhere about harassment of members? I cannot find it but I think I remember reading or hearing of it somewhere.
I have attached a copy of our old guidelines, our new ones were in effect when Nola filed the grievance. I think Nola's main reason for filing the grievance is because of Daryl's latest emails to our membership and due to the fact we lost 2 members because of it. We are all sick and tired of his pettiness and games. We just want him to leave the NCGenWeb in peace and to quit posting our private mailing list messages on blogs and web sites, etc.
It has gotten out of hand there are a number of sites that have NCGenWeb emails on them as well as Board-Exec emails posted on them.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 9:56:22 AM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: NC Rules
Diane,
Just between you and me - I see that the NCGenWeb state site is now showing the new bylaws and I have a question about what was in the NCGenWeb ‘rules’ prior to these new bylaws.
What were the rules prior to these? I’m looking to see what they were when Nola filed her grievance against Daryl. Nola really doesn’t have in her complaint a reference to any Project bylaw, procedure or policy as required by the procedures. We’re trying to figure out if there is one that can be sited or what needs to happen from here – if it’s possible to find one to reference, or if the decision to accept will have to be changed.
I’d love to find a way to move this through, but right now we don’t really have a leg to stand on that Daryl can’t shoot out from under us.
I’m home today so will be checking email periodically. (I’m going to try to get our taxes done, or at least a very good start on them.)
Sherri
==============================
[Diane comments: Hmmm offering her opinion or telling us what to do?]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 7:51:16 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Grievance 2009/12-30
One word of caution for lack of any better word.
You can bet money that Daryl will appeal any decision that the Arbitrators come up with. When the AB gets the appeal, our responsibility is to ensure that the Grievance Procedures were followed. That includes whether the grievance met all of the requirements when filed. If they're found not to have been followed, the entire thing will be sent back to the committee to go through the process once again, ensuring that the procedures are followed.
I don't mean to put a damper on the discussion by any means, but I do want to be sure you're prepared for what will come. Find a rule/bylaw/procedure that was broken by Daryl and you'll be good to go. Without one, be prepared.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of John Quigley
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:39 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Grievance 2009/12-30
Have been dealing with some email problems so I apologize if this is a duplicate.
I would like to see this go to arbitration, at which time Daryl might find himself between a rock and a hard place. Let us do what is best for the project and for Nola.
John Quigley
E-Mail: jquigley@txkinneygen.org
On 2/5/2010 1:37 PM, cempics@windstream.net wrote:
> Our moderator Pat Asher, has made great effort to stay
> focused through this tough 42 plus page situation. At this
> point, Pat is reporting that she finds no grounds for a
> grievance. It has been determined to not qualify as per our
> bylaws, due to lacking an acceptable violation being
> cited.
>
> I'm including email comments (below) so you have background
> on how this grievance has evolved. We certainly don't need
> Mr. Lytton explaining to us, how we should conduct our
> responsibilities. The way it stands now, this is probably
> the direction Mr. Lytton will take, if we continue the
> direction we're headed.
>
> I'm turning this back over to the full committee, as we need
> to collectively decide whether to retract this as an
> acceptable grievance, or some way within our bylaws, bring
> this to a proper conclusion. I regret that we are not able
> to continue in pursuit of a reasonable mediated conclusion.
> Please let us know if you have any suggestions on this
> grievance and how you wish to proceed.
>
> Robert Sizelove
>
> Shirley and Robert,
>
> Here is the problem I have with the grievance as it stands:
> The person filing the grievance is required to include "A
> specific citation or reference to the USGenWeb Project
> Policy, Procedure, or By-Law, or XXGenWeb Project, Policy,
> Procedure, or By-Law which alleged to have been violated."
> (Standard Rules V. E. 2. f.)
>
> Since there is no bylaw or rule covering the situation, Nola
> has simply cited her right to file a grievance. IMO, under
> the Standard Rules, the grievance should not have been
> accepted by the GC until the requirement of V.E.2.F. was
> met. You can bet that Daryl will bring that up.
>
> OTOH, under http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-13.htm#75
> the AB can determine that a complaint against the member's
> character requires investigation, and charge the GC to be
> the investigative committee, with their investigation to be
> conducted using the mediation and arbitration process as
> detailed in the Grievance Procedures. That would allow the
> mediation and arbitration processes proceed to investigate
> and report on the general conduct of the member, and make a
> recommendation of MNIGS or expulsion to the AB. The AB would
> have to vote on either of those recommendations. Expulsion
> would require a 2/3 vote.
>
> At least, that's the way I reluctantly have to see it. Have
> I missed something? Just want to be sure we have crossed and
> dotted everything.
>
> Pat Asher
>
> One more thought re the above -- under the Special Rules, our
> governing Parliamentary authority is Sturgis, not RRO.
> Since Sturgis is based on Robert's, I assume it says
> something similar, but we would need to use Sturgis'
> language. I don't have a copy of Sturgis, and I don't think
> it is online due to copyright, so I haven't been able to see
> exactly what it says.
>
> Pat Asher
==============================
[Diane comments: The response from Sherri is laughable, setting up the list is the extent of her involvement? Yeah right, then she has to eavesdrop and send emails to Pat on what to say and do, etc...]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 8:35:33 PM
To: cempics@windstream.net; campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Grievance 2009/12-30
Pat will be the one leading the meeting as the mediator. It's up to her when the meeting will take place. I was asked to set up the mail list - that's the extent of my involvement.
The procedures allow for the parties to choose to have someone represent them in the discussions, but they do not allow for both the party to the grievance and the representative they select to BOTH be responding to the mediation talks. The party that wishes to have a representative must decide whether they will speak for themselves (they can talk to the representative off line), or if the representative will do the talking.
I'll check the group membership to see who's requested to be subbed and who hasn't yet. I apologize - I thought I'd set it up with everyone automatically subscribed - I guess my brain was frozen. I've spent a good part of the day out "playing" in the snow. Four new calves born in the last two days. One died yesterday before we found it, another this afternoon from pneumonia and the other two both have pneumonia but we think they'll survive. We're in central KY - about 45 miles southwest of Ft. Knox, so 7 inches of new snow on the ground at any time is rare. 7 inches since last night and now winds at 30-35 mph is a recipe for disaster. We've been in the house for about 3 hours and I have yet to thaw out!
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: cempics@windstream.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:21 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Cc: Sherri
Subject: Re: [GC] Grievance 2009/12-30
Sherri, I just noticed that Nola is making a request for her lawyer to be sent an invitation to the group list. When is this meeting taking place and who is conducting the meeting. Will it be Pat or are there others mediating. I just noticed folks joining the group, is this taking place tonight.
Robert
==============================
[Diane comments: Hmmm Nola didn’t fill out the Grievance right and Daryl caught it but yet we were trying to find something and then we received this...]
From: Joel Newport
Date: 2/9/2010 8:36:19 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation
Gang... a little note from our dear friend. Let's examine his point please. Since we never did say what rules he broke when we accepted the grievance, I would be interested in the groups thoughts of how to respond to this.
Joel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daryl Lytton
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Due Process Violation
To: Joel Newport
The acceptance of Grievance 2009/12-30 by the Grievance Committee, and allowed to be accepted by the NC/AB, violates my rights of due process. The accused (myself) has the right to know what the charges are against me. In accordance with the Grievance Bylaw & Procedures voted into place twice by the AB, and once by the membership, it is not a valid grievance because it fails to state what the charges are (what rules I allegedly violated).
Due process is best defined in one word -- fairness. Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment of citizens. These standards are known as due process. When a person is treated unfairly, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process.
Due process embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people, as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. Due process extends to all persons, and are guaranteed to all those accused of a crime. I have the fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges against me.
Daryl
==============================
[Diane comments: Are we breaking rules again Sherri????]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/9/2010 10:37:14 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation
And I'm supposed to stay out of it, too, but you get my two cents again.
Declaring anyone MNIGS is a disciplinary hearing and, at least to my understanding, must be handled by the AB. The AB must appoint who's going to do the investigation and the hearing - it could be AB members, it could be the GC, etc., but the GC can't arbitrarily decide they're going to declare someone MNIGS, no matter how much we'd all like to. You can suggest as a decision that they be declared MNIGS but I'm not sure how well that would fly.
My suggestion - send Nola an email letting her know that the acceptance of the grievance did not follow the GC procedures, which state that a specific rule, policy, procedure or bylaw must be listed that was broken by whomever the grievance is filed against, in this case, Daryl. Give her a time limit to reply and identify said rule, procedure, bylaw and/or policy that he broke and explain that if can't produce one that the grievance will have to be retroactively rejected. This is no reflection on any of the GC members, nor upon Nola, but the rules do have to be followed. Mind you, the rule, policy, etc. that was broken is not limited to the USGenWeb Project rules, bylaws, etc., but also include the NCGenWeb rules, policies, etc, too.
I agree - we're all tired of dealing with Daryl and methinks everyone would like to see him gone. But when action is taken to start the process with a hope of a successful end, all of the I's have to be dotted and the t's crossed.
Down off my soap box now. I'm toddling back to the woodstove to see if I can get thawed out. At this point, I'm not holding out much hope. <sigh>
Sherri
==============================
[Diane comments: Is this interesting or what?]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/10/2010 6:13:28 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation
John,
I doubt seriously that anyone here would disagree with you. But, one of the requirements that has to be met when filing a grievance is that "A specific citation or reference to the USGenWeb Project Policy, Procedure, or By-Law, or XXGenWeb Project, Policy, Procedure, or By-Law which alleged to have been violated" must be listed when filing the grievance. As obnoxious, harassing, ranting, and childlike that Daryl is, there's not a specific rule that says that harassment of any project member by another is not acceptable. There is already an item specifically dealing with this that is on the agenda. There's one item ahead of it in line, but hopefully it won't be too long before it's at the top of the list to be dealt with. When/if that rule is in place, the options for dealing with Daryl and his ilk will greatly increase, including the option of filing grievances against him and not getting caught as Nola was this time.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of John Quigley
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:27 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fwd: Due Process Violation
I know one person who thought this was worthy of working through, ME and here is what I said when we began to discuss this issue. "I do believe this grievance has merit, it also will open a HUGE can of worms, but it is time to do so I believe."
The man blatantly ignored copyright, he harrassed the entire NCGenWeb and has been doing so for at least 5 years. We must deal with this and we must do so in a way that says, rules count, responsible behavior counts. Rude and obnoxious can never trump responsible behavior.
John Quigley
E-Mail: jquigley@txkinneygen.org
On 2/9/2010 8:19 PM, cempics@windstream.net wrote:
> Joel, I'm biting my tongue off, but what else can we do. I'm
> going back through the emails tonight and try to figure out
> what triggered an acceptance. This grievance has been a
> nightmare from the beginning. I seriously can't remember,
> perhaps it was because we were corresponding about two
> grievances at the same time and lines become crossed. Not
> trying to find excuses, but this went terribly astray.
>
> If I said something out of turn and caused it, I don't know.
> If anyone feels I caused it, than I respectfully will offer
> my apology and remove myself from this position.
>
> Robert
>
> ---- Joel Newport wrote:
>> Well, as far as I'm concerned... we can stop the call for
>> arbitration. If we can't find what rule was broken then we
>> should have rejected the grievance.
>>
>> Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:57 PM, cempics@windstream.net wrote:
>>
>>> Joel, when Pat reported back to us, she made that
>>> statement, that she could find no statue of our bylaws
>>> being broken. Unless someone can point out a bylaw being
>>> broken by an alleged disruption of NC cc's, or one of the
>>> other points she made, I see no option other than,
>>> retracting the grievance for lack of stated rule violation.
>>> I prayed that we could have this discussion before moving
>>> forward, but someone either by mistake or reason beyond my
>>> understanding called for arbitration.
>>>
>>> Robert
==============================
[Diane comments: Now we are off to another grievance, this one is against someone Sherri obviously hates as you will see...]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/27/2010 12:46:13 PM
To: Mike & Diane
Subject: RE: Grievance
I knew this was a very real possibility. I'm sure it's in retaliation over Colleen's grievance.
I've not seen it come through the grievance list yet unless you've put me on no mail status.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:39 AM
To: Sherri
Subject: Fw: Grievance
Just FYI. I just sent a copy of the grievance to the GC. I didn't send them this info from Vikki. I did look over her sites and they seem to be in compliance, etc so I don't
understand why she was removed. Looks to be like a retaliation.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Vikki Gray
Date: 2/27/2010 12:34:49 AM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Grievance
Dear Diane:
I am so very sorry to have to file a grievance. This is truly the very last thing that I wanted to do. Please believe me that after the Alaska grievance I never wanted to be a party to a grievance again. The last one sucked me dry. I don't even know if this is the proper venue and I wasn't sure how much I could or couldn't say in this grievance. The grievance is attached and I will forward the backup after you let me know who to send it to.
Let me know if this is not the proper way to handle this.
Thank you,
Vikki Gray
==============================
[Diane comments: Still butting in where she shouldn’t...wow she should be a MNIGS forever!]
From: Sherri
Date: 2/28/2010 12:59:37 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Grievance 2010/02-27
I found this page of the CO county requirements on the Way Back machine. I don't what, if anything, has changed, but it's at least a place to start.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080604161055/www.cogenweb.com/ccinfo/cogw-rules.htm
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of cempics@windstream.net
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:26 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Grievance 2010/02-27
I just checked the CoGenWeb site, found that some of the links at the state level, are broken. County Requirements Page, Volunteers Needed, and Colorado Counties Link are broken. From the research page, the county list & coordinator link, home link, ccinfo link are all broken. The "home link is broken on nearly all pages. The four counties that were Vikki's, are listed as "Adopt me!" status. I can not get access to the state cc rules page, so not able to clarify if any county coordinator rules exist. I noticed that none of Vikki's pages contain a GenWeb logo at the top of page, but not able to determine rules, they do have GenWeb logos at bottom.
Robert
---- Mike & Diane wrote:
> Sending this through the list to make sure everyone receives
> a copy so we can all respond to the list. I have copied and
> pasted the grievance to the bottom.
>
> Diane
==============================
From: Sherri
Date: 2/28/2010 4:04:07 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Grievance 2010/02-27
The Grievance procedures are clear in that you are to "assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true". Assuming that the facts that Vikki has submitted are true, I don't see how this can NOT be considered a valid grievance.
There are actually two problems that we're facing here. First, information about grievance 2009-10-15 appears to have been discussed with someone that was NOT involved in the grievance, therefore the confidentiality was broken. Second, that the CO SC and ASC have failed to uphold the USGenWeb Project bylaws that state "Nobody shall be discriminated against for participating in the grievance process."
And yes, we have to accept the grievance before Gail is contacted and/or asked to provide any information or proof. The contact and providing of information will fall under the mediation step, I believe.
In this case, unlike the grievance that Nola filed against Daryl Lytton, Vikki does provide references to the bylaws and/or procedures that have been broken.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of cempics@windstream.net
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 2:37 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Grievance 2010/02-27
Thank you Sherri for finding a copy. I completely forgot about the Way Back machine. An old one is better than none. I did notice a suggestion that cc's update their pages monthly, and a comment that the SC will check new pages to insure they contain the proper elements and presentation. It was hard to determine if this is an actual rule or suggestion. If the COGenWeb SC fails to send a request to a cc when they have broken links or have not attended to their county often enough, they are equally guilty of negligence of duty.
Given the fact that some of us have first hand knowledge that the COGenWeb state site has many broken links. How do the rest of you feel about accepting this grievance, based on possibility that SC or person responsible for contacting cc, may have not given proper warning or notice of needed updates to county site. I'm not sure if Vikki Gray completely made her case that the SC failed to contact her, but given the appearance of the state level pages, she may have a legitimate complaint. Do we have to accept it before Gail Meyer-Kilgore is required to prove she attempted to warn or request updates to the county site?
If Vikki is correct and has saved an email correspondence from Gail proving she is removing her based on possible retaliation from a previous grievance, this would seem to be rather serious breach of confidentiallity.
Robert Sizelove
---- Sherri wrote:
> I found this page of the CO county requirements on the Way
> Back machine. I don't what, if anything, has changed, but
> it's at least a place to start....
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of cempics@windstream.net
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:26 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Grievance 2010/02-27
I just checked the CoGenWeb site, found that some of the links at the state level, are broken. County Requirements Page, Volunteers Needed, and Colorado Counties Link are broken. From the research page, the county list & coordinator link, home link, ccinfo link are all broken. The "home link is broken on nearly all pages. The four counties that were Vikki's, are listed as "Adopt me!" status. I can not get access to the state cc rules page, so not able to clarify if any county coordinator rules exist. I noticed that none of Vikki's pages contain a GenWeb logo at the top of page, but not able to determine rules, they do have GenWeb logos at bottom.
Robert
==============================
[Diane comments: This is the last one that came in right before I resigned. Notice how Sherri freaks because SHE didn’t get a copy of the grievance!]
From: Sherri
Date: 3/6/2010 5:16:55 AM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance
What am I missing? Is he saying that he's previously submitted this grievance? I don't remember seeing anything about it - did it get this far?
This also needs to be assigned a grievance number and to be posted on the Status page.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: campaign98-bounces@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Mike & Diane
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:50 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance
Hi all,
Here is another grievance that has been received.
Diane
-------Original Message-------
From: Diane Siniard
Date: 3/4/2010 1:54:33 PM
To: Mike & Diane Siniard
Subject: Fw: Resubmittal of grievance
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Dick Sevier
To: Diane Siniard
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 12:55:22 PM
Subject: Resubmittal of grievance
A. Full name & project affiliation of the member bringing the complaint;
Richard P. Sevier Current Madison Parish, LA USGenWeb Coordinator, Former Digital Map Library Coordinator for States of Louisiana and Mississippi.
b. Full name & project affiliation of the member the complaint is against;
Joy Fisher (not sure what she has to do with Digital Map Library since Linda Russell Lewis is listed as Coordinator)
c. The exact nature of the complaint, including the date that the incident occurred;
After being State Coordinator for Louisiana (11 years) and Mississippi (8 years), I was removed without notice by Joy Fisher, apparently in September 2009. It was not until January 31, 2010 when I found that my password would not work that I found this out. The message from Joy was simply "Now you want the pw for the Maps Project? Sorry, but your track record is such that we are not going to allow you back in." I can elaborate more on this when necessary. However, the situation to which she refers, but totally misunderstands, has nothing to do with the Digital Map Project. I have, I think, served the Louisiana and Mississippi Map Projects diligently and faithfully over the past eleven years, having put almost 100 maps on each project.
d. What steps or actions the member has taken to this point, if any, to resolve the situation outside of the grievance process;
I have contacted Joy along with members of the EC by email but have received little response. This is where I lodged my original grievance on February 1, 2010.
e. What actions/reparations that the project member desires as a result of the grievance;
I seek no reparations, only to be reinstated as State Map
Coordinator for Louisiana and Mississippi.
f. A specific citation or reference to the USGenWeb Project Policy, Procedure, or By-Law, or XXGenWeb Project, Policy, Procedure, or By-Law which alleged to have been violated.
XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS
E. Project Coordinators are subject to possible removal by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory Board and a 2/3 vote of the project staff. A quorum of 75% of the project staff shall participate in order for the vote to be binding.
After serving as Coordinator of the Louisiana (11 years) and Mississippi (8 years) Digital Map Projects I was removed by Joy Fisher without any vote and without notice even though my name continued to be listed on the respective Home Pages as Coordinator. My removal apparently occurred in September 2009. However, I did not find out about it until late January 2010 and then only because I requested the file password which apparently had been changed in September. At the very least I should have immediately been advised of the charges against me that involved the Louisiana and Mississippi Digital Map Library and given the opportunity to defend myself. It is obvious that I was not.
Here are the actual emails where I apparently was summarily dismissed without a hearing. It all started with my request on January 31, 2010 to Deb Haines - the USGenWeb Digital Map Project Coordinator - for the Louisiana and Mississippi Map Project passwords when I couldn't get in:
From: Dick Sevier
To: Deb Haines
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Map project passwords?
Deb
Have the passwords for the LA & MS digital map projects changed? I can't seem to get in and get a "530 login incorrect" message. I had previously used W9qb3F$h%2 for both states.
Thanks.
Dick Sevier
Richard P. Sevier
Louisiana Digital Historical Map Library Coordinator
Mississippi Digital Historical Map Library Coordinator
Madison Parish, LAGenWeb Coordinator
Madison Parish, LA Ancestry Message Board Administrator
Sevier Family Ancestry Message Board Administrator
Author of Arcadia Publishing Co.’s Images of America-Madison Parish, Louisiana
Then I received an unsigned reply from Joy Fisher who is not even listed on the latest Digital Map Library Website:
----- Original Message -----
> From: Joy Fisher
> To: dicksevier@comcast.net; Deb
> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:06 PM
> Subject: Maps Project
>
> Hi Dick:
>
> Your message to Deb Haines regarding the pw has been sent to
> me. In Sept. You removed all your materials from the
> Archives and essentially Kissed us goodbye.
>
> Now you want the pw for the Maps Project? Sorry, but your
> track record is such that we are not going to allow you back
> in.
The situation to which Joy refers has nothing to do with the Digital Map Library and was (is) totally misunderstood by her. If necessary I believe I can offer a satisfactory explanation. My reply to Joy on February 1, 2010 (with copies to others) in which I requested a hearing.
--- On Mon, 2/1/10, Dick Sevier wrote:
From: Dick Sevier
Subject: Re: Maps Project
To: Joy Fisher
Cc: Sherri Bradley, Cyndie Enfinger, Tina Vickery, Deb Haines, Jo Branch, Linda Lewis, Edward Hayden
Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 11:32 AM
Joy
I never thought you fully understood the Madison Parish LAArchives situation and now I know you didn't. I thought I was the one "kissed goodbye." The material I "removed" from the Archives had always been, and always will be, part of the USGenWeb. It was never "removed" from the USGenWeb, only from the Archives. Without rehashing the problem, it should be noted that I personally spent over eleven years gathering more than 95% this information, and much of it was in the Madison LAGenWeb long before it was in the Madison LAArchives. The problem arose when Jo Branch, who I still consider to be one of the premier State Coordinators, didn't like it when I started linking from the Archives to the USGenWeb after all the links were broken (twice) during the Rootsweb exodus. Jo claimed that was "against the rules", but never could show me the rules. Anyway the data will always be available on the USGenWeb which is much easier to access and in a much better format. I did not spend all this time gathering data just for the Archives, but, rather, for the people of Madison Parish, Louisiana whom I feel will be better served by the USGenWeb. Incidentally, I have had quite a few complaints recently from people who could not get into the Archives files in general and the Madison Parish LAArchives file in particular.
Now for the Digital Map Library, where I have been the original Coordinator for Louisiana since 1999 and Coordinator for Mississippi since 2001. I have diligently spent many hours gathering and begging for maps involving these states. During this time I have received "kudos" from literally all over the world for these websites (including the Madison Parish website.) I am responsible for almost 100% of the maps on those two sites, and see no parallel between the map files and the Madison Parish situation. I am dedicated to gathering data for all three projects and always have been.
Therefore, if I am to be removed as Coordinator of the Louisiana and Mississippi Digital Map Library, I respectfully request a hearing before the Grievance Committee at its earliest convenience.
Dick Sevier
Richard P. Sevier
Louisiana Digital Historical Map Library Coordinator
Mississippi Digital Historical Map Library Coordinator
Madison Parish, LAGenWeb Coordinator
Former Madison Parish, LA Archives Coordinator
Madison Parish, LA Ancestry Message Board Administrator
Sevier Family Ancestry Message Board Administrator
Author of Amazon Publishing Co.’s Images of America-Madison Parish, Louisiana
==============================
From: Mike & Diane
Date: 3/6/2010 12:21:46 PM
To: campaign98@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [GC] Fw: Resubmittal of grievance
He had submitted it to me and left a blank in where it says bylaws broken so I asked him to fill that in and send it back to me.
It will be Grievance 2010/03/01
Diane
==============================