From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 2:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Cyndie,
I do understand your position on this, and I will follow your advice.
Without Prejudice,
Diane
----- Original Message ----
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Sun, July 11, 2010 2:15:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Diane,
These questions are outside the scope of my duties as the Hearing Chair as these events occurred prior to my appointment and commencement of this hearing.
I believe that these questions have already been asked and answered, but if Sherri, as National Coordinator, or Linda K. Lewis, as the requestor, has a response, they may do so.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:35:26 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I hereby object to Sherri Bradley being a voting participant of this hearing panel.
Because of her direct involvement in the incidents that occurred prior to these charges being brought against me, I do not feel she can be unbiased regarding the evidence presented here and any possible disciplinary mandated by this panel for the following reasons:
1 - In her position as National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project, her actions of involvement in the Grievance process ultimately resulted in this action.
2 - In her position as an incumbent candidate for the position of National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project in an election process that is ongoing during this hearing I do not feel she can be unbiased.
3 - Since I have publicly accused her of breaking Procedures and Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project in addition to violating Sturgis Parliamentary Procedures in the matter of the announcement of this hearing to the membership, I do not believe she can fairly participate in this hearing in any manner other than to present any statement or evidence she may have.
I respectfully request that she be recused from this hearing and only be called as a witness if needed.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:44:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
I object to the discussion of this hearing on the EXEC list where I nor my Advisor are privy to such discussions. This is evidenced by the email that Denise Wells forwarded to this list as well as to the Board-L:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2010-07/1278523938
I would also like clarification as to whether or not the email receipt issue referenced in this email has been cleared up by Linda K. Lewis as I don't believe it is acceptable to forward emails from this list by one or more persons during this hearing.
That practice could also open the door for more accidental incidents of this hearing list mail being posted somewhere that it should not be.
Respectfully,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
----- Original Message ----
From: Denise Wells
To: board-exec@rootsweb.com; board@rootsweb.com; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 1:32:18 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Linda has a problem with receiving email from Roadrunner. Does anyone want to take on forwarding Cyndie's emails to Linda until this problem gets worked out?
I can forward as I see them and am able, but with packing, moving, selling and working, not sure if I will stay on top of that to make the commitment, and there is no sense in more than one person doing this and then Linda ends up with duplicates of everything to read.
What does the group think?
Denise
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 6:37:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Diane,
Linda K's inability to receive email from me is not an issue that is specific to this hearing, so discussing it on EXEC is appropriate. Nothing regarding the hearing itself was discussed. The Advisory Board is currently handling an appeal on EXEC which was publically announced. While Denise specifically mentioned the hearing, this problem is also impacting Linda KL’s ability to receive my comments on the appeal.
As to if Linda K's email issue has been resolved, I do not know and she will have to respond to that.
I'm unaware of any accidental incidents of hearing list mail being posted somewhere that it should not be.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Dale Grimm
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 6:42:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: [BOARD-EXEC] No longer receiving Cyndie'semails again
I don't see any discussion of this hearing in there.
Dale Grimm
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 6:45:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Comments from the Hearing Panel?
Cyndie
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Siniard
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:35 AM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I hereby object to Sherri Bradley being a voting participant of this hearing panel.
Because of her direct involvement in the incidents that occurred prior to these charges being brought against me, I do not feel she can be unbiased regarding the evidence presented here and any possible disciplinary mandated by this panel for the following reasons:
1 - In her position as National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project, her actions of involvement in the Grievance process ultimately resulted in this action.
2 - In her position as an incumbent candidate for the position of National Coordinator of The USGenWeb Project in an election process that is ongoing during this hearing I do not feel she can be unbiased.
3 - Since I have publicly accused her of breaking Procedures and Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project in addition to violating Sturgis Parliamentary Procedures in the matter of the announcement of this hearing to the membership, I do not believe she can fairly participate in this hearing in any manner other than to present any statement or evidence she may have.
I respectfully request that she be recused from this hearing and only be called as a witness if needed.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
=========================
From: Cyndie Enfinger
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 7:09:08 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Testing Linda KL's email
Linda,
Please respond if you are able to receive email from this address.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 12:10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
Cyndie,
Just to clarify that the point was that the email referenced was created in EXEC and CC'd to this hearing list and to the public Board list simultaneously. I agree it did not have any specifics in it, but what happens if the next one does? This is the point I am trying to make. Hence the reason I don't believe it is acceptable to forward emails from this list by one or more persons during this hearing. That practice could also open the door for more accidental incidents of this hearing list mail being posted somewhere that it should not be.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 12:36:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
valid points for removal of her as voting member.
David Samuelsen
-----Original Message-----
On 7/12/2010 4:45 AM, Cyndie wrote:
> Comments from the Hearing Panel?
>
> Cyndie
=========================
From: DC & Alice Allen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:09:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
My opinion is that Diane has a valid point, and that Sherri should recuse herself from this hearing as requested by Diane.
Alice
NENC CC Rep
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:39:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I will respectfully abide by this decision, however I must register my formal objection. There is nothing extraordinarily unusual about these charges or this hearing to warrant precidence-setting special new rules.
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
-----Original Message-----
From: DC & Alice Allen
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:21 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Good call, Cyndie. Thank you.
Alice
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:40:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
I object to this statement by Ms. Siniard. This statement is based solely on biased and prejudicial speculation on the part of Ms. Siniard, is disproved by the facts, and is inappropriate.
1) That Ms. Siniard chose to accept a nomination for NC after the charges were filed is inconsequential and has no bearing whatsoever on these charges, nor does it require or demand special rules or consideration for these procedings.
2) That Ms. Siniard chose to make public accusations and prejudicial statements against two members of the AB after the charges were filed demonstrates Ms. Siniard's personal prejudice against members of this committee; her actions do not demonstrate prejudism against Ms. Siniard by any member of this committee. Ms. Siniard's personal prejudism does not constitute special circumstances, new precidence-setting rules, or avoidance of facing these charges.
3) This is a disciplinary hearing, not a grievance. There was a disciplinary hearing in process at the time these charges were filed as was publicly announced on Board. This hearing was opened with no delay at the conclusion of the previous hearing as proven by the facts, and thereby ensures no dilatory tactics were in use by any member of this committee.
Announcement of hearing to convene for Ms. Siniard occurred on June 15:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/board/2010-06/1276928702
Resolution to previous hearings announced on Board for the record on June 19:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/board/2010-06/127692869
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/board/2010-06/1276928702
Respectfully,
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Siniard
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:42 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Respectfully, I have to disagree on Sturgis being followed. Not by you in this hearing but prior to this hearing: ....
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:42:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
Unless Ms. Siniard intends to provide evidence now that allegedly proves Ms. Bradley directed Ms. Siniard to create the postings listed in this charge, Ms. Bradley should continue to participate and vote. Election candidacy is irrelevant as all charges occurred before nominations were opened. Because Ms. Siniard has publicly shared her personal feeling about Ms. Bradley is not a reason to remove Ms. Bradley, nor does it demonstrate prejudism against Ms. Siniard by Ms. Bradley.
It is not acceptable to eliminate members of this AB panel one at a time based solely on Ms. Siniard's personal opinions of the individuals, and could be considered dilatory tactics.
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Siniard
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:35 AM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I hereby object to Sherri Bradley being a voting participant of this hearing panel. ....
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:44:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Fwd: No longer receiving Cyndie's emails again
After a weekend on the phone yelling at Network Solutions I am now receiving Cydie's emails as of this one below. I will be unable to receive any emails Cyndie sent previously - the server spam protection eliminated them with all other blacklisted email.
Linda K. Lewis
=========================
From: Lesley L Shockey
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:03:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
I believe that Linda KL has made some very valid points. The fact that Ms. Siniard is openly showing prejudice toward certain members of the AB is not proof that they are holding a prejudice against her.
Les Shockey
SEMA SC Rep
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:14:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
I disagree with your objections based on the fact that I accepted the nomination for NC on June 9, 2010 and this hearing was not announced until June 15, 2010.
http://usgenweb.org/usgwelections/national-2010/nominee-index.htm
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
----- Original Message ----
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 1:40:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
I object to this statement by Ms. Siniard. This statement is based solely on biased and prejudicial speculation on the part of Ms. Siniard, is disproved by the facts, and is inappropriate. ....
=========================
From: AnnieG
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:20:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I agree with Linda.
Ann Allen Geoghegan
NWPL Rep
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Linda K Lewis wrote:
Unless Ms. Siniard intends to provide evidence now that allegedly proves Ms. Bradley directed Ms. Siniard to create the postings listed in this charge, ....
=========================
From: Larry Flesher
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:29:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I agree with Linda on this point. For any hearing, a reason can be brought forth to recuse any and all members of the hearing. The AB must be very careful granting simple requests for "recuse", because they can be brought one by one until nobody is left. Obviously, if there is a conflict of interest or other reason, an individual should be recused, but the system cannot allow unlimited personal challenges.
Larry
----- Original Message ----
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 12:39:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I will respectfully abide by this decision, however I must register my formal objection. ....
=========================
From: Dale Grimm
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 3:29:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
And that appears to be the tactic here. First Linda, then Sherri. Who's next?
Dale
=========================
From: Pauli Smith
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 4:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I respectfully disagree with both Alice and David on this one. I personally did not feel that Linda's voting privileges should have been removed, but was willing to accept the compromise that Cyndie came up with. She had good arguments for both sides, and in the end I believe that she made the best decision that she could under the circumstances.
However with Sherri, I think these demands that she be removed are going too far. I've seen no prejudice on her side against Ms. Siniard that would warrant her removal from this hearing. I have read Diane Siniard's allegations that Sherri is "tainted" but I don't see the proof. I do see Ms. Siniard's prejudice toward Sherri, but I don't see Sherri's toward Ms. Siniard.
This all begs me to ask (as others already have) if Linda and Sherri are not acceptable to Ms. Siniard, then who is next? If this keeps up, before long, this hearing will be delayed indefinitely just on technicalities, and nothing will be accomplished. This is an issue that needs to be settled one way or another. In August, we will have new members on the AB, and they certainly will not be able to easily pick up where this gets left off. We need to get on with this, hear the evidence, make a decision and move on to other business.
Respectfully,
Pauli Smith
NCNE CC Rep
=========================
From: Denise Wells
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 5:02:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I concur with Linda's thoughts.
Each of us has proven their ability to think and make decisions for themselves. This has been proven repeatedly by those of us who have not agreed with everyone else. No one makes decisions for any of us. We have each had our own opinions on other matters and proven repeatedly that we do not always agree and truthfully have the ability to think for ourselves. Cyndie does not always agree, Alice doesn't, David doesn't, etc., right on down the line. Not a one of us has been unable to state our opinions and each of us knows that.
Denise
=========================
From: DC & Alice Allen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 5:50:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Linda,
According to the Election web site, Ms. Siniard accepted the nomination on June 9th, and was officially declared a candidate for NC on June 11th.
Sherri announced the disciplinary hearing, together with the charges, on BOARD-L on June 15th.
Alice
=========================
From: Colleen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 6:35:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have to agree with Diane on this, however only on objections 1 and 3. Diane is directly lodging charges against Sherri. Sherri is therefore liable to bias simply because of the accusations; she's human, after all. To ensure a fair vote, Sherri should not vote in this hearing.
Colleen
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:20:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
I understand that, Alice, and I realize that Diane had no knowledge of pending charges when she accepted her nomination. However the charges were definitely filed in May, well before nominations were opened, which clearly demonstrates that these charges are not a contrived effort to "railroad" any campaign as alleged by Ms. Siniard. And whether Ms. Siniard is a candidate has no bearing or relationship whatsoever to these charges or this hearing and does not afford her special treatment from all others who have faced a disciplinary hearing in the past.
Hope that makes sense!
Linda
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:26:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Objection
I have weighed the varied comments and opinions regarding this objection.
With regards to the reasons presented:
1. - Sherri Bradley did not bring these charges. It has already been established that Linda K. Lewis did and the objection regarding Linda K. Lewis as a voting member of the hearing was honored. The charges indicate that what lead to this hearing is " demonstrated within the evidence submitted to the AB for the resulting disciplinary hearing against two FLGenWeb, Inc. members". There is no mention of this action resulting from the grievance in the charges, so this appears to be hearsay. Additionally, as Sherri did not bring the charges, Sherri did not select the date that the charges were made.
2. - Bill Oliver, who is a member of the Advisory Board and this panel, is also running for the position for National Coordinator in the ongoing election. As you have singled out one candidate but not the other, it appears that this is based on personal preference and not because a person who is a candidate has bias by default.
3. - This logic implies that Diane Siniard could accuse each person on the hearing panel of breaking procedures, bylaws and parliamentary process of the project and then object to them voting by claiming they are biased because Diane made accusations.
I think I have shown that I will honor reasonable objections, but the reasons given for this objection appear to be have been selectively made based on personal preference, not fairness to the hearing process, therefore I do not see merit in this objection.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:32:37 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Continued Objections
There has been more than ample time for each party to express objections regarding the holding of this hearing and the hearing process itself. Any party that has additional objections to the holding of this hearing and the hearing process itself must present all objections by Tuesday, July 11, 2010, by 9:00PM EDT. No objections on this matter will be considered beyond that time.
Objections during the Evidentiary Phase that are related to the presented evidence, questions and discussions or other matters related to the Evidentiary Phase inself will be considered.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Lesley L Shockey
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 8:46:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Continued Objections
Cyndie, I think you meant Tuesday, July 13, 2010, by 9:00PM EDT.
Les
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 9:15:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Continued Objections
Yes, thank you for noticing that.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 9:51:59 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Grievance 09-08-15 correspondence
Evidence in the attachment of emails that were shared with Dennis & Fran to use as rebuttal in their disciplinary hearings. I've removed all of the other information that was in this message string, but have not made any changes to the .doc file attachment.
Sherri
----- Original Message ----
From: Cyndie
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 6:18 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: FW: Grievance 09-08-15 correspondence
Sherri,
Here's the one with the large attachment from Fran.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 9:57:33 PM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Disciplinary Hearing Rebuttal Request - Dennis Gries.
More evidence that confidential messages dealing with grievance 2009-08-15 were released to the Dennis Gries & Fran Smith for use in their rebuttal regarding their disciplinary hearings.
Once again, I've removed the remainder of the message string but have made no changes to the .doc attachment.
Sherri
=========================
[The attachments Sherri refers to are not included here as they have nothing to do with establishing Diane Siniard took the confidentiality oath or not. --mw]
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:43:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Continued Objections
Point of Order - Could the chair please consult with the project's Parliamentarian regarding my right as the accused in this Disciplinary hearing to object to the participation of certain individuals. I would like this cleared up with a ruling by the Parliamentarian in order to make it clear to those on this panel that my objecting to something is not a delaying tactic but my right as a member.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:06:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Linda K.
Excuse me, you waited long time and went public when it became known that Diane became candidate???
This does reflect the severe bias on your part and Sherri's too since the charges were made public against Sherri and Tina.
My biggest beef? Failure to adopt an adaption of the Sturgis procedure before there was to be a hearing in first place.
David
On 7/12/2010 6:20 PM, Linda K Lewis wrote:
I understand that, Alice, and I realize that Diane had no knowledge of pending charges when she accepted her nomination.
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:06:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Linda K. Lewis stated:
There is nothing extraordinarily unusual about these charges or this hearing to warrant precidence-setting special new rules.
As far as I can tell there is no set of rules adopted by the project or the Advisory Board of this project for disciplinary hearings so describing my objection to anyone's participation on the jury as a "precidence-setting special new rule" makes no sense.
Any disciplinary hearing and charges should be considered extraordinarily unusual in a volunteer organization and up until this year it has been in The USGenWeb Project.
Linda K. Lewis stated:
3) This is a disciplinary hearing, not a grievance.
Exactly. If it were a grievance process at least there are guidelines set up for such. I would have the option of mediation and then arbitration by non-AB members. Additionally the outcome could be appealed. This hearing is being held by the Advisory Board members, two of whom are directly involved in the circumstances surrounding the charges against me. The same Advisory Board members will rule on the charges, apply a sentence and there is no appeal process available to me.
Linda K. Lewis stated:
I understand that, Alice, and I realize that Diane had no knowledge of pending charges when she accepted her nomination. However the charges were definitely filed in May, well before nominations were opened....
I had no way of knowing that charges were filed in May nor did the project membership. You might want to consider the perception of the appearance of these charges at the time they did rather than accusing me of being wildly prejudiced also.
Regarding time frame of evidentiary portion of this hearing -
Since there has been no answer from the AB regarding the time they will require to present evidence, witnesses, etc. it is hard to come up with a time frame for our preparation but since the AB has had knowledge of this pending hearing since May - at least 15 days prior to my knowledge of it, I would ask for 15 days after the AB has finished presenting their evidence for the preparation of my defense, evidence and witnesses so that my advisor and I at least have somewhere near the same amount of time to prepare as you have had.
As I stated before, I have upcoming medical appointments and my advisor, as some of you know, is self employed and has deadlines to meet every week so her time is limited to participate.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Continued Objections
that is a problem. There has NOT been one since the beginning of the term.
David Samuelsen
On 7/12/2010 9:43 PM, Diane Siniard wrote:
Point of Order - Could the chair please consult with the project's Parliamentarian regarding my right as the accused in this Disciplinary hearing to object to the participation of certain individuals. ....
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:14:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
On 7/10/2010 11:42 AM, Cyndie wrote:
> The USGenWeb Special Rules also state "The Advisory Board
> electronic meeting is an USGenWeb official assembly.",
> further indicating that the Advisory Board vote represents
> the full membership.
The problem? The general membership never approved this standard procedure in first place. The AB made that rule themselves, therefore it will always be a charge against the AB for putting AB above the law.
I had a nice chat with my friend who is an attorney. He is clear on one point, the AB must adopt an adaption of Sturgis 223-225 before there is even a hearing to begin. This has not been followed from the get go.
So far what I have seen - making rules up as you went through.
David Samuelsen
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 6:19:21 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Message Bounce
I just approved a message from Sherri that bounced due to exceeding the message size limit of 100KB set for the list. I can either increase that limit or ask that folks try to crop anything more than one or two comments back when replying to stay under the 100KB limit.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 6:36:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
David,
The topic of adapting the Sturgis procedure for USGenWeb hearings is an item for the USGenWeb AB agenda, not this hearing. Procedures adopted by the Advisory Board cannot be retroactively applied to past event.
Cyndie
-----Original Message-----
From: W David Samuelsen
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:06 AM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Linda K.
Excuse me, you waited long time and went public when it became known that Diane became candidate??? ....
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 6:56:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
David,
Sturgis page 210:
"An organization has the inherent power to take any action that is not in conflict with law, its charter, bylaws, or adopted rules. This includes the power to adopt motions regulating the conduct of its current business. Since many situations arise that are not covered by rules, it is essential that the details of transacting business by determined by motions. During the course of proceedings, motions are frequently necessary to facilitate the method, manner, or order of transacting business."
Any of the USGenWeb Standard Rules and Special Rules that exist have been created or modified by motion of the Advisory Board and recorded with the Secretary. While you may not agree with them, they have been set in place through proper procedure.
Regarding a hearing and pages you have referenced, Sturgis states the following which directly conflicts with your attorney:
"Procedures for the discipline and expulsion of members should be included in the Bylaws. However, every organization has the inherent right to discipline, suspend or expel a member for valid cause, even if procedures for doing so are not included in the bylaws."
While you may not agree with the process, it is consistent with past hearings that have been held by the Advisory Board. I have been a member of the Advisory Board for a number of years and participated in each hearing, so I have knowledge of the process that was followed in each one.
Cyndie
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 6:58:23 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] FW: Usgwconf-2 unsubscribe notification
As Linda K. Lewis has indicated that she is now able to receive email from my rr.com account, I have unsubscribed the alternate email address as shown below.
Cyndie
-----Original Message-----
From: mailman-bounces@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:20 AM
To: usgwconf-2-owner@usgenweb.org
Subject: Usgwconf-2 unsubscribe notification
cyndiee@gmail.com has been removed from Usgwconf-2.
-----
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 2:40:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
You ignored the Sturgis and the AB has NO such adoption of any adaption of such rules in Standard rules or special rules in first place.
This is what my friend is pointing out.
David Samuelsen
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 2:41:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
No such procedures had been adopted in first place. Not in standard rules or special rules at all.
This is what my friend is pointing out.
On 7/13/2010 4:36 AM, Cyndie wrote:
> David,
>
> The topic of adapting the Sturgis procedure for USGenWeb
> hearings is an item for the USGenWeb AB agenda, not this
> hearing. ....
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 5:23:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
David,
What I quoted is Sturgis.
Cyndie
-----Original Message-----
From: W David Samuelsen
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:40 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
You ignored the Sturgis and the AB has NO such adoption of any adaption of such rules in Standard rules or special rules in first place. ....
=========================
From: Sherri
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 8:24:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Message Bounce
Cyndie,
In this instance, it was the attachment that Fran submitted as rebuttal in her grievance hearing. I forwarded this because it is evidence for charge #1.
Sherri
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyndie
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:19 AM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Message Bounce
I just approved a message from Sherri that bounced due to exceeding the message size ....
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 9:29:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Excuse me David????
If you took the time to carefully read the emails submitted to this list then you noted that I did not wait - I filed in May. I did not set the schedule for the previous hearings nor did I have any control over the timeline for the AB's schedule. If you had participated in the AB duties for which you were elected to do you would be aware of these facts first-hand.
I have not seen any charges filed against Sherri or Tina. Any charges filed against anyone but Ms. Siniard are out of the scope of this hearing, irrelevant and would be a breach of confidentiality. Your second sentence is personally offensive, inapproriate for this hearing, inappropriate for the rules of conduct for this list, and out of order. It is ok to respectfully disagree - it is not ok to cast insinuations or dispersions, especially those that are not based in fact.
I hereby lodge a formal complaint and request a formal apology or a retraction of your statement to this list. Bully tactics by any individual should not be permitted in this hearing.
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
-----Original Message-----
From: W David Samuelsen
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:06 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Linda K.
Excuse me, you waited long time and went public when it became known that Diane became candidate??? ....
=========================
From: Diane Siniard
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 9:39:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Point of Order
In conducting the hearing the committee should preserve decorum and fair play....
I have been accused by Linda K Lewis of being prejudiced, biased, etc and now she is publicly attacking David Samuelson on this list.
I hereby request that she formally be reprimanded for her conduct and if it continues that she be removed from this hearing permanently.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Siniard
Without Prejudice
----- Original Message ----
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 9:29:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Excuse me David???? ....
=========================
From: W David Samuelsen
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 10:19:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
You need to go back to your earlier message and re-read it.
You said precedence process, yet the AB has never adopted it as part of standard or special rules. Not even written down. Sturgis is very clear on this point.
And now you are quoting Sturgis, then scrap this current whole process and do over and do it right, including following the Sturgis 6-points since there aren't any written precedence process in place in standard rules or special rules.
I know what I am talking about because I went through the process personally over 10 years ago and that organization was thwarted by its own attorney for that reason along with my own attorney.
David Samuelsen
On 7/13/2010 3:23 PM, Cyndie wrote:
> David,
>
> What I quoted is Sturgis.
>
> Cyndie
=========================
From: Linda K Lewis
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 1:22:31 AM
Subject: [Usgwconf-2] Evidence - Changed from Questions....
- The NC will have to request/provide the GC confidentiality agreement signed by Ms. Siniard as requested.
- The NC is currently providing the evidence to support item 1 of my charges.
- Evidence linked in item 2. The SWSC list is archived and the
thread/context can be viewed in its entirety.
The facts are contained within the evidence and there are really no questions about the evidence I can answer. I was not a party to the grievance in item 1 and I reviewed this material during an appeal to this grievance. I was solely a list subscriber (witness) in item 2, and as far as I know, I have never met or had any interaction with Ms. Siniard in any way.
Between the time I read the post in item 2 and the time I filed the charges I received a few unsolicited emails from ccs I represent. They expressed their concerns about the breach of confidentiality of the grievance process and asking the grievance committee rules be upheld and grievances stay confidential. I drafted and filed these charges solely in an effort to uphold the grievance process / grievance committeee rules on behalf of the membership.
There is really nothing more I can add. I am confident Cyndie will ensure the remaining evidence is presented and the hearing reaches conclusion in an orderly and timely manner. I cannot vote in this matter, and rather than further disrupt and delay these proceedings and suffer personally-directed insults, I would prefer to be unsubbed from this list. I will abide Cyndie's decision. I will remain available to rejoin should something come up or a closing statement requested.
Linda K. Lewis
SWSC.CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Siniard
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:40 PM
To: Linda K. Lewis; usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
Point of Order
In conducting the hearing the committee should preserve decorum and fair play....
=========================
From: Cyndie
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 6:21:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
David,
You need to go back and read what I quoted from Sturgis, specifically:
"Procedures for the discipline and expulsion of members should be included in the Bylaws. However, every organization has the inherent right to discipline, suspend or expel a member for valid cause, even if procedures for doing so are not included in the bylaws."
The Advisory Board has the right, per the above Sturgis quote, to have a disciplinary hearing even if procedures for doing so are not included in the bylaws. Procedures for doing so are not included our bylaws, but hearings have been held in the past and past precedence is used for consistency of this hearing.
Cyndie
-----Original Message-----
From: W David Samuelsen
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:20 PM
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Subject: Re: [Usgwconf-2] Questions....
You need to go back to your earlier message and re-read it.
You said precedence process, yet the AB has never adopted it as part of standard or special rules. ....