(July 1, 2006) By the NC
The July 2006 meeting was opened by Linda Haas Davenport NC

Agenda
Annual Election
Announcement: Annual Election
Grievance Procedure Committee's Proposed Procedures
Conflict With Bylaws Question
Grievance Committee's Proposed Bylaw Amendment
Adjournment

(July 1, 2006) Forwarded by the NC on behalf of the EC
Important Notice From The Election Committee

Due to technical problems beyond the control of the EC, voting in the USGenWeb National 2006 Election will not begin on 1 July as scheduled. No voting passwords will be sent until some time early next week.

Please visit and bookmark the USGenWeb Election Committee web pages for information regarding the exact time and date passwords will be mailed, and voting will begin. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~usgwelections/. An announcement note will also be sent to all lists.

The EC will extend the voting period for as many days as the delay lasts, providing that the extension does not interfere with possible run-off elections at the close of the normal voting period.

The EC apologizes for the inconvenience. Your patience is appreciated.

Ellen Pack
Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee

(July 6, 2006) By the NC on Behalf of EC
Announcement: Annual Election will begin on July 7, 2006

(July 1, 2006) By the NC
Due to the size of the Grievance Procedures the NC posted them in sections:
Sections 1-4 were posted (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151755906)
Sections 5-6 were posted (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151756059)
Sections 7-8 were posted (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151756200)
The proposed bylaw amendment was posted (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151756374)

(July 1, 2006) Call For Motion by NC
Scott, Strugis requires the Chair of the committee presenting procedures make the motion for adoption of the committee's procedures.

May I please hear a motion to adopt the CPC Procedures posted in sections (listed below) as the official Grievance Procedures for the Project?

(July 1, 2006) Motion made by Scott Burow, seconded by Bettie Wood.

(July 2, 2006) Motion 06-13 By NC
Motion made by Scott and 2nd by Bettie is numbered 06-13 and is now open for discussion.

Motion: I move that the Grievance Procedures Committee's proposal as posted in Sections 1-8 be adopted as the official Grievance Procedures of the USGenWeb Project.
(Sections 1-4 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151755906
Sections 5-6 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151756059
Sections 7-8 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1151756200)

Members responding with "No Discussion" - Jeff Scism, Larry Flesher, Darilee Bednar, Bettie Wood, Suzanne Shephard, George Waller, Scott Burow, and Cyndie Enfinger.

(July 7, 2006) By the NC
The call for discussion on motion 06-13 was posted on Jul 2nd and 9 members signified no discussion. However, due to the discussion of this motion on the Project's lists the call for a vote has been postponed for the past 5 days. We now need to move forward with the voting. Unless there is an objection, the call to vote will be made tomorrow morning.

(July 8, 2006) By the NC
Motion 06-13 - Grievance Procedures called to vote.

(July 11, 2006) By the NC
Motion 06-13 Results
With 10 yes votes and 1 abstain Motion 06-13 passes.
Members Voting Yes: Cyndie Enfinger, Jan Cortez. Jeff Scism, Karen De Groote-Johnson, Larry Flesher, Linda Blum-Barton, Phyllis Rippee, Scott Burow, Sundee Maynez and Suzanne Shepard
Member Abstaining: Bettie Wood
Members Not Voting: Darilee Bedner and George Waller.

(July 7, 2006) By Bettie Wood

One of our SWSC volunteers would like me to request an opinion from our Parliamentarian please.

Do the GP procedures conflict with the bylaws?

(July 7, 2006) By the NC
Josh has been called away on a family matter and I doubt he will be available to render an opinion.

(July 20, 2006) By the NC
A request was made for the parliamentarian to issue an opinion on whether or not the recently passed Grievance Procedures are in conflict with the bylaws and whether or not the recommended bylaw
amendment is necessary. Since Josh has been unavailable I spent some hours with the Procedures and Strugis. Here is what I found.
*****
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1153394832

(July 21, 2006) By Linda Blum-Barton
I agree with your summary and believe the Bylaws should be revised to recognize the committee and it's authority.

(July 20, 2006) By the NC (forwarding message from Josh Taylor, AB Parliamentarian)
The Parliamentarian concurred with the NC's opinion.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1153395587

(July 11, 2006) By the NC
Grievance Committee's Proposed Bylaw Amendment
The NC moved the discussion of the proposed bylaw amendment to ABChat

(July 23, 2006) By the NC
The NC took the discussion of the proposed bylaws amendment to the Project membership:
To all USGenWeb Project Members:

The Advisory Board recently passed a motion to set up a grievance committee and a set of policies and procedures for the committee. (http://ilgenweb.rootsweb.ancestry.com/GPC/usgwgpc.html).

The previous questions about conflicts between the bylaws and the procedures are answered here:
(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1153394832
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2006-07/1153395587)

Although the grievance committee can operate without a bylaw amendment and the procedures are not in conflict with the bylaws a bylaws amendment is needed for the following reasons:

To remove the AB from being required to "advise and mediate" grievances. To add the authority to establish a standing committee (a housekeeping item needed per Sturgis). To make the grievance committee a standing committee that cannot be disbanded by future ABs. To make the outcome of a grievance binding. Currently the way the bylaws read the AB, after reaching a decision on a grievance, can only make a recommendation which does not have to be implemented. To insure that a dismissed CC or SP member's website not be given away during the grievance process. Currently the AB does not have that authority.

Since this amendment will directly effect the members of the Project the AB is asking for input from the membership.

Please feel free to forward to any appropriate list.

(August 2, 2006) By the NC