From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 18 08:14:07 2001 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:14:07 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: The more things change...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 12 November 2001-Sunday 18 November 2001: Motion 01-35 (parliamentary procedure): Four days and much debate after Richard Harrison called the question on his amendment to Motion 01-35 Holly Timm called the vote. In an apparent attempt to stem confusion, Richard withdrew his motion amending Motion 01-35 to include the 1915 version of Robert's Rules of Order. Kathy Heidel seconds this withdrawal.The call passed easily and unanimously, and the Board moved on to voting on the amendment. The amendment failed, with 9 yes votes, 5 no votes, and one abstention. Discussion was then reopened on the unamended version of Motion 01-35 [to accept the Sturgis book as the Board's parliamentary authority]. After some brief discussion, Kathy Heidel moved to close discussion on the motion; at this writing, 10 Board members have voted "yes" to close debate. [It is devotely hoped that by the end of next week, we will be finished with this motion. But with the holidays coming, who knows?] No other business was addressed by the Board during this week. --- In Executive Session: one message, from Tim Stowell Bylaws "starter" committee: discussion and voting on committee size, composition, and duties of the committee Guidelines "starter committee: no activity === "Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" ---Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass" This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 18 08:15:38 2001 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:15:38 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Apology Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: It appears that I did not send out a DBS from last week. I have just sent it and apologize for the old news. -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 25 07:26:18 2001 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show weekly edition, 11/25/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: All quiet on the western front...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 18-Sunday 25 November 2001: Motion 01-35 (parliamentary authority): Just a few days shy of its one-month anniversary, Motion 01-35 was finally submitted to a vote. On November 20, the motion was declared passed, with 13 yes votes and 1 no vote. This motion establishes "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" by Alice Sturgis as our official parliamentary reference. Motion 01-34 (motion to change the EC guidelines): The big news this week is that the Election Committee has apparently abandoned its attempt to expel Teresa Lindquist. When last we visited this motion, it had been postponed pending the outcome of the mediation session between Teresa and Linda Haas Davenport [see previous DBS editions for details]. Following that session, there was a weekend discussion session [Nov 15-18] with Holly Timm and the rest of the EC, which Teresa was not present for. On November 19, Jana Black posted a rather cryptic, yet strangely detailed message describing recent mediation events between Teresa Lindquist, Holly Timm, and the other members of the EC, and accusing Holly of hiding information from the Board. She posted the following [of course, greatly collapsed...]: "...the AB has pending on the table a request from the EC in the form of Motion 01-34...In the time since the EC Request was first sent to the AB, one EC member decided to resign in utter frustration regarding the what he felt was inaction and a lack of EC support on the part of the AB...I was asked to witness the mediation facilitated by our USGW President between Linda Haas-Davenport representing the EC and Teresa Lindquist, USGW Project RAL. The mediation was structured to see if a solution could be found that would render AB action on Motion 01-34 unnecessary...The EC Chair then informed the President and the RAL that the EC would go back to discuss what had transpired and would then issue a formal reply to the AB once they had made a decision in the light of the mediation process...I have received yesterday an email from Linda H-D saying the EC composed and sent its official unanimous response to USGW President, Holly Timm last Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2001. Apparently, our President decided she is in a position to "not accept" the EC response and instead of forwarding it to the AB, has instead told every EC member to explain individually why they voted as they did and what they think the effect of this will be on the Project. Meanwhile RAL, Teresa Lindquist agreed to be unsubbed from the EC list while Holly "grilled" the EC regarding their conclusions over the weekend. I have emailed our President twice in the last two weeks with questions regarding this process and the resignation of one EC member...and have received no replies...Our President has told the EC they do not have the support of the AB in the motion above...She also seems to think she is in a position to argue the response rather than to bring it to the AB and allow the elected AB representatives to act as they see fit on the matter." [Now, I don't recall when we elected a "President" for the USGW, but apparently Jana thinks we have one.] Response to Jana's revelation was varied. Kathy Heidel and Phyllis both pressed for further information and a quick resolution of the issue. Phyllis also suggested that anyone with pending business sent to Holly also forward a copy of it to all Board members and noted "this is EXACTLY why we need to choose a parliamentary authority and have it in place for reference. We cannot exist as an organization when ONE person assumes total authority and treats the existing Advisory Board as small children in need of protection." Robert Bremer cautioned against allowing the EC to become "increasingly political" and noted "Unless we end these crusades to eliminate or punish whoever we don't like or those who don't meet our preferences of decorum, this Project will never more forward." He would rather see the EC members resign than give "the EC even more latitude in picking and choosing whoever they like." Teresa corrects Jana's interpretation of events [particularly regarding the "grilling" of the EC] and notes that the withdrawal motion was _not_ the motion under discussion over the weekend. Linda Haas Davenport also forwarded a letter to the Board [via Jana] that corrects the "grilling" impression that Jana conveyed in her original post; in particular, Linda noted, "in Holly's defense she really wasn't "grilling" us she was asking for our opinions and she was trying very hard to persuade us to see things from her point of view." After obtaining permission from Linda, Teresa finally forwarded the full withdrawal motion from the EC to the Board on November 19. It reads as follows: "On Oct 17, 2001 the members of the Election Committee submitted a Request to the Advisory Board asking that the Advisory Board remove Teresa Lindquist from the Election Committee and replace her with another Advisory Board member. It is the decision of the members of the Election Committee to withdraw this Request, at this time, while reserving the right to resubmit this Request at a future date." On November 21, Linda forwarded the EC's response to the mediation session that occurred on October 29, 2001: "The EC requested that Teresa voluntarily resign Teresa refused Teresa offered: (1) To issue an apology to Keith & Barbara. The EC rejects this offer. An apology under these circumstances will have no meaning. (2) To keep confidential anything conducted on the EC list. The EC accepts this offer. (3) To reserve the right to comment on the EC's public activities, and on those matters not otherwise bound by the confidentiality rules The EC neither rejects or accepts this offer." [This is breathtakingly petty. Apparently, the EC is not familiar with the purpose and meaning of an apology. As my grandma used to say, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes the Baby Jesus cry.] It appears at this time that the immediate issue is resolved. Motion 01-34, which does not deal directly with the removal of a specific member [although it was made with the intent of making it legal to remove that specific member] will now most likely be reopened and acted on by the Board. Motion 01-36: This is the motion regarding the proposed Publicity/Promotions committee. It has been open for discussion for some time. Discussion on it more or less ceased while the "starter" committee considered some questions addressed to it by Teresa Lindquist. It is the only motion currently on the floor; other than notice that it is still open no action was taken on it during this week. --- In Executive Session messages from Tim Stowell and Jana Black Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === "As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them." ---John Fitzgerald Kennedy This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 27 07:05:21 2001 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:05:20 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: [ALL-L] Get a load of this Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: This is getting ridiculous. Now even I have to wonder, what exactly is it that they want to do that they so desperately don't want me to see? -Teresa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:33:17 -0500 From: Holly Timm Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Please Forward to the AB Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:32:36 -0700 Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: "Holly" >Subject: Please Forward to the AB >Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 05:12:33 -0600 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >X-postini-filters: (C:0.5788083 S:0.0049269 ) > >Holly will you please forward this message to the AB. You may post it on >BOARD-L >**************** >The Election Committee seated a new member on Sept 1, 2001 and several >welcome messages to the new member were posted on the EC list. The new >member did not respond to any of these welcoming messages. > >On Sept 5, 2001 the EC was beginning a discussion about a request made by >the AB. Less than 8 hours after the beginning of the discussion the new >committee member posted a message on BOARD-L reporting that the EC was >reluctant to perform the request. The Chair sent a private message to the >member asking her to refrain from posting information about any on-going >discussion the Committee was having. In response to the note the committee >member posted an exceedingly unprofessional comment about the Chair >(finding fault with her conduct) on the DBS. By the 6th of September, 6 days >into her time as a committee member she had abused her access to committee >discussions. > >When the committee unsubbed the two AB members from the list while it was >discussing volunteers this committee member once again took her unhappiness >with the committee, of which she is a member, public on the DBS. > >On Oct 8, 2001 the committee sent its list of new volunteers to the AB for >approval. The new member attacked a fellow committee member and a potential >fellow committee member on the DBS. Her comments were highly offensive and >extremely unprofessional. The result of this post was the resignation of a >very valuable and hard working fellow committee member. > >In her Oct 8th remarks the committee member also stated that the EC members >have access to everyone's voting records. This remark was untrue and the >Chair posted a rebuttal on the ALL list. The committee member posted a >correction and an apology for the misstatement the following day (with a >qualification) but she did not apologize to her fellow committee members and >to date she has not done so. > >When the removal request was sent to the AB it was discussed on BOARD-EXEC. >However, this committee member took it upon herself to publicly post the >information. One of the results of making this knowledge public was the call >for the resignation of the entire EC on the ALL list and also some very >harsh posts from some AB members. This committee member's actions served to >harm the reputation of the EC with the volunteers of the Project. > >The committee member was offered the opportunity to discuss this matter with >her fellow committee members and she refused. This member has not posted one >message on the committee list since she was seated on Sep 1st. > >Since Oct 8, 2001 the regular business of the EC has been disrupted as a >result of the actions and publicly posted comments of this new committee >member. > >Therefore, it is the decision of the below signed EC committee members to >place committee member, Teresa Lindquist, on suspension for 4 weeks (which >shall included being unsubbed from the committee's list) and on probation >for the following 3 months. If during the time of suspension and probation >this committee member violates the Committee Guidelines, the confidentiality >of the EC list or again publicly publishes or posts unfavorable comments >about any fellow committee member or the committee of which she is a member >she will be removed from the committee. > >Signed by: Sara Greer, Lorraine Newsome, Alice Miller, Joy fisher, LaRae >Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Teresa Hodges, Bob Chada, Linda Davenport, Marti >Graham. > >**************** >If the AB would like to appoint another AB member to the EC list for the 4 >weeks that Teresa is on suspension please let the Chair know so that she can >sub the temporary member. ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Nov 27 07:05:01 2001 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:05:00 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: BOARD-L , Daily Board Show , USGenWeb list Subject: Re: unsubscribe merope@Radix.Net (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:58:20 -0700 From: ELECTIONS-L-request@rootsweb.com To: merope@Radix.Net Subject: Re: unsubscribe merope@Radix.Net 32760 merope@Radix.Net merope@Radix.Net You have been removed from the list. If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). Transcript of unsubscription request follows: -- >From merope@Radix.Net >From: ELECTIONS-L-request@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: merope@Radix.Net >To: ELECTIONS-L-request@rootsweb.com >Subject: unsubscribe merope@Radix.Net From merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 29 08:56:10 2001 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, midweek edition, 11/29/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Swimming upstream...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [due to the extensive discussion on Board-L over the last few days, I am sending out a mid-week version of the DBS. If I wanted til Sunday, this thing would be 30 pages long ] Monday November 26-Sunday December 2 2001: Motion 01-34 (Election committee guidelines revision): After some discussion, Richard Harrison withdraws this motion, reserving the right to submit it again at a later date. His second, Phyllis Rippee, approves the withdrawal. Motion 01-36 (Publicity/Promotion committee): No further action. New/Old Business: On November 27, the Election Committee Chair, Linda Haas Davenport, notified the Board that the EC had decided "to place committee member, Teresa Lindquist, on suspension for 4 weeks (which shall included being unsubbed from the committee's list) and on probation for the following 3 months." [Four weeks is apparently considered enough time to accomplish whatever it is they don't want me to see them doing.] The notice further stated that "If during the time of suspension and probation this committee member violates the Committee Guidelines, the confidentiality of the EC list or again publicly publishes or posts unfavorable comments about any fellow committee member or the committee of which she is a member she will be removed from the committee." Among the reasons cited for this are failing to respond to welcome messages, failing to post to the EC mailing list [yeah, apparently not talking is "disruptive"], failing to apologize to EC committee members for inappropriate comments made in the DBS [even though an offered apology was specifically and unanimously rejected by the EC], and violating the confidentiality of the EC [even though Linda herself is guilty of this, as are several other EC members]. Shortly after forwarding this announcement to the NC, Linda unsubbed Teresa from the EC mailing list. Although it is required in the EC Guidelines, no Board approval for this action was requested or obtained. [A great deal of "back and forth" ensues; I will try to summarize the major points but I do recommend that if you have not done so you read the original posts.] Board response to this action was varied with some members supporting Teresa and some supporting the EC. A number of Board members take the approach that the EC is not in violation of its guidelines because Teresa was "suspended" and not "removed" [not unexpected; this was the reason the original request was withdrawn and this action taken instead]. Phyllis Rippee notes that "any committee must have the right to discipline any of its own members. You will find that it is acceptable parliamentary procedure to remove a member from chambers until such a time as the remaining members decide to allow the removed member to return to chambers. And, if the EC does not follow parliamentary procedure....common sense and experience would conclude that "any committee must have the right to discipline any of its own members."" A couple of other members, particulary Jana Black and Kathy Heidel support the idea that disciplinary action is not inappropriate. Shortly after the notice was published, Nate Zipfel requested of the NC that the EC Chair be directed to subscribe himself and any other Board members who wish to be subscribed to the EC list, noting "I find the actions of the EC intolerable. I had felt that the issue was resolved but now it seems that they are taking another route around this." Ron Eason notes "This needs to be stopped and the EC needs to be ordered to resub this member to the list and stop this misappropriation of power...The EC cannot and should not be allowed to silence anyone who does not agree with their policy or guidelines. We cannot allow members, to be told whether they can post opposing views of a project committee...punishing people arbitrarily, using a double standard, because they disagree with you and say so publicly is not a policy this Project should uphold." Teresa notes that the EC guidelines have not been changed and until they are the EC is in violation both of the provision that the NC and the RAL be members of the committee and that the EC must petition the Board prior to removing any members. Nate notes "I thought for once that the USGenWeb had done something that would make a difference from the past actions of the AB and others in leadership of the project. The EC was something good that would be non-political and serve the project...I know now that I have been fooled again. This stuff that has continued to go on regarding Teresa L. and her position as an ex-officio member of the EC is absolutely ridiculous...This latest action does nothing but discredit the entire EC by continuing this course of action against Teresa...You are in the position of Chair of the EC to make a difference. Your actions by allowing this to continue not only discredit but also the EC. You have lost my support for you as the Chair of the EC by continuing this." He also notes that neither the Board nor the EC has done anything else but deal with this issue for over a month and says "I'm just tired of game playing within the USGenWeb by some members. I do NOT support this latest game by the EC...I'm sorry, I can't see past this being more of an issue against a person." He later points out "The continued "let's dump the RAL" campaign has and is causing more disruption to the EC, AB and the USGenWeb than the RAL's initial posting...My "indictment" as you called it is against those that want to continue personal attacks and retaliations against others in this project. If over 50% of those who voted for an individual to served as the RAL, then I have to support their choice." Robert Bremer asks Jana to clarify some of her comments about her communication with EC members [Jana refuses to respond to this request] and notes, "Wouldn't any such discussion of their views of the Rep at Large's conduct on the committee be the same violation of confidentiality that the Rep at Large has been accused of? How is this not an example of the usual double standard--it's okay to discuss internal EC business with someone the chair likes?" Noting that he is "thoroughly disgusted by the retaliatory politics of the Election Committee," and has "no confidence that this Election Committee can conduct a fair and unbiased election given its unfair and biased treatment of one of its members," he calls for the resignation of the EC Chair. On the other side of the divide, Jana Black [the EC's current "go to girl" on the Board], supports the Election Committee's actions, noting that she has been privy to much discussion with the EC members and they are universally unhappy with the situation. She also feels that supporting the EC in this circumstance is important because the various proposed committees need to function autonomously from the Board and a decision against the EC would discourage participation in other committees. She is very pleased with the idea of suspension and probation. Jana also acts a conduit for several rebuttals from the Linda Haas Davenport to other Board members [see below]. She also tries to justify why her communications with EC members are not violations of confidentiality and says she is disgusted with Teresa's "unwillingness to take personal public responsibility for actions she admits were wrong." [actually I have both apologized for one instance, and offered to apologize for the other, and neither has been accepted by the EC. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.] There are some more or less neutral comments from a few Board members: Kathy Heidel suggests that the Board use the mediation process to resolve the issue and that it begin the process as soon as possible. Teresa points out that not only has neither party requested mediation, the last attempt at mediation proved to be a waste of time for everyone involved. Phyllis Rippee suggests that the only way to get Teresa removed from the committee is to remove her from the Advisory Board itself, but notes "that action would go over like an elephant trying to pole vault." Phyllis also notes that Teresa has not been "removed" from the committee but merely "suspended" for a time and then placed on probation. [This is also the approach favored by Holly Timm, communicated to me in chat.] Tina Vickery notes "I don't know the answer, and I would be hard pressed at this juncture, with this issue, to be able to in my own mind separate the "he said, she said" mentality. As the original motioner of the EC, I am truly disappointed that the work that we did, the effort that we put into it is reduced to this." [yeah, me too. But this is USGW, you gotta expect it.] Board members begin forwarding correspondence from project membership on this topic. All comments forwarded thus far are opposed to the action of the EC; one calls for disbanding the EC entirely. Although it is suggested by one correspondent that Teresa pursue a grievance action against Linda Haas Davenport, Teresa declines to do so. She does note however, the extensive double standard apparent in this action against her, noting "Holly has also been rather quiet on the EC list and other EC members do not talk much on the list either, yet this is not proposed as grounds for sanction or presented as being "disruptive"...Other members, including Linda, have publicly criticized me, yet when I publicly criticize the EC or its members, it is grounds for sanction. In two instances cited in the EC decision, I provided information to the Board that I felt it was vital for the Board to have in a timely fashion and which, in the case of Keith's threatened resignation, was improper for the EC Chair to withhold from the Board, and this is cited as grounds for my suspension. Yet other EC members, including the Chair, have provided detailed information to members outside the committee at various times and this is not considered grounds for sanction." Teresa also notes that "The Chair of the EC has for several weeks conducted private discussion and secret votes on serious issues that affect the credibility of the EC and has deliberately excluded both Board members, who are members of the Committee, from participation in these discussions...While she has pursued this course, important and time-sensitive committee work has been put aside in favor of finding a way to remove an elected member of the EC. This is a serious breach of the EC's duties and responsibilities and can only serve to damage the credibility of the EC in general...It is clear that the actions of the actions of the EC and its Chair are materially harming the credibility of the Election Committeee. I have already received communication from project members who have decided not to answer the upcoming call for volunteers for the EC because of this action. They do not feel they can work in an environment where such directed harrassment is not only tolerated but actively encouraged by the Chair." Teresa also notes that she does not support disbanding the committee or removing its Chair, although a very good case for removing the Chair can be made. In rebuttal to various Board members' comments, Linda Haas Davenport notes that the EC would vigorously pursue the same sanctions against any member who conducted themselves as Teresa has and that the EC "The EC applies such a standard equally to all." [Hardly; Keith Giddeon attacked me publicly harshly more than once and I don't recall any calls by the EC for apologies, removals, or "suspensions"]. She notes "It's a matter of what is revealed (substantive items that were discussed with expectation of confidentiality) and to whom (posting to a list that has over a hundred subscribers is far more a breach of confidentiality than sending a private e-mail to one other person). If breaches of confidentiality equal to those committed by Teresa were committed by any other EC member, then the EC stands ready to mete out similar discipline to the offending member of the committee." [Note the threat.] She admits that the EC has not conducted any other business while it pursues one of its members, but that the EC is now back at work. Linda suggests that "If she truly put the interests of the Project first, she would have stepped aside and let some other AB member serve the ex-officio function of EC oversight...Instead, she prefers to allow the removal and/or resignation of the entire EC -- an action which do far more damage to the Project than her being unsubscribed to EC-L for four weeks could possibly have." Board members begin forwarding correspondence from project membership. All comments forwarded thus far are opposed to the action of the EC; one calls for disbanding the EC entirely. Although it is suggested by one correspondent that Teresa pursue a grievance action against Linda Haas Davenport, Teresa declines to do so. She does note however, the extensive double standard apparent in this action against her, noting "Holly has also been rather quiet on the EC list and other EC members do not talk much on the list either, yet this is not proposed as grounds for sanction or presented as being "disruptive"...Other members, including Linda, have publicly criticized me, yet when I publicly criticize the EC or its members, it is grounds for sanction. In two instances cited in the EC decision, I provided information to the Board that I felt it was vital for the Board to have in a timely fashion and which, in the case of Keith's threatened resignation, was improper for the EC Chair to withhold from the Board, and this is cited as grounds for my suspension. Yet other EC members, including the Chair, have provided detailed information to members outside the committee at various times and this is not considered grounds for sanction." Teresa also notes that "The Chair of the EC has for several weeks conducted private discussion and secret votes on serious issues that affect the credibility of the EC and has deliberately excluded both Board members, who are members of the Committee, from participation in these discussions...While she has pursued this course, important and time-sensitive committee work has been put aside in favor of finding a way to remove an elected member of the EC. This is a serious breach of the EC's duties and responsibilities and can only serve to damage the credibility of the EC in general...It is clear that the actions of the actions of the EC and its Chair are materially harming the credibility of the Election Committeee. I have already received communication from project members who have decided not to answer the upcoming call for volunteers for the EC because of this action. They do not feel they can work in an environment where such directed harrassment is not only tolerated but actively encouraged by the Chair." Teresa also notes that she does not support disbanding the committee or removing its Chair, although a very good case for removing the Chair can be made. Following some discussion, Robert Bremer moved that "the Advisory Board direct the Chair of the Election Committee to reinstate the Representative at Large on the Election Committee's list and suspend its probationary action against the Representative at Large. The Advisory Board further directs the Election Committee to not remove any of its members without the approval of the Advisory Board, as required in its guidelines." Nate and Teresa seconded this motion, it was given Motion number 01-37 and opened for discussion. Recommending that the motion be quickly defeated, Richard Harrison notes "It is entirely appropriate for a committee to discipline its members as necessary. In this case most, if not all, committee members were agreed on the offence and on the sanction. This committee has functioned effectively since it was instituted and there is no reason we should not trust their judgment in this matter...the CCs who serve on the EC ought to be allowed to conduct their business without undue interference from the CCs on the Board...instead of flinging counter-accusations Ms. Lindquist might take time to consider that the role of "thorn in the side" is an unproductive one no longer tolerated in this organization. This motion is a bad idea...it amounts to nothing more than an attempt on the part of a couple Board members to micro-manage the committee on behalf of someone they approve of and against committee members they are only too happy to criticize." Vicki Shaffer notes "a vote of YES on this motion reinforces the fact that no committee in the project is able to discipline it's members and every member should be aware BEFORE joining any committee that they could be ridiculed and called names in front of the whole project." Teresa formally requests that Holly Timm forward all ELECTION-L email to her, since she is still a committee member. Holly refuses to do so unless directed to by the Board. Teresa points out that communication between committee members does not need to be directed by the Board. Diane Parsons is opposed to the request. New Business: In an apparent attempt to change the subject to a more pleasant topic, Vicki suggests that all Board members state their county and/or special project affiliations. Several Board members do so. [It is apparently preferable to waste the Board's time with meaningless chit chat than to actually confront the possibility that the Election Committee is out of control and can no longer be trusted to conduct the Project's elections in a fair and impartial manner.] Vicki later apologized for this and noted that she was not trying to change the subject. --- In Executive Session: Bylaws "starter" committee: --duties and membership of the committee are discussed [personal note: this discussion is progressing slowly, but it _is_ progressing. The committee is now voting on the wording of various sections of our proposal to the Board.] Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === We Burn Witches Corner: Its beginning to look like the big battle for this Board is going to be the Election Committee, which is really a pity. It had so much potential, but its reputation and effectiveness are being squandered on witch hunts, vendettas and blood feuds, and to no discernable end. Although it appeared briefly that the EC would do the right thing and drop its attempt to expel a member, it has instead implemented a strategy that involves an end run around its guidelines. Essentially, Linda did the math, realized she most likely didn't have the 10 necessary votes on the Board to have me properly removed and went ahead and did it anyways [its that old "its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission approach]. Calling this action a "suspension" and "probation" does not alter that fact that it is in violation of two provisions of the EC guidelines, but this is apparently of little relevance. I have to admit that this out-and-out fight to have me removed from the EC has puzzled me for nearly two months now. I can understand the concern over the comments made in the DBS which provoked Keith's spectacular tantrum and eventual resignation and which served as the catalyst for the current struggle to remove me. But honestly, I'm not an idiot. I know that I am a controversial person and that some people find my virtual company unpleasant. Because of that, I made a conscious effort to be nonintrusive on the EC list. I held my tongue when I observed several members of the EC abuse a project member they were tired of dealing with. I avoided public debate with Linda when she deliberately published incorrect information to the EC and instead contacted her privately about the issues [her response, as it has always been, was to forward my private email to the EC list]. I remained silent as I watched Linda repeatedly make negative comments about the Board and several individual Board members, with the apparent goal of influencing the EC members to view the Board as the enemy. Throughout this attempt to remove me from the committee, I have deliberately refrained from using the EC list because I did not want to disrupt its business further, but have indicated a full willingness to discuss issues with the EC membership via a neutral mediation session. Since the beginning of these events, it has become increasingly obvious that only one outcome is acceptable to the EC Chair, and that is my complete and final removal from the EC and my replacement with a Board member more to her liking [the current favorite is Jana Black]. To achieve that end, she originally attempted to have the Board remove me, under the current EC Guidelines. When it became apparent that she would not have the votes for that, the request was withdrawn. It was abundantly clear in the mediation session that once I indicated that I would not resign from the EC, the discussion was essentially over [had she stated that at the outset, it would have saved everyone a lot of time]. Now she has achieved her ends by means of an improper action and the fact that the Board as a whole is not clamoring for an immediate and full reversal of this "suspension" [which will almost definitely be permanent, since I have already violated the terms of the probation by continuing to speak out about the EC's actions] speaks volumes. The goal of the ESC was to establish a nonpartisan, fair, unbiased and representative Election Committee that would remain above the fray of project politics. Sadly, that goal has been cynically obliterated in pursuit of the removal of a member whose politics are not to the liking of the EC Chair. With each resignation and replacement, the EC has come to include members of a more "political stripe" who represent one side of the spectrum of USGW opinion. The inherent contradiction of concluding immediately upon my election that I would be a problem but then later accepting Barbara Dore and Joy Fisher [both of whom's history speaks for itself] as committee members is apparently lost on the Chair, but then she is friends with Barbara and Joy and Linda and I have never got along. Several project members have publicly and privately expressed that they no longer trust the EC to conduct fair elections or to remain impartial should any decisions about voting rights for any individual members or groups of members come up prior to the next election. That is the true tragedy here. The EC has taken its excellent reputation and ground it into the dirt and apparently feels that continuing to pursue one of its members is worth the sacrifice of its credibility among the project membership. Oh well, at least we aren't fighting about the census projects anymore. === "Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it." ---Abraham Lincoln This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.