Petition for Removal of Board Members

[gemma]

Would be nice if the MakeICT leadership members involved in this petition would come forward for the sake of transparency.

[Kez]

Hmm. I didn’t know that. My bad.

However, unless it’s very different on a compy than it is on my mobile, I can’t see how to see email addresses. I can register someone new, but not see the info of my class. Huh. Like I can check someone in, but that seems to be it.
Oh well

[Kez]

Considering what this forum does to those with differing points of view, can you really blame them?

It not exactly welcoming to alternative viewpoints.

[gemma]

The Bylaws are quite specific and not very accommodating of alternative viewpoints. That’s why there’s a process to amend the Bylaws.

[Megan_Frost]

How about I’ll message them on the forum and make sure it was them since you’re hypothetically going to commit fraud and hypothetically have access to peoples information that you shouldn’t have.

[gemma]

Since I don’t wish for four of my friends to be removed from the board, and there’s no way to submit the petition without picking at least one of them, I have no motivation to “commit fraud.” The point being, there’s nothing stopping anyone else from doing just that. And without a way to verify each submission with the member in person, such as with a written petition as stated in the Bylaws, then the petition itself is invalid.

[Megan_Frost]

I completely understand where your coming from not wanting your friends to be removed from the board but they need to be held accountable for what they’ve wrongfully done. Here’s something from the aba so you can read up on petitions. This petition is valid.

Right to Petition.

[gemma]

I’m curious, if you’re familiar with the American Bar Association, if you’ve shown our Bylaws along with your petition to a lawyer to get their opinion. And also along with the statement the president made yesterday which contradicts the purpose of your petition.

A petition is also supposed to ask a clear question, and this Google forms survey does not. Let’s say you reach the threshold number of surveys submitted (since you have decided to pick and choose which parts of the Bylaws to acknowledge), but people answered in multiple different ways. Maybe 14 people voted to boot only LaDeana, and 25 people voted to boot only Rustin, but 37 people voted to boot both LaDeana and Rustin, and 250 people voted to boot only Mike (sorry Mike!), but 34 people voted to boot only Rustin and James.

You’ve reached 360 petitions (how did you get this number as being 2/3 of the membership?), but you haven’t reached that threshold for any one board member. This wouldn’t be enough to ask for a removal. So you’re going to have to split out all your surveys into four groups, and each group will need 360 (or whatever the actual number is) of these unverified signatures.

[shack]

The purpose does seem pretty muddied. This petition also calls the removed members a danger, so presumably anyone who signs it would not be in favor of reinstating them.

Presumably any replacements would need to pledge to be available to any member at any time for any reason because 48 hours is too long to wait for a response.

Is being aware of something on June 20th and acting on it still in the 20s with a five day cool off period actually a “severe threat to member safety on the order of months”?

[samspeer]

I’ve seen multiple people question about the precise details of the petition, yet very little discussion about how we got to this point. Obviously a large group of people is upset enough about the way this place is being ran to try to change things. This should be the leadership’s main concern rather than focusing on exact counts over the next few months. Is that whole time going to be spent saying “Are all of those signatures confirmed in person?” Or “What happened to allow such a happy place end up here? How did my actions influence this and what did I not do to prevent it?”

[samspeer]

Our mission statement, rules, and bylaws all mention multiple times the importance of collaboration of knowledge, sharing of info, and how everyone here has an equal opinion.
Can you give an example of how our bylaws do not support alternative view points? Or are you saying that our bylaws allow people to discriminate anyone who doesn’t agree with their viewpoint and get them banned or kicked out?

[gemma]

@samspeer

Obviously a large group of people is upset enough about the way this place is being ran to try to change things.

That’s not obvious at all. I only see a handful of vocal people on a forum.

@samspeer

yet very little discussion about how we got to this point

Days of non-stop posting is very little discussion? We also have a statement from the president addressing concerns people had.

As has been said many times recently, the best way to effect change is to be part of the process. Don’t like the way things are done? Help to write new policy. Volunteer to make the space better. Use productive efforts rather than throwing out opinion on a forum.

But this is irrelevant to the validity of this petition.

[samspeer]

We could do something like… Follow the process of change and elect new leadership? We tried that.

Lots of people don’t say anything on this forum because they are afraid of getting jumped on because someone is on a power trip. It is a large group of people who are upset, I assure you.

[Malissa]

@BrettfromOz

This is about the process used, it’s inherent unfairness, the timing and most of all the complete lack of any recourse for natural justice to ANYONE forced to go through this process.

This is the reason for the petition from the petitioners

Petition for Removal of Board Members

As many of you have seen in the forum there has a been a lot of controversy over recent actions against 2 (now former) members taken by the Board. This petition has nothing to do with whether those actions against those individuals were right or wrong. This petition is about the Board failing in their duty of care to the membership of MakeICT. By their own admission the Board identified these members as a risk to public safety in the space months prior to the actions taken yet did nothing to pro…

[doug.wilson]

I see nothing wrong with this petition. And it claims that the former board allowed dangerous members to stay too long. Are you referring to Gaye and Ben? These two? These are the dangerous members that should have been removed sooner? Just to clarify.

[Frank]

So after reading all of this i tried to digest it, it seems we need to implement a new system. In aircraft they have a grievance process. This might help us to better our communications process.
Rough Draft
1.File a grievance
2.Have a committee to review grievance
3. Notify involved parties.
4. Hearing by board
5. If warranted disciplinary actions

Communication is Key

[samspeer]

I think the point of that is that if the offense was serious enough of a risk for them to be immediately removed, than it is serious enough to discuss with everyone who may have been impacted. If it is not that serious, than maybe it wasn’t serious enough to kick them out suddenly.

[doug.wilson]

Oh. Then maybe the petition should say that, instead.

[doug.wilson]

What I’m asking is, what happens if all signatures are gathered? The board members would be removed, of course, but what of the two members who were banned? Would they remain banned, being the danger that they allegedly are? Or would they be allowed to rejoin, a notion that runs counterintuitive to the original message of the petition?

[Malissa]

@Frank

So after reading all of this i tried to digest it, it seems we need to implement a new system. In aircraft they have a grievance process. This might help us to better our communications process.
Rough Draft
1.File a grievance
2.Have a committee to review grievance
3. Notify involved parties.
4. Hearing by board
5. If warranted disciplinary actions

Communication is Key

This is what been in process and what got implemented in April.

https://wiki.makeict.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct_Reports_Committee