C
Cindy Buchanan
Guest
What is the name of your state? New York
Myself and another individual were seeking the same job, my bosses. After performing my job duties and those of my boss for months without complaint, derogatory and baseless comments were made about my job performance by the supporters of the other job applicant. This slander proved to be a deterrent in my obtaining a job recommendation for my bosses job when she left. And the comments came from my ex bosses family. Also proper proceedure was not followed regarding the way this position was filled.
I fiound the measures of those involved to be slanderous, and a defamation of my character, harmful to both my personal and business reputation. Calls were intentionally place to individuals who would vote on who should get the job and the callers made statements against my ability, my performance and my ability to be discreet, and these are only the things I know about.
I am a private individual seeking a government job thru proper procedure. I was not up for election. There was no place for false, paranoid and opinionated statements in this. Qualifications should have been the issue here and the mud slinging should have stayed out of it. Those involved knew better. Support someone to others on your belief they can do the job not by tearing another applicant apart.
In addition there were numerous discrepancies in the meeting process used to obtain the recommendation leaving questions as to the validity of the meeting and the validity of the recommendation itself.
Page 7 Section 2 of the bylaws
The chairman did not produce the ten written letters of request required to call the special meeting. Presenting them now does not prove he had them prior to calling the meeting, only a proper postmark etc can do that, anyone can back date a letter.
Page 8 Section 5 of the bylaws
The order of business was not followed. Committee itself can dispense with any of the order of business but were never given an opportunity. The agenda was sent out a month in advance without most of this sections requirements. No one was allowed to fill vacancies for members, thus possibly changing the outcome of the vote. The meeting was never even properly adjourned.
Page 8 Section 6 of the bylaws
The floor was never opened for motions or seconds nominating anyone for the recommendation. Yet process for this is clearly defined.
The question is now being asked can this recommendation be valid if the meeting by laws were not followed properly.
According to the parlimentarians I've contacted, “Organizations may hold special meetings only if authorized in their bylaws. When doing so, they must comply with the bylaws. If the meeting's call, etc. did not comply with the bylaws, the actions are null and void.” And "The rules in a parliamentary authority are clearly subordinate to rules in an organization’s bylaws."
Was the vote null and void if bylaws were not followed? Do I have a case for slander and/or a civil rights case?
I need to demonstrate that substantive rights to participate were abrogated by specific rules violations, and that the outcome could well have been different if these rights had been respected.
It is my belief that my civil rights have been violated by both the committee, the legislative body and those involved who supported the other applicant, by making derogatory comments about me to committee members thru intentionally placed phone calls, and not following our own outlined procedure.
Myself and another individual were seeking the same job, my bosses. After performing my job duties and those of my boss for months without complaint, derogatory and baseless comments were made about my job performance by the supporters of the other job applicant. This slander proved to be a deterrent in my obtaining a job recommendation for my bosses job when she left. And the comments came from my ex bosses family. Also proper proceedure was not followed regarding the way this position was filled.
I fiound the measures of those involved to be slanderous, and a defamation of my character, harmful to both my personal and business reputation. Calls were intentionally place to individuals who would vote on who should get the job and the callers made statements against my ability, my performance and my ability to be discreet, and these are only the things I know about.
I am a private individual seeking a government job thru proper procedure. I was not up for election. There was no place for false, paranoid and opinionated statements in this. Qualifications should have been the issue here and the mud slinging should have stayed out of it. Those involved knew better. Support someone to others on your belief they can do the job not by tearing another applicant apart.
In addition there were numerous discrepancies in the meeting process used to obtain the recommendation leaving questions as to the validity of the meeting and the validity of the recommendation itself.
Page 7 Section 2 of the bylaws
The chairman did not produce the ten written letters of request required to call the special meeting. Presenting them now does not prove he had them prior to calling the meeting, only a proper postmark etc can do that, anyone can back date a letter.
Page 8 Section 5 of the bylaws
The order of business was not followed. Committee itself can dispense with any of the order of business but were never given an opportunity. The agenda was sent out a month in advance without most of this sections requirements. No one was allowed to fill vacancies for members, thus possibly changing the outcome of the vote. The meeting was never even properly adjourned.
Page 8 Section 6 of the bylaws
The floor was never opened for motions or seconds nominating anyone for the recommendation. Yet process for this is clearly defined.
The question is now being asked can this recommendation be valid if the meeting by laws were not followed properly.
According to the parlimentarians I've contacted, “Organizations may hold special meetings only if authorized in their bylaws. When doing so, they must comply with the bylaws. If the meeting's call, etc. did not comply with the bylaws, the actions are null and void.” And "The rules in a parliamentary authority are clearly subordinate to rules in an organization’s bylaws."
Was the vote null and void if bylaws were not followed? Do I have a case for slander and/or a civil rights case?
I need to demonstrate that substantive rights to participate were abrogated by specific rules violations, and that the outcome could well have been different if these rights had been respected.
It is my belief that my civil rights have been violated by both the committee, the legislative body and those involved who supported the other applicant, by making derogatory comments about me to committee members thru intentionally placed phone calls, and not following our own outlined procedure.