No. Shari Handley ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:30 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-31 - vote > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L."

No Betsy At 02:30 AM 10/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, >stated below: > >I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > >"That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > >The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be >willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in >the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the >Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all >appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the >USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L."

No. Tina Vickery In a message dated 10/12/00 2:25:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." >

>Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, No.

While I tend to agree with most of the amendment to 00-30. This is one area that I did have some concerns about. I see no reason that those concerns can't be addressed. The motion could be divided and the concerns worked out. That is what we should be doing with all motions..... fine tuning each until it best represents the interests of the majority of our members while protecting the rights of the minority. ----- Original Message ----- From: "kshort" <kshort@kroo.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:37 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Revised Motion 00-30 - Amendment > Why does the chair have to be elected by the AB? Seems to me, we are micro > managing again. > > Ken > >

I vote No Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." -- Richard M. Howland IlGenWeb State Coordinator Mailto:illinois@usroots.com ICQ # 898319 NE/NCR CC Representative USGWP Advisory Board ILGEN-L List Co-ordinator ILPIATT-L List Co-ordinator IL-CHAT-L List Co-ordinator TXYOUNG-L List Co-ordinator HOWLAND-L List Co-ordinator WOODWORKING-L list Co-ordinator VARNER-L List Co-ordinator FISHING-L list Co-ordinator HEDGEHOGS-L List Co-ordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilpiatt/piatt.htm http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richpump/YoungCountyCemPage.htm http://www.pets.rootsweb.com/~hedgehogs/index.html http://www.crafts.rootsweb.com/~woodworking/index.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/HowlandOnLine.html http://www.wf.net/~richpump/camppage.htm

NO Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

NO At 02:30 AM 10/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, >stated below: > >I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > >"That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > >The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be >willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in >the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the >Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all >appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the >USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L."

NO Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-31 - vote > Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, > stated below: > > I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: > > "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. > > The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be > willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in > the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the > Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all > appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the > USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L." >

The amendment to Motion 00-30 - Grievances Committee - made by Maggie and seconded by Barbara is now open for discussion: "I move to amend 00-30 by substitution of the following; I move the AB create a standing Grievance Committee (GC) as follows: 1) The committee shall consist of twelve USGenWeb members elected by ballot (Robert's Rules of Order, page 483 a) from open nominations of candidates by each Advisory Board member in turn until sufficient candidates have been elected. A majority shall elect, members shall serve until September 1st or until their successors are elected. Nominees shall consist of 7 CC's and 5 SC's with no two committee members affiliated with the same state. 2) The Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by a second ballot comprised of those elected to committee membership. A majority shall elect. 3) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committee, and is not counted in the quorum. 4) The committee is authorized to obtain any information deemed necessary for investigation and evaluation of grievances, including but not limited to public and private e-mails, obtaining statements from the parties involved, and other USGenWeb members, or other persons as related to the investigation or determination of a recommendation to the Advisory Board. 5) The committee shall meet on a closed unarchived email list under the same restrictions of secrecy regarding deliberations as for executive session of the Advisory Board. 6) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary procedures for committees and USGenWeb bylaws. Nine members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3 majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required for approval. 7) The Grievance Committee Chair shall submit reports directly to the NC. The NC shall present the report to the Advisory Board in Executive Session. Recommendations of the Grievance Committee are not binding upon the AB for administrative or disciplinary action toward the person(s) involved. 8) Supplemental instructions may be given to the committee in accordance accepted parliamentary procedures."

My vote on Motion 00-31. YES Ken

Please cast your vote on Motion 00-31 made by Ken, seconded by Maggie, stated below: I move that Previously Adopted Motion 99-25 be amended to read: "That the Board Secretary not be currently serving as a Board member. The appointee must either be knowledgeable in parliamentary procedure or be willing to learn proper procedure using Roberts Rules and be well versed in the Project Bylaws. Duties of the appointee shall be those assigned by the Chair (NC). The NC shall insure that the secretary be subscribed to all appropriate mailing lists. As a minimum these lists would be the USGENWEB-ALL-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, the Board-Exec-L and the Board-L."

Why does the chair have to be elected by the AB? Seems to me, we are micro managing again. Ken

I second the move to amend 00-30 as below. I believe this method would be proper and at the same time fairer to everyone involved. It allows for a broader base and would not be hampered by the absence of one or two members being out of touch at any given time. RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maggie Stewart" <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:18 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Revised Motion 00-30 - Amendment > I move to amend 00-30 by substitution of the following; > > > I move the AB create a standing Grievance Committee (GC) as follows: > > 1) The committee shall consist of twelve USGenWeb members > elected by ballot (Robert's Rules of Order, page 483 a) from > open nominations of candidates by each Advisory Board member > in turn until sufficient candidates have been elected. A majority > shall elect, members shall serve until September 1st or until > their successors are elected. Nominees shall consist of 7 CC's > and 5 SC's with no two committee members affiliated with the > same state. > > 2) The Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by > a second ballot comprised of those elected to committee > membership. A majority shall elect. > > 3) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right, > but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the > committee, and is not counted in the quorum. > > 4) The committee is authorized to obtain any information deemed > necessary for investigation and evaluation of grievances, including > but not limited to public and private e-mails, obtaining statements > from the parties involved, and other USGenWeb members, or other > persons as related to the investigation or determination of a > recommendation to the Advisory Board. > > 5) The committee shall meet on a closed unarchived email list under > the same restrictions of secrecy regarding deliberations as for executive > session of the Advisory Board. > > 6) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary > procedures for committees and USGenWeb bylaws. Nine members > shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3 > majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required > for approval. > > 7) The Grievance Committee Chair shall submit reports directly to the NC. > The NC shall present the report to the Advisory Board in Executive Session. > Recommendations of the Grievance Committee are not binding upon the AB > for administrative or disciplinary action toward the person(s) involved. > > 8) Supplemental instructions may be given to the committee in accordance > accepted parliamentary procedures. > > > Maggie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:58 AM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-30 Grievance Committee [Amendment] > > > Joe's revised motion 00-30A is now open for discussion. > > > >THE FINAL VERSION THEN READS: > > > >The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each > >region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in > >any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed > >so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the > >committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from > >among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as > >provided for in the Bylaws. > > > >The committee once seated will number each grievance, research > >the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for > >a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day > >extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any > >committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be > >excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an > >alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman > >to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful > >of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to > >resolve grievances. > > >

At 7:20 PM -0700 10/6/00, kshort wrote: >I posted the following to Board-Exec a while back hoping someone would >discuss it and take the bull by the horns and make a motion on it. Well >that hasn't happened Therefore: > > >After due consideration, we recommend that the AB apply for the Service >Mark "The USGenWeb Project" , as soon as possible. I thought we were waiting for the report of the Trademark Committee (which is due on October 15, I believe.) -- Teri

I move to amend 00-30 by substitution of the following; I move the AB create a standing Grievance Committee (GC) as follows: 1) The committee shall consist of twelve USGenWeb members elected by ballot (Robert's Rules of Order, page 483 a) from open nominations of candidates by each Advisory Board member in turn until sufficient candidates have been elected. A majority shall elect, members shall serve until September 1st or until their successors are elected. Nominees shall consist of 7 CC's and 5 SC's with no two committee members affiliated with the same state. 2) The Advisory Board shall elect a Committee Chairperson by a second ballot comprised of those elected to committee membership. A majority shall elect. 3) The National Coordinator as an ex-officio member, has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committee, and is not counted in the quorum. 4) The committee is authorized to obtain any information deemed necessary for investigation and evaluation of grievances, including but not limited to public and private e-mails, obtaining statements from the parties involved, and other USGenWeb members, or other persons as related to the investigation or determination of a recommendation to the Advisory Board. 5) The committee shall meet on a closed unarchived email list under the same restrictions of secrecy regarding deliberations as for executive session of the Advisory Board. 6) The committee deliberations shall adhere to accepted parliamentary procedures for committees and USGenWeb bylaws. Nine members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of committee business. A 2/3 majority of members voting on main motions/recommendations is required for approval. 7) The Grievance Committee Chair shall submit reports directly to the NC. The NC shall present the report to the Advisory Board in Executive Session. Recommendations of the Grievance Committee are not binding upon the AB for administrative or disciplinary action toward the person(s) involved. 8) Supplemental instructions may be given to the committee in accordance accepted parliamentary procedures. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-30 Grievance Committee [Amendment] Joe's revised motion 00-30A is now open for discussion. >THE FINAL VERSION THEN READS: > >The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each >region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in >any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed >so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the >committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from >among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as >provided for in the Bylaws. > >The committee once seated will number each grievance, research >the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for >a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day >extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any >committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be >excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an >alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman >to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful >of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to >resolve grievances.

Ken's comments are well taken and I can't argue that we are following to the letter RRs. But circumstances between face to face board meetings and online board meetings are different. Also, if only occasional grievances were to be heard RRs could easily be applied. But considering the number of grievances already stacked up unheard a standing committee can function to sort through and move the process along. If the committee feels that RRs should apply to any given grievance then that would be their recommendation to the Board and then RRs could kick in. Many grievances can be resolved by individual Board members if they take the time to answer complaints promptly and civilly. Since the election I have gotten several messages of concern from CCs which if they been had been ignored might have resulted in complaints being filed. Like Tim, Teri and others have pointed out in the past in different ways. RRs are a guide and if we slavishly try to follow every dictate nothing would get done. I am not wedded to any particular approach to this problem. My motion is just one possible solution, a standing committee to sort through and make recommendations to the Board. We have volunteers who are willing to participate and help the Board to better manage their responsibilities. The more we rely on our volunteers the quieter and more harmonious this Project will become. We have to reach a point where the "them" is removed from "us and them". Joe kshort wrote: > > Ya'll are still going about this the wrong way and I am not the only one to > notice. I several msgs from concerned CC's about this. Here is one > suggestion, and it just happens to comply with RROO and our bylaws. > > Think about it. > > Ken > > This is a gross violation of parliamentary procedures and bylaws as well. > For a very good reason, the bylaws clearly specified any grievance be sent > to a member of the Board and referred to a OUTSIDE grievance committee. > Under NO circumstances should a NC or any one else be on such committee. > Please refer to Section 60 of the RRoR. > > The procedure is quite clear - the committee has to be either 3 or 5, > nothing more. And the members have to be DISINTERESTED. Having a CC from > each region will practically destroy the whole process. No impartiality > whatsoever. > > In case of the USGW it should be like this: > 1. Grievance from a state/region is sent to a Board member. > > 2. The Board (UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE should void it except clearly frivolous > ones) authorize the committee immediately and appoint 3 to 5 CC plus a SC > from different regions except that region that is affected to ensure > absolute impartiality. The identity of the members of that grievance > committee is not announced on any list whatsoever to ensure impartiality > and unstained. > > 3. The recommendations from that committee should be made without undue > delay (within 10 days is the general rule) to the Board. > > 4. Under NO circumstance the Board be allowed to make any action worse than > what the committee recommends (the RRoR does NOT allow it,) equal or lesser. > > 5. That committee is dissolved immediately. > > And throughout the whole process, the grievance must start at > the very bottom. -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Joe's revised motion 00-30A is now open for discussion. >THE FINAL VERSION THEN READS: > >The committee shall be composed of at least one CC from each >region and one SC selected by the Representative at Large. But in >any event an odd number of committee members shall be appointed >so as to prevent tie votes. Richard Harrison will serve as the >committee chairman. The Chairman will select a co-chairman from >among the committee members. The NC will sit on the committee as >provided for in the Bylaws. > >The committee once seated will number each grievance, research >the background of each and make a recommendation to the Board for >a fair resolution of each complaint within 10 days with ten day >extensions granted at the request of the committee chair. Any >committee member(s), except the NC, named in a complaint will be >excused from hearing and voting on that complaint and an >alternate(s) will be selected by the chairman or his co-chairman >to insure an odd number of votes. The committee must be mindful >of the limited authority granted the Board in the Bylaws to >resolve grievances.

The voting period at an end by several hours - the vote totals are as follows on Motion 00-29A: Yes - 7; No - 4; Abstain - 1; Not Voting - 3 Motion fails, 2/3 requirement not met. At 01:18 AM 10/6/00 -0400, you wrote: >Please vote on Motion 00-29A as follows by sending along >your vote equivalent of yes, no, abstain. Thanks, Tim > >Motion 00-29A reads: > >Whereas, the mark "USGenWeb" has been in public use since June 1996 as >a Collective Membership mark[*] for the USGenWeb Project, a non-profit >volunteer group providing free online genealogical services, and the >derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives' has been in public use since August >1996 as a service mark for the USGenWeb Project's archival services, >and the derivative mark 'USGenWeb Archives Project' has been in use >since that date as a Collective Membership mark for that subset of the >Project's volunteers who manage and maintain that archival service, it >is the finding of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that the USGenWeb Project >as a group is the rightful holder of 'USGenWeb', 'USGenWeb Archives', >and all derivative marks. > >Whereas the USGenWeb Archive's Project's current Coordinator, Linda Lewis, >filed[**] with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office (PTO) on 1 May, 2000, >an application (Serial Number 78006402) in which "Linda Lewis" is listed >as the name of the applicant, and "volunteer group" as the applicant >entity type, that application containing the declaration that "no other >person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use the mark", >such an application, if granted, could deny to the USGenWeb Project the >lawful right to use the marks by which it has identified the Project's >member web sites for over four years. > >Therefore, the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board officially requests that >Linda Lewis withdraw her application as soon as possible, and that she >furnish the Advisory Board with a bona fide copy or proof of her >withdrawal of said application. > >The Advisory Board further advises Linda Lewis that it is the Project's >intention to retain the legal right to the USGenWeb Archives mark, and >that if proof of withdrawal is not received by the Advisory Board within >ten (10) business days of the passage of this motion, the Advisory Board >will assume that withdrawal is not forthcoming and will proceed with >other measures to protect the Project's right to the mark. > >Recognizing that Linda's goal in making her application was to protect >the USGenWeb Archives mark from unauthorized use by those not representing >the USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board assures Linda Lewis that if >her application is withdrawn, the Advisory Board will act as expeditiously >as possible to register the USGenWeb Project's legal right to the mark. > >Recognizing that the authority for determining membership in the >USGenWeb Archives Project lies with the Coordinator of the USGenWeb >Archives Project, the Advisory Board further assures Linda Lewis >that if her application is withdrawn, authority for granting or >removing authorization to use the USGenWeb Archives mark to identify >web sites as part of the USGenWeb Archives Project will be assigned by >the USGenWeb Project to Linda Lewis as long as she is a member of the >USGenWeb Project and holds the office of Coordinator of the USGenWeb >Archives Project. > > > > >

Ya'll are still going about this the wrong way and I am not the only one to notice. I several msgs from concerned CC's about this. Here is one suggestion, and it just happens to comply with RROO and our bylaws. Think about it. Ken This is a gross violation of parliamentary procedures and bylaws as well. For a very good reason, the bylaws clearly specified any grievance be sent to a member of the Board and referred to a OUTSIDE grievance committee. Under NO circumstances should a NC or any one else be on such committee. Please refer to Section 60 of the RRoR. The procedure is quite clear - the committee has to be either 3 or 5, nothing more. And the members have to be DISINTERESTED. Having a CC from each region will practically destroy the whole process. No impartiality whatsoever. In case of the USGW it should be like this: 1. Grievance from a state/region is sent to a Board member. 2. The Board (UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE should void it except clearly frivolous ones) authorize the committee immediately and appoint 3 to 5 CC plus a SC from different regions except that region that is affected to ensure absolute impartiality. The identity of the members of that grievance committee is not announced on any list whatsoever to ensure impartiality and unstained. 3. The recommendations from that committee should be made without undue delay (within 10 days is the general rule) to the Board. 4. Under NO circumstance the Board be allowed to make any action worse than what the committee recommends (the RRoR does NOT allow it,) equal or lesser. 5. That committee is dissolved immediately. And throughout the whole process, the grievance must start at the very bottom.