When the post copied below was posted to USGW-CC, I went to the URL and did some checking. The votes for NC go to the EC Chair only, and all votes are nothing more secure or confidential than an email. This is totally unacceptable! I therefore move that voting be immediately suspended and the Election Committee be required to use the secure system on VoteBot system that Pam forwarded information about earlier today. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep ----------------copy----------------------------------------------------- Subj: USGW-CC-L: Please stop the election! Date: 06/30/2000 11:11:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: CarHammett@mindspring.com (C Hammett) Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Reply-to: USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org To: USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org The ballots accessed from http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/ are neither secure, nor a secret. I urge the Board to move that voting not be allowed to begin and to instead use Lynn Waterman's solution. I urge all SCs and CCs on this list (USGW-CC-L) to notify their fellow CCs *not* to vote yet because their ballots are *not* a secret. This URL is a virtual name, the server is august.net and their explanation of their CGI usage is at http://august.net/cgi.html. The "ballots" are cgi forms on an html page, and by viewing "page source," it is possible to see that the cgi forms generate emails as follows: 1. National Coordinator, and Recall and Archives Amendments (http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/vote-nc.html) Ballots are emailed to: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> *ONLY* Also note that the main page does not list the Amendments. They are found only after going to the NC voting page (listed below candidates). 2. NE/NC Representatives (http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/vote-ne.html) Ballots are emailed to: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> with cc to Alice Gayley <agayley@dgs.dgsys.com> and Shari Handley <shari@tyaskin.com> 3. SE/MA Representatives (http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/vote-se.html) Ballots are emailed to: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> w/cc to Vicki Gibson <tngibson@worldnet.att.net> and Carol Montrose <cmontrose@beol.net> 4. Northwest Plains Representatives (http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/vote-nw.html) Ballots are emailed to: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> w/cc to Jeremiah Moerke <moer0020@tc.umn.edu> and Tina Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com> 5. Southwest/South Central (http://elsi123.august.net/~usgenweb/vote-sw.html) Ballots are emailed to: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@earthlink.net> w/cc to Shirley Scott <shirleyscott@juno.com> and Marti Graham <marti@myfamily.org> Also note that there are no explanations on these pages and that many of the campaign URLS are missing. This is a travesty. Sincerely, Carole Hammett http://www.tngenweb.org/giles/ Giles Co, TNGenWeb http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/ Warren Co, TNGenWeb

At 7:30 PM -0700 6/29/00, Tim Stowell wrote: >please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending >along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. YES

Oops, my previous post was replying to the wrong message (they were next to each other in my "IN" box. <g>). Anyway, as for 00-19: Abstain Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:30 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-19 Voter Eligibility : At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: : The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: : : "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election : procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator : and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County : Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project : File Manager be allowed to vote." : : : Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the : question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending : along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. : : Thanks, : : Tim

Hi Tim, Yep, I seem to be getting it OK. Did you get my note about being double-subbed to several lists? Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:30 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-19 Voter Eligibility : At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: : The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: : : "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election : procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator : and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County : Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project : File Manager be allowed to vote." : : : Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the : question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending : along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. : : Thanks, : : Tim

Yes Betsy >Tim Stowell wrote: >> >> At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >> The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: >> >> "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election >> procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator >> and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County >> Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project >> File Manager be allowed to vote." >> >> Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the >> question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending >> along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim > >-- >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 > > >

I would like an explanation of the voting process from the EC including whether or not there is anonymity regarding a person's vote before commenting. Holly Timm At 07:12 AM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: >After the announcement by the Elections Committee Chair that the ballots >would be counted manually, I contacted VoteBot (www.vot.bot.com), a >highly-reputable organization with no ties to the Internet genealogical >community. > >It took some sweet-talking, but they finally agreed to set up a custom >electronic voting booth for up to 3,000 voters - for FREE - solely >because >we are a nonprofit. I have been working with the manager of the site all >day setting this up, and ask that the Election Committee, Board and >I know you have all seen this message, but thought I would cut and paste >it into this message just so everyone would understand what I was >talking about. What do we think of this option for the Elections? It >is kind of late in the game to be changing anything the EC has set up, >but it does sound like a great system of running voting process. > >Pam > >Membership give this option your most serious consideration. > >Their procedures are totally confidential, using password-protected >email >and the manager is ready to go when we are: All that needs to be done is >set up the ballots for the regions and special projects and enter the >emails for voting privileges. > >This would be a truly neutral "hands-off" process with no possible >question >of vote-tampering, and I urge all concerned to please accept this >solution >in the spirit in which it is offered. > >Lynn >Feel free to forward this to any appropriate list, as long as it is in >its >entirety!

After the announcement by the Elections Committee Chair that the ballots would be counted manually, I contacted VoteBot (www.vot.bot.com), a highly-reputable organization with no ties to the Internet genealogical community. It took some sweet-talking, but they finally agreed to set up a custom electronic voting booth for up to 3,000 voters - for FREE - solely because we are a nonprofit. I have been working with the manager of the site all day setting this up, and ask that the Election Committee, Board and I know you have all seen this message, but thought I would cut and paste it into this message just so everyone would understand what I was talking about. What do we think of this option for the Elections? It is kind of late in the game to be changing anything the EC has set up, but it does sound like a great system of running voting process. Pam Membership give this option your most serious consideration. Their procedures are totally confidential, using password-protected email and the manager is ready to go when we are: All that needs to be done is set up the ballots for the regions and special projects and enter the emails for voting privileges. This would be a truly neutral "hands-off" process with no possible question of vote-tampering, and I urge all concerned to please accept this solution in the spirit in which it is offered. Lynn Feel free to forward this to any appropriate list, as long as it is in its entirety!

Yes. Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: > > "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election > procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator > and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County > Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project > File Manager be allowed to vote." > > Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the > question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending > along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim

Yes At 10:30 PM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote: >At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: > >"I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election >procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator >and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County >Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project >File Manager be allowed to vote." > > >Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the >question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending >along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim

Yes Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: > > "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election > procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator > and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County > Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project > File Manager be allowed to vote." > > Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the > question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending > along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim -- 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

I am back online Tim so will vote in the next message. Joe -- 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

Yes At 10:30 PM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote: >At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: > >"I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election >procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator >and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County >Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project >File Manager be allowed to vote." > > >Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the >question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending >along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim

Yes Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: > > "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election > procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator > and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County > Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project > File Manager be allowed to vote." > > Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the > question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending > along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim

At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: The amended motion proposed by Betsy and seconded by Jim: "I move that the Election Committee be directed to follow election procedure as was followed in previous elections -- one State Coordinator and one Asst. State Coordinator per state/special project and any County Coordinator/Assistant County Coordinator/Town Coordinator/Special Project File Manager be allowed to vote." Whereas Joe's message this morning agreed to by Joy is in effect a 'call the question' type message - please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. Thanks, Tim

Kelly, there are no motives here..Geez..we don't need another round of 'speculation' and allegations...let's not even go there. I only wanted to know the thoughts of volunteers, and do agree with Teri and Holly that I could/should have worded it more appropriately. They are trying to help resolve this situation. I am very thankful....They are showing they care for the cc's out here...and are trying to do the right thing. No politics involved here. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> To: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> Cc: Debbie <axtman@premier1.net>; BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Poll for USGenWeb Issues >Terri, My point was Debbie said her poll was INFORMAL. This does not sound >very informal to me, it sounds as if there are underlying motives here. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Teri Pettit" <pettit@Adobe.COM> >To: "Kelly" <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> >Cc: "Debbie" <axtman@premier1.net>; <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:30 PM >Subject: Poll for USGenWeb Issues > > >> At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: >> >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below >that >> >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's >no >> >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the >results >> >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. >> >> Kelly, >> >> There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made >> about the basic thrust of the question being asked. >> >> >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to >> >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. >> >> Suppose for the sake of argument: >> >> 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election >> Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing >> Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. >> >> 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election >> Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing >> Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, >> because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of >> the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. >> >> 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election >> Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project >> coordinators, and new project members. >> >> Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". >> >> When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell >> whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the >> Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no >> matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting >> the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. >> >> But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election >> Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results >> of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election >> Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree >> with recent voter-reduction acts. >> >> So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question >> being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. >> >> -- Teri >> >> (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not >> CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this >> to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but >> please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or >> USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up >> with the message volume.) >> >> >> > >

Forwarded only because the original post was sent to Board-l - Tim ------------- Terri, My point was Debbie said her poll was INFORMAL. This does not sound very informal to me, it sounds as if there are underlying motives here. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teri Pettit" <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: "Kelly" <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> Cc: "Debbie" <axtman@premier1.net>; <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:30 PM Subject: Poll for USGenWeb Issues > At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: > >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below that > >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's no > >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the results > >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. > > Kelly, > > There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made > about the basic thrust of the question being asked. > > >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to > >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. > > Suppose for the sake of argument: > > 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election > Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing > Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. > > 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election > Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing > Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, > because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of > the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. > > 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election > Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project > coordinators, and new project members. > > Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". > > When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell > whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the > Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no > matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting > the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. > > But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election > Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results > of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election > Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree > with recent voter-reduction acts. > > So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question > being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. > > -- Teri > > (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not > CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this > to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but > please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or > USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up > with the message volume.) > > >

Forwarded with permission: >Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:32:11 -0400 >To: shari@klondyke.net, pettit, jpowelljr@gru.net >From: ncgen@mindspring.com (Elizabeth Harris) >Subject: election committee > >To my SE/MA Board representatives: > >If the Board revisits the authority of the election committee and the >question of voter eligibility, I would like to go on record as supporting >what Teri has recently said on USGW-CC-L. Specifically, I think the EC has >overstepped its authority, that there should be no more than a 30-day >cut-off date to allow for processing the voter lists, and that state level >special project volunteers etc. should be eligible to vote as they have >been in the past. > > >Elizabeth Harris >ncgen@mindspring.com > >state coordinator for NCGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/

> please cast your vote on Motion 00-19 by sending > along your equivalent of yes, no or abstain. YES Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below that >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's no >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the results >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. Kelly, There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made about the basic thrust of the question being asked. >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. Suppose for the sake of argument: 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project coordinators, and new project members. Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree with recent voter-reduction acts. So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. -- Teri (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up with the message volume.)

I agree -- the polling starts in 2 days. At 08:27 AM 6/29/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >Tim, this motion is of such gravity and concern to so many >that I propose you poll the Board asking that the discussion >period be suspended for this motion so we can get on with a >vote. > >Joe >-- >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