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

May I ask for a clarification (or rewording in order to clarify) that "Special Project File Manager" refers to State level project coordinators. At 03:01 AM 6/29/00 -0400, you 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." > >is numbered 00-19 and is now open for discussion. > >Tim

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." is numbered 00-19 and is now open for discussion. Tim

Betsy... I support your amendment 100% and accept it graciously. Thank you, Jim I would like to readdress the April 1st cut off date separately. Betsy Mills wrote: > I move to amend the previous motion to read: > > 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. > > Betsy > > At 09:37 PM 6/28/00 -0400, you wrote: > >I make a motion that we state that the status quo that was upheld by the > >recent motions, regarding the determination of eligible voters, to be > >the precedent has been set in past elections, not the changes made by > >the current Elections Committee. > > > >Jim > >

I move to amend the previous motion to read: 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. Betsy At 09:37 PM 6/28/00 -0400, you wrote: >I make a motion that we state that the status quo that was upheld by the >recent motions, regarding the determination of eligible voters, to be >the precedent has been set in past elections, not the changes made by >the current Elections Committee. > >Jim >

Wow Ginger, something we agree on 100% <grin> Humor aside, this is a serious matter and I feel very strongly that the EC has overstepped its *job*. Holly Timm At 08:49 PM 6/28/00 -0400, you wrote: >In view of the uproar caused by the latest post from the Election Committee >Chair, is there anyone on the board who knows whether this was a singular >decision made by Roger Swafford or whether an actual vote was taken by the >Election Committee to decide these things? > >I think there are a great many Project volunteers who stand to be >disenfranchised by this latest action who would like to know how this was >decided upon, just as they are now asking what we as a Board are going to do >to protect their voting rights. > >How about it? Can we agree to allow the voting rights to stand as they have >for every other election and to overturn this ruling from the Election >Committee?? > >Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski >NW-Plains CC Rep

>Wow Ginger, something we agree on 100% <grin> > >Humor aside, this is a serious matter and I feel very strongly that the EC >has overstepped its *job*. > >Holly Timm I agree. This is the third election we've had, and neither of the past two election committees made any rulings about what categories of Project members were to be allowed to vote. While the Bylaws are not very specific on what falls under the rubric of "overseeing" an election, in the past it has been choosing the software and the system, and the mechanics of running the nomination and voting process, not deciding eligibility requirements. I just don't see it as their job, any more than it would be to have them coming up with, say, rules about what questions had to be answered on a campaign page. Just because something is related to elections doesn't mean that making rules about it falls under "overseeing" elections. We should introduce a motion, but since the vote to overturn the April 1 deadline already failed, as much as I disagree with that deadline I fear that any motion worded in such a way that it would have the effect of nullifying that deadline might also fail to get a 2/3 majority. So under the principle that it is better to re-enfranchise the co-cc's and the local special project coordinators than to be too ambitious and fail to re-enfranchise anybody, it would probably be more reachable if the vote were only to void the most recent announcement. (I hate this having to structure your motions to give them a chance of passing, when your conscience demands a motion that probably wouldn't pass, but this is the real world.) -- Teri

I make a motion that we state that the status quo that was upheld by the recent motions, regarding the determination of eligible voters, to be the precedent has been set in past elections, not the changes made by the current Elections Committee. Jim

> I make a motion that we state that the status quo that was upheld by the > recent motions, regarding the determination of eligible voters, to be > the precedent has been set in past elections, not the changes made by > the current Elections Committee. > > Jim I second this motion! Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains

In view of the uproar caused by the latest post from the Election Committee Chair, is there anyone on the board who knows whether this was a singular decision made by Roger Swafford or whether an actual vote was taken by the Election Committee to decide these things? I think there are a great many Project volunteers who stand to be disenfranchised by this latest action who would like to know how this was decided upon, just as they are now asking what we as a Board are going to do to protect their voting rights. How about it? Can we agree to allow the voting rights to stand as they have for every other election and to overturn this ruling from the Election Committee?? Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

Aha, you were there? Joe Debbie wrote: > > No..Me thinks you are seeing things that aren't there....it's a bit like the > Salem Witch Trials here... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> > To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:51 PM > Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Guilty! > > >As Fred, I believe, said of someone the other day "Me > >thinks thou doth protest too much" er something like that. > > > >Joe > > > >Debbie wrote: > >> > >> Tim Stowell said:>I do know that some of the more vocal members of our > >> Project will see > >> things that are not there > >> > >> Joe, the point above is very valid, and that some of the members on the > >> current USGW Board are seeing things which aren't there! > >> > >> I'm guilty as charged of having counties. I thought we were about > helping > >> researchers here<G> I'll confess to hosting not only a TN site > (pre-1796) > >> but you failed to mention the Recipe's Project I'm also heading up for > >> TNGEN..I'll confess to being in OH...and ..horrors..you guys forgot that > I > >> also host two other counties..and one township..Haven't found them yet, > eh? > >> > >> Oh, and in case you didn't know, I've been a co-cc in OH since February > >> 21st..you can ask my SC. > >> > >> Gee...I'm guilty as charged of wanting to put data > >> online...Guilty..Guilty..I have adopted counties..Horrors..Now who is > seeing > >> things which aren't there! > >> > >> Joe, just what are you seeing that I have missed? > >> > >> Oh, and..don't forget that Edward Black is now assistant for Maggie > >> Zimmerman (current Board Member) for Medina County OHGW. He came on board > 31 > >> May 2000. Maybe we need to publicize ALL new cc appointments since last > >> year's election, in order to scrutinize whether or not a conspiracy > exists > >> and by whom. > > > >-- > >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 > > > > > >==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== > >Remember the elections start July 1. > > > > -- 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

At Popular request from so many, let me put my money where Don's mouth has been. Go to this URL:http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/pointers/vtepoint.txt and decide for youself. Perhaps I am just too dense to get it, being a old country boy and all, and someone can enlighten me. 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

On 6/24 around 19:30 EST, Mr. Merrin called and spoke with me concerning the merger and other issues he thought we might be concerned about. First of all he assured me that nothing concerning our Project would change other than the possibility of new tools. The files of the Project are safe from commercial activities. The files still fall under the copyright protection of the US Government and under Rootsweb's AUP policy. No advertisement will be required on any of our pages or the individual county or state pages without our express permission. This includes files located in the Archives. The truth of the matter is that Rootsweb has lots of unsold advertising space. As for the domains: One was bought by Brian last year and given to the Project. One is owned by Megan and one is owned by Doc Schneider. Mr Merrin said that Brian and Megan would do as the Project wished with the domains. For the domain that Doc owns, we'll have to contact him seperately. I believe he will pass it along to the Project but under his conditions. It is my understanding that there are 3 parts of registration for a domain - administrative; technical; and billing contacts. The administrative is the part that has been asked to be changed to my name back some 18 months or so ago. The technical is the person who can affect changes on routers and such. The billing person is who is contacted to pay the bill for the domain. Other questions? Tim

On 6/22 I replied as follows: Dear Mr. Merrin, That is the correct phone number for me but I'm usually not home until after 5:30 EST. I've not seen or heard anything regarding today's announcement to make me believe anything contrary to Rootsweb's committment to the USGenWeb Project. I do know that some of the more vocal members of our Project will see things that are not there but I am confident that things will stay as they have been for the known future. I'm also confident should that relationship change we would be given ample notice of such action. I thank you not only on behalf of the Project but for myself too for your continued committment not only to the USGenWeb Project but to the concept of free on-line genealogical resources. Tim Stowell National Coordinator USGenWeb Project

On 6/21 I received the following note: Tim: My name is Charles Merrin, and I am the Vice President of Marketing for RootsWeb. <snip - personal info> I would like very much to discuss the implications for USGenWeb. In short, we are still 100% committed to the USGenWeb Project. You will not see anything change. <snip - personal info> CSM Charles S. Merrin Vice President, Marketing RootsWeb.com

The Board finds the grievance of Diane Kelly against NCGenWeb SC Elizabeth Harris to be without foundation or merit, and wishes to give a statement of support for Ms. Harris' conduct involving the vote in question. Further, the Board finds reason to believe that Ms. Kelly's grievance was filed with the intent to discredit and malign Ms. Harris, as well as Mr. Carson Turner. We find no cause to doubt the integrity of either Ms. Harris or Mr. Turner in this or any other matter. The Board encourages the CCs of NCGenWeb to use our Bylaws and accepted parliamentary procedure to bring unruly members to account so that the wonderful work you do can continue without disruption. USGenWeb Advisory Board Timothy Stowell, Chairman, Presiding

>Motion 00-17 - made by Ginger, seconded by Virginia: > >"I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter >eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the >USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct >the Elections Committee that all members of the >USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance >with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb >Project." Yes - 6; No - 8; Not voting - 1 Motion fails. >Motion 00-18 - made by Joe, seconded by Maggie: > >"I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be >affirmed." Yes - 7; No - 7; Not voting - 1 While this is a tie vote and I could vote here, doing so one way or the other, will not change the outcome. Motion fails. Since both the motion to declare the 4/1 cutoff date illegal and the vote to affirm it failed, therefore by default the 4/1 cutoff date will stand based solely on the Board's inability to take a stand one way or the other. Tim

Here's mine At 06:02 PM 6/16/00 -0400, you wrote: >Motion 00-17 - YES >Motion 00-18 - NO Holly Timm

-----Original Message----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, June 17, 2000 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motions vote >> >>Motion 00-17 - made by Ginger, seconded by Virginia: > >Yes > >> >>Motion 00-18 - made by Joe, seconded by Maggie: >> >No > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >