I agree with Teri about the motion problem and would have no problem if Tim just agreed with the proposed solution. How about the rest? Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: > >Teri, > > > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > >negotiations should fall through. > > Maggie, > > Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to > you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do > all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. > > I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to > using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: > > 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized > logos. > > 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the > USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb > Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right > above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should > make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". > > 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page > at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link > pages: > http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > > I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, > but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them > permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics > look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the > removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use > the real logo. > > There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. > Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use > the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already > sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. > > -- Teri -- 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 8:47 AM -0700 6/9/00, Maggie Stewart wrote: >Teri, > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the >negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will >reserve the right to put the motion back out if those >negotiations should fall through. Maggie, Thanks, I'll do what I can. (Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I took yesterday off work to celebrate my birthday, and I do all of my email from the office.) I appreciate your giving this a chance. I would like to be able to tell USGenNet that they can return to using the real USGenWeb logo as a link on their index page, providing: 1. That the large-size logo is not used, only the small or mid-sized logos. 2. That the logo not appear in a position that seems to identify the USGenNet's index page as itself being an official page of the USGenWeb Project (e.g., it should not be at the top of the page, nor right above the list of states.) The placement and/or caption text should make it plainly identifiable as a "courtesy link". 3. That the USGenWeb logo link to either the official USGenWeb home page at http://www.usgenweb.org/ , or to one of the official state link pages: http://www.usgenweb.org/thestates.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinks-table.html http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html I don't like their use of the pink and white "peppermint swirl" graphics, but we did kind of back Fred and USGenNet into a corner by refusing them permission to use the real logo as a link button. Links with no graphics look so dull, and I expect it will be much harder to negotiate the removal of those or any other substitute graphics if they can't use the real logo. There are so many motions on the table it is getting past confusing. Do we have to make a motion to be able to restore permission to use the real logos? I don't think I can say so on my own, since Tim already sent USGenNet a letter saying that they had to remove them. -- Teri

That is a wonderful offer, Maggie, and quite heartwarming given the atmosphere we are in. Good luck Teri and I Hope Fred will reciprocate in like spirit. Joe Maggie Stewart wrote: > > Teri, > > I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the > negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will > reserve the right to put the motion back out if those > negotiations should fall through. > > Maggie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> > To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:30 PM > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" > > Maggie, > > I agree that the logos and captions on the www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html > page are confusing and misleading, but why assume that there is an intent > to inflict harm? Wouldn't it be much better "public relations" to assume > that any confusion is unintentional, and that USGenNet wishes our project > well? Why not just ask nicely that the confusing wording and logos be > changed, without getting blustery? > > Something like this, > > ********** > > The Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project would like to draw your > attention to some confusing and misleading aspects of your index > page at http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html , and ask for your > prompt help in addressing these problems. > > 1. The term "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" as used on this page, > with "Nonprofit" capitalized, would appear to an uniformed reader > to be the name of a project. While The USGenWeb Project is indeed > a nonprofit organization, the word "Nonprofit" does not occur in the > project's name. The usage on your index page is therefore confusing > and could very easily mislead readers into thinking there are two > separate projects, one being named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", > and the other being named simply "The USGenWeb Project". > > To avoid such confusing, we ask that you please refer to the project > only by its official name, The USGenWeb Project. (A lowercase "nonprofit" > is acceptable, as long as it does not appear to be part of the > project name.) > > 2. Similarly, to use the name of the USGenWeb Project on a logo which is > very different than the official USGenWeb Project logo could easily > confuse visitors into thinking that there are two separate organizations, > one that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenWeb pages, > and a different project that is identified by the logo that appears > on the USGenNet index page. > > The name of the USGenWeb Project should only appear on graphics which > have been approved for use by the USGenWeb Advisory Board: > http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/namelogo.html > > We appreciate your support for the USGenWeb Project, and trust you will > act quickly to correct these misleading aspects of your index page. > > ********** > > The confusing "peppermint patty" logos did not appear on the USGenNet site > until Tim asked them to remove the real logos. > > We should give USGenNet permission to use the real USGenWeb logos to link > to the USGenWeb Project, just like Rootsweb does on its cluster pages. > Rootsweb and USGenNet are both web presence providers that generously > provide free web space for USGenWeb project pages; it is very unfair to > treat the organizations differently, when they both support us with free > services. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth. > > I have been a Rootsweb Donor for three years: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/dplus00.html ($250) > http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor99c.html#P ($200) > http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor98c.html#P ($100) > > and have a "We love Rootsweb" button on my county site: > > http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/rowan-team.html > > but I don't think that appreciation for Rootsweb requires us to treat > any other servers like they are some kind of enemy of the Project. To > jump to the conclusion that USGenNet harbors some kind of designs to > damage or take over the USGenWeb Project is every bit as unfair and > ungrateful as it is to make those kinds of accusations of Rootsweb. > > The good name and reputation of the USGenWeb Project is best served > by taking everyone who claims to wish us well fully at their word, > rather than seeking enemies under every stone. To have friends, one > must be a friend. > > Teri Pettit > SE/MA CC Representative > CC for Rowan County, Kentucky > http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/ -- 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

Teri, I'll withdraw my motion if you agree to handle the negotiations with Mr. Smoot and USGenNet. I will reserve the right to put the motion back out if those negotiations should fall through. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion Re: "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" Maggie, I agree that the logos and captions on the www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html page are confusing and misleading, but why assume that there is an intent to inflict harm? Wouldn't it be much better "public relations" to assume that any confusion is unintentional, and that USGenNet wishes our project well? Why not just ask nicely that the confusing wording and logos be changed, without getting blustery? Something like this, ********** The Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project would like to draw your attention to some confusing and misleading aspects of your index page at http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html , and ask for your prompt help in addressing these problems. 1. The term "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" as used on this page, with "Nonprofit" capitalized, would appear to an uniformed reader to be the name of a project. While The USGenWeb Project is indeed a nonprofit organization, the word "Nonprofit" does not occur in the project's name. The usage on your index page is therefore confusing and could very easily mislead readers into thinking there are two separate projects, one being named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", and the other being named simply "The USGenWeb Project". To avoid such confusing, we ask that you please refer to the project only by its official name, The USGenWeb Project. (A lowercase "nonprofit" is acceptable, as long as it does not appear to be part of the project name.) 2. Similarly, to use the name of the USGenWeb Project on a logo which is very different than the official USGenWeb Project logo could easily confuse visitors into thinking that there are two separate organizations, one that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenWeb pages, and a different project that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenNet index page. The name of the USGenWeb Project should only appear on graphics which have been approved for use by the USGenWeb Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/namelogo.html We appreciate your support for the USGenWeb Project, and trust you will act quickly to correct these misleading aspects of your index page. ********** The confusing "peppermint patty" logos did not appear on the USGenNet site until Tim asked them to remove the real logos. We should give USGenNet permission to use the real USGenWeb logos to link to the USGenWeb Project, just like Rootsweb does on its cluster pages. Rootsweb and USGenNet are both web presence providers that generously provide free web space for USGenWeb project pages; it is very unfair to treat the organizations differently, when they both support us with free services. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I have been a Rootsweb Donor for three years: http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/dplus00.html ($250) http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor99c.html#P ($200) http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor98c.html#P ($100) and have a "We love Rootsweb" button on my county site: http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/rowan-team.html but I don't think that appreciation for Rootsweb requires us to treat any other servers like they are some kind of enemy of the Project. To jump to the conclusion that USGenNet harbors some kind of designs to damage or take over the USGenWeb Project is every bit as unfair and ungrateful as it is to make those kinds of accusations of Rootsweb. The good name and reputation of the USGenWeb Project is best served by taking everyone who claims to wish us well fully at their word, rather than seeking enemies under every stone. To have friends, one must be a friend. Teri Pettit SE/MA CC Representative CC for Rowan County, Kentucky http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/

Yes, Gloria Tim Stowell wrote: > > If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your > equivalent > of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. > > For background on the motion made by Joe seconded by Joy: > > "By submitting these grievances to the Board the > "aggrieved" party(s) is/are invoking Section I of > Article XIV which requests the Advisory Board to > advise on issues related to grievances and appeals. My > advice is that the grievances are purely spiteful and > meant to disrupt and cause disarray among the Project > members." > > Motion 00-14 > > "Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > frivolous and purely political in nature." > > Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that > the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. > > Thanks, > > Tim -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board Personal page http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/gmayfield/index.html TX Tombstone Project Manager http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/Texas/ Texas Surnames http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/txsurnames.html Panola County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txpanola/ Rusk County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/index.htm

Betsy: post a Yes vote from me. I can't ever tell in this online emailer whether it went out or saved it.

Yes Joy Fisher jfisher@ucla.edu UCLA

Yes Tim Stowell wrote: > > If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your > equivalent > of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. > > For background on the motion made by Joe seconded by Joy: > > "By submitting these grievances to the Board the > "aggrieved" party(s) is/are invoking Section I of > Article XIV which requests the Advisory Board to > advise on issues related to grievances and appeals. My > advice is that the grievances are purely spiteful and > meant to disrupt and cause disarray among the Project > members." > > Motion 00-14 > > "Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > frivolous and purely political in nature." > > Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that > the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. > > Thanks, > > Tim

Yes. Tina Vickery

If copying parts of my message anywhere, please correct this typo: > 1. The term "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" as used on this page, > with "Nonprofit" capitalized, would appear to an uniformed reader > to be the name of a project. Make that "uninformed reader". Now I have this image of a bunch of G.I.'s sitting around in uniform, getting confused by the USGenNet index page to our Project. :-)

Maggie, I agree that the logos and captions on the www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html page are confusing and misleading, but why assume that there is an intent to inflict harm? Wouldn't it be much better "public relations" to assume that any confusion is unintentional, and that USGenNet wishes our project well? Why not just ask nicely that the confusing wording and logos be changed, without getting blustery? Something like this, ********** The Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project would like to draw your attention to some confusing and misleading aspects of your index page at http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html , and ask for your prompt help in addressing these problems. 1. The term "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project" as used on this page, with "Nonprofit" capitalized, would appear to an uniformed reader to be the name of a project. While The USGenWeb Project is indeed a nonprofit organization, the word "Nonprofit" does not occur in the project's name. The usage on your index page is therefore confusing and could very easily mislead readers into thinking there are two separate projects, one being named "the Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", and the other being named simply "The USGenWeb Project". To avoid such confusing, we ask that you please refer to the project only by its official name, The USGenWeb Project. (A lowercase "nonprofit" is acceptable, as long as it does not appear to be part of the project name.) 2. Similarly, to use the name of the USGenWeb Project on a logo which is very different than the official USGenWeb Project logo could easily confuse visitors into thinking that there are two separate organizations, one that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenWeb pages, and a different project that is identified by the logo that appears on the USGenNet index page. The name of the USGenWeb Project should only appear on graphics which have been approved for use by the USGenWeb Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/namelogo.html We appreciate your support for the USGenWeb Project, and trust you will act quickly to correct these misleading aspects of your index page. ********** The confusing "peppermint patty" logos did not appear on the USGenNet site until Tim asked them to remove the real logos. We should give USGenNet permission to use the real USGenWeb logos to link to the USGenWeb Project, just like Rootsweb does on its cluster pages. Rootsweb and USGenNet are both web presence providers that generously provide free web space for USGenWeb project pages; it is very unfair to treat the organizations differently, when they both support us with free services. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I have been a Rootsweb Donor for three years: http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/dplus00.html ($250) http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor99c.html#P ($200) http://www.rootsweb.com/~donors/donor98c.html#P ($100) and have a "We love Rootsweb" button on my county site: http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/rowan-team.html but I don't think that appreciation for Rootsweb requires us to treat any other servers like they are some kind of enemy of the Project. To jump to the conclusion that USGenNet harbors some kind of designs to damage or take over the USGenWeb Project is every bit as unfair and ungrateful as it is to make those kinds of accusations of Rootsweb. The good name and reputation of the USGenWeb Project is best served by taking everyone who claims to wish us well fully at their word, rather than seeking enemies under every stone. To have friends, one must be a friend. Teri Pettit SE/MA CC Representative CC for Rowan County, Kentucky http://www.best.com/~tpettit/rowan/

yes At 03:12 AM 6/8/00 -0400, you wrote: >If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your >equivalent >of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. > >For background on the motion made by Joe seconded by Joy: > >"By submitting these grievances to the Board the >"aggrieved" party(s) is/are invoking Section I of >Article XIV which requests the Advisory Board to >advise on issues related to grievances and appeals. My >advice is that the grievances are purely spiteful and >meant to disrupt and cause disarray among the Project >members." > >Motion 00-14 > >"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as >frivolous and purely political in nature." > >Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that >the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. > >Thanks, > >Tim

Will the Secretary Please amend the motion to read: I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date for eligibility in the july 2000 USGenWeb elections be affirmed. "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to > vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if > they feel as strongly about this Project as I do they would > gracefully give up the vote so that the other several > hundred voting members would feel that their vote fell where > they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more > right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the > hundreds that part with their apathy and vote be denied > their due rights? I think not. Remember last time when ten > votes separated the runoff for the NC position? Eleven more > phony votes would have disenfrancised a true majority. Keep > this in mind if nit picking starts over the motion below. > Until just a few days ago I sided with those who protested > the April 1, 2000 date. I am quite naive at times believing > that all feel as I do about honesty and such. But the > evidence will continue to mount that the motion below is the > right course to take. And remember, this Board and any Board > has the right and duty to make motions not specifically > prohibited by the ByLaws. > > I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be > affirmed. 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 second this motion. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny <jzsed@slic.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 5:03 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] EC Support Motion While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if they feel as strongly about this Project as I do they would gracefully give up the vote so that the other several hundred voting members would feel that their vote fell where they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the hundreds that part with their apathy and vote be denied their due rights? I think not. Remember last time when ten votes separated the runoff for the NC position? Eleven more phony votes would have disenfrancised a true majority. Keep this in mind if nit picking starts over the motion below. Until just a few days ago I sided with those who protested the April 1, 2000 date. I am quite naive at times believing that all feel as I do about honesty and such. But the evidence will continue to mount that the motion below is the right course to take. And remember, this Board and any Board has the right and duty to make motions not specifically prohibited by the ByLaws. I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be affirmed. 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

While I have a concern that a few worthy CCs may not get to vote this time. I would bet you a dime to a bagel that if they feel as strongly about this Project as I do they would gracefully give up the vote so that the other several hundred voting members would feel that their vote fell where they aimed it to fall. Tell me, dear friends, is it more right that one voter or a few voters be denied than for the hundreds that part with their apathy and vote be denied their due rights? I think not. Remember last time when ten votes separated the runoff for the NC position? Eleven more phony votes would have disenfrancised a true majority. Keep this in mind if nit picking starts over the motion below. Until just a few days ago I sided with those who protested the April 1, 2000 date. I am quite naive at times believing that all feel as I do about honesty and such. But the evidence will continue to mount that the motion below is the right course to take. And remember, this Board and any Board has the right and duty to make motions not specifically prohibited by the ByLaws. I hereby move that the April 1, 2000 cutoff date be affirmed. 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 Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com

Fellow Board members and volunteers, it is hard to know where to begin because I am deeply troubled. But I will try to get across to you the danger YOUR Project faces because of a group whose members are using despicable means to achieve their ends. Evidence is damning and piling up of a conspiracy to utterly destroy this project as you know it thru ballot box stuffing. Some of it I am not at liberty to divulge at this time but your Board is working overtime to blunt it before the actual election and try to ensure that a fair and honest election allows the Project to survive in a form we can accept and to live up to the promise that is implied in our nobel mission, free online genealogy for all. The disheartening thing is that some of our most talented people are involved. When their efforts are directed to honorable pursuits the results are sometimes stunning. But once one lapses into a mindset of misconduct each new step is easier and that is the vortex I spoke of the other day. For over a year I have served on this Board and, along with my fellow Board members, suffered the insults poured upon us by a group who call themselves "activists" while we have worked sometimes killing hours to do this job. This Board in the main is a good Board. They are courageous, tough and have sworn to stay with it. None of us are blessed with divine wisdom, but most us are blessed with common sense and dedication. We have made some mistakes but they were honest mistakes. I am not whining about our sacrifice but asking that those who are so turned off by all this to support us, resist the efforts of these so called "activists" to turn the election into a circus. If you are a concerned SC talk to your CCs, explain to them the seriousness of this situation and encourage them to vote their convictions. You are in a leadership position, now is the time to lead. If the name of any individual involved in this pops up on your radar screen talk to them sternly and dismiss them if need be after a fair hearing and don't shrink from the task. The Board will back you to the limit allowed in our Bylaws and I will back you to the limit with my pen. This plea will be followed by a motion to show Board support for our NC and the Election Committee, who now stand between this threat and an honest election. I would be heartened if the vote were unanimous after discussion but a passing vote will do. Please hear me, else look around for another organization in which to pursue your genealogical interests because you may wake up some morning and not like your bedfellows. Corky Knebel stood up to be counted yesterday and others are also. Won't the rest stand up today? 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

At 12:12 AM -0700 6/8/00, Tim Stowell wrote: >If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your >equivalent >of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. No.

Yes. Maggie Tim Stowell wrote: > > If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your > equivalent > of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. > > For background on the motion made by Joe seconded by Joy: > > "By submitting these grievances to the Board the > "aggrieved" party(s) is/are invoking Section I of > Article XIV which requests the Advisory Board to > advise on issues related to grievances and appeals. My > advice is that the grievances are purely spiteful and > meant to disrupt and cause disarray among the Project > members." > > Motion 00-14 > > "Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > frivolous and purely political in nature." > > Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that > the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. > > Thanks, > > Tim

At 12:12 AM -0700 6/8/00, Tim Stowell wrote: >If there is no objection, please vote on Motion 00-14 by sending in your >equivalent >of 'yes', 'no' or 'abstain'. NO Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep