I know that I am making a mess of parlimentary procedure and causing more motion sickness but I have been asked by several Board members to clarify the issue within the motion so here goes. As a preamble, no grievance is too minor to be addressed IF the complainant truly feels agrieved. That is my criteria for evaluating a grievance, sincerity. The grievance at hand fails the first test, sincerity. while it perhaps contains some elements that need to be addressed the complainant's past history of disruptive behavior stemming from a desire to do RW in by using USGW as the hammer makes this a political statement with disharmony as the only goal. Therefore, I move that the grievances submitted by C. Hammett be dismissed as frivolous and purely political in nature. Sorry Tim and Ken but you have to earn your money in these high paying and rewarding jobs <G>. 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 > > " > Joe came back later in response to questioning - to say that > the grievances in question were the 5 made by Carole Hammett. > > Thanks, > > Tim 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

NO Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-14 Grievances >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 >

Until the motion is restated to only include those grievances by Ms. Hammett my vote will have to be in the negative. The motion as stated could be interpreted to include all grievances submitted to this Board prior to this vote. I'm aware that Joe said only those 5 grievances are in question. That statement is not, however, a part of the motion and thus leaves the door open to dismissing all grievances submitted before the vote. Actual vote to follow in seperate mail. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-14 Grievances >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. Joe 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 -- 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

Tim, I made a motion several days ago that was seconded (twice I believe). Is there some particular reason you are ignoring? Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

I move to adopt the following resolution; Whereas, This link http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html leads to pages hosted by USGenNet Inc., entitled ""USGenNet's Index to The NonProfit USGenWeb Project" and contains a number of logos bearing the words "The Nonprofit USGenWeb Project". These pages are considered an obvious attempt to inflict harm upon the name and reputation of The USGenWeb Project. Resolved, That The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board formally demand removal of all references within 7 days, including index and logos, regarding any supposed "Nonprofit USGenWeb Project", or words to that effect from USGenNet Inc. and from any other USGenWeb Project web site on which these items may appear; and Resolved, That failure to comply shall result in the person(s) and/or website(s) declared as not in good standing with The USGenWeb Project by authority of Article VI Section 9 to wit failure in "serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project". Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman NW/Plains CC Representative

YES RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:12 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-14 Grievances > 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 >

Forwarded with permission: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Corky K" <corkykn@imt.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:05 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] MTGenWeb Project link > Dear Mr. Smoot and the Staff of USGenNet: > > The MTGenWeb Project, an affiliate of the USGenWeb Project, has been in > operation since July, 1996. Since that date we have seen much growth in > the national project, a few disagreements, and many fine individuals come > and go as volunteer leaders. Whenever a disagreement arose, reasonable > people eventually worked their problems out as adults and the project moved > forward. > > Nothing, I repeat - Nothing!!! - has ever indicated that the USGenWeb > Project itself was or is adopting a "for-profit" status. To the best of > their ability, volunteers in this project have helped literally thousands > of researchers. Most of us as volunteers have reached far into our own > pocketbooks to further this cause. > > The general 'population' of SC's, ASC's, CC's and ACC's have voted for > by-laws and administrative officers over the past few years, and the > democratic process has worked. This same process is perfectly adequate to > handle any decisions concerning an elected administration by virtue of a > yearly election!!! > > To even the casual observer, it appears that there is a hostile attempt to > destroy the USGenWeb Project operation as we know it. Your USGenNet site > now strongly implies that it is some type of "official" server for > USGenWeb... complete with brand new **unauthorized** USGenWeb Project Logos > displaying the words "non-profit" on them - as if we haven't been or > non-profit for the past four years! (And, I might add, implying that > *some* of the USGenWeb Project sites are "for-profit" if they don't use > that logo) > > The above actions by USGenNet.org.-com-.net, along with the numerous > inflammatory and derogatory postings made to various USGenWeb mailing lists > by it's administration, are considered offensive by many members of the > MTGenWeb Project. One of my county coordinators suggested that our state's > project should ask to be de-linked from the USGenNet site. This week I > offered the 36 volunteers, (eligible voters including SC's, CC's and ACC's) > in the MTGenWeb Project an opportunity to vote on this issue. The > statement on which they voted is as follows: > > "It is my opinion that a notice be sent to Fred Smoot, TNGenWeb SC and > Administrative Contact for USGenNet.org (.com and .net) asking that he > remove the link to the MTGenWeb Project site along with any links to > MTGenWeb Project county sites from his USGenNet sites." > > 18 of the 36 (50%) responded within the past few days. The results were as > follows: > 16 - Yes; 2 abstain > > I hereby request on behalf of 89% of the eligible voters who voted that you > remove the link to our MTGenWeb Project from the USGenNet.org, .com, .net > site. Unless at some time in the future it is demonstrated to us that > your actions and those of the USGenNet staff do not constitute a hostile > takeover of the USGenWeb Project process, we do not wish it to appear that > we are in agreement or association with your group. > > Thank you. > > Corky Knebel > Corky Knebel > MtGenWeb Project State Coordinator > http://www.imt.net/~corkykn/montana.html > > > >

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

The voting results on Motion 00-15 - to overturn Motion 00-12 are as follows: Yes - 10 No - 3 Abstain - 2 Motion passes. Tim

Patrick, You keep stating how incredibly clear Article VII, Section 6 is and you note that everyone who is a member of USGenWeb *but who is not a lookup volunteer or a transcriber* gets to vote. Hmmm......so does that mean that census transcribers who become a county co-coordinator are still not eligible to vote because they are also transcribers????? In order to vote, they would have to give up their transcribing jobs??? No, that would be silly, wouldn't it? So the point is that this section is not quite so incredibly simple and clear as you suggest. It requires interpretation, just like any other law or bylaw requires interpretation. And a strictly literal interpretation of it could produce something quite silly. Another point: residency requirements are standard fare for U.S. elections. Seems reasonable for USGW to do the same. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Hays <gsdownr@geocities.com> To: Maggie <73777.25@compuserve.com> Cc: <richpump@wf.net>; Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net>; Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM>; <feathers2@aol.com>; <TVick65536@aol.com>; <hollyft@bright.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date In that case, I think I want to head up next years election committee. My rule will be that all volunteers who were not members of the project before May 3, 1997 can vote. It's a bit ridiculous, but it follows the exact same principle. The bylaws simply say that all members are eligible to vote with the exception of transcribrs and look up volunteers. Just enforce the bylaws for once when it's not just convenient for you to do so. Patrick Hays PS. Since I can't respond on Board-L, I will CC this to the rest of my board members as well, and any of them who may wish to do so can feel free to forward my response there for the rest of the world to see. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maggie" <73777.25@compuserve.com> To: "Patrick Hays" <gsdownr@geocities.com>; "BOARD-L" <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > Patrick, > > I believe that you are missing the point I was attempting to make. > BTW, the quote in my quote was from the motion made by > Ginger Hayes. I was not even discussing the "eligibility" of > USGWP members but that there is no "cutoff" mentioned in the > bylaws. > > > Therefore, the Board is responsible for ensuring that the EC also upholds > >the bylaws and eliminates this farce of an arbitrary "cutoff", because it > is a > >flat out violation of the bylaws. > > Regarding your conclusion (above): > > My main point is that the Bylaws don't specify membership "as of when"? > > So they permit a determination of "when" -- and for the election process to > verify that voters are indeed eligible, there *has* to be some such > determination! > > Robert's Rules of Order, pg 403 > "Unless the bylaws provide otherwise the assembly itself is the judge of all > questions arising which are incidental to the voting or the counting of > votes." > [the assembly normaly being the AB, but in this case the EC] > > > At any rate, the *point* is that some cutoff date has to be established in > order for there to be workable, fair election. > > > Maggie > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Patrick Hays <gsdownr@geocities.com> > To: <USGenWeb-NE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 9:28 PM > Subject: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > > > To my Board representatives (all 7 of you), > > I have a question that I just can't figure out. This Apr 1, 2000 > 'cutoff' does not affect me directly, as you can see below, but... > > To quote part of a note written by Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman to Board-L: > '...Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up > Volunteers > and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote. " > > The question in my mind when I went looking for answers was how can > "voter eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb > Project" when it's not addressed in said Bylaws?' > > How can somebody be so inattentive that they can not read the sentence > they copied and pasted right before they started typing? Attention deficit > disorder? Hmm... How can something so simple be so twisted? This person > is supposed to represent me, the common CC. Does she think that those of us > who are common CC's are stupid? Does she think we can't read? Does she > think that none of us know what the bylaws say? No, as usual, this is > simply very poor representation. If it was not addressed in the bylaws, as > she claims, Article VII, Section 6 would not be there. And yet, whoooops, > there it is. Article VII, Section 6 is incredibly clear and simple. In > fact, it's one of the simplest Sections of the bylaws. Everybody who is not > a look up volunteer or a transcriber, who is a member of USGenWeb is > eligible to vote. PERIOD. > It does not say "if their name is ... (fill in the blank)". > It does not say "if they have been in the project 60 days". > It does not say "if they are wearing green and it is a Thursday". > It does not say "if their skin color is ... (fill in the blank)". > It does not say "if their grandfather was eligible to vote". > It does not say "if they are employees of Rootsweb or associated with the > Archives". > It does not say "if they own land". > It says "ALL MEMBERS of the USGenWeb Project... SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE" > (emphasis added, because somebody needs to do it!). > Decisions of the Election Committee are binding on the Board, > nevertheless, the EC can still not violate the bylaws. And like it or not, > the Board is responsible for upholding the bylaws. Therefore, the Board is > responsible for ensuring that the EC also upholds the bylaws and eliminates > this farce of an arbitrary "cutoff", because it is a flat out violation of > the bylaws. > > Patrick Hays > CC Hancock Co., KY Since April 23, 1997 SE > CC Custer Co., CO Since October 7, 1997 NW > CoCC Blackford Co., IN Since March 9, 1999 NE > CC Jefferson Co., KY Since October 17, 1999 SE > CC Mecosta Co., MI Since October 17, 1999 NE > CC Daviess Co., KY Since January 30, 2000 SE > >

yes

Yes. Tim Stowell wrote: > > "There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > > Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for > yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim

Abstain. Tina Vickery

Yes Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > "There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > > Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for > yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim

>"There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > >Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for >yes, no or abstain. Yes.

Yes Betsy At 01:38 AM 6/7/00 -0400, you wrote: > >"There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > >Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for >yes, no or abstain. > >Thanks, > >Tim >

Yes, Gloria Tim Stowell wrote: > > "There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > > Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for > yes, no or abstain. > > 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

Yes Richard... Tim Stowell wrote: > > "There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > > Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for > yes, no or abstain. > > Thanks, > > Tim 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 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

Yes. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > "There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." > > Please vote on the above Motion by sending along your equivalent vote for > 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