abstain Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:38 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-15 - Vote : : "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 Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:44 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-15 - Vote > >"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 > > >

No 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 >

>"There for I move to Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Motion #00-12." Yes Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:11:11 -0700 >X-From_: 73777.25@compuserve.com Tue Jun 6 22:11:10 2000 >From: "Maggie" <73777.25@compuserve.com> >To: "Patrick Hays" <gsdownr@geocities.com>, "BOARD-L" <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Old-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:08:43 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 >X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list >Subject: {not a subscriber} Re: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >X-Envelope-To: BOARD-L > >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 > > > >

NO Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:38 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-15 - Vote "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

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

NO RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:38 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-15 - Vote > > "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. Thanks, Tim

I've been asked by a fellow AB member for a report on my opinion of how the EC is operating, in hopes that I would be able to allay some concerns/fears regarding some of the rumors that are flying about. When the EC first convened, we all decided and agreed that the chairman would be the "public voice" of the committee, providing replies to questions after we had discussed them on our EC list. However, I have received Roger's OK to post this. My understanding is that Roger has never asked anyone to withdraw their candidacy. Jim's email to the BOARD-L (and elsewhere) seems to confirm that in his case. When there was a question of "good standing", it was because the EC was following the directions of the AB vote regarding the protest logos. There was nothing that the EC was unilaterally deciding there. We discussed it briefly, and the concensus was that we felt that it was an honest oversight on Jim's part. End of story. As you can see by Roger's recent post reporting the current candidate list, all candidates who have been nominated and have accepted the nomination (at the time of Roger's post) were listed. Regarding the 60-day eligibility period. That was one of the first things discussed, and the April 1st cut-off was also the consensus of the EC members. Someone here made a comment about that being a manipulation of the vote, and this perplexes me, personally. The cut-off date was established to *prevent* manipulation of the vote by making it impossible to pad voter lists by adding co-CCs in new states and regions, by taking on new counties only to gain voting eligibility in that region, or by establishing bogus identities with web-based eMail accounts. This prevents these attempts at manipulation by anyone, of any political stripe, not just one side or another. The EC is a group of USGenWeb volunteers who are, like you, trying to do the best we can by and for the Project. We civilly discuss how best to tackle the job at hand, and continue to discuss issues as they come up, along with completing our assigned tasks. We are committed to our goal, and that is a fair, accurate election. In the volatile atmosphere of the USGenWeb Project, we realize that our being on the EC makes us targets of innuendo and invective, and necessitates our having to tolerate rudeness, sarcasm, and accusations of corruption. Ain't that just so flippin' pathetic, though? Thank you, Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com This is being posted to the BOARD-L list, but permission is granted to forward this message, in its entirety, to other USGenWeb lists.

Perhaps the following that was sent by a concerned CC might shed some light on the need for an April 1st cutoff date. Subject: Re: CP-Issues: Voting Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:35:53 -0400 From: Bill Oliver <wnoliver@worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: cp-issues@usgennet.net Organization: NEGenWeb/OHGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects To: cp-issues@usgennet.net References: 1 Ideas [good ideas] are pouring from this group. 'Tis proud I am to be one with you. Wild Bill -- Lori wrote: > Do assistant county coordinators have voting rights? How about > co-coordinators? How many transcribers would be interested in adopting a > county or two or three? Spreading them out across the regions, of course! > > Lori > > This is a USGenNet Safe-Site Mailing List - http://USGenNet.Org/

Aha. So on a "case by case" basis what would apply to one might not necessarily apply to the next one. Novel idea! Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing >The AB or duly appointed authority would make determination of SR#1 >compliance on a case by case basis. > >From RRoOnr (paraphrased) >Standing rules are 1) related to the details of the administration of an >organization rather than to parliamentary procedure, and 2) can be adopted >or changed upon the same conditions as with any ordinary act. > >Maggie > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:35 AM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing > > >I have some questions in regard to this motion: > >1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of >a "positive public image" to be considered in good >standing. > >2. Who decides if a member is working to "enhance >its good name and reputation"? What does this >work consist of? > >3. Define the term "contributing to its operations" please. >Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working >to place data online is already "contributing to its >operations"? > >It is my considered opinion that this motion is repetitious >of matter already contained in the Bylaws of the USGenWeb >Project and only places a broader intrepretation on the >guidelines already contained therein. This would only serve >to open the door wider to potential abuse and allow more >intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" >of the moment is. > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:44 AM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing > > >>The motion below made by Maggie and seconded by >>Barbara is numbered 00-16 is and is now open for >>discussion: >> >>I move to adopt the following standing rule; >> >>"It is the responsibility of each member of The >>USGenWeb Project to demonstrate membership in good >>standing by; promoting a positive public image of the >>project, and working to enhance its good name and >>reputation, and contributing to its operations. In >>addition, members must respond promptly to email, >>actively support researchers' efforts to find >>information, maintain their website with appropriate, >>up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of >>the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." >> > > >

-----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >Ginger, > >It's good to see you smiling. Yes. I almost let the, shall we say rubbish, that's been going on depress me. So thanks for getting my sense of humor into full swing again. > >Well since I don't have a Robert's Rules of Order here at home (I use the >copy at my local library) and I can't seem to locate the exact reference I >will try and >explain in my own words. As an aside I agree with you about the cut off >date. > >We passed a motion thus: > >"I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election >Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and >let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." > >This was passed by unanimous consent by the Advisory Board. This makes the >decision of the EC binding on the AB . Ahhh! Interesting.... So are you saying the EC is free to make up whatever rules it chooses and we are bound by them? Makes perfect sense, of course! ><snip> >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? The Bylaws say all members with the exception of transcribers and lookup volunteers are eligible to vote. There is no mention of a "probationary" period or how informed they have to be, or how long they have to have been members of the project. Do I assume that you are saying that can be written in if someone so chooses. Maybe next year we can then require someone to pass a "loyalty" test before they can vote, the vote could then depend on whichever "faction" was in power at the moment. That ought to be real interesting! I'd like to remind you, and the rest of the members of this board, that this project belongs to the volunteers. THEY are the one's that built it. It is their right to vote for whomever they choose, without undue restrictions being placed on their right to vote. Anything short of that smacks of attempted vote manipulation.......whether it is or not. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com > > >Maggie > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:54 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >Maggie, >If there's any typo's just put it down to blurred vision >from the tears in my eyes. The idea of you calling >me partisan is too hysterical for words. They say >laughter is good for the soul and now mine should be >good for next century. > >But then again, if your definition of partisan means >that I'm for an honest election and fair treatment for >all members of this project then you bet I'm partisan. >I kind of think that's not the definition you had in mind, >though. I could be wrong.....but I doubt it. <g> > >Oh, by the way, would you cite your reference for >your declaration please. > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:39 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >>Ginger, >> >>Your motion is improper and out of order, the Election Committee's >>decision is binding on the Advisory Board. If you must act in such a >>partisan manner do so thusly >> >>I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all eligible members with >>the *right* to vote. >> >>Maggie >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >>To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:44 AM >>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >>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. >> >>My personal note and not part of the motion itself: >>To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation >>of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. >> >> >>Ginger >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> >>To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM >>Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >> >> >>>As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >>>dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >>>I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >>>you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >>>am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >>>of the time thankless, that their job can be. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Jim >>> >> >> >> > > >

The AB or duly appointed authority would make determination of SR#1 compliance on a case by case basis. >From RRoOnr (paraphrased) Standing rules are 1) related to the details of the administration of an organization rather than to parliamentary procedure, and 2) can be adopted or changed upon the same conditions as with any ordinary act. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing I have some questions in regard to this motion: 1. Who decides if a member is promoting enough of a "positive public image" to be considered in good standing. 2. Who decides if a member is working to "enhance its good name and reputation"? What does this work consist of? 3. Define the term "contributing to its operations" please. Wouldn't you say that maintaining websites and working to place data online is already "contributing to its operations"? It is my considered opinion that this motion is repetitious of matter already contained in the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and only places a broader intrepretation on the guidelines already contained therein. This would only serve to open the door wider to potential abuse and allow more intrepretation of the Bylaws to suit whatever the "whim" of the moment is. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 12:44 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-16 - Good Standing >The motion below made by Maggie and seconded by >Barbara is numbered 00-16 is and is now open for >discussion: > >I move to adopt the following standing rule; > >"It is the responsibility of each member of The >USGenWeb Project to demonstrate membership in good >standing by; promoting a positive public image of the >project, and working to enhance its good name and >reputation, and contributing to its operations. In >addition, members must respond promptly to email, >actively support researchers' efforts to find >information, maintain their website with appropriate, >up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of >the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." >

Ginger, It's good to see you smiling. Well since I don't have a Robert's Rules of Order here at home (I use the copy at my local library) and I can't seem to locate the exact reference I will try and explain in my own words. As an aside I agree with you about the cut off date. We passed a motion thus: "I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." This was passed by unanimous consent by the Advisory Board. This makes the decision of the EC binding on the AB . >From the bylaws about elections: "ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES Section 1. A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by the Advisory Board. The Elections Subcommittee shall consist of Advisory Board members and volunteers from the members of The USGenWeb Project. Section 2. It shall be the responsibility of the Elections Subcommittee to announce those positions for which nominations are needed. Section 3. Nominations shall be received during the first two weeks of June. A list of candidates shall be posted to the national website on or before the voting period begins on July 1, with profiles/bios to be posted on July 1. The voting period shall be July 1 through July 31. Terms of office shall begin on September 1. In the event a member is nominated for more than one position, the nominee shall notify the Elections Subcommittee for which office they wish to declare their candidacy. Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time. Section 5. All members of the Advisory Board, with the exception of the the National Coordinator, shall be elected to two-year terms. The National Coordinator shall be elected to a one-year term. 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? Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date Maggie, If there's any typo's just put it down to blurred vision from the tears in my eyes. The idea of you calling me partisan is too hysterical for words. They say laughter is good for the soul and now mine should be good for next century. But then again, if your definition of partisan means that I'm for an honest election and fair treatment for all members of this project then you bet I'm partisan. I kind of think that's not the definition you had in mind, though. I could be wrong.....but I doubt it. <g> Oh, by the way, would you cite your reference for your declaration please. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >Ginger, > >Your motion is improper and out of order, the Election Committee's >decision is binding on the Advisory Board. If you must act in such a >partisan manner do so thusly > >I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all eligible members with >the *right* to vote. > >Maggie > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:44 AM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >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. > >My personal note and not part of the motion itself: >To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation >of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >>As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >>dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >>I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >>you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >>am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >>of the time thankless, that their job can be. >> >>Thanks, >>Jim >> > > >

At 04:13 PM 6/4/00 -0400, Ron & Kathy wrote: >Barbara, > >No thank you, It your precious book of RROONR that has gotten us to this >point. Maybe if all of you would throw away that stupid book so that >everyone in the Project wouldn't have to own one either to ensure you were >doing this right,maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation >today. The rest of us choose to make mistakes honestly. With your book, >you have no excuses for the mistakes you all have been making. > >Ron RE, Are you suggesting that the Board throw away RROONR - AND the section of the Bylaws that state the Board will act under a recogized book regarding PP? Tim >----- Original Message ----- >From: RootsLady <RootsLady@email.msn.com> >Sent: June 04, 2000 2:15 PM >Subject: Re: USGW-CC-L: Just an observation > > >> Ron, >> I hereby acknowledge receipt of the following message. I'll be adding it >to >> the many others coming in. >> Just a quick note here.You might want to read RROONR, page 336, Section 38 >> DILATORY AND IMPROPER MOTIONS. >> >> RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore >>

Maggie, If there's any typo's just put it down to blurred vision from the tears in my eyes. The idea of you calling me partisan is too hysterical for words. They say laughter is good for the soul and now mine should be good for next century. But then again, if your definition of partisan means that I'm for an honest election and fair treatment for all members of this project then you bet I'm partisan. I kind of think that's not the definition you had in mind, though. I could be wrong.....but I doubt it. <g> Oh, by the way, would you cite your reference for your declaration please. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >Ginger, > >Your motion is improper and out of order, the Election Committee's >decision is binding on the Advisory Board. If you must act in such a >partisan manner do so thusly > >I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all eligible members with >the *right* to vote. > >Maggie > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:44 AM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >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. > >My personal note and not part of the motion itself: >To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation >of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >>As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >>dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >>I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >>you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >>am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >>of the time thankless, that their job can be. >> >>Thanks, >>Jim >> > > >

Thanks, Tim! Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > OK, Joe, no problem. Voting on Motions will occur > with 00-15 followed by 00-14, with what others exist > now and in the future after that. > > Tim > > At 03:39 PM 6/5/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny > wrote: > >I should have said after the vote on Richard's motion > Motion > >00-14 be voted on. But here we are with motion > sickness > >again. > > > >Joe > > > > > > > >"Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > >> > >> Request the Chairman place my subject motion back > on the > >> table in the correct order. I agreed to let Richard > preempt > >> it with that understanding. > >> > >> Thanks > >> 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 > > > >-- > >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 > > > > -- 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

OK, Joe, no problem. Voting on Motions will occur with 00-15 followed by 00-14, with what others exist now and in the future after that. Tim At 03:39 PM 6/5/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >I should have said after the vote on Richard's motion Motion >00-14 be voted on. But here we are with motion sickness >again. > >Joe > > > >"Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: >> >> Request the Chairman place my subject motion back on the >> table in the correct order. I agreed to let Richard preempt >> it with that understanding. >> >> Thanks >> 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 > >-- >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 > >

Ginger, Your motion is improper and out of order, the Election Committee's decision is binding on the Advisory Board. If you must act in such a partisan manner do so thusly I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all eligible members with the *right* to vote. Maggie ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date 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. My personal note and not part of the motion itself: To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >of the time thankless, that their job can be. > >Thanks, >Jim >