That's what I thought, too. The group that Carol sent were pretty petty and I thought that was what we were refering to in the motion. Pam Joy Fisher wrote: > > I took it to mean the group of 5 from C. Hammett that were designed to use > USGenWeb to beat RootsWeb over the head. > > At 02:48 PM 6/3/00 -0500, you wrote: > >Joe, > >Would you please clarify your motion. Are you moving > >that all grievances submitted to the AB prior to your > >motion are included in this? That is the way I could read it. > >If that is not the case would you consider amending your > >motion to show just which grievances, and which > >submitter, your motion addresses. > >At the moment the motion appears to me to be a little > >too broad in it's scope and could be intrepreted to mean > >that any grievance submitted to this board is frivolous and > >therefore should be dismissed. > >My reasoning for this that there have been quite a few > >grievances submitted. None have been addressed that I'm > >aware of. Each grievance should be addressed seperately > >to determine the merits of each and I am still greatly > >concerned about addressing grievances filed against this > >board or members of it. I see no fair way we can address > >those ourselves. > > > >Thanks, > >Ginger > >gingerh@shawneelink.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> > >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > >Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:38 PM > >Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 > > > > > > >Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: > > > > > >>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) > > >>From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> > > >>Subject: Motion 00-14 > > >> > > >> 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." > > >> > > >>The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor > > >>is now open for discussion. > > >> > > >> > > >>"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > > >>frivolous and purely political in nature." > > >> > > >>Tim > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >

That's my concern. We don't know. There was also a grievance filed about the Elections at about the same time. Plus there are still a number of grievances from over the past few months. Are we going to discount all these with this vote? Now unless I've misunderstood, Joe explanation said yes. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 >I took it to mean the group of 5 from C. Hammett that were designed to use >USGenWeb to beat RootsWeb over the head. > >At 02:48 PM 6/3/00 -0500, you wrote: >>Joe, >>Would you please clarify your motion. Are you moving >>that all grievances submitted to the AB prior to your >>motion are included in this? That is the way I could read it. >>If that is not the case would you consider amending your >>motion to show just which grievances, and which >>submitter, your motion addresses. >>At the moment the motion appears to me to be a little >>too broad in it's scope and could be intrepreted to mean >>that any grievance submitted to this board is frivolous and >>therefore should be dismissed. >>My reasoning for this that there have been quite a few >>grievances submitted. None have been addressed that I'm >>aware of. Each grievance should be addressed seperately >>to determine the merits of each and I am still greatly >>concerned about addressing grievances filed against this >>board or members of it. I see no fair way we can address >>those ourselves. >> >>Thanks, >>Ginger >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> >>To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:38 PM >>Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 >> >> >> >Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: >> > >> >>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) >> >>From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> >> >>Subject: Motion 00-14 >> >> >> >> 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." >> >> >> >>The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor >> >>is now open for discussion. >> >> >> >> >> >>"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as >> >>frivolous and purely political in nature." >> >> >> >>Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >

In a message dated 06/03/2000 11:02:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > Can you be a little more explicit? Who was asked to withdraw > by whom and for what reason? Why would the elections > committee ask someone to withdraw? Ginger, I have been told that Roger Swafford has asked Jim Powell to withdraw his candidacy for the NC position. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep

I took it to mean the group of 5 from C. Hammett that were designed to use USGenWeb to beat RootsWeb over the head. At 02:48 PM 6/3/00 -0500, you wrote: >Joe, >Would you please clarify your motion. Are you moving >that all grievances submitted to the AB prior to your >motion are included in this? That is the way I could read it. >If that is not the case would you consider amending your >motion to show just which grievances, and which >submitter, your motion addresses. >At the moment the motion appears to me to be a little >too broad in it's scope and could be intrepreted to mean >that any grievance submitted to this board is frivolous and >therefore should be dismissed. >My reasoning for this that there have been quite a few >grievances submitted. None have been addressed that I'm >aware of. Each grievance should be addressed seperately >to determine the merits of each and I am still greatly >concerned about addressing grievances filed against this >board or members of it. I see no fair way we can address >those ourselves. > >Thanks, >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:38 PM >Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 > > > >Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: > > > >>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) > >>From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> > >>Subject: Motion 00-14 > >> > >> 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." > >> > >>The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor > >>is now open for discussion. > >> > >> > >>"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > >>frivolous and purely political in nature." > >> > >>Tim > >> > >> > >> > >

Can someone please tell me why the Elections Committee is requesting candidates for the NC position withdraw from the race??? Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski

The grievances, if that is how some of them should be defined, were lumped together forming a list of complaints most of which will be resolved in the upcoming election. Hatred of Rootsweb and the Archives motivated one complaint which disturbs me in particular. How can anyone say that because the Archives is hosted by Rootsweb that the data is not free to researchers. Not one penny has ever been charged for access to this data. To whine about a formal agreement between the Archives and Rootsweb is simply, in my mind, a get even strategy. I couldn't care a rat's behind whether the agreement is formal or oral, it works and works quite well. Because Brian has retaliated to attacks on RW some will go to any end to smear RW. Because Linda has defended the Archives she must be dwealt with also. Anyone who disagrees with these people have to be dwealt with. Someone tried to deal with me and others by using a temporary Hotmail account to take over a server in Australia which in turn sent a virulent message to several of us. I might add that the FBI is quite interested in this technique due to the resent denial of service attacks. My 22 years in the military didn't teach me to be intimidated by such wimpish actions. These "grievances" were sent with one purpose at this time, to disrupt and make a political statement. The complaint against Tim will be addressed in the upcoming election by a committee called the electorate. How much fairer can that be? Pam is appointed by the Board and, therefore, if the Board deemed her actions unsatisfactory the Board should deal with it. I don't happen to agree that she has done anything wrong. This one was harassment, pure and simple. So no, Ginger, while I respect your opinion on this matter, and happen to agree with some of your comments, my motion covers them all. After the election if anyone has a grievance, let's hear it with perhaps new faces to help sort this out. But the board is charged in the ByLaws to advise on grievances. My motion does just that along with any discussion preceeding a vote. The full Board can vote it up or down but the motion is my advice or opinion, if you will. Joe Ginger wrote: > > Joe, > Would you please clarify your motion. Are you moving > that all grievances submitted to the AB prior to your > motion are included in this? That is the way I could read it. > If that is not the case would you consider amending your > motion to show just which grievances, and which > submitter, your motion addresses. > At the moment the motion appears to me to be a little > too broad in it's scope and could be intrepreted to mean > that any grievance submitted to this board is frivolous and > therefore should be dismissed. > My reasoning for this that there have been quite a few > grievances submitted. None have been addressed that I'm > aware of. Each grievance should be addressed seperately > to determine the merits of each and I am still greatly > concerned about addressing grievances filed against this > board or members of it. I see no fair way we can address > those ourselves. > > Thanks, > Ginger > gingerh@shawneelink.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:38 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 > > >Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: > > > >>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) > >>From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> > >>Subject: Motion 00-14 > >> > >> 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." > >> > >>The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor > >>is now open for discussion. > >> > >> > >>"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as > >>frivolous and purely political in nature." > >> > >>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

Joe, Would you please clarify your motion. Are you moving that all grievances submitted to the AB prior to your motion are included in this? That is the way I could read it. If that is not the case would you consider amending your motion to show just which grievances, and which submitter, your motion addresses. At the moment the motion appears to me to be a little too broad in it's scope and could be intrepreted to mean that any grievance submitted to this board is frivolous and therefore should be dismissed. My reasoning for this that there have been quite a few grievances submitted. None have been addressed that I'm aware of. Each grievance should be addressed seperately to determine the merits of each and I am still greatly concerned about addressing grievances filed against this board or members of it. I see no fair way we can address those ourselves. Thanks, Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 2:38 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: Motion 00-14 >Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: > >>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) >>From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> >>Subject: Motion 00-14 >> >> 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." >> >>The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor >>is now open for discussion. >> >> >>"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as >>frivolous and purely political in nature." >> >>Tim >> >> >> >

Forwarding for Tim Stowell, as requested: >Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tim Stowell <usgw1nc@yahoo.com> >Subject: Motion 00-14 > > 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." > >The motion below is given the number 00-14. The floor >is now open for discussion. > > >"Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as >frivolous and purely political in nature." > >Tim > > >

In a message dated 06/03/2000 7:17:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gingerh@shawneelink.com writes: > That's my concern. We don't know. There was also > a grievance filed about the Elections at about the > same time. Plus there are still a number of grievances > from over the past few months. > Are we going to discount all these with this vote? > > Now unless I've misunderstood, Joe explanation said > yes. That was also my understanding. The Bylaws charge us with mediating all grievances, which to me means that each one be given a chance to be heard by a fair and impartial group, without any value judgments being made beforehand. To do so, in my opinion, is a breach of the trust placed in us when we were elected to our respective positions on this Board. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski NW-Plains CC Rep.

I second this motion. At 06:39 PM 6/2/00 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >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. > >Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as >frivolous and purely political in nature. > >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

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. Therefore, I move that the grievances be dismissed as frivolous and purely political in nature. 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

Teri, Thanks for forwarding the grievance notes. I really had not seen them and did know of them until your note. Pam

(The first forwarding of this one did not go through. I suspect it was too long, because it included an appended email exchange of about 10 or more messages from June 13-14 1999. I am sending the grievance only this time. Any committee hearing the grievance would of course want to see the full email exchange.) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:59:42 -0600 To: "Jim Powell, Jr., USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <jpowelljr@gru.net>, "Teri Pettit, USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <pettit@adobe.com> From: C Hammett <CarHammett@mindspring.com> Subject: Commercial Abuse Grievance #2 Cc: TNGenWeb CC List <TN-All@egroups.com>, USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org In accordance with the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS, this email is to request that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board arrange for an impartial party to mediate the following grievance against USGenWeb Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis; to wit: 1. The USGenWeb Project is an unincorporated not-for-profit association (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article III, STATUS AS AN ORGANIZATION) 2. The USGenWeb Archives Project (aka USGenWeb Project Archives aka USGenWeb Project Digital Library) is a Special Project of the USGenWeb Project (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS), located on the domain, Rootsweb.com, Inc., a commercial web-hosting service for whom advertising-bannered search engine returns of the Archives' contents are both a major income source and a major public relations/advertising tool. 3. USGenWeb Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis is a paid employee and stock option holder of Rootsweb.com, Inc., a commercial corporation. 4. On 14 Jun 1999 TNGenWeb Archives File Manager Javan Michael Deloach advised the undersigned that her Sullivan and Warren Cos, TN submissions had been, at her request, "removed from the Sullivan and Warren County Tennessee USGenWeb Archives. The references to them have been removed from the corresponding Tables of Content.." 5. That the files were gone as of that date was personally confirmed by me at the time. Today, however, the Sullivan Co, TN file is back online. It is not listed on the index at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tn/sullivan.htm, but was located at ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tn/sullivan/military/1788mil.txt, following my accidental discovery of the file via a search: http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/data/tn+index+284964383089+F As noted in the correspondence below, my reason for requesting their removal was my unwillingness for my research to be used commercially; i.e., I did not remove the files from the Internet, but only from the Archives. The Sullivan file (now out of date) has been back online for an unknown amount of time; to wit: the file has the original date stamp of Jan 25, 1997, thus was apparently restored by Ms. Lewis via an unauthorized backup. During this time period, thus the file has been available for commercial abuse by the server. The only immediately available remedy is removal of the file and all back-ups of the file. Should the file not be removed immediately, please be advised that this will constitute not only a violation of federal intellectual property (copyright) statutes, but render null and void the noncommercial permanent use agreement that *all* submitters have with the USGenWeb Archives (Bylaws, Article X Copyright, Section 3). Should Ms. Lewis and/or her employer, Brian Leverich of Rootsweb.com, Inc., refuse to act immediately, appropriate action will be taken, including a demand for reinstatement of the earlier grievance (below). Carole Hammett Warren Co, TNGenWeb CC http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:33:43 -0600 To: "Jim Powell, Jr., USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <jpowelljr@gru.net>, "Teri Pettit, USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <pettit@adobe.com> From: C Hammett <CarHammett@mindspring.com> Subject: Commercial Abuse Grievance #2 Cc: TNGenWeb CC List <TN-All@egroups.com>, USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org In accordance with the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS, this email is to request that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board arrange for an impartial party to mediate the following grievance against USGenWeb Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis and National Coordinator Tim Stowell; to wit: 1. The USGenWeb Project is an unincorporated not-for-profit association (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article III, STATUS AS AN ORGANIZATION) 2. The USGenWeb Archives Project (aka USGenWeb Project Archives aka USGenWeb Project Digital Library) is a Special Project of the USGenWeb Project (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article XIII. SPECIAL PROJECTS) 3. The entire un-mirrored contents of the USGenWeb Archives Project reside on the domain, Rootsweb.com, Inc., a commercial web-hosting service for whom advertising banner search engine returns of the Archives' contents are both a major income source and a major public relations/advertising tool. 4. USGenWeb Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis is a paid employee and stock option holder of Rootsweb.com, Inc. 5. USGenWeb Archives Project Coordinator Linda Lewis claims to have reached an agreement with Rootsweb.com, Inc. under which the commercial corporation has permanent effective ownership of the USGenWeb Archives Project (see below). 6. Said agreement, if legal, nullifies the nonprofit status of the USGenWeb Project. 7. Said agreement, if legal, nullifies the "permanent use" agreement between submitters and the USGenWeb Project, including all Special, State and Local Projects (Article X Copyright, Section 3). 8. Said agreement, regardless of its legal status, jeopardizes the nonprofit status of the USGenWeb Project, damages the Project's public image and reduces the ability of all USGenWeb Project Coordinators, at every level, to recruit volunteers, particularly submitters. 9. National Coordinator Tim Stowell, having had knowledge of the alleged agreement(s) since at least June 1999, having taken no action in respect thereto, is a party to all charges herein. Should (a) Ms. Lewis and Brian Leverich of Rootsweb.com, Inc. publicly agree to nullify said agreement; and (b) Ms. Lewis publicly agree (1) that no agreements by her, whether past, present or future, are valid without a vote of the general membership, and (2) that the contents of the Archives may be mirrored by any and all state and local projects, this grievance may be considered inactive for as long as these conditions are met. Should Ms. Lewis refuse to take the above actions, it is recommended that (a) Ms. Lewis be immediately declared NOT a member in good standing of the USGenWeb Project by the Advisory Board; (b) Ms. Lewis be instantly and summarily suspended from her position as Archives Coordinator by the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board pending an emergency recall vote of the full membership, to take place on an independent server (rather than the server of her employer, Rootsweb.com, Inc.); (c) all alleged agreements by Ms. Lewis be immediately declared unlawful by the Advisory Board pending a vote by the full membership on an independent server re the right of any member or coordinator of the USGenWeb Project to make national agreements on behalf of the Project; and (d) that the contents of the USGenWeb Archives Project be immediately removed from the commercial server and given over into the custody of the applicable State and/or Local Project Coordinators. Should Mr. Stowell not agree to support said actions and sanctions, it is recommended that the same actions and sanctions be taken against Mr. Stowell. Carole Hammett Warren Co, TNGenWeb CC http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/ X-Sender: carhammett@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:47:56 -0600 To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org From: C Hammett <carhammett@mindspring.com> Subject: USGW-CC-L: New Archives Agreement? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org In June of 1999, in the course of trying to figure out the ins and outs of the structure of the Project and the Archives so as to be knowledgeable abt a Project I supported and publicly endorsed, I was told by Linda Lewis, National Coordinator of the Archives, that the Archives had had an "Agreement" with Rootsweb since Jul 1996. I asked that a copy of the Agreement be posted or uploaded, and Linda provided the following (posted to USGenWeb-All on 12 Jun 1999): "The Agreement says: 1. RootsWeb to provide server space for the USGenWeb Archives, and provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. 2. RootsWeb will promote the USGenWeb Archives via Rootsweb's Web pages, the RootsWeb Review, and other media as practicable. 3. The USGenWeb Archives agrees to maintain the datasets in a form that is attractive and useful to genealogists, and to provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. 4. The USGenWeb Archives agrees to be hosted by RootsWeb and no other server. When I noted that Rootsweb Review had not been established until Jul 1998, Linda replied on 14 Jun 1999: "The reference to the RWR in the agreement points I posted over the weekend was an additional service that Brian offered to the Archives so that more people would be aware of them and consider helping us to get more data online. Thank you, Brian." Linda also noted (accurately) that no Board was in existence in 1996 when she negotiated the Agreement. In response to my question as to whether the above was an abstract, and if so, to please provide a complete copy, Brian Leverich replied: "Carole, Linda *cannot* provide you with a scanned copy of the original document because there is no hardcopy of the agreement. The agreement is a set of principles, which Linda has already published here, that have never existed in any form other than electronic correspondence." Neither Linda nor Brian provided the electronic correspondence, and at the time, my own primary concern was with Item 4 due to the fact that it makes Rootsweb the "effective owner" of the Archives ("hosted by no other server"). I was recently advised, however, that the above "Agreement" is not the same as another which, in response to a request by Ellen Pack, Linda posted to the State-Coord List on 31 Mar 1999: "Basically, the Rootsweb - USGenWeb Archives agreement says (brackets added for clarity): [1] Rootsweb will provide server space for the USGenWeb Archives and provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. [2] Rootsweb agrees to promote the USGenWeb Archives via the webpages, RWR, etc. [3] The USGenWeb Archives agrees to maintain datasets in an attractive and useful form to genealogists, and to provide public access to the Archvies with no fees or charges. [4] The USGenWeb Archives is to be hosted by Rootsweb. [5] Neither party will place advertising on the Archives, unless both agree. A Comparison of the two "Agreements" shows the following:: Item 1. No change Mar 31: Rootsweb will provide server space for the USGenWeb Archives and provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. Jun 14: RootsWeb to provide server space for the USGenWeb Archives, and provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. Item 2. Minor differences in wording Mar 31: Rootsweb agrees to promote the USGenWeb Archives via the webpages, RWR, etc. Jun 14: RootsWeb will promote the USGenWeb Archives via Rootsweb's Web pages, the RootsWeb Review, and other media as practicable. Item 3. Minor differences in wording Mar 31: The USGenWeb Archives agrees to maintain datasets in an attractive and useful form to genealogists, and to provide public access to the Archvies with no fees or charges. June 14: The USGenWeb Archives agrees to maintain the datasets in a form that is attractive and useful to genealogists, and to provide public access to the Archives with no fees or charges. Item 4. Major, Significant Change Mar 31: The USGenWeb Archives is to be hosted by Rootsweb. Jun 14: The USGenWeb Archives agrees to be hosted by RootsWeb and no other server. Item 5. Missing from Jun 14 "agreement" Mar 31: Neither party will place advertising on the Archives, unless both agree. QUESTIONS: 1. Did Linda re-negotiate the "agreement" aka "set of principles" between 31 Mar and 14 Jun of this year? 2. If so, did the Advisory Board authorize it? 3. Has the Advisory Board requested the electronic correspondence between Brian Leverich and Linda Lewis? 4. If not, might I suggest that the Board do so immediately? Also note that when Ms. Lewis first announced on 22 Jul 1996 to Roots-L that the Archives were up and running at ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb, she made no mention of any "agreement" or "set of principles" but stated only "A big thank you to Dr. Brian Leverich who offered space at RootsWeb (of Roots-L fame) for this project." So far as I know, no mention was made of any "agreement" until it came up during discussions about the SK Publications Agreement. Sincerely, Carole Hammett, Co-CC, Warren Co, TNGenWeb http://www.dogtrot.com/warren Coordinator, Combs-Coombs &c. Research Group http://www.combs-families.org/~combs/

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 05:45:06 -0600 To: "Jim Powell, Jr., USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <jpowelljr@gru.net>, "Teri Pettit, USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <pettit@adobe.com> From: C Hammett <CarHammett@mindspring.com> Subject: Commercial Abuse Grievance #1 Cc: TNGenWeb CC List <TN-All@egroups.com>, USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org In accordance with the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS, this email is to request that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board arrange for an impartial party to mediate the following grievance against USGenWeb Project National Coordinator Tim Stowell and National Webmaster Pam Reid; to wit: 1. The United States Genealogy Network, Inc. (http://USGenNet.Org), an IRS-approved nonprofit public benefit corporation, provides free web space and tools to all USGenWeb Project Coordinators. 2. The USGenWeb Project is an unincorporated not-for-profit association (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article III) 3. Timothy Stowell, USGenWeb Project National Coordinator, was requested on Dec 22, 1999, to add USGenNet as a resource on the following sites: http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/free.html http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/volunteers.html http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/querymgmt.html 4. Mr. Stowell has never responded, nor has USGenNet ever been added. Instead, the featured resource on each of the above pages is the commercial corporation, Rootsweb.com, Inc. The favoritism displayed by Mr. Stowell and Ms. Reid toward a commercial entity over a nonprofit entity jeopardizes the nonprofit status of the USGenWeb Project, damages the Project's public image and reduces the ability of all USGenWeb Project Coordinators, at every level, to recruit volunteers. Should either (a) all other web-hosting resources be removed from these sites; or (b) USGenNet be added; and the commercial status of each resource be included, this grievance may be considered inactive for as long as these conditions are met. Carole Hammett Warren Co, TNGenWeb CC http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/ X-Sender: carhammett@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:04:32 -0700 To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org From: C Hammett <carhammett@mindspring.com> Subject: USGW-CC-L: Fwd: USGenNet Resources Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org Dear Fellow CC's. Teresa Lindquist's DBS (Daily Board Show) made mention today of the fact that USGGWP Advisory Board Member Pam Reid, in a posting to Board-L, included as an "issue" under the subject, "Year 2000 Clean Ups," the matter of "USGenNet and the sites that are hosted as USGenWeb sites and USGenNet sites." So far as I know, the only outstanding "issue" in respect to the USGWP and USGenNet is the following email to which no reply has been received as yet. Please note that USGenNet is a nonprofit service organization that provides free Internet services to not-for-profit organizations, including the USGenWeb Project. Please feel free to forward this email to all possible interested parties. Sincerely, Carole Hammett Recording Secretary, United States Genealogy Network, Inc. http://USGenNet.Org/ Co-County Coordinator, Warren Co, TNGenWeb Co-CC http://www.tngennet.org/warren/ Coordinator, Combs-Coombs &c. Research Group, Inc. http://www.combs-families.org/~combs/ X-POP3-Rcpt: usgnrsec@seeker X-Sender: usgnrsec@mail.usgennet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:02:31 -0700 To: "Tim Stowell, USGWP NC" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> From: "Carole Hammett, USGenNet Recording Secretary" <usgnrsec@usgennet.org> Subject: USGenNet Resources Cc: "Carole Hammett, USGenNet Recording Secretary" <usgnrsec@usgennet.org> Dear Mr. Stowell: This email is to request that the USGenWeb Project add the United States Genealogy Network, Inc. (USGenNet(tm)) to your volunteer pages listing resources for USGenWeb Project Coordinators. USGenNet is a nonprofit public benefit corporation that offers free Safe-Site Services(tm) to numerous not-for-profit historical and genealogical organizations, including the USGenWeb Project, and is located at http://USGenNet.Org/. The applicable USGenWeb Project volunteer pages are: http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/free.html (web space and search engines) http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/volunteers.html (mailing lists and search engines) http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/querymgmt.html (message boards and guest books). Thanking you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, I am yours Sincerely, Carole Hammett, Recording Secretary United States Genealogy Network, Inc. http://USGenNet.Org "USGenNet - the Biggest Little Safe-Site Server on the Internet!"

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 05:27:19 -0600 To: "Jim Powell, Jr., USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <jpowelljr@gru.net>, "Teri Pettit, USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <pettit@adobe.com> From: C Hammett <CarHammett@mindspring.com> Subject: Commercial Abuse Grievance #2 Cc: TNGenWeb CC List <TN-All@egroups.com>, USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org In accordance with the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS, this email is to request that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board arrange for an impartial party to mediate the following grievance against USGenWeb Project National Coordinator Tim Stowell; to wit: 1. The United States Genealogy Network, Inc. (http://USGenNet.Org), an IRS-approved nonprofit public benefit corporation, provides free web space and tools to all USGenWeb Project Coordinators. 2. The USGenWeb Project is an unincorporated not-for-profit association (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article III) 3. Timothy Stowell, USGenWeb Project National Coordinator, with no authority or legitimate basis for same, on Jan 3, 2000 ordered the nonprofit USGenNet to remove the USGenWeb Project's "Official Logo" from its site (see below) while permitting the commercial Rootsweb.com, Inc. to use said logo on thousands of commercial pages (most notably "cluster" pages such as http://resources.rootsweb.com/USA/TN/). 4. USGenNet complied immediately, but requested clarification from Tim Stowell as to why it was not permitted the same privileges as commercial entities (see below). Mr. Stowell never responded. The favoritism displayed by Mr. Stowell toward a commercial entity over a nonprofit entity jeopardizes the nonprofit status of the USGenWeb Project, damages the Project's public image and trust, and reduces the ability of all USGenWeb Project Coordinators, at every level, to recruit volunteers and submissions. Should either (a) all other entities, particularly RootsWeb.com, Inc., be prohibited from using said logo; or (b) should USGenNet be permitted to use said logo, this grievance may be considered inactive, for so long as these conditions are met. Carole Hammett Warren Co, TNGenWeb CC http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/ References: Return-Path: <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Received: from smtp.well.com (smtp.well.com [208.178.101.5]) by mail.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15819 for <dogtrot@mail.well.com>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 22:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from seeker.rootsquest.com (root@rootsquest.com [209.19.155.237]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA17553 for <dogtrot@well.com>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 22:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from s20.highertech.net (root@[209.54.120.20]) by seeker.rootsquest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA05779 for <webmaster@usgennet.org>; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:26:00 GMT Received: from tim (tstowell@tnt1-151.highertech.net [209.140.61.151]) by s20.highertech.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA24826; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:25:47 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000103012606.019aa540@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 01:26:06 -0500 To: webmaster@usgennet.org From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Subject: http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html Cc: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Sir or Madam: Please remove the USGenWeb logo from http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html . This is our official copyrighted logo to be used only on officially approved USGenWeb sites. You may however use one of the logos shown at http://www.usgenweb.org/friends/friendslogo.html . You prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@chattanooga.net Chattanooga, TN National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - http://www.usgenweb.org X-Sender: carhammett@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:33:56 -0700 To: Tim.Stowell@mindspring.com, Coordinator@mindspring.com, USGenWeb Project <tstowell@chattanooga.net>, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org From: C Hammett <carhammett@mindspring.com> Subject: USGW-CC-L: USGenWeb Project Logo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org Dear Mr. Stowell: Since the USGenWeb Project has apparently officially approved the use of the USGenWeb Project logo on non-USGenWeb Project sites by commercial corporations linking to the USGenWeb Project, I respectfully request clarification as to why USGenNet, a nonprofit corporation, is not accorded the same privilege (see below). USGenNet's reason for including the USGenWeb Project Logo on the below-referenced page was for clarity (lest anyone confuse USGenNet, a service organization, with the USGenWeb Project itself). Sincerely, Carole Hammett, Recording Secretary United States Genealogy Network, Inc. http://USGenNet.Org/ Co-Coordinator Warren Co, TNGenWeb Project http://www.tngennet.org/warren/ ===== Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 01:26:06 -0500 To: webmaster@usgennet.org From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Subject: http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html Cc: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Dear Sir or Madam: Please remove the USGenWeb logo from http://www.usgennet.org/usgenweb.html . This is our official copyrighted logo to be used only on officially approved USGenWeb sites. You may however use one of the logos shown at http://www.usgenweb.org/friends/friendslogo.html . You prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@chattanooga.net Chattanooga, TN National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - http://www.usgenweb.org

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:27:50 -0600 To: "Jim Powell, Jr., USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <jpowelljr@gru.net>, "Teri Pettit, USGenWeb Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region CC Representative" <pettit@adobe.com> From: C Hammett <CarHammett@mindspring.com> Subject: Commercial Abuse Grievance #1 Cc: TNGenWeb CC List <TN-All@egroups.com>, USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org In accordance with the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEALS PROCESS, this email is to request that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board arrange for an impartial party to mediate the following grievance against the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board, National Coordinator Tim Stowell and National Webmaster Pam Reid; to wit: The USGenWeb Project is an unincorporated not-for-profit association (USGenWeb Bylaws, Article III), yet includes the following commercial advertisement on its main page at http://www.usgenweb.org/index.html: "...The USGenWeb National website is hosted by RootsWeb [http://www.rootsweb.com]. Please consider visiting them to find out how you can help keep genealogy on the Internet free and available to everyone." While a linked acknowledgement of a website's host is permitted by the Bylaws (Article IX, Section 2), the second sentence above is commercial advertising in that Rootsweb.com, Inc., a commercial corporation, solicits contributions from visitors to its site, based on the company's claim that contributions result in making "huge amounts of genealogical data freely available to Internet genealogists." Should the offending sentence be removed immediately, this grievance may be considered inactive so long as the sentence remains deleted. Carole Hammett Warren Co, TNGenWeb CC http://www.tngenweb.org/warren/

I would like to see the grievances. I have not seen them since I am not subbed to any list except for the two Board lists and the SC list. If they appeared on the SC list, I must have deleted them in my sleep. At any rate, please do forward them to the list. Thank you, Pam Teri Pettit wrote: > > I would like to propose the following as a procedure for mediating > the 5 grievances that Carole Hammett submitted on Tuesday, May 30, > to myself and Jim Powell as CC Reps for her region. > > #1, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, > regarding Rootsweb endorsement on USGenWeb national website > #2, against Tim Stowell, > regarding policy on use of the USGenWeb logo as a link button > #3, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, > regarding non-listing of USGenNet as an available host > #4, against Linda Lewis & Tim Stowell, > regarding the Archives contract with Rootsweb > #5, against Linda Lewis, > regarding request for removal of a file from the USGenWeb Archives > > (The grievances have been posted on several email lists; I will forward > them to BOARD-L if anyone wants me to, but I imagine we've all seen them.) > > The mediation committee to be composed of 4 CC's, none of whom > > 1. Are an employee, staff member or board member of either Rootsweb, > Rootsquest, USGenNet, or the USGenWeb Archives, nor a member of > the USGenWeb Advisory Board. > > 2. Have a USGenWeb site or other web space located on either Rootsweb, > USGenNet or Rootsquest servers. > > STEP 1. By noon Thursday, June 8, 2000, Central DST > > Pam, Tim & Linda to submit via email to Carole <CarHammett@mindspring.com> > a list of 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria > who have agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. > > Carole Hammett to submit via email to Pam Reid <pamreid@home.com>, Tim Stowell > <tstowell@chattanooga.net> and Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com>, with a Cc > to Jim Powell <jpowelljr@gru.net> and Teri Pettit <pettit@adobe.com>, a list of > 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria, who have > agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. > > All parties in composing their lists are requested to make their choices > with an eye to CC's who have demonstrated an ability to work well with > people of differing opinions and to avoid inflammatory or confrontational > remarks. Try to pick people that you not only trust to be fair to you, > but that you expect the other party to trust as well. > > One of the Board members to forward both lists to BOARD-L. > > (If a list is not submitted by that date, or if it contains fewer than 4 > persons, the opposing party may substitute a person from their own list. It > is hoped that this clause will not be called upon; it is only to serve as > a deterrent to one party delaying the process or submitting a short list > in order to give less choice to the other party.) > > STEP 2. By 6 pm, Friday, June 9, 2000, Central DST > > Pam, Tim & Linda to choose 2 persons (total among them) from Carole's list > > Carole to choose 2 persons from Pam, Tim & Linda's list > > The choices to be sent by email to the same recipients as step 1, plus > to the chosen mediation committee members. > > STEP 3. By midnight, Friday, June 23, 2000, Central DST > > The committee to consider each grievance separately, and for each, make > a recommendation as to what should be done, with their reasoning. If the > committee cannot come to a consensus on a grievance, the recommendation > may contain a split opinion. The recommendations of the committee to > be posted to USGENWEB-ALL-L, USGW-CC-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, > USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L, and BOARD-L, and at some URL that they determine. > If the mediation process resulted in some action being taken by a > party named in a grievance (e.g., a web page being modified), that > action to also be recorded in the committee's report. > > The recommendations to be non-binding, but compliance or non-compliance > to them can serve to inform voters in the upcoming USGenWEb elections. > > My goal in this is to get a committee that, even before it starts > deliberation, is recognized by both sides as reasonably impartial. > There is no point in going to all the trouble of hearing a grievance > if the process is going to be perceived as biased by one party or > the other. > > This is not yet a formal motion, but I will make one to this effect > by tomorrow if the parties named in the grievances agree that this > sounds like a sufficiently impartial procedure. If it does not, please > make a suggestion as to how the process can be made more impartial. > > Thanks, > > Teri Pettit

I would like to propose the following as a procedure for mediating the 5 grievances that Carole Hammett submitted on Tuesday, May 30, to myself and Jim Powell as CC Reps for her region. #1, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, regarding Rootsweb endorsement on USGenWeb national website #2, against Tim Stowell, regarding policy on use of the USGenWeb logo as a link button #3, against Tim Stowell & Pam Reid, regarding non-listing of USGenNet as an available host #4, against Linda Lewis & Tim Stowell, regarding the Archives contract with Rootsweb #5, against Linda Lewis, regarding request for removal of a file from the USGenWeb Archives (The grievances have been posted on several email lists; I will forward them to BOARD-L if anyone wants me to, but I imagine we've all seen them.) The mediation committee to be composed of 4 CC's, none of whom 1. Are an employee, staff member or board member of either Rootsweb, Rootsquest, USGenNet, or the USGenWeb Archives, nor a member of the USGenWeb Advisory Board. 2. Have a USGenWeb site or other web space located on either Rootsweb, USGenNet or Rootsquest servers. STEP 1. By noon Thursday, June 8, 2000, Central DST Pam, Tim & Linda to submit via email to Carole <CarHammett@mindspring.com> a list of 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria who have agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. Carole Hammett to submit via email to Pam Reid <pamreid@home.com>, Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> and Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com>, with a Cc to Jim Powell <jpowelljr@gru.net> and Teri Pettit <pettit@adobe.com>, a list of 4 to 6 proposed committee members fitting the above two criteria, who have agreed to serve on the committee if chosen. All parties in composing their lists are requested to make their choices with an eye to CC's who have demonstrated an ability to work well with people of differing opinions and to avoid inflammatory or confrontational remarks. Try to pick people that you not only trust to be fair to you, but that you expect the other party to trust as well. One of the Board members to forward both lists to BOARD-L. (If a list is not submitted by that date, or if it contains fewer than 4 persons, the opposing party may substitute a person from their own list. It is hoped that this clause will not be called upon; it is only to serve as a deterrent to one party delaying the process or submitting a short list in order to give less choice to the other party.) STEP 2. By 6 pm, Friday, June 9, 2000, Central DST Pam, Tim & Linda to choose 2 persons (total among them) from Carole's list Carole to choose 2 persons from Pam, Tim & Linda's list The choices to be sent by email to the same recipients as step 1, plus to the chosen mediation committee members. STEP 3. By midnight, Friday, June 23, 2000, Central DST The committee to consider each grievance separately, and for each, make a recommendation as to what should be done, with their reasoning. If the committee cannot come to a consensus on a grievance, the recommendation may contain a split opinion. The recommendations of the committee to be posted to USGENWEB-ALL-L, USGW-CC-L, STATE-COORD-L, ARCHIVES-L, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L, and BOARD-L, and at some URL that they determine. If the mediation process resulted in some action being taken by a party named in a grievance (e.g., a web page being modified), that action to also be recorded in the committee's report. The recommendations to be non-binding, but compliance or non-compliance to them can serve to inform voters in the upcoming USGenWEb elections. My goal in this is to get a committee that, even before it starts deliberation, is recognized by both sides as reasonably impartial. There is no point in going to all the trouble of hearing a grievance if the process is going to be perceived as biased by one party or the other. This is not yet a formal motion, but I will make one to this effect by tomorrow if the parties named in the grievances agree that this sounds like a sufficiently impartial procedure. If it does not, please make a suggestion as to how the process can be made more impartial. Thanks, Teri Pettit

*Please fwd. To clarify, a member must have been serving in his/her position(s) and in good standing before April 1, 2000 in order to vote or nominate. Qualifications for nominees as contained in the bylaws are applicable. > At 12:02 AM 06/01/2000 -0400, Roger Stafford wrote: > > To participate, members must have at least > >60 days continuous service in good standing prior to commencement of the > >election cycle, April 1, 2000. > > This statement isn't clear. Does that mean 60 days in order to vote? Or > 60 days in order to be nominated? I believe that the bylaws says that an > AB rep (SC rep or CC rep) has to have held a qualifying position (SC or ASC > for SC rep, CC for CC rep) for a full year before eligible to election as a > rep. > > I don't see 60 days mentioned anywhere in the bylaws. > > Regards, > Leigh