I agree with most of what Ellen has said here, and I like her proposal a whole lot. Unlike Teri, I do think that it would be best having committee members with no ties to Archives, ACP, CP, Board, and probably also to other entities that have been the source of controversy with USGW members, such as member of ALHN and USIGS and RootsWeb staff members. We'd need folks with fresh outlooks, without preconceived notions, without the baggage of 3 years of hurt feelings. People who aren't so mired in what happened in the past, and who did what to who, and who aren't all tangled up in "loyalties" to one side or the other. If we decided to proceed with this, motion 00-6 would be unneccessary, and it could be withdrawn at that point. Let's discuss more the specifics of how this proposal of Ellen's could be accomplished. How exactly would the one or two committee volunteers be chosen from each region? Would the SCs and ASCs in each region nominate and vote? Perhaps it would be easiest if each state nominated one person. These names could be forwarded to the AB, where they would be checked to be sure no nominees with ties to the principal factions (as listed in Ellen's note and above) were included. Then, the remaining names would be subject to the approval of the AB reps (who must show good cause to challenge a nominee's appointment, as outlined in the proposal). The committee could be chosen from the remaining pool of nominees. This final selection should be done in as random a manner as can possibly be accomplished. If there is support for Ellen's proposal, I guess we'll need a motion to get the ball rolling. However, I think we need to hammer out some more of the specifics first. Shari Handley shari@armada.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 8:39 AM Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Response, and Proposal : TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator Representatives : : : As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that either : or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, if : submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. : : If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let me : know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. : : Thank you for your consideration. : : Ellen Pack : ------------- : : To the USGW Advisory Board Members - : : : 1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few days : ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: : : "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws : is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and : made sure it was worded that way." : : If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original remarks, I : wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item 2. : : Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not only : to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my opinion, : to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. : : I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or : disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, in : fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them when : deemed necessary. : : For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, and : in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person wielding : enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding collection : of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet to : come to pass. : : I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet : subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I was : not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. : : : 2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously : undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in : spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse today : than when it began. : : Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal : alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no : headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful : break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people who : COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the occasion, : impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly : worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project : ahead of personal considerations. : : I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be solved, : and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, including : the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. : : This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of : ownership or authority. : : To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special : committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not be : or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board : Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any : Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived : opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations with : Archive/Census members or Board reps. : : One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the committee) : should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate : SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on : previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership : experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other Reps : (who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as much : as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. : : Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, : intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best : serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers : alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. : : This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to : include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP : included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership assignment, : administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, : and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy re : submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of : duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as well : as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated RW : member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. : : The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of a : By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by the : general membership. : : The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a : ballot and voted upon under: : : ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS : : Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The : USGenWeb : Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and : disseminate it to the : membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, the : proposed : amendment shall be posted to the national website and : disseminated to the : membership within two (2) business days. The proposed amendment : shall remain : posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special ballot : shall be prepared : and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A : two-thirds (2/3) majority, of : The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time frame, : shall be required : for the amendment to pass. : : If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, if : it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from : squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could : begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. : : Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or even : before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time to : form an Elections Committee, anyway. : : If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to abide : by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, : turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come to : an end, one way or the other. : : I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above : recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may : restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in : working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I : challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it : claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the feuding : elements of the USGW Project. : : : Respectfully, : : Ellen Pack : Adams Co, MS CC : Wilkinson Co, MS CC : SW MS Territory CC : Green Co, TN ACC : : : ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== : The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. : :

-----Original Message----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, April 16, 2000 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Ellen Pack's Proposal >At 01:00 PM 4/16/00 -0700, Teri Pettit wrote: >>Ellen, >> >>Your proposal sounds like a good one to me, with the exception of the >>provision to disqualify from the special committee anyone who has ever >>"been involved in any aspect of any Archives and/or Census projects." > >Hi, Teri - > >Please let me clarify my thinking. > >By "any aspect" I meant, be or have been a FM for one of the SPs, or >something approaching that level. > >I realize the AB could easily paint itself into a corner by eliminating >virtually everyone who has submitted a file to a SP, had conversations >with their state FM, read about the dispute, etc. The idea is to locate >and seat on the committee USGW members who do not have a preconceived >opinion or personal interest, other than wishing to improve on the project >as a whole. The AB would be looking for team players, as opposed to those >wishing to push an agenda. > >Most of the SCs get to know their CCs quite well, and I believe that their >recommendations, by and large, would be reliable. The final decision as to >who sits on the committee falls to the AB. > >BTW, I will state for the record, in case anyone is wondering, that I am >personally disqualified from serving, by virtue of my own pen. I am no >longer a SC, so I couldn't make any nominations. All I have is the >idea. My one goal is to see this mess cleaned up asap, and I have faith >that the CCs are up to the task. > >This note may be forwarded to the Board-L at your discretion. > >Ellen > > > > > >==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== >The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. >

CORRECTION: In my pervious post: I have found that the first census project was using the name "Archives Census Project" as far back as 9 Mar ****1977*** (should read 1997) and continued using that name until 28 Nov 1998, just as Linda Lewis has said. You will note that the time period covers both pre and post Bylaws. Kay Mason instructed Holly Timm to change the name on the project pages prior to 28 Nov 1998. Kay made the following announcement on 28 Nov 1998: RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: RootsLady <RootsLady@email.msn.com> To: USGENWEB-ALL-L <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com>; <USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com>; <usgw-cc-l@usgennet.com>; <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 4:11 PM Subject: Kay Mason Changes Name of Census Project to "fit" Bylaws > Listmembers, > > Anyone who knows me very well knows I like to see things in black & white, > not gray. Having researched for nearly 30 years I know things are not always > as they might seem and the only way to clarify is to keep digging out little > pieces to the puzzle until one can get a clearer picture of things. When Tim > delinked the CP, I had heard bits and pieces of the 2-sided story. I've been > digging since that day. I have amassed quite a collection in related emails, > list archives, web pages, etc. I have about 1/3 to 1/2 of it online already. > I am beginning to get the feeling that both sides in this issue have been > somewhat duped. I'll not go into great detail right this moment but do want > to share a couple of things I have discovered in this morning's early hours. > > I have found that the first census project was using the name "Archives > Census Project" as far back as 9 Mar 1977 and continued using that name > until 28 Nov 1998, just as Linda Lewis has said. You will note that the time > period covers both pre and post Bylaws. Kay Mason instructed Holly Timm to > change the name on the project pages prior to 28 Nov 1998. Kay made the > following announcement on 28 Nov 1998: > > >Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:48:10 -0800 (PST) > >From: "Kay Mason" <kmfkm@ptw.com> > >Old-To: Census-L@rootsweb.com > >Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:46:28 -0800 > >Reply-to: kmfkm@ptw.com > >Priority: normal > >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) > >Subject: [CENSUS-L] Census Archives > >To: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com > >Resent-From: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com > >X-Mailing-List: <CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/1881 > >X-Loop: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com > >Resent-Sender: CENSUS-L-request@rootsweb.com > > > >We've made a couple of changes in our pages lately. > > > >In order to conform to the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, we've > >changed the name on our pages to "The USGenWeb Census > >Project". > > > >Many of you have asked us how to find our Project's > >transcriptions.. to make it easier for you, and for researchers, > >we've started loading all of our transciptions to a special > >USGenWeb Census Project Archive at: > > > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/ > > > >We don't have all of the completed files there yet, but we're working > >on it! > > > >Of course, the completed transcriptions are also still going to the > >USGenWeb Archives. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Kay Mason > >National Coordinator > > > >USGenWeb Census Project > >http://www.usgenweb.org/census/ > >http://www.usgenweb.com/census > >http://www.usgenweb.net/census/ > > > > > >==== CENSUS Mailing List ==== > >Census Help Pages and other important Census Project information at; > >http://www.usgenweb.org/census/info/ > >This list is generously provided by Rootsweb > >http://www.rootsweb.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------------------- > > Kay wrote: > >In order to conform to the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, we've > >changed the name on our pages to "The USGenWeb Census > >Project". > > Now that does throw a whole different slant on all the proclamations flying > about the various mail lists over the last week or so. > > Several people including, Linda Lewis, Sue Soden, Holly Timm were still > using the name "Archives Census Project" into the fall of 1998 and at least > a couple of months after the adopting of the Bylaws. But guess what else, > Kay Mason herself last used that project name on or about 28 May 1998 as far > as I have been able to determine. Kay's personal change came about just > about the time the bylaws committee was working the proposed bylaws to be > voted on from 1 Jul 1998 until 31 Jul 1998. > > I have uncovered several other discrepancies in some of the things that Kay > Mason proclaimed to be the truth, including Dr. Brian Leverich correcting a > false statement that Kay had posted to the Census project mail lists shortly > after closing those same lists and making them unsearchable. But there are > many people who do remember and some who still have copies of some of those > messages. > > I am beginning to think that most everyone of both sides of these issues has > taken the word of someone else to be truth without the evidence to back up > those statements in some instances. This reminds me of about one-half of the > family on one of my surname lines.... everyone seems to want to be the > descendant of a particular Revolunationary Soldier .... and not matter how > much one group says "it just ain't so" the other side digs in their heels > and proclaims to the world that he is indeed an ancestor without much proof > and much contradicting documentation. > > It may very well be that both sides FULLY believe in what they are saying, > but the black and white FACTS have not been presented in such a way as to > convince the opposite side to alter their thinking or views. > > RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore > > >

Listmembers, Anyone who knows me very well knows I like to see things in black & white, not gray. Having researched for nearly 30 years I know things are not always as they might seem and the only way to clarify is to keep digging out little pieces to the puzzle until one can get a clearer picture of things. When Tim delinked the CP, I had heard bits and pieces of the 2-sided story. I've been digging since that day. I have amassed quite a collection in related emails, list archives, web pages, etc. I have about 1/3 to 1/2 of it online already. I am beginning to get the feeling that both sides in this issue have been somewhat duped. I'll not go into great detail right this moment but do want to share a couple of things I have discovered in this morning's early hours. I have found that the first census project was using the name "Archives Census Project" as far back as 9 Mar 1977 and continued using that name until 28 Nov 1998, just as Linda Lewis has said. You will note that the time period covers both pre and post Bylaws. Kay Mason instructed Holly Timm to change the name on the project pages prior to 28 Nov 1998. Kay made the following announcement on 28 Nov 1998: >Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:48:10 -0800 (PST) >From: "Kay Mason" <kmfkm@ptw.com> >Old-To: Census-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:46:28 -0800 >Reply-to: kmfkm@ptw.com >Priority: normal >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) >Subject: [CENSUS-L] Census Archives >To: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: <CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/1881 >X-Loop: CENSUS-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: CENSUS-L-request@rootsweb.com > >We've made a couple of changes in our pages lately. > >In order to conform to the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, we've >changed the name on our pages to "The USGenWeb Census >Project". > >Many of you have asked us how to find our Project's >transcriptions.. to make it easier for you, and for researchers, >we've started loading all of our transciptions to a special >USGenWeb Census Project Archive at: > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/ > >We don't have all of the completed files there yet, but we're working >on it! > >Of course, the completed transcriptions are also still going to the >USGenWeb Archives. > >Thank you, > >Kay Mason >National Coordinator > >USGenWeb Census Project >http://www.usgenweb.org/census/ >http://www.usgenweb.com/census >http://www.usgenweb.net/census/ > > >==== CENSUS Mailing List ==== >Census Help Pages and other important Census Project information at; >http://www.usgenweb.org/census/info/ >This list is generously provided by Rootsweb >http://www.rootsweb.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Kay wrote: >In order to conform to the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, we've >changed the name on our pages to "The USGenWeb Census >Project". Now that does throw a whole different slant on all the proclamations flying about the various mail lists over the last week or so. Several people including, Linda Lewis, Sue Soden, Holly Timm were still using the name "Archives Census Project" into the fall of 1998 and at least a couple of months after the adopting of the Bylaws. But guess what else, Kay Mason herself last used that project name on or about 28 May 1998 as far as I have been able to determine. Kay's personal change came about just about the time the bylaws committee was working the proposed bylaws to be voted on from 1 Jul 1998 until 31 Jul 1998. I have uncovered several other discrepancies in some of the things that Kay Mason proclaimed to be the truth, including Dr. Brian Leverich correcting a false statement that Kay had posted to the Census project mail lists shortly after closing those same lists and making them unsearchable. But there are many people who do remember and some who still have copies of some of those messages. I am beginning to think that most everyone of both sides of these issues has taken the word of someone else to be truth without the evidence to back up those statements in some instances. This reminds me of about one-half of the family on one of my surname lines.... everyone seems to want to be the descendant of a particular Revolunationary Soldier .... and not matter how much one group says "it just ain't so" the other side digs in their heels and proclaims to the world that he is indeed an ancestor without much proof and much contradicting documentation. It may very well be that both sides FULLY believe in what they are saying, but the black and white FACTS have not been presented in such a way as to convince the opposite side to alter their thinking or views. RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore

Ellen, Your proposal sounds like a good one to me, with the exception of the provision to disqualify from the special committee anyone who has ever "been involved in any aspect of any Archives and/or Census projects." At 5:39 AM -0700 4/16/00, Ellen Pack wrote: > I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be solved, > and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, including > the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. This is what I have been saying for years, about *all* major decisions. My opinion is that what we need is a "Members' Bill of Rights" laying out what kind of things each page owner can make decisions about without anybody telling them what to do (what host to use for their pages being the major one), and what kind of decisions they can't make on their own (delinking another subproject being the major one). The latter class of decisions should be made by the general membership, not by any elected body. Consider this message I wrote in June 1998, when we were about to vote on the ByLaws. If you substitute "Special Project" for "State Project" or "state", it sounds like a prediction of the situation we have today: % A much more likely situation for a national committee to have to deal % with is two individuals both claiming to have the definitive or approved % page for their state, and both of them linking to mostly the same set % of county pages, with perhaps a few differences. How do they determine % which state page is the real one? Poll the county coordinators of that % state? But without an official state page, how do you decide who the 'real' % county coordinators are? Saying that the decision about who is a state % coordinator should be made from the bottom up is good as long as the % state's volunteers come up with a single choice, but it yields a chicken % and egg problem when there is division within the state. % % So the national organization must have some guidelines for how to pick % an official state page when there are multiple contenders, or how to pick % people to maintain the national pages. % % I recognize this need, but I think that having regional representatives, % state coordinator representatives, county coordinator representatives, % etc., etc., is too much bureaucracy for dealing with the rare decisions % to be made at that level. % % Rather that a "board", I think the bylaws should consist of *process* % guidelines for what kind of decisions are entirely up to the discretion % of the national coordinator (e.g., background color on their pages), and % which decisions they must defer to the volunteers below them, and how % the input of the volunteers below them is to be obtained. (See http://www.best.com/~tpettit/usgenweb/Re_Vote.html At 5:39 AM -0700 4/16/00, Ellen Pack wrote: >To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special >committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not be >or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board >Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any >Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived >opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations with >Archive/Census members or Board reps. The volunteers most affected by any revision to the ByLaws dealing with Special Projects would be the volunteers of those Special Projects, especially the transcribers. To make major decisions about the rules they are expected to work under without their having any say at all in the construction of the proposed amendments seems backwards to me. If the committee contains no grass-roots members of any of the Special Project, it will be severely underinformed as to what the concerns are of the volunteers who will be working for those projects. Would you propose that a committee to construct an amendment dealing with guidelines for Local Projects automatically disqualify anyone who had ever worked on a county site? There should be no second-class citizens in the USGenWeb Project. The volunteers of the Special Projects are just as much part of the USGenWeb Project as are the volunteers of the State Projects and the Local Projects. They not only have the strongest right to make the rules that they will be working under, they also are the most knowledgeable about what the problems and issues are. -- Teri Pettit (CC since June 1996 Advisory Board Member since August 1999 never worked on any Special Project)

I have been asked for my reasons for voting as I did; I replied personally to each who asked and am posting this publicly. Within minutes of voting for the "call the question", data acquisition from a remote research facility I help maintain "went south". I grabbed my cel phone, my laptop, a tool kit, whatever replacement parts and equipment I had on hand, and my earthquake emergency supplies for my lab. Going home to pack for the trip would have set me back at least 2 hours. My emergency supplies contained some clothing and blankets. I headed out the door, fully expecting to support Motion 00-8. When I stopped for gas, I called my family to appraise them of the situation, so they would know it was EMH Night. (Family code for Every Man/Woman for Him/Herself <g>) I was worried about finishing my income taxes and not getting back to vote for Motion 00-8 For the better part of two days, while getting our facility back on-line, my mind kept wandering back to the motion that I was sure had certainly had been called. I connected my cel phone to my lap top and was able to log onto the internet, but was only able to stay connected for a short period of time. I was unable to download messages or send messages. I did download the By-Laws. Section 2. The National Coordinator is responsible for the day-to-day administration of The USGenWeb Project and serves as the public representative for the project. The National Coordinator shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board, serve as an ex officio member of all sub-committees, and maintain the national organizational mail lists (i.e., State Coordinators, Advisory Board, and any appropriate sub-lists). Aside from meetings and mailing lists, what other "day-to-day administration" is there? It is what all CC's and SC's do on a daily basis -- maintain web pages or supervise a web master who maintains them. I have added -- and removed links to many sites over the years as a CC and SC in my "day-to-day duties". Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. In my view, this means: The Advisory Board has the responsibility to order the removal of links, if the NC did not remove them him/herself. Section 5 does not grant the Advisory Board *SOLE* responsibility for this action; just responsibility. Most states have an ASC as well as an SC -- the ASC has the responsibility for removing inappropriate links, just as much as the SC. An amendment to the By-Laws would certainly go a long ways to clearing this up. The duties and responsibilities of the NC need to be clearly defined, rather than a handwaving of "day-to-day duties". I arrived back in town, read my e-mail, and voted my conscience -- and went to bed. I had been up for about 48 hours straight. I consulted with no one about how I should vote. As the SC representative for the NW Plains, I heard from 2 SCs. I personally think de-linking is a bad idea; it costs us volunteers and gives us a bad reputation as an organization. I also do not think the link should have gone to the ACP; it should have just been removed. The major complaint in my eyes was an issue of removal of copyright information. The CP was repeatedly asked for over a year to restore the name of the copyright holder to the pages, and these requests were ignored; there was no reply from the CP coordinator to any of them. Holly Fee Timm is a member of the Professional HTML Writers Guild. If she wanted to add this site to her portfolio of web sites to show prospective clients, no where did it display her name. In my view, there will never be a resolution to this issue. If both sides desired a solution, it would have been solved long ago. Kay Mason once ICQ'd me and said "You wouldn't believe the problems I'm having with Linda." I ICQ'd back "What's wrong?" Even though Kay was on-line, I got silence. I waited 5 minutes and ICQ'd again. More silence. I sent an e-mail to Kay asking what I could do to help. That message, too, was never answered.

Ellen, If my comment about Kay offended you in any way, I am SO sorry. I never meant to infer that you, or anyone else on the bylaws committee was "led" by Kay. I too have a tremendous amount of respect of all of the members of that committee. It was an extrememly tough job and one that had to be accomplished without any set precedence. Kay, IMO, was a problem and we didn't know it at the time. Maybe I am completely wrong in that opinion, but I don't believe I am. I was on the Board at the time the bylaws were written, but I was not on the committee. However, I do know that we discussed many, many bylaws points on the Board-L while the bylaws were being written and tough decisions had to be made. I also believe that we all thought there would be some flexibility in the carrying out of the bylaws, since they were our first attempt at something like this. Again, if you took personal offense to my comment, please accept my profuse apologies. I have nothing by respect for you and had no intention of deriding anyone who had a part in that process. Pam Reid

I could certainly endorse Ellen's proposal. My first question would be, though, would everyone involved abide by the final decision of a committee? If we find it so easy and expedient to endorse an illegal action to meet a desired end would we find it any harder to ignore a committee recommendation? We first must step back from the abyss and get our sanity hats on straight. Let me lapse philosophical for a moment. The greatness of this country with all it's flaws emanates from respect for a constitution from which every law is firmly tied and every government official down to the lowest (in grade) enlisted man in our armed forces swears to protect and defend. With this model to guide us how can we flaunt the wishes of the volunteers by trashing their ByLaws? Yes these are their ByLaws, our ByLaws. Without the rule of law, the respect for law, any country or any organization is no better than a mob. Therefore, I ask Betsy and Shari to amend motion 009 to read: I move that all actions taken to delink the CP be reversed. Once this is done than a motion to delink would be appropiate so that the Board can decide, as it is empowered to do by the ByLaws, whether or not the CP should be delinked. I will even promise to make the motion whether I support it or not. Joe Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > This is forwarded by request. > > Jim Powell Jr > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Response, and Proposal > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 07:39:16 -0500 > From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> > To: jpowelljr@gru.net,pettit@Adobe.COM > CC: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com,USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com > > TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator > Representatives > > As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that > either > or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, > if > submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. > > If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let > me > know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Ellen Pack > ------------- > > To the USGW Advisory Board Members - > > 1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few > days > ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: > > "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws > is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and > made sure it was worded that way." > > If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original > remarks, I > wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item > 2. > > Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not > only > to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my > opinion, > to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. > > I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or > disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, > in > fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them > when > deemed necessary. > > For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, > and > in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person > wielding > enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding > collection > of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet > to > come to pass. > > I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet > subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I > was > not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. > > 2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously > undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in > spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse > today > than when it began. > > Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal > alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no > headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful > break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people > who > COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the > occasion, > impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly > worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project > ahead of personal considerations. > > I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be > solved, > and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, > including > the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. > > This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of > ownership or authority. > > To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special > committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not > be > or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board > Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any > Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived > opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations > with > Archive/Census members or Board reps. > > One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the > committee) > should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate > SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on > previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership > experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other > Reps > (who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as > much > as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. > > Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, > intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best > serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers > alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. > > This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to > include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP > included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership > assignment, > administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, > and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy > re > submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of > duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as > well > as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated > RW > member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. > > The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of > a > By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by > the > general membership. > > The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a > ballot and voted upon under: > > ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > > Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of > The > USGenWeb > Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and > disseminate it to the > membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, > the > proposed > amendment shall be posted to the national website and > disseminated to the > membership within two (2) business days. The proposed > amendment > shall remain > posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special > ballot > shall be prepared > and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A > two-thirds (2/3) majority, of > The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time > frame, > shall be required > for the amendment to pass. > > If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, > if > it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from > squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could > begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. > > Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or > even > before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time > to > form an Elections Committee, anyway. > > If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to > abide > by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, > turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come > to > an end, one way or the other. > > I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above > recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may > restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in > working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I > challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it > claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the > feuding > elements of the USGW Project. > > Respectfully, > > Ellen Pack > Adams Co, MS CC > Wilkinson Co, MS CC > SW MS Territory CC > Green Co, TN ACC -- 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

Ellen's idea is an excellent one. I think it would behoove us all to pay attention. This project, after all, does belong to the volunteers. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, April 16, 2000 8:01 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] [Fwd: Response, and Proposal] >This is forwarded by request. > >Jim Powell Jr > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Response, and Proposal >Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 07:39:16 -0500 >From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> >To: jpowelljr@gru.net,pettit@Adobe.COM >CC: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com,USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com > >TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator >Representatives > > >As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that >either >or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, >if >submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. > >If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let >me >know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. > >Thank you for your consideration. > >Ellen Pack >------------- > >To the USGW Advisory Board Members - > > >1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few >days >ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: > > "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws > is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and > made sure it was worded that way." > >If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original >remarks, I >wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item >2. > >Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not >only >to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my >opinion, >to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. > >I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or >disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, >in >fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them >when >deemed necessary. > >For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, >and >in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person >wielding >enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding >collection >of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet >to >come to pass. > >I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet >subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I >was >not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. > > >2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously >undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in >spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse >today >than when it began. > >Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal >alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no >headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful >break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people >who >COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the >occasion, >impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly >worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project >ahead of personal considerations. > >I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be >solved, >and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, >including >the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. > >This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of >ownership or authority. > >To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special >committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not >be >or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board >Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any >Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived >opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations >with >Archive/Census members or Board reps. > >One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the >committee) >should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate >SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on >previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership >experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other >Reps >(who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as >much >as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. > >Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, >intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best >serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers >alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. > >This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to >include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP >included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership >assignment, >administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, >and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy >re >submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of >duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as >well >as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated >RW >member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. > >The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of >a >By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by >the >general membership. > >The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a >ballot and voted upon under: > >ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > >Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of >The >USGenWeb > Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and >disseminate it to the > membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, >the >proposed > amendment shall be posted to the national website and >disseminated to the > membership within two (2) business days. The proposed >amendment >shall remain > posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special >ballot >shall be prepared > and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A >two-thirds (2/3) majority, of > The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time >frame, >shall be required > for the amendment to pass. > >If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, >if >it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from >squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could >begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. > >Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or >even >before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time >to >form an Elections Committee, anyway. > >If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to >abide >by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, >turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come >to >an end, one way or the other. > >I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above >recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may >restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in >working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I >challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it >claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the >feuding >elements of the USGW Project. > > >Respectfully, > >Ellen Pack >Adams Co, MS CC >Wilkinson Co, MS CC >SW MS Territory CC >Green Co, TN ACC >

This is forwarded by request. Jim Powell Jr -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Response, and Proposal Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 07:39:16 -0500 From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> To: jpowelljr@gru.net,pettit@Adobe.COM CC: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com,USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator Representatives As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that either or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, if submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let me know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen Pack ------------- To the USGW Advisory Board Members - 1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few days ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and made sure it was worded that way." If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original remarks, I wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item 2. Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not only to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my opinion, to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, in fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them when deemed necessary. For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, and in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person wielding enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding collection of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet to come to pass. I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I was not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. 2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse today than when it began. Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people who COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the occasion, impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project ahead of personal considerations. I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be solved, and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, including the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of ownership or authority. To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not be or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations with Archive/Census members or Board reps. One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the committee) should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other Reps (who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as much as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership assignment, administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy re submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as well as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated RW member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of a By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by the general membership. The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a ballot and voted upon under: ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and disseminate it to the membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, the proposed amendment shall be posted to the national website and disseminated to the membership within two (2) business days. The proposed amendment shall remain posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special ballot shall be prepared and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A two-thirds (2/3) majority, of The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time frame, shall be required for the amendment to pass. If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, if it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or even before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time to form an Elections Committee, anyway. If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to abide by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come to an end, one way or the other. I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the feuding elements of the USGW Project. Respectfully, Ellen Pack Adams Co, MS CC Wilkinson Co, MS CC SW MS Territory CC Green Co, TN ACC

I have to admit that I am at the point where I don't know what to do. I supported Tim's action and voted to support it. I believe that the CPII was NOT within USGenWeb guidelines and MANY attempts had been made by Tim through correspondence with Ron Eason to rectify the situation. CPII was given MUCH more than the 2 weeks that the bylaws allow. We are all in an uproar that the bylaws weren't followed in this situation. But, the bylaws are a poorly written document and MANY things aren't being done according to the bylaws. The bylaws don't even name the SPs correctly (ex. the proper name for The Tombstone Project is "The Tombstone Transcription Project" yet in the bylaws it is called "The Tombstone Project"). You may say to yourself, that is a small thing. But, wording of the bylaws has gotten us into hot water many times and the naming of Projects has been one serious flaw. At the point where we are now, a CP rep will NEVER be seated and Motion 00-6 will never be discussed and voted on. We are a virtual standstill. The bylaws need to be rewritten and some very basic things need to be agreed upon. The Board has its hands tied much of the time and when ANY action is taken, that action is criticized anywhere and everywhere. I have no answers. My brain is in an uproar over all of this. Pam

Applause... Applause.... Applause I believe the motion should be declared out of order as there is no provision for ratifying an illegal action or for amending the Bylaws in such a round about fashion. Jim "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > This motion proposes to ratify a clearly illegal action. I > simply can't with, good conscience, support it. We have > already set a dangerous precedence and this only compounds > it. The act of delinking by the NC and delinking are two > separate issues. To say I support your illegal action but > don't do it again is irresponsible. The amendment should > read I condemn your illegal action and move that the CP be > relinked. Then make a motion to delink. It might or might > not pass but then we would be on the right track, the Board > deciding the delinking. > > Joe > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > The amended Motion 00-9 is now open for discussion. > > > > Tim > > > > At 06:18 PM 4/14/00 -0500, you wrote: > > >I second this motion to amend. > > >Betsy > > > > > > > > >At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >>I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: > > >> > > >>Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any > > >>delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census > > >>II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a > > >>majority vote of the board in the future. > > >> > > >>Shari Handley > > >>shari@armada.net > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > 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

This motion proposes to ratify a clearly illegal action. I simply can't with, good conscience, support it. We have already set a dangerous precedence and this only compounds it. The act of delinking by the NC and delinking are two separate issues. To say I support your illegal action but don't do it again is irresponsible. The amendment should read I condemn your illegal action and move that the CP be relinked. Then make a motion to delink. It might or might not pass but then we would be on the right track, the Board deciding the delinking. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > The amended Motion 00-9 is now open for discussion. > > Tim > > At 06:18 PM 4/14/00 -0500, you wrote: > >I second this motion to amend. > >Betsy > > > > > >At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: > >>I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: > >> > >>Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any > >>delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census > >>II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a > >>majority vote of the board in the future. > >> > >>Shari Handley > >>shari@armada.net > >> > > > > -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

>I second this motion to amend. >Betsy > > >At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: >>I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: >> >>Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any >>delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census >>II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a >>majority vote of the board in the future. >> >>Shari Handley >>shari@armada.net >> The second clause sounds to me like it contradicts the ByLaws in several ways. 1. It refers to a "majority vote", which usually means a simple majority. The ByLaws state that all motions require a 2/3 majority. (I don't think they all should, but that's what the ByLaws say.) 2. The ByLaws state that delinking requires a decision by the Advisory Board, and THEN after the decision is made 2 weeks formal advance notice that the site is non-compliant before any delinking occurs. A "similar action" would be if a National Coordinator again delinked a site without a vote of the Advisory Board. The ByLaws do not allow such an decision to be made by a National Coordinator first, and then ratified after the fact by the Advisory Board. If someone believes that any of those changes are desirable, perhaps because requiring a motion, discussion, and voting followed by 2 weeks notice is too slow in the case of major violations, then the ByLaws would have to be amended. We can't vote to change the rules ourselves, even the rules that we find troublesome or poorly written. -- Teri

The amended Motion 00-9 is now open for discussion. Tim At 06:18 PM 4/14/00 -0500, you wrote: >I second this motion to amend. >Betsy > > >At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: >>I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: >> >>Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any >>delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census >>II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a >>majority vote of the board in the future. >> >>Shari Handley >>shari@armada.net >> > >

I second this motion to amend. Betsy At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: >I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: > >Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any >delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census >II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a >majority vote of the board in the future. > >Shari Handley >shari@armada.net >

Is there a second and/or do you agree to this change, Betsy? Tim At 07:09 PM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote: >I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: > >Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any >delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census >II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a >majority vote of the board in the future. > >Shari Handley >shari@armada.net > > >

I move to amend Betsy's motion to read as follows: Recognizing that the bylaws give the board final authority over any delinking action, I move that the board ratify the NC's delinking of Census II, and that any similar actions by the NC will need to be ratified by a majority vote of the board in the future. Shari Handley shari@armada.net

Forwarded by request: The WGW Board (of which I am Secretary of, being Regional Representative of CenEuro Region) received a request to archive submissions from one of USGenWeb's counties on ONE CONDITION that none of those submissions be submitted to USGenWeb Archives. This is first time the WGW had received from there. This came in today. The WGW Board members are being appraised of the situation involving the CP and the ACP. And the preference is this, repairing the damage done.... 1. The USGenWeb Advisory Board reaffirms the separation of Archives Census Project and Census Project reached last year. That is that ACP continues to add census IMAGES while the CP continues the transcription. 2. That they stay separate until ALL transcriptions/images are done. 3. That the ACP recognizes the rights of the CP volunteers to elect their own NC. 4. The ACP recognizes the necessity of the CP's responsibility to maintain order in the Census Archives, including the links. 5. Restores the mis-directed links. 6. Declare the Motion 00-9 null and void as not being in conforming to the Bylaws in first place. W. David Samuelsen dsam@sampubco.com

Good point, Shari, I feel motion sickness coming on again. Joe Shari Handley wrote: > > I don't understand what the purpose of the this motion is. > > >From Webster's Dictionary - > > ratify - : to approve and sanction formally : CONFIRM <ratify a treaty> > > Isn't that what was just done with motion 00-8? I understand that with > 00-8, the board chose *not* to overturn the NC's action, but is that not > effectively the same as ratifying it? > > What we've just done with motion 00-8 is to set the following precedent: > Instead of requiring a 2/3rds majority of the board to PASS an important > action, as I am quite sure the framers of the bylaws intended, we now will > need a 2/3rds majority to KEEP an unwanted action from passing. > > Shari Handley > shari@armada.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 1:32 AM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-9 > > : Now that the Motion made by Betsy has received a second from Tina, it is > : numbered 00-9. The floor is now open for discussion. > : > : The motion reads: 'the board ratify the National Coordinator's delinking > of > : the Census Project.' > : > : 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