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 :

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

Do I hear a second? At 11:50 PM 4/13/00 -0500, you wrote: >I move that the board ratify the National Coordinator's delinking of the Census Project. > >Betsy > >

I move that the board ratify the National Coordinator's delinking of the Census Project. Betsy

The results of the voting on Motion 00-8 - 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb Census Project.' Is as follows: Yes - 7; No - 8; Abstain - 0 The motion fails. The meaning of what the votes stood for is repeated below: YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the link should be restored for the CP NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should remained de-linked ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means whatever you want it to mean Tim

NO RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:06 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 00-8 vote > Board members, > > Discussion period is at an end by more or less unanimous consent as two or > three members ignored the statement not to include comments with their vote. > > If you wish to make a statement at this time, even though the discussion > period is over, please do so in a separate email. Votes that contain > additional comments will be tossed out - the member will be asked to vote > again during the time period of the vote. Voting to commence immediately > and to end either after all members have voted or 48 hours whichever comes > first. > > Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the > Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb > Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP > NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should > remained de-linked > ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > > 2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > > >

Fellow Board Members, Having the responsibility to a make judgment as to the validity of the National Coordinator's recent actions concerning the de-linking and re-directing of the Census Project's Link on the national page of USGenWeb Project, I felt that at least two things were most important. (1) Was there valid cause? (&) if there was valid cause....... (2) Did the National Coordinator have the responsibility and authority to do so? It probably would have been far better if he had referred to the causes in the original announcement of his actions and would have given all a better chance of understand his actions from the start. But that in and of itself is no great sin. So, (1) CAUSE: If there were no evidence of any wrong doing it would be simple. OVERTURN the action! What I found while trying to determine is there was cause and the disturbs me greatly. More has been said about the NC's wrongs than the causes of his actions. Those issues will still need to be addressed no matter the outcome of the vote to overturn his actions. Now (2) RESPONSIBILITY and AUTHORITY In the many organizations I've been involved, including everything from Little League Baseball to much more formal business organizations and genealogical societies, the strictness of applying parliamentary procedure has varied greatly. Interpretation of bylaws has been often varied also. Even in our own government there are checks & balances... The President can veto... Congress can override. That is what this is all about.... checks & balances. Our Bylaws speak a lot about the "responsibilities" of both the National Coordinator and each of the board members. ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD 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). [[ We have nothing to tell us what ALL might be included in "day-to-day" administration so that is left open to interpretation. If he can ONLY do the few things specifically mentioned above then he isn't even responsible for answering email pertaining to the USGWP because that is not mentioned. Should we hold him to task because he is doing something wrong if he answers mail?? If the NC does anything that is not specifically mentioned above, the rest of board has the responsibility to bring it to a vote if necessary.]] Section 3. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: ** addressing any problem issues as they arise**, aiding the state projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain the national website. [[ Kay Mason moved the CP files, closed the CP mailing lists, removed the archives of those lists and violated Holly's copyright in NOV/DEC 1998. The board that was in place in late 1998/early 1999 was "responsible" for addressing those issues at that time and failed to do so, possibly because Kay herself was a board member! Kay herself started using the title "National Coordinator of the Census Project" when there is NO such title mentioned in the Bylaws and Ron Eason has continued to use that title even after being informed that no such title exists and being asked to voluntarily remove it from the Census Project pages and not to use that title. To this very day those issues have not been dealt with except by Tim in his "cause" for his Executive Order 2000-01. I could go on point by point but I think you can see by Tim's EO... he fulfilled his responsibility and effectively said... "here... now this board WILL HAVE to take responsibility by either overturning my EO or upholding it and even if I'm overturned I have put it in this board's lap." ]] 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. [[ I feel that Tim had given notice to Ron and he accepted the responsibility to delink] Thank you if you have taken the time to read this far. RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore RootsLady@lest-we-forget.com - RootsLady@email.msn.com HomePage: RootsLady's Home, Home On The Web - http://RootsLady.com The OUTHOUSE - Genealogy Humor http://www.lest-we-forget.com/The_Outhouse CC for 8 TX Counties & 1 GA County "In loving memory of all my ancestors and for the benefit of all their descendants."

NO

NO

I second the motion. Tina Vickery In a message dated 00-04-14 01:21:25 EDT, you write: << Do I hear a second? At 11:50 PM 4/13/00 -0500, you wrote: >I move that the board ratify the National Coordinator's delinking of the Census Project. > >Betsy > > >>

When I saw all of the messages (that Tim sent out) that had passed back and forth even as far back as Oct-Nov, I wondered.... Why was the Board not brought into the action then? What made Tim think that he could handle the situation on his own? It was not HIS problem but when he failed to pull it off, He handled the situation HIS WAY. This looks to me, like Tim considers the USGenWeb to be a "One Man Operation." He had plenty of time and whether he liked the outcome or not, it was not in his RIGHTS (Read the ByLaws) to make the decision to delink anything. This action was a mockery of the BOARD. That's my two cents......... Gloria Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board

Excuse me, Virginia, but was it not you who asked RootsLady not to post messages while we were voting? Do you not realize that you are debating the question while the voting is going on??? That is against all rules of Parliamentary Procedure. It does seem that some folks only want to apply Parliamentary Procedure to the "other" folks and not to themselves. Betsy At 02:56 PM 4/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >> If we can trash the ByLaws succeeding Boards or anyone else >> can also. > >Joe, > >As scary as it sounds, I agree with you on this one! <g> > >To sanction this instance means that we give the power to any NC at any >future time to delink any project without due process or Bylaws. At some >future point, an NC could even decide to delink the Tombstone Project or the >Archives themselves, the Board at that time would have no way to prevent it. > > >Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski > >"It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." > ----Henry David Thoreau > >

At 11:37 AM -0700 4/13/00, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >Suppose a webmaster became angry and made obscene comments >about the Project or volunteers on a frontpage. would you >wait 48 hours to endlessly discuss it and vote on it or even >two hours? No, there are extreme cases where the NC would be >justified in delinking immediately. As I see it, that is one of the problems with the ByLaws. They *should* have specified that the NC and the webmaster would both have the authority to delink immediately in that kind of extremity. Giving someone two weeks to come into compliance when their page is shouting obscenities is, I agree, not in the best interests of the USGenWeb Project. Yet, that is what the ByLaws in effect say we must do. (Not by mentioning that situation, but by saying that the site must be given at least two weeks notice, without making any distinction between extreme violations and less severe violations.) >However, I wouldn't >expect that to occur but it is possible. Probably the ByLaws are relying on just that - that situations that extreme simply won't happen, because we are all decent people. Violations so extreme that everyone would want to have the pages delinked immediately were probably just not foreseen. In cases where the ByLaws and common sense are at odds, it is very hard to know what the right thing to do is. I really wish we could find a way to amend the ByLaws to bring them more in line with common sense. If a situation so extreme were to occur, I would still think the NC was in technical violation of the ByLaws by acting immediately, but I would not object. I would feel that it was justifiable to do what we probably all agree the ByLaws would have allowed for if they had been more carefully written. And then I would press to get the ByLaws amended. >But in this case >the Board should be the one to delink as the ByLaws specify. >If we can trash the ByLaws succeeding Boards or anyone else >can also. > >Joe Right, in this case the ByLaws and common sense are in agreement. Violations that are controversial enough that people are in fact arguing about whether they are violations or not, and that have in any case been going on for quite some time, are clearly the kind of situation that was foreseen, and that the Advisory Board was *intended* to rule upon. -- Teri

Suppose a webmaster became angry and made obscene comments about the Project or volunteers on a frontpage. would you wait 48 hours to endlessly discuss it and vote on it or even two hours? No, there are extreme cases where the NC would be justified in delinking immediately. However, I wouldn't expect that to occur but it is possible. But in this case the Board should be the one to delink as the ByLaws specify. If we can trash the ByLaws succeeding Boards or anyone else can also. Joe Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 5:10 AM -0700 4/13/00, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > >Although I can think of cases where a NC could delink on > >his/her own initiative I don't believe this case qualifies. > > The only case I can think of would be if somebody hacked the > site so that the URL suddenly went to a pornography page or > something else that is very obviously not a USGenWeb page. > > That would be because it wouldn't really be "delinking" a > USGenWeb page, it would be delinking a different page that > had been hacked into a usgenweb url. > > Even if a site were so flagrantly in violation of the ByLaws > that the National Coordinator was absolutely 100% sure that the > Board would unanimously agree on delinking the page (for example > if the page were charging a fee for data access), the ByLaws *still* > say that the decision would be up to the Advisory Board, not the > NC or the webmaster. > > I don't agree with all of the ByLaws by any means, but do I agree > with this one. It is there to make sure that any delinking happens > for reasons that are clear-cut and important enough to convince > 2/3 of the Advisory Board. > > >The ByLaws are quite clear on delinking, the Board makes > >that decision. If the Board members feel that the CP should > >be delinked it should be done in a separate motion. > > Right. Motion 00-8 is not a vote on whether the Census Project > did something deserving of delinking. > > I would be very interested in hearing from those who voted No > on Motion 00-8 as to what their reasoning for their vote was. > > Nothing about what the Census Project did or did not do is > the slightest bit relevant to this question. It is only about > how you came to the conclusion that the ByLaws permit the National > Coordinator to delink a project site on his or her own initiative. > > So, in order to more clearly make the distinction between the > question of "was the CP in violation?" (which was not being voted > on) and the question of "how far does the NC's authority extend?" > (which was being voted on), I will phrase my question thusly: > > If the Archives Page were to start charging a $10 fee for > access to the Archives index - which would of course be a > very clear and very severe violation of the Rules/Guidelines > for USGenWeb pages - do you think the ByLaws give the National > Coordinator the authority to delink the Archives page without > bringing the question officially before the Advisory Board? > > If so, why? > > (Hopefully needless to say, I am not suggesting that anyone > associated with the Archives would even think of doing anything > like that.) > > -- Teri -- Zsedeny Genealogy - http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm NDGenWeb Archives - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/nd/ndfiles.htm Pembina County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm Ramsey County, ND - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

At 5:10 AM -0700 4/13/00, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >Although I can think of cases where a NC could delink on >his/her own initiative I don't believe this case qualifies. The only case I can think of would be if somebody hacked the site so that the URL suddenly went to a pornography page or something else that is very obviously not a USGenWeb page. That would be because it wouldn't really be "delinking" a USGenWeb page, it would be delinking a different page that had been hacked into a usgenweb url. Even if a site were so flagrantly in violation of the ByLaws that the National Coordinator was absolutely 100% sure that the Board would unanimously agree on delinking the page (for example if the page were charging a fee for data access), the ByLaws *still* say that the decision would be up to the Advisory Board, not the NC or the webmaster. I don't agree with all of the ByLaws by any means, but do I agree with this one. It is there to make sure that any delinking happens for reasons that are clear-cut and important enough to convince 2/3 of the Advisory Board. >The ByLaws are quite clear on delinking, the Board makes >that decision. If the Board members feel that the CP should >be delinked it should be done in a separate motion. Right. Motion 00-8 is not a vote on whether the Census Project did something deserving of delinking. I would be very interested in hearing from those who voted No on Motion 00-8 as to what their reasoning for their vote was. Nothing about what the Census Project did or did not do is the slightest bit relevant to this question. It is only about how you came to the conclusion that the ByLaws permit the National Coordinator to delink a project site on his or her own initiative. So, in order to more clearly make the distinction between the question of "was the CP in violation?" (which was not being voted on) and the question of "how far does the NC's authority extend?" (which was being voted on), I will phrase my question thusly: If the Archives Page were to start charging a $10 fee for access to the Archives index - which would of course be a very clear and very severe violation of the Rules/Guidelines for USGenWeb pages - do you think the ByLaws give the National Coordinator the authority to delink the Archives page without bringing the question officially before the Advisory Board? If so, why? (Hopefully needless to say, I am not suggesting that anyone associated with the Archives would even think of doing anything like that.) -- Teri

Yes Shari Handley shari@armada.net ----- Original Message ----- : Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the : Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb : Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: : : YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the : link should be restored for the CP : NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should : remained de-linked :

> If we can trash the ByLaws succeeding Boards or anyone else > can also. Joe, As scary as it sounds, I agree with you on this one! <g> To sanction this instance means that we give the power to any NC at any future time to delink any project without due process or Bylaws. At some future point, an NC could even decide to delink the Tombstone Project or the Archives themselves, the Board at that time would have no way to prevent it. Virginia (Ginger) Cisewski "It takes two to speak the truth: one to talk, another to hear." ----Henry David Thoreau

YES Gloria Tim Stowell wrote: > > Board members, > > Discussion period is at an end by more or less unanimous consent as two or > three members ignored the statement not to include comments with their vote. > > If you wish to make a statement at this time, even though the discussion > period is over, please do so in a separate email. Votes that contain > additional comments will be tossed out - the member will be asked to vote > again during the time period of the vote. Voting to commence immediately > and to end either after all members have voted or 48 hours whichever comes > first. > > Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the > Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb > Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP > NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should > remained de-linked > ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > > 2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > > Thanks, > > Tim -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb Advisory Board Personal page http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/gmayfield/index.html TX Tombstone Project Manager http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery/Texas/ Texas Surnames http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/txsurnames.html Panola County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txpanola/ Rusk County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/index.htm

No Tim Stowell wrote: > Please vote on Motion 00-8 made by Richard, seconded by Jim - I make the > Motion 'to over ride the National Coordinator's de-link of the USGenWeb > Census Project.' by replying with one of the following options only: > > YES - a vote of yes means that the NC overstepped authority and that the > link should be restored for the CP > NO - a vote of no means that the NC is within bounds and that the CP should > remained de-linked > ABSTAIN - a vote of abstain means that you are ambivalent on this issue > > 2/3 vote required to pass after a quorum is reached. > > Thanks, > > Tim

Although I can think of cases where a NC could delink on his/her own initiative I don't believe this case qualifies. The ByLaws are quite clear on delinking, the Board makes that decision. If the Board members feel that the CP should be delinked it should be done in a separate motion. Therefore, my vote was meant to show only that the delinking was illegal not that I necessarily agree or disagree on whether the CP should be delinked. 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