Now that we have the Secretary issue out of the way, what say you on filling the vacancy left by Bonnie's resignation?

Welcome Ed and great to have you with us. Gloria Tim Stowell wrote: > > Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 > not voting, 1 position vacant. > > Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! > > Tim -- Southwest/South Central CC Representative, USGenWeb http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/gmayfield/index.html Panola County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txpanola/ Rusk County TX USGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/index.htm Texas Surnames http://www.rootsweb.com/~txrusk/txsurnames.html

Welcome Ed. Tina Vickery

Welcome, Ed. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 > not voting, 1 position vacant. > > Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! > > Tim -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Welcome Ed. Maggie CC Representative NW/Plains ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 10:02 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25-B Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 not voting, 1 position vacant. Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! Tim

Welcome, Ed! Great to have you with us. Shari -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 9:55 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25-B >Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 >not voting, 1 position vacant. > >Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! > >Tim > >

Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 not voting, 1 position vacant. Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! Tim

Hi Ed! Welcome aboard!<g> Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 8:56 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-25-B >Motion 99-25-B to appoint Ed Book as Secretary passes with 12 yes, 0 no, 3 >not voting, 1 position vacant. > >Please join me in welcoming Ed to our midst. Welcome Ed! > >Tim >

Comments on the general subject of removal of an SC from office below: -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:45 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Policy on CC grievances against SC >Background: Two CC's have separately sent email to their Board reps >lodging a formal grievance against their SC, alleging that the SC >has been publicly belittling some of the CC's on the state list >and causing discord within the state. > >One of the CC's has requested that the SC "be removed from the >USGenWeb Project". The other has simply asked if there is "any >way we can get some relief from this situation." > <snip> >Section 9. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are > subject to possible removal by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory > Board and a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within the > state. A quorum of 75% of the Local Coordinators shall > participate in order for the vote to be binding. >****************************************************************** > >Ref http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html > >By Section 9, it is impossible for the Advisory Board to remove a >State Coordinator from office without the concurrence of a 2/3 vote >of the Local Coordinators within that state. And by Section 8, since >states can elect their own SC's, presumably they could have a recall >vote and select a new SC by whatever procedures are set up in that >state, without even involving the Advisory Board. > >I recognize, however, that an SC is potentially in a position to place >obstacles to a vote on his or her removal from even taking place. >(For example, an SC has the ability to remove county links from the >state page. CC's might be reluctant to publicly ask a recall vote, for >fear that their county pages might be delinked in retaliation.) > >Section 9 should therefore perhaps be interpreted as a mechanism by >which the Advisory Board can *require* that a recall vote be taken at >the state level, without the CC's having to go public on their state >list as calling for one. Yes, Article XII Section 9 is clear in that the board cannot unilaterally vote to remove an SC from office - and that is as it should be. It requires 2/3rd of the CCs in the state in addition to 2/3rd of the board. What is not specified is *what order* this needs to happen. Would the board make its vote, and then (if the board voted that removal was warranted) toss it over to the CCs to see if they agree? Or should the board only take the step of voting once the CCs have *completed* their own vote to remove? If there is an atmosphere of intimidation in a state, the CCs may be unwilling to initiate such an action for fear of reprisal. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the board would act first to take the steps for possible removal of any SC. We need first, in any case, to be sure that such a removal is desired by most of the CCs of the state in question before we take any action at all. This could possibly be accomplished by a petition (in which the CCs are requested email these wishes to their AB rep and these notes would be forwarded to BOARD-EXEC, where the identities of the petitioners can be verified but not made public), or even through some kind of informal, internal statewide poll. Removing a State Coordinator is a huge step, and should not be taken lightly (I know it has not been in the case we are currently discussing). If it needs to happen, it should be as a result of very strong evidence of the desire of the state's CCs, careful consideration by the board, and finally, a confirming formal vote of those CCs. Shari Handley

Background: Two CC's have separately sent email to their Board reps lodging a formal grievance against their SC, alleging that the SC has been publicly belittling some of the CC's on the state list and causing discord within the state. One of the CC's has requested that the SC "be removed from the USGenWeb Project". The other has simply asked if there is "any way we can get some relief from this situation." It is Advisory Board policy that details of any grievances or complaints, including naming of names, be discussed only on the unarchived BOARD-EXEC-L, to both protect the good name of anyone who might be unfairly accused, and to protect "whistle blowers" from possible reprisals. It is also Board policy that all general discussion of issues, principles, and USGenWeb By-Laws and procedures take place on the publicly searchable BOARD-L, because all project members have a right to take place in the formulation and implementation of USGenWeb policies and procedures. The USGenWeb Project has been structured to give state projects a great deal of autonomy. The national level has very little ability to interfere with the leadership or internal functions of state projects. In particular, the By-Laws regarding the selection and removal of State Coordinators are in Article XII: ****************************************************************** Section 5. State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws. State projects shall be highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance procedures within the state Section 8. State Coordinators shall be elected to those positions by the local-level coordinators within the state. Section 9. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to possible removal by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory Board and a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within the state. A quorum of 75% of the Local Coordinators shall participate in order for the vote to be binding. ****************************************************************** Ref http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html By Section 9, it is impossible for the Advisory Board to remove a State Coordinator from office without the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within that state. And by Section 8, since states can elect their own SC's, presumably they could have a recall vote and select a new SC by whatever procedures are set up in that state, without even involving the Advisory Board. I recognize, however, that an SC is potentially in a position to place obstacles to a vote on his or her removal from even taking place. (For example, an SC has the ability to remove county links from the state page. CC's might be reluctant to publicly ask a recall vote, for fear that their county pages might be delinked in retaliation.) Section 9 should therefore perhaps be interpreted as a mechanism by which the Advisory Board can *require* that a recall vote be taken at the state level, without the CC's having to go public on their state list as calling for one. But I would be reluctant to do anything so potentially divisive as to initiate an Advisory Board vote under Article XII Section 9 without first trying other more conciliatory ways of resolving the situation, and if that fails, without first ascertaining that dissatisfaction among the CC's of that state was widespread. No sense stirring things up with a recall vote if only a distinct minority of the CC's in the state are unhappy with their choice of SC. Does anyone have any idea as to (A) what procedures we can use to arbitrate grievances short of using the "big stick", and (B) how we might determine whether a grievance initially submitted by one or a small number of CC's has the widespread support of other CC's in their state? On (B), I can think of asking that the CC privately circulate a petition and come back to us if they get the signatures of some threshold percentage of CC's in their state. On (A), I'm not sure. (Please make sure that any answers sent to BOARD-L do not contain identifying details.) Teri Pettit

Aye!

>If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. Yes

yes Shari Handley -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 2:28 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] motion 99-25-B - vote > >If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > > >

On vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed Book as Secretary AYE RootsLady (aka) Barbara Yancey Dore ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 1:31 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] motion 99-25-B - vote > > If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed > Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > > Thanks, > > Tim > > >

Yes Betsy At 02:31 AM 09/22/1999 -0400, you wrote: > > >If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > > > > >-=-=- >SBG-Priority: 3 (Normal) http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/ >

YES On vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed Book as Secretary - Gloria

Aye. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed > Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > > Thanks, > > Tim -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm

Yes Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 1:28 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] motion 99-25-B - vote > >If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > >Thanks, > >Tim > > >

YES Holly Timm At 02:31 AM 9/22/99 -0400, you wrote: > >If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > >Thanks, > >Tim > >

Aye At 02:31 AM 9/22/99 -0400, you wrote: > >If there is no further discussion - please vote on Motion 99-25-B - for Ed >Book as Secretary - by saying yes, no, abstain in one form or another. > >Thanks, > >Tim >