Pam this is the note you sent on 8/30 in reply to my note of 8/30: Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:22:52 -0700 (PDT) From: pamreid@dc.jones.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:23:15 -0700 Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Motion 99-22 To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Just so you all know, I am visiting my Mother in South Carolina and don't have the software or ftp program I need to update the pages. I will be home by the weekend and will take care of it then. Sorry for the delay. Pam Tim Stowell wrote: > Motion 99-22 passes with: 13 ayes, 0 nays, 2 not voting. Tim At 12:21 PM 9/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >I was out of town while we were voting on Trey's motion to thank the >election committee and accept the results. Did we ever pass this >motion? I have been searching the list, but can't find an official >announcement that the motion passed, who voted yea, who voted nay, etc. > >Pam > >

I was out of town while we were voting on Trey's motion to thank the election committee and accept the results. Did we ever pass this motion? I have been searching the list, but can't find an official announcement that the motion passed, who voted yea, who voted nay, etc. Pam

I would like to see the secretary be a non-board member with no voting privileges. Tim I'd like your thoughts on why you want the chair to number motions and keep the status instead of the secretary. The secretary would have to be subscribed to this list and would need to have posting privileges at least to all other mailing lists relevant to disseminating information. It would probably also not be amiss for the secretary to be subbed to Board-Exec. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Item #1 >At 05:52 PM 9/10/99 EDT, you wrote: >>In the past, what were the duties of the Secretary? >> >>Tina Vickery >>Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative. >> >> >From Motion 99-2: > >a secretary be elected by the Advisory board from among the membership of >said Board, with >the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary to be as follows: > >1. To post Board minutes >2. To number all motions >3. To declare the status of motions including quorum of votes and the point >at which enough votes have been posted to decide the motion, plus the final >tally >of votes >4. To post Board announcements to all Regional Lists >5. To maintain the Advisory Board Passwords as a backup in order to pass them >on to the next authorized National Coordinator, whether interim or elected > >Of course the current Board can modify these requirements. > >My suggestions as follows: > >1. that the Secretary be someone from among the general membership, who may >have some PP knowledge, who can work well with the NC / Advisory Board >2. that the Chair retain the duty to number and declare the status of motions >3. that language similiar to the following be included in the job description: > >Resolved, that the candidate shall be appointed Secretary by >the Advisory Board and shall continue in that position for as long as he/she >continues to enjoy the support of x portion of the Advisory Board. > >OR should it have some combination of NC and/or Advisory Board? > >Also not necessarily included in the Motion but some decision needs to be >made as to which lists the Secretary needs to be either subscribed to or >has need of posting privileges. > >Tim > > >

At 05:52 PM 9/10/99 EDT, you wrote: >In the past, what were the duties of the Secretary? > >Tina Vickery >Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative. > > >From Motion 99-2: a secretary be elected by the Advisory board from among the membership of said Board, with the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary to be as follows: 1. To post Board minutes 2. To number all motions 3. To declare the status of motions including quorum of votes and the point at which enough votes have been posted to decide the motion, plus the final tally of votes 4. To post Board announcements to all Regional Lists 5. To maintain the Advisory Board Passwords as a backup in order to pass them on to the next authorized National Coordinator, whether interim or elected Of course the current Board can modify these requirements. My suggestions as follows: 1. that the Secretary be someone from among the general membership, who may have some PP knowledge, who can work well with the NC / Advisory Board 2. that the Chair retain the duty to number and declare the status of motions 3. that language similiar to the following be included in the job description: Resolved, that the candidate shall be appointed Secretary by the Advisory Board and shall continue in that position for as long as he/she continues to enjoy the support of x portion of the Advisory Board. OR should it have some combination of NC and/or Advisory Board? Also not necessarily included in the Motion but some decision needs to be made as to which lists the Secretary needs to be either subscribed to or has need of posting privileges. Tim

In the past, what were the duties of the Secretary? Tina Vickery Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative.

Good Morning, I think the Election Committee has complied with Fred's requests. I believe the outgoing Board voted to accept the Election results so the matter should be closed. It's time to end this and get on with the business of the project. While I may understand Fred's frustration at losing by a fairly narrow margin, there comes a time when one should accept one's defeat gracefully and go on. It would be better if all this energy were expended on something more positive. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

Teri hit this one on the head, I think. This complaint is clearly a statement. If Fred wants the Board to do anything we need to know what that anything is. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > Do I hear a motion regarding Fred's Formal Complaint? -- 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... The list has Candidate voted for, date and time, but no information to ID the voter. Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 09:24 PM 9/9/99 -0400, Jim wrote: > > > >Fred and his campaign manager did request a list of votes > >with the time they were made, no names, no email addresses. > >I have created such a list. The Election Committee decided > >that the Board should decide if it should be released. > > Would said list also contain the candidate voted for?

At 09:24 PM 9/9/99 -0400, Jim wrote: > >Fred and his campaign manager did request a list of votes >with the time they were made, no names, no email addresses. >I have created such a list. The Election Committee decided >that the Board should decide if it should be released. Would said list also contain the candidate voted for?

>Hi guys. I'm back online with my new computer. My comments on the COGenWeb >situation: > >As has been pointed out, we cannot dictate or "direct" RootsWeb to do >anything. They are within thier rights to do as they wish with the >~cogenweb directory name. However, the fact that they "can" does not mean >that they "should". The XXGenWeb designation should be reserved exclusively >for the use of the USGenWeb Project, as we specify in our bylaws. Is >RootsWeb bound by our bylaws? Of course not, but as good neighbors, I would >hope they'd respect our wishes. Perhaps we should actually *ask* Brian if >he'd issue the new CO project a slightly different directory name. > >Shari Sounds good to me. Do you think they might go for "cogenealogy" or "cogene" instead of "cogenweb"? "Colorado Genealogy" is the title of their site, so it's a better fit anyway. It may take a while for all the Colorado COUNTY pages to get their up-links fixed, and it sure would be nice if /~cogenweb/ went to a forwarding page in the interim. // Teri

Very Good points Teri... I'll add some of my thoughts... Jim Teri Pettit wrote: > > At 11:34 PM -0700 9/8/99, Tim Stowell wrote: > >Do I hear a motion regarding Fred's Formal Complaint? > > Can we ask Fred what action he wanted to see taken in response to > his protest? This may be worthwhile. I believe he would like for us to concentrate on a "Neutral" Server. (Personal Opinion here ... You could not have found much more of a neutral server than Rootsweb was on this election, but the appearance and the possibility were there.) > He said "Be advised that I am protesting..." and then listed 6 > objections to the run-off election process, but the only action he > specifically requested was that "a copy of this Formal Protest be > posted to BOARD-L@rootsweb.com." > > Which has already been done. If he simply wanted to get his objections > officially logged, then we're done with the Formal Protest per se. > > However, I can envision some changes being made for next year's > elections that might prevent similar complaints from arising, so > maybe we ought to start working on some changes to the election process. I would like to see each SC keep a current voter list and then post it on a state website at a set time before each election, allowing for a period of time to accept challenges or additions of missing eligible voters. When the Election Committee receives these lists all they should have to do is remove any duplicates that cross state lines within Regions or any duplicates that cross region lines in the Project wide races. > "1. No certified lists of eligible voters were ever published." > > The Election Committee did the best they could with the time they had, > but we should have got things moving early enough that they weren't so > rushed. > > The Election Committee shouldn't have had to go around gathering email > addresses from state web pages. SC's are supposed to send in their > lists, but what happens when they haven't by the time the ballots > need to go out? > > The regional SC and CC and Special Project voter lists need to be > maintained continuously. And a procedure for what it means to "certify" > them should be defined. I more or less agree with this, see above comment. I have also previously commented on the comments below. > "2. The election was not conducted by a neutral third party, but by an > organization, Rootsweb.com, Inc., which had a vested interest in the > outcome of the election" > > It is inaccurate to say that the election was conducted "by" Rootsweb. > It was conducted by the Election Committee, some of whom have nothing > whatsoever to do with Rootsweb. Nevertheless, it was conducted using > software and accounts on a Rootsweb server, and given that there are > controversies over Rootsweb's relationship with The USGenWeb Project, > it would probably help allay fears if the election process did not > use any Rootsweb accounts. > > Unfortunately, it is not easy to find a neutral third party who is so > willing to let us write custom scripts to be run on their servers, and > which an experienced programmer who is a member of the Election Committee > has an account on. Given the tight time constraints, it was probably > the best that could be done. But with sufficient time to search, can > next year's Election Committee try to find such a neutral third party? > > "3. The change in software for the run-off election was not approved by > the Advisory Board." > > I don't personally think the Advisory Board should need to approve > election software. That's what the Election Committee has expertise > on, that's what we pick them for, and they're just as neutral as the > Advisory Board, maybe more so. Has the Board ever approved ANY of the > election software before? Right... Nobody actually approved the first system. But portions of it had been used before. The second system actually had more votes cast with less complaints. And the system allowed us to deal with complaints in a much more efficient manner. > > But, I'm all for majority rule, so rather than going on my personal > opinion, I would favor polling the CC's as to whether they think that > future election software should be approved by the Advisory Board. > > "4. The software used in the 2nd election was insecure. Anyone with FTP > access to the software and data could have easily hacked the results." > > This could be said about any election conducted anywhere. While strictly > speaking it is true that "anyone with FTP access to the software and data > could have [feasibly] hacked the results" (although not 'easily', since > it would also require expertise in how the software worked), what the > statement ignores is that EXTREMELY few people have "FTP access to the > software and data" and the technical know-how to hack it. > > It isn't sufficient to have FTP access to the server, one would need at > the very minimum the password to the election account. It would be hard > to write an election script running anywhere that couldn't be hacked by > the owners of the account that it runs on. (Maybe some kind of double > key system, where multiple copies of data and program are stored on > different servers, and the owner of each account does not have access to > the other, but if you could hack one program you might be able to make > it fool the other, so I'm not sure even then.) > The software used was as secure as it is reasonable to expect polling > software to be. Since the only people with the level of access to an > account that would be necessary to hack it are the programmers of the > software and the system administrators of the server that it runs on, > rather than concentrating on programming a paranoic level of security > into the software itself, it should suffice to have procedures for > guaranteeing the neutrality of anyone who has "wizard" access to it. > > Hence there is no substantial difference between point 4 and point 2. > "5. Although voting closed on 8/18/1999, the web page > http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html indicated that > the polls would not close until the 23rd." > > I wasn't comfortable with this, either. Even though the web page was > wrong, and everyone who hadn't voted was informed by email of the correct > closure date, it was a short enough difference that I think the longer > date should have been given precedence. It's like when a wrong (and lower) > price is printed in a newspaper ad - it will usually be honored unless > the difference is extreme. The 23rd was a week before the term began. I wasn't comfortable with it either. The date on the page was based on earlier discussions on Election-L. After the Board approved the 18th, we were worried about debugging the system and no one caught the erroneous date. The Vote of the Election Committee was to follow the time table adopted by the Board, change the date on the page and notify everyone that had not voted of the ending date. > But, it's water under the bridge by now. The same problem is unlikely > to arise next year. > > "6. Requests by myself for additional data necessary to attempt to > determine if results were valid based on software used, etc. were > denied." > > Not sure what this refers to. Fred was sent every line of the software, > a description of the double-check procedures, and the certified statements > of all the election committee members that the procedures had been > followed. It would be a serious breach of voter privacy to release the > names of the voters and how they voted, and I would hope that no candidate > would have even requested such a list. If anyone made such a request, > certainly it should be denied. So, if not that, what else was this > "additional data" that was requested and denied? Fred and his campaign manager did request a list of votes with the time they were made, no names, no email addresses. I have created such a list. The Election Committee decided that the Board should decide if it should be released. > Teri Pettit > pettit@adobe.com > CC Rep, SE/MA region

Why would RW issue a /~cogenweb account to someone not affiliated with the project? That is the 'official' name of the Colorado USGW Project. I might have understood the redirect of www.usgenweb.org/co not being changed due to whatever reason but issuing that account name outside of the project is a different issue. While it may be legal for them to do so it certainly does not speak of being supportive of the USGW Project. It certainly does nothing to support good will between the project and RW and adds considerable fuel to the fire of those who already believe that RW bodes ill will toward the USGW Project. RW is not owned, or run, by stupid people, someone had to know that there would be fallout over this. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] CoGenWeb >Sorry, but RootsWeb staff doesn't change them until they have been asked. >There is no slap in the face or anything underhanded in this. > >Betsy > >At 05:53 PM 09/09/1999 -0500, you wrote: >> >>http://www.usgenweb.org/co >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~cogenweb/ >> >>Tim, >>Would you contact Mr. Leverich and ask him what this >>is all about please? Is Rootsweb now using what is supposed >>to be our domains to forward to their pages? I would like some >>clarification from RW please. >>I've been a RootsWeb supporter for a long time, even though I >>haven't always agreed with some of their decisions, but this >>is going a little to far. It has all the appearances of a slap in the >>face to the USGW Project. I would, however, like to hear his side >>of the story. >>Please get permission from Mr. Leverich to post his reply to >>this list. >> >>Thanks! >>Ginger >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >> >> >> >> >>-=-=- >>SBG-Priority: 4 (Low) http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/ >> >

The secretary should also keep a copy of all Board-L mail. The minutes of the meeting, so to speak. I also concur with the earlier post that the secretary should be a non-board member, and hopefully be reasonably well versed in parliamentary procedure. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman <73777.25@compuserve.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 3:35 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Item #1 >>>1. Appointment or lack thereof of a new Secretary. > >In making a motion regarding this position - please consider putting >language into it that would define the terms under which the Secretary >position would be filled.<< > >Tim, > I think you need to choose someone that you can work with well. I am >not sure what the secretary's functions would be. I see the position as >being: 1)Posts Motions to lists (hopefully in words that a person can >easily understand along with the numbers), 2)Counting Votes, 3)Tabulating a >result, and 4)Relaying of board decisions to the general population of USGW >after the NC gives the OK. > >Maggie > >!^NavFont02F02050006NGHHIM53D9 >

Sorry, but RootsWeb staff doesn't change them until they have been asked. There is no slap in the face or anything underhanded in this. Betsy At 05:53 PM 09/09/1999 -0500, you wrote: > >http://www.usgenweb.org/co >http://www.rootsweb.com/~cogenweb/ > >Tim, >Would you contact Mr. Leverich and ask him what this >is all about please? Is Rootsweb now using what is supposed >to be our domains to forward to their pages? I would like some >clarification from RW please. >I've been a RootsWeb supporter for a long time, even though I >haven't always agreed with some of their decisions, but this >is going a little to far. It has all the appearances of a slap in the >face to the USGW Project. I would, however, like to hear his side >of the story. >Please get permission from Mr. Leverich to post his reply to >this list. > >Thanks! >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > > > > >-=-=- >SBG-Priority: 4 (Low) http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/ >

http://www.usgenweb.org/co http://www.rootsweb.com/~cogenweb/ Tim, Would you contact Mr. Leverich and ask him what this is all about please? Is Rootsweb now using what is supposed to be our domains to forward to their pages? I would like some clarification from RW please. I've been a RootsWeb supporter for a long time, even though I haven't always agreed with some of their decisions, but this is going a little to far. It has all the appearances of a slap in the face to the USGW Project. I would, however, like to hear his side of the story. Please get permission from Mr. Leverich to post his reply to this list. Thanks! Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com

-----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Fred's Formal Complaint >At 11:34 PM -0700 9/8/99, Tim Stowell wrote: >>Do I hear a motion regarding Fred's Formal Complaint? > >Can we ask Fred what action he wanted to see taken in response to >his protest? > <snip> Sure makes sense to me! If Fred can let us know what he's got in mind, we can go from there . . . Shari

Hi guys. I'm back online with my new computer. My comments on the COGenWeb situation: As has been pointed out, we cannot dictate or "direct" RootsWeb to do anything. They are within thier rights to do as they wish with the ~cogenweb directory name. However, the fact that they "can" does not mean that they "should". The XXGenWeb designation should be reserved exclusively for the use of the USGenWeb Project, as we specify in our bylaws. Is RootsWeb bound by our bylaws? Of course not, but as good neighbors, I would hope they'd respect our wishes. Perhaps we should actually *ask* Brian if he'd issue the new CO project a slightly different directory name. Shari -----Original Message----- From: Joy Fisher <jfisher@ucla.edu> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] Fwd: [STATE-COORD-L] Formal Complaint >The following was sent to the State Coordinator's list. Since we are all >subbed to that list, I presume you've seen it. > >>X-Loop: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >> >>I am, hereby, making a formal complaint to the board: >> >>Colorado's State pages were moved off of Rootsweb about a month ago. As the >>SC for COGenWeb, I have the right, under our Bylaws, to move the State pages >>to any server I choose. >>When I moved the State pages off Rootsweb, I did not move the project pages >>that my ASC had on the COGenWeb site, as that was HER project, and I felt it >>wasn't right for me to move them without her permission. She was out of >>town at that time, I was waiting for her return, and it was her choice to >>make. >>She contacted Brian Leverich, owner of Rootsweb, and requested the COGenWeb >>site that was already there, with her project on it, for her project, which >>IS a part of the COGenWeb Project, and was rejected by Brian. >>He gave her another account and she had to move her entire project to the >>new account. >>However, as soon as she had moved her project to the new account, he allowed >>a person who is NOT part of COGenWeb to take over that account with >>"cogenweb" as part of the account name, which is in violation of our Bylaws: >> >>"The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the >>two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and >>reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing >>The USGenWeb Project." [Article I] >> >>Rootsweb has violated this Bylaw, by allowing a person who is NOT part of >>COGenWeb to adopt this site, and use it for purposes of misdirecting >>researchers, and as part of her personal vendetta. >>According to the bylaws, the board must direct Brian to take back this >>account as this person is not a member of the COGenWeb and any use of these >>pages by anyone else but the State Coordinator is in violation of the >>bylaws. >> >>Lynn >> > >

>>1. Appointment or lack thereof of a new Secretary. In making a motion regarding this position - please consider putting language into it that would define the terms under which the Secretary position would be filled.<< Tim, I think you need to choose someone that you can work with well. I am not sure what the secretary's functions would be. I see the position as being: 1)Posts Motions to lists (hopefully in words that a person can easily understand along with the numbers), 2)Counting Votes, 3)Tabulating a result, and 4)Relaying of board decisions to the general population of USGW after the NC gives the OK. Maggie !^NavFont02F02050006NGHHIM53D9

At 11:34 PM -0700 9/8/99, Tim Stowell wrote: >Do I hear a motion regarding Fred's Formal Complaint? Can we ask Fred what action he wanted to see taken in response to his protest? He said "Be advised that I am protesting..." and then listed 6 objections to the run-off election process, but the only action he specifically requested was that "a copy of this Formal Protest be posted to BOARD-L@rootsweb.com." Which has already been done. If he simply wanted to get his objections officially logged, then we're done with the Formal Protest per se. However, I can envision some changes being made for next year's elections that might prevent similar complaints from arising, so maybe we ought to start working on some changes to the election process. "1. No certified lists of eligible voters were ever published." The Election Committee did the best they could with the time they had, but we should have got things moving early enough that they weren't so rushed. The Election Committee shouldn't have had to go around gathering email addresses from state web pages. SC's are supposed to send in their lists, but what happens when they haven't by the time the ballots need to go out? The regional SC and CC and Special Project voter lists need to be maintained continuously. And a procedure for what it means to "certify" them should be defined. "2. The election was not conducted by a neutral third party, but by an organization, Rootsweb.com, Inc., which had a vested interest in the outcome of the election" It is inaccurate to say that the election was conducted "by" Rootsweb. It was conducted by the Election Committee, some of whom have nothing whatsoever to do with Rootsweb. Nevertheless, it was conducted using software and accounts on a Rootsweb server, and given that there are controversies over Rootsweb's relationship with The USGenWeb Project, it would probably help allay fears if the election process did not use any Rootsweb accounts. Unfortunately, it is not easy to find a neutral third party who is so willing to let us write custom scripts to be run on their servers, and which an experienced programmer who is a member of the Election Committee has an account on. Given the tight time constraints, it was probably the best that could be done. But with sufficient time to search, can next year's Election Committee try to find such a neutral third party? "3. The change in software for the run-off election was not approved by the Advisory Board." I don't personally think the Advisory Board should need to approve election software. That's what the Election Committee has expertise on, that's what we pick them for, and they're just as neutral as the Advisory Board, maybe more so. Has the Board ever approved ANY of the election software before? But, I'm all for majority rule, so rather than going on my personal opinion, I would favor polling the CC's as to whether they think that future election software should be approved by the Advisory Board. "4. The software used in the 2nd election was insecure. Anyone with FTP access to the software and data could have easily hacked the results." This could be said about any election conducted anywhere. While strictly speaking it is true that "anyone with FTP access to the software and data could have [feasibly] hacked the results" (although not 'easily', since it would also require expertise in how the software worked), what the statement ignores is that EXTREMELY few people have "FTP access to the software and data" and the technical know-how to hack it. It isn't sufficient to have FTP access to the server, one would need at the very minimum the password to the election account. It would be hard to write an election script running anywhere that couldn't be hacked by the owners of the account that it runs on. (Maybe some kind of double key system, where multiple copies of data and program are stored on different servers, and the owner of each account does not have access to the other, but if you could hack one program you might be able to make it fool the other, so I'm not sure even then.) The software used was as secure as it is reasonable to expect polling software to be. Since the only people with the level of access to an account that would be necessary to hack it are the programmers of the software and the system administrators of the server that it runs on, rather than concentrating on programming a paranoic level of security into the software itself, it should suffice to have procedures for guaranteeing the neutrality of anyone who has "wizard" access to it. Hence there is no substantial difference between point 4 and point 2. "5. Although voting closed on 8/18/1999, the web page http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html indicated that the polls would not close until the 23rd." I wasn't comfortable with this, either. Even though the web page was wrong, and everyone who hadn't voted was informed by email of the correct closure date, it was a short enough difference that I think the longer date should have been given precedence. It's like when a wrong (and lower) price is printed in a newspaper ad - it will usually be honored unless the difference is extreme. The 23rd was a week before the term began. But, it's water under the bridge by now. The same problem is unlikely to arise next year. "6. Requests by myself for additional data necessary to attempt to determine if results were valid based on software used, etc. were denied." Not sure what this refers to. Fred was sent every line of the software, a description of the double-check procedures, and the certified statements of all the election committee members that the procedures had been followed. It would be a serious breach of voter privacy to release the names of the voters and how they voted, and I would hope that no candidate would have even requested such a list. If anyone made such a request, certainly it should be denied. So, if not that, what else was this "additional data" that was requested and denied? Teri Pettit pettit@adobe.com CC Rep, SE/MA region

Tim, I would like to hear your thinking on this. The secretary must work closely with you and certainly should be someone that you feel comfortable working with. It is up to you to keep track of business through motion numbering and etc either thru your own efforts or thru a secretary. If you feel we need a secretary I will make a motion to that effect suggesting you nominate someone not presently on the Board. The Board can then take a vote on it. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > Please consider the following: > > 1. Appointment or lack thereof of a new Secretary. > > In making a motion regarding this position - please consider putting > language into it that would define the terms under which the Secretary > position would be filled. > > 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