>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:11:11 -0700 >X-From_: 73777.25@compuserve.com Tue Jun 6 22:11:10 2000 >From: "Maggie" <73777.25@compuserve.com> >To: "Patrick Hays" <gsdownr@geocities.com>, "BOARD-L" <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Old-Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 01:08:43 -0400 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 >X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list >Subject: {not a subscriber} Re: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >X-Envelope-To: BOARD-L > >Patrick, > >I believe that you are missing the point I was attempting to make. >BTW, the quote in my quote was from the motion made by >Ginger Hayes. I was not even discussing the "eligibility" of >USGWP members but that there is no "cutoff" mentioned in the >bylaws. > >> Therefore, the Board is responsible for ensuring that the EC also upholds >>the bylaws and eliminates this farce of an arbitrary "cutoff", because it >is a >>flat out violation of the bylaws. > >Regarding your conclusion (above): > >My main point is that the Bylaws don't specify membership "as of when"? > >So they permit a determination of "when" -- and for the election process to >verify that voters are indeed eligible, there *has* to be some such >determination! > >Robert's Rules of Order, pg 403 >"Unless the bylaws provide otherwise the assembly itself is the judge of all >questions arising which are incidental to the voting or the counting of >votes." >[the assembly normaly being the AB, but in this case the EC] > > >At any rate, the *point* is that some cutoff date has to be established in >order for there to be workable, fair election. > > >Maggie > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Patrick Hays <gsdownr@geocities.com> >To: <USGenWeb-NE-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 9:28 PM >Subject: [USGenWeb-NE] Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > > >To my Board representatives (all 7 of you), > > I have a question that I just can't figure out. This Apr 1, 2000 >'cutoff' does not affect me directly, as you can see below, but... > >To quote part of a note written by Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman to Board-L: >'...Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up >Volunteers >and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote. " > >The question in my mind when I went looking for answers was how can >"voter eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the USGenWeb >Project" when it's not addressed in said Bylaws?' > > How can somebody be so inattentive that they can not read the sentence >they copied and pasted right before they started typing? Attention deficit >disorder? Hmm... How can something so simple be so twisted? This person >is supposed to represent me, the common CC. Does she think that those of us >who are common CC's are stupid? Does she think we can't read? Does she >think that none of us know what the bylaws say? No, as usual, this is >simply very poor representation. If it was not addressed in the bylaws, as >she claims, Article VII, Section 6 would not be there. And yet, whoooops, >there it is. Article VII, Section 6 is incredibly clear and simple. In >fact, it's one of the simplest Sections of the bylaws. Everybody who is not >a look up volunteer or a transcriber, who is a member of USGenWeb is >eligible to vote. PERIOD. >It does not say "if their name is ... (fill in the blank)". >It does not say "if they have been in the project 60 days". >It does not say "if they are wearing green and it is a Thursday". >It does not say "if their skin color is ... (fill in the blank)". >It does not say "if their grandfather was eligible to vote". >It does not say "if they are employees of Rootsweb or associated with the >Archives". >It does not say "if they own land". >It says "ALL MEMBERS of the USGenWeb Project... SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE" >(emphasis added, because somebody needs to do it!). > Decisions of the Election Committee are binding on the Board, >nevertheless, the EC can still not violate the bylaws. And like it or not, >the Board is responsible for upholding the bylaws. Therefore, the Board is >responsible for ensuring that the EC also upholds the bylaws and eliminates >this farce of an arbitrary "cutoff", because it is a flat out violation of >the bylaws. > >Patrick Hays >CC Hancock Co., KY Since April 23, 1997 SE >CC Custer Co., CO Since October 7, 1997 NW >CoCC Blackford Co., IN Since March 9, 1999 NE >CC Jefferson Co., KY Since October 17, 1999 SE >CC Mecosta Co., MI Since October 17, 1999 NE >CC Daviess Co., KY Since January 30, 2000 SE > > > >