-----Original Message----- From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >Ginger, > >It's good to see you smiling. Yes. I almost let the, shall we say rubbish, that's been going on depress me. So thanks for getting my sense of humor into full swing again. > >Well since I don't have a Robert's Rules of Order here at home (I use the >copy at my local library) and I can't seem to locate the exact reference I >will try and >explain in my own words. As an aside I agree with you about the cut off >date. > >We passed a motion thus: > >"I move that we appoint Roger Swafford Chairperson of the Election >Committee, and further that we provide him with the list of volunteers and >let him choose his own committee members as has been done in the past." > >This was passed by unanimous consent by the Advisory Board. This makes the >decision of the EC binding on the AB . Ahhh! Interesting.... So are you saying the EC is free to make up whatever rules it chooses and we are bound by them? Makes perfect sense, of course! ><snip> >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? The Bylaws say all members with the exception of transcribers and lookup volunteers are eligible to vote. There is no mention of a "probationary" period or how informed they have to be, or how long they have to have been members of the project. Do I assume that you are saying that can be written in if someone so chooses. Maybe next year we can then require someone to pass a "loyalty" test before they can vote, the vote could then depend on whichever "faction" was in power at the moment. That ought to be real interesting! I'd like to remind you, and the rest of the members of this board, that this project belongs to the volunteers. THEY are the one's that built it. It is their right to vote for whomever they choose, without undue restrictions being placed on their right to vote. Anything short of that smacks of attempted vote manipulation.......whether it is or not. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com > > >Maggie > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:54 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >Maggie, >If there's any typo's just put it down to blurred vision >from the tears in my eyes. The idea of you calling >me partisan is too hysterical for words. They say >laughter is good for the soul and now mine should be >good for next century. > >But then again, if your definition of partisan means >that I'm for an honest election and fair treatment for >all members of this project then you bet I'm partisan. >I kind of think that's not the definition you had in mind, >though. I could be wrong.....but I doubt it. <g> > >Oh, by the way, would you cite your reference for >your declaration please. > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Maggie Stewart <maggieohio@columbus.rr.com> >To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 7:39 PM >Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date > > >>Ginger, >> >>Your motion is improper and out of order, the Election Committee's >>decision is binding on the Advisory Board. If you must act in such a >>partisan manner do so thusly >> >>I move to rescind the 60 date cutoff and bestow all eligible members with >>the *right* to vote. >> >>Maggie >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Ginger <gingerh@shawneelink.com> >>To: <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:44 AM >>Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >>I move that the April 1, 2000 cut off date for voter >>eligibility be declared contrary to the Bylaws of the >>USGenWeb Project and that this Board instruct >>the Elections Committee that all members of the >>USGenWeb Project are eligible to vote in accordance >>with the duly adopted Bylaws of The USGenWeb >>Project. >> >>My personal note and not part of the motion itself: >>To do anything less smacks of attempted manipulation >>of the Election by this Board and the Election committee. >> >> >>Ginger >>gingerh@shawneelink.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> >>To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> >>Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 9:55 PM >>Subject: [BOARD-L] Election.. April 1, 2000, cut-off date >> >> >>>As I am hopefully running for office, I don't believe that I should be >>>dealing with this. Will someone else bring it up and discuss it. When >>>I was Chairman of the EC most such changes were run by the board. Will >>>you please look at? There are 2 grievances about this at this time. I >>>am not asking you to give the EC a hard time. I know how hard, and most >>>of the time thankless, that their job can be. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Jim >>> >> >> >> > > >