I could certainly endorse Ellen's proposal. My first question would be, though, would everyone involved abide by the final decision of a committee? If we find it so easy and expedient to endorse an illegal action to meet a desired end would we find it any harder to ignore a committee recommendation? We first must step back from the abyss and get our sanity hats on straight. Let me lapse philosophical for a moment. The greatness of this country with all it's flaws emanates from respect for a constitution from which every law is firmly tied and every government official down to the lowest (in grade) enlisted man in our armed forces swears to protect and defend. With this model to guide us how can we flaunt the wishes of the volunteers by trashing their ByLaws? Yes these are their ByLaws, our ByLaws. Without the rule of law, the respect for law, any country or any organization is no better than a mob. Therefore, I ask Betsy and Shari to amend motion 009 to read: I move that all actions taken to delink the CP be reversed. Once this is done than a motion to delink would be appropiate so that the Board can decide, as it is empowered to do by the ByLaws, whether or not the CP should be delinked. I will even promise to make the motion whether I support it or not. Joe Jim Powell Jr wrote: > > This is forwarded by request. > > Jim Powell Jr > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Response, and Proposal > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 07:39:16 -0500 > From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> > To: jpowelljr@gru.net,pettit@Adobe.COM > CC: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com,USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com > > TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator > Representatives > > As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that > either > or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, > if > submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. > > If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let > me > know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. > > Thank you for your consideration. > > Ellen Pack > ------------- > > To the USGW Advisory Board Members - > > 1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few > days > ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: > > "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws > is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and > made sure it was worded that way." > > If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original > remarks, I > wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item > 2. > > Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not > only > to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my > opinion, > to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. > > I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or > disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, > in > fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them > when > deemed necessary. > > For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, > and > in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person > wielding > enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding > collection > of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet > to > come to pass. > > I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet > subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I > was > not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. > > 2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously > undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in > spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse > today > than when it began. > > Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal > alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no > headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful > break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people > who > COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the > occasion, > impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly > worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project > ahead of personal considerations. > > I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be > solved, > and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, > including > the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. > > This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of > ownership or authority. > > To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special > committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not > be > or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board > Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any > Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived > opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations > with > Archive/Census members or Board reps. > > One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the > committee) > should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate > SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on > previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership > experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other > Reps > (who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as > much > as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. > > Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, > intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best > serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers > alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. > > This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to > include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP > included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership > assignment, > administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, > and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy > re > submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of > duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as > well > as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated > RW > member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. > > The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of > a > By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by > the > general membership. > > The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a > ballot and voted upon under: > > ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > > Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of > The > USGenWeb > Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and > disseminate it to the > membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, > the > proposed > amendment shall be posted to the national website and > disseminated to the > membership within two (2) business days. The proposed > amendment > shall remain > posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special > ballot > shall be prepared > and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A > two-thirds (2/3) majority, of > The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time > frame, > shall be required > for the amendment to pass. > > If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, > if > it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from > squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could > begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. > > Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or > even > before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time > to > form an Elections Committee, anyway. > > If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to > abide > by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, > turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come > to > an end, one way or the other. > > I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above > recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may > restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in > working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I > challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it > claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the > feuding > elements of the USGW Project. > > Respectfully, > > Ellen Pack > Adams Co, MS CC > Wilkinson Co, MS CC > SW MS Territory CC > Green Co, TN ACC -- 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