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