Hi Teri, While in essence I agree with your proposal the Board is only authorized to propose amendments under certain circumstances. This needs to be either left to a possible future Bylaws Review committee or it should be an individual proposal in one's home state, following the procedure outlined in the Bylaws. Neither the Board nor the SC list have the authority to propose Bylaws outside of the current procedure set forth in the Bylaws. While we may not agree with all aspects of the Bylaws, and there is definitely room for improvement, we also can not ignore them and forge ahead at will. The Bylaws were voted in by the membership of the project and as such it is our duty as a Board to adhere to them. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Teri Pettit <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:20 PM Subject: [BOARD-L] Amendment Proposal re Funding By-Law >At 7:21 AM -0700 9/2/99, Shari Handley wrote: >>So, the immediate problem has been taken care of. We need, though, to think >>of how we, as a Project, should handle similar situations in the future. >>Here are my thoughts: >> >>When you're getting into asking for cash money, in any way, shape, or >>form, you're starting down a very slippery slope. The potential would exist >>for abuse and dishonesty, and once those problems started, we'd have one >>heck of a mess. So, my personal opinion is that I'd rather see *less* data >>and maintain the pristine, commercial and money-free nature of the project. >>This is not any reflection of the CC mentioned above, or her site. I am >>confident that what she was doing was perfectly above-board. But, the next >>person may *not* be, and where do we draw the line? The best place is >>usually at the beginning. >> >>The recent discussions on the SC list seem to indicate that the State >>Coordinators generally feel this way, as well. > >Shari, > >Good summary, and it does seem to be the majority sentiment on the SC list. > >I think I will submit, on STATE-COORD-L, the following amendment proposal: > >(Since Rootsweb lists do not allow the inclusion of formatting codes such as >underlines, strikeouts or colors, additions or changes are indicated in >all-caps. Numbers in parens refer to the reasons, listed after the revised >By-Law.) > >-------------------- >Article IX, Section 2 of the By-Laws shall be amended to read: > >Solicitation of funds for personal gain OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONAL >COSTS INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A USGENWEB SITE(1) is inappropriate. This is >defined as the direct appeal on the [deleted: home page] PAGES (2) of any >of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to [deleted: do >research,](3) pay for server space, to do look-ups, TO COVER COSTS OF >PHOTOCOPYING, MICROFILM RENTAL, OBTAINING MATERIALS FOR TRANSCRIPTION, OR >OTHER EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE. [delete: etc.](4) > >A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website >(i.e., provide server space at no cost.) [moved to here: The >acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website.](5) A >website may also include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which >they offer research services for reimbursement. IF SUCH A LINK IS INCLUDED, >A CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE USGENWEB PAGES AND THE >COORDINATOR'S PERSONAL PAGES, SO THAT A TYPICAL VISITOR WOULD NOT MISTAKE >THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE FOR PART OF THE USGENWEB SITE.(6) A website may list >research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by >the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not >be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web >page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator >and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research >materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. > >-------------------- > >Reasons for changes: > > (1) The specific examples given in the original By-Law, and the specific > problem cases which arose, were not what most people would think of > as "personal gain". Adding the phrase about reimbursement of expenses > here makes the definition which follows fit the term it is defining. > > (2) The potential problems with funding appeals are very similar whether > the request is on the home page or a secondary page. The original > wording was too much of a loophole. (The Michigan CC's who resigned > in protest did so three days AFTER the Kent Co Funding FAQ was moved > from the home page to a secondary page to comply with the original > wording, so the issue was plainly not which page it was on.) > > (3) Once we take out the "home page" wording, prohibiting "to do research" > on every page would contradict the research services specifically allowed > to be listed on a secondary page in the "allowed activities" part of > this section. Since the second part specifically restricts listing > research services to secondary pages, there is no need to prohibit it > it the definition sentence. > > (4) This list is to be specific about the type of activities that some CC's > thought were allowed, and other CC's thought were forbidden. To say >"etc." > after such a short list of examples as originally appeared did not give > enough information to predict what the "etc." was meant to cover. > > (5) Minor reordering to move the two clauses about hosts together, and the > sentences about offering personal research services together. The >original > order was HOSTS - RESEARCH - HOSTS - RESEARCH, which was harder to >follow. > > (6) This change is the lowest priority, but I thought it might help stem > controversies where a CC says "but that's my personal page", and a > critic says "it looks just like all your county pages to me". > >The overall goal is to prevent the kind of problem where a CC innocently thinks >they are following the rules, and another CC thinks they are disobeying them, >by being much more specific (and inclusive) about what is prohibited. > >Anybody have any suggestions to make before I post this to the STATE-COORD-L >list? Do we need special wording to allow crediting donations of materials, >such as the Census books provided by S-K Publications? > >// Teri > > >