Jeanne, Thank you for coming forward with this. I very much liked, and continue to like, your suggestion for that very reason. As I said to you in my reply email, I appreciate the time, thought, consideration and CARING that went into your suggestions (and there were many GOOD suggestions). Likewise, I like Jeff's suggestion, at least in part. And I also appreciate the time, thought, consideration and CARING that went into his suggestions. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Jeanne Arguelles" <ejarguelles@msn.com> To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:20:46 -0500 Subject: [GAGEN] Re: Grievance Committee > I'll fess up... it was me who suggested that the grievance committee > be comprised (in part) of a rotating board of CCs. This was in > addition to a chairperson and other "permanent" committee members > (permanent could mean a two-year term, or whatever) who would bring > stability, experience and guidance to the group. > > The reason for that suggestion was to provide a sort of "jury of our > peers" that could be called to duty if/when a grievance is filed. > This would ensure that grievances are heard by a group of unbiased > volunteers with no motive other than solving the problem at hand. > It would also prevent people from having a "grievance" against the > grievance committee, because it wouldn't always be the same people > making the decisions. > > Whichever system is adopted, I think the formation of a grievance committee > will be a positive addition to the guidelines. I appreciate all the > thought that the Guidelines Revision Committee is putting into this. > > Jeanne Arguelles > > > In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > > > > > I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea > > > that > > > has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each > Region > > > serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being > > > rotated > > > among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has > served > > > on > > > the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more > development, > > > but > > > *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. > > > > Richard, I'm glad to see there is agreement on the need for a Grievance > > Committee/Council. However, I would have to disagree with the suggestion > of > > rotating CCs from each Region serve a 3 month term. A few concerns come > to > > mind. > > > > First, every CC may not wish to serve on the Council. Probably not a big > > hurdle but one we should be aware of. > > > > Second, not every CC would have enough experience in the GAGENWEB to serve > on > > the Council making precedent setting decisions which will affect this > project > > for years to come. > > > > Finally, three months is simply not a long enough term. The three month > > suggestion worries me as to the extent the serious nature of this > Grievance > > Council will play with the GAGENWEB project. My suggestion was as > follows: > > > > "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have > > experience within the GAGENWEB. This council would replace the > > current appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process. > > This council would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, > > ASC for action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final > and > > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the > > guidelines." > > > > Because of the roll of the council in my proposed format, it would not be > > prudent to have each member serve such a short term. This council is > > designed to be a balance to the office of SC. As such, it is very > important > > that council members serve for a length of term equal to or longer than > the > > office of SC. Establishing a three month term, rotating among CCs could > bring > > the appearance of being able to manipulate the system. Also, a three > month > > term on this council would not bring stability to the grievance process. > > > > In another email discussing electing RCs vs appointing RCs, you supported > > appointment and used an analogy of the president appointing his cabinet > > members. This is exactly what we have now in the GAGENWEB project. The > SC > > has appointed people to serve in various positions, i.e., RC and ASCs. > AND > > we have an established Grievance Committee. This established Grievance > > Committee is charged with the task of answering appeals on actions of the > > RCs, ASCs, and SC. > > > > The issue has been that this Grievance Committee is made up of these > > appointed people, i.e., RCs, ASCs, and SC. In the simplest terms and > using > > your analogy, this would be the same as the president's decision being > > appealed and he turns to his appointed cabinet members and asks, "Did I do > > anything wrong?" > > > > Continuing this analogy lets imagine the majority of the cabinet says, > "Yes, > > you did wrong." Then the president un-appoints the dissidents and asks > > again, "Did I do anything wrong?" > > > > This is the potential situation we have now in the GAGENWEB project and > one > > that must be corrected. It is because of this potential situation I > > recommend a Grievance Council made up of experienced CCs only. A council > > with no mix of appointed members. A council who will not be swayed to > make a > > decision because of the shortness of their term of service. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Jeff Johnson > > > > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > > Do you have a suggestion to include in our taglines? If so, please write > > GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com > > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, online information. ------- End of Original Message -------

Please join me in welcoming Jacki Jonas as the new RC for the Southwest Region. Welcome Jacki! ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net

I'll fess up... it was me who suggested that the grievance committee be comprised (in part) of a rotating board of CCs. This was in addition to a chairperson and other "permanent" committee members (permanent could mean a two-year term, or whatever) who would bring stability, experience and guidance to the group. The reason for that suggestion was to provide a sort of "jury of our peers" that could be called to duty if/when a grievance is filed. This would ensure that grievances are heard by a group of unbiased volunteers with no motive other than solving the problem at hand. It would also prevent people from having a "grievance" against the grievance committee, because it wouldn't always be the same people making the decisions. Whichever system is adopted, I think the formation of a grievance committee will be a positive addition to the guidelines. I appreciate all the thought that the Guidelines Revision Committee is putting into this. Jeanne Arguelles > In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > > > I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea > > that > > has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each Region > > serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being > > rotated > > among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has served > > on > > the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more development, > > but > > *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. > > Richard, I'm glad to see there is agreement on the need for a Grievance > Committee/Council. However, I would have to disagree with the suggestion of > rotating CCs from each Region serve a 3 month term. A few concerns come to > mind. > > First, every CC may not wish to serve on the Council. Probably not a big > hurdle but one we should be aware of. > > Second, not every CC would have enough experience in the GAGENWEB to serve on > the Council making precedent setting decisions which will affect this project > for years to come. > > Finally, three months is simply not a long enough term. The three month > suggestion worries me as to the extent the serious nature of this Grievance > Council will play with the GAGENWEB project. My suggestion was as follows: > > "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have > experience within the GAGENWEB. This council would replace the > current appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process. > This council would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, > ASC for action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final and > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the > guidelines." > > Because of the roll of the council in my proposed format, it would not be > prudent to have each member serve such a short term. This council is > designed to be a balance to the office of SC. As such, it is very important > that council members serve for a length of term equal to or longer than the > office of SC. Establishing a three month term, rotating among CCs could bring > the appearance of being able to manipulate the system. Also, a three month > term on this council would not bring stability to the grievance process. > > In another email discussing electing RCs vs appointing RCs, you supported > appointment and used an analogy of the president appointing his cabinet > members. This is exactly what we have now in the GAGENWEB project. The SC > has appointed people to serve in various positions, i.e., RC and ASCs. AND > we have an established Grievance Committee. This established Grievance > Committee is charged with the task of answering appeals on actions of the > RCs, ASCs, and SC. > > The issue has been that this Grievance Committee is made up of these > appointed people, i.e., RCs, ASCs, and SC. In the simplest terms and using > your analogy, this would be the same as the president's decision being > appealed and he turns to his appointed cabinet members and asks, "Did I do > anything wrong?" > > Continuing this analogy lets imagine the majority of the cabinet says, "Yes, > you did wrong." Then the president un-appoints the dissidents and asks > again, "Did I do anything wrong?" > > This is the potential situation we have now in the GAGENWEB project and one > that must be corrected. It is because of this potential situation I > recommend a Grievance Council made up of experienced CCs only. A council > with no mix of appointed members. A council who will not be swayed to make a > decision because of the shortness of their term of service. > > Respectfully, > > Jeff Johnson > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Do you have a suggestion to include in our taglines? If so, please write > GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com >

One more idea, allow me to look at the Gagenweb organization as the masses, with and executive committee and the grievance council. I would suggest that on the Executive Committee (EC) we have an elected CC member at large that can bring concerns from the CC's to the SC, ASC and RC's. The member at large would have a vote in Executive Committee descions and represent the interests of the CC's in formulating policy and guidelines before presentation to the CC's for review, comment and vote. Deborah Byrd Screven & Burke Counties

At 09:13 AM 5/6/03 EDT, Johnstien@aol.com wrote: > "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have > experience within the GAGENWEB.  This council would replace the > current appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process.  > This council would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, > ASC for action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final and > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the >guidelines." Speaking personally for myself and not any other cc's.... The project needs the SC, with the appointed RC's to help with the project, and a Grievance Committee made up of cc's that serve on a rotating basis to balance the process. Unless there is a big change in the attitude of the CC's, there would come an election and there would be no one to run. We have a problem now getting the cc's to vote. How are we going to get them to run? I was the last elected RC in the project. The next ones were appointed when only two CC's came forward to run for the two positions that were open. Some of us almost begged people to run. I tried behind the scenes in private email to get some of the cc's to run. Almost to the person, they told me they didn't have time. <g> So.... elect the SC. Appoint the RC's. And set the grievance committe up on a rotating basis with each county serving a 3 month term. When a county comes up for serving on the committee, and that cc has not got enough time (experience) or some other problem exists that would prevent them from serving on that term, let them drop to another slot on the next round, or a later round. If we can get the guidelines, the Bill of Rights, and other qualifications set up, this committee will be in name only. The only function it will have is to meet and find there is nothing to do, enjoy a virtual cup of coffee, and go back to mining data. Hopefully we would not have a problem to need them. Course then I might be just daydreaming......... <g> Wyndell Taylor

Jeff note about the structure of the greivance council reminded me of the Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention. The resulting system of governance established a system of checks and balances. In a flash of brilliance (almost impossible with a sinus headache) I deduced that our recent broohaha existed because of a lack (perceived or real) of a system of Checks and Balances. If the SC appoints everyone that oversees, administers and directs the faltering steps of GAGENWEB, there is no avenue for indepent review or a place where one may safely air differences without the fear of repercussions. A CC elected grievence council is the only way to provide a check. However there should be ONE representative from the executive on the council, the ASC. This position can be the other voice, the administrative representative on the council. The model follows that used in the United States Senate, with the Vice President acting as President Pro Tiem of the Senate and provide a tie breaking vote. As for the term of sentenace on the Council, it should be the same lenght as the SC but the vote staggered so that is falls in the middle of the SC term. This allows for some continuity as regiems excuse me leaderships change. Deborah Byrd

In terms of having a CC on the Council, I have no problem with that. In fact, I recommended that we have TWO CC's on the GAGENWEB Council. These two CC's should be elected by the remaining CC's, and they should have input and a vote on ALL issues before the Council. I agree with this. I have always agreed with this. That would be a form of a check and balance with the appointed RC system. All of a sudden, the RC's are accountable, even when making decisions as part of the Council. This would, of course, be in addition to the Grievance Committee. I support Wyndell's idea on the formation of the Committee for several reasons. The primary reason is the lack of volunteerism. The second is that a three month term is really a very short amount of time in the great scheme of things. The third reason is that it then requires people to GET INVOLVED. The CC's in the Coastal Region will tell you that I am fair, that I am honest and that I keep an open line of communication with them. They have my cell number and know that they are welcome to call with issues anytime day or night (but if they call at 4AM, it had best not be to say, "Hello" <grins>). I set up an email list several months ago to improve communication. I believe that other RC's operate the same way, and if they don't, I encourage them to do so. On a personal note to Deborah, which I state in public not to embarass her, but rather because I share in the belief that too many hurtful things have been said behind the scenes, I almost disregarded the email to which I am responding after your previous comment about "regime". I am very glad that I did not, and I am even happier that I saw it as the (dry!) bit of humour that it truly was. :) Thanks for brightening my day. :) Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Deborah Byrd" <DWBYRD@LDSLiving.com> To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:00:33 -0400 Subject: [GAGEN] guidelines suggestion on the Executive committe > One more idea, allow me to look at the Gagenweb organization as the > masses, with and executive committee and the grievance council. I > would suggest that on the Executive Committee (EC) we have an > elected CC member at large that can bring concerns from the CC's to > the SC, ASC and RC's. The member at large would have a vote in > Executive Committee descions and represent the interests of the CC's > in formulating policy and guidelines before presentation to the CC's > for review, comment and vote. > > Deborah Byrd > Screven & Burke Counties > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > For researching SURNAMES, check out GAGenWeb's new help page with links > to the most popular Surname sites: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/cchelp/surname/ ------- End of Original Message -------

Jeff, One reason that the idea I discussed was suggested is that it is our experience that there are generally very few people who actually want to volunteer for anything. With the Guidelines Revision Committee, we got lucky to have both the number and the quality of volunteers that we had. Interestingly enough, we called for volunteers for a committee to review the grievance procedures a little over a year ago and (I believe) had one person who volunteered. Likewise, we asked for volunteers for a different committee and had no volunteers. If the grievance committee served on rotating terms (and perhaps 3 months is a bit short), then it would require that everyone get involved. Keep in mind that we have only had one true grievance to date (there may have been a second grievance that was never forwarded and there was one that was dropped). I know that we could fill a slate of 100 elected officials in this state today. But what about a year from now? Are you aware that there have been some SC elections where there were NO NOMINATIONS? There is a vacant position on the AB from the Tombstone Project because no one wants to volunteer to run for that position. I still like the suggestion, and I would like to email back and forth with you either privately or on this list (I only offer off-list so as to keep email from being over-filled) and see what we can put together on this. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Johnstien@aol.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:13:54 EDT Subject: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions (grievance coucil response to questions) > In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > > > I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea > > that > > has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each Region > > serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being > > rotated > > among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has served > > on > > the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more development, > > but > > *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. > > Richard, I'm glad to see there is agreement on the need for a > Grievance Committee/Council. However, I would have to disagree with > the suggestion of rotating CCs from each Region serve a 3 month > term. A few concerns come to mind. > > First, every CC may not wish to serve on the Council. Probably not > a big hurdle but one we should be aware of. > > Second, not every CC would have enough experience in the GAGENWEB to > serve on the Council making precedent setting decisions which will > affect this project for years to come. > > Finally, three months is simply not a long enough term. The three > month suggestion worries me as to the extent the serious nature of > this Grievance Council will play with the GAGENWEB project. My > suggestion was as follows: > > "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who > have experience within the GAGENWEB.  This council would > replace the current appointed GAGENWEB council in the > grievance process.  This council would ONLY act when there > was an appeal by a CC, RC, ASC for action(s) under the > guidelines or when a need for a final and binding decision is > needed in regard to interpretation of the guidelines." > > Because of the roll of the council in my proposed format, it would > not be prudent to have each member serve such a short term. This > council is designed to be a balance to the office of SC. As such, > it is very important that council members serve for a length of term > equal to or longer than the office of SC. Establishing a three month > term, rotating among CCs could bring the appearance of being able to > manipulate the system. Also, a three month term on this council > would not bring stability to the grievance process. > > In another email discussing electing RCs vs appointing RCs, you > supported appointment and used an analogy of the president > appointing his cabinet members. This is exactly what we have now in > the GAGENWEB project. The SC has appointed people to serve in > various positions, i.e., RC and ASCs. AND we have an established > Grievance Committee. This established Grievance Committee is > charged with the task of answering appeals on actions of the RCs, > ASCs, and SC. > > The issue has been that this Grievance Committee is made up of these > appointed people, i.e., RCs, ASCs, and SC. In the simplest terms > and using your analogy, this would be the same as the president's > decision being appealed and he turns to his appointed cabinet > members and asks, "Did I do anything wrong?" > > Continuing this analogy lets imagine the majority of the cabinet > says, "Yes, you did wrong." Then the president un-appoints the > dissidents and asks again, "Did I do anything wrong?" > > This is the potential situation we have now in the GAGENWEB project > and one that must be corrected. It is because of this potential > situation I recommend a Grievance Council made up of experienced CCs > only. A council with no mix of appointed members. A council who > will not be swayed to make a decision because of the shortness of > their term of service. > > Respectfully, > > Jeff Johnson > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Do you have a suggestion to include in our taglines? If so, please write > GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com ------- End of Original Message -------

In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea > that > has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each Region > serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being > rotated > among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has served > on > the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more development, > but > *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. Richard, I'm glad to see there is agreement on the need for a Grievance Committee/Council. However, I would have to disagree with the suggestion of rotating CCs from each Region serve a 3 month term. A few concerns come to mind. First, every CC may not wish to serve on the Council. Probably not a big hurdle but one we should be aware of. Second, not every CC would have enough experience in the GAGENWEB to serve on the Council making precedent setting decisions which will affect this project for years to come. Finally, three months is simply not a long enough term. The three month suggestion worries me as to the extent the serious nature of this Grievance Council will play with the GAGENWEB project. My suggestion was as follows: "This Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have experience within the GAGENWEB.  This council would replace the current appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process.  This council would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, ASC for action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final and binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the guidelines." Because of the roll of the council in my proposed format, it would not be prudent to have each member serve such a short term. This council is designed to be a balance to the office of SC. As such, it is very important that council members serve for a length of term equal to or longer than the office of SC. Establishing a three month term, rotating among CCs could bring the appearance of being able to manipulate the system. Also, a three month term on this council would not bring stability to the grievance process. In another email discussing electing RCs vs appointing RCs, you supported appointment and used an analogy of the president appointing his cabinet members. This is exactly what we have now in the GAGENWEB project. The SC has appointed people to serve in various positions, i.e., RC and ASCs. AND we have an established Grievance Committee. This established Grievance Committee is charged with the task of answering appeals on actions of the RCs, ASCs, and SC. The issue has been that this Grievance Committee is made up of these appointed people, i.e., RCs, ASCs, and SC. In the simplest terms and using your analogy, this would be the same as the president's decision being appealed and he turns to his appointed cabinet members and asks, "Did I do anything wrong?" Continuing this analogy lets imagine the majority of the cabinet says, "Yes, you did wrong." Then the president un-appoints the dissidents and asks again, "Did I do anything wrong?" This is the potential situation we have now in the GAGENWEB project and one that must be corrected. It is because of this potential situation I recommend a Grievance Council made up of experienced CCs only. A council with no mix of appointed members. A council who will not be swayed to make a decision because of the shortness of their term of service. Respectfully, Jeff Johnson

Good morning, all, I had the opportunity yesterday to tour the new Georgia Archives building. The facility opens to the public this morning. Hours will be Tuesdays-Saturdays, 8:30-5. It is located in Morrow, Ga., on the campus of Clayton College and State University, 16 miles south of the previous location in downtown Atlanta. There will be free guided tours at 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. today through Friday. It is a wonderful facility, with pleasant reading room, new microfilm printers and state-of-the art equipment for managing and digitizing records. Those of you in the Atlanta area, and those of you who can travel to Atlanta, will really enjoy researching at the new facility. Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County 3570 Hildon Circle Chamblee, GA 30341

At 06:47 AM 5/6/03 -0400, John Holback wrote: >CCs, please if are among those whose counties are in the Northwest Region of >the State please send me your suggestions to add to the growing list for the >proposed changes to the GAGenWeb Project Guidelines. Would really like to >include your thoughts and ideas among those already listed. Thank you, >Gloria Holback, your committee representative... This message also goes for those cc's in the East Central Region. From three messages sent, I have received communcations from three cc's. Are the rest of you there? This is important. The members of the Guidelines Committee are trying to make a full faith effort to make changes that will benefit the cc's. If you have suggestions, ideas, comments, or any other information that you feel the committee needs, please contact the person representing your Region. Wyndell Taylor East Central Region Rep > > > >==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== >Did your county's courthouse ever meet with a disaster?? >Check out GAGenWeb's List and Research Tips at: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/cchelp/courthouses.htm > >

In a message dated 5/5/2003 2:07:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, dwbyrd@LDSLiving.com writes: > <begin snip>I like the suggestions, but have a question on number > 1, what constitutes qualified experience within > GAGENWEB? If we don't have a broad statement of > experience, we could get fairly inbred with a limited > source of CC's and couldn't accept those who were > already CC's in another country or state, but hadn't > worked somehow for one year with Georgia. <end snip> Let me begin by saying these are excellent questions. This qualification is only for CCs who would serve on the Grievance Council. My thoughts are guided by a basic belief that we need stable and well grounded people in our leadership positions. Especially, on the Grievance Council I am proposing. To insure this I feel a CC who would serve on this council should have a minimum of two years experience as a CC within the GA project or one year in GA combined with two years experience serving in another state as a CC. I believe it takes a season for someone coming into this project to get a feel for who we are and what are guidelines are about. > > <begin snip>Another question how many of us who are currently CC's > could have qualified for a county under these rules? I > couldn't have when I picked up Screven 7 or more years > ago.<end snip> > Again, the qualification I am referring to is ONLY for the proposed Grievance Council. Not for hosting a county. > > <begin snip> What is the purpose of the two year qualification? Is > it to insure that we already work well together, share > the same vision for the program,and will assume the > responsiblity to manage a site; or to verify that the > CC can handle HTML coding and doesn't take offense > easily? <end snip> My thought on the two year qualification is to ensure the CC serving on the council would be well grounded in who WE are as a project. That they would have a good understanding of the guidelines and the purpose of each section. I also realize that many people host counties from other states and this is usually a positive experience that could be very helpful while serving the GA project which is why I believe outside experience could be substituted for inside experience. Respectfully, Jeff Johnson Wilkinson County

In a message dated 5/5/03 3:01:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > I think what Jeff is trying to get to with that is the definition of a CC > qualified to run for SC or hold an RC position (elected or otherwise), not > to > be a Georgia CC. Otherwise, no one could be a CC. > > Richard I would prefer to hear from Jeff, since the question was directed towards his thoughts. <A HREF="http://mkharrison.com">MK Harrison</A> <A HREF="http://www.ancestry.com/landing/homelandsweeps2/landing2.html?SourceCode=3913&iid=3913%3A+Sweepstakes+1">Ancestry.com</A> <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~gabarrow/">Barrow County, GA</A> <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaworth/">Worth County, GA</A> I love cats because I love my home and after a while they become its visible soul. - Jean Cocteau Copyright © 2003

I think what Jeff is trying to get to with that is the definition of a CC qualified to run for SC or hold an RC position (elected or otherwise), not to be a Georgia CC. Otherwise, no one could be a CC. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Deborah Byrd" <dwbyrd@LDSLiving.com> To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions > I like the suggestions, but have a question on number > 1, what constitutes qualified experience within > GAGENWEB? If we don't have a broad statement of > experience, we could get fairly inbred with a limited > source of CC's and couldn't accept those who were > already CC's in another country or state, but hadn't > worked somehow for one year with Georgia. > > Another question how many of us who are currently CC's > could have qualified for a county under these rules? I > couldn't have when I picked up Screven 7 or more years > ago. > > What is the purpose of the two year qualification? Is > it to insure that we already work well together, share > the same vision for the program,and will assume the > responsiblity to manage a site; or to verify that the > CC can handle HTML coding and doesn't take offense > easily? > > Deborah Byrd > Screven Co. and still working on updating Burke Co. > data received from a very generous Marge. > > >1) A qualified CC will have a minimum of two years > >experiences within GAGENWEB or one year experience > >within GAGENWEB combined with two > >years experience within the USGENWEB project. > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it > on this list! ------- End of Original Message -------

I like the suggestions, but have a question on number 1, what constitutes qualified experience within GAGENWEB? If we don't have a broad statement of experience, we could get fairly inbred with a limited source of CC's and couldn't accept those who were already CC's in another country or state, but hadn't worked somehow for one year with Georgia. Another question how many of us who are currently CC's could have qualified for a county under these rules? I couldn't have when I picked up Screven 7 or more years ago. What is the purpose of the two year qualification? Is it to insure that we already work well together, share the same vision for the program,and will assume the responsiblity to manage a site; or to verify that the CC can handle HTML coding and doesn't take offense easily? Deborah Byrd Screven Co. and still working on updating Burke Co. data received from a very generous Marge. >1) A qualified CC will have a minimum of two years >experiences within GAGENWEB or one year experience >within GAGENWEB combined with two >years experience within the USGENWEB project.

Richard wrote: As an additional issue, I think that the RC's should be appointed inasmuch as they do work closely with the SC. ********************************************************* Working closely Doing What ??? ED GORDON CCHS Clay County GaGenWeb Early County AHGP Miller County GaGenWeb Miller County AHGP Seminole County GaGenWeb Ed and Kim's Connection's From: "mannannan" <mannannan@maclyr.com> Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 18:10:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.41]) by mc8-f32.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 4 May 2003 16:11:59 -0700 Received: (from slist@localhost)by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h44NAYvR030044;Sun, 4 May 2003 17:10:34 -0600 X-Message-Info: vAu4ZEtdRigLaEiTQQBlDPU44G8LMD9u Resent-Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:10:34 -0600 X-Original-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com Sun May 4 17:10:33 2003 Old-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <20030504231043.M3426@maclyr.com> In-Reply-To: <1df.826fc58.2be5524d@aol.com> References: <1df.826fc58.2be5524d@aol.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 67.35.32.115 (mannannan) Resent-Message-ID: <k02LG.A.EVH.q3Zt-@lists5.rootsweb.com> Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/5297 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Return-Path: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2003 23:11:59.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[90727050:01C31292] Jeff, I like your suggestions. They are full of careful thought and consideration. I appreciate that tremendously. Please don't apologize for sending something like this to the list. As I said, I like these suggestions. I do have one or two issues with them. For instance, when I became an RC, there were two RC positions open and two people expressed interest (Jimmy Epperson and myself). What would have been the benefit of an election there? Two positions, two volunteers. In fact, at the time, I did not even have a county in the Coastal Region of Georgia. At the time, I had only Gilmer County. As an additional issue, I think that the RC's should be appointed inasmuch as they do work closely with the SC. To elect the RC's and the ASC's would be like electing the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Housing and Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, Drug Czar and the Homeland Security Advisor - and maybe guys like SecNav or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have no objection to one or two at-large members of the Council who are elected by the CC's. I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea that has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each Region serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being rotated among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has served on the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more development, but *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. I believe that the CC's Bill of Rights, if done properly, would be the ultimate document in the protection of the CC's, and I believe very strongly that the CC's *do* need to have greater rights and protections than they currently have. Remember, I am not just an RC or ASC - I'm a CC, too. In fact, I am a CC first and foremost. Jeff, again, I thank you for your suggestions. Don't be surprised to see some form of this in the Guidelines as we revise them. Thanks, Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Johnstien@aol.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 3 May 2003 13:11:41 EDT Subject: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions > I apologize if I've sent this to the wrong list. > > I really like the idea of the CCs Bill of Rights but I'm afraid the > document alone will not instill CC confidence in our project.  The > CCs already have many rights under the current guidelines.  The > problem has been when the CCs feel these rights have been trampled > and the CCs are left without real recourse. > > The current suggestions are showing positive progress.  Each > expectation of the CC is enforceable by the SC but unless there is > some form of real, built in recourse for the CCs, there is no > enforcement for the CCs.  Thus, a Bill of Rights would be > meaningless and nothing in GAGENWEB really changes. > > With this in mind, I suggest the new guidelines establish a > Grievance Council who will rule on grievances and/or appeals.  This > Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have experience > within the GAGENWEB.  This council would replace the current > appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process. This council > would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, ASC for > action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final and > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the > guidelines. Petitioning the Council many occur ONLY when all other > avenues of recourse within GAGENWEB are exhausted.   In other words, > issues must go up the chain of command. The decisions of the > council would be final unless overturned by action of the USGENWEB. > > In regard to this Grievance/Appeals Council, I would also suggest > the following: > >        1) A qualified CC will have a minimum of two years > experiences within GAGENWEB        or one year experience > within GAGENWEB combined with two years experience > within the USGENWEB project. > >        2) A qualified CC shall not hold an appointed position within > the GAGENWEB or another elected position within > GAGENWEB.   (We would not want any hint of conflict > of interest.) > > 3) Each elected Grievence/Appeals Council member would serve > a four year term. > (This election would be the opposite bi-year as the > SC election see suggestion #1below.) The election > would occur in 2003 and every four > (4) years thereafter. > > style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTS4) In the event > of a vacated Council position an election would be held to fill the > remainder of the term unless said vacancy occurs > within twelve (12) months of the next election. > Then, in addition to the remainder of the term, the elected > would also serve the next four year term. > > > > Other Guideline suggestions: > > 1) A call for an immediate election for the position of SC. > This elected SC would be for a term of two (2) years. In 2005, and > every four years thereafter, the elected SC would serve a term of > four (4) years. In the event of a vacated SC position an election > would be held to fill the remainder of the term unless said vacancy > occurs within twelve (12) months of the next election. Then, in > addition to the remainder of the term, the elected would also serve > the next four year term. > > 2) Make the RC position a two (2) year position elected by > the CCs of the region which they will serve. > > 3) Divest the current, appointed GAGENWEB council of its roll > in amending the guidelines. I would suggest in its place, a > standing guidelines committee made up of the elected RCs, the or one > (1) ASC, plus 3 at large members elected by the CCs during the SC > election. Besides reviewing suggestions from time to time, the > council must bring to a vote any guideline revision(s) when > petitioned by a minimum of 5% of the voting membership. > > 4) Advisory Board members should be elected serving two year terms. > > 5) I would also ask the committee to review who votes in an > election. Avoid the possibility of stacking votes. It should be an > even number of votes within each county, project, etc. If one > county has two votes because it has a co-cc then every county should > have two votes even if it doesn't have a co-cc situation. If one > project gets two votes because of co-leadership then all should get > two votes. There are probably similar issues which should be > reviewed. It may be best to have one county - one vote and one > project - one vote. Also please review which projects would get a > vote so the appearance of creating a bunch of projects to gain votes > could not occur. > > When I began working in this project late in 1996, I was told this > project was of the CCs and by the CCs, for the betterment of > genealogy research. This is an upside down pyramid approach. > Meaning that the higher up in leadership one climbs the more people > they are to serve. I would offer one more word of advice to this > current committee: When a question of doubt arises within the > committee, err on the side of the CC. I hope that the current > guideline revisions will return the project to the CCs. > > Respectfully, > > Jeff Johnson > Wilkinson County since 1996 > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Genealogy research usually begins with our great-grandparents to preserve > the privacy of 'living persons'. If you encounter a person searching > their birth parents, the need to go to the area on the web that deals > with just this type of research. Please refer them to: > http://www.adoption.org ------- End of Original Message ------- ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on this list! _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

In a message dated 5/4/2003 7:11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > For instance, when I became an RC, there were two RC positions open and two > people expressed interest (Jimmy Epperson and myself). What would have > been > the benefit of an election there? Two positions, two volunteers. In fact, > > at the time, I did not even have a county in the Coastal Region of Georgia. > > At the time, I had only Gilmer County. As an additional issue, I think > that > the RC's should be appointed inasmuch as they do work closely with the SC. I agree it would be pointless to hold an election if there were no need. Of course a vacant position should be published with proper time allotment to allow all interested parties to respond. Per my suggestion, if more than one applies then an election should take place. With the issue of appointment vs. election I feel it would come down to the roll of the RC. If the RC is a representative of the SC and is to carry out the wishes of the SC then that position should be appointed BUT if the roll of the RC is to represent the CC, to be able to convey to the SC concerns and ideas on issues relevant to the project, then they should be elected. This issue goes back to the pyramid of leadership. Is the pyramid upside down or right side up? Is the project from the CC up or from the SC down? It is my belief that the higher one is in leadership then the more they are to serve, the upside down pyramid. IMHO, if our pyramid is right side up we need to rotate it 180 degrees. RCs, elected by the CCs to represent the CCs in leadership would be a good first step. Respectfully, Jeff Johnson Wilkinson County

Jeff, I like your suggestions. They are full of careful thought and consideration. I appreciate that tremendously. Please don't apologize for sending something like this to the list. As I said, I like these suggestions. I do have one or two issues with them. For instance, when I became an RC, there were two RC positions open and two people expressed interest (Jimmy Epperson and myself). What would have been the benefit of an election there? Two positions, two volunteers. In fact, at the time, I did not even have a county in the Coastal Region of Georgia. At the time, I had only Gilmer County. As an additional issue, I think that the RC's should be appointed inasmuch as they do work closely with the SC. To elect the RC's and the ASC's would be like electing the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Housing and Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, Drug Czar and the Homeland Security Advisor - and maybe guys like SecNav or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have no objection to one or two at-large members of the Council who are elected by the CC's. I also agree with you that a Grievance Committee is necessary. One idea that has been mentioned, and that I support, would have one CC from each Region serve a 3 month term on the Grievance Committee, with said term being rotated among the counties in each region until everyone in that Region has served on the committee. Clearly, this suggestion needs a little more development, but *I* support it. I believe it was made by Tom Hammack. I believe that the CC's Bill of Rights, if done properly, would be the ultimate document in the protection of the CC's, and I believe very strongly that the CC's *do* need to have greater rights and protections than they currently have. Remember, I am not just an RC or ASC - I'm a CC, too. In fact, I am a CC first and foremost. Jeff, again, I thank you for your suggestions. Don't be surprised to see some form of this in the Guidelines as we revise them. Thanks, Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Johnstien@aol.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 3 May 2003 13:11:41 EDT Subject: [GAGEN] Guideline Suggestions > I apologize if I've sent this to the wrong list. > > I really like the idea of the CCs Bill of Rights but I'm afraid the > document alone will not instill CC confidence in our project.  The > CCs already have many rights under the current guidelines.  The > problem has been when the CCs feel these rights have been trampled > and the CCs are left without real recourse. > > The current suggestions are showing positive progress.  Each > expectation of the CC is enforceable by the SC but unless there is > some form of real, built in recourse for the CCs, there is no > enforcement for the CCs.  Thus, a Bill of Rights would be > meaningless and nothing in GAGENWEB really changes. > > With this in mind, I suggest the new guidelines establish a > Grievance Council who will rule on grievances and/or appeals.  This > Grievance Council must be made up of elected CCs who have experience > within the GAGENWEB.  This council would replace the current > appointed GAGENWEB council in the grievance process. This council > would ONLY act when there was an appeal by a CC, RC, ASC for > action(s) under the guidelines or when a need for a final and > binding decision is needed in regard to interpretation of the > guidelines. Petitioning the Council many occur ONLY when all other > avenues of recourse within GAGENWEB are exhausted.   In other words, > issues must go up the chain of command. The decisions of the > council would be final unless overturned by action of the USGENWEB. > > In regard to this Grievance/Appeals Council, I would also suggest > the following: > >        1) A qualified CC will have a minimum of two years > experiences within GAGENWEB        or one year experience > within GAGENWEB combined with two years experience > within the USGENWEB project. > >        2) A qualified CC shall not hold an appointed position within > the GAGENWEB or another elected position within > GAGENWEB.   (We would not want any hint of conflict > of interest.) > > 3) Each elected Grievence/Appeals Council member would serve > a four year term. > (This election would be the opposite bi-year as the > SC election see suggestion #1below.) The election > would occur in 2003 and every four > (4) years thereafter. > > style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTS4) In the event > of a vacated Council position an election would be held to fill the > remainder of the term unless said vacancy occurs > within twelve (12) months of the next election. > Then, in addition to the remainder of the term, the elected > would also serve the next four year term. > > > > Other Guideline suggestions: > > 1) A call for an immediate election for the position of SC. > This elected SC would be for a term of two (2) years. In 2005, and > every four years thereafter, the elected SC would serve a term of > four (4) years. In the event of a vacated SC position an election > would be held to fill the remainder of the term unless said vacancy > occurs within twelve (12) months of the next election. Then, in > addition to the remainder of the term, the elected would also serve > the next four year term. > > 2) Make the RC position a two (2) year position elected by > the CCs of the region which they will serve. > > 3) Divest the current, appointed GAGENWEB council of its roll > in amending the guidelines. I would suggest in its place, a > standing guidelines committee made up of the elected RCs, the or one > (1) ASC, plus 3 at large members elected by the CCs during the SC > election. Besides reviewing suggestions from time to time, the > council must bring to a vote any guideline revision(s) when > petitioned by a minimum of 5% of the voting membership. > > 4) Advisory Board members should be elected serving two year terms. > > 5) I would also ask the committee to review who votes in an > election. Avoid the possibility of stacking votes. It should be an > even number of votes within each county, project, etc. If one > county has two votes because it has a co-cc then every county should > have two votes even if it doesn't have a co-cc situation. If one > project gets two votes because of co-leadership then all should get > two votes. There are probably similar issues which should be > reviewed. It may be best to have one county - one vote and one > project - one vote. Also please review which projects would get a > vote so the appearance of creating a bunch of projects to gain votes > could not occur. > > When I began working in this project late in 1996, I was told this > project was of the CCs and by the CCs, for the betterment of > genealogy research. This is an upside down pyramid approach. > Meaning that the higher up in leadership one climbs the more people > they are to serve. I would offer one more word of advice to this > current committee: When a question of doubt arises within the > committee, err on the side of the CC. I hope that the current > guideline revisions will return the project to the CCs. > > Respectfully, > > Jeff Johnson > Wilkinson County since 1996 > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Genealogy research usually begins with our great-grandparents to preserve > the privacy of 'living persons'. If you encounter a person searching > their birth parents, the need to go to the area on the web that deals > with just this type of research. Please refer them to: > http://www.adoption.org ------- End of Original Message -------

I left after the first half of the movie - it was good, but I could not get into it because of the pain. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: MFLP@aol.com To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 4 May 2003 07:07:21 EDT Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Welcome Pierce > In a message dated 5/4/03 12:12:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mannannan@maclyr.com writes: > > She and Chuck came out of their way to meet us at > > Town Center Mall and drove our car home. > > That was very nice of them. I know you appreciated it. > You had a rough day. How was X-Men? > Donna > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > This list is for volunteers of the GAGenWeb Project. If you wish to > address only the GAGenWeb Board, send your email to: <GAGENWEB- L@rootsweb.com> ------- End of Original Message -------

I third these suggestions. Dawn Watson CC/Rabun Co., GAGenWeb >       1) A qualified CC will have a minimum of two years experiences >within GAGENWEB or one year experience within GAGENWEB combined with two >years experience within the USGENWEB project. >       2) A qualified CC shall not hold an appointed position within the >GAGENWEB or another elected position within GAGENWEB.   (We would conflict >of interest.) > 3) Each elected Grievence/Appeals Council member would serve a four >year term. (This election would be the opposite bi-year as the SC election >see suggestion #1below.) The election would occur in 2003 and every four >(4) years thereafter. In the event of a vacated Council remainder of the >term unless said vacancy occurs within twelve (12) months of the next >election. Then, in addition to the remainder of the >term, the elected would also serve the next four year term. > >Other Guideline suggestions: > > 1) A call for an immediate election for the position of SC. This >elected SC would be for a term of two (2) years. In 2005, and every four >years thereafter, the elected SC would serve a term of four (4) years. In >the event of a vacated SC position an election would be held to fill the >remainder of the term unless said vacancy occurs within twelve (12) months >of the next election. Then, in addition to the remainder of the term, the >elected would also serve the next four year term. > 2) Make the RC position a two (2) year position elected by the CCs >of the region which they will serve. > 3) Divest the current, appointed GAGENWEB council of its roll in >amending the guidelines. I would suggest in its place, a standing >guidelines committee made up of the elected RCs, the or one (1) ASC, plus 3 >at large members elected by the CCs during the SC election. Besides >reviewing suggestions from time to time, the council must bring to a vote >any guideline revision(s) when petitioned by a minimum of 5% of the voting >membership. > 4) Advisory Board members should be elected serving two year terms. > 5) I would also ask the committee to review who votes in an >election. Avoid the possibility of stacking votes. It should be an even >number of votes within each county, project, etc. If one county has two >votes because it has a co-cc then every county should have two votes even >if it doesn't have a co-cc situation. If one project gets two votes >because of co-leadership then all should get two votes. There are probably >similar issues which should be reviewed. It may be best to have one county >- one vote and one project - one vote. Also please review which projects >would get a vote so the appearance of creating a bunch of projects to gain >votes could not occur. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail