Fellow GAGenWeb Coordinators, The upcoming vote was precipitated by a petition from some GAGenWeb county coordinators who allege specific transgressions on the part of the state coordinator. However, I believe there are much broader issues involved and much more at stake. Our Georgia guidelines have proven to be seriously flawed, placing all control over the project in the hands of the state coordinator and the council, with no mandate for the governing body to accept any suggestion or proposal from the membership (county coordinators). Thus, the upcoming vote also addresses two questions: 1. Is the current state coordinator willing to allow *meaningful* reform of the guidelines to include (but not limited to) regular elections, terms and term limits for all council members (including the state coordinator), as well as a mechanism for member-initiated amendments? 2. Given the turmoil of the past few months, can the current state coordinator lead this project toward a more productive future, in which it is governed in an open manner conducive to complete member participation? As to voting, I take my citizenship in this project seriously. It is my right, my responsibility and my privilege to vote. Not voting simply is not an option. Respectfully, Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County Coordinator 3570 Hildon Circle Chamblee, GA 30341

In response to the questions posed by Vivian, I would like the opportunity to respond. In response to question 1, yes, the current SC is interested in revising the guidelines to allow more input from the members of the Project - the County Coordinators. In fact, prior to the complaints being filed, we had been discussing the formation of a committee to revise those guidelines. In response to question 2, I believe that Tim Stowell is the most qualified person to lead the Project out of chaos and into the openly-governed Project that we all desire. There will always be SOME issues which require some form of confidentiality and discussion among the Council before presentation to the members of the Project. I do not think that there is anyone in this Project who realizes how important the CC's are to this Project more than Tim. Richard On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:15:36 -0400, Vivian Price Saffold wrote > Fellow GAGenWeb Coordinators, > > The upcoming vote was precipitated by a petition from some GAGenWeb > county coordinators who allege specific transgressions on the part > of the state coordinator. However, I believe there are much broader > issues involved and much more at stake. > > Our Georgia guidelines have proven to be seriously flawed, placing > all control over the project in the hands of the state coordinator > and the council, with no mandate for the governing body to accept > any suggestion or proposal from the membership (county coordinators). > > Thus, the upcoming vote also addresses two questions: > > 1. Is the current state coordinator willing to allow *meaningful* > reform of the guidelines to include (but not limited to) regular > elections, terms and term limits for all council members (including > the state coordinator), as well as a mechanism for member-initiated amendments? > > 2. Given the turmoil of the past few months, can the current state > coordinator lead this project toward a more productive future, in > which it is governed in an open manner conducive to complete member participation? > > As to voting, I take my citizenship in this project seriously. It is > my right, my responsibility and my privilege to vote. Not voting > simply is not an option. > > Respectfully, > Vivian Price Saffold > Meriwether County Coordinator > 3570 Hildon Circle > Chamblee, GA 30341 > > ==== 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

At 10:15 AM 4/8/03 -0400, Vivian Price Saffold wrote: >Fellow GAGenWeb Coordinators, > >The upcoming vote was precipitated by a petition from some GAGenWeb county >coordinators who allege specific transgressions on the part of the state >coordinator. However, I believe there are much broader issues involved and >much more at stake. > >Our Georgia guidelines have proven to be seriously flawed, placing all >control over the project in the hands of the state coordinator and the >council, with no mandate for the governing body to accept any suggestion or >proposal from the membership (county coordinators). Please review the national bylaws - for in states without guidelines - that is a fact. That Georgia has made an effort at mandating other items puts it far ahead of most states. Are the Guidelines perfect - no. For they were created at the time - with input from the CCs of the time - to cover as many situations as we could forsee at that point in time. New situations develop - some rules worked, others haven't. So the Guidelines get polished some more. The reason items haven't been addressed as far as the Guidelines are concerned after February 4th was at the request of the National Coordinator that Georgia be frozen as it was. >Thus, the upcoming vote also addresses two questions: > >1. Is the current state coordinator willing to allow *meaningful* reform of >the guidelines to include (but not limited to) regular elections, terms and >term limits for all council members (including the state coordinator), as >well as a mechanism for member-initiated amendments? Willing? - Yes. In fact the ASC is in the process of forming a committee to study just that. >2. Given the turmoil of the past few months, can the current state >coordinator lead this project toward a more productive future, in which it >is governed in an open manner conducive to complete member participation? Governed? There's not much to govern - CCs are mostly selected by the RCs, the SC is mandated by the National Bylaws to maintain the state mailing list (GAGEN) and the state site - which is mostly a collection of links to the county sites plus a couple of Special Projects (African American and Native American), and some state history that I'm adding to the site. >As to voting, I take my citizenship in this project seriously. It is my >right, my responsibility and my privilege to vote. Not voting simply is not >an option. That is true - yet 60 - 80% of your fellow citizens opt not to vote in most elections around the country. While you may not take it as an option for yourself - the vast majority often does. As this is a free society folks have 4 options: they can opt to vote - yes, no or present or not vote. Tim

> >2. Given the turmoil of the past few months, can the current state > >coordinator lead this project toward a more productive future, in > >which it is governed in an open manner conducive to complete member > >participation? > > Governed? There's not much to govern - CCs are mostly selected by the > RCs, the SC is mandated by the National Bylaws to maintain the state > mailing list (GAGEN) and the state site - which is mostly a collection > of links to the county sites plus a couple of Special Projects > (African American and Native American), and some state history that > I'm adding to the site. Yet we are here <recall> because of the removal of several CCs. I'd say that qualifies as Governing. Which remains Vivian's Question, what of the future, and will we still see the same, or will there be change from the current Leadership to move forward with *ALL* cc's for a more productive future, or after the vote will it be back to where we left off and CCs removed and an unwillingness to work with all CCs and their idiosyncracies. Signs that we *ARE^ volunteers and ^NOT^ employees to be called into the office and dismissed without laws to back us. > >As to voting, I take my citizenship in this project seriously. It is > >my right, my responsibility and my privilege to vote. Not voting > >simply is not an option. > > That is true - yet 60 - 80% of your fellow citizens opt not to vote in > most elections around the country. While you may not take it as an > option for yourself - the vast majority often does. > > As this is a free society folks have 4 options: they can opt to vote - > yes, no or present or not vote. Which is a much better way of stating such, than the previous method of you encouraging people not to vote. Derek Nichols Echols County, GA