I ask that all the members of the board be sent a copy of this since some of the email addresses are bad from the National Page. Mr. Harrison, This message came across our CC list this AM and I agree with Carol. The rights of one individual dictate the rights of a group for without due process of one there cannot be due process for all. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty and Tim having the right to offer evidence on his behalf and to council. The amount of evidence that has been sent is overwhelming and the final submission within several days of this writing. I have my doubts that there has been ample time for all of this material to be reviewed. This, I might add was a request from the AB for additional information and not a delay tactic on anyone's part. You are trampling all over every amendment right that Tim has. If you cannot be fair to Tim then you will not be fair to me and it is your duty as NC to be fair to all. If you have a personal conflict with Tim then you should recuse yourself from these proceedings and it certainly appears that way since you are denying Tim due process to a process that you set up. The complainants did not follow due process at the State Level. You allowed a gang mentality to be brought when none of complaints were connected to each other, each should have stood on it's own merit. These complaints were brought after Keith Giddeon had a call to arms to have Tim ousted from the project because of his actions as a ASC that caused his removal. In effect Keith had asked the RC council to pretend that Tim had resigned when he had not , violating the GaGenWeb guidelines to try to force a vote to oust Tim when Keith knew that the USGENWEB Bylaws would be violated. When he failed at this and was removed as ASC he started calling for the CC's to call for a vote. All of this is documented as evidence. That is when all of these complaints were brought to the AB bypassing any the GaGenWeb guidelines that say grievances be brought there first. So all of these complaints should be sent back to the state level since the USGENWEB Bylaws state they must be filed at the State level and all possible state level processing be exhausted when they in fact were never filed on the state level. I ask that you follow due process that you set up. Has something changed because 3 members have resigned. Is this action being brought by you because it could fail with a vote? I ask that you recuse yourself from these proceedings because it appears that you have a dislike for Tim and want him removed. I ask that due process be followed as was originally set up by you. I ask that all evidence be placed on a WWW site so it can be viewed by the members of the GAGENWEB since there is nothing to hide. We have the right to know since it effects our SC. You were provided all the documents with full headers and we have not even seen any evidence from the other side to support the complaints and I offer that there are none. I as a CC of Georgia want to see the evidence that the complainants have submitted as proof of their complaint before any requests for a vote moves forward and that all Tim have his opportunity to present with council his side. I would also request that you provide information showing that this has been done before and this is not being set as a precedent for the State of Georgia and not for other states. Respectfully, Margie Daniels CC Putnam, Crawford, Macon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol C-H" <cch@netdoor.com> To: <GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:42 AM Subject: [GAGEN] "removal of the GAGenWeb State Coordinator"? > Would someone please explain to me ON THIS LIST - in public so ALL of us GA > CCs can see it - what in the sam hill is going on? Are we going to have to > vote on ousting our SC without most of us having even seen the petition or > heard what Tim has to say in his own > defense? http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2003-02/1046150842 > > I am in favor of regularly scheduled elections with no limits to the number > of terms a person can serve, but I am NOT in favor of just throwing out a > SC. Especially one who has always been nice to me. > > I am HEARTSICK about this - > > Carol C-H <cch@netdoor.com> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, online information. > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003

> The rights of one individual dictate the rights of a group for without due > process of one there cannot be due process for all. I know! And isn't it odd that it take 10% of the voting CCs to remove a SC, but only one SC to remove a CC? Bettie <><

> And isn't it odd that it take 10% of the voting CCs to remove a SC, > but only one SC to remove a CC? This is SUPPOSED to say It takes 10% of the voting CCs to petition for an election to remove a SC, while it takes only one SC to remove a CC. Sorry, <g> Bettie <>< -- Keep the candle going http://207.44.161.160/goose/friendcandle.html -- All outgoing mail virus free, scanned by Norton 2002, http://www.symantec.com/