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