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