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