-----Original Message----- From: Nancy Trice <trice@vci.net> To: friends@cresswells.com <friends@cresswells.com> Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: friends oh well... >>Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:01:07 -0600 >>To: Board-L@rootsweb.com >>From: Nancy Trice <trice@vci.net> >>Subject: oh well... >>Cc: USGWSC >>In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981101114245.00a442c0@1starnet.com> >> >>I started to send this privately to the members of the board but after >thinking about it for several hours have decided to post it publicly. I ask >that all state coordinators forward it to their state lists, but I'm sure >that some of you won't. For the benefit of those CCs whose SCs doesn't >forward it as requested, it will also be posted at: >>http://www.nlt.net/usgenweb/11-2-98.html >> >>I'll start by reminding all of you that I have been part of this project >for longer than any of you, discussing the concept with Jeff Murphy in late >Feb and early March 1996 before KyGenWeb even started... before it was ever >announced on the KYROOTS list. I have loved it and worked my butt off for >over 2 1/2 years to help make it what it is today. I have been SC and >archivist, or file manager, for 3 states, handled several hundred orphan >counties, put up numerous pages to help the new CCs, and have personally >helped many of you. I have attempted to do what I think is best for >USGenWeb, as I was elected to do... as I have done for over 2 1/2 years... >and have been villafied and maligned for doing so. >> >>Whether any of you realize it or not, I was put in a very awkward position >when the CCs elected me... I was against the bylaws as written... >campaigned against them... and am now in a position of having to work >within them because the consensus of opinion appeared to be that they are >better than no bylaws... vote them in and fix them later. Well, you've all >seen now how really bad they are and how they are open to different >interpretations. It doesn't matter what the intent was when they were >written. They are very poorly written, period! >> >>The bylaws say that the National Coordinator is the chair of the Advisory >Board but gives no direction for the NC to follow except 'these Bylaws and >by accepted parliamentary procedure'. What is considered 'day-to-day >administration'? What is 'accepted parliamentary procedure'? Who is to >decide? This should have all been spelled out in the bylaws instead of >leaving it so ambiquous. Since it wasn't I have done my best to try to >abide by them anyway as best I could and have been shot down at every step. >> >> >>The bylaws say that the Advisory Board '...shall address any problem >issues as they arise'... 'advising and mediating, if necessary, any >grievances or appeals...'. >> >>Websters dictionary gives the definition of Advisory as: >> adj. 1. Having power to adivse. 2. Containing or given as advice; >> not mandatory. >> >>To me, and to many other CCs, this says that the board are advisors to the >NC and the project volunteers... not the project 'leaders'. >> >>Article VI, Section 2 of the bylaws says that 'the National Coordinator >shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board'. Article VIII, >Section 1 of the bylaws says that 'Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory >Board shall constitute a quorum'. >> >>Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about how those meetings are to >be held, including that they may be held on a general board discussion list >and the quorum established because the board members are subbed to that list. >> >>I felt strongly (and still do) that board meetings should be held in real >time in order to properly establish a quorum according to the bylaws. I >also feel that the people who elected the board members expected you to >attend those meetings. As a nominee, I would also have thought that you >would expect there to be meetings that you would need to attend. It's >obvious that the majority of the board doesn't feel the way I do. >> >>It was discussed on the board list that you needed a secretary to keep up >with motions, votes, etc. I placed it on the Oct. 4 agenda where it was >promptly tabled. >> >>Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws states: The Advisory Board shall also >be responsible for administering the domains, usgenweb.com, usgenweb.net >and usgenweb.org, over which The USGenWeb Project membership has control >and for which the members are the official lessees. >> >>As the NC I wrote to Dale Schneider shortly after taking office to inquire >as to his intentions with the usgenweb.com domain. To this date I have >not received a response from him, even tho I sent a 2nd email a few weeks >later. I placed this item on the agenda for the board to discuss where it >was promptly tabled with a comment that he has said he won't turn it over >to the Advisory Board at this time. Because I wrote to him I have now been >accused of 'being obsessed with obtaining control of usgenweb.com' by Linda >Lewis and Don Spidell, both of whom are positive I plan on getting my >grubby little hands on it so I can turn it over to Jerry and Lucy Dill. If >anyone on the board that had 'spoken' with Dale had bothered to inform me >that they had corresponded or chatted with him and what he had said, I >wouldn't have placed it on the agenda. Even after placing it on the >agenda, I could have been informed so it could be removed, but in my >opinion you deliberately chose not to. Today, the bylaws still say that >the board controls that domain, and of course you do not... and further >you have not indicated in any way how you intend to reconcile the bylaws to >the reality. >> >>The board needs to begin working on election procedures for next year. I >placed this on the agenda for Oct. 4 and a committee chair was elected. If >anything has been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at >this time (4 weeks later). >> >>It's obvious that the bylaws need to be amended in many places. I put this >on the Oct. 4 agenda and a committee chair was elected. If anything has >been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at this time (4 >weeks later). >> >>Numerous project members have written me requesting that the board address >the question of whether or not a member of Rootsweb staff [namely Karen] >should even be on the board-l mail list, suggesting that if the board >needed her input on something she could be asked. I put it on the agenda >where it was quickly tabled, and has not been addressed yet. I, and >others, do not feel that Karen should be on the board list since she was >not elected by anyone [no offense meant to Karen]. >> >>On 11-1-98 Betsy wrote: >>>And, Nancy, I am at a loss as to why you were offended that Trey and I >decided to seek input into who our constituents would like to see as their >next representative. It concerns me that you automatically assume that we >wouldn't even consider your suggestion. Certainly it is one of the >suggestions that we were considering along with suggestions from our >constituents. >> >> >>One of the suggestions you were considering? Who was considering? and >where? Certainly not on the board list. I was not necessarily offended by >the fact that you took it to the CCs, and might even have agreed with you >had there been any real discussion on it. What does offend me however is >that I made a suggestion, 2 or 3 of you immediately shot it down and with >no further discussion it's on the SC list... no discussion at all as to how >we should proceed or whether we should take it to the CCs, try to have >another election, or whatever... it was just done. When I then commented on >it on the SC list, Holly immediately asked why I was discussing it there >instead of here. Funny... that's where the discussion was... not here! I >think that we should have decided how to proceed as a group and not just by >1 or 2 of you. Isn't this what you have all been saying to me for the past >2 months? Whether right or wrong, I saw this action as just one more slap >in the face to the NC by the Advisory Board. >> >>Almost every one of you have shot me down in the past 2 months because I >tried to lead us, as I was elected to do by the CCs, and the majority of >you have all said, in actions if not by words, that you [the AB] are the >project leader, and have effectively relegated the position of NC to a >motion numberer and vote counter. >> >>[snip] >> >>Betsy continued: >>>At this point, everything is so public that we can't even discuss >anything without being ripped to shreds on other lists. You don't know the >reasons I have voted as I have on ANY of the issues as you have not asked. >I would LOVE to discuss things with everyone (especially you), hear their >views, express my views, maybe even change my views after hearing the >discussion, etc. >> >>Have you one time asked me why I feel as I do? Have you tried to open a >dialogue? No... the board members just stated they were against something >or for something and immediately pushed for a vote. Maureen questioned the >board about this numerous times. >> >>>But this can not happen as it now stands. >> >>Not pointing any fingers here, but who did that? I said in Sept. that I >did not think the board list should be opened. I said we should have our >discussions on the list, in private, then hold a meeting to vote. Most of >you shot that down. I offered a very workable compromise which all but 1 >or 2 of you immediately shot down as not workable, and I believe every one >of you voted to open the list archives and hold a continuous meeting. I >don't know how any of you feel about it now, but I think that was a >terrible decision. I think the board has tied it's own hands, and unless >you close the board list archives I don't think you'll ever get anything >done. >> >>I also know that as both a CC and a SC I would never bring any problem I >might have to the board because there is no privacy anymore. I think by >opening the list archives you have done a great injustice to any SC or CC >that might want to seek your advise. I believe the board discussions >should be private, board meetings either open to the public or at least a >log or minutes of the meeting posted. >> >>[snip] >> >>>Personally, I would like for us to back up and slow down on this >replacement issue. I don't understand the reason behind the rush to >immediately appoint someone. The only persons I have heard from in support >of Kathy are all from KS which is only one of the states represented in >this region. Everyone else I have heard from wishes that we could poll the >constituents of our region. The answer might still be to appoint Kathy, >but it might not. But at least we would know the wishes of the CC's or our >region. Is there anything wrong with this??? >> >> >>What have I said that indicated I was in a rush to fill the position >Betsy? Again, had there been discussion about it I might have changed my >original position on the matter, but I wasn't given that opportunity. I >just think the board should have decided as a body how to proceed instead >of some of you taking it upon yourselves without a vote, in effect doing >what you have all accused me of doing. >> >>It's quite obvious to me that the AB does not interpret any of the bylaws >the same way I do. It's also obvious that none of you have the same >concerns that I do. I have stated over and over that I am for a bottom up >structure. That means the CCs should control the project. There are 50 >states, which means 100 people if none of them were SC in more than 1 state >and each state has an ASC, and there are 4 SC reps for them, and only 8 to >represent in the neighborhood of 2000 CCs. To me that is top down, not >bottom up. I am also completely against the special projects all having a >voting board member. I think that is an open invitation for more and more >special projects to be set up in order to get a board seat and eventually >the special projects will control the USGW board. 4 of the 15 board members >were elected by less than 100 people, all of whom are SCs, and 3 were >supposedly voted on, [but might have been appointed], by special projects, >many of whom are not CCs. As a CC I don't like the numbers, and many >others I've talked with don't either. >> >>I'm also concerned by the statements I see now that a CC that received >votes in the last election should not be appointed because their views >'might not be the best for USGW' or words to that effect. Frankly, I think >the board should be comprised of people with differing view points and >different ideas, not by a group of people all with the same philosophy or >agenda. I think for USGW to continue to grow all ideas must be considered. > From what I have seen on the lists however, it appears that a certain >group of people want only people with their views on the board, and anyone >that doesn't share their views is labeled a troublemaker and quickly run >off the list. >> >>I also feel that a process needs to be set up to insure that a 'fired' >volunteer gets a fair shake if they file an appeal. Yes, I'm talking about >Kenny Thomas. That's over and done with now but it still leaves a very >bitter taste in the mouths of many of the CCs, especially those in Ks. This >board did nothing to mediate the problem or even try to find out what >really happened, automatically assuming that everything that Linda Lewis >said was gospel and everything that Kenny Thomas, and Maureen Reed, said >was a lie. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I >tried to set up a board list where it could be discussed by all interested >parties but that didn't work either did it? Seems that the board [and >RootsWeb staff] apparently thought I wouldn't allow the right people to be >subbed or something. >> >>I've heard from numerous CCs that Linda refused to let them sub to the >Archives-L list because they were CCs and not state level. I asked to be >subbed to that list when it looked like the Ks situation would be discussed >there. Linda subbed me then immediately unsubbed me when I asked everyone >to wait until the new list was obtained. Because of some of the >accusations I had heard I asked her to resub me. She did so, very >grudgingly, then immediately set up a new list for the archive CCs, subbed >me to it and unsubbed me from the archives-l without so much as a note. >That goes a long way toward giving credence to some of the problems I have >heard about, to say nothing about giving the distinct impression that she >feels that what goes on in the Archives is of no concern to the NC, or the >USGenWeb project. At the very least it was very disrespectful to the NC, >regardless of who the NC might be. >> >>After re-reading this several times, and considering how the board feels, >and how I feel about the bylaws, I think it's best if I just go ahead and >resign. Maybe you can get someone as NC that holds your views. >> >>You may consider this my resignation as National Coordinator. >> >>nt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >