Fellow USGenWeb Project Volunteers, For whatever it is worth, I concur and support Trey Holt's objections to the BRC's revisions and motion to implement the revisions as currently written. Edward Hayden, SC LAGenWeb Project CC in KYGenWeb, MOGenWeb, ARGenWeb, TXGenWeb, LAGenWeb -----Original Message----- From: Trey [mailto:holt@txcyber.com] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:40 PM To: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] BRC, A new state project? Fellow USGenWeb Project Volunteers, I guess I must have missed the announcement of the 51st state project joining the USGenWeb Project. The Advisory Board has allowed the "Bylaws Revision Committee" to make Motion 04-13 which if passed will place these "revisions" as they are calling them on the upcoming ballot. The bylaws still read in Article XVI, and I went back and checked just in case parliamentary procedure somehow has changed them since I last looked :), that it takes a state project to propose an amendment to the bylaws and 5 states to co sponsor it or them before they may be placed on the ballot. Given what is written in Article XVI of the bylaws the "Bylaws Revision Committee" must have at some time been declared a new state project because only state projects can propose amendments to the bylaws and I am sure that no one would try to make up a story that these are not amendments. All kidding aside we all know that this is exactly what some members of the BRC are trying to do. They believe that by calling these "revisions" that they can rely on "Sturgis" parliamentary procedure to bypass the bylaws and create rules for provisions that they believe are not in the bylaws. The bylaws do provide for "revisions" it just calls them amendments. The original instructions given to the committee in 2002 by Holly Timm was to study the USGenWeb bylaws to determine which articles or sections needed revision and to: 1)delete unnecessary sections, 2) clarify or strengthen sections, 3) add new articles as deemed necessary. In addition, the committee was prohibited from making major changes in the project structure, such as deciding which of the census project is to be officially recognized or eliminating the archives. It is clear from these instructions that tweaking is what was meant not a major overhaul in fact the BRC was prohibited from making major changes in the project structure. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Amendments as: "The act of changing for the better; improvement. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript. The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record. A statement of such an alteration or addition (ie, The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.)" Given her instructions the NC probably should not have put the word "revision" in the name of the committee, if she was the one that did, because that is what seems to be what is causing the trouble. If you look in a thesaurus the words "revision" and "amendments" are synonyms therefore to try to use the argument that the bylaws due not provide for "revisions" is a false one. The bylaws clearly provide instructions for amending the bylaws and this is not the proper way. Besides the fact that these "revisions" have several major problems this motion needs to be either to filed or postponed indefinitely, or sent back to the committee so it can be divided up into proper amendments and sent out so that a state can present them properly. I would prefer to just see them postponed indefinitely because these things should have never been written in the first place. When we were putting the current bylaws together the one thing that I always heard from other members was keep the power at the county level and in the states. They told me it is the local projects and the state projects that make the USGenWeb Project great. I'm not sure what made the Advisory Board or the NC in 2002 think they had the authority to even create this Bylaws Revision Committee but this committee should have never been created since there already was a clear process in the bylaws for amending them from the local and state level. By creating this committee the Advisory Board then and succeeding Advisory Boards have said that they do not trust the state projects or the local coordinators to amend the bylaws if they feel it is necessary. The Board has the following options To approve the motion as written (adopt it) or can amend the motion as follows: - to file or postpone indefinitely ( in effect, kills the revision) - to postpone to a specific time ( * would require future AB action to post for vote by referendum) - to file and post with exceptions (strike out sections or articles of the revision) - to refer back to committee for further work Let your Advisory Board Member Representatives hear your opinion. Thanks Trey Holt Brazos Co TXGenWeb