Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words very much. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike From: Kathy Hines Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :) Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate for the National level. Kathy > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations into one document. > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > Mike > Clay Co >

Too old? I pictured you as a 30 something person. On the flip side I made the acquaintance of a 91 yr old researcher in the last week or so, who seems as lively as any of the rest of us. Tim On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Mike Peterson via <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh Kathy, been there, done that (ral), got beat up every week ! No thanks. > Also too old for it now. I do want to say that I appreciate your kind words > very much. Thank you. > Sincerely, > Mike > > From: Kathy Hines > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:33 PM > To: Mike (Dino) Peterson ; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MNGEN] By-Laws > > Mike, I think you may be an excellent candidate for the National elections > when they roll back around. Even though Parliamentary Procedures are not > my personal cup of tea, I can certainly appreciate those skills and > interests in someone else. I also appreciated your emails on 12/27 > regarding, "I’m in favor of organized expediency.” :) > > Additionally, I have a deep appreciation for someone who sticks to the > issue at hand and refrains from negativity about folks that may not fully > agree with your point of view. All things considered, since you have some > ideas about national rules, etc, I think you’d be a really great candidate > for the National level. > > Kathy > > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Mike (Dino) Peterson via < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bryant makes some excellent points. Some of us might not like it and > some of us think it is good but the national USGenWeb is under a > Parliamentary Authority (a bylaw) and the Board has currently chosen “The > Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis” (a special > rule). The USGenWeb currently breaks down “rules” by (for the national) > “Bylaws,” “Standard Rules,” and “Special Rules.” They’ve also generated a > “Guidelines” which in my opinion is an excellent document that cuts through > all the formal language and places many of the rules and recommendations > into one document. > > The intent of my question to the candidates was not to generate a big > discussion on the value of state rules and how to proceed but to find out > IF the candidates wanted to proceed (which would play a part on my vote), > and if so, how high was their priority on getting some rules set. And I > asked the question because I believe some minimal rules are required in the > state. I do not believe the national rules cover all issues that arise in > states. I do not believe that the state doesn’t need some sort of rules. It > is apparent to me that if we had some minimal rules then discussions on > this list would be greatly reduced. This list has been loaded with > discussions on logos, voting, replacing SC’s, roll calls, state web site > content, CC site requirements, ASC(s), and the list goes on. So, I think > each of the candidates have made their positions very clear at least to me. > How we go about it or if we go about it will depend on the SC voted in. > > Mike > > Clay Co > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >