FYI. I looked around and this could be a useful resource. There are several New Mexico maps listed plus a link for The Western Association of Map Libraries: http://www.waml.org/. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sullivan" <rsullivan@sals.edu> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:52 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Sanborn Map Repositories > For anyone who might be using Sanborn maps in their research, a list of > libraries and other institutions which own them: > > <http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/sanbul.html> > > Bob Sullivan > NY SC

Bettie Wood, one of our regional representatives is inviting you to join the regional e-mail list. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bosque Lover" <nana321@earthlink.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:48 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] An Invitation > Could I please get all the SCs/ASCs to forward this message to their > state mail lists? > > This is an invitation to subscribe to USGenWeb Project mail lists > Hopefully this will make CCs "aware" that there are such lists available > for discussion of USGenWeb Project matters. > > Not only are there lists for each region: NENC, NWPL, SEMA & SWSC > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/regionmail.html > but there is a project wide Discuss list > (USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com) > **Please note that the representative info has not been updated yet.** > > Also a list (read only) just for project news: > USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com > > Not sure what region one is in???: > http://www.usgenweb.com/about/regions.html > > These lists can help establish better communication between the CCs & > their AB reps, & also keep them "in the know" of project happenings. > Bettie Wood <>< > SWSC CC rep > -- > "OLD" IS WHEN.....Your friends compliment you on your new alligator > shoes & you're barefoot. > >

My apologies if you get two copies. This is being sent to the NMGenWeb CCs and to the NMGenWeb list because some CCs are on the NMGenWeb CCs distribution list only. Susan Susan Stockbridge Bellomo http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmgenweb/ State Coordinator, NMGenWeb County Coordinator, Chaves, Grant and Otero Counties ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tina S. Vickery" <tsvickery@adelphia.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:42 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Important Election Notice > To All USGenWeb Members - > > **Please forward to all USGenWeb members and lists** > > Important reminder: The USGenWeb National > Election is right around the corner. The > nomination period will be June 1-14, 2004, and > the voting period will be July 1-31, 2004. > > In order to vote in this election you must be > Registered > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/register.html > with the Election Committee no > later than May 31, 2004. New registrations > will not be accepted from 1 June through the > election period, which may extend into August > if there are run-off contests. > > Please visit the EC WebSite > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/ for more > information, particularity the National 2004 > Election Pages > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/national-2004/index.html > > If you have a question, please take a few > moments to read the Election FAQ. > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/national-2004/faq.htm . > > The EC encourages everyone to Register and > Vote! > > Thank you, > The USGenWeb Election Committee

FYI. There have been many posts back and forth discussing the proposed bylaws changes and the proposal to elect or select a USGenWeb Treasurer. If you would like to read everything that has been posted, you can do so by visiting the archives: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=USGENWEB-SW Rootsweb archives its mailing lists in case anyone wants to read more. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: [USGW-Discuss] Bylaws changes > ** Please forward to appropriate project email lists ** > > This may help http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/compare_table.htm > > Roger > BRC-Chairman > > > > From: "Charles Gregory" <gregoryc@comcast.net> > [snip] > > would it be possible for the AB to compose a list of exactly > > what will be changed so we can actually see them seperate > > from the original bylaws..... > > > > i know they are online now but written as if already a part > > of the bylaws requiring one to have to sit and compare the > > Old and the New.... > > > > Charlie

FYI. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford (by way of Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net>)" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:15 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] BRC Final Report (Motion 04-13) > We have received (see below) the final report of the Bylaws Revision > Committee, including a motion that the recommended revisions be presented > to the membership in the upcoming election. This motion comes from the > committee and does not require a second, but is treated just as if it had > been proposed from the floor and seconded. > > The AB 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 > > The motion has been numbered (Motion 04-13) and is now open for discussion. > > -Isaiah > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- > Date: 14 May 2004 > To: NC, USGenWeb Project Advisory Board > >From : Bylaws Revision Committee > Subject: Committee Final Report. > > The Bylaws Revision Committee was established March 10, 2002 by then > National Coordinator Holly Timm. Instructions were 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. > > The committee initially considered changes by the consensus building > process. Committee members with strongly held convictions regarding their > views soon revealed the weakness of the process best described by the > following - "To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all > beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one > believes and to which no one objects. - Margaret Thatcher" > The committee began the use preferential voting in a process of selecting > from individual proposals resulting in a revision proposal supported by a > majority of committee members. Great care was taken during committee > proceedings to assure that revisions will promote fairness and equitable > treatment for all USGenWeb members. The revision is our best effort to > provide for stability and enable growth of the project in future years. > > Many USGenWeb members have given of their valuable time and provided their > own unique insight to the revision process. To all those who served, a > sincere thank you! > Phyllis Rippee, Marion McCreadie, Jimmy Epperson, Jeff Scism, Roger > Swafford, Kelley Blizzard, Charles Barnum, Dennis Muncrief, Ginger Hayes, > Carol Carwile-Head, Elva Morgan, Shari Handley, Noel Matthews, Don Kelly, > Gloria B. Mayfield, Derek Hartshorn, Kimberly Taylor Morgan, Bettie Wood, > Wyndell Taylor, Angie Rayfield, Ellen Rohr, Ron Henson, Derek Nichols, > Denise Wells. > > The BRC moves this report be filed and the Bylaws Revision posted at > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/bylaws_revision.htm be posted to the > national website for presentation to the membership for vote during the > upcoming election cycle. A 2/3 majority of those voting on the Revision is > required to adopt. > > Note - appropriate "htm" files to be sent to the NC/Webmaster for posting on > approval of the motion. > > Approval - Signatories > Roger Swafford - Chairman > Don Kelly > Shari Handley > Bettie Wood > Denise Wells > Gloria B. Mayfield > Dennis Muncrief > > Opposed - Signatories > Derek Nichols > > Absentees - > Ron Henson > Marion McCreadie

This genealogy poem is my gift to everyone for Mother's Day. I think many of you will be able to relate to it. (My poetry has been published in 47 US States, and several other countries. My Poetry Website: http://users.rosenet.net/poetryandroses/ (This remains one of my favorite poems) MY ANCESTOR GRAND MOTHER I search for you yet do not even know your name I press on praying my efforts will prove fruitful the records do not list you or the other women who have lived and loved and laughed, gave birth, and died, the records perpetrate the myth that you were never here but I stand whole and bare my soul and vow to find you as I live I search for you in old records, in churches, at the Embassy, in small dimly lit rooms in the back of obscure libraries and archives and pour over barely readable handwritten ledgers with magnifying glass and flashlight I live on mainly toast these days there isn't time for meals or much sleep feeling as I always do, on the very brink of discovery Perhaps THIS will be the day I find the one seemingly insignificant clue, which will lead me to you although I did not find you listed in the Census Records I am not deterred, you may turn up yet, on an Immigration or Naturalization list somewhere perhaps, or maybe tucked away inside some bank of vital statistics, long forgotten like so many others, your name having become lost over the long years Your name could be lying even now amidst the millions of documents stored and locked away safeguarded in the bowels of a giant warehouse all stopped up from apathetic crowds who have long ceased their visits your precious name, lying just inside a myriad of records packed in tight, packed in to stay never guessing I would come @Sarah Elizabeth Rosesrose@rosenet.net

The 1895 NM County maps--based on a 1895 state map, have been uploaded to New Mexico Digital Maps Library, a USGenWeb Project. http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/newmexico/ Charles Barnum

from: "Bette" <betterichs@earthlink.net> AZSTATEGENSOC-L@rootsweb.com The Federation of Genealogical Societies had these source in their latest edition of FORUM. British India information http://www.indiaman.com Life on the Midwest Prairies http://www.connerprairie.org Riley Co., KS Genealogical Society http://www.rileycgs.com Life styles of coal miners in PA http://www.coalandcoke.org Hamburg Emigrant list with nearly 2 million entries http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/staatsarchiv/link_to_your_roots/english/ index.htm Irish in NY city http://www.inyc.freeservers.com Bette

Susan B. please send me a new e-mail address. It looks like I have an old one, mail was returned. Richard Wilkinson Eddy CC

FYI, the service is a search tool. Here is a response from an Ancestry representative. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" <lhaasdav@cox.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:55 AM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Fw: [OKMUSKOG] Ancestry to begin charging for One World Tree > Below is a response to the message I posted yesterday about > Ancestry's One World Tree. The way I read and understood the > information page was what I posted yesterday. If I was > incorrect my apologies. > > Linda > homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ > TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Myra Vanderpool Gormley" <myravgormley@earthlink.net> > To: <OKMUSKOG-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:34 PM > Subject: Re: [OKMUSKOG] Ancestry to begin charging for One > World Tree > > > | Let's set the record straight, Family Trees you submit to > RootsWeb's > | WorldConnect and/or Ancestry World Tree continue to be > free for anyone to > | access and search just as they always have been. NOTHING > has changed as to > | your use of WorldConnect/AWT's combined database. > | > | The new program that has recently come along is One World > Tree (OWT), which > | is a new advanced subscription search feature ( it's a > tool) that matches > | data found in the free trees and some of the pay databases > and census > | records found at Ancestry, and stitches it into a finished > product to cut > | out the work of searching and matching data for the > subscriber. What the > | subscriber to OWT is paying for is the convenience of > having the searching > | and matching done for him....not for accessing or > searching the free family > | trees housed on their site. > | > | Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG > | > | > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Linda Haas Davenport" <lhaasdav@cox.net> > | To: <OKMUSKOG-L@rootsweb.com> > | Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 4:10 PM > | Subject: [OKMUSKOG] Ancestry to begin charging for One > World Tree > | > | > | > If you have submitted a family tree to Ancestry.com's > OneWorldTree site, > | you need to be aware of a change about to be implemented > by Ancestry. > | > > | > Family Trees uploaded to the OneWorldTree site, which > have been free > | heretofore, will be moved into a subscription data base. > After approximately > | May 21st this data base will no longer be accessible for > free. Ancestry will > | be begin offering OneWorldTree Preview at $49.95 for 14 > months for access to > | these donated trees. > | > > | > If you'd prefer that your information not be sold, there > is a link below > | which will take you to a set of instructions on opting out > by deleting your > | tree. > | > > | > Go first here: > http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/trees/owt/ > | > When you arrive at the page - look for the link toward > the top "What's a > | preview?" > | > Read the information and then click on "View our > checklist" (which appears > | on #3). > | > On the page is a statement that says "If for any reason > you do not want > | your tree to be part of the new OneWorldTree service, you > must delete it > | from the Ancestry World Tree database by tentatively May > 21, 2004." > | > Click on the link "Deleting a tree you submitted" > | > The resulting page gives instructions on how to delete > your tree. > | > > | > Feel free to pass this along to other lists. > | > > | > Linda > | > homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > | > MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ > | > TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > ==== OKMUSKOG Mailing List ==== > | > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain > letters, > | political > | > announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, > | > etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > grounds for > | removal. > | > Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett > | kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > | > Oklahoma Cemeteries Volunteer Website > | http://www.rootsweb.com/~okcemete/okcem.htm > | > > | > ============================== > | > Gain access to over two billion names including the new > Immigration > | > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to > learn more. > | > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid= > 1237 > | > > | > | > | ==== OKMUSKOG Mailing List ==== > | NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain > letters, political > | announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, > | etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > grounds for removal. > | Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett > kathleenburnett@earthlink.net > | Oklahoma Cemeteries Volunteer Website > http://www.rootsweb.com/~okcemete/okcem.htm > | > | ============================== > | Gain access to over two billion names including the new > Immigration > | Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to > learn more. > | > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid= > 1237 > | > > > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > To search the mail list archives, go to > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=USGENWEB-SW

FYI. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 4:06 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > (** may be forwarded to any appropriate project email list) > The revision is comprised of many different changes to the bylaws. Current > bylaws offer no method of presenting multiple amendments for membership > approval. Sturgis provides the process by which multiple amendments (a > revision) should be presented to the membership. > > There is no conflict with current bylaws, there is no process given for > multiple amendments. > > The revision of the article says "The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by > the current edition of "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" in all > cases not provided for in the law, bylaws or adopted rules. " > > Another listmember correctly mentioned the only reason to require more than > a majority vote is to protect the rights of a minority. What minority is > protected by requiring more than a majority vote for amendment adoption? > The comments of the 26th included -- "The 2/3 clause in the case of The > USGenWeb Project was originally intended to prevent a minority group of > passing bad, frivolous amendments or attempting to destroy things that so > many people have worked to > build." A *minority* (<50%) cannot adopt anything under any circumstances. > The inference is that >50% but <66.66% approval is considered a minority > attempting to destroy things. > > I hope readers are not misunderstanding the vote requirement for adoption of > the bylaws revision. It will require 2/3 majority vote per the current > bylaws. In addition, it must be presented during an election cycle unless > the AB adopts a motion to present it by referendum at a different time. > > Roger > > > From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > From: Trey <holt@txcyber.com> > > The way I read this the response from the bylaws committee is still we > > don't like what the current bylaws clearly > > say and we have found a way through parliamentary procedure (ie. Sturgis) > > to do things the way we want to do them. > > > > A little fact that Roger left out is and I quote from article 15 of the > > current bylaws, "The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted > > parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure > > conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. " > > > > He failed to mention the part except in those case where parliamentary > > procedure may conflict with the bylaws. And by the way if you read the > > proposed revisions this line is no longer in the bylaws. > > > > As for the arguments made regarding the 2/3's clause and minority/majority > > rule I stand by our comments in our message of Monday April 26th. > > > > I encourage everyone to contact their Advisory Board representative and > > tell them that you want the 2/3's clause retained and any amendments voted > > on properly as the current bylaws clearly call for. > > > > Thanks > > Trey Holt

FYI. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "MAK - Transcriber" <maktranscriber@yahoo.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 11:51 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Free Family Tree Viewing to be eliminated - Ancestry Changes > I am forwarding this to all my lists - and to people > who may be interested in this new change - it goes > against what USGenWeb stands for - FREE genealogy.... > Please pass to ALCON - (all concerned) > > +++++ > > If you submitted a family tree to Ancestry.com (or > MyFamily.com) for free viewing by researchers, that's > all about to change. Later this month Ancestry plans > to begin charging researchers to view your trees. > > If you don't want that, you'll have to remove your > tree. > > Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/trees/owt/ > > Click on "What's a Preview" > > Scroll down to #3: Have you already submitted a family > tree? > > Click on "view our checklist" > > A few lines down you will see: > > "If for any reason you do not want your tree to be > part of the new OneWorldTree service, you must delete > it from the Ancestry World Tree database by > tentatively May 21, 2004." > > There are instructions for removing your tree: > http://ancestry.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ancestry.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_ faqid=1090 > > > > ===== > MAKtranscriber > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

checking in for Dona Ana County Elsa

Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lea, Roosevelt & Quay Counties checking in. _____________________________________ Harold Kilmer - NMGenWeb Coordinator for Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lea, Roosevelt & Quay Counties in the great state of New Mexico. http://rootsweb.com/~nmcurry/index.html

Happy Spring from Rio Arriba County!

Hidalgo here! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Eddy County check in for May 2004 Richard Wilkinson

Chaves, Grant and Otero Counties checking in. Susan Stockbridge Bellomo http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmgenweb/ State Coordinator, NMGenWeb County Coordinator, Chaves, Grant and Otero Counties

Taos County checking in with counter at 25067 for 672 hits since March 1. Karen

FYI, more discussion on the bylaws. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:36 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:10:45 -0500 > From: Trey <holt@txcyber.com> > Reply-To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com > To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:10:44 -0600 > Resent-From: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com > > > The way I read this the response from the bylaws committee is still we > don't like what the current bylaws clearly > say and we have found a way through parliamentary procedure (ie. Sturgis) > to do things the way we want to do them. > > A little fact that Roger left out is and I quote from article 15 of the > current bylaws, "The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted > parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure > conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. " > > He failed to mention the part except in those case where parliamentary > procedure may conflict with the bylaws. And by the way if you read the > proposed revisions this line is no longer in the bylaws. > > As for the arguments made regarding the 2/3's clause and minority/majority > rule I stand by our comments in our message of Monday April 26th. > > I encourage everyone to contact their Advisory Board representative and > tell them that you want the 2/3's clause retained and any amendments voted > on properly as the current bylaws clearly call for. > > Thanks > Trey Holt > > > At 11:49 AM 4/29/2004, you wrote: > >Some members have expressed concern with the following points regarding the > >Bylaws Revision. > > > >1. A change from 2/3 majority vote to a majority vote for approval of future > >bylaws amendments if the revision is adopted. > >2. The process to be used in presenting the revision to the membership for a > >vote. > > > >Re: 1 > >The ultimate authority of an organization is vested in the majority vote of > >its members. When considering vote requirements for various actions to be > >valid the rights of the following > >must be considered - the majority, the minority, individual members and > >absentees. Majority rule is the most basic principle of democracy. To permit > >fewer than a majority to decide for the whole organization is to subject the > >many to the rule of the few. > > > >Consider the following from Sturgis pg. 131 - > >"Some members mistakenly assume that the higher the vote required to take an > >action, the greater the protection of members. Instead, the opposite is > >true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an > >action, control is taken from the majority and given to a minority. For > >example, when a two-thirds vote is required, the minority need be only > >one-third plus one member to defeat the proposal. Thus, a minority is > >permitted to overrule the will, not only of the majority, but of almost > >two-thirds of the members. If a two-thirds vote is required to pass a > >proposal and 65 members vote for the proposal and 35 members vote against > >it, the 35 members have won; the 65 have been defeated. This is minority, > >not majority rule." > > > >Retaining the 2/3 requirement subjects the many to the rule of the few. A > >majority is half (50% + 1 ). The example above clearly shows the existing > >minority rule environment within our project. > > > >Re: 2 > >An implication has been made that "they" are making up rules. The "they" in > >this case appears to refer to the BRC. The facts of the situation are; > >- more then a few amendments are needed to accomplish an update to the > >bylaws > >- to subject the membership to endless rounds of amendment votes, rewrites > >followed by more votes is neither practical nor desired > >- the bylaws provide for use of parliamentary procedure in cases not covered > >in the bylaws > >- the current parliamentary procedure (Sturgis) provides information for > >bylaw revision. > >See. http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/PA.htm > > > >The original bylaws were presented for a single vote to adopt or reject. > >There is no valid reason the revision should not be presented in the same > >manner. > > > >Roger Swafford > >BRC- Chairman > >http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > > > > > > > > >==== TXGEN Mailing List ==== > >The TXGEN-L/TXGEN-D mailing list is for announcements and the > >discussion of issues concerning the volunteers of The TXGenWeb Project. > >This is NOT the proper list for posting genealogical research queries. > > > ==== TXGEN Mailing List ==== > The TXGW-NEWS-L mailing list is for announcements, roll calls, > etc, and is the required TXGenWeb list for the CCs, assistant > CCs and surfers