----- Original Message ----- From: "Bosque Lover" <nana321@earthlink.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Next Motion > This is the next motion that has been presented to the Advisory Board, > which we will soon be voting on. > > It has been moved by Gail (Kilgore) and seconded by Jan (Cortez to > appoint Mike Jarvis as Webmaster and to appoint Julie McGrew-Ayers and > Peter Gossett as Assistant Webmasters for The USGenWeb Project. > > Is there any questions you all would like me to ask? > I have seen sample web pages done by all 3. My opinion is they all 3 > did an excellent job & we'll be lucky to have all 3 project members > doing this for us. We have much talent in USGenWeb, & if any of those 3 > happen to be on this list, Thnak you for volunteering!!! > Bettie <>< > SWSC CC rep > -- > By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go > anywhere. ~Unknown > > > > > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > To browse the mail list archives, go to > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-SW/

FYI--responses to Roger. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: [TXGEN] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Roger Swafford 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. > > The bylaws were meant to be hard to change. If it were easy to change > the rules, then the rules would be changed with each bend in the wind. > > For example, the Constitution is over 200 years old. It has what, > 27 amendments? And 10 of those were passed within two years of the > constitution being ratified. And two amendments cancel each other > out, prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition. > > > > > > 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 bylaws RULE. To amend the bylaws require one state passing an > amendment, and 4 states sponsoring. Then it is put on the ballot for > a vote by all the members. > > > > 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. > > > Yes there is. The bylaws were passed in 1998. That is what we have > to go by. > > David > > David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ And with all due respect, I would point to an article in a document that is near and dear to the hearts of many of us. The document is the Constitution of the United States. The article is Article V. It reads: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In short, 2/3 of both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the several satates) must propose an amendment with must then be ratified by the legislatures or constitutional conventions of 3/4 of the states. If this is good enough for the United States of America, I certainly believe it is good enough for the USGenWeb project. In requiring a super-majority, you are not taking power from the majority and giving it to the minority. You are simply requiring that more than a simple majority of those affected by a proposed amendment consent to be so affected, whether we are discussing the Constitution of the USGWP By-laws, the point remains the same. It also prevents a 50-50 vote from being stolen and prevents the likelihood of voting phantoms. Richard Pettys ---- -The purpose of requiring "super majorities", like 2/3rds, is the protection of minority rights from hasty decisions by a small majority. Whether this is appropriate for a project like USGenWeb is questionable. Are there minority rights to be protected? Freddie S. Freddie Spradlin (by way of Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net>) <fspradlin@earthlink.net> ASC - GAGenWeb > 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." >--

Roger's response, FYI. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:49 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Re: Proposed Bylaws Changes > 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/ > >

FYI, Some views of the SC and past SC of TXGenWeb. Food for thought. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:41 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] [TXGEN] Proposed Bylaws Changes > > The USGenWeb Advisory Board, Bylaws Committee, State Coordinators, > USGenWeb Project Members, > > This message concerns two important changes that are being proposed to the > bylaws and > continues a dialog that has been occurring on The TXGenWeb Project Mailing > list as well > as the Bylaws Committee List we believe. We believe it is time to expand > the dialog. > > The first is the proposed change from a 2/3 vote to a simple majority vote > to approve amendments > and the second is the process that is to be used to vote on these "revisions". > > The thinking by some on the committee that the 2/3 rule allows a minority > group to prevent > amendments from passing is backwards thinking as far as this organization > is concerned. > It may be the best approach for some or most organizations but this is not > most organizations > and as we think you would agree a very unique one. We all know, or maybe we > don't all know, that in the history of this project that it is stability > and the status quo that > makes the membership feel at ease and that things are running smoothly. 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. > > The next VERY important thing that we are just finding out for the first > time and we > don't think we have ever seen this anywhere else before is how these > amendments, I'm sorry now we are calling them revisions, are going to be > voted on. The bylaws clearly spell out the procedures for presenting and > voting on bylaw amendments. It seems that they have decided that if they > call them revisions and can't find any provisions in the bylaws that talk > about revisions that they can just make up their own rules. We knew that > something about this whole bylaws committee was strange. This is a VERY > dangerous precedent to start because once you start reading things into the > bylaws and making stuff up that isn't in there you open the door for future > Advisory Boards to do the same. I don't know if it was the Advisory Board > or the Bylaws committee that decided how to vote on these but if this is > allowed to happen it will be detrimental to the future of the project. > > "Revisions" are not provided for in the bylaws and the omission of the term > in the bylaws should not be interpreted by anyone as permission to make up > rules. Amendments are expressly provided for and the proposed changes need > to be written as individual amendments probably broken down by section and > voted on separately. If the "committee doesn't want to do it that way then > perhaps they need to get a state to propose an amendment that would allow > for revisions to the bylaws and then we could vote on the "revisions" next > year properly. > > In our opinion both of these topics are deal breakers and we will have to > vote no in their current form. > > Thanks > Trey Holt > Brazos Co TXGenWeb > Past State Coordinator, The TXGenWeb Project > > David W. Morgan > State Coordinator, The TXGenWeb Project

Comments, FYI, that appeared on the SW list. I won't forward these as a general rule, but wanted to let you know that it's one place where CCs from our region discuss things. This list is archived at: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-SW/ If you are a CC and want to subscribe to this list, let Bettie Wood, one of our regional reps know: Wood, Bettie E-mail Address(es): nana321@earthlink.net Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Scism" <Scismgenie@adelphia.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] [Fwd: [ALL-L] Bylaws Revision News - Final Review Changes] > I feel this is the MOST IMPORTANT section of the Bylaws. > > I also feel that the "final" version cited here is a BIG mistake. > > Point one, Bylaws will now be approved by a simple majority of VOTING > members, the NORMAL requirement isd a 2/3rds majority of the entire > membership, although this change makes it simpler to make changes with > less general approval, I feel the process will NEVER get that far. > > Point 2, The reason the process will not get to a general vote is as > follows: The process as written, still requires pre-approval by 5 > states before it can be balloted, unfortunately THERE IS NO PROCESS to > process such stste approval, no mechanism to place it before various > states to get support, and in fact some state Coordinators > intentionally block anything considered to be "political" from reaching > the CCs for consideration. > > Point 3, requiring a pre-approval of 10% of the states is too difficult > to get any proposal through. > > Summary- This Subsection unless corrected to FACILITATE and establish a > workable process will lock the bylaws into place and prohibit changes > unreasonably, > > I ask the SW area representatives to petition for areopening of the > Bylaws revision section to allow a rewrite in a manner that facilitates > necessary changes, rather than administer the future proposals out of > any chance of being seen, or acted on. > > The process stipulated to change the by-laws tied the hands of the > members who as many say, drive this organization, and the process as > written will deny any changes. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [ALL-L] Bylaws Revision News - Final Review Changes > Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:16:54 -0600 > Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:17:11 -0500 > From: Roger Swafford <sagitta56@mchsi.com> > Reply-To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com > > (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > > The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has approved amendments to > Article XV during final review. Final review amendments are > hi-lighted in green on the revisions page of the committee website > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/revisions.htm > > > To strike out "two-thirds (2/3)" from vote requirement regarding membership > votes to approve bylaw amendments. > > > Result - > ARTICLE XV. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of the USGenWeb > Project through a majority vote by members who vote on the proposed > amendment to the bylaw. > Section 2. Members of any XXGenWeb may submit an amendment proposal (in > proper format with desired wording) to their State Coordinator for review > and presentation to the XXGenWeb membership by referendum. A majority vote > of approval shall cause the proposal to be forwarded to the Advisory Board > to be posted on the national website and notice to be sent to the membership > via appropriate email lists. > Section 3. Proposed amendments from state projects must be posted for > display on the national website (with attribution of the state sponsor and > date ) not later than 1 June. To qualify for placement on the annual > election ballot proposed amendments must have an additional four (4) states > as co-sponsors. State projects may co-sponsor an amendment proposal by > majority of legal votes cast by its members to support the amendment. > Section 4. Voting on proposed amendments to the bylaws shall occur during > the annual voting period concurrent with voting in the annual election. A > majority of members voting within that time frame is required to adopt. > Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the operations of The > USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may amend the bylaws by 2/3 majority > vote. Amendments adopted by the Advisory Board must be ratified by majority > vote of the membership during the voting period of the regularly scheduled > election. > Section 6. Amendment proposals of XXGenWeb's posted on the national website > which do not obtain the required co-sponsors shall be removed on 1 June > annually and may not again be proposed without modification. Amendment > proposals which fail to be adopted by the membership may remain posted on > the national website for 1 year and placed on the ballot a second time > provided additional co-sponsors or modification is made to those proposals. > Any amendment proposal that fails to be adopted after appearing on the > ballot twice shall not be reconsidered. > > Final review of articles has now been completed. Members are encouraged to > comment via the Discuss-L email list, or contact BRC members directly for > possible reconsideration of specific articles or sections. > Reconsideration is dependent on approval of the BRC to re-open the article > or section. > > Roger Swafford > BRC - Chairman > > > > ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== > The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. > > > > > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > To browse the mail list archives, go to > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-SW/

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:17 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision News - Final Review Changes > (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > > The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has approved amendments to > Article XV during final review. Final review amendments are > hi-lighted in green on the revisions page of the committee website > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/revisions.htm > > > To strike out "two-thirds (2/3)" from vote requirement regarding membership > votes to approve bylaw amendments. > > > Result - > ARTICLE XV. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of the USGenWeb > Project through a majority vote by members who vote on the proposed > amendment to the bylaw. > Section 2. Members of any XXGenWeb may submit an amendment proposal (in > proper format with desired wording) to their State Coordinator for review > and presentation to the XXGenWeb membership by referendum. A majority vote > of approval shall cause the proposal to be forwarded to the Advisory Board > to be posted on the national website and notice to be sent to the membership > via appropriate email lists. > Section 3. Proposed amendments from state projects must be posted for > display on the national website (with attribution of the state sponsor and > date ) not later than 1 June. To qualify for placement on the annual > election ballot proposed amendments must have an additional four (4) states > as co-sponsors. State projects may co-sponsor an amendment proposal by > majority of legal votes cast by its members to support the amendment. > Section 4. Voting on proposed amendments to the bylaws shall occur during > the annual voting period concurrent with voting in the annual election. A > majority of members voting within that time frame is required to adopt. > Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the operations of The > USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may amend the bylaws by 2/3 majority > vote. Amendments adopted by the Advisory Board must be ratified by majority > vote of the membership during the voting period of the regularly scheduled > election. > Section 6. Amendment proposals of XXGenWeb's posted on the national website > which do not obtain the required co-sponsors shall be removed on 1 June > annually and may not again be proposed without modification. Amendment > proposals which fail to be adopted by the membership may remain posted on > the national website for 1 year and placed on the ballot a second time > provided additional co-sponsors or modification is made to those proposals. > Any amendment proposal that fails to be adopted after appearing on the > ballot twice shall not be reconsidered. > > Final review of articles has now been completed. Members are encouraged to > comment via the Discuss-L email list, or contact BRC members directly for > possible reconsideration of specific articles or sections. > Reconsideration is dependent on approval of the BRC to re-open the article > or section. > > Roger Swafford > BRC - Chairman >

Rio Grande Republican Sat. May 9, 1908 Local News Attorney H. B. Holt spent Sunday in El Paso. ____________________________________________ W. D. Buck the Alamogordo undertaker was a Cruces visitor on private business on Monday. ____________________________________________ Wes. Baker, and Mr. Browden were lover valley visitors in the county seat yesterday. ____________________________________________ Water Coolers, Water Sets, Water Glasses at Novelty Mercantile Co. ____________________________________________ Dripping Springs is attracting people who like to get away from town for a while. About half-a-dozen couples rode out last week. ____________________________________________ F. C. Barker & Co. and T. Rousault are growing extra early cantaloupes. They plant the seeds in small boxes covered by glass. Both have cantaloupes in bloom. ____________________________________________ Mr. P. Moreno leaves this evening for Las Vegas to attend the meeting of the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy, which body will convene up there for their annual meeting on Monday. ____________________________________________ Misses Cleotilde and Corine Amador returned Monday from Chihuahua, Mexico, where they went to attend the marriage of their brother. Another sister, Mrs. Daguerre, went from Parral, Mexico, to be present at the wedding. ____________________________________________ Harry Bailey is experimenting with tobacco stems for woolly aphids and codling moth. Mr. Bailey purchased the stems from the El Paso tobacco factory and is trying them to the trunk of the trees. ____________________________________________ Mr. Nathan Smith, who has been suffering from a severe attack of rheumatism the past two months, has so far recovered as to be able to leave for his ranch home near Engle this week. Dr., F. C. Campbell accompanied him yesterday and will spend the next few weeks recuperating. ____________________________________________ Mr. C. H. Williams Dead. Died - Sunday morning at 4 o'clock, Mr. Charles H. Williams to typhoid pneumonia. Mr. Williams had been ill only about a week. The remains were shipped to their former home at Hawarden, Iowa, for interment. Mrs. Williams and son, Lewis accompanied them. The deceased was quite a prominent and enterprising resident of the valley and his sudden death was a shock to the community. ____________________________________________ Marcena Thompson Dona Ana Co., NM

Deaths Henry Summerford - Tuesday night, June 2, 1908 at his home in Las Cruces Mr. Henry Summerford was born in the state of Georgia, December 25, 1860. He was left an orphan when but a child, and was thrown upon the world and his own resources at eleven years of age. He fought the battle of life bravely, in various ways, living his early manhood in Texas. In 1887, he brought cattle over from Texas and settled on a ranch in Dona Ana County. On November 15, 1894, Mr. Summerford was united in marriage with Miss Maggie Rhodes. Five children blessed the marriage; Burlah, aged 12; Ethel, aged 9; Cole, aged 5 (at time of death, one year age) John, aged 5, and Henry, aged 2. Mr. Summerford joined the Masonic lodge was in 1901, made an entered apprentice February 13th of that year, made a fellowcraftsman on May 22, 1901, and raised to master mason on July 15th of the same year. About two weeks ago, Mr. Summerford, after having loaded some cattle for shipment at the Rincon station, started to mount his horse, when the animal became frightened, jumped just as his rider had his foot in the stirrup, and before he could seat himself, Mr. Summerford was dragged about by the frightened animal, was kicked by him and and seriously injured. He was rescued by friends from his awful predicament, put upon the train and brought at once to his home in Las Cruces. Examination proved some ribs had been broken, and it was feared some internal injury would develop - which indeed proved the case. While hoping against hope that his life might be spared, yet he grew worse, and the end came last Tuesday evening, just before midnight. During the more than twenty years of his residence near and in Las Cruces, Mr. Summerford made himself an enviable reputation among the stockmen of the territory, and came to be looked upon as one of our most substantial and reliable citizens. His personality was such that he won the liking of everyone who new him. Genial and pleasant, kind, and generous, it was a matter of course that he should easily make friends. In speaking of him, men refer to him as "one of the best men on earth".

Till Death Do Us Part By Lynn Turner Catholic marriage records can be some of the most rewarding records while doing Hispanic family history. Besides the common marriage ceremony performed by the parish priest, there are other records that may not be known to the inexperienced researcher. I would like to write on the pre-marriage investigation, marriage dispensations, and the marriage ceremony. For further reading on the topic see chapter 10 of Finding Your Hispanic Roots by George R. Ryskamp. The pre-marriage investigation was designed to ensure that both the bride and groom met the church’s requirements. In general these investigations (informaciones matrimoniales or diligencias matrimoniales) were recorded separately from the sacramental parish books. The investigation included proof of good standing in the church and written permission of the parents if the bride or groom were underage. If the groom was from another parish, then the admonitions were posted in his home parish. Canonical admonitions were read for three consecutive Sundays prior to the marriage. The admonitions were done to ensure that the couple did not have any impediments imposed by Catholic canon law. Some of these impediments included: Related within the fourth degree of consanguinity (blood) or affinity (marriage). Crimes such as adultery or homicide Another living spouse One party not a Catholic If an impediment was found, then the couple desiring to marry had to be dispensed or forgiven by the bishop. The most common impediment found and most rewarding genealogically are the dispensations of consanguinity and/or affinity. These records are not found at the parish level. The diocesan bishop had the authority to grant a dispensation and these records were maintained at the diocesan level. The bride and groom were guilty of this impediment if they shared any ancestor within the fourth degree, or in other words, a common great-great-grandparent. These dispensations will explain exactly how the couple is related; giving you their lineages back to the common ancestor. Finally, after going through the pre-marriage investigation and the dispensation (if necessary) the couple could finally get married. Here are some other key phrases to watch for: “habiendo hecho las diligencias acostumbrados…” (Pre-marriage investigation) “habiendo precidido las tres canónicas moniciones…” (usually followed by the three dates they were read). “y no resultado/habiendo impedimento alguno” or “dispensa apostólica del cuarto grado de consanguinidad…” - “Desposé/casé y velé en facie ecclesia” (Sometimes the velación or blessing was done separately) If you are searching for a marriage record, keep in mind that the couple usually married in the home parish (or resident parish) of the bride. Lynn Turner is a senior at Brigham Young University. He expects to graduate with a B.A. in family history and genealogy, specializing in Southern European and Latin American research in August 2004. Other areas of interests include Southern States. He provides research services for Latin America ! and Spain, and can be contacted at lynnturner428@hotmail.com. Sally Rolls Pavia Sun City, AZ sallypavia2001@yahoo.com

Rio Grande Republican March 3, 1910 City Clerk R. H. Fry is quite ill with pneumonia. ____________________________________________ Robert M. O. Llewellyn and mother were El Paso visitors on Wednesday. ____________________________________________ We Shall Miss Him Sudden Death of City Clerk Rod-ey H. Fry, Casts Shadow of Gloom Over Large Circle of Friends Wednesday night at 9:35 o'clock the spirit of Rodney H. Fry passed into the great beyond from whose bourne no traveler ever returns. Ten days ago, Rodney Fry was in the best of health, but about the time he was seized with a severe cold which rapidly developed into pneumonia, which was the direct cause of his death. Mr. Fry, who was 47 years of age came originally from New York, and located in Las Cruces about fourteen years ago, coming here from Hillsboro. For a time he was deputy district court clerk and at the time of his death was city clerk. During his incumbency of the latter office he made many friends among those who found it necessary to consult with him. He was ever courteous, kindly and willing to lend a hand and we shall miss him. Mr. Fry is survived by his sister Mrs. Anna Fry Bonham, and a brother who remains in the east and who has been notified of this borther's demise. The funeral services were conducted at the house Thursday afternoon at 3 o'clock, Rev. Foulks officiating. Interment - Odd Fellows cemetery. ____________________________________________ Marcena Dona Ana Co., NM

Declaring Tim not in good standing is the most idiotic and ridiculous move in a while coming from USGenWeb. We did not elect riot police to the Board. This will be the second person found MNIGS if it goes thru. With the ploys that some otherwise normal folk dream up at USGenWeb, it's a wonder USGenWeb has any friends. I wonder who owns and pays for "usgenweb.com, usgenweb.net and usgenweb.org" ? Charles Barnum ========In a message dated 4/18/2004 4:14:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, susanbellomo@yahoo.com writes: FYI Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bosque Lover" <nana321@earthlink.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:40 PM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Next motion > Just want to keep you all informed--just in case you're not on the > Board-L list. > There is a new motion on the floor & I want to keep all of you informed > <g> > > Motion 4-11 reads like this: > ---------------------- > It has been moved by Jan and seconded by Gail that Tim Stowell be > declared > a member not in good standing of The USGenWeb Project until he meets his > > responsibility in updating the administrative information for the > USGenWeb.net and USGenWeb.org domains, in accordance > with Article VI, Section 6 of The USGenWeb Project bylaws and, more > specifically, with Motion 04-07 of the Advisory Board > ---------------------- > This is Article VI, Section 6 from > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/bylaws.html > Section 6. 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 > > This is Motion 4-07 > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2004-02/1077591211 > > Bettie <>< > SWSC CC rep > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > The Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html

Common Census Abbreviations http://genealogy.about.com/cs/census/a/abbreviations.htm No matter where in the world they are taken, census schedules usually offer very little room. Therefore, census takers often found it necessary to use abbreviations to get all of the required information onto the census form. These abbreviations - ranging from Na for naturalized to AdD for adopted daughter -- can provide important information that you should not overlook! Examples: Citizenship Status Codes: Al - Alien (not naturalized) Pa - First papers filed (declaration of intent) Na - Naturalized NR - Not recorded or not reported Household & Soundex Abbreviations: Ad - Adopted Ad AdCl - Adopted Child AdD - Adopted Daughter Sally Rolls Pavia Sun City, AZ

The world of work has changed greatly from the times of our ancestors, causing many occupational names and terms to fall into disuse. If you found your ancestor named as a ripper, seinter, hosteler, sperviter, dobber, or pettifogger, would you know what it meant? Probably not. Yet, the work that our ancestors chose for their living is an important part of who they were. Learning about the occupations of our ancestors can provide insight into their daily lives, social status, and possibly even the origin of your family surname. Not to mention, many old occupations are interesting enough to add a touch of spice to your family history. Check out this site for further information: http://genealogy.about.com/library/glossary/bl_occupations.htm or http://tinyurl.com/2v3ps Sally Rolls Pavia Sun City, AZ

FYI Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bosque Lover" <nana321@earthlink.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:40 PM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Next motion > Just want to keep you all informed--just in case you're not on the > Board-L list. > There is a new motion on the floor & I want to keep all of you informed > <g> > > Motion 4-11 reads like this: > ---------------------- > It has been moved by Jan and seconded by Gail that Tim Stowell be > declared > a member not in good standing of The USGenWeb Project until he meets his > > responsibility in updating the administrative information for the > USGenWeb.net and USGenWeb.org domains, in accordance > with Article VI, Section 6 of The USGenWeb Project bylaws and, more > specifically, with Motion 04-07 of the Advisory Board > ---------------------- > This is Article VI, Section 6 from > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/bylaws.html > Section 6. 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 > > This is Motion 4-07 > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2004-02/1077591211 > > Bettie <>< > SWSC CC rep > > > > > > > > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > The Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/whoswho.html

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tina S. Vickery" <tsvickery@adelphia.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Call for Temporary Volunteers - Election Committee > To USGenWeb Project Members - > > **Please forward to all USGenWeb Lists** > > The USGenWeb Election Committee is in need of > temporary helpers for the upcoming National Elections, > for a period of approximately 12 weeks beginning May > 1, 2004 and continuing through the completion of the > USGenWeb Project National elections. > > Responsibilities include assisting with nominations, > and handling bounced email addresses. Volunteers will > be required to be responsive to email, check email > daily, and to participate fully in Election Committee > activities for the time period specified. Three to > five temporary members are needed. > > Advisory Board members and USGenWeb Project members > considering running for office are ineligible. All > other individuals are encouraged to apply. Please > contact the EC Chair, Ellen Pack > e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org > > Thank you, and please consider helping out the Project > during this important time! > > The USGenWeb Election Committee

Here's a great site for research! Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" <lhaasdav@cox.net> To: <USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:07 AM Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] New Veterans Affairs web site and cemetery locator > VA has made it easier and faster for the public to get answers about family > history, old war buddies or famous war heroes. The agency put on the Web 3.2 > million records for veterans buried at 120 national cemeteries since the Civil > War. > The VA's Nationwide Gravesite Locator, at http://www.cem.va.gov, also has > records for some state veterans cemeteries and burials in Arlington National > Cemetery since 1999. > Joe Nosari, VA's deputy chief information officer for Memorial Affairs, said > the records used to be on paper and microfilm. Private companies have put some > of the information online and charged for it, but the VA information is free, > he said. > Naporlee, of Spokane, Wash., also learned her grandfather served with the > Army's 161 DB unit, enlisting June 24, 1918. He was honorably discharged December 17, 1918. > The VA's gravesite navigator includes names, dates of birth and death, > military service dates, service branch and rank if known, cemetery information and > grave location in the cemetery. The VA will withhold some information, such as > next of kin, for privacy purposes. > The site will be updated daily. Annually, about 80,000 veterans are buried at > national cemeteries. > The VA also hopes to add records for veterans whose families requested grave > markers from the VA. Those markers may go to private cemeteries or cemeteries > overseas. > > Search site > http://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/j2ee/servlet/NGL_v1 > > This site was really busy yesterday and people reported it timed out off and on. > > Linda > homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > MarionCoAR: http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion/ > TulsaCoOK: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oktulsa2 > > > > > > ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ==== > The CC representatives for the SW-SC region are currently Phyllis Rippee > & Bettie Wood. The SC representative is Larry Flescher.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:03 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- News > (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > > The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) is starting the final review process of > first draft proposals. Members are encouraged to respond with comments or > suggestions related to the following articles. > Upon completion of final review of these last three articles, the BRC may by > majority vote "reconsider" certain articles or sections of articles. > > ARTICLE XIII. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AND APPEAL PROCESS > Section 1. All members of The USGenWeb Project have the right to submit a > grievance or appeal to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, as the > governing body of the project, has authority to resolve grievances or > appeals as the situation warrants. > Section 2. Grievances should be submitted to the National Coordinator, the > Regional Representative, or the Representative at Large. > > ARTICLE XIV. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY > 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. > > ARTICLE XV. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of the USGenWeb > Project through a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote by members who vote on the > proposed amendment to the bylaw. > Section 2. Members of any XXGenWeb may submit an amendment proposal (in > proper format with desired wording) to their State Coordinator for review > and presentation to the XXGenWeb membership by referendum. A 2/3 vote of > approval shall cause the proposal to be forwarded to the Advisory Board to > be posted on the national website and notice to be sent to the membership > via appropriate email lists. > Section 3. Proposed amendments from state projects must be posted for > display on the national website (with attribution of the state sponsor and > date ) not later than 1 June. To qualify for placement on the annual > election ballot proposed amendments must have an additional four (4) states > as co-sponsors. State projects may co-sponsor an amendment proposal by 2/3 > majority of legal votes cast by its members to support the amendment. > Section 4. Voting on proposed amendments to the bylaws shall occur during > the annual voting period concurrent with voting in the annual election. A > two-thirds (2/3) majority of members voting within that time frame is > required to adopt. > Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the operations of The > USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may amend the bylaws by 2/3 majority > vote. Amendments adopted by the Advisory Board must be ratified by 2/3 > majority vote of the membership during the voting period of the regularly > scheduled election. > Section 6. Amendment proposals of XXGenWeb's posted on the national website > which do not obtain the required co-sponsors shall be removed on 1 June > annually and may not again be proposed without modification. Amendment > proposals which fail to be adopted by the membership may remain posted on > the national website for 1 year and placed on the ballot a second time > provided additional co-sponsors or modification is made to those proposals. > Any amendment proposal that fails to be adopted after appearing on the > ballot twice shall not be reconsidered. > > All revision drafts may be viewed at http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > Roger > BRC-Chair

Here's the latest on bylaws. I did point out to Roger that "pursuant" was misspelled. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:27 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision News - Final Review Changes > (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > > The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has approved amendments to > Article XI Section 2 during final review. Final review amendments are > hi-lighted in green on the revisions page of the committee website > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/revisions.htm > > Insert as third sentence - > "Each state shall have a Assistant State Coordinator (ASC) appointed by the > State Coordinator or elected by the state membership persuant to adopted > state bylaws or rules." > and edit fourth sentence to read - > "The State Coordinator, as primary administrative officer of the state > project may appoint additional ASC's as necessary to assist in > administration of the state project." > > To strike out the words "or vote for a candidate" resulting in - > "Assistant State Coordinators who are "appointees" are not eligible > to be a candidate for the national office of State Coordinator > Representative." > > Members are encouraged to comment via the Discuss-L email list. > > Roger Swafford > BRC - Chairman >

Bernalillo County present. Jo

Checking in for Dona Ana Cty.