In a message dated 5/30/2004 4:48:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, susanbellomo@yahoo.com writes: Our SW representatives are the people who get to vote. Let Bettie Wood (nana321@earthlink.net) and Phyllis Rippee (wchs@getgoin.net ) know your opinions. Susan ++ This is another example of the Board's illegal actions. Here is what one person said about it: == Removal hearings? This came down the pike just as soon as Tim caved in and gave the domains over to the Commandante. This is par for the course in USGenWeb (punishing people for doing what you wanted them to do and going back on agreements you had with them about doing it), and I know that Richard believes heartily in the wholesale abuse of his power, but I am curious why the others involved in this motion are being dragged in. Did they openly support Tim or are they just collateral damage necessary so that the Board can remove the GA state administration and refashion it more to their own liking? Or are some of them running for national office and this is a preemptive strike to keep them out of Richard's sandbox? On the brighter side they have graciously returned Georgia and North Dakota to the Who's Who list. That was big of them. -Teresa who can remember the days when Shari Handley would have crawled through broken glass for Tim Stowell. Hell hath no fury... === Here is what another respected member said: Fellow Georgians, Not sure how many of you are subscribed to the BOARD mailing list. For those of you who are not, here is the latest attempt, by the Board, to help Georgia. (Or hurt Georgia) Not sure which. It is an attempt to usurp the Bylaws. I am sure some of you will cheer and some of you will not. I have a fundamental problem with this action in that it sets a very bad precedence for the Project as a whole. Once this can happen in Georgia, it will set the stage for this type of hostile take-over to happen in other states. Since North Dakota is also involved in this action, it will become the norm. I am not claiming any side in this action, but I wonder why it is being done and how it can possibly be condoned as legal. The Bylaws specifically say how an SC can be removed and this completely defies that section. I do not specifically agree with that section, since I don't think the SC position should be for life. I think it should be mandatory that all SC's stand for re-election and not be allowed to hold the position, that is grandfathered by the Bylaws. But I do not believe that using improper methods of removal is the answer. I know this action may be good for some, but it also sets a precedence for all states being required to reassign those that were let go for various reasons. Some needed to be removed, and some did not. But who's standard is to be used? Below is the motion being offered to the Board, by Shari Handley. Everyone should read it, and let your feelings and opinions be known to your Representatives and Board Members. .... God save the Project. Ron -------------------------------- You may read my views about this illegal action here: http://www.dream-tool.net/tools/messages.mv?index+rebuttalspagetwo Charles Barnum Candidate for National Coordinator