Hi Adrian I would agree this would stop such an abuse of the democratic process but of course it means a change to the Articles of Association. Such change can only be made at a General Meeting whether AGM or EGM so might as well sort out the mess of the Articles in the first place.. As I have previously said, I am in discussion with my solicitor and my formal complaint concerning the conduct and procedure of the AGM will be submitted before the end of the week to the CEO. In the first instance I am happy to leave it to the trustees to do the right thing and set up an appropriate working group containing all interested parties (not just trustees and staff) and arrive at the right answers. As I have previously said, I have no particular axe to grind for or against any candidate but do object that an organization that I care passionately about has created a set of Articles that can be used to abuse members democratic right to choose their own trustees. It may have been legally right (yet to be determined) but it was most certainly morally wrong. Regards Alec At 15:00 04/07/2011, you wrote: > ><<snipped>> >I think we need a constitutional working party set up ><<snipped>> > >In the interim, to avoid loss of time and money (no doubt), I would suggest >a simple instruction should be issued that Article 27.2 point (3) MUST >always be applied - point (3) being (I hope) the bit allowing proxy voters >the ability to specify who the vote is to go to. > >Adrian B > > > >------------------------------- >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

I've just seen an interesting baptism entry in the Meriden, Warks registers. On 10 Apr 1813 Mary, daughter of Sarah Underhill of Birmingham was baptised. The mother's profession is shown as "Birth Trade". I'm guessing Sarah could have been a midwife, or wet nurse but I was wondering whether anyone has come across "Birth Trade" before and whether they had any more specific ideas. Regards Sue Sissons

<<snipped>> I think we need a constitutional working party set up <<snipped>> In the interim, to avoid loss of time and money (no doubt), I would suggest a simple instruction should be issued that Article 27.2 point (3) MUST always be applied - point (3) being (I hope) the bit allowing proxy voters the ability to specify who the vote is to go to. Adrian B

Thanks Tim - I will certainly keep them in mind. Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 01 July 2011 17:57 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] Printing large family trees with high definition graphics For some years now I have wanted to print large family trees with dimensions greater than those offered (a metre at most in one of the two directions) by the various print firms at the Olympia Show, etc. A firm called Service Graphics have done the business for me and they are to have an Open Day next week. <http://www.servicegraphics.co.uk/sg/news/chessington-open-days> and I have e-mailed them to see if I can come along. They are just north of Chessington World of Adventures, near Kingston-on-Thames, but on the other side of the road. They were able to print on plastic, much stronger than paper, and the clarity of the print and the faithfulness of the colours were of a high order; I was delighted at the result. The secret of this is to convert your family tree to a PDF file as they don't know anything about the files from Genealogy programs. On both Mac and Windows you can always convert your printer output to a PDF file, so that part is easy. You have to specify in your genealogy program that your tree will be on one single vast sheet of paper (plastic); perhaps not all programs will do this and perhaps some demonstration is needed for the various genealogy programs. Before sending them your final PDF file, you must send sample bits to your printer at home to ensure that things and colours look OK when printed at 300+ dots per inch. Not cheap but their price was competitive with other printers. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ ------------------------------- 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

Speaking as one of the successful candidates in Tuesday's vote and therefore, I suppose, another head above the parapet, I would certainly endorse something along the lines of what Alec has suggested and shall be happy to do so, as soon as I get the opportunity. <<snipped>>: <I think we need a constitutional working party setup that consists of trustees (not the chairman and vice-chairman), members of staff and ordinary members such that a balance is achieved to give the trustees power to set policy, the CEO to be allowed to manage the day to day operation without interference and protect any abuse of members rights and to somehow put right this current wrong without too much expense to the Society.> Diana Bouglas

Tim raises a very interesting point - are we currently more aligned to Pension Fund Trustee voting ? Regards Mike Say

Here! Here! Nancy Frey Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 4:32 AM Subject: [SOG-UK] Proxy Voting > Hi > > I am one of those members who doesn't have strong feelings about how the > SoG is run - I pay my subs, and use the facilities and that's it. But one > thing I have observed from this exchange is that we seem to be stuck in a > slightly old fashioned way of thinking. For instance, people have mentioned > postal votes .... what about online voting? Members give their proxy vote > to whoever because they can't be at the AGM ... but with modern technology, > why aren't we thinking about virtual, online AGMs which would reach members > around the world? You wouldn't need a proxy if you could log in, see the > AGM in action and vote. Candidates for election could put their > pre-election addresses on camera - stick it on Youtube, it wouldn't cost anything - > rather relying solely on addressing a meeting in person or sending out > printed profiles and election blurb. > > Perhaps it's time the Society looked more widely at the whole issue of > voting and governance, using slightly more sophisticated methods than sticking > your hand up in the air. > > Just an observation from a "sleeping" member. > > Mark @ Yetminster > > ------------------------------- > 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

Great idea Mark How about "waking up" :-) and looking into the cost (including the cost of personnel time and training) and methodology of achieving this. There are though some who do not have and indeed will not have the Internet and they cannot be excluded purely because they don't/won't use facilities online. Their vote must somehow also be taken into account and once you start either proxy or postal voting to overcome this, why bother with the additional cost of online voting. Look at the accounts - if the Society did not have some decent legacies last year once again it would have been in deficit. Could we justify the extra cost? How many members would vote with their feet if they had to pay more? A postal vote would be much more effective but it comes down to the fact should the Society be responsible for the return postage? With a membership of 12000 (and if all in the UK which they are not) would come down to a cost of at least £6000 plus staff time/cost to administer so in my view not practicable. Outsource it? I have used the services of the Electoral Reform Society in a postal vote and they are not free. Regards Alec At 09:32 02/07/2011, you wrote: >Hi > >I am one of those members who doesn't have strong feelings about how the >SoG is run - I pay my subs, and use the facilities and that's it. But one >thing I have observed from this exchange is that we seem to be stuck in a >slightly old fashioned way of thinking. For instance, people have mentioned >postal votes .... what about online voting? Members give their proxy vote >to whoever because they can't be at the AGM ... but with modern technology, >why aren't we thinking about virtual, online AGMs which would reach members >around the world? You wouldn't need a proxy if you could log in, see the >AGM in action and vote. Candidates for election could put their >pre-election addresses on camera - stick it on >Youtube, it wouldn't cost anything - >rather relying solely on addressing a meeting in person or sending out >printed profiles and election blurb. > >Perhaps it's time the Society looked more widely at the whole issue of >voting and governance, using slightly more >sophisticated methods than sticking >your hand up in the air. > >Just an observation from a "sleeping" member. > >Mark @ Yetminster > >------------------------------- >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

On 2 Jul at 8:04, mike say <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim Why not follow standard company rules and offer either individual > voting or extend vote to Chairman - why should we have something more > complex ? This is the problem. Companies are owned by shares not by people and their practice of block voting is even more iniquitous than ever; most shares are held these days by nominee companies which are controlled by investment companies and not by the beneficial owners of the dividends. So we have relatively junior people in massive investment companies wielding vast numbers of votes. They probably scratch the Chairman's back if he promises enough to them. It's a big racket! My view is that block voting is iniquitous. No one person should be given a free hand to wield large numbers of votes as they think fit. Anyhow this is where it gets interesting. Some people may also be against block voting, others may be in favour. So we discuss it and then perhaps devise a motion to be voted on and finally vote, but hopefully without any block voting in that vote! As an aside you refer to the 'Chairman'. The Society's Constitution refers to the Chairman of the AGM who happens normally to be the President of the Society. Should it be he that exercises the block vote? Or should it be the Chairman of the Trustees, who is described as such in the constitution and who is appointed by the Trustees and is not elected by the members? In any case, the current version 1 Proxy form does not mention any Chairman at all, much as the form offered with the agenda did include mention of a Chairman. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Michael It's nice to see a trustee put their head above the parapet:-) I think it goes further than this. With respect at your first meeting you have to choose the chairman. Do we really want a chairman who exercises such poor judgement when the problem was pointed out to him before the vote? As the matter was obviously not discussed by the Trustees prior to the notice of AGM being sent to members, I can only assume it was determined by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairman and probably vice-chairman. Without seeing the chairman's rationale for choosing the candidates, I can only assume that it was that the trustee not re-elected was at odds with the views of the chairman. At the 2009 AGM, I was the only one who voted against the new Articles of Association - there was no opportunity for debate and there were a number of points that I was and still are unhappy about. When I was vice-chairman of the Guild of One-Name Studies, we changed the constitution of GOONS by an SGM purely for that purpose. Boring I know, but every changed clause was voted on individually after discussion. It certainly produced a much more robust and democratic constitution which was agreed at an SGM in 1996 and apart form some very minor tinkering in 2006 has stood the test of time - Seems to me that ours has fallen at the first hurdle... I think we need a constitutional working party setup that consists of trustees (not the chairman and vice-chairman), members of staff and ordinary members such that a balance is achieved to give the trustees power to set policy, the CEO to be allowed to manage the day to day operation without interference and protect any abuse of members rights and to somehow put right this current wrong without too much expense to the Society. Alec At 22:01 01/07/2011, you wrote: >I was shocked, as were many others (certainly those whom I spoke to after >the meeting) by the proxy vote and its repercussions. I, a newish trustee, >was caught totally unawares. > >Among the effects of the Chairman's choice of candidates to vote for are:- > >a)* the loss of a dynamic chairman of the Society's education >committee*whom I believe all members of the committee respect in his >role as >chairman. (The chairman of the committee has to be a trustee.) During the >last year of the Education committee one of the major achievements was the >launching of the online SoG/Pharos intermediate certificate course in Family >History, a forward looking project that is already viewed as successful. >The chairman of the education committee did much to bring this to fruition. >He also fought vigorously to introduce new blood to the committee. > >b) *the raising of the average age of trustees* by losing the youngest and >only trustee in his 30s. The chairman of SoG made a statement relating to >gender representation following the discussion at last year's AGM but, while >gender representation is very important so also is having as wide an age >representation as possible. At 66 I am below the median age of the >trustees; this can't be healthy. About half the trustees are in their >eighth decade and now none is below their fifth decade! > >c) *possibly cowing trustees of a different viewpoint to the chairman*. >When I come up for re-election by rotation in 2 years time and if I have >been of a different viewpoint on issues to the chairman it is possible that >I might not gain his/her exercised proxy votes. The chairman over a few >years could substantially mould the trustees. > >I vote in other organisations (charities like SoG) and often assign my proxy >vote for business matters to the chairman. I do not assign my proxy vote >for candidates for positions because I am given the opportunity to vote by >post and/or online having had circulated to me the candidates' statements. >This is not SoG practice for the proxy form sent to us only gives an option >to appoint a named proxy or the chairman as proxy. Voters at the AGM have a >short statement from each candidate to consider; this could easily have gone >to members with the other AGM papers. > >Clearly this issue will come up at the next trustees' meeting. > >Michael > >On 1 July 2011 16:35, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Tim > > > > > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > > > > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > > > you a choice of > > > > > > listing who you want to vote for > > > OR > > > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > > > > > but the voter has the choice > > > > > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? > > > > The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should > > have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby > > exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is > > undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has > > the same amount of votes. > > > > Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of > > Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to > > a small extent, at the AGM. > > > > -- > > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > >------------------------------- >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

Tim Why not follow standard company rules and offer either individual voting or extend vote to Chairman - why should we have something more complex ? Regards Mike Say

Hi I am one of those members who doesn't have strong feelings about how the SoG is run - I pay my subs, and use the facilities and that's it. But one thing I have observed from this exchange is that we seem to be stuck in a slightly old fashioned way of thinking. For instance, people have mentioned postal votes .... what about online voting? Members give their proxy vote to whoever because they can't be at the AGM ... but with modern technology, why aren't we thinking about virtual, online AGMs which would reach members around the world? You wouldn't need a proxy if you could log in, see the AGM in action and vote. Candidates for election could put their pre-election addresses on camera - stick it on Youtube, it wouldn't cost anything - rather relying solely on addressing a meeting in person or sending out printed profiles and election blurb. Perhaps it's time the Society looked more widely at the whole issue of voting and governance, using slightly more sophisticated methods than sticking your hand up in the air. Just an observation from a "sleeping" member. Mark @ Yetminster

I was shocked, as were many others (certainly those whom I spoke to after the meeting) by the proxy vote and its repercussions. I, a newish trustee, was caught totally unawares. Among the effects of the Chairman's choice of candidates to vote for are:- a)* the loss of a dynamic chairman of the Society's education committee*whom I believe all members of the committee respect in his role as chairman. (The chairman of the committee has to be a trustee.) During the last year of the Education committee one of the major achievements was the launching of the online SoG/Pharos intermediate certificate course in Family History, a forward looking project that is already viewed as successful. The chairman of the education committee did much to bring this to fruition. He also fought vigorously to introduce new blood to the committee. b) *the raising of the average age of trustees* by losing the youngest and only trustee in his 30s. The chairman of SoG made a statement relating to gender representation following the discussion at last year's AGM but, while gender representation is very important so also is having as wide an age representation as possible. At 66 I am below the median age of the trustees; this can't be healthy. About half the trustees are in their eighth decade and now none is below their fifth decade! c) *possibly cowing trustees of a different viewpoint to the chairman*. When I come up for re-election by rotation in 2 years time and if I have been of a different viewpoint on issues to the chairman it is possible that I might not gain his/her exercised proxy votes. The chairman over a few years could substantially mould the trustees. I vote in other organisations (charities like SoG) and often assign my proxy vote for business matters to the chairman. I do not assign my proxy vote for candidates for positions because I am given the opportunity to vote by post and/or online having had circulated to me the candidates' statements. This is not SoG practice for the proxy form sent to us only gives an option to appoint a named proxy or the chairman as proxy. Voters at the AGM have a short statement from each candidate to consider; this could easily have gone to members with the other AGM papers. Clearly this issue will come up at the next trustees' meeting. Michael On 1 July 2011 16:35, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Tim > > > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > > you a choice of > > > > listing who you want to vote for > > OR > > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > > > but the voter has the choice > > > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? > > The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should > have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby > exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is > undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has > the same amount of votes. > > Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of > Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to > a small extent, at the AGM. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

On 1 Jul at 17:19, Alec Tritton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi I was at the AGM (but haven't been on this list for a while) and > have to say I was and still am very concerned as to the conduct of the > meeting. I am delighted to see that you are participating in this discussion and hopefully action. I must also acknowledge that you it was who originally alerted me to this problem so that I was able to participate and register my objection at the AGM. <snip for brevity, of relevant and important matters> > Secondly Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members I have compared the wording of the form sent to members with that in the Articles of Association clause 27.1 and I think it can be said that the form used was not approved, nor was it factually accurate nor, from your note, did the Board debate or agree on the revised version. This then leads me to the tendentious suggestion that the election could be void. > and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how > to act i.e. for whom to vote for. > > This raises a couple of very serious questions, Why wasn't this form > used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society > and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? > Secondly even more serious - if not the election of our trustees, what > circumstances would the current trustees use this second form of proxy > if at all?? My reading of this clause is that the normal form to be used is the first one giving the nominee carte blanche and the second one was only to be used if it was decided that members be given the opportunity to specify how the nominee should vote. It looks like the latter was not decided. <more snip> > The conduct of this election was abhorrent to me and must never happen > again. The Articles must be changed to, at the very least, remove > article 27 (2) and standing orders changed to have a conduct of an > election section that can be referred to by Trustees in the future. Agreed in principle. It might be useful to continue the (hopefully democratic) debate here on what form the amendment should actually take. Undemocratically this mailing list only reaches, I once heard, 500 or so members; I wonder if there is any means of mirroring this debate onto some part of the Society's web-site and thereby reach a few more? > If you wish to look at the Articles they can all be found at > http://www.sog.org.uk/governance/governance.shtml as well as the form > of proxy and AGM notice Many thanks for pointing that out, very useful. Is it looking like an EGM is needed to regularise all this? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

<<snipped>> Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how to act i.e. for whom to vote for. ... Why wasn't this form used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? <<snipped>> To some degree, despite disliking proxies of the form "Vote as you like", I have been telling myself that's how all companies, etc, work. I am, however, definitely concerned by the form of Article 27.2 point (3) which says "Where it is desired to afford members an opportunity of instructing the proxy how to act". Where it is desired? Desired by who? Surely that option is the very least that needs to be removed and the chance of instruction be always given. I am convinced that every company I have shares or whatever in, always allows the member to instruct the proxy how to vote. Whether it's mandated so to happen by their rules or not. If everyone got a chance to instruct their proxy how to vote, then half of me says - "On your own head be it and don't complain if you don't instruct and your proxy votes differently to how you want." But - looking at the form of proxy for the AGM in June 2011, then people were not given the option to instruct. That is very unusual based on what I've always seen. Who made the decision not to invoke Article 27.2 point (3) and why? (What are the codes of practice for corporate governance on this score? If there are any?) Adrian B

Clearly the present system is wrong and should never have been approved in the constitution. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon a Chairman to cast both proxy votes and his casting vote in line with the mood of the meeting, regardless of his personal views. That is a well established principle in the conduct of meetings and to operate otherwise is a breach of trust by the Chairman who is supposed to remain impartial throughout. Any established text book on the conduct of meetings will say the same (eg Lord Citrine). Proxy voting is a well established procedure in so many walks of life not least governance of Trade Unions, Companies and charities, where it would be difficult for more than a small minority to attend agm's and, in many cases, difficult to find a venue big enough for all the members. The proxy voting system universally used, as anyone with shares in a Company will know, allows the holder of the vote to nominate any individual present at the meeting to vote on his behalf or, in the absence of a named person, the Chairman by default. The proxy form completed by the holder of the vote also allows that person to say how the proxy should vote on every item, or in the absence of such an instruction, allows the Chairman to do so by default. To limit the number of proxy votes by the Chairman would be wholly impractical for obvious reasons and no such limit is ever applied. I have no idea what item on the agenda is referred to by Tim but it sounds as though the Chairman was at fault for exercising his proxy votes in accordance with his personal views and the decision of the meeting would probably be invalidated if it ever came to a legal argument; let us hope it was not that serious an issue. Barry Hepburn On 1 Jul 2011, at 08:00, [email protected] wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:22:58 +0100 > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> > Subject: [SOG-UK] Proxy Voting at the Annual General meetings > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this > week. > > Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change > to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the > Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If > I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual > pernickety self.) > > Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote > they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee > had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose > they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old > fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of > votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. > > Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy > voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more > than two people, hardly a block vote. > > My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic > and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely > overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as > seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the > details. > > I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to > allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But > the proxy voting must: > > 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche > are to be allowed. > > 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. > > 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees > to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the > nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that > no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. > > If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also > propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to > prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. > > Any views anyone? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ >

> From: Jeanne Bunting > Sent: 30 June 2011 14:02 > > I am with you 100%. I also think that a nominee should have been a SoG > member for at least three years and served on at least two sub- > committees during that time before becoming a Trustee. I think this would be very bad for democracy. The sub-committees are appointed by the Trustees, so this would effectively mean that the Trustees have control over who is eligible to succeed them. It would be a system where a self-selecting clique could easily prevent anyone they didn't like from becoming a Trustee. A length of membership criterion is probably useful, but requiring a candidate to have been previously selected by the Trustees is not. Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.one-name.org/homepages/bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

For some years now I have wanted to print large family trees with dimensions greater than those offered (a metre at most in one of the two directions) by the various print firms at the Olympia Show, etc. A firm called Service Graphics have done the business for me and they are to have an Open Day next week. <http://www.servicegraphics.co.uk/sg/news/chessington-open-days> and I have e-mailed them to see if I can come along. They are just north of Chessington World of Adventures, near Kingston-on-Thames, but on the other side of the road. They were able to print on plastic, much stronger than paper, and the clarity of the print and the faithfulness of the colours were of a high order; I was delighted at the result. The secret of this is to convert your family tree to a PDF file as they don't know anything about the files from Genealogy programs. On both Mac and Windows you can always convert your printer output to a PDF file, so that part is easy. You have to specify in your genealogy program that your tree will be on one single vast sheet of paper (plastic); perhaps not all programs will do this and perhaps some demonstration is needed for the various genealogy programs. Before sending them your final PDF file, you must send sample bits to your printer at home to ensure that things and colours look OK when printed at 300+ dots per inch. Not cheap but their price was competitive with other printers. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

> From: bush.lyme > Sent: 01 July 2011 17:20 > > I pressed the wrong button on my spam filtering application and they > were deleted them before I had a chance to read them. Now the restore > feature is refusing to co-operate. George, All messages are archived on Rootsweb, so you can access them there: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/SOG-UK/ Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.one-name.org/homepages/bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

Tim Would you mind resending your last two posts? I pressed the wrong button on my spam filtering application and they were deleted them before I had a chance to read them. Now the restore feature is refusing to co-operate. Sorry. Regards George Bush