Just to chime in on this subject. I know the professional marketeers would prefer the single logo, common placement, but I like our volunteers to have lots of leeway. I think that the four logo options is fine. I would like to see a fairly high resolution version of each available, and allow resizing to smaller by those with the capability to do so as long as a specified minimum size standard is met. I don't have a strong feeling towards requiring placement of the logo near the top, although that's my preference. I have indeed seen a number of websites where their design wasn't favorable to top placement. I enjoy the creativity and variety the CCs bring to their sites. Some are very talented, either technically or artistically, and applying that talent is one of the primary enjoyments they get from their assignment. That keeps them coming back and paying more attention. Others are perhaps not very talented and go with basic, but get a great deal of enjoyment out of the pure genealogical aspects of their assignment. I think one of the main jobs of the SC is to find willing workers and then support them in putting forth their best effort, educating those who want to learn on how to do it better and encouraging all to make the sites more valuable to the visiting researchers and more rewarding to them personally. Mike St. Clair

Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. This is not Stepford. On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Dale Grimm <[email protected]> wrote: > The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you > instantly > know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or > other > companies. > > We have four different logos and each logo has several different > variations. > This does us no good. > > There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place > on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you > instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > > Dale Grimm > OHGenWeb SC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to the > approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. > > > Sharon A. Craig > Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator > Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM > > > *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo > on the home page.* > > Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that > the > rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, > somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. > > The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Because I have a banner on the top of most of my pages I have my state logo's personal info, copy write and USGenWeb log all together in my footer. If someone is looking for their ancestor on my site why would they not look at the entire page. I also include my footer on every page of the site. Gayle -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Maybe we could get identical hats and skirts too? I think four is a reasonable choice. Ten would be too many. And "near the top of the page" works for me although there have been days when I had to define "near" for someone. You suggesting we order the layout of all pages. This is not Stepford. On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Dale Grimm <[email protected]> wrote: > The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you > instantly > know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or > other > companies. > > We have four different logos and each logo has several different > variations. > This does us no good. > > There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place > on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you > instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > > Dale Grimm > OHGenWeb SC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to the > approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. > > > Sharon A. Craig > Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator > Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM > > > *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo > on the home page.* > > Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that > the > rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, > somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. > > The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Sherri, I agree the buck must stop. Unfortunately, it must stop with you. You are the one who wrote directly to at least 2 people in my state. Your note most certainly should have come to me FIRST - not as a copied to... I repeat the rules do say: " f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. --Ann VTGenWeb -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > FWIW, there's already an item on the agenda to look at the EC procedures - > 4th item in the list, added by Phyllis Rippee on 8-1-09. There's also an > item that deals with the SC responsibilities. Both of these will have to go > hand in hand to come up with procedures that ensure that sites are indeed > being confirmed as meeting USGenWeb Project requirements so that everyone's > being treated the same. It's definitely not fair to coordinators in one > state that work diligently to ensure that their sites meet the requirements > if a SC in another state sends a list of members in that they've not even > checked - whether to ensure that email addresses work, that they're still an > active coordinator and that the sites meet the requirements. > > There were several CCs that we found last year that stated that they'd > resigned from the XXGenWeb Project, one as many as 6 years ago, but the SC > was still listing them as the CC for that county's site. So... they could > have voted several times when they weren't eligible. Is that something we > want to encourage or allow? Obviously, those SCs/ASCs definitely weren't > doing their jobs! > > Because of things like this and SCs and/or ASCs that don't respond to > requests for quarterly updates from the EC, I doubt that you'll find many > that are willing to take the word of all of the SCs/ASCs as being the gospel > truth when it comes to verifying that members' that register to vote are in > compliance in regards to their sites meeting the requirements. Whatever is > done has to be done consistently from one state to another so there's no > indication of any favoritism being shown. > > The buck has to stop somewhere - if we all to take a good look at our own > states and make sure they're in order (and continue to keep them in order), > we wouldn't have arrived at the place that we are. > > Again, if we can fix the underlying problem of state project leadership that > don't perform their duties as required, you'll find that the issues that > have been discussed in this thread will most likely be moot. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 actually kept a copy of the e-mail which was sent to a CC and copied to me. A portion is quoted below: "...I'm pitching in to help the EC get all of their records straight before the upcoming election. One of the things I'm doing is to assist them in verification of members ...Until the USGenWeb Project logo is added to the [XX] site, you can't be added to the verified membership list..." By the way, this county site above already DID have the logo, the person who wrote, just didn't see it. --Ann "-------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > Nope, afraid not. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) > prior to the SC being notified. > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > > > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just > ask > > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary > to > > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, > so > > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > > > > Sherri > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > The EC rules in this report > > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) > and > > > > to the SC. > > and > > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened > for > > > > possible discrepancies. > > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > > > etc. to handle it first? > > > > --Ann > > SC VTGenWeb > > > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > > -------------- > > > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > jic > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was > discussed > > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > > speak > > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it > is > > my > > > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > > the > > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > > discussed > > > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

Only problem here is that the membership voted in multiple logos when the last batch was selected. I'm not sure that they would change their minds. hmmm - MI has 84 state logos. LOL One State specific and 83 county specific with a star on the county ones indicating the approximate area of the county within the state. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deb" <[email protected]> > Excellent idea, Dale. I agree with you. > > Poll the cc's and let them decide which logo should be the USGenWeb > "brand". > > We have one logo for ILGenWeb. One logo = no confusion. > > Deb > > At 07:27 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: >>The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you > instantly >>know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or > other >>companies. >> >>We have four different logos and each logo has several different > variations. >>This does us no good. >> >>There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >>on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >>instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. >> >> >>Dale Grimm >>OHGenWeb SC >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] >>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >>Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >> >>That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to >>the >>approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. >> >> >>Sharon A. Craig >>Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >>Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator >> >> >>--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >>To: [email protected] >>Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM >> >> >>*All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >>on the home page.* >> >>Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that > the >>rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >>somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. >> >>The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines.

The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you instantly know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or other companies. We have four different logos and each logo has several different variations. This does us no good. There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. Dale Grimm OHGenWeb SC -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails.  Link to the approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. Sharon A. Craig Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator   --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM *All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page.* Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that the rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. ------------------------------- 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

Excellent idea, Dale. I agree with you. Poll the cc's and let them decide which logo should be the USGenWeb "brand". We have one logo for ILGenWeb. One logo = no confusion. Deb At 07:27 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: >The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you instantly >know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or other >companies. > >We have four different logos and each logo has several different variations. >This does us no good. > >There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > >Dale Grimm >OHGenWeb SC > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > >That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to the >approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. > > >Sharon A. Craig >Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > >--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > >From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >To: [email protected] >Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM > > >*All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >on the home page.* > >Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that the >rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. > >The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. > >------------------------------- >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 > > > >------------------------------- >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

I agree with you, Dale. One logo would certainly end all confusion.   Shirley At 07:27 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: >The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you instantly >know the product.  There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or other >companies. > >We have four different logos and each logo has several different variations. >This does us no good. > >There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >on all USGenWeb sites.  When you see the logo in the right place, you >instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > >Dale Grimm >OHGenWeb SC > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > >That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails.  Link to the >approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. > > >Sharon A. Craig >Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > >--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > >From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >To: [email protected] >Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM > > >*All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >on the home page.* > >Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that the >rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. > >The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. > >------------------------------- >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 > > > >------------------------------- >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

I totally agree, Dale. Betsy At 07:27 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: >The purpose of a logo is for "branding" - you see the logo and you instantly >know the product. There is no mistaking logos for Pepsi, Nike, CBS or other >companies. > >We have four different logos and each logo has several different variations. >This does us no good. > >There should be only one logo and it should be displayed in the same place >on all USGenWeb sites. When you see the logo in the right place, you >instantly know you're on a USGenWeb site. > > >Dale Grimm >OHGenWeb SC > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig >Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:16 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > >That is the best solution I have seen in all of these e-mails. Link to the >approved logos in the paragraph and it is done. > > >Sharon A. Craig >Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator >Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator > > >--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > >From: Cheryl Rothwell <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist >To: [email protected] >Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:45 AM > > >*All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo >on the home page.* > >Leaving aside all the evident control issues, it would appear to me that the >rules say "the USGenWeb project logo" so the solution is to define, >somewhere that is obvious, exactly what "the USGenWeb project logo" is. > >The logo is one of those found here... or something along those lines. > >------------------------------- >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 > > > >------------------------------- >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

Mak - all this happened after I left the EC.    I think your comments are right on point.  Nancy Janyszeski Bucks County  &  Northampton History and Genealogy http://www.BucksCountyHistory.com http://www.pa-roots.com/~northampton/ http://www.nockamixon.us http://www.pagenweb.org/~bucks/ Spruance Library Bucks County Historical Society --- On Sun, 10/11/09, MAK - Transcriber <[email protected]> wrote: From: MAK - Transcriber <[email protected]> Subject: [STATE-COORD] EC and their authority - To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 12:20 AM I have my thoughts on why the EC is short handed - but I shall not get into that on this board - but words that come to mind are Mutual Respect for Others (or lack thereof) and Communication.  Thank you for the offer of help, but I do not have any personal issues with the EC or it's members, but if I did, as a CC and ASC, I would try to work it out with the NENC EC and having failed that, address it to my SC.  But I do want to let you know that while assigned to the EC - I had some health issues but had became very ill (life threatening) - The powers to be knew at the time I had both health issues and a job that took me away for weeks at a time, plus I had a part-time job and ran my own business - They also knew that I could be counted on to do my job, as I always had my NENC region up-to-date and checked my email as often as possible.  The EC Coordinator was well aware of my circumstances, and had my area covered for me when I was not available, but, In the meantime, many people resigned from the EC over communication issues, and when I did check in about 4 weeks later, there was an email saying that I had been removed from the EC Board, as I had not responded within 2 weeks to an email that was buried within my old email box -   but was still getting emails etc - from EC Board, my NENC SCs and ASCs -  so communication is important as no one, including me, knew that I had been removed from the EC Board - I think many people assumed I was one of those who resigned - while I am not upset at being removed, as it was done strictly by thebylaws - it did bother me that after being on the board for years - no one bothered to ask my SC what was up.  I bring this up to point out that after TWO WEEKS, before delinking, or removing people from their position, how about talking to their SC.  It is simple and effective - but  it only works when we communicate with each other.  I was removed for an "infraction" of not responding to an email - NOT for NOT doing my job.  So, they would have had one more person, had I not been removed.  Who lost out on that one?  I think we should agree to disagree as I strongly feel it is NOT the ECs business to check the administrative issues  - The six or more years I was on the EC - I communicated with each one of my SCs as issues came up - if a logo was missing - I let the SC know - if there was a question about qualifications, I let the SC know and usually it was resolved with a day or two - and in return, my SCs in the NENC region always had their quarterly updates in timely, or let me know when I could expect it.  There must be some INTERFACE between the the AB, the SCs, the CCs, and the EC if you expect harmony within the organization.  If an SC is not doing their job, that is for the NC and the AB to address, not the EC -  I have sat on both sides of the fence - and while I can sympathize for the EC (it is a thankless  job), however, how can we berate the SC for NOT doing their job, when clearly everyone else is trying to do it for them.  To be an effective EC member, you must be able to communicate with your SCs, listen to them, and inform them of problems.  And to be an effective SC, you have to be kept informed.  Right now, the tail is waggin'g the dog - and the dog doesn't care anymore.  CCs are responsible to their SC only - they are administratively responsible to keep their information to the EC updated - SCs are responsible to both the NC and their CCs - for proper administration of the State Gen Web pages they are assigned to.  Administratively, they are responsible to the EC to provide an accurate quarterly update of their members, to include email updates, removals, and additions.  AB have very specific NATIONAL duties - they should not be dealing directly with anyone unless the SC or a CC askes for help.  It is very clear in the bylaws. EC members responsibilities are clearly defined in the bylaws - ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES  Section 1. A subcommittee to oversee elections shall be appointed by  the Advisory Board. The Elections Subcommittee shall consist of Advisory  Board members and volunteers from the members of The USGenWeb Project. Section 2. It shall be the responsibility of the Elections Subcommittee  to announce those positions for which nominations are needed. ---the most GLARING conflict is under Elections - it states: Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers  and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote.  I do NOT see where it says the EC will not register them to vote if they don't have a logo on their site or other such "administrative" details.  So, I went to the EC Manual - and this is what it says about Eligibility to Vote - C. Eligibility of voters All members of the Project (as defined in USGenWeb By-Laws ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP) shall be eligible to register to vote and to vote in any election or poll in which they are a qualified voter. A requirement that one be a member for at least 30 days prior to the start  of an election is acceptable purely on an administrative basis. State-level  or Special Project-level voting restrictions shall not affect a member's  right to register to vote, and as a registered voter to vote in any national  level election or poll. Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances  be addressed by the EC. The XXGenWeb State Coordinator or Project Coordinator  shall address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person  to vote in the current election. If they do not, the person shall be given  the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote. If a Local Coordinator continues  to challenge the decision of the State Coordinator, then the matter shall  be referred to the regional Advisory Board rep. If the Local Coordinator  continues to challenge the decision made by the Regional Advisory Board  Representative, then the matter shall be referred to the entire AB. The  decision of the entire Advisory Board shall be final. However, should  the matter fail to be decided before the end of any election or voting  issue, the person shall be given the right to vote by default. Eligible registered voters may vote once for each region or special project  position, for which they are eligible, once for national positions including  NC and RAL, and once for any national issue that may be placed on a ballot,  including but not limited to bylaws amendments. Changing a vote will not  be permitted. So, thank you for sharing your opinions, and for respecting mine.  Let's get back to genealogy.  Take care, R/S MAK  ..... MAKtranscriber WoodCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood PortageCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag MonroeCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe WIGenWeb ASC http://wigenweb.org/ .... ----- Original Message ---- From: AnnieG <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, October 10, 2009 6:04:07 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Next Agenda Items I would also like to see that MAK.  The problem of the EC checking for compliance would not have come about in the first place if all of the SC's had been doing their job. As Sherri said earlier, when Sherri, Denise and I helped to clean up the mess caused by the majority of the EC resigning after being attaced by several persons,  we discovered 45 sites with logo errors and 15 with no logo at all.  If we could see a list of which counties those were, we would know which SC's are not doing their job. The EC are not to be page police but to simply check the site and refer the errors back to the proper AB of the region.  This practice was put into place during the pre-election emergency and we hope to keep it in place when we meet with the EC which is coming up soon on the Agenda. Also please keep in mind, the EC is extremely shorthanded-right now and no one seems to care to volunteer.  The members they have left are almost all brand new.  If you have a problem with them, you can contact me as AB rep to the EC or Sherri as NC.  We are both subscribed to elections list and can contact any of them immediately. We have 3 volunteers to fill about 8 positions so if anyone wants to give us a year, let me, Sherri or Christina Palmer know! AnnieG Ann Allen Geoghegan NWPL-CC Rep       ------------------------------- 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 am going to throw my 2 cents worth in here take it or leave it. When I became SC in July I went to each county in my state and looked at the sites and if there were a lot of broken links, logos wrong etc I made a note. I found so many sites that were not in compliance with the NCGenWeb rules let alone the USGenWeb rules and bylaws I was just floored. I then ran a broken link report on every county in my state and sent them out to each CC and/or Co-CC along with a few notes and gave them until August to get the broken links fixed. I did work with a great number of them and I am still working with some to get the links fixed, but it has been slow going. Some I found had resigned months or even years prior, a CC had passed away and others had bouncing emails or never responded. The previous SC had no idea that the CC had passed away, nor did she have any idea that people had left the project for whatever reasons or that some had bouncing emails. So, to this point, I agree with Sherri. As SC's we are the ones responsible for making contact with our CC's at least every few months, if nothing else to say hey, how's it going, need anything, etc. We are the ones ultimately responsible for making sure each county/parish/special project, etc in our state is being maintained, is following the bylaws, rules and procedures, etc. If not, it is again the SC s job to make sure the CC brings the site into compliance or the SC removes them. That simple. Therefore, that is one of the reasons the EC has to double check behind the SC's, because things like deaths, bounced emails and people quitting months or years previously were not reported because obviously the SC wasn't doing their job. So, who is supposed to do the checking when a member goes to register to vote? It is left to the EC to do so which it should have been the SC stepping up to the plate all along but unfortunately we have some that basically stick their heads in the sand and hope it will all go away or fix itself. So, each of us and our predecessors are to blame. Not Sherri, not the AB not the EC. Each and every SC & ASC that is or has been with this project is to blame for this. WE need to be the ones to take our heads out of the sand and start enforcing the rules, bylaws and procedures and start by setting the example on our own sites. So, I ask that everyone stop blaming and accusing and let's start working on our own sites and states to make sure they are all in compliance before any finger pointing continues. Stepping off my soapbox now, sorry if I offended anyone. Diane  NCGenWeb SC NCGenWeb CC NCGenWeb Special Projects -------Original Message------- From: [email protected] Date: 10/11/2009 6:49:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Listening to the SCs, AB, and EC Sherri, I agree the buck must stop. Unfortunately, it must stop with you. You are the one who wrote directly to at least 2 people in my state. Your note most certainly should have come to me FIRST - not as a copied to... I repeat the rules do say: " f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person Within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. --Ann VTGenWeb

FWIW, there's already an item on the agenda to look at the EC procedures - 4th item in the list, added by Phyllis Rippee on 8-1-09. There's also an item that deals with the SC responsibilities. Both of these will have to go hand in hand to come up with procedures that ensure that sites are indeed being confirmed as meeting USGenWeb Project requirements so that everyone's being treated the same. It's definitely not fair to coordinators in one state that work diligently to ensure that their sites meet the requirements if a SC in another state sends a list of members in that they've not even checked - whether to ensure that email addresses work, that they're still an active coordinator and that the sites meet the requirements. There were several CCs that we found last year that stated that they'd resigned from the XXGenWeb Project, one as many as 6 years ago, but the SC was still listing them as the CC for that county's site. So... they could have voted several times when they weren't eligible. Is that something we want to encourage or allow? Obviously, those SCs/ASCs definitely weren't doing their jobs! Because of things like this and SCs and/or ASCs that don't respond to requests for quarterly updates from the EC, I doubt that you'll find many that are willing to take the word of all of the SCs/ASCs as being the gospel truth when it comes to verifying that members' that register to vote are in compliance in regards to their sites meeting the requirements. Whatever is done has to be done consistently from one state to another so there's no indication of any favoritism being shown. The buck has to stop somewhere - if we all to take a good look at our own states and make sure they're in order (and continue to keep them in order), we wouldn't have arrived at the place that we are. Again, if we can fix the underlying problem of state project leadership that don't perform their duties as required, you'll find that the issues that have been discussed in this thread will most likely be moot. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php

It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) prior to the SC being notified. -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just ask > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary to > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, so > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > The EC rules in this report > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and > > to the SC. > and > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for > > possible discrepancies. > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > etc. to handle it first? > > --Ann > SC VTGenWeb > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > jic > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > speak > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is > my > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > the > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > discussed > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

The EC rules in this report ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and to the SC. and (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for possible discrepancies. f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, etc. to handle it first? --Ann SC VTGenWeb -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > Thanks, > > jic > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only speak > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is my > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in the > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly discussed > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

>Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on Project > > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. > > > > Item #2 - Reviewing the CC Guidelines document to indicate that those items > > listed apply Project-wide, not just to county sites. Item 1 I have heard no objection to adding the word "approved" to the following: >ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The >USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. ***However, there is considerable concern that this change could be part of an effort to legitimize the EC's ability to prohibit members from voting based on logo compliance. Site checks should not be part of the EC's mandate.*** Item 2 I have received no comment on this one. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project

This is *all* the EC should be doing. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 12:46 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: >The EC rules in this report >ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and >to the SC. >and >(1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for >possible discrepancies. >f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, >unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be >directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person >within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > >Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing >local SC, etc. to handle it first? > >--Ann >SC VTGenWeb > >-------------- Original message from "Sherri" ><[email protected]>: -------------- > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > jic > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can > only speak > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing > - it is my > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the > EC in the > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be > thoroughly discussed > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > >------------------------------- >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

Nope, afraid not. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) prior to the SC being notified. -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just ask > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary to > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, so > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > The EC rules in this report > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and > > to the SC. > and > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for > > possible discrepancies. > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > etc. to handle it first? > > --Ann > SC VTGenWeb > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > jic > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > speak > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is > my > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > the > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > discussed > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

An additional issue I would like to bring up concerns hyper linking of the USGenWeb Project logos. The hyperlink should lead the visitor to the USGenWeb Project home page. That is not always the case. I have, in my experience, found the logo is hyperlinked to pages outside of the project which defames and/or is otherwise a detriment to the project. The logo that links in such a manner is a disgrace to the USGenWeb Project and is an extraordinary disservice to our visitors and the genealogical community as a whole. It should be considered improper use of the logo per the Bylaws and CC guidelines. Over the course of my term, the SC and the member(s) were notified of the improper use of the logo repeatedly. Short of delinking a state the Advisory Board's hand's are tied regarding an infraction that is certainly unbecoming of an USGenWeb Project page. I would like to see this issue addressed procedurally within whatever document is appropriate to put a stop to use of the USGenWeb Project logo in this manner. The State Coordinator is ultimately responsible for the misuse or improper use of logos on Project sites. If they don't address the issue, the Advisory Board should have the ability to do so short of disenfranchising an entire XXGenWeb Project for the inattention of the SC or the belligerency of an individual CC. Tina

Sherri - So sorry to have opened a can of worms - having been on both sides of the fence - both you and I understand the "EC procedures" but most of the SCs and CCs are not privy to the way the "system" works when in action - and the history of why procedures changed... My original words were - "Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to register CCs who did not display the approved logo - " No way did I mean to imply that we did not follow proper procedures - or this as an attack on the EC or AB. Let's consider the different points of view. When a request to register to vote comes in, the EC verifies eligibility. There are only two choices for the EC, to register or not to register. If there is a question of elibigility, they are required not register until verification of eligibility is made, and a series of procedures follow - (At that point, the person is not registered to vote, so therefore, can not vote). The EC is saying "they are not eligible according to procedures" and the SCs are saying "Hey, you are denying them the right to vote", and the CC is saying, "Hey, I can't vote". All of them are correct statements from each points of view. The EC is a hard working group - The EC did follow procedures - and so did the AB - but the individual is still not registered, so what didn't work? Is not having a logo or not having an approved logo a reasonable requirement of registration? If so, where is that written? And, whose responsibility is it to enforce that? (Perhaps a simple solution is to allow the SC to not link or to de-link the CC page until the administrative requirements are met?) The problem was and still is the communication between the EC, AB, and SCs. SCs being told they are not on topic or the bylaws / procedures were followed, comes across as dismissive, at least to me, since the SCs were asked for their input - The problem with the logos is also linked to the EC procedures, in some of our minds. When I originally joined the EC, if the SC verified eligibility - the CCs were registered - period - the EC did not check to see if logos were displayed - at least I don't remember that as part of our procedures. The SC's word was taken as the final authority. Since then the procedures have changed - and the current EC committee has no long term members left who know the history of changes in procedures and why they occured. So, it is logical from an SC point of view to ask why all these "EC procedures", when it used to be so simple, the SCs were and still are required to send quarterly updates to the EC on who is eligible - it used to be a simple procedure to just add and delete the names - and when it was time to vote - ALL MEMBERS who wanted to vote, could. Problem is, because some of the SCs were not doing their job by sending the quarterly reports of verification, and checking their CCs website to ensure compliance, the AB and EC made an executive decision to change the procedures, with the rationale to ensure that members who wanted to vote, could vote. Can you see how it may now "appear" to the long term SCs and CCs, that members are being denied registration to vote by the EC, when in fact, the EC is following all the procedures that have been established since. Is it possible that the procedures are now TOO complicated? By listening to all the different points of view, perhaps the procedures can be re-evaluated, to come up with a viable working solution for all. I hope this clarified, not not further confused, the ongoing discussion. After all, this is only my opinion. R/S MAK ..... MAKtranscriber WoodCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood PortageCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag MonroeCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe WIGenWeb ASC http://wigenweb.org/