Well, Sherri, no good deed shall go unpunished.? LOL Denise -----Original Message----- From: Sherri <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist No, that process is EXACTLY what was followed in the election just held. Any questions were addresses to AB members that volunteered to step in and assist in getting them resolved. Annie, Alice and I were the AB members that were making the contacts about sites that were in question. Unfortunately, there were those SCs and/or ASCs that took exception to the fact that the rules were being followed exactly as written. I know that I personally received several responses that were less than pleasant as we were trying to make sure that everyone would be verified so that they could vote. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist The change by this motion was not to give the EC authority to deny membership for logo issues, it was to add the Dataset Manager position and to make a few grammatical fixes. Under Section C. Eligibility to Vote it states "Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC." Being on the membership list is a requirement for eligibility as indicated in the EC procedures " I. All Project members, who are eligible to vote, shall also be eligible to Register to vote." If the EC is removing a person from the membership or not adding them based on anything other than an authorized person's determination, they have made a challenge to the person's eligibility by questioning their status as a member and addressed it themselves, which violates Section C. The by-laws state a logo is a requirement and I don't think anyone disputes that (maybe which one is in question). If the EC finds a discrepancy then they should follow the procedures in the same document for how to handle discrepancies. That is what should be happening if a logo is missing or some other element is missing. That process involves contacting the project leadership and if need be contacting the AB and this process complies with Section C. For some unknown reason, this process used to be followed, but changed the past two years. Cyndie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist 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" <[email protected]> > 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

Fran, I'm confused. What are you referring to when you say "that they want less to keep up with on their pages instead of more"? The Agenda items were to specify that the logos on Project sites should be one of the membership-approved logos and that the title of the CC Guidelines document should be modified to be clear that it applies to all Project sites, not just County Project sites. What is it that you think is being added? Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Back to the Subject at Hand I am hearing from our group in Florida that they want less to keep up with on their pages instead of more. Providing a link to the USGW National page should take care of all the other items you have mentioned. They pertain to the USGW business and not so much to state business. We do provide a link on the State and County pages to the USGW home page. Anyone wishing to contact any part of USGW can do it from our link. Fran Smith, SC Florida ------------------------------- 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'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" <[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

Cheryl, that's exactly what we're trying to do - unfortunately, the discussion has branched off into several different tangents and the original change that was being proposed has gotten lost in the shuffle. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cheryl Rothwell Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist *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

No, that process is EXACTLY what was followed in the election just held. Any questions were addresses to AB members that volunteered to step in and assist in getting them resolved. Annie, Alice and I were the AB members that were making the contacts about sites that were in question. Unfortunately, there were those SCs and/or ASCs that took exception to the fact that the rules were being followed exactly as written. I know that I personally received several responses that were less than pleasant as we were trying to make sure that everyone would be verified so that they could vote. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cyndie Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist The change by this motion was not to give the EC authority to deny membership for logo issues, it was to add the Dataset Manager position and to make a few grammatical fixes. Under Section C. Eligibility to Vote it states "Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC." Being on the membership list is a requirement for eligibility as indicated in the EC procedures " I. All Project members, who are eligible to vote, shall also be eligible to Register to vote." If the EC is removing a person from the membership or not adding them based on anything other than an authorized person's determination, they have made a challenge to the person's eligibility by questioning their status as a member and addressed it themselves, which violates Section C. The by-laws state a logo is a requirement and I don't think anyone disputes that (maybe which one is in question). If the EC finds a discrepancy then they should follow the procedures in the same document for how to handle discrepancies. That is what should be happening if a logo is missing or some other element is missing. That process involves contacting the project leadership and if need be contacting the AB and this process complies with Section C. For some unknown reason, this process used to be followed, but changed the past two years. Cyndie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist 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" <[email protected]> > 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

----- Original Message ----- From: "Cyndie" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist <snip> That process never changed. The EC did contact the AB and the AB Reps were involved in contacting the involved parties. It was the AB's misunderstanding which included not recognizing where the original issue came from that precipitated this problem regardless of how often it was explained to them. I can unequivocally say that *no* member of this project was ever denied the right to vote and that the EC is not page police. They worked with the AB, SC's and project membership to assure that everyone was afforded the right to vote per the Bylaws and their operating procedures. They followed procedures to the letter often to much consternation from the body that approved their procedures. Tina >That process involves contacting the project > leadership and if need be contacting the AB and this process complies with > Section C. For some unknown reason, this process used to be followed, but > changed the past two years. > > Cyndie > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > 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" <[email protected]> > > >> 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

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

The change by this motion was not to give the EC authority to deny membership for logo issues, it was to add the Dataset Manager position and to make a few grammatical fixes. Under Section C. Eligibility to Vote it states "Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC." Being on the membership list is a requirement for eligibility as indicated in the EC procedures " I. All Project members, who are eligible to vote, shall also be eligible to Register to vote." If the EC is removing a person from the membership or not adding them based on anything other than an authorized person's determination, they have made a challenge to the person's eligibility by questioning their status as a member and addressed it themselves, which violates Section C. The by-laws state a logo is a requirement and I don't think anyone disputes that (maybe which one is in question). If the EC finds a discrepancy then they should follow the procedures in the same document for how to handle discrepancies. That is what should be happening if a logo is missing or some other element is missing. That process involves contacting the project leadership and if need be contacting the AB and this process complies with Section C. For some unknown reason, this process used to be followed, but changed the past two years. Cyndie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist 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" <[email protected]> > 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

Finding the volunteer information can be challenging for SCs/CCs not accustom to web structure - unless you know right were it is - those of us with small screens can't SEE it unless we scroll down - perhaps the webmaster can move the menu up where it is more visible - or put another bar at the top of the volunteer pages at http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/index.shtml To get their - When you are on the MAIN page of USGenWeb http://usgenweb.org/index.shtml Click on the top bar that says VOLUNTEERS - or you can scroll down - and you will see it in the bottom corner on the right side of your screen VOLUNTEERS On the page that comes up - continue to scroll down - on the right you will see a menu that is PROJECT BUSINESS Project Business Announcements Board Minutes Board Agenda Bylaws CC Guidelines SC Guidelines Elections Copyright Logos Logo Contest Member-Communication Memorials Newsletter Mailing Lists Standard Rules Volunteer Guide Website Help Brochures Click on Logos http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml Hope this helps - 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/

I am hearing from our group in Florida that they want less to keep up with on their pages instead of more. Providing a link to the USGW National page should take care of all the other items you have mentioned. They pertain to the USGW business and not so much to state business. We do provide a link on the State and County pages to the USGW home page. Anyone wishing to contact any part of USGW can do it from our link. Fran Smith, SC Florida

Vikki, You can find links to both the bylaws and county and state requirements, as well as other info that will be of help at http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/index.shtml - the links are on the right side of the page. Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vikki Gray Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [STATE-COORD] Question regarding by-laws Hi everyone.  I'm new to this list so please forgive me if I'm posting to the wrong list.  Is there a link to the by-laws and requirements for state and county pages?  I think I have all the requirements, but I want to make sure that Alaska is in compliance from the git-go.    Thanks, Vikki Gray AKGenWeb ------------------------------- 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

Good Morning, The current discussion, regarding EC Members taking CC's off of the Registration for 'Infractions' seems to be a case of 'He Said, She Said'. One of my CC's was told that they would be taken off of the Voter Rolls until 'Compliance could be met'. She was informed BEFORE I was contacted contacted as SC. So... Ladies and Gents, let's get this stuff squared away, make the rules simple, straight forward and like MAK so nicely stated: Let's get back to the real purpose of the USGW - getting data out there for visiting researchers. There has been enough discussion on what should have been a few answers to a simple question. Martha A Crosley Graham SC CAGenWeb

*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.

Obviously I didn't see it then and I am not seeing it now, where it indicates just exactly what a USGenWeb Project logo is. It just says a project logo, so any logo which indicates USGenWeb that has been available at some point should suffice. I am not excusing those that don't have any logo at all. Sorry, as I said before I am not trying to start an argument, but, we don't all see things the same way. Yes, I use current approved logos on my websites, but, does everyone look at it from the same way I see it? We don't all think alike. Let's try and work with the volunteers of this organization and not punish them for things that are not clear and concise. Hey - I expect a lot out of the websites, yet, how can we punish someone for doing nothing with their website when all we say in our bylaws, is this willingness thing, a logo and a few required links? In some cases we are getting just what we asked for. <sigh> Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > Jan, your input on the motion: > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232122410 > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > -----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" <[email protected]> > > >> 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.

In the EC Procedures, this is what I find and I cannot for the life of me find anything that says a current and approved logo or what is considered a USGenWeb Project logo. What am I missing here?: 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. ******And this is Article IV. Membership:****** ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The only requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers. Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, etc. ******Where in this Article does it say that a site must have an approved logo?***** *****In this section it does say a project logo is required:******* ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. ******It doesn't say current or approved, just a USGenWeb Project logo. ******* *****I still fail to see where the EC has the right to say a person cannot vote because of a logo.****** *****I'm not trying to start an argument here, but, what we have is not clear and I fail to see how a CC can be denied the right to vote based on what we have in place. An email from Vivian Saffold indicates one member who was not allowed to vote in the last election when this is what has been in place. How many others were there? No wonder people aren't interested in voting.******** No, I am not picking on the EC, as all they are doing is what the Reps from the AB to the EC are telling them to do. I realize they have a difficult job, but, by the same token the AB is making it even more difficult. Blame is put on the EC when it should be on the AB for not ensuring that properly established procedure, supported by the bylaws are in place. I, like Denise, agree that this should all be common sense and we probably should know what logos are and are not approved. I certainly do. How many CC's though are only interested in doing their websites and not interested in the politics of this project and figure the logo they had in 1996 is a project logo? How many times in this project have things gone from bad to worse on something because of picking nits? Well, they wouldn't be if we were clear and concise. I also agree with Sharon Craig, I believe it was, that said something to the effect that logos were not our problem here, but rather dead links. So amend the bylaws through proper channels to state a current and approved USGenWeb project logo and then let's set about the task of working with members, showing our appreciation for what they do and encourage better checking of dead links and shell sites. Most of that should be done by the SC of each State. If an SC is not doing their job, then it is incumbent upon the members of that State organization to do something about it. And while MAK and I have never much agreed on many things, I do like most of her thoughts on a lot of what has been going on. We are sweating the small stuff and forgetting the real reason while we are all here. The Patrons of our websites. Let's think about that for a change and how to encourage them to continue to come back. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <[email protected]> > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087

Jan, your input on the motion: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232122410 Sherri Bradley National Coordinator USGenWeb Project Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php -----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" <[email protected]> > 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

In Massachusetts, the SC manages only the CCs. The local/town sites are managed by the CCs. We operate a very tolerant state. The many emails [over half the state sites] from the EC before the last election were for the most inane reasons. I was livid, to say the least. They amounted to: Logo too old, Logo not found [they were at the bottom of the first page], Logo resized [are you kidding??], no name on page [they did have email contact to "webmaster" but for personal reasons they didn't want their name online] and on and on. All trivial, inane reasons to bar them from voting. The major problem is that the Guidelines [and I read them as suggestions NOT must haves] and the By-laws do not complement each other....in fact they are almost in opposition. The By-laws seem to have been built around who can vote. This is what I plan to do for the next round. I'm telling all MA GenWeb members that if they would like to vote, they will have to kow-tow to strange "rules". But if they don't care to vote, they can have their sites with only State requirements. 1. respond to a roll call 2. subscribe to state[business only] email list The rest are Suggestions, such as link backs, logos, etc.[which 99% of members DO have on their sites, without the threats!] As per the following By-Law article they will continue to be GenWeb members....just not VOTING members. ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The ONLY requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers. Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, etc. When and if the Guidelines/By-laws are revised to a more tolerant, sane level I will reconsider my stand. Betty Thomas MA State Coordinator - [email protected] Professional Genealogy Research - http://bettysgenealogy.org/researcher Personal - Wicks,Hammond, Heintz,Bradfield,Walbridge - http://BettyT.tripod.com GenWeb Coordinator for: Genesee, NY http://genesee.bettysgenealogy.org/ Wyoming, NY http://wyoming.bettysgenealogy.org/ Worcester, MA http://worcester.bettysgenealogy.org/ Commonwealth of Massachusetts - http://magenweb.bettysgenealogy.org/

http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/CCguidelines.shtml http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harold Kilmer, NMGenWeb SC http://www.nmgenweb.us/ . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vikki Gray" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:18 AM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Question regarding by-laws Hi everyone. I'm new to this list so please forgive me if I'm posting to the wrong list. Is there a link to the by-laws and requirements for state and county pages? I think I have all the requirements, but I want to make sure that Alaska is in compliance from the git-go. Thanks, Vikki Gray AKGenWeb ------------------------------- 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

So, if the state doesn't do what they're supposed to, what do you suggest? Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sharon Craig Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist Well, the logo issue can be solved by the word approved.  Indiana is in the middle of our website evaluations and the true problem is broken links, not logo's.  Also we are giving the cc's two weeks to fix, however, we have always been flexible, if the cc has a problem we work with it.  I don''t feel the EC has any business checking logos, that is up to the state. Sharon A. Craig Hamilton Co. InGenWeb Coordinator Assistant In GenWeb State Coordinator   --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Michael and Vivian Saffold <[email protected]> wrote: From: Michael and Vivian Saffold <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 6:18 PM Following is the entire section: >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The >USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. >Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be >notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in >which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time >limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by >the website coordinator. Are there any county/local Web sites linked to the national site? Would not the Advisory Board have to require the state coordinators to de-link a non-complying/inappropriate site? In such case, it would seem that the compliance issue would fall to the state organization. The flexibility issue is addressed here, but the state organization seems to be completely out of the picture. This section appears to reserve the discretion for the Advisory Board. Perhaps this section should be clearer and more realistic. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project At 04:23 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Playing devil's advocate here, if we're talking about replacing a logo or >adding the coordinator's name and contact info to at least the main page of >a Project site, why would two weeks not be sufficient in most cases? >Article VI, Section 5 of the bylaws already include this statement right >after the portion that David quoted: > >"The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons >presented by the website coordinator." > >That would give the leeway needed, if additional time is required, to extend >the 2-week period if a coordinator is unavailable for whatever reason. > >Sherri > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larry Flesher >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > >It's OK - I agree with you anyway <grin>. > >Two weeks is insufficient to mandate a correction - also not enough time. >(Four weeks/one month is better, in my opinion). > >Larry >SC MOGenWeb Project >SWSC SC Rep, USGenWeb Project AB > > >--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Nola Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Nola Duffy <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:41 PM > > Excuse please, I was intending to > > respond to Katherine. > > > > Nola > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version > > of virus signature database 4495 (20091010) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

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" <[email protected]> > 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