Thanks, Pat.. g ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Scott" <legacy@comnett.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Gail Kilgore-gravestone preservation news > Outstanding gail!! > > Pat > > -------Original Message------- > > From: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Saturday, October 25, 2003 22:21:19 > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Gail Kilgore-gravestone preservation news > > Gail Meyer Kilgore has been featured in the Rocky Mountain News for her > work in preserving gravestone and Cemetery information. You can read about > at the following web site: > > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2376126 > 00.html > > As you know Gail is the State Coordinator for Iowa and Assistant State > Coordinator for AZ. Gail is working very hard and making a tremendous > contribution to our project. Join me in congratulating Gail. > > Mike Jarvis > AZGenWeb State Coordinator > http://www.rootsweb.com/~azgenweb/ > http://arizonagravestones.org/ > > . > >

Outstanding gail!! Pat -------Original Message------- From: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, October 25, 2003 22:21:19 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Gail Kilgore-gravestone preservation news Gail Meyer Kilgore has been featured in the Rocky Mountain News for her work in preserving gravestone and Cemetery information. You can read about at the following web site: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2376126 00.html As you know Gail is the State Coordinator for Iowa and Assistant State Coordinator for AZ. Gail is working very hard and making a tremendous contribution to our project. Join me in congratulating Gail. Mike Jarvis AZGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~azgenweb/ http://arizonagravestones.org/ .

Gail Meyer Kilgore has been featured in the Rocky Mountain News for her work in preserving gravestone and Cemetery information. You can read about at the following web site: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2376126,00.html As you know Gail is the State Coordinator for Iowa and Assistant State Coordinator for AZ. Gail is working very hard and making a tremendous contribution to our project. Join me in congratulating Gail. Mike Jarvis AZGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~azgenweb/ http://arizonagravestones.org/

Big Congrat's, Tina Gail --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

Thanks everyone! I appreciate all of your good wishes. Tina

> Congratulations to Tina Vickery for winning re-election as SC > of Wisconsin! Congratulations from me too! Bettie <>< -- "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield

At 10:09 AM 10/24/2003 -1000, you wrote: >Congratulations to Tina Vickery for winning re-election as SC >of Wisconsin! > >David YES! Congratulations, Tina! -Isaiah

> Well, Bettie....in your case, <G> would it be called "grandmothering in?" LOL--That is just what I was thinking. Sometimes we think too much alike! Bettie <>< -- "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield

A Standing SUBcommittee may very well believe that it should be allowed to create its own procedures and not be hampered by the Board that created it. But, that's not the way a SUBcommittee operates anywhere. Since the Procedural Rules must be approved by the AB, it is the duty of the AB members to carefully study those rules and IF even ONE member doesn't think that any part of those rules (revised, or otherwise) does not state the actual intent of said rule, that AB member should speak up and question what is meant. The way the rule was stated, the EC had the right to petition for the removal of an AB member. It could be assumed that it referred to any AB member on the EC, or only to the overseer appointed by the AB, but that is not what it stated. Ellen reworded it so that it states what it was intended to state. The rule about an EC member giving notice at least 24 hours prior to nominations starting IF a nomination would be accepted....is not enforceable. Any one who takes the time to think about it can see that what it is intended to prevent, it will not. Suppose that I am on the EC. I want to see how the land lies in regard to any nomination that I would be eligible to accept. So, I stay on the committee, keep my eyes open and then realize that one of the AB positions would be a slam dunk win for me. I nominate myself, or have a friend nominate me and I accept. The EC rule has been broken.....but, so what? I can understand the reasoning behind the selection of EC members without regard to regions. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with how do you get "at large" members....meaning they can come from anywhere within the Project...when all 8 XXGenWeb Project members could come from anywhere within the Project and therefore are "at-large" themselves. If the no regional requirement is considered in the selection process, how do the new EC members become specific regional representatives? It can be assumed that the Chair will place them where they are needed, but what if that is not what is intended? You know what the word "assume" does. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

Congratulations to Tina Vickery for winning re-election as SC of Wisconsin! David David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Well, Bettie....in your case, <G> would it be called "grandmothering in?" Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Bosque Lover <nana321@earthlink.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 23 October, 2003 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] EC Procedures > > When has an SC been recalled? > > Almost happened this past year, but I was referring to IF it does happen. > There's only one time that I can think of that an AB member was approved to the > EC after they were already elected to the AB. Thing is they were approved by EC > & AB, so that doesn't bother me a bit. > > > I know that there was a statement made that > > if someone were qualified for a position when elected, no matter what > > happened, that person would/should finish out the term. > > Same goes for the EC. If they are qualified & already approved for the EC, they > also should be allowed to finis their term > Bettie <>< > -- > "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" > In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, > Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield > > > > >

(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision of Section 4 of Article XII. Special Projects. Section 4. Each official Special Project shall have a Coordinator (SPC) to oversee its operations. The founding SPC shall hold that office until such time as he or she steps down or is otherwise unable to continue. Thereafter, a new SPC shall be elected by a majority of that Special Project's members every 36 months, or sooner if specified in the Special Project's bylaws/rules. The SPC, as primary administrative officer of the project may appoint one or more Assistant Special Project Coordinator(s) (ASPC) as necessary to assist in administration of the Special Project. All revision drafts may be viewed at http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ Members are encouraged to send comments or questions related to this or other revision drafts. Roger Swafford BRC - Chairman

I don't want anyone to get me wrong -- I would prefer that AB members not be on the EC. Where I have an issue is with what appears to me to be a lack of logic. The EC has proposed a change that they believe would adequately close the "loophole." Some people agree that their proposal is adequate, some do not. I don't see the logic in *not* passing the current proposal because you'd like them to have stronger rules -- how is it better to have no restrictions at all? And my second point still stands. There is absolutely no reason that the AB cannot have their own procedural rule forbidding AB members from serving on the EC. In fact, to me, it would be preferable. It the AB does not believe their members can serve on the EC without creating an appearance of a conflict of interest (and I agree that it gives a bad appearance), then the AB should should create such a rule, rather than waiting for another committee to decide to do things the AB's way. I have no problem with the AB setting rules & standards for its members. I *do* have a problem with the AB getting involved in the internal workings of the EC. Why? It sets a bad precedent. If it's OK for the AB to make rules about who the EC can consider for membership, what other decisions can the AB make for them? It defeats the purpose of setting up a separate committee to handle election activities -- you might as well have the AB run elections themselves. Sure, it looks bad, but what the heck, right? Angie >-----Original Message----- >Since the EC is proposing these revised procedures; since the >EC wants the >Project members to believe that the EC members adhere to >higher standards >than anyone else; and since the purpose of the formation of >the EC to begin >with was to take away any political influence the AB might have on the >EC......it is only logical that the EC should put a rule in >its procedures >that no AB member could serve as a worker on the EC because if >an AB member >is a worker on the EC, that worker is not living up to the >higher standards >of the EC being free of possible political influence from the AB. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

> Almost? Didn't come close. My opinion that was pretty close during the voter fraud issue, but we think differently on most everything, dont' we? <wink> > I can think of two, Diane Montgomery Parsons and Jan Cortez. Well you've been around a lot longer than I have!! lol > Should a former SC be allowed to run for SC rep after they have left > office? It happened this year. He was the only candidate from that > region, too. I don't know whether he has one or two years left to > serve on the AB. You're talking about AB. This was up to who? to verify they were eligible to run? Not the EC for sure. Bettie <>< -- "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield

> When has an SC been recalled? Almost happened this past year, but I was referring to IF it does happen. There's only one time that I can think of that an AB member was approved to the EC after they were already elected to the AB. Thing is they were approved by EC & AB, so that doesn't bother me a bit. > I know that there was a statement made that > if someone were qualified for a position when elected, no matter what > happened, that person would/should finish out the term. Same goes for the EC. If they are qualified & already approved for the EC, they also should be allowed to finis their term Bettie <>< -- "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield

If an EC member runs for an AB position and is elected, that person should be replaced on the EC. When has an SC been recalled? I know that there was a statement made that if someone were qualified for a position when elected, no matter what happened, that person would/should finish out the term. I strongly disagree with the statement. Any time a person does not meet the requirements, that person should be removed. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

> The only thing that bothers me about the EC selecting its own members is > that IF the purpose is to remove any possible political AB influence on > elections, then it should be an EC procedural rule that NO AB member can > serve on the EC committee as a worker. That the ONLY AB members are the two > over-seers (i.e. the NC and the one appointed by the AB). I tend to agree with you on this one! That is, if they are on the AB already, then they shouldn't be considered, but if they are on the EC, then become an AB member that would be ok. If the Ec was removed from the EC because they then also became an AB member , then the AB should remove any SCs, serving as SC rep for their region, that were recalled. Bettie <>< -- "The heart remembers most what it has loved best" In memory of Kinsey Blalock, Rachel Reid, Jaicey Robberson, Kasey Morrow, Matt Hines, Rebecca & Lillian Sheffield

Angie, You didn't need to be so subtle....yes, that statement about the EC making an unenforceable rule was made by me. I made it. I stand by it. And, while the proposed procedures may pass, as of now, I will be standing with Jan and voting "NO" and this isn't the only reason why. Since the EC is proposing these revised procedures; since the EC wants the Project members to believe that the EC members adhere to higher standards than anyone else; and since the purpose of the formation of the EC to begin with was to take away any political influence the AB might have on the EC......it is only logical that the EC should put a rule in its procedures that no AB member could serve as a worker on the EC because if an AB member is a worker on the EC, that worker is not living up to the higher standards of the EC being free of possible political influence from the AB. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Bosque Lover wrote: > > When has an SC been recalled? > > Almost happened this past year, but I was referring to IF it does happen. Almost? Didn't come close. > There's only one time that I can think of that an AB member was approved to the > EC after they were already elected to the AB. Thing is they were approved by EC > & AB, so that doesn't bother me a bit. I can think of two, Diane Montgomery Parsons and Jan Cortez. > > I know that there was a statement made that > > if someone were qualified for a position when elected, no matter what > > happened, that person would/should finish out the term. > > Same goes for the EC. If they are qualified & already approved for the EC, they > also should be allowed to finis their term > Bettie <>< Should a former SC be allowed to run for SC rep after they have left office? It happened this year. He was the only candidate from that region, too. I don't know whether he has one or two years left to serve on the AB. David David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

>-----Original Message----- > >The only thing that bothers me about the EC selecting its own >members is >that IF the purpose is to remove any possible political AB influence on >elections, then it should be an EC procedural rule that NO AB >member can >serve on the EC committee as a worker. A few days ago, while discussing the proposed revisions of the EC policy, one of the matters discussed was an EC policy stating that an EC member is required to notify the EC chair not less than one day prior to the opening of nominations, if there is an intent to accept a nomination, and that the member would be unsubscribed from the EC's email list prior to the beginning of nominations. And an AB member made an objection "I do not see why anyone would want to add a rule, when it has been demonstrated that there is a way around what the rule tries to prevent." If AB members feel that it's improper for other AB members to serve on the EC, why doesn't the AB propose their own procedural rule? Even if the EC is a apparently a wholly-owned subsidiary of the AB (or there are people who would like it to be), it seems to me to be more appropriate for the AB to worry about their own procedures, not the ECs. After all, the EC proposed a rule designed to prevent nominees from taking direct part in the running of an election. Looks to me like the EC is covering the territory from their end. Angie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003