In an effort to make it appear that elections would be conducted in a fair and equitable manner, the EC was created as a subcommittee to the AB. In an effort to remove politics from the EC, the selection of EC members was left up to the EC. This was to prevent a small clique of Project members from having the appearance of controlling everything. >From a cynical point of view, it merely took this particular portion of Project politics out of the hands of the AB and placed it in the hands of the EC...because who dares to question any slate of candidates submitted to the AB? After all, if a slate is turned down, politics must be being played by the AB. I don't believe that any better system could be put in place....unless all the names of volunteers to serve on the EC would be put in a hat (or other container) and drawn out. But, then, the charge could be made that the drawer was politically motivated and just think of the lack of needed skills that could be brought into play with this method. 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). Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:57:29 -0400, Lesley Shockey wrote > > I have not seen or heard any suggestions put forth that would work > better than the current process. I am willing to bet that there > would be some really serious yelling and screaming if the AB was to > pick and choose in order to select the EC. > I agree. And to be honest, I can think of some serious "conflict of interest" issues involved. Does it really seem appropriate for people with such a direct interest in the outcome of an election to be hand-picking the people who would run the election? No matter how honest the people involved, it doesn't look right. In my neck of the woods, people that run in elections don't also run the elections -- for that matter, election office employees aren't vetted or approved by elected officials. The election office is an independent and autonomous body, and the EC should operate the same way. > > Currently the EC suggests by submitting a slate. If it is not > approved by the AB, they are required to figure out why the slate > was not approved and offer a modified slate in the hopes that it > will meet the ABs approval. This prevents anyone from rigging > anything does it not? > Not only is the EC approved by the AB, but an AB member (chosen by the Board) and the NC (elected by the members) sit as ex officio members of the EC. Is the AB saying that we can't trust these people to object if there are some sort of shenanigans going on? If that's the case, why would it be any more trustworthy for the AB to pick-and-choose members individually? And if that's the case, why have elections? After all, apparently no one within the USGW Project is actually trustworthy, so we can't run elections. Of course, since we can't trust anyone, we wouldn't want to have an election because there would be no one to vote into office. OK, that's a little melodramatic, but still... Angie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: (SNIP) > > 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). > > Phyllis Rippee > SW/SC CC Representative I agree. 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/

I was also on the original EC committee. For the most part, I just try to keep quiet on most of the subjects discussed here. But, since we worked so hard on the EC, I really must respond. I can understand Jan's point. But, I also believe -- as one writer said -- that we've got to stop seeing conspiracy and hidden motives and agendas in everything and everyone. Suppose Linda Davenport only appointed her bestest of friends to the EC, hypothetically speaking, of course. Even friends can't agree on everything, so how could they work into the election procedures enough subtrafuge to actually "take over" the USGenWeb and fix it so only "their" friends get elected? And, hypothetically, suppose "they" actually managed to get only their own "friends" elected through "secret" committees! Don't you think that everyone else would start raising a big stink in very quick fashion? In other words, let's not borrow problems from a future that hasn't gotten here yet. Carol Wyoming SC Jan Cortez <cristian@netonecom.net> wrote: David, I do not profess to have all the answers. I have stated what I think is wrong with the procedure, and would hope that the AB as a whole might address this situation. First of all, I did ask how many volunteered to be on the EC. I did not get an answer to that. Why must that be kept a secret? I have heard from volunteers, who claim they have volunteered, yet are never selected for anything. I think that the AB could be provided with a list of those volunteers, possibly selecting new ones. Possibly getting new people involved. When I can't even find that out, I have no idea, whether they got 100 volunteers, (which I doubt) or only the people selected and sent to the AB. Yes, the AB does vote on them, but only the slate selected by the EC. The list, as a whole, without knowing if there were others. How do we know if there were others? If the EC wants to make a recommendation, fine, I just believe the AB should be able to see *all* the volunteers, before voting. I am not seeing things behind each tree and bush here, but rather stating my opinion, and that of others, on how I and they, personally feel. I believe I have a right to my opinion, just like you do. If the AB passes the procedures as presented, so be it. I can live with that, however, I feel I have a right to say what I feel, just as you do. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" > > Ok, what is your solution? > > What would be a better way? > > Pick nobody that has ever volunteered for the EC? > > David > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, State Coordinator wrote: > > > David, > > > > I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is > > that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to > > thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It > > is not a good policy. > > > > I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the > > whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are > > fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than > > the EC itself, would be the best. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David W. Morgan" > > > > > > > > > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > > > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > > > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > > > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > > > > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > > > it down. > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > > > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > > > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > > > > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > > > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > > > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > > > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > > > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > > > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > > > a fair, impartial manner. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > > > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, > > it > > > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to > > set > > > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed > > list, > > > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting > > its > > > > own members. > > > > > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you > > to > > > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > > > Jan Cortez > > > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > > > changes > > > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

At 08:36 PM 10/21/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the >whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are >fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than >the EC itself, would be the best. I have not seen or heard any suggestions put forth that would work better than the current process. I am willing to bet that there would be some really serious yelling and screaming if the AB was to pick and choose in order to select the EC. Currently the EC suggests by submitting a slate. If it is not approved by the AB, they are required to figure out why the slate was not approved and offer a modified slate in the hopes that it will meet the ABs approval. This prevents anyone from rigging anything does it not? Les S Les Shockey email address = lshockey@citynet.net or wvgenweb@citynet.net RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group. SHOCKEY-L@rootsweb.com Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of USGenWeb Project at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/

David, I do not profess to have all the answers. I have stated what I think is wrong with the procedure, and would hope that the AB as a whole might address this situation. First of all, I did ask how many volunteered to be on the EC. I did not get an answer to that. Why must that be kept a secret? I have heard from volunteers, who claim they have volunteered, yet are never selected for anything. I think that the AB could be provided with a list of those volunteers, possibly selecting new ones. Possibly getting new people involved. When I can't even find that out, I have no idea, whether they got 100 volunteers, (which I doubt) or only the people selected and sent to the AB. Yes, the AB does vote on them, but only the slate selected by the EC. The list, as a whole, without knowing if there were others. How do we know if there were others? If the EC wants to make a recommendation, fine, I just believe the AB should be able to see *all* the volunteers, before voting. I am not seeing things behind each tree and bush here, but rather stating my opinion, and that of others, on how I and they, personally feel. I believe I have a right to my opinion, just like you do. If the AB passes the procedures as presented, so be it. I can live with that, however, I feel I have a right to say what I feel, just as you do. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > Ok, what is your solution? > > What would be a better way? > > Pick nobody that has ever volunteered for the EC? > > David > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, State Coordinator wrote: > > > David, > > > > I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is > > that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to > > thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It > > is not a good policy. > > > > I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the > > whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are > > fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than > > the EC itself, would be the best. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > > > > > > > > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > > > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > > > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > > > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > > > > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > > > it down. > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > > > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > > > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > > > > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > > > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > > > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > > > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > > > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > > > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > > > a fair, impartial manner. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > > > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, > > it > > > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to > > set > > > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed > > list, > > > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting > > its > > > > own members. > > > > > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you > > to > > > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > > > Jan Cortez > > > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > > > changes > > > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > >

David and I don't always agree, but stranger things have happened <G>. Personally, I think that we, as an organization, see far too much suspicion and second-guessing -- about half the time, I keep waiting for someone to suggest that the EC was secretly on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Or maybe the EC wasn't there, and it was the AB. Sometimes it amazes me that *anyone* would volunteer for any position, what with the almost constant scrutiny and distrust of everyone's motives. The fact that the EC doesn't have the entire world looking over their shoulder to cross-examine every word uttered hardly means that they're operating in a veil of secrecy. In the past few days, any number of questions have been asked about what is done and how, and as near as I can tell, every question has been answered. Perhaps I've always misunderstand the reasoning behind having a committee. I always thought it was because in many cases, small groups with specific goals are much more efficient than large groups nattering aimlessly about the countryside. The EC has one function -- to organize and run the elections. I'm not sure what "agenda" they could be setting. And as near as I can tell, they've done an admirable job. And I'm rather curious about one statement: "I cannot support the EC Procedures, as long as they select their own members." The EC may be proposing members, but the AB has the final say, voting yes or no on the makeup of the committee. So the AB, made up of our elected representatives, is selecting the members. And, of course, there's one other question. What, pray tell, would be the alternative? I know, perhaps we could hold an election for the EC! Oh, but wait. We would have to have an EC to take care of the logistics for the election. Do we have an election for that? Hmm, I can see a never-ending procession there, so maybe not. Gosh, then I guess someone will have to appoint an EC to hold elections for the EC. But who gets to appoint them? Sound ludicrous enough to anyone yet? Angie > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, it > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to set > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed list, > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting its > > own members.

David, I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It is not a good policy. I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than the EC itself, would be the best. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > it down. > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > a fair, impartial manner. > > David > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, it > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to set > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed list, > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting its > > own members. > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you to > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > Jan Cortez > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > changes > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > 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/ > >

> I have heard from volunteers, who claim they have volunteered, yet are never > selected for anything. The only time I can think of that volunteers are not selected is when there's several from one region, & only 2 (at most) can be selected. With the regional restriction removed, looks like more volunteers can & will be selected then. 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

Ok, what is your solution? What would be a better way? Pick nobody that has ever volunteered for the EC? David On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, State Coordinator wrote: > David, > > I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is > that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to > thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It > is not a good policy. > > I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the > whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are > fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than > the EC itself, would be the best. > > Jan > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > > > > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > > it down. > > > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > > a fair, impartial manner. > > > > David > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, > it > > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to > set > > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed > list, > > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting > its > > > own members. > > > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you > to > > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > Jan Cortez > > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> > > > > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > > changes > > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > 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/

The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote it down. I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in a fair, impartial manner. David On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, it > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to set > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed list, > allows the imagination to run wild. > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting its > own members. > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you to > know why I am going to vote NO. > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > Jan Cortez > NE/NC CC Rep > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Isaiah Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > changes > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > 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/

from the Scout Report: > 7. Washington State Pioneer Life Database > http://content.lib.washington.edu/pioneerlifeweb/index.html > > Like many other parts of the American West, the area that later became the > state of Washington in 1889 was a place of great opportunity, both in terms > of the existing natural resources, and in a more intangible fashion, a place > that represented a new beginning for those persons venturing west from the > Midwest and the East Coast. This recently developed online database > presented by the University of Washington Library contains writings, > diaries, letters, and recollections from those persons who moved to > Washington in the 19th century. Visitors can search the collections, or > elect to browse through the collection list, which contains over two dozen > primary documents available for viewing. Some of the highlights here include > the recollections of Lila Hannah Firth who lived on San Juan Island (located > in Puget Sound) in the 1860s and an account of the first ascension of Mount > Rainier, one Dr. William F. Tolmie. Rounding out the site is an online > exhibition titled Northwest of the West: the Frontier Experience on the > Northwest Coast., which serves as a nice introduction to the overall > experience of these first pioneers moving west. [KMG]

In a message dated 10/13/03 2:49:39 PM, sundeemaynez@qwest.net writes: << Hi Maureen! Welcome and Congrats. Sundee Maynez ASC Colorado >> Thank you, Sundee! George, thanks also, for your vote of confidence. I am looking forward to assisting you, CTGenWeb and its members in any way possible. Best regards, Maureen Mead mmeadpond@aol.com ASC CTGenWeb

The problem I see with changing the 'chase down bounce e-mails' is that some or many volunteers do not get informed by their state coordinators. We've had this problem since 1996, and is one reason the original EC was tasked with contacting everyone. I know it's time-consuming, but if something could be figured out that would be fair to all volunteers, I'd be for it. Linda

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Cyndie wrote: > The following URL is to Proposed Changes to the Standing Election Procedures > as recommended by the Election Committee: > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > The AB is beginning discussion on these proposed changes and your input is > welcome! Please take some time to review these changes. Ellen Pack, Chair > of the Election Committee, will be included in the BOARD-L list during this > time to assist with questions and discussion regarding these proposed > changes. > > > > Thanks, > > Cyndie As a temporary helper with the Election committee for part of the last two elections, I think the recommended changes should be passed. It will be easier to staff the EC if the volunteers do not have to come from a particular region. It would certainly be easier for the EC if everybody has to register in order to vote. It is not much fun having to chase down 200 bounces every time you have an election. Please note that the EC still has to contact the SC in case of new registrations, to see if they belong to that state. My major concern with the EC is the super security wish. It was so secure in two of the last three elections, that some web browsers would not work with it. That is not a way to encourage more voter participation. One more thing. The Secretery/Publicist job should be done away with. 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/

Joy was correct. The Archives do not belong to me, only the pages I created. The files within belong to the submitters, not me, not the project, not Rootsweb, not Ancestry. I trademarked the name so no one else could come along and call *any* collection they put online by that name, and confuse visitors, submitters, etc. I have had big time computer problems lately, and the machine is probably on its last legs, and just holding on, so I haven't been able to respond to each and every e-mail in a timely manner. If this computer goes kaput, I might not be online for a long time, which would probably make a lot of people happy. LOL! The questions have been answered over and over. The guidelines have NOT changed since they were written in 1996, other than adding more explanations, and attempts to make they clearer when someone doesn't understand certain parts. I don't think any editing has been done in about a year. Linda Sherri Hall wrote: > > Slightly off topic, but the CCs are asking... > > I sent the below message to the Archives-L list last night. As of now, > there hasn't been a firm answer from Linda or anyone else. Joy responded > with a "they belong to all of us", but that's not how the guidelines read to > me now. (It appears that they've been changed since I started contributing > files to the archives.) The current guidelines also state that the Archives > MUST be hosted on Rootsweb, and even limits what directory (site) they have > to be on/in. >

Slightly off topic, but the CCs are asking... I sent the below message to the Archives-L list last night. As of now, there hasn't been a firm answer from Linda or anyone else. Joy responded with a "they belong to all of us", but that's not how the guidelines read to me now. (It appears that they've been changed since I started contributing files to the archives.) The current guidelines also state that the Archives MUST be hosted on Rootsweb, and even limits what directory (site) they have to be on/in. Is there something in writing, somewhere, that definitely states that the Archives are a part of the USGenWeb Project, and as such don't belong to and aren't under the control of any one person? As a part of the USGenWeb Project from the state/county side, it's clearly stated that the files that are contributed are being contributed to the project, and if the CC leaves, the only files that they can "take" with them are the ones that they have personally contributed. That's a very good thing..... With the trademark and domain for the Archives belonging to one person, I'm no longer sure that the same can be said of files in the archives. Thanks for any insight. ~Sherri Hall SC, KYGenWeb KYGenWeb Archives File Manager -----Original Message----- From: Sherri Hall [mailto:ldrbelties@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:17 PM To: Archives-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Questions about the Archives Over the last couple of weeks, I've been getting questions from some of the KYGenWeb CCs and archivists about the status of the archives. Since the basis for the questions appear to have gone on before I took over as Archives File Manager, I don't have a clue how to answer. I'm not pointing fingers, and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes, but would someone please enlighten me? The big question is who actually "owns" the USGenWeb Archives? Going back through some old Board-L messages, I find info that Linda Lewis filed for and has obtained the trademark name "USGenWeb Archives". Is this saying that she "owns" the archives, and all posts to them? How does the USGenWeb Project fit into this, besides the use of the name? What assurance do submitters to the archives get that the files they're contributing are actually going for the purpose they're intending i.e., free access to transcribed public domain documents as a part of the USGenWeb Project, and are not going to be benefiting one person or group? What happens to the Archives when or if something happens to Linda - an illness, accident, death, etc.? Like I said, I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but do want to be able to respond with reasonablly intelligent, correct answers to the questions being asked. Thanks, ~Sherri Hall KYGenWeb Archives File Manager

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Linda Lewis wrote: > If this computer goes kaput, I might not be online for a long time, > which would probably make a lot of people happy. LOL! Surely there must be a library in Richmond with Internet access. LOL David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

This might be a little off topic, but I'm hoping someone can help. Our county pages is hosted at rootsweb. Do they have site statistics so that I can see my most popular pages, which browsers, which search words, etc? If so, how can I access them? Thanks! Suzanne

(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision of Section 3 of Article XII. Special Projects. Section 3. The members of each officially-approved USGenWeb Special Project shall together elect one Special Projects Representative to serve as a member of The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board. 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