Hi Maureen! Welcome and Congrats. Sundee Maynez ASC Colorado ----- Original Message ----- From: George Waller To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:23 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] New CT ASC Hi all, I am happy to announce that CT has a new ASC. Her name is Maureen Mead Pond and email is MMeadPond@aol.com Please add her to the list. Thanks, George SC CTGenWeb

Hi all, I am happy to announce that CT has a new ASC. Her name is Maureen Mead Pond and email is MMeadPond@aol.com Please add her to the list. Thanks, George SC CTGenWeb

(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision of Section 1 and Section 2 of Article XII. Special Projects. Section 1. Special projects which support the purpose and goals of The USGenWeb Project may apply to the USGenWeb Advisory Board for approval as an official USGenWeb Special Project. Section 2. The name of the special project shall be The USGenWeb ______ 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

For your information ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:59:46 -0500 From: Rob G Yoder <rgyoder@juno.com> Reply-To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com To: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [TXGEN] TXGenWeb invited to participate Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:42:50 -0600 Resent-From: TXGEN-L@rootsweb.com Hello everyone, The Genealogy Department of the Fort Worth Public Library and Fort Worth Genealogical Society are joining together to increase interest in genealogy by hosting a Genealogy Fair that we are calling �Ancestry In Action�. This will be held in the Central Library 500 W. 3rd Street, Fort Worth, Texas on Saturday, November 1, 2003 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. We are inviting members of TXGenWeb to participate. We are inviting organizations to join us by setting up and staffing a table for display of their information & publications. These tables will be setup in the Art Gallery around the east stairway on the ground floor. The Library will provide a table and two chairs to each organization. We may display and sell appropriate merchandise. You will be able to accept payment for memberships. This is subject to change without prior notice. This is to be a FREE event to publicize all of our local genealogical and historical organizations. Ms. Shirley Apley, Senior Librarian, in the Genealogy Department is planning a dozen classes in the lecture rooms, also free. Some of the topics she has planned are: Beginning Genealogy, Preservation of Documents, Scrap Booking, On Line Genealogy, Computer Use and Inter-Library Loans. If you wish to attend the classes, you must also register with Ms. Apley at sapley@fortworthlibrary.org. We hope you will consider joining us in this event, and meet other genealogical and historical groups from the area. If you can join us please reserve a table right away. (deadline Oct. 20) I will group the CC's together at shared table space so that you can visit each other. I believe that Lela Evans has agreed to do a presentation on USGenWeb. If you have questions you may email me at rgyoder@juno.com. Sincerely Rob Yoder - Fort Worth, TX - rgyoder@juno.com Tarrant County TXGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~txtarran/

Whenever the AB is asked to approve a slate of candidates and they are listed as to the positions they will fill, the AB is not approving the candidates to switch positions in mid-stream. They are approving a specific person for a specific seat. Perhaps the 1 year terms can be explained by resignation, which would not necessarily be something the AB would need to know, but as a matter of courtesy should know. If Nola Duffy is Bettie Woods' replacement, then it must be assumed that Bettie has given up her seat on the EC. BUT, if she is expected to serve in the SW/SC region, why isn't her name on the slate of candidates that has been presented to the AB? She would qualify as a replacement candidate and possibly could serve a two-year term in one of the SW/SC region's seats. Which could bring about a flap over whether or not the EC Procedures were intended to be such that no one would serve three consecutive years EXCEPT the first go 'round when terms needed to be evened out into a two-year rotating pattern. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative ----- Original Message ----- From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 07 October, 2003 4:23 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Motion 3-21 > > Why are two vacancies being filled in the SE/MA region, when only > one vacancy exists? > > I tried getting an answer to this in private e-mail, but I am > being stonewalled. > > David > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:12:26 -1000 (HST) > From: David W. Morgan <dmorgan@efn.org> > To: Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net> > Cc: e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org, nana321@earthlink.net, illinois@usroots.com, > shari@tyaskin.com, pamreid@comcast.net, cyndiee@tampabay.rr.com, > lab@boone.net, cgcolo@juno.com, lflesher@fidnet.com, > gkilgore@globalcrossing.net, bookstorelady@prodigy.net, > sanchoinc@houston.rr.com, dmorgan@efn.org, damorgan@nyx.net > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Fwd: EC Member Confirmation > > > Before the discussion ends and the voting begins, I wish someone > would find out why the EC is filling two vacancies in the SE/MA > region when only one vacancy exists, and filling only one vacancy > in the SW/SC region, when two vacancies exist. > > Bettie Wood was elected as a SE/MA rep on the EC. She still has > a year to go in that position. You can look it up at > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/current.html > > Is Bettie moving to the SW/SC region, or is she going to take > the archives/special projects position that comes vacant on > Dec 31? > > Apparently there were no volunteers for the archives position. > Or there was only one volunteer for the SW/SC region. I am > confused, not sure anyone else is. > > David > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > > > > > > > > >TO: USGenWeb Advisory Board > > >FROM: USGenWeb Election Committee > > >DATE: September 30, 2003 > > >SUBJECT: Confirmation Request for New and Replacement EC Members > > > > > >Per Election Committee Procedures, the EC respectfully submits the > > >following Slate of prospective EC Members for your approval/disapproval. > > > > > >Should the AB approve of the submitted Slate, the EC requests immediate > > >seating of all new EC Members in order to have time to properly train new > > >members, and to elect EC officers for the year 2004. > > > > > >EC Representative At Large - 1 Seat: > > > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005. > > >Tina Vickery > > >Qualifying Positions: > > >SC WIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/ > > >CC Door County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/door/ > > >ASC MEGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~megenweb/ > > >CC Kennebec County, ME http://www.rootsweb.com/~mekenneb/ > > >CC Hancock County, ME http://www.rootsweb.com/~mehancoc/ > > >CC Albany County, NY http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyalbany/ > > > > > > > > >NorthEast/North Central - 2 Seats: > > > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > > >Marcia Kuehl > > >Qualifying Positions: > > >ASC WIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/ > > >CC Wood County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood/ > > >CC Portage County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag/ > > >CC Monroe County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe/ > > > > > > > > >*One year replacement term ending December 31, 2004 > > >Marie Mickalunas > > >Qualifying Position: > > >CC Rusk County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wirusk/ > > > > > >Northwest Plains - 1 Seat: > > > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > > >Greta Thompson > > >Qualifying Positions: > > >CC Marion County, IA http://www.rootsweb.com/~iamarion/ > > >IAGenWeb Welcome Hostess http://iagenweb.org/state/iagenweb.htm > > >Manager, IA Family Group Sheet Special Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~iafgs/ > > > > > > > > >Southeast/Mid-Atlantic - 2 seats: > > > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > > >Deb Haines > > >Qualifying Position: CC MSGenWeb > > >CC Marshall County, MS http://www.rootsweb.com/~msmarsha/ > > > > > >*One year replacement term ending December 31, 2004 > > >Nola Duffy > > >Qualifying Position: > > >CC Bute County, NC http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncbute/ > > > > > >Southwest/South Central - 1 Seat > > > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > > >Jason Myles Felihkatubbe > > >Qualifying Positions: > > >CC Garfield County, OK http://www.rootsweb.com/~okgarfie/gar.htm > > >CC Beaver County, OK http://www.rootsweb.com/~okbeaver/ > > >CC The Ponca Agency (IT/OK Project) http://www.rootsweb.com/~itponca/ > > >CC The Cherokee Outlet (IT/OK Project) http://www.rootsweb.com/~itoutlet/ > > >CC Yell County, AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~itoutlet/ > > > > > >The Election Committee appreciates the Advisory Board's consideration on > > >this matter, and will be happy to answer any questions. > > > > > >Respectfully submitted, > > > > > >The USGenWeb Election Committee > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received: > > http://www.usgenweb.com/about/awards.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/ > > >

Why are two vacancies being filled in the SE/MA region, when only one vacancy exists? I tried getting an answer to this in private e-mail, but I am being stonewalled. David ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:12:26 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan <dmorgan@efn.org> To: Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net> Cc: e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org, nana321@earthlink.net, illinois@usroots.com, shari@tyaskin.com, pamreid@comcast.net, cyndiee@tampabay.rr.com, lab@boone.net, cgcolo@juno.com, lflesher@fidnet.com, gkilgore@globalcrossing.net, bookstorelady@prodigy.net, sanchoinc@houston.rr.com, dmorgan@efn.org, damorgan@nyx.net Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Fwd: EC Member Confirmation Before the discussion ends and the voting begins, I wish someone would find out why the EC is filling two vacancies in the SE/MA region when only one vacancy exists, and filling only one vacancy in the SW/SC region, when two vacancies exist. Bettie Wood was elected as a SE/MA rep on the EC. She still has a year to go in that position. You can look it up at http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/current.html Is Bettie moving to the SW/SC region, or is she going to take the archives/special projects position that comes vacant on Dec 31? Apparently there were no volunteers for the archives position. Or there was only one volunteer for the SW/SC region. I am confused, not sure anyone else is. David On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > > > > >TO: USGenWeb Advisory Board > >FROM: USGenWeb Election Committee > >DATE: September 30, 2003 > >SUBJECT: Confirmation Request for New and Replacement EC Members > > > >Per Election Committee Procedures, the EC respectfully submits the > >following Slate of prospective EC Members for your approval/disapproval. > > > >Should the AB approve of the submitted Slate, the EC requests immediate > >seating of all new EC Members in order to have time to properly train new > >members, and to elect EC officers for the year 2004. > > > >EC Representative At Large - 1 Seat: > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005. > >Tina Vickery > >Qualifying Positions: > >SC WIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/ > >CC Door County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/door/ > >ASC MEGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~megenweb/ > >CC Kennebec County, ME http://www.rootsweb.com/~mekenneb/ > >CC Hancock County, ME http://www.rootsweb.com/~mehancoc/ > >CC Albany County, NY http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyalbany/ > > > > > >NorthEast/North Central - 2 Seats: > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > >Marcia Kuehl > >Qualifying Positions: > >ASC WIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~wigenweb/ > >CC Wood County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood/ > >CC Portage County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag/ > >CC Monroe County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe/ > > > > > >*One year replacement term ending December 31, 2004 > >Marie Mickalunas > >Qualifying Position: > >CC Rusk County, WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~wirusk/ > > > >Northwest Plains - 1 Seat: > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > >Greta Thompson > >Qualifying Positions: > >CC Marion County, IA http://www.rootsweb.com/~iamarion/ > >IAGenWeb Welcome Hostess http://iagenweb.org/state/iagenweb.htm > >Manager, IA Family Group Sheet Special Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~iafgs/ > > > > > >Southeast/Mid-Atlantic - 2 seats: > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > >Deb Haines > >Qualifying Position: CC MSGenWeb > >CC Marshall County, MS http://www.rootsweb.com/~msmarsha/ > > > >*One year replacement term ending December 31, 2004 > >Nola Duffy > >Qualifying Position: > >CC Bute County, NC http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncbute/ > > > >Southwest/South Central - 1 Seat > > > >*Two year term beginning January 1, 2004, ending December 31, 2005 > >Jason Myles Felihkatubbe > >Qualifying Positions: > >CC Garfield County, OK http://www.rootsweb.com/~okgarfie/gar.htm > >CC Beaver County, OK http://www.rootsweb.com/~okbeaver/ > >CC The Ponca Agency (IT/OK Project) http://www.rootsweb.com/~itponca/ > >CC The Cherokee Outlet (IT/OK Project) http://www.rootsweb.com/~itoutlet/ > >CC Yell County, AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~itoutlet/ > > > >The Election Committee appreciates the Advisory Board's consideration on > >this matter, and will be happy to answer any questions. > > > >Respectfully submitted, > > > >The USGenWeb Election Committee > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received: > http://www.usgenweb.com/about/awards.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/

Hold all these thoughts! The Bylaws revisions are *not* "done deals" . . . When we (the BRC) are done dissecting, revising, and coming up with what WE as a group think are the best versions of each section, the plan is that we'll open up the whole ball of wax to input and possible tweaking from the membership at large. We certainly don't want to craft a proposed set of bylaws that has no chance of passing! Now, we aren't trying to fool ourselves into believing that it is possible to construct a document that *every single person* in USGenWeb will embrace with enthusiasm and open arms. But our aim is to have the best, fairest, most equitable set of bylaws that we can - one that most people can feel comfortable with and that they *want* to adopt. Obviously, the job isn't done yet. Please don't dismiss the process before it is complete! So hold these thoughts - don't forget 'em - and be sure to have your say when the time comes to tweak! Shari Handley BRC member Rep-at-Large, AB -----Original Message----- From: richpump@wf.net [mailto:richpump@wf.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:29 AM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision They want to change "State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, and by majority vote of the Local Coordinators" To "State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, or by majority vote of the Local Coordinators" The key words are "and" "or". makes it read totally different. Advisory Board, and by majority Advisory Board, or by majority Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory Board shall constitute a quorum. So if you go with 2/3 majority that is 6. If you go with simple majority it is 5. Richard... David W. Morgan wrote: > I know I don't agree with Joy, the majority is open to interpretation. > But I am not sure if I agree with Rich, as I don't understand the 6 vote > figure. > > David > Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

> >I thionk the Committee should be hearing from CCs andf Scs BEFORE this >gets to the voting statge, and gets adopted in this form. > Umm, they ARE. That's why the first drafts of the revisions are being posted for discussion. 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

Whether you agree or disagree with the proposed revisions, there's hardly anything "hidden" going on. Every proposed revision is being posted to the project lists for discussion. There are BRC members on these same lists, so it's not as though the committee members are working in a vacuum and will somehow have no idea what questions have been raised. These are first drafts, so there can, and probably will be, additional revisions to address the issues. And, of course, the revisions will be subject to a vote by the membership before anything becomes part of the bylaws, so anyone who disagrees with the final result will certainly have the opportunity to make their opinions heard. Hidden? Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but your choice of words makes it sound as though there's some sort of giant cosmic conspiracy going on. Angie >-----Original Message----- > > >No Joy according to this revision, given the right set of >circumstances it >would only take 6 vote for removal of any SC or ASC. Makes >one wonder what >other little jewels are hidden in this set of revisions? Richard... > >Joy Fisher wrote: >> It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. >> >> It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority >> of the CCs. >> > > Richard M. Howland > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net > ICQ # 898319 > >--- >Incoming 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 > > --- 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

Vermont has only 14 counties. David W. Morgan wrote: >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 richpump@wf.net wrote: > > > >>No Joy according to this revision, given the right set of circumstances it >>would only take 6 vote for removal of any SC or ASC. Makes one wonder what >>other little jewels are hidden in this set of revisions? Richard... >> >> > >I know I don't agree with Joy, the majority is open to interpretation. >But I am not sure if I agree with Rich, as I don't understand the 6 vote >figure. > >David > > > >>Joy Fisher wrote: >> >> >>>It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. >>> >>>It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority >>>of the CCs. >>> >>> >>> >> Richard M. Howland >> Mailto:RichPump@wf.net >> ICQ # 898319 >> >> >> >> > >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 -------- Subject: Re: [NVGEN] [Fwd: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision] From: Jeff Scism <scismgenie@adelphia.net> To: NVGEN-L@rootsweb.com The thing that bothers me is the change in wording regarding the AB's actions. The way it stands now, both the CCs *AND* the AB have to vote on the issue. The proposed By-Law states that the SC can be removed by a vote of the CCs *OR* the AB. Since 9 constitutes a quorum, the SC could be removed simply by ticking off 5 or 6 AB members. ~~~ >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, > >or by majority vote of the Local Coordinators within the state > >subsequent to a recall petition submitted to and approved by the > >Advisory Board. > > This does give the AB power to remove immediately without input from the state's ccs. The "Valid Cause" issue would be up to the AB, and the SC and CCs would find themselves expelled from the process without a proper method to redress issues. So what happens if someone the AB doesn't like gets elected? Do they just vote them back out by committee decision? What defense can be used by the accused/removed? No recourse, they are just out. I thionk the Committee should be hearing from CCs andf Scs BEFORE this gets to the voting statge, and gets adopted in this form. Jeff ==== NVGEN Mailing List ==== Nevada started out to be Washoe, Sierra Nevada, Esmeralda, Bullion, Oro Plata! We ended up with Nevada "Snowy"! Go figure!

They want to change "State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, and by majority vote of the Local Coordinators" To "State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, or by majority vote of the Local Coordinators" The key words are "and" "or". makes it read totally different. Advisory Board, and by majority Advisory Board, or by majority Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory Board shall constitute a quorum. So if you go with 2/3 majority that is 6. If you go with simple majority it is 5. Richard... David W. Morgan wrote: > I know I don't agree with Joy, the majority is open to interpretation. > But I am not sure if I agree with Rich, as I don't understand the 6 vote > figure. > > David > Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

I would agree with this, a two-thirds vote of the CCs voting, with no quorum required. I have never seen a local election that had a 2/3rd vote requirement, though. David On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > And having seen at least one occasion where someone actively proposed > that people not vote, thus preventing a quorum, I personally am in favor > of removing the quorum requirement. I actually would prefer to see a > "super majority" of those voting -- in our local elections, we usually > see a requirement of 2/3 of the votes cast. > > There's a very good reason that most elections don't require a quorum > (except in organizations where you can more effectively require people > to vote!) -- because most people *don't* vote. Why should everything > come to a standstill or be effectively held hostage by the apathetic > majority? Should we be encouraging more members to vote? Well, of > course we should. But I think we have to be realistic enough to take > into consideration that the USGWP election is no different than any > other election. Most people just want to be left alone and don't much > care about the "politics" of the thing. > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Joy Fisher [mailto:sdgenweb@yahoo.com] > >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:16 PM > >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision > > > > > >It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. > > > >It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority > >of the CCs. > > > >--- "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Joy Fisher wrote: > >> > >> > David -- do the math > >> > > >> > 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority > >> > >> And if 20 vote for the SC and 17 vote against the > >> SC, and there are > >> 100 CCs in the state, the minority throws out the > >> SC. > >> > >> The 75% is not included in the revision. > >> > >> David > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > From: "Roger Swafford" > >> <sagitta56@mchsi.com> > >> > > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- > >> News > >> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 > >> > > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project > >> > > lists**) > >> > > > > >> > > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has > >> completed a > >> > > first draft revision of > >> > > >Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. > >> > > > > >> > > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant > >> State > >> > > Coordinators > >> > > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote > >> of > >> > > the Advisory Board, or by > >> > > >majority vote of the Local Coordinators within > >> the > >> > > state subsequent to a > >> > > >recall petition submitted to and approved by > >> the > >> > > Advisory Board. > >> > > > > >> > > >All revision drafts may be viewed at > >> > > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I > >> > > think), says that > >> > > the SC can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the > >> > > state volunteers, with > >> > > 75% voting. > >> > > > >> > > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a > >> > > majority vote. I guess > >> > > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was > >> decided > >> > > to make it easier > >> > > to remove an SC you are mad at. > >> > > > >> > > Look out, Tim! > >> > > > >> > > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I > >> have > >> > > my NO vote ready. > >> > > > >> > > David > >> > > TX > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > __________________________________ > >> > Do you Yahoo!? > >> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > >> search > >> > http://shopping.yahoo.com > >> > > >> > >> 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/ > >> > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > >http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > >--- > >Incoming 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 > > > > > > --- > 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 > > 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/

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 richpump@wf.net wrote: > > No Joy according to this revision, given the right set of circumstances it > would only take 6 vote for removal of any SC or ASC. Makes one wonder what > other little jewels are hidden in this set of revisions? Richard... I know I don't agree with Joy, the majority is open to interpretation. But I am not sure if I agree with Rich, as I don't understand the 6 vote figure. David > > Joy Fisher wrote: > > It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. > > > > It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority > > of the CCs. > > > > Richard M. Howland > Mailto:RichPump@wf.net > ICQ # 898319 > > 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/

No Joy according to this revision, given the right set of circumstances it would only take 6 vote for removal of any SC or ASC. Makes one wonder what other little jewels are hidden in this set of revisions? Richard... Joy Fisher wrote: > It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. > > It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority > of the CCs. > Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

And having seen at least one occasion where someone actively proposed that people not vote, thus preventing a quorum, I personally am in favor of removing the quorum requirement. I actually would prefer to see a "super majority" of those voting -- in our local elections, we usually see a requirement of 2/3 of the votes cast. There's a very good reason that most elections don't require a quorum (except in organizations where you can more effectively require people to vote!) -- because most people *don't* vote. Why should everything come to a standstill or be effectively held hostage by the apathetic majority? Should we be encouraging more members to vote? Well, of course we should. But I think we have to be realistic enough to take into consideration that the USGWP election is no different than any other election. Most people just want to be left alone and don't much care about the "politics" of the thing. Angie >-----Original Message----- >From: Joy Fisher [mailto:sdgenweb@yahoo.com] >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:16 PM >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] bylaws revision > > >It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. > >It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority >of the CCs. > >--- "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Joy Fisher wrote: >> >> > David -- do the math >> > >> > 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority >> >> And if 20 vote for the SC and 17 vote against the >> SC, and there are >> 100 CCs in the state, the minority throws out the >> SC. >> >> The 75% is not included in the revision. >> >> David >> >> >> > >> > >> > --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: >> > > > >> > > > From: "Roger Swafford" >> <sagitta56@mchsi.com> >> > > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- >> News >> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 >> > > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project >> > > lists**) >> > > > >> > > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has >> completed a >> > > first draft revision of >> > > >Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. >> > > > >> > > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant >> State >> > > Coordinators >> > > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote >> of >> > > the Advisory Board, or by >> > > >majority vote of the Local Coordinators within >> the >> > > state subsequent to a >> > > >recall petition submitted to and approved by >> the >> > > Advisory Board. >> > > > >> > > >All revision drafts may be viewed at >> > > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ >> > > >> > > >> > > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I >> > > think), says that >> > > the SC can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the >> > > state volunteers, with >> > > 75% voting. >> > > >> > > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a >> > > majority vote. I guess >> > > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was >> decided >> > > to make it easier >> > > to remove an SC you are mad at. >> > > >> > > Look out, Tim! >> > > >> > > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I >> have >> > > my NO vote ready. >> > > >> > > David >> > > TX >> > > >> > >> > >> > __________________________________ >> > Do you Yahoo!? >> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product >> search >> > http://shopping.yahoo.com >> > >> >> 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/ >> > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search >http://shopping.yahoo.com > >--- >Incoming 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 > > --- 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

It would take 51 votes against the SC to recall. It is not a majority of those voting, but a majority of the CCs. --- "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Joy Fisher wrote: > > > David -- do the math > > > > 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority > > And if 20 vote for the SC and 17 vote against the > SC, and there are > 100 CCs in the state, the minority throws out the > SC. > > The 75% is not included in the revision. > > David > > > > > > > > --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: > > > > > > > > From: "Roger Swafford" > <sagitta56@mchsi.com> > > > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- > News > > > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 > > > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project > > > lists**) > > > > > > > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has > completed a > > > first draft revision of > > > >Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. > > > > > > > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant > State > > > Coordinators > > > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote > of > > > the Advisory Board, or by > > > >majority vote of the Local Coordinators within > the > > > state subsequent to a > > > >recall petition submitted to and approved by > the > > > Advisory Board. > > > > > > > >All revision drafts may be viewed at > > > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > > > > > > > > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I > > > think), says that > > > the SC can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the > > > state volunteers, with > > > 75% voting. > > > > > > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a > > > majority vote. I guess > > > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was > decided > > > to make it easier > > > to remove an SC you are mad at. > > > > > > Look out, Tim! > > > > > > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I > have > > > my NO vote ready. > > > > > > David > > > TX > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > > 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/ > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

The numbers here do not bother me as much as the words "and" and "or"! "and" removed and "or" substituted. That is real major change that has to be given a great deal of thought. That is a very big difference. Richard... Joy Fisher wrote: > David -- do the math > > 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority > > > --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: > >>> From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> >>> Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- News >>> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 >>>(**Please forward to all appropriate project >> >>lists**) >> >>>The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a >> >>first draft revision of >> >>>Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. >>> >>>Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant State >> >>Coordinators >> >>>are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of >> >>the Advisory Board, or by >> >>>majority vote of the Local Coordinators within the >> >>state subsequent to a >> >>>recall petition submitted to and approved by the >> >>Advisory Board. >> >>>All revision drafts may be viewed at >> >>http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ Richard M. Howland Mailto:RichPump@wf.net ICQ # 898319

Actually, 50.1% is a majority. 50% is not. Which means if there are 100 Local Coordinators and 50 vote to remove, 49 vote to not remove and one is wavering.....you could count the waverer as .1 in favor and .9 opposed. The only thing that I can see wrong with this revision is that it lacks a number/percentage of Local Coordinators to indicate how many signatures on a recall petition it would take to force a vote. If a simple majority elects, then a simple majority should recall. I'm not sure that it should only take a simple majority of AB members, though, because they were not the electors. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

David -- do the math 2/3 of 75% = 50% which is a majority --- damorgan@nyx.net wrote: > > > > From: "Roger Swafford" <sagitta56@mchsi.com> > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision -- News > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:05 -0500 > >(**Please forward to all appropriate project > lists**) > > > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a > first draft revision of > >Section 7 of Article XI. State Projects. > > > >Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant State > Coordinators > >are subject to removal for valid cause; by vote of > the Advisory Board, or by > >majority vote of the Local Coordinators within the > state subsequent to a > >recall petition submitted to and approved by the > Advisory Board. > > > >All revision drafts may be viewed at > http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > > The current version of Article XII, Section 9 (I > think), says that > the SC can be removed with a 2/3rds vote of the > state volunteers, with > 75% voting. > > This is a radical change, going from 2/3rds to a > majority vote. I guess > since the recall failed in Georgia, it was decided > to make it easier > to remove an SC you are mad at. > > Look out, Tim! > > Let's get on with the voting on the bylaws. I have > my NO vote ready. > > David > TX > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com