Pam, In regards to the Tombstone project. I have some new CCs that are very involved in USGenWeb and they are the ones that do NOT carry the link to the tombstone pages. I find that interesting since we are all supposed to be one family. gee wonder why? Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Reid" <pamreid@comcast.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > This disclaimer is being used on some of the Tombstone Project state pages, > but not on all. It is not a requirement and it is not something I have > encouraged people to put on links to files outside of the Project. The > Tombstone Project probably has more links to pages outside of USGW than any > other USGW site, since our policy is to link to any transcription as a > convenience to researchers. However, since we do routinely receive > complaints about content on some of the transcription sites that we link to, > a notice like this one does notify the user that they are leaving USGW and > that any errors or problems noted should not be addressed to us. Perhaps a > reworded notice would be more appropriate. > > Pam > > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan W Pieroth [mailto:pieroth@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 7:04 PM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > > Roger Swafford wrote: > > > Section 2. All USGenWeb web sites shall display the following > > disclaimer on the home or index page: "Links to external web sites are > > being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; > > they do not constitute an endorsement or approval of any of the > > products, services or opinions contained in any external web site." > > Susan > -- > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ > >

I have been watching Rootsweb and the creation and growth of their state and county pages. I truly believe this is just the next step in doing away with us all. The saddest part of it all is that all of the hard work from volunteers who donated it for free, will eventually be a pay per view. We lost Gen Connect boards, then Surname search, now this. Are they hoping that we all quit and go away? I havbe also noticed that the archives for the State of Nevada, that we NOT donated to USGenWeb, have been moved to another location other than the one I was given. The one I work on is a mirror site. If you think that doesn't make me nervous, you're crazy! Just my two cents worth. Patricia Scott SC Nevada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy Mills" <betsym@1starnet.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The less mandates we have, > the better it will be. I don't intend to start de-linking counties because > they don't have some disclaimer on the pages. If we do this, then it is > time to provide an "approved template" and only link to those sites who are > using it. > > I have still not seen the question of whether these revisions or amendments > will be voted on separately or all as one package. If it is a package > deal, there is no way I will be voting for them. These are not what I > consider revisions - they are a major rewrite of the bylaws. > > Betsy > > > > On 12:16 AM 5/13/2003 -0500, Connie Snyder said: > >My opinion is that the last couple of proposed revisions would be better > >placed > >in the guidelines where the wording could be periodically reviewed and updated > >without having to go through the amendment process. These types of specific > >statements regarding the design and content of webpages get into an area that > >can and has changed frequently over the years. Look at all that has > >happened to > >web design in just the last couple of years. You may need to have an amendment > >process every year just to update specific articles such as you are proposing. > >Will you be able to get five states to sign on to that process every year? > > > >I would like to see a committee set up to do periodically review and > >update the > >guidelines. Perhaps it would be better if it were not an official board > >committee, but an independent committee composed of members from the various > >projects that could propose changes to update them. If you look at them now, > >there are some that need to have links and wording updated. Just as an > >example, > >GenConnect is still mentioned as one way to collect queries. Has anyone looked > >at the pages on copyright lately to see if they need updating? > > > >Connie > > > >Roger Swafford wrote: > > > > > The committee is charged with making revisions to clarify as needed and to > > > add sections as necessary to facilitate continued growth of the > > project. The > > > project has experienced significant growth since the bylaws were > > adopted and > > > has established a respectable web presence. As website content expands and > > > more links are included the greater the chance of repercussions. Better to > > > ward off potential problems if possible. > > > Section 1.3 of the recently signed hosting agreement extents authority to > > > the project for governing use, privacy policy, intellectual property > > notices > > > "(so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties)". > > > > > > Roger Swafford > > > BRC-Chairman > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> > > > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:03 PM > > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > > > > > > > This really annoys me. Could someone on the committee please point out > > > > all the sites they have visited that show this disclaimer? I have seen > > > > sites where a specific link gets that kind of statement, but a generic, > > > > across the board one? I'm sure some, do, but RootsWeb doesn't request > > > > this, why the BRC????? Would the lawyer please stand up? > > > > > > > {snip} > > > > Susan > > > > -- > > > > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ >

Thank you Phyllis. That makes sense. David On Thu, 15 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Yes, you can get a copy of the full agreement by just asking the NC for it. > > The need to discuss the future of the Project, which should include the > organizational structure is very simple: > > The AB has very little authority, yet the members of the AB are those who > stand responsible in case of a lawsuit. No money in the Project? That > hasn't stopped people from suing others before. Burden of proof on the > one(s) who files? Yes. If the case proceeds to court and the Project "wins" > the other party will probably have to pay all attorney fees? Yes. > > BUT, what happens if a decision goes the other way? Who has to pay? The > governing body....which we actually do not have, but which will be looked > upon by the courts as the Advisory Board. > > So, is restructuring something that should be discussed? Yes. Should the > Advisory Board be given more authority? If you want them to stand > responsible for the actions of others.....as in copyright violations, > libelous statements made, actions taken to deliberately harm the reputation > of a Project member and the AB doing nothing because it cannot..........the > answer is "yes". If you don't want to given them any more authority, then > disband the Advisory Board; or provide them and the Project with insurance > coverage; or be sure that each Advisory Board member knows that they can > either trust to luck, or take out a personal liability policy at least > during the time they serve. > > And, the quote from one agent on the type of insurance that we would > need....$2,000 per year. On line, on a site that I checked in regard to > "unincorporated non-profit association", was the statement that such > insurance "averages" $3,000 per year. > > Furthermore, it is highly recommended that IF insurance is taken out, the > best thing the organization can do is either incorporate to an LLC (which I > don't know what is), or register in some State that has adopted laws giving > "unincorporated non-profit associations" basically the same protection that > is given a corporation. > > And, the fact of the AB's vulnerability is not tied to any hosting > agreement. It has been vulnerable ever since the AB was established, during > the short period of time the AB had from the time the agreement was actually > shown to us and the time it was signed, and is still existing even as you > read this. > > Phyllis Rippee > SW/SC CC Representative > > 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/

I have a copy of the agreement, thank you, and I have read it. I was just trying to find out what Tim was talking about, if there is anything else about this that is being witheld. I wasn't twisting anything and I don't know anything about a conspiracy. David On Thu, 15 May 2003, Angie Rayfield wrote: > > --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) > Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003; charset=us-ascii; > format=flowed > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > Unfortunately, by "stealing" one post out of dozens, it's far too easy to > give an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate picture of the > situation. There's no context. > > If read properly, the "half out of the bag" does NOT refer to half of the > hosting agreement being out of the bag. The entire hosting agreement is > available to anyone that chooses to read it -- simply email Richard > Harrison and ask for it. He's made that post publicly and on several > lists. The agreement may not be posted publicly, but any USGWP member who > wishes may have a copy. But if you've requested the agreement, and read > it, then you know all there is to know about it. That's all there is -- > one reason for having a written agreement, by the way. No question about > what is expected, as opposed to the unwritten, oral understanding that had > been in existence for so long. > > What isn't apparent without the rest of the discussion to give perspective > is that the AB is discussing the disposition of the very motion that raised > so much ruckus on this list -- whether to establish a separate private > email list to discuss the future organization of the USGWP. Possibly > reorganizing the USGWP *was* something that needed to be considered when > the hosting agreement was up in the air -- what if Ancestry/MyFamily > demanded control of the project? What if they demanded a spot on the AB > for a representative of their own? What if they demanded veto rights over > project elections, or AB decisions? What if, what if, what if? If > Ancestry/MyFamily had made such demands, reorganizing the structure of the > project might have been the only way to *keep* them from effectively > "owning" it. With the hosting agreement signed, these "what ifs" have > disappeared -- which, I imagine, is why Tim would comment that the only > reason to have another motion would be to clarify why structural changes > would be considered in the first place. The reasons why, and possible new > structures of, the USGWP would be the items still "in the bag" (I don't > care for that phrase, incidentally), and not made known or discussed with > the organization at large as of yet. > > Admittedly, I haven't been on the board for very long, but I haven't seen > any sinister conspiracy to take over the world and do some kind of harm to > the CC's that are the backbone of this project. Maybe I just haven't been > given the secret password yet <g>. But I don't think it's productive to > take bits and pieces of long discussions and try to see plots and plans in > them. Almost *anything* can be twisted a thousand ways to Sunday if it > suits someone to do so. > > Angie Rayfield > NCGenWeb Personnel Coordinator/ASC > SE/MA CC Representative > > > > > At 01:15 AM 5/15/2003 -1000, you wrote: > > >What is the other half? What is it that we still don't know > >about this agreement, and why the USGenWeb Project needs to > >consider reorganization? > > > >Please note the copyright violation below. Yes, I stole it from > >board-l. > > > >David > > > > BOARD-L Archives > > > > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > > Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE - MOTION 03-11 > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:05 -0400 > > > ><SNIP> > > > >An aside to the Tombstone Project and the other SP - Archives - these > >groups were not left out on purpose, they just weren't thought of in terms > >of day to day life of the Project. > > > >The private email list is the SC list - except I doubt all SCs/ASCs are > >subbed there for there has been no roll call there for at least 2 years. > >Other than looking at the Who's Who - and wondering how up to date it is - > >for if the SCs don't inform the webmaster of a change, she probably doesn't > >know of it. > > > >The SC list is archived and the membership can read it fairly soon after > >messages are posted there. > > > >Since the cat is already 1/2 out of the bag - with the contents of the Hosting > >Agreement known by most anyone that wants to know it - the only reason to > >have another motion would be to clarify why in tandem with the Hosting > >Agreement - the AB would even consider broaching the subject of Project > >reorganization. > > > >Tim > > --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA) > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; > x-avg-checked=avg-ok-72974003 > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-disposition: inline > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 > > --Boundary_(ID_jmcOJor8tllCY7WGY5PslA)-- > 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/

What is the other half? What is it that we still don't know about this agreement, and why the USGenWeb Project needs to consider reorganization? Please note the copyright violation below. Yes, I stole it from board-l. David BOARD-L Archives From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] VOTE - MOTION 03-11 Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:26:05 -0400 <SNIP> An aside to the Tombstone Project and the other SP - Archives - these groups were not left out on purpose, they just weren't thought of in terms of day to day life of the Project. The private email list is the SC list - except I doubt all SCs/ASCs are subbed there for there has been no roll call there for at least 2 years. Other than looking at the Who's Who - and wondering how up to date it is - for if the SCs don't inform the webmaster of a change, she probably doesn't know of it. The SC list is archived and the membership can read it fairly soon after messages are posted there. Since the cat is already 1/2 out of the bag - with the contents of the Hosting Agreement known by most anyone that wants to know it - the only reason to have another motion would be to clarify why in tandem with the Hosting Agreement - the AB would even consider broaching the subject of Project reorganization. Tim 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, I don't know why it is confusing. It only takes a majority vote of the general membership to adopt a revised set of bylaws. That is what I quoted from Sturgis. Someone else brought up what the charge to the BRC was. When the current BRC reports out, they will report to whoever the NC is. Then, it can go to the general membership for approval. Because there is no revision process established in the current set of bylaws, we have to refer to the accepted parliamentary authority. And, that is a simple majority vote can adopt a new set of bylaws. Not a simple majority of SCs, AB members, or BRC committee members. But a simple majority of the general membership, who bother to vote on the issue. And, I don't know why that should be confusing. Step One: The committee was appointed and charged by Holly. Step Two: The committee had some member changes. Step Three: The committee did not have its work done when Holly's term ended. Step Four: Richard continued the committee. It has had member changes. We know what charge Holly gave the committee. We do not know what Richard told it to do. Step Five: When its work is finished, the report will go to the then NC....unless a new NC comes in and disbands the committee before the report is issued. Step Six: IF the NC chooses to present it to the general membership for a vote, it will take a simple majority of those voting to put the revised set in effect. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 13 May, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > David, > > > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was > > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > > "real" committee. > > > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that > > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > > what his charge to his BRC is. > > > > Phyllis > > > > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only > takes a majority vote to change everything. > > No wonder people get confused. > > 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/ > > >

> > Oh, so it is only going to take a majority vote to entirely re-write > the bylaws? > > I will definitely get my NO vote in on this, if it is not going to > require a 2/3rds vote. > > I was under the impression that the bylaws committee was not to do a > complete re-write of the bylaws. > > David David, As best I remember, this committee was first started during Holly's term as NC. I believe her charge at the time was to do a completely new set of Bylaws based on the current ones, or start with new ones - which according to some at that time is allowable under Sturgis or some authority. By doing so - the current Bylaws rule of change would be negated. I believe this committee is that same committee, albeit with new members. > ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net

David, You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the "real" committee. However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that it ended when Holly's term ended. The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing what his charge to his BRC is. Phyllis

When sending these revisions, would it be possible to change the format to include the existing text as well as the recommended text? >(**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > >The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft of a new >Section 2 of Article VIII Guidelines/Standards for Websites/Members. > >Section 2. All USGenWeb web sites shall display the following >disclaimer on the home or index page: "Links to external web sites are >being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; >they do not constitute an endorsement or approval of any of the >products, services or opinions contained in any external web site." > >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 -- Vicki Lindsay Thauvin <mailto:vicki@thauvin.net>

--Boundary_(ID_EQf585Mpxdo2IU35VbwwKA) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-176B6081; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT At 01:42 PM 5/13/2003 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >Does this qualify as a Bylaws violation: > > >From a constituent: > >Joining the Ancestry.Com Affiliates program - > >Making money from advertising Ancestry.com on one's county site - go to >VIEW and see Source...when you look at the pages you will see the >Affiliate ID number...which identifies their site to Ancestry.com when >someone goes from the page to Ancestry.com and signs up for a paid service >the CC gets a percentage of that amount paid by the new subscriber to >Ancestry. >=============== >It certainly seems to violate them - but I'd like a second, third opinion >on such. "Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost) or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers." On the face of it, it sure looks like a violation to me. If the banner or click-thru is on a separate page and clearly identified as something that could financially benefit the coordinator (or whoever's affiliate ID is used -- I suppose it might be a genealogical or historical society), I think it would technically comply. But that would be about the only way I can imagine that it could be done without being in violation. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb --Boundary_(ID_EQf585Mpxdo2IU35VbwwKA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-176B6081 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 --Boundary_(ID_EQf585Mpxdo2IU35VbwwKA)--

Does this qualify as a Bylaws violation: >From a constituent: Joining the Ancestry.Com Affiliates program - Making money from advertising Ancestry.com on one's county site - go to VIEW and see Source...when you look at the pages you will see the Affiliate ID number...which identifies their site to Ancestry.com when someone goes from the page to Ancestry.com and signs up for a paid service the CC gets a percentage of that amount paid by the new subscriber to Ancestry. =============== It certainly seems to violate them - but I'd like a second, third opinion on such. Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net

> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Sherri Hall wrote: > >> Can someone please explain what benefit the XXGenWeb sites and/or the >> USGenWeb sites would reap from having this disclaimer on each of the >> sites? Personally, I can't see one, nor can I see how this would >> facilitate the growth of the Project. >> >> I also agree that it would be difficult to get the CCs to "buy in" to >> this revision. >> >> Sherri Hall >> SC KYGenWeb Project > > It is unenforceable and should be dropped. It took months to get some > CCs to update the dead links to the GenConnect boards. > > David Took? There are still plenty of pages with this on it. ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net

The adopted parliamentary authority....a.k.a. "Sturgis" states on page 209 that "a revised set of bylaws, which is in effect a new set of bylaws, is presented, considered, and voted on under the same procedures as those followed for the adoption of the original bylaws." It also states that a simple majority is all that is required to adopt the new set. On page 204 of Sturgis: "Good bylaws alone do not make an effective organization; they are an outline of the structure. However, suitable bylaws are necessary to enable an organization to function well. Bylaws should be concise and are best arranged in outline form. Many organizations keep their bylaws simple and brief by including only essential provisions and supplementing them with adopted procedures." Now, the purpose of having the structure of the organization set up in the bylaws and allowing for "rules and regulations" to be adopted within the structure, is because of the difficulty in changing bylaws. From what I've seen coming out of the BRC, every possible thought in regard of what might happen, has had a rule made by that committee. And, regulating what size the logo has to be, where it has to be, disclaimers required and what they must say, do not belong in the bylaws. Furthermore, the statement that some work of the Procedures Committee found its way into the bylaws before the committee could report it out, is true. The statement that this work shows approval of the AB is not true. The AB was never given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of it. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative

On Tue, 13 May 2003, David W. Morgan wrote: > > An amendment to the bylaws requires a 2/3rd vote. Yet a complete re-write > only requires a majority. > > If there is a conflict between the bylaws and the RRoR, the bylaws > prevail. The USGenWeb Project Bylaws ARTICLE XV. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of The USGenWeb Project through a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those members participating during the voting period. Section 2. Any state project may propose an amendment by sending their proposal to one or more of the Advisory board members representing their region and including the exact wording of the proposed amendment. Upon receipt of the proposed amendment, the Advisory Board representative(s) shall request the Webmaster to post the proposed change on the national website and the National Coordinator to post to the State-Coord-L List, and any other appropriate lists, for dissemination to the members. Section 3. The proposed amendment, with the sponsor's name and date of posting, shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) days prior to the annual voting period of July 1-July 31. Any proposed amendment shall require a minimum of five (5) states as co-sponsors to command that it be placed on the ballot. State projects wishing to co-sponsor the amendment shall notify the Advisory Board and make an announcement on the USGenWeb-All Mailing List. Section 4. Voting on any proposed amendment to the bylaws shall be during the annual voting period of July 1-July 31 and a two-thirds (2/3) majority, of the members voting within that time frame, is required for the amendment to pass. Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and disseminate it to the membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, the proposed amendment shall be posted to the national website and disseminated to the membership within two (2) business days. The proposed amendment shall remain posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special ballot shall be prepared and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A two-thirds (2/3) majority, of The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time frame, shall be required for the amendment to pass. Section 6. Any proposed amendment, not obtaining the required co-sponsorship, may not be proposed again until the next regularly scheduled voting period. Any proposed amendment not obtaining the approval of the membership after appearing on the annual ballot three (3) times shall be considered a dead issue. > > If this is not true, then I am really confused. > > David > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > David, > > > > I don't know why it is confusing. It only takes a majority vote of the > > general membership to adopt a revised set of bylaws. That is what I quoted > > from Sturgis. > > > > Someone else brought up what the charge to the BRC was. When the current > > BRC reports out, they will report to whoever the NC is. Then, it can go to > > the general membership for approval. > > > > Because there is no revision process established in the current set of > > bylaws, we have to refer to the accepted parliamentary authority. And, that > > is a simple majority vote can adopt a new set of bylaws. > > > > Not a simple majority of SCs, AB members, or BRC committee members. But a > > simple majority of the general membership, who bother to vote on the issue. > > > > And, I don't know why that should be confusing. > > > > Step One: The committee was appointed and charged by Holly. > > > > Step Two: The committee had some member changes. > > > > Step Three: The committee did not have its work done when Holly's term > > ended. > > > > Step Four: Richard continued the committee. It has had member changes. We > > know what charge Holly gave the committee. We do not know what Richard told > > it to do. > > > > Step Five: When its work is finished, the report will go to the then > > NC....unless a new NC comes in and disbands the committee before the report > > is issued. > > > > Step Six: IF the NC chooses to present it to the general membership for a > > vote, it will take a simple majority of those voting to put the revised set > > in effect. > > > > Phyllis > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> > > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: 13 May, 2003 4:56 PM > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It > > was > > > > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > > > > "real" committee. > > > > > > > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > > > > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant > > that > > > > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > > > > > > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > > > > what his charge to his BRC is. > > > > > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > > > > > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only > > > takes a majority vote to change everything. > > > > > > No wonder people get confused. > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/

An amendment to the bylaws requires a 2/3rd vote. Yet a complete re-write only requires a majority. If there is a conflict between the bylaws and the RRoR, the bylaws prevail. If this is not true, then I am really confused. David On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > David, > > I don't know why it is confusing. It only takes a majority vote of the > general membership to adopt a revised set of bylaws. That is what I quoted > from Sturgis. > > Someone else brought up what the charge to the BRC was. When the current > BRC reports out, they will report to whoever the NC is. Then, it can go to > the general membership for approval. > > Because there is no revision process established in the current set of > bylaws, we have to refer to the accepted parliamentary authority. And, that > is a simple majority vote can adopt a new set of bylaws. > > Not a simple majority of SCs, AB members, or BRC committee members. But a > simple majority of the general membership, who bother to vote on the issue. > > And, I don't know why that should be confusing. > > Step One: The committee was appointed and charged by Holly. > > Step Two: The committee had some member changes. > > Step Three: The committee did not have its work done when Holly's term > ended. > > Step Four: Richard continued the committee. It has had member changes. We > know what charge Holly gave the committee. We do not know what Richard told > it to do. > > Step Five: When its work is finished, the report will go to the then > NC....unless a new NC comes in and disbands the committee before the report > is issued. > > Step Six: IF the NC chooses to present it to the general membership for a > vote, it will take a simple majority of those voting to put the revised set > in effect. > > Phyllis > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David W. Morgan <damorgan@nyx.net> > To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 13 May, 2003 4:56 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It > was > > > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > > > "real" committee. > > > > > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > > > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant > that > > > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > > > > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > > > what his charge to his BRC is. > > > > > > Phyllis > > > > > > > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only > > takes a majority vote to change everything. > > > > No wonder people get confused. > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > 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 Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > David, > > You are correct in the charge that was given to the BRC by Holly. It was > fairly well spelled out by the committee to establish the purpose of the > "real" committee. > > However, since the committee was appointed by Holly, it was the NC's > committee. It was never sanctioned by the AB. Technically, that meant that > it ended when Holly's term ended. > > The current NC, however, continued the BRC and we have no way of knowing > what his charge to his BRC is. > > Phyllis > Phyllis, you are the one that brought Sturgiss into this, saying it only takes a majority vote to change everything. No wonder people get confused. 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/

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > Oh, so it is only going to take a majority vote to entirely re-write > > the bylaws? > > > > I will definitely get my NO vote in on this, if it is not going to > > require a 2/3rds vote. > > > > I was under the impression that the bylaws committee was not to do a > > complete re-write of the bylaws. > > > > David > > David, > > As best I remember, this committee was first started during Holly's term > as NC. I believe her charge at the time was to do a completely new set of > Bylaws based on the current ones, or start with new ones - which according > to some at that time is allowable under Sturgis or some authority. > > By doing so - the current Bylaws rule of change would be negated. > > I believe this committee is that same committee, albeit with new members. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- > Tim Stowell > tstowell@chattanooga.net > > From the Bylaws web page. http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ Committee Instructions: From the BFC report: The purpose of the Bylaws Revision Committee shall be to study the current USGenWeb Project Bylaws to determine which portions need revising. The Committee shall then propose for revision: 1) Deletion of unnecessary sections; 2) Clarification or strengthening sections; 3) New Articles that may be deemed necessary. Posted with permission: From Holly Timm: Sent Sunday, March 10, 2002 4:05 PM > One item that is important is to make it quite clear that the goal here is > a Bylaws revision process and no part of that purpose is to make major > revisions in the project itself. > Holly Timm > National Coordinator, USGenWeb Project 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/

Roger, this one is ridiculous. I have very few external links on my main page. Most of my links are on a "Links" page. This could be a recommended guideline, but is should not be mandated. I will not change my county pages by adding this disclaimer, nor would I enforce it on my CC's. Your group needs to rethink this one. Nathan Zipfel PAGenWeb Project State Coordinator http://www.pagenweb.org/ -----Original Message----- From: Roger Swafford [mailto:sagitta56@mchsi.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 5:44 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft of a new Section 2 of Article VIII Guidelines/Standards for Websites/Members. Section 2. All USGenWeb web sites shall display the following disclaimer on the home or index page: "Links to external web sites are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or approval of any of the products, services or opinions contained in any external web site." 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

Amen! The last thing I want to see is a "template." The beauty of this project is the freedom of VOLUNTEERS to develop their pages as they see fit, within reasonable guidelines. I don't like the idea of forcing the disclaimer, and I don't like the idea of forcing WHERE on a page a particular logo must appear! Sandy MIGenWeb Original Message: ----------------- From: Betsy Mills betsym@1starnet.com Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 05:52:11 -0500 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The less mandates we have, the better it will be. I don't intend to start de-linking counties because they don't have some disclaimer on the pages. If we do this, then it is time to provide an "approved template" and only link to those sites who are using it. I have still not seen the question of whether these revisions or amendments will be voted on separately or all as one package. If it is a package deal, there is no way I will be voting for them. These are not what I consider revisions - they are a major rewrite of the bylaws. Betsy -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

Oh, so it is only going to take a majority vote to entirely re-write the bylaws? I will definitely get my NO vote in on this, if it is not going to require a 2/3rds vote. I was under the impression that the bylaws committee was not to do a complete re-write of the bylaws. David On Tue, 13 May 2003, Phyllis Rippee wrote: > The adopted parliamentary authority....a.k.a. "Sturgis" states on page 209 > that "a revised set of bylaws, which is in effect a new set of bylaws, is > presented, considered, and voted on under the same procedures as those > followed for the adoption of the original bylaws." It also states that a > simple majority is all that is required to adopt the new set. > > On page 204 of Sturgis: "Good bylaws alone do not make an effective > organization; they are an outline of the structure. However, suitable > bylaws are necessary to enable an organization to function well. Bylaws > should be concise and are best arranged in outline form. Many organizations > keep their bylaws simple and brief by including only essential provisions > and supplementing them with adopted procedures." > > Now, the purpose of having the structure of the organization set up in the > bylaws and allowing for "rules and regulations" to be adopted within the > structure, is because of the difficulty in changing bylaws. From what I've > seen coming out of the BRC, every possible thought in regard of what might > happen, has had a rule made by that committee. And, regulating what size > the logo has to be, where it has to be, disclaimers required and what they > must say, do not belong in the bylaws. > > Furthermore, the statement that some work of the Procedures Committee found > its way into the bylaws before the committee could report it out, is true. > The statement that this work shows approval of the AB is not true. The AB > was never given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of it. > > Phyllis Rippee > SW/SC CC Representative > 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/