At 11:20 AM 5/13/2003 -0400, slredmond@earthlink.net wrote: ><snip> 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! I have to agree. With sincere respect to the BRC, which I know has worked very hard and has nothing but the best interests of the Project in mind, I fear we're being regulated to death. First counting pixels, and now unnecessary disclaimers. Failure to comply with something like this would provide very poor reason to delink an otherwise good CC. I simply could not do that to the great folks in MSGW. It is my hope that the BRC will see the wisdom in immediately withdrawing this requirement. Ellen MS SC

yOn Tue, 13 May 2003, Tim Stowell wrote: > > 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 > I am sure there are but I am only responsible for Texas. 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/

--Boundary_(ID_gMufYevLf9D5cKE0vZ97gw) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-9D62F96; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >>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." Somehow, I get the feeling that I may be swimming against the tide <G>. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, although I'm not sure that I think it needs to be a requirement. It might be just as well to have it in the guidelines, something suggested to CC's but not mandated. I tend to think that the fewer mandates made to CCs concerning the "day-to-day" operations of their site (design, graphic placement, etc), the better. After all, this is a volunteer project, and people involved should be enjoying themselves -- and for most webmasters, part of that enjoyment comes from designing and working on their site itself. (After all, if people didn't enjoy making the site *look* the way they want, you wouldn't see so many site face-lifts -- heaven knows it's a lot of work.) The disclaimer itself, though, isn't a bad idea. I think genealogy sites in general probably get a higher proportion of web newbies, or relative newbies, anyway. These are people that may not realize just how easy it is to start on site A and end up on site Q without ever noticing that you've done it. And they also may not realize that site Q can totally change its content or format without anyone linked to it having any idea. Heaven knows that I've gotten complaints like that before -- a site that started out as a nice general Southern history and culture site suddenly turned into a "Join the Klan" rally. I heard about *that* one in a hurry <g>. And in some ways, the reputation of USGW can be to its disadvantage in this sort of situation. A lot of our visitors (at least, the ones I've had contact with over the years) have begun to see us as the be-all and end-all of genealogy, and as a very trustworthy source. This isn't a bad reputation to have! Unless, of course, someone assumes that we approve of everyone we've ever linked to.... Angie Rayfield --Boundary_(ID_gMufYevLf9D5cKE0vZ97gw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-9D62F96 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_gMufYevLf9D5cKE0vZ97gw)--

--- Betsy Mills <betsym@1starnet.com> wrote: > I agree. I don't feel that mandates will work. The > less mandates we have, the better it will be. And if we're revising the bylaws *that* should be Article I. ===== Bob Sullivan Schenectady County Public Library (NY) <http://www.scpl.org> Schenectady Digital History Archive <http://www.schenectadyhistory.org> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

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/

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 -----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

Many of you have wondered I'm sure about the Hosting Agreement. Many of you have wondered about Motion 03-11 as well. Since the National Coordinator has said that the AB members are free to offer their opinions about such: The fact of the matter is that Motion 03-11 is tied to the Hosting Agreement. I would be remiss if I did not state here a public apology to Bill Oliver in that I did not previously come to his defense in the time period after the Motion now known as 03-11 first came to Board-L. Prior to his posting it there, he sent me a copy and requested that I take a look/see as to wording. I made a few suggestions which he incorporated into the Motion he presented shortly thereafter. With regard to why even present 03-11: When the NC first presented the Hosting Agreement to the AB - after reading the document - I asked if we could get someone to interpret the legalese into ordinary English so that we could understand and know the ramifications of such agreement. Subsequently this was done and there were only one or two points that came up from that review, as I recall, that were matters of concern. As time went along, several members told the other members and the NC that this agreement while parts might be confidential in nature - the agreement as such needed to be disseminated to the members at large. The reasoning behind 03-11 was two-fold: 1 - to inform the membership that such an agreement was in the offing 2 - to assist the SCs/ASCs with information regarding the agreement so that they would have some answers when the inevitable questions would come from their CCs. One only has to think back to the GenConnect issue - when SCs and CCs found out at the same time to understand the reasoning behind this. Then the SCs had no more clue of what was going on than the CCs did and in some instances knew less than the CCs did. On 4/24 I sent the following, in part, to the AB: If this is broadcast to only the SCs first - Advantages: - Gives them time to have some answers for their CCs who will likely ask them questions? - Gives them time to have a unified answer instead of guesswork - which I think we might have some answer for? <snip> - Approximately 85 more folks versus 1200 folks thinking about / discussing this / for when the room becomes full of talking - would anything other than talking, shouting and put downs be that far behind and would anything of substance come of it? Disadvantages: - What are the ramifications from RW if we speak this out of this room? - Will they pull the rug out from under us at once? - If they do - no plan to deal with such. ============================================= If however, you decide to go forth to the whole Project at once - be prepared for: - a firestorm - lots of misinformation - lots of arm chair lawyers - lots of fear - lots of anger - lots of any other emotion you can think of directed not only at Rootsweb/Ancestry but us as well. ----------------------- There are certain ramifications in the Hosting Agreement that the membership needs to address - which in doing so, may cause the Project to 'look' and/or be administered differently depending on the solution that the membership deigns to be the most acceptable. How those can be addressed while maintaining the confidentially of the agreement, I'm not sure. Perhaps the NC can address that? Tim

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/

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/

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/

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 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 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/

This is starting to sound like "Rootsweb Ownership" wanting disclaimers, etc. What is going on? Patricia Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debby Beheler" <debralee@indy.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Bylaws Revision - News > I agree and believe we would have a hard time getting the CCs to cooperate. > > Debby > > At 07:03 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >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/ > > > > @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- > Debby Beheler - debralee@indy.net > http://www.rootsweb.com/~incass/county.html - Cass Co INGenWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~inmiami/index.html - Miami Co INGenWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~inpcrpmc/index.html - Miami Cass INPCRP > http://beheler.freeservers.com/genbiz.html - Debby's Genealogy Services > >

I agree and believe we would have a hard time getting the CCs to cooperate. Debby At 07:03 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, you wrote: >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/ > @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- @>--- Debby Beheler - debralee@indy.net http://www.rootsweb.com/~incass/county.html - Cass Co INGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~inmiami/index.html - Miami Co INGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~inpcrpmc/index.html - Miami Cass INPCRP http://beheler.freeservers.com/genbiz.html - Debby's Genealogy Services

(**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

-Please forward to all appropriate individuals and lists.- To All NorthEast North Central Project members: The USGenWeb Election Committee is searching for a volunteer who would like to serve on the Election Committee, from the NorthEast/North Central Region. The following replacement position is open: NorthEast/North Central Region - Term ending December 31, 2003 States in the region include: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusettes, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Responsibilities include developing a working relationship with State and Assistant Coordinators from the region to maintain a current membership voter list, and assisting in polls and elections, especially during the months of June and part of July to host the USGenWeb Project's Annual National Election. Volunteers will have the satisfaction of working with an excellent group of people to handle a difficult but important responsibility. Per Election Committee Procedures, volunteers are subject to confirmation by the USGenWeb Advisory Board. If you are interested in volunteering, please send a note to Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> with the subject line "Volunteer EC NENC." Please include a list of your USGenWeb positions within the NENC Region. Thank you for you time, and please consider volunteering. Ellen Pack Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee

(Please forward as appropriate) Although the notice I just sent regarding the NW/P vacancies still says "applications will be turned over to the Election Committee who will conduct a preference poll of the NW/P voters," the AB may well decide to handle this in a different manner. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project

THIRD POSTING (Please forward as appropriate) So far two applicants have expressed interest in the Northwest/Plains vacancies: Gail Meyer Kilgore and Sharyl Ferrall, both of IAGenWeb. Can we hear from some of the other states? There are two vacancies on the Advisory Board to replace the Northwest Plains County Coordinator Representatives who resigned. The persons selected to fill these vacancies will serve until the next regular election. Candidates must have at least one year (the twelve months immediately preceding appointment) of continuous service as a Local Coordinator within the NW/P region and current activity as a member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb Project. Interested volunteers should submit a brief letter stating their qualifications and reasons for wanting to serve to the National Coordinator IsaiahH@cox.net. Applications will be accepted through Monday, May 12, 2003. At that time applications will be turned over to the Election Committee who will conduct a preference poll of the NW/P voters. Results of the poll will be turned over to the Advisory Board to aid them in the selection process. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project

I really hate to feel that I'm entering into this without deserving it at all. There were two positions open and I wondered if the winner and runner up would fill the two spots. If they had, I would still be in this position. For as involved in this project as I am and have been, I can very honestly say that I've never been involved in the politics. I have no clue what motivated any of the current AB members to vote on my behalf because I don't know any of them very well at all and have only had occasion to e-mail one or two in passing. So while I'm thrilled to be taken onto the AB, I'm not comfortable with the perception of how I got there. I can only ask that I be given a chance. I've seen the comments about AB members looking to "secure their positions" and "feather their nest". Frankly (and perhaps this is naive) I don't see how an AB position feathers one's nest; and, I have enough to do without sitting on a board that is nothing more to me than administrative overhead--I want to help and I want to get things done. If that is not what my new position is about, you will find me moving on. Believe it or not, I really love this project and just want to use my power for good--not evil! With all of this, I still look forward to serving in my new role. --Heather Jones DeGeorge

I have just posted the following note to all of my CCs in Maryland and Delaware. If any of you would like to copy it, in whole or in part, to your own CCs, you may feel free to do so. ============================ I want to let you all know the results of the recently-held poll in which we were asked who we'd prefer to be seated in the vacant Southeast/Mid-Atlantic CC Rep positions. Out of 151 net votes, the tally went like this: Wood 53 DeGeorge 29 Rayfield 20 Courtney-Blizzard 16 Daniels 13 Matthews 10 Parker 10 Bettie Wood was the top vote-getter, with almost twice as many votes as the runner-up, Heather DeGeorge. Since the bylaws actually state that the AB must appoint replacements, the National Coordinator, Richard "Isaiah" Harrison, called for nominations. Previously, it had been the practice of the board to nominate and appoint the top vote-getter in the poll. SW/SC CC Rep Jana Black nominated top vote-getter Bettie Wood. NE/NC CC Rep Jan Cortez nominated Heather DeGeorge and Kelly Courtney-Blizzard. NW/P SC Rep Don Kelly nominated Angie Redfield (sic - correct spelling is Rayfield). Ms. Courtney-Blizzard subsequently asked that her name be removed from consideration. Voting went as follows: SE/MA SC Rep Tim Stowell (tstowell@chattanooga.net - term ends 8/31/03) - Heather DeGeorge (2), Angie Rayfield (3) Archives Rep Vicki Shaffer (tngibson@att.net - term ends 8/31/03) - Bettie Wood (1), Angie Rayfield (3) Rep at Large Teresa Lindquist (merope@radix.net - term ends 8/31/03) - did not vote NE/NC SC Rep Tina Vickery (tsvickery@adelphia.net - term ends 8/31/03) - Bettie Wood (1), Heather DeGeorge (2) NE/NC CC Rep Robert Bremer (bremerr@oclc.org - term ends 8/31/03) - Heather DeGeorge (2), abstain NE/NC CC Rep Jan Cortez (cristian@netonecom.net - term ends 8/31/04) - Heather DeGeorge (2), Angie Rayfield (3) NW/P SC Rep Don Kelly (donkelly@grovenet.net - term ends 8/31/03) - Heather DeGeorge (2), Angie Rayfield (3) SW/SC SC Rep Larry Flesher (lflesher@fidnet.com - term ends 8/31/04) - Heather DeGeorge (2), Angie Rayfield (3) SW/SC CC Rep Phyllis Rippee (wchs@getgoin.net - term ends 8/31/04) - Heather DeGeorge (2), Angie Rayfield (3) SW/SC CC Rep Jana Black (janab@websweweave.net - term ends 8/31/03) - Bettie Wood (1), Heather DeGeorge (2) ----------------------------------- AB Reps who voted for those nominees with the *fewest* votes from those they would represent (us - here in the Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region): Tim Stowell (SE/MA SC Rep), Jan Cortez (NE/NC CC Rep), Don Kelly (NW/P SC Rep), Larry Flesher (SW/SC SC Rep), Phyllis Rippee (SW/SC CC Rep). Robert Bremer (NE/NC CC Rep voted for the 2nd place finisher, and abstained for the 2nd opening). I urge you to remember these folks and their lack of consideration for those they represent at election time. AB Reps who voted for the 2 top choices of the CCs in the Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Region: Tina Vickery (NE/NC SC Rep) and Jana Black (SW/SC CC Rep). If you have a county in of the regions these ladies represent, I urge you to return them to office in July). I am CCing each AB member who did NOT vote for the SE/MA CCs' top choice with this note, and would ask that they each answer a question: Why in the world would you go through the trouble of having a poll conducted to see who we'd like to represent us, and then ignore our wishes? Shari Handley Somerset Co. MD CC Wicomico Co. MD CC Sussex Co. DE CC Maryland State Coordinator Delaware State Coordinator ===============================