I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just ask Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary to what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, so the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist The EC rules in this report ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and to the SC. and (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for possible discrepancies. f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, etc. to handle it first? --Ann SC VTGenWeb -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > Thanks, > > jic > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only speak > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is my > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in the > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly discussed > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) prior to the SC being notified. -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just ask > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary to > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, so > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > The EC rules in this report > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and > > to the SC. > and > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for > > possible discrepancies. > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > etc. to handle it first? > > --Ann > SC VTGenWeb > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > jic > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > speak > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is > my > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > the > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > discussed > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Good Morning, The current discussion, regarding EC Members taking CC's off of the Registration for 'Infractions' seems to be a case of 'He Said, She Said'. One of my CC's was told that they would be taken off of the Voter Rolls until 'Compliance could be met'. She was informed BEFORE I was contacted contacted as SC. So... Ladies and Gents, let's get this stuff squared away, make the rules simple, straight forward and like MAK so nicely stated: Let's get back to the real purpose of the USGW - getting data out there for visiting researchers. There has been enough discussion on what should have been a few answers to a simple question. Martha A Crosley Graham SC CAGenWeb

Nope, afraid not. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) prior to the SC being notified. -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just ask > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary to > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, so > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > Sherri > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > The EC rules in this report > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) and > > to the SC. > and > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened for > > possible discrepancies. > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > etc. to handle it first? > > --Ann > SC VTGenWeb > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > jic > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was discussed > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > speak > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it is > my > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > the > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > discussed > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

>Item #1 - Discussion of the requirement that the USGenWeb logo on Project > > sites be one of the approved logos posted at > > http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/logos.shtml. > > > > Item #2 - Reviewing the CC Guidelines document to indicate that those items > > listed apply Project-wide, not just to county sites. Item 1 I have heard no objection to adding the word "approved" to the following: >ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The >USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. ***However, there is considerable concern that this change could be part of an effort to legitimize the EC's ability to prohibit members from voting based on logo compliance. Site checks should not be part of the EC's mandate.*** Item 2 I have received no comment on this one. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project

I actually kept a copy of the e-mail which was sent to a CC and copied to me. A portion is quoted below: "...I'm pitching in to help the EC get all of their records straight before the upcoming election. One of the things I'm doing is to assist them in verification of members ...Until the USGenWeb Project logo is added to the [XX] site, you can't be added to the verified membership list..." By the way, this county site above already DID have the logo, the person who wrote, just didn't see it. --Ann "-------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > Nope, afraid not. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > It was my experience that people were "dismissed" (removed from the list) > prior to the SC being notified. > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > -------------- > > > > I'll say it again - the EC did NOT dismiss anyone or fail to let them vote > > > without following the rules and referring the questions to the AB. Just > ask > > Annie and/or Alice - and more than 50% of the SCs. > > > > No favoritism shown as to who got notifications and who didn't, contrary > to > > what some assumed! If there was an issue, the SC and the CC were notified > > and asked to correct the problems. There was more than a month to do it, > so > > the excuse that there wasn't time to fix the problems doesn't fly, either. > > > > > Sherri > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:47 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > The EC rules in this report > > ii. The EC will send any unverifiable names to the regional AB member(s) > and > > > > to the SC. > > and > > (1) All names and e-mail addresses used for registering will be screened > for > > > > possible discrepancies. > > f. Any discrepancy not able to be resolved between the voter and the EC, > > unless the discrepancy is possible fraudulent registration, shall be > > directed to the appropriate local leadership or appointed contact person > > within the voter's state or special project, for resolution. > > > > Where is the EC allowed to dismiss anyone without first allowing local SC, > > > etc. to handle it first? > > > > --Ann > > SC VTGenWeb > > > > -------------- Original message from "Sherri" : > > -------------- > > > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BOARD/2009-01/1232156087 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Cortez > > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:12 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist > > > > > > Would some one be kind enough to lead me to the motion by the AB that > > > authorized the EC not to register CC's that did not display the approved > > > > logo. Some how, I managed to miss that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > jic > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "MAK - Transcriber" > > > > > > > > > > One of the real problems is the struggle for power. > > > > > > > Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to > > > > register CCs who did not display the approved logo - this was > discussed > > > > extensively - not all of us had the same philosophy - so I can only > > speak > > > > for myself - while not having a logo is an administrative thing - it > is > > my > > > > > > > understanding that the SC is the final authority of whether or not an > > > > individual was an official CC within the state - by putting the EC in > > the > > > > position of being the "logo police", IMHO, the EC was assigned > > > > responsibilities outside of the scope of their position, having the > > > > unfortunate affect of usurping the SCs authority. This was very > > > > frustrating from all points of view - and needs to be thoroughly > > discussed > > > > > > > before the next election. Personally, I strongly feel this IS the SC's > > > > > job - and, they should be allowed to do their jobs without outside > > > > interference - unless they ask for help. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > > quotes > > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message