Sherri, I agree the buck must stop. Unfortunately, it must stop with you. You are the one who wrote directly to at least 2 people in my state. Your note most certainly should have come to me FIRST - not as a copied to... I repeat the rules do say: " 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. --Ann VTGenWeb -------------- Original message from "Sherri" <[email protected]>: -------------- > FWIW, there's already an item on the agenda to look at the EC procedures - > 4th item in the list, added by Phyllis Rippee on 8-1-09. There's also an > item that deals with the SC responsibilities. Both of these will have to go > hand in hand to come up with procedures that ensure that sites are indeed > being confirmed as meeting USGenWeb Project requirements so that everyone's > being treated the same. It's definitely not fair to coordinators in one > state that work diligently to ensure that their sites meet the requirements > if a SC in another state sends a list of members in that they've not even > checked - whether to ensure that email addresses work, that they're still an > active coordinator and that the sites meet the requirements. > > There were several CCs that we found last year that stated that they'd > resigned from the XXGenWeb Project, one as many as 6 years ago, but the SC > was still listing them as the CC for that county's site. So... they could > have voted several times when they weren't eligible. Is that something we > want to encourage or allow? Obviously, those SCs/ASCs definitely weren't > doing their jobs! > > Because of things like this and SCs and/or ASCs that don't respond to > requests for quarterly updates from the EC, I doubt that you'll find many > that are willing to take the word of all of the SCs/ASCs as being the gospel > truth when it comes to verifying that members' that register to vote are in > compliance in regards to their sites meeting the requirements. Whatever is > done has to be done consistently from one state to another so there's no > indication of any favoritism being shown. > > The buck has to stop somewhere - if we all to take a good look at our own > states and make sure they're in order (and continue to keep them in order), > we wouldn't have arrived at the place that we are. > > Again, if we can fix the underlying problem of state project leadership that > don't perform their duties as required, you'll find that the issues that > have been discussed in this thread will most likely be moot. > > > Sherri Bradley > National Coordinator > USGenWeb Project > Information about the USGenWeb Project at http://usgenweb.org > Advisory Board Agenda http://usgenweb.org/agenda2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

I am going to throw my 2 cents worth in here take it or leave it. When I became SC in July I went to each county in my state and looked at the sites and if there were a lot of broken links, logos wrong etc I made a note. I found so many sites that were not in compliance with the NCGenWeb rules let alone the USGenWeb rules and bylaws I was just floored. I then ran a broken link report on every county in my state and sent them out to each CC and/or Co-CC along with a few notes and gave them until August to get the broken links fixed. I did work with a great number of them and I am still working with some to get the links fixed, but it has been slow going. Some I found had resigned months or even years prior, a CC had passed away and others had bouncing emails or never responded. The previous SC had no idea that the CC had passed away, nor did she have any idea that people had left the project for whatever reasons or that some had bouncing emails. So, to this point, I agree with Sherri. As SC's we are the ones responsible for making contact with our CC's at least every few months, if nothing else to say hey, how's it going, need anything, etc. We are the ones ultimately responsible for making sure each county/parish/special project, etc in our state is being maintained, is following the bylaws, rules and procedures, etc. If not, it is again the SC s job to make sure the CC brings the site into compliance or the SC removes them. That simple. Therefore, that is one of the reasons the EC has to double check behind the SC's, because things like deaths, bounced emails and people quitting months or years previously were not reported because obviously the SC wasn't doing their job. So, who is supposed to do the checking when a member goes to register to vote? It is left to the EC to do so which it should have been the SC stepping up to the plate all along but unfortunately we have some that basically stick their heads in the sand and hope it will all go away or fix itself. So, each of us and our predecessors are to blame. Not Sherri, not the AB not the EC. Each and every SC & ASC that is or has been with this project is to blame for this. WE need to be the ones to take our heads out of the sand and start enforcing the rules, bylaws and procedures and start by setting the example on our own sites. So, I ask that everyone stop blaming and accusing and let's start working on our own sites and states to make sure they are all in compliance before any finger pointing continues. Stepping off my soapbox now, sorry if I offended anyone. Diane  NCGenWeb SC NCGenWeb CC NCGenWeb Special Projects -------Original Message------- From: [email protected] Date: 10/11/2009 6:49:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Listening to the SCs, AB, and EC Sherri, I agree the buck must stop. Unfortunately, it must stop with you. You are the one who wrote directly to at least 2 people in my state. Your note most certainly should have come to me FIRST - not as a copied to... I repeat the rules do say: " 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. --Ann VTGenWeb

To maintain contact with your CC's have a monthly roll call and in your roll call ask the CC's to give an update on what they have done or are doing. Gail