I don't mean to pick a fight, either, but - Why would a State Coordinator that KNOWS a coordinator is displaying an incorrect/unapproved logo not take the initiative to make sure the coordinator updates the logo to one of the approved logos so that the issue doesn't come up in the first place? Article XII, Section 6 states: " It shall be the responsibility of each state project to periodically review local-level project websites to ensure compliance with The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established guidelines/standards." It's the State Project's responsibility, so how can you blame it on either the AB or the EC if a coordinator whose sites don't meet the guidelines is not eligible to vote? The SC and/or ASC and/or the individual coordinator is contacted if there are issues with the sites meeting the established guidelines - at least once, so it's not like it's happening in a vacuum, and there's plenty of time to get the problems fixed before the election. There were issues with one or more Project sites in at least half of the XXGenWeb State Projects before this last election. The individual site coordinators and the State Coordinators were contacted by one of three AB members personally - at least once, often twice or more, and sometimes by more than one of us. <g> Sherri -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian Saffold Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is the purpose of the current discussion? I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. Vivian Price Saffold State Coordinator The GAGenWeb Project

Oh, I know that, Sherri. Fighting is not my intention either. And I certainly understand the frustration that sometimes comes with national level jobs. However, the job of the EC members would not be nearly as frustrating, if they would leave the page-checking to the state organizations. Being charged with reconciling the SC's list with the county index table and the actual site AND checking for compliance is a guaranteed recipe for frustration. And, forcing a "correct" or "approved" logo, when there really is no such thing, certainly is not the answer. This is not a issue of site compliance. It is a question of appropriate authority and proper procedure. The EC is a *committee.* It is not part of the governing body. Because the EC members are not elected, they are not accountable to the membership. The AB certainly has the authority (and responsibility) to require the state organizations to have compliant sites. The EC does not. Voting and site compliance are separate issues. Here is just one example of how well-meaning people, using unclear rules and given an inappropriate task, can really ruin a CC's (and an SC's) day. A long-time county coordinator was still flying the same national logo he was given when he joined. Since the word "approved" appears nowhere in the bylaws, an SC has no grounds to make him change. He's a solid coordinator in every other respect. The SC says he's a card-carrying member. The EC won't let him vote. He voted in every election since the AB was formed... until this one. It just wasn't worth the fight. Perhaps, if you have uncooperative SCs, they are the ones who should not be allowed to vote. Vivian At 06:19 PM 10/10/2009, you wrote: >I don't mean to pick a fight, either, but - > >Why would a State Coordinator that KNOWS a coordinator is displaying an >incorrect/unapproved logo not take the initiative to make sure the >coordinator updates the logo to one of the approved logos so that the issue >doesn't come up in the first place? > >Article XII, Section 6 states: " It shall be the responsibility of each >state project to periodically review local-level project websites to ensure >compliance with The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established >guidelines/standards." > >It's the State Project's responsibility, so how can you blame it on either >the AB or the EC if a coordinator whose sites don't meet the guidelines is >not eligible to vote? The SC and/or ASC and/or the individual coordinator >is contacted if there are issues with the sites meeting the established >guidelines - at least once, so it's not like it's happening in a vacuum, and >there's plenty of time to get the problems fixed before the election. There >were issues with one or more Project sites in at least half of the XXGenWeb >State Projects before this last election. The individual site coordinators >and the State Coordinators were contacted by one of three AB members >personally - at least once, often twice or more, and sometimes by more than >one of us. <g> > >Sherri > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael and Vivian >Saffold >Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:46 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Fw: [ABChat] Next Agenda Items > >Since we already a requirement for display of the USGW logo, what is >the purpose of the current discussion? > >I am concerned that this might be leading up to authorizing either >the Advisory Board or the Elections Committee to disqualify >coordinators who display an incorrect logo (or display a correct logo >in an unsatisfactory manner) from either voting or membership. > >Vivian Price Saffold >State Coordinator >The GAGenWeb Project > > > > > >------------------------------- >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

Sherri, Why are the passwords of the registered members given out to the regional EC reps? I would think something as sensitive as our passwords would be retained by the EC Chair only. I requested a list of the ILGenWeb members to update and received a file containing all of NENC including all of the passwords for the registered members of NENC. I think the other NENC SC's need to be aware their passwords were also compromised this evening when I received that list (which was deleted from my email). Deb