Sherri - So sorry to have opened a can of worms - having been on both sides of the fence - both you and I understand the "EC procedures" but most of the SCs and CCs are not privy to the way the "system" works when in action - and the history of why procedures changed... My original words were - "Having been on the EC during the time we were "directed" by AB not to register CCs who did not display the approved logo - " No way did I mean to imply that we did not follow proper procedures - or this as an attack on the EC or AB. Let's consider the different points of view. When a request to register to vote comes in, the EC verifies eligibility. There are only two choices for the EC, to register or not to register. If there is a question of elibigility, they are required not register until verification of eligibility is made, and a series of procedures follow - (At that point, the person is not registered to vote, so therefore, can not vote). The EC is saying "they are not eligible according to procedures" and the SCs are saying "Hey, you are denying them the right to vote", and the CC is saying, "Hey, I can't vote". All of them are correct statements from each points of view. The EC is a hard working group - The EC did follow procedures - and so did the AB - but the individual is still not registered, so what didn't work? Is not having a logo or not having an approved logo a reasonable requirement of registration? If so, where is that written? And, whose responsibility is it to enforce that? (Perhaps a simple solution is to allow the SC to not link or to de-link the CC page until the administrative requirements are met?) The problem was and still is the communication between the EC, AB, and SCs. SCs being told they are not on topic or the bylaws / procedures were followed, comes across as dismissive, at least to me, since the SCs were asked for their input - The problem with the logos is also linked to the EC procedures, in some of our minds. When I originally joined the EC, if the SC verified eligibility - the CCs were registered - period - the EC did not check to see if logos were displayed - at least I don't remember that as part of our procedures. The SC's word was taken as the final authority. Since then the procedures have changed - and the current EC committee has no long term members left who know the history of changes in procedures and why they occured. So, it is logical from an SC point of view to ask why all these "EC procedures", when it used to be so simple, the SCs were and still are required to send quarterly updates to the EC on who is eligible - it used to be a simple procedure to just add and delete the names - and when it was time to vote - ALL MEMBERS who wanted to vote, could. Problem is, because some of the SCs were not doing their job by sending the quarterly reports of verification, and checking their CCs website to ensure compliance, the AB and EC made an executive decision to change the procedures, with the rationale to ensure that members who wanted to vote, could vote. Can you see how it may now "appear" to the long term SCs and CCs, that members are being denied registration to vote by the EC, when in fact, the EC is following all the procedures that have been established since. Is it possible that the procedures are now TOO complicated? By listening to all the different points of view, perhaps the procedures can be re-evaluated, to come up with a viable working solution for all. I hope this clarified, not not further confused, the ongoing discussion. After all, this is only my opinion. R/S MAK ..... MAKtranscriber WoodCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood PortageCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag MonroeCoWI CC http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe WIGenWeb ASC http://wigenweb.org/

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