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" <[email protected]> > 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
The change by this motion was not to give the EC authority to deny membership for logo issues, it was to add the Dataset Manager position and to make a few grammatical fixes. Under Section C. Eligibility to Vote it states "Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC." Being on the membership list is a requirement for eligibility as indicated in the EC procedures " I. All Project members, who are eligible to vote, shall also be eligible to Register to vote." If the EC is removing a person from the membership or not adding them based on anything other than an authorized person's determination, they have made a challenge to the person's eligibility by questioning their status as a member and addressed it themselves, which violates Section C. The by-laws state a logo is a requirement and I don't think anyone disputes that (maybe which one is in question). If the EC finds a discrepancy then they should follow the procedures in the same document for how to handle discrepancies. That is what should be happening if a logo is missing or some other element is missing. That process involves contacting the project leadership and if need be contacting the AB and this process complies with Section C. For some unknown reason, this process used to be followed, but changed the past two years. Cyndie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sherri Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] The bylaw rule does exist 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" <[email protected]> > 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
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