All of this discussion brings to mind an old adage ... "Beware the Ides of March", or, in this case the Ides of ANY month. The whole project is moving dangerously close to self-destruction from within. The more restrictive 'rules' get, the greater the possibility of alienating current willing volunteers. The project has been and should always be about genealogy and not politics. Alabama won't join the political parade. Richard White ALGenWeb SC At 07:24 PM 3/10/2004 -0700, Susan Bellomo wrote: >This revision will not be well received by the CCs in New Mexico with one >possible exception. > >Helping people research their genealogy will be lost in a tidal wave of >bureaucracy. No thanks! > >Susan > >Susan Stockbridge Bellomo >http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmgenweb/ >State Coordinator, NMGenWeb >County Coordinator, Chaves, Grant and Otero Counties > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs@getgoin.net> >To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:18 PM >Subject: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws > > >> In accordance with Parliamentary Authority, the revised bylaws must be >voted >> on as a whole unit, since they will be replacing existing bylaws. >> >> The original charge to the Revision Committee was to "tweak" the existing >> bylaws, not to rewrite them. The committee has chosen to rewrite them. >> >> Since it was an NC who appointed the BRC and continued by the current NC, >> the report (i.e. the set of bylaws) when finalized will be presented to >the >> NC (whoever that is) for one of three actions: Filing away with "Thanks"; >> Sending to the voters during the next regular election; Returning same to >> committee and asking them to do more work on them. >> >> Regardless, I find these oppressive; over-stepping the bounds of "good >> bylaws" suggested by parliamentary authority; taking away most freedom of >> choice from the CCs, SCs or AB members. >> >> Does that leave any doubt as to how I'll be voting when the time comes? >> >> Phyllis Rippee >> SW/SC CC Representative