David, I do not profess to have all the answers. I have stated what I think is wrong with the procedure, and would hope that the AB as a whole might address this situation. First of all, I did ask how many volunteered to be on the EC. I did not get an answer to that. Why must that be kept a secret? I have heard from volunteers, who claim they have volunteered, yet are never selected for anything. I think that the AB could be provided with a list of those volunteers, possibly selecting new ones. Possibly getting new people involved. When I can't even find that out, I have no idea, whether they got 100 volunteers, (which I doubt) or only the people selected and sent to the AB. Yes, the AB does vote on them, but only the slate selected by the EC. The list, as a whole, without knowing if there were others. How do we know if there were others? If the EC wants to make a recommendation, fine, I just believe the AB should be able to see *all* the volunteers, before voting. I am not seeing things behind each tree and bush here, but rather stating my opinion, and that of others, on how I and they, personally feel. I believe I have a right to my opinion, just like you do. If the AB passes the procedures as presented, so be it. I can live with that, however, I feel I have a right to say what I feel, just as you do. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > Ok, what is your solution? > > What would be a better way? > > Pick nobody that has ever volunteered for the EC? > > David > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, State Coordinator wrote: > > > David, > > > > I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is > > that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to > > thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It > > is not a good policy. > > > > I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the > > whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are > > fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than > > the EC itself, would be the best. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David W. Morgan" <dmorgan@efn.org> > > > > > > > > > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > > > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > > > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > > > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > > > > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > > > it down. > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > > > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > > > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > > > > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > > > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > > > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > > > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > > > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > > > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > > > a fair, impartial manner. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > > > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, > > it > > > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to > > set > > > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed > > list, > > > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting > > its > > > > own members. > > > > > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you > > to > > > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > > > Jan Cortez > > > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" <IsaiahH@cox.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > > > changes > > > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii > > > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > > > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > > > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > >

I was also on the original EC committee. For the most part, I just try to keep quiet on most of the subjects discussed here. But, since we worked so hard on the EC, I really must respond. I can understand Jan's point. But, I also believe -- as one writer said -- that we've got to stop seeing conspiracy and hidden motives and agendas in everything and everyone. Suppose Linda Davenport only appointed her bestest of friends to the EC, hypothetically speaking, of course. Even friends can't agree on everything, so how could they work into the election procedures enough subtrafuge to actually "take over" the USGenWeb and fix it so only "their" friends get elected? And, hypothetically, suppose "they" actually managed to get only their own "friends" elected through "secret" committees! Don't you think that everyone else would start raising a big stink in very quick fashion? In other words, let's not borrow problems from a future that hasn't gotten here yet. Carol Wyoming SC Jan Cortez <cristian@netonecom.net> wrote: David, I do not profess to have all the answers. I have stated what I think is wrong with the procedure, and would hope that the AB as a whole might address this situation. First of all, I did ask how many volunteered to be on the EC. I did not get an answer to that. Why must that be kept a secret? I have heard from volunteers, who claim they have volunteered, yet are never selected for anything. I think that the AB could be provided with a list of those volunteers, possibly selecting new ones. Possibly getting new people involved. When I can't even find that out, I have no idea, whether they got 100 volunteers, (which I doubt) or only the people selected and sent to the AB. Yes, the AB does vote on them, but only the slate selected by the EC. The list, as a whole, without knowing if there were others. How do we know if there were others? If the EC wants to make a recommendation, fine, I just believe the AB should be able to see *all* the volunteers, before voting. I am not seeing things behind each tree and bush here, but rather stating my opinion, and that of others, on how I and they, personally feel. I believe I have a right to my opinion, just like you do. If the AB passes the procedures as presented, so be it. I can live with that, however, I feel I have a right to say what I feel, just as you do. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" > > Ok, what is your solution? > > What would be a better way? > > Pick nobody that has ever volunteered for the EC? > > David > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, State Coordinator wrote: > > > David, > > > > I am not criticizing the EC, or who it has selected. What I am saying is > > that the EC should not select its own members, as it could possibly lead to > > thoughts of impropriety. I've heard remarks from numerous volunteers. It > > is not a good policy. > > > > I know how hard the EC works, I've been there, but, I also would like the > > whole project to hold the EC in the highest regard, to feel that they are > > fair and impartial, so I truly believe another way of selection, rather than > > the EC itself, would be the best. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David W. Morgan" > > > > > > > > > > The advisory board approved the report of the ESL three years > > > ago. The EC has been selecting members in the same manner since then, > > > from a pool of volunteers. I believe you were also selected that way > > > for the EC, or maybe you were the only volunteer, as sometimes happens. > > > > > > If the AB does not like the slate presented by the EC, they can vote > > > it down. > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Linda Haas Davenport selected the first EC > > > from among her close friends. I think she picked some of the loudest > > > most outspoken critics, so they could see how it worked for themselves. > > > > > > In the short time I served on the EC, I can state for a fact that > > > we did not all think alike, we did not all agree on certain > > > controversial issues in the project (archives, census, Kansas, etc), > > > but we did all work together as a team to do the best job that we > > > could do for the project. That is what it is all about, avoiding > > > the politics of the USGenWeb Project and conducting an election in > > > a fair, impartial manner. > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jan Cortez wrote: > > > > > > > No further discussion, other than I cannot support the EC Procedures, as > > > > long as they select their own members. As in any election commission, > > it > > > > is not good policy. Leaves the door wide open for those on the EC to > > set > > > > their own agenda, and since it is all behind closed doors, on a closed > > list, > > > > allows the imagination to run wild. > > > > > > > > And to my way of thinking, would be no different than the AB selecting > > its > > > > own members. > > > > > > > > Since I did bring this up, and no one ever said a word, including the EC > > > > Chair, then I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Just want you > > to > > > > know why I am going to vote NO. > > > > > > > > Sorry, just my opinion. > > > > > > > > Jan Cortez > > > > NE/NC CC Rep > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Isaiah Harrison" > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been moved by Larry and seconded by Bettie that the proposed > > > > changes > > > > > to the Election Subcommittee presented at > > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/recommendations.html > > > > > and revised as of October 20 be adopted. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any further discussion? > > > > > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > > Archives for Board-L are located at: > > > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > > Board-L minutes and voting records are located at: > > > > http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii > > > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > > > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > > > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search