>Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:54:48 -0600 >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] Re: [TXGEN] Bylaws Revision -- News (fwd) > >At 09:00 AM 7/10/03 -1000, you wrote: > > > >I hesitate to forward this, as I am not sure that Roger is on this > >list. But he does speak for the Bylaws Revision Committee, and half > >of the members of that committee (6 + 1 NC ex officio) are candidates > >in the election this year. I can only assume that the candidates > >approve of taking the vote away from some of our CCs because they > >are listed as assistant CCs instead of CC or Co-CC, or because they > >are the third CC for that county (or the third ASC, for that matter) > >At one time I was for a limit on the number of voters for a county - >and in reality - if there were say 10 folks hosting one county and there >were several counties doing that - one would wonder for what purpose >within a particular state - if used for national elections. > >However, since I know of no such case, ever happening - if it takes >10 to do a county - say perhaps Cook County, IL (Chicago) or the >various boroughs around New York City, the areas for Los Angeles, or >even counties that have 250 to 350 years of history - who >is the BRC/AB/EC to say it doesn't take this many folks to adequately >cover these areas? If the state project can live with those numbers >it is not the business of the National folks to question it and they >should have the right to vote on national ballots. > >In places where there are 1200 people in a county - one person can >host several counties very easily for there won't be that much data >to add on line - ever. > >It appears just another effort by the BRC to control rather than enable >the CCs. > >Tim