At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >Ellen, > >Had you truly read my note, I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative behavior. It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or interstate commerce. We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Ellen

Well put Ellen! I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Thanks to those who will participate. Respectfully, George MAGenWeb CTGenWeb On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen > >

I agree that their actions do not appear to be in the best interest of the USGenWeb Project. Les Shockey At 01:07 PM 08/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: >The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence Les Shockey email address = lshockey@citynet.net or wvgenweb@citynet.net RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group. SHOCKEY-L@rootsweb.com Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of USGenWeb Project at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/

I agree with Ellen's statement. Shari Handley SC Maryland and Delaware [-----Original Message----- [From: George Waller [mailto:George@Waller.Org] [Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:08 PM [To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com [Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested [ [ [Well put Ellen! [ [I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to [hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. [ [The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: [ [> I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for [> it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is [not >free [> standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is [first a member [> of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the [> project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at [all, but I [> do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. [I believe, [> in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. [ [Thanks to those who will participate. [Respectfully, [George [MAGenWeb [CTGenWeb [ [ [ [ [ [ [On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: [ [> At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: [> >Ellen, [> > [> >Had you truly read my note, [> [> [> I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with [> several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number [> of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. [> [> I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. [This project [> needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and [cooperative [> behavior. [> [> It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or [> interstate commerce. [> [> We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we [want. But we [> do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. [ For that [> to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and [> respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. [> [> The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting [> remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC [Regulations, [> I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board [> members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a [> clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the [> direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they [> themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that [Board should [> be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without [> voting rights. [> [> I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for [> it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free [> standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is [first a member [> of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the [> project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at [all, but I [> do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. [I believe, [> in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. [> [> Ellen [> [> [

Hi all, I usually don't involve myself in these types of discussions, but I want to give my 2 cents worth on this. Having been apart of the USGenWeb since August of 1996 anytime the mere mention of money has been made we've heard how it is going to be the ruin of the USGenWeb and open up to "liability" issues, etc... I appreciated our Southern friend who checked out the various state projects that aren't hosted by RW and he even mentioned rumor of a CA CC who "solicits" funds. I'm "one of those" CCs who solicits funds on my county websites. Those funds have been used to purchase various county history books to transcribe, pay for copying and mailing costs associated with various transcription projects. While I appreciated the CC's who have done an outstanding job at providing links and addresses to the various resources available to their counties I determined early on that in addition to being a resource center that my counties would as be a source of on-line data. Are folks charged to access the data? Absolutely not! Some of the folks in the project are very fortunate to live near a library or FHC and have ready access to material for their counties. While serving on active duty in the Air Force (retired now for 2 years) I didn't have the luxury of time to take advantages of the resources that were close at hand. So a need to purchase resources was evident and visitors were presented with the need and many chose to help out. I don't know how many of you all have checked into the cost of buying or leasing a webserver, but it is an expensive proposition. Without a continual inflow of income it would be a great financial burden on a single individual. I know, "Why do you need your own server, you can host it for free at RW." I know in my case and I suspect in Iowa's case that RW didn't meet my needs. I've admired the way the IAGenWeb has approached the problem with raising funds to support their server. I see nothing wrong nor any violation of the by-laws by having a Independently incorporated organization sponsoring their project. I recall back when RW was experiencing a cash crunch and many in the project rallied by adding buttons or other links on their RW hosted pages asking visitors to "Join RW" by contributing money to the ongoing support of RW. If what Iowa is "deemed" to be wrong, then all project members who solicited funds for RW were wrong as well. There is a huge difference between asking folks to help pay server costs or purchase data sets to be transcribed and asking folks to pay to join so that they can see what we have "behind the curtain" or to "pay me" because I've worked so hard to make this possible. The former is entirely acceptable in my mind while the later is just plain wrong and is against the intent of the USGenWeb Project. Nathan Zipfel PAGenWeb Project State Coordinator http://www.pagenweb.org/ -----Original Message----- From: George Waller [mailto:George@Waller.Org] Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:08 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested Well put Ellen! I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Thanks to those who will participate. Respectfully, George MAGenWeb CTGenWeb On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen > >

Ellen, Since we are all in agreement regarding "Friends of IAGenWeb", and agree that it is a serious conflict of interest, a violation of the bylaws and setting a dangerous precedent, the question begs, "How do we handle this as a Project?" To allow this to continue potentially places all of the XXGenWeb Projects in a perilous position. Either we follow suit, or we fall apart at the seams. I, for one, am not in favor of following suit, as it opens the door for tremendous abuses. At this point, what stops me from creating Friends of Gilmer County GAGenWeb and pocketing all of the money under the auspices of paying myself for maintaining the site? I agree that the petty bickering among the USGWP must stop. However, for that to stop, we have got to get on the same page. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:14:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] PLEASE STOP > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This > project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and > cooperative behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But > we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For > that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite > and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks > (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, I > agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board > should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, > without voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a > member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests > of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at > all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" > test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen ------- End of Original Message -------

At 01:18 PM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >Ellen, > >Since we are all in agreement regarding "Friends of IAGenWeb", and agree that >it is a serious conflict of interest, a violation of the bylaws I didn't say it's a violation of the by-laws. Frankly, I'm unable to make a determination one way or the other, because I'm not sure the By-Laws even cover this type of setup. There are some rather unusual factors and circumstances. More the reason for concern, perhaps, because the project is looking at something precedent-setting. Ellen