I do not believe this is in the best interest of USGWP. We are opening up ourselves to liability should someone abscond with the funds. --- George Waller <George@Waller.Org> wrote: > Richard et al., > Thanks for asking for a clearer definition of "best > interests test." > For the purposes of this poll it means best > interests of the USGWP. > I doubt if we could get all of us on the same exact > meaning, but I > do believe we all have a reasonable idea of what it > means. > > Anyone voting is welcome to make explanatory > comments. > > The results of the poll will, if nothing else, put > us on record as to how > we feel about what IAGenWeb is doing. This might > have some impact > on how the bylaws get revised. > > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb/CTGenWeb > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 13:25, mannannan wrote: > > > George, > > > > While I like the idea of a poll, official or > unofficial, binding or > > non- binding, I believe we need to get a > definition of the "best > > interests test". I know what it means, and you > know what it means and > > Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us > know what it means. > > However, it may have different meanings or > connotations for each of > > us. Some may deem it to mean in the best > interests of the USGWP. > > Others may deem it to mean in the best interests > of IAGenWeb. Still > > others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful > to USGWP". > > > > So, can we elaborate on this before we take a > straw poll? > > > > The other concern is this: if we agree that it is > not in the best > > interests, what have we truly said? And what can > we do about it if we > > find that it is not in the best interests? I > mean, the NC appears to > > have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a > mover and shaker > > with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any > more than we can > > de-link IAGenWeb. > > > > So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the > point of such a > > poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or > is it an effort to > > cease the problematic issue where we have neither > the ability to act > > nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" > > > > Richard Pettys > > Second ASC Georgia > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

>-----Original Message----- > >We are opening up ourselves to liability should >someone abscond with the funds. > I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If someone in Friends of IAGenWeb embezzles funds, the only person liable is the person that committed the theft. If someone has a complaint against the Friends of IAGenWeb, the only group responsible *is* the Friends of IAGenWeb. It's no different than the "Friends of the Library," or "Friends of the Zoo," or any organization of that sort. Angie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003