This does not have the feel of being in the best interest of The Project, only one Project. Why grandfather some who have been allowed to quietly collect money off The Project. It is either OK for all or none... Marti OKGenWeb > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > Date: 2003/08/24 Sun PM 01:07:53 EDT > 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 > > > > > > >