Su et al, On my page, TNGenWeb Vs TNGenNet, I tried to explore the name issue. I pointed out that if we incorporated as TNGenNet, that name would appear only once as a disclaimer on our main (home) page, perhaps at the bottom of that page. All logos would say TNGenWeb. There should zero confusion to the general public. Why is this so? We would be the Tennessee volunteers the USGenWeb Project. The USGenWeb Project would own the TNGenWeb name. As I pointed out, I would support the use of the TNGenNet name in the spirit of cooperation. But the next questions need to be, what is the story behind the need to cooperate? What is the history of this problem? After I first publicly suggested nonprofit incorporation in January, I was informed by Bridgett Smith that our current National Coordinator, Megan Zurawicz was opposed to our use of the TNGenWeb name in a corporate title. I phoned Megan and discussed this issue. Yes, she did not want us to use the TNGenWeb name, but she had no problem with the state unit incorporating with any other name. National candidate Linda Russell Lewis’ most recent opinion is yet another in a long line of "nationally oriented" folks who favor ownership of XXGenWeb names by the USGenWeb Project. Seemingly, they are concerned by the threat of rebellion by "renegades." This concern is probably more real than we would normally think. The recent event on the NCGenWeb is an example of discontent. But here is few lines from a message that I received from a TNGenWeb CC. A CC who will remain anonymous. ". . . There are more and more dissatisfied CCs out there and not just from Tennessee. It seems to me the powers that be are pulling the reins tighter and tighter to keep control and it "ain't" working. There's too many of us and not enough of them . . ." So you see, we do have folks who are unhappy, and the "nationally oriented" folks know that they are out there. That is why they are concerned by the threat of rebellion. Su, you ask, "Could it not be written so that, as long as we are affiliated with the USGenWeb, we will call ourselves TNGenWeb and if we ever disassociate ourselves, we will be known as TNGenNet?" Answer: Best if it not put in the Charter. The name usage question would be best spelled out in the Bylaws. Also, the relationship between us and the USGenWeb Project would be spelled out in the Bylaws. We could establish a requirement that in order for us to break our relationship with the USGenWeb Project, we would need a two/thirds vote of all the CCs. That would be a very difficult vote to obtain unless there was an overwhelming and compelling reason to sever our relationship with national. Of course, you have the option of voting in the TNGenWeb name, and we can submit that name as our corporate title and that will cause the "nationally oriented" folks to go ballistic. So y’all vote your conscience and we will go from there. Fred Smoot >>> Susan Wilson wrote: > > OK. Here's where I have a problem with this stuff. From reading your site > (now I know what you've been doing instead of demanding that raise you > deserve. :-)), it appears to me that if we incorporate, and if we do it as > TNGenNet, we'll be TNGenWeb *and* TNGenNet. We'll be TNGenWeb by virtue of > our association with and participation in USGenWeb. We'll be TNGenNet > because, for some reason that still fundamentally escapes me, some people > think it's necessary to incorporate. Talk about confusing people! I'm > involved in the silly thing, and I get all fuddled trying to think about it. > What's the average genealogy consumer of ours going to think when he/she > hits the site and sees that on USGenWeb, we're called TNGenWeb and on our > own pages, we're called TNGenNet? I think it's going to cause more trouble > than it's worth, frankly. > > Reading Linda's reply to the question carefully, it seems to me that she is > talking about the consequences of a "renegade" state using the XXGenWeb > name. Could it not be written so that, as long as we are affiliated with > the USGenWeb, we will call ourselves TNGenWeb and if we ever disassociate > ourselves, we will be known as TNGenNet? (Not that I think it's likely that > we'll do that, and just in case it needs to be said right out, if that's > what's being prepared for here, I'd appreciate knowing about it *now* before > I spend the next several days and nights trying to cobble together pages for > a county I'm having to learn as I go.) I don't like the implied distancing > from USGenWeb which is inherent in taking another name. Maybe I'm just > missing something here, but, as y'all have surely figured out by now, I'm > not one to stay quiet in the corner when I've got a question. I don't mean > to stir up trouble or offend anyone. I just don't understand all this and > am trying hard to. > > Fred, I'm sure you'll have this answered before my server knows it's gone. > You've done that with everything else I've asked! I do appreciate your hard > work -- I really don't mean to be trouble. I'll get this worried out > eventually. > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

OK. Here's where I have a problem with this stuff. From reading your site (now I know what you've been doing instead of demanding that raise you deserve. :-)), it appears to me that if we incorporate, and if we do it as TNGenNet, we'll be TNGenWeb *and* TNGenNet. We'll be TNGenWeb by virtue of our association with and participation in USGenWeb. We'll be TNGenNet because, for some reason that still fundamentally escapes me, some people think it's necessary to incorporate. Talk about confusing people! I'm involved in the silly thing, and I get all fuddled trying to think about it. What's the average genealogy consumer of ours going to think when he/she hits the site and sees that on USGenWeb, we're called TNGenWeb and on our own pages, we're called TNGenNet? I think it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth, frankly. Reading Linda's reply to the question carefully, it seems to me that she is talking about the consequences of a "renegade" state using the XXGenWeb name. Could it not be written so that, as long as we are affiliated with the USGenWeb, we will call ourselves TNGenWeb and if we ever disassociate ourselves, we will be known as TNGenNet? (Not that I think it's likely that we'll do that, and just in case it needs to be said right out, if that's what's being prepared for here, I'd appreciate knowing about it *now* before I spend the next several days and nights trying to cobble together pages for a county I'm having to learn as I go.) I don't like the implied distancing from USGenWeb which is inherent in taking another name. Maybe I'm just missing something here, but, as y'all have surely figured out by now, I'm not one to stay quiet in the corner when I've got a question. I don't mean to stir up trouble or offend anyone. I just don't understand all this and am trying hard to. Fred, I'm sure you'll have this answered before my server knows it's gone. You've done that with everything else I've asked! I do appreciate your hard work -- I really don't mean to be trouble. I'll get this worried out eventually. Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Good evening all, It appears the question as to whether we should pursue non-profit incorporation seems to be a majority yes in favor but the official count will come the via some official proclamation. The next question will be what name should we use in the corporate title. So I put this little page together for you folks to look at while we wait for the official announcement about the vote. I did it quickly so it might have a typo or two. Sorry. http://www.dogtrot.com/corpname.htm Fred Smoot

Yo! I just want to see if this TNCHAT list is workin' or if y'all are still down by the river tryin' to catch that ol' catfish for supper. Well, if you don't catch him, you might try this real country treat: Suet Pudding To be used in place of meat. Recipe is about 130 years old. Rub equal parts of flour and suet together. Salt, pepper and sage to taste. Boil in bag about 1 hour. >From my grandmother, Zoe Norman Smoot Now y'all know Lee Ann Sharpe is collecting recipes for our "The Table of Our Ancestors" project. lasharpe@email.msn.com So y'all find some nice recipe that you mama got from her mama, and y'all send it to her, y'hear. Lee Ann is our recipe wrangler. Fred Smoot

Oh, boy. I really don't know that I can handle the emotional upset of yet another one of these kinds of things. I only just adopted Marshall County -- haven't even got my account at Rootsweb yet -- and I'm wondering if I've stepped into the middle of something that I can't manage. Is this going to blow way up? If so, I'll probably unsub from everything I can unsub from and just be an ostrich about the whole thing. USGenWeb is far more than enough for anybody without it getting so close to home. Are we really going to fight? Please, tell me it's not so! And though I know it's *permitted* to have county pages elsewhere, I get the feeling it's not exactly the done thing. I just want to say that my getting an account at Rootsweb has *nothing* to do with political type issues -- I've grown accustomed to doing things for myself with Chester County, that's all. Nothing against USIT, nothing against anything or anybody --- that's just "the way I've always done it." Am I going to offend people by doing it that way? If so, please let me know *now*. Doc hasn't set up the new account yet -- I can still stop the process. But I need to know right away. Upset, I am, Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Greeting all, I have received inquires from folks that expressed an interest in the nonprofit incorporation Charter, so I uploaded a sample that is under construction for the TNGenWeb. The Charter is based on Tennessee law and regulations, and therefore would not be applicable in any other state. The names and addresses of the Agents and of the Incoroprators are blocked out to protect their privacy. The corporate title (name of corporation) is incomplete because no final naming decision has been made by the TNGenWeb CCs. A Charter sets the direction and basic standards of the corporation and are the guidelines the Bylaws must follow. The Charter defines the corporation. This document is not long, it will only take a few minutes to read it. http://www.dogtrot.com/charter.htm Enjoy. =:^) Fred Smoot, TNGenWeb

Dear Mary and Pam. Johnson County has been temporarily unlinked from TNGenWeb. Your queries, which are the property of the poster have been rerouted to USIT since I just discovered that you moved them without notifying me, thus making them inaccessable to TNGenWeb visitors. They will be maintained. This message is being cc'd to Megan and the TN-Chat list since it will, no doubt engender discussion and that list is the proper place for such discussion. The reasons for this temporary action are: 1. Refusal to identify Johnson County as part of the TNGenWeb project as is required and this despite numerous requests that you do so. 2. The forwarding of project mail to parties not participating in TNGenWeb. 3, Lack of team spirit, as evidenced by posting to the national list on matters which affect only participants in the TNGenWeb project, with the purpose of sowing dissention within the project as a whole. 4. Purposeful denigration of USGenWeb, TNGenWeb, and its volunteers in a manner that goes beyond your right of free speech and becomes destructive to both organizations. Johnson County is a wonderful site and we would hate to lose it, but until you can bring yourselves to behave as members of this team, your pages will remain unlinked. If you have a change of heart and decide to become responsible, accountable members of TNGenWeb, we will be happy to re-link your pages. Nancy L. Cole ncole@coffey.com Assistant TNGenweb Coordinator

Thanks, Fred. This makes sense, and I've realized that the straw poll was more to check interest level than the rushed let's get it done sort of things that the roaring paranoia I've acquired from ALL made it look like. Sorta scary when practically the first post you get is calling for a vote on an issue which has been the subject of much hot debate elsewhere. This really does help! Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Susan Wilson wrote: > > Gee, just adopted a county yesterday (Marshall) and already I'm having to > ask questions. Could someone explain the *practical* reasons why this is, > as some people have said, necessary at this time? I'm not asking for > political reasons, at least not right now. I need to understand what > benefits, in very practical ways, would accrue from incorporation. How much > would it cost? Where will the money come from? The cost to file in Tennessee is $100. The money is pledged. Not a problem. Note, this does not included the filing for tax exempt status from Federal income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If we incorporated as a nonprofit, we could consider that issue. There are pros and cons about that, and it should be examined closely before that step is taken. Also, that issue should be considered and decided by the CCs at a much later date. (Oh, I'm tempted to ask -- > "is there any more, and could I have a grant, please?" but I won't. :-)) USIGS might have money for you if you qualify. :^) > What are the practical reasons we *must* do this? Incorporate how? What > kind of structure are we talking about? Would there be a board? Would > there be elections? What's the time frame? There is no *must* here. If it was *must* we would have already filed. Some of us consider it wise to offer this as an option to our fellow CCs. We all, as a group will decide. As pointed out in an earlier letter, autonomy, organizational immortality, and a guarantee of our nonprofit and volunteer principles are the main reasons. We are growing and we might like to create a solid foundation so that in the future, what was started in 1996 will be there for future generations. Once we reach agreement to file, the Charter is submitted to the Tennessee Department of State. As so many of us live outside Tennessee, we would need to use an agent. (We have one) We could file as soon as we settled the issues and get a final go ahead. The Charter gets filed. It takes Tennessee a while to return the papers (2 months in some states, but I don't know about Tennessee) A provision is written into the proposed Charter that the CCs will have six months to adopt the bylaws. Also a democratic vote would be required. A basic set of bylaws would be posted. We would need to go through a period of bylaw revision, prior to vote. ALL CCs would have input. Words like fair and simple come to mind when I think about bylaws. I would be wise to have a Board (RCs) plus the SC and ASC. And (perhaps) non voting special coordinators. As the RC position is based on computer skill and trustworthyness, it would seem that they should be the board, however, we would not want to set rules that would exclude any CCs from runing for the Board. This is why the bylaws need to be carefully addressed. The actual structure would be determined by the CCs during the revision period. The question of meetings would need to be addressed. As we are spread across America, a weekly "in person" meeting is impractical. Even a once a year meeting would be rough. I think elections would be wise, and also, the ability to remove any elected person if necessary. > If all of this has been answered already, just forward the stuff to me. I'm > off to put the finishing touches on my revamp of Chester County SC, so I can > get to work on Marshall County! > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me! Respectfully, Fred Smoot

Bridgett, Sorry, I misunderstood what the vote was about. Since the vote is only to determine whether there is enough interest to discuss incorporation, I am not disappointed. My apologies for not asking before shooting my mouth off. You'd think I'd know better after -ALL :-) George of Lincoln On 16 Jul 98 at 12:29, Bridgett: > George: > > I can understand your disappointment. And although it is an > off-handed compliment that most cc's will respond to any suggestion > put out by the SC or ASC -- I sincerely hope that folks will *really* > vote their conscience on this matter. > > It doesn't matter to me whether to incorporate gets voted in or not. > Either way will not change the project any at all, at least that's my > take on it. However, since this has been an ongoing discussion with > the RC's (some discussion -- I send out by-laws, some send back > answers), Fred and a few others, and mentioned on the TNGen list, I > think we need to make a decision pro/con and move on. > > I also feel that I don't want to take the heat that the KSGenWeb is > taking about incorporating -- conflicting stories are that the cc's > got to vote whether they wanted to incorp. to just seeing a msg about > incorporating, no vote. I want this done so everyone has an input in > the matter, which this list is for -- or to register their vote on > the other list. > > I am just hoping that the folks that normally don't partake in > posting to the list will at least vote on this issue. > > Bridgett > > > > > On 16 Jul 98 at 14:43, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > Neighbor Su, > > > > None of this has been discussed. And IMHO it is too late to do so. Most > > cc's will respond to any suggestion from the SC and the ASC with a YES > > vote. Done deal. > > > > I'm disappointed that it happened this way. > > > > George of Lincoln > > > ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ > > Bridgett Smith > TNGenWeb State Coordinator > http://www.tngenweb.org/ >

George etal, The question in the origial mailing is "Reply - All to this list simply with yes or no if you would like to pursue non-profit incorporation. The voting period will be one week only." There are a few items that need to be addressed prior to filing. Like the name issue. So if the CCs want us to pursue incoropration, then we ALL need to settle the questions first. Fred Smoot >>> George Waller wrote: > > Bridgett, > Sorry, I misunderstood what the vote was about. > Since the vote is only to determine whether there > is enough interest to discuss incorporation, I > am not disappointed. > > My apologies for not asking before shooting my mouth off. > You'd think I'd know better after -ALL :-) > > George of Lincoln > > On 16 Jul 98 at 12:29, Bridgett: > > > George: > > > > I can understand your disappointment. And although it is an > > off-handed compliment that most cc's will respond to any suggestion > > put out by the SC or ASC -- I sincerely hope that folks will *really* > > vote their conscience on this matter. > > > > It doesn't matter to me whether to incorporate gets voted in or not. > > Either way will not change the project any at all, at least that's my > > take on it. However, since this has been an ongoing discussion with > > the RC's (some discussion -- I send out by-laws, some send back > > answers), Fred and a few others, and mentioned on the TNGen list, I > > think we need to make a decision pro/con and move on. > > > > I also feel that I don't want to take the heat that the KSGenWeb is > > taking about incorporating -- conflicting stories are that the cc's > > got to vote whether they wanted to incorp. to just seeing a msg about > > incorporating, no vote. I want this done so everyone has an input in > > the matter, which this list is for -- or to register their vote on > > the other list. > > > > I am just hoping that the folks that normally don't partake in > > posting to the list will at least vote on this issue. > > > > Bridgett > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Jul 98 at 14:43, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > Neighbor Su, > > > > > > None of this has been discussed. And IMHO it is too late to do so. Most > > > cc's will respond to any suggestion from the SC and the ASC with a YES > > > vote. Done deal. > > > > > > I'm disappointed that it happened this way. > > > > > > George of Lincoln > > > > > ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ > > > > Bridgett Smith > > TNGenWeb State Coordinator > > http://www.tngenweb.org/ > >

So, the question really is "are enough of you interested in doing this to make further discussion worthwhile?" rather than "should we incorporate?" Have I got the general idea here? Thanks, Nancy! Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Neighbor Su, None of this has been discussed. And IMHO it is too late to do so. Most cc's will respond to any suggestion from the SC and the ASC with a YES vote. Done deal. I'm disappointed that it happened this way. George of Lincoln On 16 Jul 98 at 13:22, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > Gee, just adopted a county yesterday (Marshall) and already I'm having to ask > questions. Could someone explain the *practical* reasons why this is, as > some people have said, necessary at this time? I'm not asking for political > reasons, at least not right now. I need to understand what benefits, in very > practical ways, would accrue from incorporation. How much would it cost? > Where will the money come from? (Oh, I'm tempted to ask -- "is there any > more, and could I have a grant, please?" but I won't. :-)) What are the > practical reasons we *must* do this? Incorporate how? What kind of > structure are we talking about? Would there be a board? Would there be > elections? What's the time frame? > > If all of this has been answered already, just forward the stuff to me. I'm > off to put the finishing touches on my revamp of Chester County SC, so I can > get to work on Marshall County! > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me! >

Reply, Judy PHILLIPS wrote: > > Hi all, > I don't want to subscribe to another list, but would just like to ask a > question. What are the 3 main things incorporating will do for TNGenWeb? > 1. Autonomy, that is to say, self rule. It would guarantee that the CCs are the sole voice of the organization. No one person, would own the organization. > 2. "Immortality," that is to say, a guarantee that the organization will have a life span longer than any individual. It will also have a foundation and structure based in Tennessee law. > 3. Principles locked into a very honorable and legal structure. The nonprofit and volunteer aspects would be an integral part of the Charter and Bylaws. > > I vote with the majority. > Judy > Franklin County > > ==== TNGEN Mailing List ====

Gee, just adopted a county yesterday (Marshall) and already I'm having to ask questions. Could someone explain the *practical* reasons why this is, as some people have said, necessary at this time? I'm not asking for political reasons, at least not right now. I need to understand what benefits, in very practical ways, would accrue from incorporation. How much would it cost? Where will the money come from? (Oh, I'm tempted to ask -- "is there any more, and could I have a grant, please?" but I won't. :-)) What are the practical reasons we *must* do this? Incorporate how? What kind of structure are we talking about? Would there be a board? Would there be elections? What's the time frame? If all of this has been answered already, just forward the stuff to me. I'm off to put the finishing touches on my revamp of Chester County SC, so I can get to work on Marshall County! Su Wilson County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me!

Hi Sue, I am sure the eloquent Fred will be along here soon with a very practical response. As an apolitico, I can say that I find incorporation as non-profit to be beneficial in terms of protecting our work, in creating an "immortal" entity that can function regardless of the coming and goin go hosts, SCs and even ASC's and that incorporation lays the ground work for grant support.... These are just my thoughts....I am sure there are many more opinions. The rest of your questions are things we can all address IF the majority of responses are in favor of non-profit incorporation. If the majority says no....well, then there won't be any discussion because the people will have spoken. Nancy ncole@coffey.com Assistant TNGenweb Coordinator Bledsoe County http://www.tngenweb.org/bledsoe Rhea County http://www.tngenweb.org/rhea On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Susan Wilson wrote: > Gee, just adopted a county yesterday (Marshall) and already I'm having to > ask questions. Could someone explain the *practical* reasons why this is, > as some people have said, necessary at this time? I'm not asking for > political reasons, at least not right now. I need to understand what > benefits, in very practical ways, would accrue from incorporation. How much > would it cost? Where will the money come from? (Oh, I'm tempted to ask -- > "is there any more, and could I have a grant, please?" but I won't. :-)) > What are the practical reasons we *must* do this? Incorporate how? What > kind of structure are we talking about? Would there be a board? Would > there be elections? What's the time frame? > > If all of this has been answered already, just forward the stuff to me. I'm > off to put the finishing touches on my revamp of Chester County SC, so I can > get to work on Marshall County! > > Su Wilson > County Coordinator, Chester County SC USGenWeb Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~scchest2/scchester.htm > > I'd rather be looking for dead people than have them looking for me! > >

George: I can understand your disappointment. And although it is an off-handed compliment that most cc's will respond to any suggestion put out by the SC or ASC -- I sincerely hope that folks will *really* vote their conscience on this matter. It doesn't matter to me whether to incorporate gets voted in or not. Either way will not change the project any at all, at least that's my take on it. However, since this has been an ongoing discussion with the RC's (some discussion -- I send out by-laws, some send back answers), Fred and a few others, and mentioned on the TNGen list, I think we need to make a decision pro/con and move on. I also feel that I don't want to take the heat that the KSGenWeb is taking about incorporating -- conflicting stories are that the cc's got to vote whether they wanted to incorp. to just seeing a msg about incorporating, no vote. I want this done so everyone has an input in the matter, which this list is for -- or to register their vote on the other list. I am just hoping that the folks that normally don't partake in posting to the list will at least vote on this issue. Bridgett On 16 Jul 98 at 14:43, TNCHAT-L@rootsweb.com wrote: > Neighbor Su, > > None of this has been discussed. And IMHO it is too late to do so. Most > cc's will respond to any suggestion from the SC and the ASC with a YES > vote. Done deal. > > I'm disappointed that it happened this way. > > George of Lincoln > ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ Bridgett Smith TNGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.tngenweb.org/

Tim, >From your Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:26:46 -0400 e-mail. I copy here the complete question from your original response. 1.) > What do you propose for those CCs that don't approve of this > incorporation? 2.) > What will be the status of their pages? 3.) > Will there be two USGenWeb pages > for that particular TN county, one sanctioned by your incorporation > and one not sanctioned? Answer 1. I propose nothing for those CCs who do not approve of the incorporation effort. They may stay or go as they wish. The CCs will not be adversely affected by incorporating, just protected by incorporating. Answer 2. The status of their pages would remain the same. They would still need meet the basic requirements, such as displaying the TNGenWeb logo, properly maintaining the query pages, encouraged to display the recommended USGenWeb logo. They would not be allowed to indulge in political issues, pornography, or inflammatory statements about others. They could maintain their pages off the USIT server, either at rootsweb or at any server of their choice. They could remove there work from the TNGenWeb at their discression, just as they may do at this time. In any case, federal copyright law protects their pages now, but the bylaws should have a statement that protects the rights of the CCs. Redundancy would not be harmful here. Answer 3. No, there would not be two separate county pages, if for no other reason, simply because of the query pages. The TNGenWeb maintains the state site, the place for query gathering, and the query autobot, (which was written by Jim Cole, and therefore his property). There should always be room for folks who would like to add there work within the system. We could have two XX county pages, the official one with queries, the other with information that would enhance the project. Now to the latest questions: Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 03:13 PM 7/11/98 -0700, Fred Smoot wrote: > >Tim Stowell wrote: > Actually you didn't answer my question. What is your proposal for CCs that > refuse to go along with an incorporated project that tried to supercede the > USGenWeb/TNGenWeb project rules? Tim, this question is a little different from the original of 11 July. You say here "that tried to supercede the USGenWeb/TNGenWeb project rules?" The key word her is "supercede" so answer would be un-link the site. A small revision in HTML would leave them in limbo-land. > They would have pages that followed the > Project's guidelines, so how could you kick them out? Now this is really different question. I do believe you are trying to 'fuse me. The key word here is "followed." If the CC followed the minimal rules, why would they be kicked out? > It would seem that > the pages that would be removing themselves from the USGenWeb Project would > be the TN pages that decide to incorporate IF they try to tell CCs that > don't go along with incorporation that they have to leave. Ahhh, I see an assumption on your part here. First, NOBODY is suggesting that TNGenWeb leave USGenWeb. TNGenWeb would simply become an automous unit with in the USGenWeb. Here is the first part of a letter message that I received on 23 Dec 1997 from Megan Zurawicz, National Coordinator USGenWeb, who I might add is still current NC. >>>> (This was in respose to the question of incorporation at the state level.) Go for it.... My personal feeling, bottom line, is that USIGS should never have been created--USGW should have been incorporated. But since there was such a bloody uproar by the cc's it wasn't done (and I did go on record as fighting Rigdon when he eventually wanted to incorporate without telling the cc's and contrary to the vote--once you've taken the dang vote, you gotta stick by it.) Anyhow, you guys can go out and be cutting edge there...and when the universe doesn't come to an end, it might change some opinions . . . <snip> . . . megan -- PLEASE NOTE URLS BELOW: pigoletto@worldnet.att.net * cochonnet@aol.com Megan Zurawicz, National Coordinator USGenWeb http://www.usgenweb.net -- http://www.usgenweb.org >>>> Later, in a private phone conversation with Megan, she told that if we incorporate, we (the TNGenXxx,Inc) would be considered Tennessee's volunteers to the USGenweb Project. No problem. I have been told that Megan did inform Bridgett that the USGenWeb Project would prefer that the XXGenWeb names not be used in the corporate names for the XXGenWeb, and asked if we did incorporate, please use a different name. > > So maybe instead of my pulling my sites you could pull your's? Then > there'd be a split TN project. Well Tim, when I go back to your message of 11 July, I see your the one that brought up the two county page situation, "one sanctioned by your incorporation and one not sanctioned? Nothing like "kick them out" was mentioned in my original message. Not even remotely referred to in my original message. I for one have no intention of leaving TNGenWeb. I was invited to do that in December last. I refused. My loyalties are with the TNGenWeb volunteers and the folks we serve. I can't believe that this is the goal of > this issue but it may be the effect. You are free to do what you want. I hope nobody would leave TNGenWeb if incorporation is approved. Not even you Tim. > > >If you become the new USGenWeb NC, you could lead a fight to have us and > >the KSGenWeb, Inc. thrown out of national. > > I'm not leading any fight, plan, conspiracy to have anyone thrown out of > national. Good! > I think that the actions of those parties will define their own > role themselves. If they decide by their actions either overtly or > covertly to disassociate from the Project then that is their decision. Yes, the Kansas volunteers are responsible for their own actions. > >> I believe the National Project is moving in the direction of internal state > >> controls as it has basically always been. It is trying to set up or lead > >> in the direction of setting up some sort of grievance procedures for those > >> who come into conflict with state guidelines. > >> > >> Why bring up this issue now? > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Why not bring up the issue now? What are you afraid of? > > Why, because their are enough issues on the table already with national > elections and bylaws. I'm not afraid of your bringing up this issue, but I > do think it could have been timed better. Yes, it could have been timed better. On 2 Jan 1998, I wrote this to TNGEN-L: "5. To obtain legal non-profit corporation status in the State of Tennessee." We have been slow getting this all together. It should have been filed long ago. Remember, we were doing this at the TNGenWeb level, long BEFORE national started. If the TN CCs decide to vote on > incorporation for whatever benefits they think that may offer then that's > fine. But to add this issue in now seems to be a timed effort to confuse > the CCs into voting for it either with scare tactics or misinformation > about either national's intent or some other supposed threat. This has been on going since 2 Jan and I might add, you as an RC were part of this at the state level and fully informed from the beginning. Tim, the way I see it, it is your opposition that is the "scare tactics" and "misinformation" that you would put onto me. All this "what if" stuff is really yours, not mine. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Why not wait to see how the National Project > >> gets thru the election process and see if the bylaws pass before going > > on this route? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >There are two reason why we should not wait: > > > >1. The proposed USGenWeb Bylaws may not pass. > > Yes, that is correct they may not pass. I've seen where Mr Smoot has asked > that the bylaws be turned down. Tim, would you care to list all those volunteers who wrote to the USGENWEB-ALL-L list in opposition to the proposed bylaws? > > >The nonprofit aspects may be considerably weaken if this happens. > > What do you mean by this? We've been non profit for 2 years and plan to > continue to be non profit - Free means non profit. The only way I can see > this weakening is if some parties try to hijack the Project for either > personal gain or try to change the nature of the Project but I believe that > that would cause a general revolt and would fall in flames. Yes, Tim, you answered your own question. If the bylaws don't pass, the organization would be more vulnerable to a hostile take over or a "hijack" as you call it. The nonprofit aspects would be considerably weakened. > > >2. The proposed USGenWeb Bylaws may pass. To be charitable about those > >bylaws, I will only say that they were created in a *undemocratic* > >manner, they are full of flaws that would be hard to remedy, they do not > >serve the CCs, and they are offered by self appoined leaders on a "take > >it or leave it" basis. > > Yes, they might. Thank you for your 'insights' into democracy. You are welcome. The bylaws > were proposed, published and asked for input from the members. After about > a month of input (and I put this mildly) the committee took all the > suggestions and rewrote the proposed bylaws. They are offered as an up or > down vote. "Up or down" or as I call it "take it or leave it." If your claim that members were asked for input, why not poll the TNGenWeb volunteers about that. > What pray tell is undemocratic about getting to vote on them? The vote is fair. It the undemocratic way the entire bylaws were written that is undemocratic. > They could I suppose as Mr Smoot seems to think just have been imposed upon > the CCs as could new leaders BUT the current leaders chose the correct path > to move to a democratic process of election of leaders and voted upon > bylaws. I am sorry to see you write that. :( That statement camouflages the fact that the undemocratic way the bylaws were written. >Yes, the bylaws may have things that some don't agree with . . . You are right in this statement. BUT the > bylaws themselves include methods to change them not just willy nilly but > in a structured way. Would you have it any other way? I could easily write a bylaw that would allow changes, but in a way that is reasonable. But if the bylaws were well enough written, there would be no need for changes. Why did not the question of incorporating the USGenWeb Project as a nonprofit be put before the CCs before the the bylaws were offered? (Those bylaws specify that the USGenWeb Project is unincorporated.) The cart was put before the horse, decisions made by the few, the CCs were left out of the loop. Highly undemocratic, I would say. > >I could dissect those bylaws on a word for word, line for line basis, > >but this is the wrong list to do that. The USGENWEB-ALL-L is the place, > >however MANY folks did write to that list about the flaws in the > >proposed bylaws but were ignored. Now that the vote is ongoing, the die > >is cast. > > I beg to differ. Just because everyone didn't get their way doesn't mean > that they were ignored. The die is cast only in that the bylaws are up to > be voted upon either up or down. IF you don't agree with them then by all > means vote against them. However, if they do not pass and some candidates > that have not promised to hold elections a year from now get elected then > there will be no protection for the CCs. > I believe and would hope that the new elected Board would take the first > few months to review the Bylaws, if passed, to see what could be added > before next year to correct some of the obvious errors you and others seem > to have problems with. > > >In any case, the issue here is the proposed incorporation of the > >TNGenWeb as a state nonprofit corporation. Not the proposed USGenWeb > >Project Bylaws. > > That may be true but what benefits will the proposed incorporation give the > CCs that they don't have now with the USGenWeb/TNGenWeb Projects? Autonomy, for one. A voice that will be heard for another. A voice that will not be lost in a sea of discontent. However, > the proposed bylaws do have an effect on TNGenWeb and so are just as > important a subject as the one listed here. Yes, I urge a no vote. > > >As this seems to be the end of the questions, color me gone. > > I don't have a color for gone other than clear which you don't seem to > be... :) Yes Tim, I am unclear. However I see you are still clearly a candidate for NC. > Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@mccallie.org > Chattanooga, TN > > Candidate for National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - Fred Smoot, Candidate for Nothing.

At 03:13 PM 7/11/98 -0700, Fred Smoot wrote: >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> Will there be two USGenWeb pages >> for that particular TN county, one sanctioned by your incorporation and one >> not sanctioned? > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >*** Clarification: You say "your incorporation," in actuality, if >completed it would become the CC's corporation. "Your incorporation" was rhetorical - what I meant was the incorporation of the Tennessee pages by the current CCs/volunteers. >*** Answer: No. However Tim, you could withdraw your Hamilton/James >pages and create a new system, or join an already existing site like >"Tennessee Genealogy and History." Actually you didn't answer my question. What is your proposal for CCs that refuse to go along with an incorporated project that tried to supercede the USGenWeb/TNGenWeb project rules? They would have pages that followed the Project's guidelines, so how could you kick them out? It would seem that the pages that would be removing themselves from the USGenWeb Project would be the TN pages that decide to incorporate IF they try to tell CCs that don't go along with incorporation that they have to leave. So maybe instead of my pulling my sites you could pull your's? Then there'd be a split TN project. I can't believe that this is the goal of this issue but it may be the effect. >If you become the new USGenWeb NC, you could lead a fight to have us and >the KSGenWeb, Inc. thrown out of national. I'm not leading any fight, plan, conspiracy to have anyone thrown out of national. I think that the actions of those parties will define their own role themselves. If they decide by their actions either overtly or covertly to disassociate from the Project then that is their decision. >> >> I believe the National Project is moving in the direction of internal state >> controls as it has basically always been. It is trying to set up or lead >> in the direction of setting up some sort of grievance procedures for those >> who come into conflict with state guidelines. >> >> Why bring up this issue now? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Why not bring up the issue now? What are you afraid of? Why, because their are enough issues on the table already with national elections and bylaws. I'm not afraid of your bringing up this issue, but I do think it could have been timed better. If the TN CCs decide to vote on incorporation for whatever benefits they think that may offer then that's fine. But to add this issue in now seems to be a timed effort to confuse the CCs into voting for it either with scare tactics or misinformation about either national's intent or some other supposed threat. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Why not wait to see how the National Project >> gets thru the election process and see if the bylaws pass before going > on this route? >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >There are two reason why we should not wait: > >1. The proposed USGenWeb Bylaws may not pass. Yes, that is correct they may not pass. I've seen where Mr Smoot has asked that the bylaws be turned down. >The nonprofit aspects may be considerably weaken if this happens. What do you mean by this? We've been non profit for 2 years and plan to continue to be non profit - Free means non profit. The only way I can see this weakening is if some parties try to hijack the Project for either personal gain or try to change the nature of the Project but I believe that that would cause a general revolt and would fall in flames. >2. The proposed USGenWeb Bylaws may pass. To be charitable about those >bylaws, I will only say that they were created in a *undemocratic* >manner, they are full of flaws that would be hard to remedy, they do not >serve the CCs, and they are offered by self appoined leaders on a "take >it or leave it" basis. Yes, they might. Thank you for your 'insights' into democracy. The bylaws were proposed, published and asked for input from the members. After about a month of input (and I put this mildly) the committee took all the suggestions and rewrote the proposed bylaws. They are offered as an up or down vote. What pray tell is undemocratic about getting to vote on them? They could I suppose as Mr Smoot seems to think just have been imposed upon the CCs as could new leaders BUT the current leaders chose the correct path to move to a democratic process of election of leaders and voted upon bylaws. Yes, the bylaws may have things that some don't agree with BUT the bylaws themselves include methods to change them not just willy nilly but in a structured way. Would you have it any other way? >I could dissect those bylaws on a word for word, line for line basis, >but this is the wrong list to do that. The USGENWEB-ALL-L is the place, >however MANY folks did write to that list about the flaws in the >proposed bylaws but were ignored. Now that the vote is ongoing, the die >is cast. I beg to differ. Just because everyone didn't get their way doesn't mean that they were ignored. The die is cast only in that the bylaws are up to be voted upon either up or down. IF you don't agree with them then by all means vote against them. However, if they do not pass and some candidates that have not promised to hold elections a year from now get elected then there will be no protection for the CCs. I believe and would hope that the new elected Board would take the first few months to review the Bylaws, if passed, to see what could be added before next year to correct some of the obvious errors you and others seem to have problems with. >In any case, the issue here is the proposed incorporation of the >TNGenWeb as a state nonprofit corporation. Not the proposed USGenWeb >Project Bylaws. That may be true but what benefits will the proposed incorporation give the CCs that they don't have now with the USGenWeb/TNGenWeb Projects? However, the proposed bylaws do have an effect on TNGenWeb and so are just as important a subject as the one listed here. >As this seems to be the end of the questions, color me gone. I don't have a color for gone other than clear which you don't seem to be... :) Timothy S Stowell email - tstowell@mccallie.org Chattanooga, TN Candidate for National Coordinator USGenWeb Project - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndgenweb/elec NorthDakotaGenWeb State Coordinator - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndgenweb

Tim, In your answers to Fred, you asked the question about why the subject of Incorporation was brought up now. This subject isn't new. There are messages from Bridgett in March and again in May regarding TN Incorporating as Nonprofit. In some of those messages she said bylaws were being written at that time and as soon as "nit picky" things were worked out they would then be sent to the RCs who would then forward them to the CCs. At the time there didn't seem to be a doubt that TN was working towards Incorporating as Nonprofit. I saved some of those messages and will be happy to forward them to this list. They, along with all the other messages on the TNGen-L list, are also archived for anyone to search and read. Surely, there is nothing harmful or destructive with a democratic discussion and a democratic vote along these lines. Its unfair for several people to speak for the CCs of Tennessee on any issue. I still maintain when the CCs were asked for their opinion as to what name to use should TN Incorporate, 26 out of 110 responses in just a few days showed quite a bit of interest. Mary Floy Katzman Framingham, Massachusetts maryfloy@mkatzman.tiac.net ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Johnson County, TN Genealogy http://www.tiac.net/users/mkatzman/jct/johnmain.html List Owner of the TNJOHNSO-L mail list. To subscribe send a message to: "majordomo@rootsquest.com" and in the message write: "subscribe tnjohnso-l" or "subscribe tnjohnso-l-digest" Please do not use the quotes. "If God doesn't call your name until your work on earth is finished, then I'm never going to die."