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.