My two cents, although I agree with Nance ........ Should a coordinator be required to live in the county they coordinate? NO For those of us who move a lot, that would pretty much preclude us from participating at all. For right now, I can't control that I don't live in Dunn County, WI. I have no interest in Washtenaw Co. MI genealogy which is where I live. But I do belong to the Dunn County Genealogical Society, I visit there several times a year, I have resources from the area in my home for lookups, and I have volunteers who will do lookups in the area. A trip this fall to Northfield, MN even resulted in new Dunn County material I've been posting. Should a coordinator only be allowed one county? NO Some have the time and motivation to do more. Let them! I'm afraid the reality is that there are some counties in Wis. that would never have a coordinator if this was the case. Where are the people who are dying to coordinate Douglas County? It's been nearly 2 years since I asked to be relieved of that. No one in that county has volunteered, let alone anyone else. Should county coordinators have ALL the answers to questions posed to us? NO But we should know what resources are available and certainly try to find the answer. Should county web sites be required to have XX number of pages in them? NO Not all material I post related to the county goes on my web site. Old obits, bios and a variety of other materials are just as readily available when I post them to the Dunn Rootsweb message boards .... and there's the added advantage that the same info is then automatically posted to the Dunn mail list. Should each county be allowed only one vote in an election? YES Should Ancestry say "thank you" by giving coordinators a free or reduced-fee subscription? YES What a nice idea! No offense meant to anyone else who has a differing opinion. :-) Linda Dunn and Douglas Counties At 07:04 PM 12/6/2003 -0600, you wrote: >I agree with the statement that we needn't be a resident of a county to be >its coordinator... and I live in one of the counties that I coordinate >(Washburn). I also live closer to the county seat of one of the other >counties that I coordinate (Sawyer) than the seat of the county I do live >in. That doesn't mean that the info is flowing though. There are many >variables as to why some counties have more info online than other >counties. For me, I can say that these two counties have never had those >big, wonderful, old histories written about them (come to think of it, >neither has Burnett Co. so that makes three) and any recent books that >have been written are all under copyright and are watched closer than a >shivering rabbit by a hovering hawk. There is no way the local historical >and genealogical societies are going to share their work and, as some of >you may have experienced, our websites are looked upon as some kind of >wicked curse to the very same societies that want to claim our websites as >their own just because we represent "their" county. At least that is what >I have experienced. So, living in or very near a county doesn't >necessarily mean that we have access to everything or know all the answers >to the many genealogical queries that are sent to us either through the >query systems or directly from visitors to our websites. By the way, even >though I do not have alot of answers, I thoroughly check all of my >resources and then, I answer my emails...all of them. If someone has >complained about me not doing my job, I'd really like to know. There have >been days that I spend hours sitting here answering just one >email. Having said that, I next want to voice that I do not agree with >the statement that we should only be allowed to coordinate one, or only a >couple county sites. I have been working with 6 counties for several >years now, and I can honestly say that none of them are hurting for >attention. Yes, there are some that haven't been updated for a month, but >whenever I obtain information through a donation, I am able to get that >item online within 2 or 3 days at the most. It is unfair to those of us >who want to do the work to have us be limited to less than what we are >capable of. I would not have volunteered for any of these sites if I >didn't think I could do justice to them. I put alot of thought into each >county before I offered to volunteer for the job. Since that time, I have >invested alot of my own money into obtaining materials to put on these >websites. I would be more than a little upset to think that I could lose >them just because there was a limit set on how many counties we could >coordinate. I'm not saying that everyone should do what I do and I'm not >trying to do what others are doing. We are all individuals, capable of >doing a certain amount based on our own circumstances. My circumstances >enable me to do what I do. I do not think I am better or worse than >anyone else who is a Wisconsin coordinator. I think we all are doing a >great job and I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting the other counties around >the state. I have also visited many of the other states and seen how >their counties have stacked up against what we are doing. We have alot to >be proud of! Wisconsin is not a state that is abundantly rich in history >(unlike many of the eastern states), but what we have, we do a good job with! > >In regards to the voting process, I guess I really don't have alot to >say. I haven't seen too many problems with the way that we have voted in >the past. As far back as I can remember, a person with multiple counties >only gets one vote, and those counties with two coordinators each got a >vote (these coordinators were all officially recognized by the SC and >ASC). That method did not change for this past election and I wasn't >aware of any problems there either. I do not think it would be fair for >me to put 6 votes in on one person. On the other hand, I have wondered >what would stop someone from stacking up a whole crew of "co-coordinators" >to sway a vote in the way that someone would want the vote to go if we >allowed each co-coordinator to vote. I realize this is a very touchy >situation and I surely don't have any answers. I am just wondering why we >are talking about making a change. Did I miss something? Is there a >change that can be made that would be fair to everyone? > >I really like Joan's idea of getting the extra perk of a free or >reduced-fee Ancestry subscription. I've often thought that it would be a >great incentive for us, especially when they (Ancestry) gave us some free >time when they first bought out Rootsweb. That was wonderful!. Heck, I >would even consider starting up my own research again - haven't worked on >my own family lines in years! Wouldn't it be great if we could get a >little 'return' on our hard work? I mean, when you look back at how many >people we have helped, how many of those people have even bothered to say >"thank you." > >Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I have enjoyed reading each and >every email from you all. These are just my thoughts on this cool winter >night. > >Nance

At 08:07 AM 12/7/03 -0500, Linda wrote: >My two cents, although I agree with Nance ........ Should a coordinator only be allowed one county? NO Some have the time and motivation to do more. Let them! I'm afraid the reality is that there are some counties in Wis. that would never have a coordinator if this was the case. Where are the people who are dying to coordinate Douglas County? It's been nearly 2 years since I asked to be relieved of that. No one in that county has volunteered, let alone anyone else. If I had material for Douglas, I'd certainly donate it to you. Having no knowledge though of your county I'm sorry I couldn't assist you further. Has it been offered on the county mailing list? >Should each county be allowed only one vote in an election? YES Just curious for those who are married or have a signifigant other - do you vote only as a household in your local, state or national elections? >Should Ancestry say "thank you" by giving coordinators a free or >reduced-fee subscription? YES > What a nice idea! > >No offense meant to anyone else who has a differing opinion. :-) > >Linda >Dunn and Douglas Counties Tim Crawford and Richland counties