Feb 21-29 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 21 08:04:12 2000

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:04:10 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000221071043.8237B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Send in the clowns...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Sunday 20 February 2000--Monday 21 February 2000:

Tim Stowell asks Board members to resend their votes, noting "Apparently

Board mail got ate by the list problem at Rootsweb yesterday."

Joe Zsedeny says that since the wording of Motion 00-3 bothers some

people he would not object if it were change to read only "I move

to rescind Motion 99-4". The count thus far stands at 9 yes votes and 3 no

votes, with 4 Board membes still to vote.

In response to Teri Pettit's explanation of her vote, Tim Stowell reminds

the group that Motion 00-3 was solely to rescind Motion 99-4, and Joe's

commentary was not part of the motion. He also notes "once voting begins

- that is all that is asked for - speaking for or against the motion or

attaching an explanation of one's vote along with the vote is

inappropriate. These type remarks should be sent during the discussion

period."

Responding to Jim Powell, Tim says there was a discussion period on Motion

00-3 that lasted several days.

Holly Fee-Timm tells Tim that no, there wan't a discussion period. She

says "The motion was made. There was then some confusion about the

seconding and then there was a point of order raised. This point of

order (regarding the presence of another motion on the floor) was

discussed as was whether or not we could/should vote on this without

representation on the board from the census project (another point of

order although I don't think it was specifically referred to as such).

Then came the motion to table and the ensuing vote on that." She says

that now, with the motion to table defeated, discussion should ensue on

Motion 00-3 itself, rather than an immediate vote.

Ginger Cisewski applauds Holly's previous message and says she's rummaged

through her email "and the only things I came up with were just as you

described. We were launched into voting on the main Motion with no option

of discussion."

Additional comments made by Board members while casting their votes:

"We should have discussed what it would mean to rescind it and maybe tried

to solve future problems, that merely rescinding it will cause." [Jim

Powell]

"Although I'm not entirely happy with the wording of Motion 00-3 I also

believe Motion 99-4 needs to be rescinded." [Ginger Hayes]

"Rescinding any Motion passed by a previous Board without lengthy

discussion and serious consideration implies to the general membership

that the "rules" may change with each and every year, and lends an aura of

instability to anything we would hope to accomplish.... Motion 99-4 was

passed by a Board whose members were, for the majority, involved in

neither the Archives Project nor the Census Project...yet there was never

a mention among current Board members of amending Motion 99-4, only the

Motion to Rescind which was made by the Archives Project's Representative,

to a Board with at least 4 other Board members being heavily involved with

the Archives Project. Passage of this Motion would show a callous

disregard for the dedicated members of the USGenWeb Project and is a prime

example of poor and biased leadership." [Ginger Cisewski]

===

Which Way Did They Go? Corner: In response to concerns expressed on the

State Coordinators' list that Vermont seems to have disappeared, the VTGW

SC says he sent a "change of address" notice to the USGW webmaster two

weeks ago but never received any confirmation from her. Apparently no

changes were made to the national pages so visitors couldn't get to

Vermont from USGW. We're glad to report that as of this morning, its been

fixed.

Starting Afresh Corner: We've heard that ALHN held an emergency election

this weekend past and elected 8 board members from their ranks and have

selected new officers from among them. This gives them a full complement

of Board members and they held their first meeting last night. It appears

that the general will of the ALHN volunteers is not to dissolve ALHN but

to rebuild it. There is no word yet on how this affects the two alternate

projects recently started by ALHN members, but we have heard that some

people who left ALHN when it began to founder have returned.

Broken Down Corner: Both websites and mailing lists at Root$web were

apparently down sporadically throughout most of Thursday, so we'll

probably be seeing another rash of pleas for money to keep RW together

until it goes public.

"It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of

common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever

ineligible for any public office."

---H. L. Mencken

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

----------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 22 09:22:39 2000

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:22:37 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000221201018.20462B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

There ought to be clowns....its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* you know the drill: contains editorial content. Read at your

own risk!

Monday 21 February 2000:

Joe Zsedeny notes that "One problem was the rootsweb outage." He says he

read his mail today and had old messages from Friday and Saturday. He says

its unavoidable at times and he's had computer problems of his own.

Teri Pettit states that it also her recollection that there was no call

for discussion on Motion 00-3. She thinks the Board/NC is "pushing

motions to vote too fast. Some motions are trivial and can be voted upon

quickly, others are substantive and really shouldn't be voted upon without

ascertaining the will of our constituents, and that can take a week or

more." She requests that before calling for a vote, the NC ask if anyone

wants to continue the discussion.

Joe forwards a conversation he had with Teri to the Board. It includes

her observation [to Joe's previous post about computer problems] that

"Tim's call for a vote on Motion 00-3 was sent late Thursday evening. I

don't think anything happened to Rootsweb on Tuesday thru Thursday that

could account for the absence of discussion on Motion 00-3." Joe responds

that he doesn't understand why if people want to continue discussion they

just don't say so. He says that "If someone wants to change their vote

after discussion, fine." He further suggests that the Board "should be

able to act informally," and use RRoR only "if we get in trouble doing

it." [hmmm...interesting interpretation of the bylaws.]

Teri responds that "Tim has several times sent us warnings that all

discussion on a motion must cease once voting commences," and provides

examples of this. She says that she also prefers informality but

"Robert's Rules are not informal, and I'm pretty sure that we would indeed

"get in trouble" under Parliamentary Procedure trying to change a vote

that we've already made."

Ginger Cisewski says she also prefers informality, but "this is one case

where proceeding on our current course will cause far more difficulties in

the long term." She suggests that since a number of members want to

discuss the motion and were denied the opportunity to do so, they now

"stop and back up a bit, before the final vote count is announced." She

notes that the motion has been a "fiasco from the start", with at least

one violation of procedure, confusion over the contents of the motion, and

the lack of a discussion period. She says "Rather than rush headlong into

a potential nightmare, why not go back to the beginning of discussion and

then vote over again??"

Jim Powell responds to Tim, saying that he does not remember any

discussion period on the motion itself. He asks "Were we supposed to

discuss the primary motion at the same time we were discussing the motion

to table it. Did you call for discussion on motion 00-3? "

Tim posts a message from Feb 8 in which he opened Motion 00-3 for

discussion, and also cites a couple other messages regarding the motion to

table. He says that he did mistakenly include too much in the motion when

calling for discussion, noting the motion should simply read "I move to

rescind Motion 99-4". He notes "If you all didn't want to vote but wanted

further discussion you could have said so other than voting. Now that the

horse is out of the barn and across the pasture and down the road it is a

tad late to cry the door is open."

One more Board member votes "yes" on Motion 00-3. The count is 10 "yes"

votes and 3 "no" votes. Three Board members have not voted. [However,

its pretty safe to say this motion has passed, and Motion 99-4 has been

rescinded. Whoop-de-do.]

Jim asks "May we discuss a motion any time after it it opened for

discussion even if a motion to table is being discussed??? " He thought

business on the floor had to be cleared before moving on to other issues,

and asks, "If the chair calls for the vote on a motion, can we call for

more discussion rather than voting??? I thought that was the same as

calling the question. What are our rules?" He wonders if they should have

called a point of order when they weren't asked if there was any further

discussion, and asks "In this environment, what is the timeframe on

calling a point of order?" Jim agrees that this motion has been

"processed" but "any answers would be appreciated and would help in

similar situations in the future." [These would be questions for the BS,

who has been notably absent lately]

====

Spreading the Word Corner: Our esteemed NC has taken it upon himself to

forward messages from the interim head of Census II, that were originally

sent to the Board and to the CC list, over to the Archives list, saying

"As Ron seems to think that USGW-CC is part of the Board, it seems only

fair to me that you folk should also see his letters." Presumably, in the

interests of fairness, he will also be allowing Ron to rebut any replies

to his messages on the Archives list.

Just Trying to Be Helpful Corner: Former USGW Board member and current

Root$web employee Bridgett Edwards [formerly Bridgett Smith] sent out a

message last Friday [Feb 18] welcoming folks to her new GENKINDNESS list

[this has something to do with her "Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness"

website]. Unfortunately, she just went ahead and subbed all the RAOK

participants, so the first many of them heard about this was when they

started getting dozens of meaningless emails in their inboxes. Complaints

started coming in almost immediately, and eventually made their way over

to LISTOWNERS-L, where members wondered "How can a rootsweb list owner

subscribe members without their permission?" Vicky Lindsay assured

everyone that "The GENKINDNESS issue is being addressed (has been

addressed) by RootsWeb. It is generally RootsWeb policy to not mass

subscribe people unless their are extenuating circumstances such as a

list admin has unsubscribed everyone without their consent." After

further complaints and accusations that the GENKINDNESS list was little

more than spam, Vicky announced on 20 Feb that "to my knowledge, RootsWeb

has "killed" the GENKINDNESS mailing list." [Ouch! that's gotta hurt.

Don't forget to unsub those poor folks from the RWR list as well...]

Although according to Megan Zurawicz GENKINDNESS "is well and truly dead",

she noted on Monday 21 Feb that "it created a tangled enough mess in the

mail servers that they're still spitting out stuck mail from the weekend."

So, apparently people can expect to continue to receive unwanted mail from

the list until the problem sorts itself out.

"Since the census problem is an issue that encompasses the entire Project,

it would seem that to best represent the members that the Board be at

full strength when deciding this issue. To do otherwise would be unfair

to those who do not have representation."

---Tim Stowell, 31 Mar 1999, BOARD-EXEC-L

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Feb 23 08:48:45 2000

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:48:44 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000223060706.8927A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

This is ground control to Major Tom...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Wednesday 23 February 2000:

Tim Stowell declares Motion 00-3 passed with 10 yes votes and 3 no votes.

3 Board members did not vote.

In response to Jim's questions from yesterday, Tim says that discussion on

a motion could continue until a second is received on a motion to table

it, and "At that point, on that motion - discussion would cease until a

vote yea or nay was taken on the tabling." He says there is no discussion

on a motion to table, just a vote. Should the motion to table pass, then

there is no further discussion on the motion until such time as it is

untabled. If the motion to table does not pass, "then discussion could

once again ensue until the vote was called for." In response to Jim's

question regarding clearing the floor before proceeding with a vote, Tim

says he's not sure what Jim is talking about. He asks Ken to respond to

question of whether Board members can request more discussion once the

chair calls for a vote. In regards to points of order and the tiime

frame within which one may be called, Tim says "Apparently with some

whenever things aren't going to their way of thinking. In other words,

some have used this as a delaying tactic. I don't know that there is a

timeframe as such."

Ginger Cisewski responds to Tim, noting that continuing discussion on

Motion 00-3 after the motion to table it failed was "rendered impossible

because you called for a vote on the main Motion at the same time you

announced the results of the tabling." The Board was thus effectively

prevented from further discussion of Motion 00-3.

Jim reminds Tim that he said their should be more discussion on Friday

evening when he cast his vote, "long before anything was going anyone's

way." Jim thought honestly that the issue deserved more discussion and

asks Tim "Can you honestly say that it did not?

===

Unsolved Mysteries Corner: Yesterday, the DBS forwarded a simple question

from a constituent to the NC regarding Motion 00-3: "Any thoughts on why

the NC is so heck-bent on pushing this motion through?" Apparently Tim

has been too busy taking potshots at his fellow board members to bother to

respond.

"If free and open debate is important - then why not give everyone the

opportunity to comment one way or the other before calling for a vote by

a member?"

---Tim Stowell to the Board, 22 February 1999 [what a difference a year

makes!]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

----------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Feb 24 06:51:25 2000

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:51:24 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000224061319.18260A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Don't be alarmed now...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Wednesday 23 February 2000-Thursday 24 February 2000:

Rich Howland says that the Board needs to realize "that this isn't a

meeting room or chamber. We do not have the time restraints of those type

boards. Nor do we have a problem of not being heard if two or more are

talking a once. Thus there is not a need of many of the restraints of

RRoO." The Board is not sequestered and and members can discuss anything

at any time. He says he has not closed or filtered his email and makes an

effort to check other communication venues and notes "Whether it is a

motion made, seconded, tabled, in vote, passed or defeated, it is there.

It will be discussed and re-discussed as long as anyone wants to." He

thinks the problem is getting Board members to share their ideas, a topic

on which RRoR is silent. He asks "Is it permissible to change a vote once

cast?" [Yes it it. A member may change their vote up until the motion is

declared passed or failed.]

Pam Reid posts a message from Family Tree Magazine informing them that

USGW has been named "one of the 101 best family history Web sites in the

April 2000 issue". They've attached a small icon the USGW can display, if

we choose [URL: http://www.familytreemagazine.com/101sites/; click of

"The Big Picture" on the left]

Pam replies to Family Tree Magazine "Thank you very much for this honor.

We appreciate that the hard work of our volunteers is being recognized in

this way." She says she'd like to display the logo and will pass it by

the Board for its approval.

Pam [whose been busy!] notes she's made some changes to the national web

site, and asks for the Board's approval. Changes include "I deleted the

archives page and now the link goes directly to The USGenWeb Archives

site. The other thing I did was to redo the "Projects" page so that ALL

projects are listed and linked, but I think it is clear which are Archives

Projects, which are "official" USGenWeb Projects and which are

independent." [Except for the fact that the "USGW Project Archives"

_still_ links solely to the "USGW Archives Project", it looks quite nice.]

Regarding the Family Tree Magazine listing Teri Petit notes that "One

thing encouraging is that USGenWeb is described simply as an organization

of volunteers, not as a feature of Rootsweb." [praise be!] She asks for

an URL to view the logo and asks if it is stylistically compatible with

our page design.

Pam says she's heard back from Alan Neibauer and he says he will get

copies of the screen shots he'd like to use to her as soon as he can. Pam

tells the Board that she will let them know when she hears back from him.

Pam posts the sample logos from Family Tree Magazine at:

http://www.usgenweb.com/test-ftm.html [if there's a vote, I like the

horizontal one better <g>] She suggests putting up an "Awards" page for

this kind of thing rather than putting them in the News and Reviews and

Awards page where they are now. She asks for input from her colleagues on

this idea.

Pam posts a message proposing a possible new Special Project page and asks

for comments from the Board. The messages discusses the possibility of a

USGW-affiliated site that lists genealogical seminars and fairs. The

person already has space for the site but "would like for USGenWeb, the

states and the counties give their "moral" support for the site by linking

to it and encouraging county socities/groups to have their information

posted for those interested to view."

Ginger Hayes says she thinks an Awards page linked from the front page is

a good idea.

====

End of An Era Corner: A reader writes to let us know that they called the

Idaho Secretary of State's office in Boise, and was told that there has

been a corporate name change for USGenWeb Inc. They say it is now

registered as RootsQuest, Inc. It looks like the USGenWeb name is once

more up for grabs.

"That's what I believe I said the Project Archives = Digital Library.

Project Archives are comprised of Archives Project, Census Project and

Tombstone Project with those 3 each having representation on the Board.

It also includes the Lineage and Kidz Projects."

---Tim Stowell, 24 May 1999, Board-Exec-L

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Feb 25 11:43:52 2000

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:43:50 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000225061849.6777C-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Thursday 24 February 2000:

Ginger Hayes thinks an awards page linked from the main natiional page is

a good idea for displaying awards logos and links.

Shari Handley discusses the old site that provided info on genealogical

conferences and seminars and notes "If Kathy's willing to spearhead the

effort under the auspices of the USGenWeb Project, it would be a nice

addition to the services we provide."

Pam notes that she views it as "a mini Special Project that could be

linked from the Projects page (like Kidz and Lineage)." She is sure that

if an URL were provided, people would link to it.

Friday 25 February 2000:

NC Tim Stowell says "Whereas, the Census Project Board Member Kay Mason

has been absent from participation in Board meetings from the date of

6/2/99 and was last heard from in any way on or about 8/30/99, the Chair

declares her seat to be vacated." He also asks the Board to appoint a

replacement to finish out her term, which expires Aug 31 2000.

Ginger Cisewski asks "Would you please point out under what authority you

are proposing to do this? She notes that she can find nothing in the

bylaws that gives Tim the authority to take this action and she would like

clarification.

====

Mighty Mouse Corner: So, our esteemed NC has taken it upon himself to

declare a Board seat vacated, although neither the bylaws nor RRoR give

him the authority. Interestingly enough, Tim _knows_ that the Census

Project is winding up an election to select a replacement for Kay's Board

seat and the Board can expect a nominee for her seat to be forwarded to

them at the end of next week. It is possible that his request for an

interim appointment by the Board is an attempt to forestall the Board

having to decide whether or not to accept the CP's nominee.

We can give Tim the benefit of the doubt and assume his recent unilateral

action declaring the seat vacant was done to facilitate the quick

acceptance of the CP's candidate for the seat. As previously reported, he

recently sent a message to the election committee handling the CP's

election and told them "regarding a vote for a rep to the AB board:

Article VI Section 8 states that the AB will appoint a replacement

to fill unexpired terms. As Kay Mason's position has not been declared

vacant, such an election is moot." By his own reasoning, since he has

declared the position vacant the ongoing CP election is no longer "moot".

Can we now expect Tim to respect the wishes of the CP and recommend to the

Board that it accept the CP's nominee?

Probably not. Concurrent with that message, he told the Board

[on the secret list, although several of them asked him to take the

discussion public], "for all of Census project representation to the Board

- all census project folk that fall into the catergory of eligible voters

need the opportunity to vote." According to Tim, this includes members

of both the Census Project and the Archives Census Project. As members of

a subproject of the Archives, ACP members are already fully represented on

the Board; Tim, however, seems to be under the impression that they are

entitled to even _more_ representation and are in fact entitled to

participate in the governing process of a separate project. Or could it

be that he intends for that seat to go to an ACP rep? Whichever, it seems

unlikely, given this positon, that he will be willing to consider the CP's

wishes in the matter of their representation on the Board.

We've asked the Board members if they were consulted on this action before

it was taken, but we're betting they weren't. It will be interesting to

see how the Board deals with this; in the not too distant past an NC that

tried a stunt like this would have had her head handed back to her on a

platter, garnished with all sorts of rhetoric about representative

democracy. These days, though, who knows?

====

"Just because it says Board-exec using it doesn't necessarily have to mean

we are in executive session. It is after all just a name, being in

executive session is a frame of mind."

---Tim Stowell, 9 Mar 1999, to the Board

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Feb 26 08:47:28 2000

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:47:27 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000226070641.8991A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Cross my heart and hope to die...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Friday 25 February 2000:

Joe Zsedeny notes that Ginger Cisewski has previously pointed out the

problem of the disenfranchisement of the Census Project but has done

nothing to help rectify that situation. He says "Now the NC excercises

leadership and we get more criticizing and carping. What in the ByLaws

says the National Coordinator can't exercise leadership and declare the

obvious?" He thinks the NC has just as much authority to declare Kay

missing as the Board does and notes "She isn't missing she just went

AWOL." He holds that Tim's declaration satifies Ginger's original

complaint and says "If someone can prove to me that a motion is required

on this I will make it. Tim is trying reenfranchise the CP and I support

him."

GingerC says she did not make a motion to declare Kay's seat vacant "for

the simple reason it would be no more proper for me to do than it is for

the NC to do so." She reminds Joe that the bylaws do not provide for the

removal of a Board member in this fashion.

Teri Pettit say that Tim's goals are commendable and are shared by fellow

Board members. Hoewver, she notes "I don't think the Bylaws give ANYBODY

authority to declare a Board position vacated due to non-response. Not the

National Coordinator, not the Advisory Board as a whole, and not even the

Project that the Board member represents!" She thinks someone should have

that authority and returns to the idea of an emergency amendment. She

originally proposed one herself but also points to suggestions made by

this author on the CC-L list. That proposal "would simply allow the Board

and the Project to together agree that a position has been effectively

abandoned. Under her proposal, after a position had been declared vacant,

the Project would submit a candidate for the vacated position, but the

Board would be free to appoint that candidate or reject him or her." She

notes that the proposed amendment "would give the Board a power we do

not currently have (that of declaring a seat with an "occupied" sign on it

to be vacant), and would also give the Board the final say on who to fill

that seat until the next regularly scheduled election", and suggests "Why

not view this as an opportunity to see if we can make the amendment

process work? If it does, maybe we can tackle some more amendments. The

Bylaws hobble us in many ways, and it would be nice to find a way to get

the process working." [my proposal would also give the ultimate decision

to remove a Board member to the project that elected him/her; if anyone

wants to see my post on this topic let me know, and I'll send it.]

GingerC thanks Teri for supporting her position and says she agrees with

the comments about the proposed amendment to the bylaws. She quotes the

bylaws on emergency amendment procedures and says "I suggest that such an

Amendment be proposed and preparations made for a vote to be taken on it

in accordance with the above section of the Bylaws. We have gone to great

lengths to avoid amendments but this is a serious problem that I believe

needs to be addressed."

Pam Reid says "IMO Tim's statement of Kay Mason's absence from meetings

for nearly a year validates the fact that she is unable to complete her

term." She says the bylaws are intentionally vague because "every single

situation could could [sic] not and should not be covered point by

point..Each situation is special and the job of the Board is to decide if

the action falls under the guidelines (Bylaws are only guidelines) written

into the Bylaws." She feels that "Kay's absence for such a long period of

time, IMO, meets that guideline that she is unable to complete her term."

Pam says if the Board feels an amendment is necessary then it will have to

be done; however "if we are going to nitpick on every point of the Bylaws,

then they desperately need to be rewritten." [Actually, bylaws are not

just "guidelines", they are the internal law of the organization. If USGW

were a formally incorporated non-profit failure to follow the guidelines

would get us into a _lot_ of trouble.]

Joe says "I have always felt that the ByLaws are a guide to our actions

and where specific must be specifically followed," but notes that there

are many areas that are not covered in the bylaws. He says "If we allow

this to tie our hands this project does not need a Board." He notes that

if this were an effort by the NC to deny a project representation he would

be upset but he feels that in this case a project will gain

representation. He says "Let's give the Census Project volunteers a

representative from within their membership and get on with it."

Pam notes that at the suggestion of a VAGW CC she has put a link to

information about Census 2000 on the National web page.

Saturday 26 February 2000:

Tim responds to GingerC by saying "I spoke with the Board Secretary before

sending the note. He assured me that this action is allowable. To make

certain I asked him about this more than once over the course of time."

[The next obvious question is "on what authority does the BS base his

opinion?"] Tim also notes that Art VI, Sec 8 of the bylaws gives the

Board the authority to appoint a replacement Board member. He says that

not all situations could hve been envisioned when the bylaws were written,

and "One has to use one's brains to interpret either broadly or narrowly

the Bylaws as written - that's why I'm sure they were written in that

manner - to allow leeway."

======

Out In the Cold Corner: I've now heard back from eight Board members and

all of them indicate that Tim "Man of Action" Stowell's removal of Kay

from the Board was not previously discussed with them. Several of them

did mention that Kay's absence has been a long-standing source of concern

and there has been sporadic discussion of it among Board members. But

essentially, they were as surprised by Tim's action as the rest of us

were. [My thanks to all who responded!]

Damn the Bylaws, Full Steam Ahead Corner: Scattered among the comments

regarding Tim's action is the recurrent theme that the bylaws do not and

cannot cover every little thing and some flexibility in interpretation is

needed, rather than outright amendment. That may be, but an online search

of bylaws for non-profit organizations reveals that many do include

procedures for removal of board members in their published bylaws, and

many "tip sheets" and "sample bylaws" pages include and recommend

procedures for the removal of directors. In any case, it's probably an

important enough topic to warrant an amendment, or at the very least a

specific "policy and procedure" document that clearly sets out the

mechanism to be followed. Otherwise, Board members are ceding to the NC

the ability to remove any Board member at will just by declaring them

"unable to fulfill the requirements of office". And of course, there is

always the issue of what to do if its the NC that is the missing Board

member. Can Board business even proceed in such a case?

A sample set of bylaws with a section on "removal of directors" and what

can be done if the President/chair is "absent, is unable to act, or

refuses to act", can be found here:

http://dobermanrescue.org/dpca.cope/forms/bylaws.htm

There is also a brief but useful discussion of bylaws for non-profits

here: http://www.seflin.lib.fl.us/nsfre/ncnb.3.html

The Board has previously sporadically discussed working up a "policy and

procedures" document, but this idea has apparently not gone anywhere,

perhaps because they collectively don't have time for such a daunting

task, perhaps because other issues intervened. But there is no particular

reason why such a document cannot be written piecemeal, as questions of

interpretation arise and are resolved. Satisfactory resolutions, properly

voted on by the Board, can be posted on a separate page, perhaps linked to

from the relevant section of the bylaws. An example of where this would

be useful is in the area of voting and elections. Last year, it was

decided that "regularly scheduled election" includes special elections

called for the purpose of electing a replacement NC. Decisions were also

made about who can vote, who can nominate, etc. All of these decisions

constitute procedural interpretations of information already in the bylaws

and should be posted as such, if only to spare future Boards from having

to make the same decisions again. If an amendment process proves too

unwieldy at this time, deciding and voting on criteria and procedures for

the removal of board members can be approached in this way.

Whatever they decide, it cannot have been the intent of the bylaws

committee that one person have enough power to unilaterily remove other

board members [and if it were, wouldn't it be ironic that that person is

not even afforded a meaningful vote? <g>].

====

"All bad precedents began as justifiable measures."

---Julius Caesar

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 28 06:37:26 2000

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:37:25 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000228061844.28772B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Punch drunk and without bail...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Saturday 26 February 2000:

Joe Zsedeny says he concurs with the NC's action in declaring the Census

Project rep seat vacant, but due to the discussion that has followed

believes a motion is in order. He therefore moves "that the Census

Project Board seat be declared vacant."

Rich Howland seconds the motion.

Tim Stowell givens Joe's motion the number 00-4 and opens the floor for

discussion. He notes "The motion states - 'I move that the Census Project

Board seat be declared vacant.'"

[and since then its been quiet as the tomb. What is it exactly about

declaring a motion open for discussion that causes everyone to clam up?]

====

"First, do no harm."

Hippocrates, attributed

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

------------

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 28 12:01:42 2000

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:01:38 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>, usgw-cc-l@usgennet.org

Subject: News Flash--about GenSoc.org, Inc.

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000228120059.22820B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

I have talked to the IRS today and am pleased to report that GenSoc.org,

Inc. has been granted its tax exemption as of January 2000. The exemption

has been made retroactive to June 1999.

-Teresa

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Feb 28 13:34:36 2000

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:34:35 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: DBS Special Report

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000228114011.22820A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

DBS Special Report--about GenSoc.org, Inc.

As previously reported, GenSoc.org, Inc. has finally been granted

its tax exempt status. Although I have applied for a copy of GenSoc.org's

application for tax exempt status, I am informed it will take 4-6

weeks before I receive it. However, there is some information available

to the public through the various offices of the CA state government, and

I have recently obtained copies of the incorporation documents for

GenSoc.org, Inc.

The "Articles of Incorporation" were filed in the Office of the Secretary

of State of California on June 23, 1999. According to this document, the

"specific purpose "of GenSoc is "to inform, and educate Internet users,

genealogists, and subscribers about general genealogical matters and to

provide specific information and a database for genealogical research."

Brian Leverich, P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222 is listed as the

"initial agent for service of process" [his phone number and email address

are also listed]. Much of the document is standard boilerplate about

dissolution of the corporation, disbursement of assets, limited

activities, prohibited activities, distribution of income, etc. There is

no provision made for the issuance of stock.

The articles of incorporation were executed on 22 June 1999 and are signed

by Clayton A. Mack, Incorporator. Mr. Mack is an attorney with Borton,

Petrini & Conron, LLP, an established law firm in Bakersfield, CA. [you

can read more about Mr. Mack at: http://www.bpclaw.com/mack.htm]

The "Statement by Domestic Nonprofit Corporation" was filed in Sacramento,

CA on 4 Oct 1999. It shows that GenSoc's principal address is 2125

Birchwood Way, Frazier Park, CA, and its mailing address is P.O. Box 2797,

Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274-2797 [interestingly enough, Frazier Park

and Palos Verdes are 90 miles and at least 2 hours apart. That's a long

way to go to pick up the mail!]

The statement also shows that the Chief Executive Officer is Brian E.

Leverich, the Secretary is Karen E. Isaacson [both give the address above

as their street address], and the Chief Finanical Officer is Robert R.

Tillman [at 14 Sunshine Ave, Sausalito, CA]. Brian E. Leverich is listed

as the "designated agent for service of process", again at the Frazier

Park address. The document is dated 22 Sep 1999 and was signed by Karen

E. Isaacson.

According to currently available documentation, the for-profit

RootsWeb.com, Inc. and the non-profit GenSoc.org, Inc. currently share

both a physical location and at least some personnel.

==========

There you have it---a DBS Special Report!

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Feb 29 07:30:52 2000

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:30:51 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000229061808.11687A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Fact is stranger than truth...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Monday 28 February 2000:

Saying she hasn't said much previously because she is new and

doesn't know the history, Gloria Mayfield posts some of her "thoughts

and questions". She wonders why have an Advisory Board that cannot

advise, a NC that has no power to make a decision, and a member that they

can't assume missing or dead [!] because they can't contact them for

nearly a year. She notes that she has no respect for someone who doesn't

just quit instead just "goes into hiding, dies, or comes up missing." She

says "Nothing ever gets accomplished because, Roberts' is our concern.

There has been a lot of major decisions made in this world, that Roberts'

didn't even attend." It was her belief that the reason for having a Co-

or Assistant coordinator was so that person could assume the duties of the

Coordinator as needed and Ron [Eason] should be able to take this over.

She suggests "If he doesn't want the job, let the Volunteers of the Census

Project vote for whom they want to speak for them. Without a spokesperson

from both Census, this problem, will never be solved." These points lead

her to conclude that 1) if the Board and NC can't make decisions about

these things then they shouldn't waste their time discussing them; 2)

"LAWS are Facts and amendments are made to Laws every day in our

government. ByLaws are the guidelines that are used to conduct business,

they are not LAWS" [*sigh*]; 3) she is still in awe of the wonderful

things done by USGW volunteers but "volunteers need "LEADERSHIP"; and 4)

she thinks Tim Stowell is doing a wonderful job. She says she has all

faith that "this Advisory Board can and will handle this situation in a

goodly manner."

Teri Pettit believes this action requires a Bylaws change; however, given

how difficult the bylaws are to amend she is willing "for the sake of

expediency to accept us making this declaration now, and hopefully making

the amendment that allows it later." This is providing that the motion is

in accord with the desires of the Census Project. Although she finds it

hard to belived they would want to remain without representation, she asks

if they can contact the CP members and ask if they agree with this

declaration.

Pam Reid says she honestly doesn't believe this action requires a bylaws

amendment. She says "Kay has demonstrated her inability to complete her

term and that is the only thing the bylaws require."

Holly Fee Timm says the issue is who qualifies as a CP member. She

reminds the group that whether or not they declare the seat vacant now,

they will still have to decide in a couple of months who qualifies to

fill it, who qualifies to run for it, and who qualifies to vote for it,

and who does the person filling it represent?

Jim Powell also asks several questions: "Are the members of the Archives

Census Project already represented? Is there already a vote under way in

the Census Project? If so what is the status of that vote? Will the term

of whoever is appointed be up when our next scheduled elections are held?"

Sharie Handley assumes that it is the goal to reunite the two Census

projects, and it therefore makes sense to her that "members of *both*

groups would be considered to be "Census Project Members". The person

chosen jointly by both groups would be most likely to be able to bridge

the gap and help bring the sides together, in my thinking."

Ginger Cisewski also asks if anyone has consulted with the CP as to their

wishes and notes that they had refused to become part of the Archives just

a short time ago. She notes "As for representation on the Board, the

Archives Census Project, as part of the Archives Project, has Joe to

represent them here. Additionally, the Archives Census Project

Coordinator is currently a Board member. So at present, the Archives

Census Project has 2 Board members who have the best interests of that

group in mind. The USGenWeb Census Project is currently without any

representation on the board." Thus, it seems to her that the Archives CP

is already fully represented and asks "Are they so misrepresented that you

figure they need a third person on the Board?" She reminds the group that

the NC has already told them a CP election is ongoing and says "Any

attempt to strong-arm that group, especially now, is not in the best

interest of the USGenWeb Project as a whole."

Regarding the current motion, Teri thinks that the relevant question is

who was allowed to vote for Kay originally, and says "Wouldn't those same

people be the ones to ask if they agree that she has vacated her seat?"

She thinks it is clear that the bylaws describe the "Big Three" as

separate parallel projects and that "one of them is considered a

sub-project of any of the others." She notes that "if "The USGenWeb

Archives Census Project" is considered to be a subproject of "The USGenWeb

Archives Project" - if its volunteers who are not otherwise Archives File

Managers are allowed to vote in elections of The USGenWeb Archives

Project, and most particularly for the Archives Project representative to

the Advisory Board - then they are already represented, and should not be

entitled to vote for Census Project representative as well." However, if

members of neither CP are allowed to vote for the Archives rep position,

then "then volunteers for both census projects should be allowed to vote

for Census Project representative, because otherwise the volunteers for

The USGenWeb Archives Census Project would have no representation." She

doesn't know if Archives CP members are allowed to vote for the Archives

rep position, but believes they are automatically subbed to the Archives'

mailing list.

Holly Fee Timm notes that when Kay was elected the CP was structured as

part of the Archives. [This does not answer Teri's question about who got

to vote for Kay.]

Joy Fisher says she was part of the CP then and didn't get a ballot.

Teri asks Holly if "the Census Project volunteers who were not File

Managers allowed to vote for the Archives Project representative?" She

notes it would be odd if they were, since that would make the CP the only

project allowed to vote for two reps.

Joe Zsedeney notes that the CP was begun before there were bylaws and that

Kay was appointed by Linda Lewis to coordinate it. He says there was no

way to have an election before there were members and "There never was an

election for either CP Coordinator or for a CP Board Representive, to my

knowledge. This will be the first chance for the CP volunteers to elect

anyone." [Interesting. We were all told the special projects elected

their reps when everyone else did, in summer 1998.] Joe also wonders who

the CP volunteers are and notes the CP home lists 11 file managers and

wonders if transcribers are eligible to vote if they are not. He thinks

the Board should acquire a list of verified project members. [According

to the bylaws, transcribers for the special project do not get a vote.]

Tuesday 29 February 2000:

Tim Stowell points to Board to the CP's elections web page at:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/9916/census/cp_nom.html

and says the results will be announced in early March. He notes that it

is to fill the rest of Kay's term, which ends 31 Aug 2000, and says "Of

course the seat has to be empty for someone to fill it."

Tim says he's not sure how declaring the seat empty is strong-arming

anyone.

Tim says the "The Census folks have their own list." [I presume he means

that Archives CP members are not automatically subbed to the Archives

mailing list.]

Tim says that as far as he knows Kay, who was the chairperson of the

Election Committee, destroyed all the voting records after the 1998 July

election.

Tim clarifies his previous post about the CP election noting that his

answer means that if the Board declares the seat vacant, whoever they

appoint to fill it will be in the seat until the end of Kay's term. He

notes "It does NOT say that whomever wins the election going on in the

Census II project will automatically be the AB Representative. That

position will be filled by Board appointment."

[Some interesting points have been made above. It would be interesting to

know if the Archive's various subprojects, including the ACP, are allowed

to vote for the Archives representative seat. If they are, then Teri is

right, they already have representation on the Board. If not, why not?

Why would the file managers in the subprojects not be allowed to vote for

their representative?

Whatever happens in this particular instance, the CP is on notice from the

NC that their _elected_ choice of representative will not necessarily

appointed by the Board, even though the Board has essentially

rubber-stamped such candidates before. Tim himself once subbed a

project's chosen appointee to the Board lists without the formality of

having the Board appoint her first. So we'll see how that turns out in a

few days, I suppose.]

=====

"Take care, your worship, those things over there are not giants but

windmills."

---Miguel de Cervantes

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-----------