August 2008

AUGUST 2008

This symbol "±" means the end of a subject discussed.

Editorial:

August: week ending August 3:

The elections are over except for runoffs. Yours truly had about a 90% projection accuracy. That was easy, actually. Big Surprises? None, except that Mike St. Clair pulled out a fine win. On second thought, he's likable, fuzzy and warm, it was a shoo-in. ±

The GC fiasco continues with Tina locking-down the ABer's list because she thought the members were snippy with her. Reading the posts repeatedly, this webmaster found no snippy posts. County Coordinator Representative (Southeast/Mid-Atlantic) Linda Blum-Barton resigned in protest on 1 Aug. 2008.

Laverne on the Discuss list said that Tina should be declared Member Not in Good Standing and kicked out of The USGenWeb Project. Another member questioned if it's worth belonging to USGenWeb anymore. (Membership is down to about 1,500.)

Betsy Mills Co-List Admin of USGENWEB-DISCUSS rode in on a black horse with hoof and mouth disease threatening to moderate that list too because things were too "heated."

Way to go, Betsy! Force members to go to the U$GenNet faux CC list in order to speak freely. ±

The GC slate includes Diane Siniard -- This 'I hate LCs' candidate, reminds me of an SC in ca. 2000/2001 (North Carolina) who proposed that SCs establish a list of CCs unworthy of membership in USGenWeb. (A Board Member at that time slapped the SC's hand privately for proposing such stupidly. That ABer's name was Ron as I recall.) Diane Siniard recently sent an inflammatory post to Discuss suggesting they needed to clean up and clear out the bad seeds from our midst. You know, they just might do that using their infinite judgment who is a bad seed and who is not. One thing I'm confident: Mike, Bettie and the rest of the AB will not step up to protect LCs. ±

Speaking of that:

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 3:00 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Moderated - fuzzy math

"Laverne,

You are absolutely right. People in the Project stopped caring a very long time ago because no matter how they voiced their opinions, only those in the seat of power got their way. Right or wrong didn't matter to many, it was all about who was going to end up in control and it is still that way today. When I was a Rep. it was like pulling teeth to get people to engage and vote and even some of those who did, wouldn't side one way or another because they were afraid of being attacked or worse, being run out of the Project.

Nothing has changed, and most of the players are still the same. Funny how those who have kept the Project from moving forward and legitimately securing the process for good, are still embedded and still trying to keep the Project from being all it really could be.

It almost makes me want to try again, but I hate wasting time when others are not willing to engage and at least try to pull ourselves up to where we truly could be. Jeff ----- knows what it will take and so do a lot of the rest of you. Being willing to step up and step out on a limb takes more than rhetoric, it takes a lot of work. But people have to be willing to put aside their own agendas and work exclusively on what will set the Project up for total success. Sadly where it is now, is nothing more than what it always has been, mediocre. Ron" (end)±

This webmaster wonders if we should return to 1996 and 1997 when I truly enjoyed USGenWeb. We had no AB at that time other than a NC. Things ran smoothly. The creation of the AB and the Bylaws eventually marked the end of my enjoyment. The solution to this mess will be difficult, but I for one will not accept Jeff's ten-million word suggestions. His idea of utopia is an imperial AB with authority downward through the ranks. NO THANKS to that! The 1996 version of USGW was better. Ron's reference to sticking your neck out is a real hazard.

"...they were afraid of being attacked or worse, being run out of the Project." That is a danger and reality on both the state and national level today. Simply publishing a truth site such as this puts one in the cross-hairs of various groups. Lastly: I do not want any part of a set of new Bylaws created by Jeff who envisions an Imperial Advisory Board. USGenWeb is screwed up enough already. ±

End of First week.

August week ending Aug 9:

Discuss List: The week started off with blue streaks. Barnum was accused of blackmailing a fellow member. --That if the member emailed Barnum again he would go to the FBI. Barnum said that was a lie, because it was a lie. (details) There was no threat of informing the FBI, Barnum informed the FBI within in hours of receiving a threat, period.±

The cry for Tina's recall had a whimpered ending. That recall had as much chance as a snowball in hell. ±

Some members threw out a suggestion that the membership form an independent committee, club or association to represent them and talk to the AB for them. That is an old idea that went nowhere. This new attempt will go nowhere. As promising as it may sound on the surface, it has no substance or legitimacy. This webmaster proposed that the CCs have a "union" to protect them from crazy SC's as far back as the year 2000. Fact is, the great majority of CCs do not need protection. They vote or not for a candidate and that is that. Most have reasonable SC's too. It's the bad apple here and there that causes problems for the Project.±

That old "Revise the Bylaws" discussion came up for the millionth time. I will die of old age before the Bylaws are changed in any meaningful way. The only way to get change is by voting for change-oriented people. Do not expect any change in the sentiment of the AB for several years. When membership falls below 1,000 that will be a wake up. ±

Breakthrough news: The Advisory Board is not The USGenWeb Project. This fact may have startled some members. It's possible for the states to incorporate and kick the AB out of their lives without leaving The USGenWeb Project. The AB is the Smallest Part of USGenWeb But Causes The Most Controversy.±

Archives vs. Counties: This subject came up again and will until the end of time. But the words spoken by the Archive people are softer. With over a million pages of data, the Archives know in order to achieve even higher numbers, they need the CCs to produce more databases. The sentiment heard on the List is that the Archives are willing to share data, not just links with the counties. This is a new breeze. Let's see how it works out.

Evil USGenNet: One former SC stated his opinion that the folks at USGenNet namely, the Dancing Bear, were responsible for most of the turmoil in USGenWeb over the years. Further, that USGenNet created competing Projects against USGenWeb. His statements are the most sound and sane I've ever heard from him.

I imagine several unsuspecting people over the years have been drawn into the anti-USGenWeb rhetoric without knowing the anti-USGW leanings of USGenNet. Once in, it's difficult to extract one's self, but many are seeing USGenNet for what it is. The danger is, the AB may not grasp that USGenNet may have the last laugh on USGW. The trickle of CCs away from USGW and to one of USGenNet's Projects will not stop until there is a change in attitude about the rights LC's presently do not enjoy; --and beware of Genealogy Trails. They are a new bull on the genealogy block. The clock is ticking down:±

GC Slate approved: With 11 Advisory Board members voting, Motion 2007/08-12: 'Grievance Committee Slate' passes. Those voting 'Yes': Alice Allen, Sherri Bradley, Scott Burow, Jan Cortez, Cyndie Enfinger, Larry Flesher, Concetta Franco Phillipps, Phyllis Rippee, Suzanne Shephard, Greta Thompson and Bettie Wood. Those not voting: Gail Meyer Kilgore and Jason Mendenhall. Tina Vickery National Coordinator (Note: Joyce did not make the slate as I predicted before the elections.)±

The Discuss list was taken over with a surge of opinions to whom project data belongs. Every conceivable side was taken by some new people along with the older standbys. The opinion-of-the-week goes to Sandy:

Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Competition

There's not a thing to be done about what's gone on in the past. But this project can start here-and-now with a policy declaring that all contributions are made to the entire project. It's just that simple.

...And haven't we all heard that one before. That "the submitter" specifically stated he/she wanted the contributed file in one place but not the other. Where such cases have occurred, I daresay the *reason* was one or more persons withIN the project asking or suggesting -- or one way or another planting the seed that led to restrictions on the submitted

file(s).

This project has a penchant for self-destruction. It doesn't need RW or TGN or any other entity's assistance. It's fully capable of self-destruction of its own accord. -Sandy

Sandy, said volumes in a few words. Problem is, the Bylaws say the County sites belong to the CC. Many want to change that to: The data belongs to USGenWeb. The truth is, we are a house divided between the Archives and the Counties with the Archives slowly becoming the final form of USGenWeb.

Ron stated; "It's been purely by the Grace of Almighty GOD that the Project has even lasted as long as it has without falling apart." (end)±

Logos! A heated discussion about logos, again, a rerun from past years. Ron stated: ..."Unfortunately it changes nothing as to the legitimacy of withholding someone's vote based on whether they have an OFFICIAL Project logo or whether they have an un-official Project logo. The question is, did they have a Project logo? And where in the Bylaws does it state that they have to have an OFFICIAL logo to be a member in good standing or be able to vote? Well, it isn't there. Again, point made!" (end)

Joy observed that the page police were out. She used an older logo.

Diane pointed out that voting can not be denied a member over a logo. She is correct. The problem is, LCs cannot enforce the Bylaws. Only a SC or the AB can do that. A LC denied rights under the bylaws is SOL. The AB will not over ride a SC's decision even when she is dead wrong.

This webmaster is more concerned about getting foreign logos with requests for money OFF ALL USGW PAGES. ±

The closing hours of the week saw new discussion of multiple LCs for one specific county within a state.

A member asked:

"Can you (Charles) be more specific about what you mean there? Am I not supposed to manage as much as I do? Because I can't decide on just one county -- I have different interests in different places and I've really only just recently learned how to properly balance them!" (end)

Charles said: "You can have all the counties you can handle. Problem is: USGenWeb places a monopoly on same-county web sites. There cannot be two Lincoln Co. NMGenWeb sites. Well, at least that is how it has worked out. I do not find anything in the Bylaws that forbids two Lincoln Co. NM Web sites by different people. If we allowed LCs to duplicate county sites it might spur friendly (or heated) competition for that county to the benefit of the Project. If we allowed county web sites independent of the State Organization it would eliminate a lot of politics and local power groups."

"I believe the restriction of only one LC per specific county arose because rootsweb.com supplied most of the web space for the Project. They did not want the added expense of two sites for a particular county. Now that there is a greater choice of servers and with many LCs buying their own space, I see no reason that we can not have two Lincoln Co NMGenWebs or any other county, like Troup Co. GAGenWeb. I bet you a buck that this would increase membership substantially. Many webmasters have gone to the other projects because they could not get the county they wanted in USGenWeb. So, they have three other Projects that welcomed them. We have to change our (USGenWeb's) thinking that LCs must be under the thumb of a State Coordinator. The vast majority do not need supervision. Charles Barnum" (end)±

New stuff: How everyone voted: http://www.usgwelections.org/USGenWeb/ElectionResults.cfm This morning I received an email from an enterprising person who--by using a matrix (whatever that is), assigned names to most of the voters on the list above link. A great temptation arose to publish that list, but this webmaster will not. Some things a person must not do. Exposing how people voted is one of them.±

This latest fiasco brought out other issues, such as the misconduct of the AB in handling grievances. It has been the practice in the past to draw out grievances over a year so they will go stale and thus allow for an easier rejection of the LC's grievance. Here is a taste of continuing misconduct of the AB.

August 8, 2008

From Daryl

ScottB (Rep. At Large) wrote:

"I am sure we all needed a long and lengthy rehash of half-truth and bitterness rather than a "No, I can't identify your vote" ( end of quoting by Daryl)

Daryl stated: "That was the explanation of why I will not do so. I don't believe nor trust your statement that, "I won't complain and will give you permission to post my vote publicly." Either you did not tell me the truth of the status of my grievance, or the GC Chair did not tell me the truth. It's not my fault that the AB appears to have a reputation of passing the buck, and not accepting any responsibility for things that go wrong, much less apology zing." (end)

What we need is an AB that cares about LCs. We elect people to represent us, and they turn on LCs like Pit bulls.±

Closing this week: The responses I've had from several State Coordinators makes me realize that most are very nice people. Comparing that to the chronic behavior of the Advisory Board in general and of the former NM State Coordinators and the former NC State Coordinator, makes me know our current system is not okay until the past injustices have been rectified. No sweeping new Bylaws are required. Some old ideas were dusted off in the past two weeks. Those revisions were originally sponsored by NVGenWeb years ago. The BRC rejected them, the AB rejected them, the SCs rejected them and the CCs had no interest. If they somehow fly this time, it will be from a general malaise and disinterest allowing a tiny minority to prevail.±

End of Second week.

August week ending Aug 16:

A thought for the week:

Your webmaster hangs out at West Coast Martial arts as an observer. I've had the honor of being in the presence of both Masters Ernie Reyes and Master Tony Thompson--world class martial arts experts. Tenants of Tae Kwon Do: Courtesy, Integrity, Perseverance, Self-Control, Indomitable Spirit. An observation by Master Reyes: With Power Comes Responsibility.±

Weekend catch-up:

Everette resigns from the EC:

He said regarding password-gate , "... snip... A knee jerk reaction caused a hasty decision which end ed (sic) up with the EC having egg on its face. While some might like to think that the EC has always had access to voting records, that is not the case. This was simply poor judgement (sic) on the part of a few individuals which backfired making the EC look bad." ...snip... (end)

Ron said: "Thanks Scott,

I appreciate your efforts at answering. However if you know peoples names, it is fairly easy to

figure out who is who because of the way the password naming system was created. Most of the passwords use the first and last initial of the person casting the vote and the first letter of the password is usually the last letter of their last name unless of course there are more than one

person with the same letter in their last names in which case the first person gets the correct last name letter and all subsequent people get a random letter.

I am sure there is also a logical sequence for the numbers as well and all of this I assume was done to easily identify and keep tract of who had what password and easily verify that they were in fact given to the right person.

But there are programs in the public use that can actually create random numbers that can be assigned to people so that only the facilitator need know who has what number.

Look, I am not trying to beat anyone up and I am not trying to point the finger at anyone and say they need to be strung up. But what I do want is someone knowing that there MAY be a

situation that needs some looking at and know that it will be fixed. And I don't like the secret things that go on so no one knows, I think the members should know if there is a problem, just like they should know that it is being looked into and fixed I it is a problem." (end)

Diane said, " Everettee,

Yours (message) was the most reassuring I have heard lately. Having spoken with such a level tone, and level head, without a bunch of defensive attacking language intertwined within, I am thinking you may be telling the truth...at least as you know it. Thank you.

Going one step further, I and I suspect many others would like to hear a letter directly from Larry Stephens telling us how he does what he does, and how he is there to protect our elections in all regards, even from the management. Could you do something to let us hear from him? For all we

might know, he may have retired 3 years ago, and lives on in name only. Certainly I see no reason why the person who manages our elections should not speak to us directly about what he does."

(end)

Is this the same Everette who was President of ALHN who resigned a couple years ago in anger stemming from his mishandling of elections?" What goes around. See flash back:

1/10/01 ALHN Board Meeting Log

Board members present:

Kathy Leigh, President (KathyL)

Norm Vance, Vice-President (NVance)

Lesley Moss, Director (Lesley)

Debi Kendrick, Director (DebiK)

Annette Peebles, Director (apeebles)

Ron Eason, Director (Ron)

Everette Carr, Director (Everette)

Session Start: Wed Jan 10 21:21:09 2001

* Logging #alhn to '1-10'

<KathyL> would you please indicate your presence by putting your full name and "here" for the record.

<Lesley> Lesley Moss here

<Everette> Everette Carr - Here! <nvance> Norm Vance....here

<KathyL> Kathy Leigh here

<apeebles> Annette Bame .. here

<apeebles> Peebles

<Ron> Ron Eason, present

<KathyL> great!

<KathyL> I welcome all of you, the old board members, and especially our new members, Everette and Ron.

<Ron> Thank You.

<Everette> Same Here!

<KathyL> Congratulations for the elections/re-elections. We are going to make this a great year!

<snipped> Session Close: Wed Jan 10 23:11:58 2001

(End of flash back.)±

More fallout from publishing the passwords and they way folks voted. Burow spent the week bashing and blaming LCs for every fault that he, the AB or EC has had. Then he took off for a Boy Scout camp meeting. My God, I wonder what he teaches them? A new Oath?

BS Oath

With conniving and secrecy I will do my best

To do my duty for myself and the AB

and to obey no Bylaw or Sturgis.

To help members of the inner circle only.

To keep us untouchable by denying responsibly,

remaining mentally closed, with no regard for ethics or morality.±

--We begin the new week with this exchange between Debbie and Ron from last week.

To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] voters and passwords

"Ellen does know more than most because she helped write the new program for the EC. So all the CC's can do their own updating on the EC website. She was also Chair of the EC a few times since no one else wanted the thankless job.

Debbie" (end)

Ron answered the call:

"Maybe we should all take a turn as Chair so we can learn what goes on and we won't have to ask when something looks wrong, but maybe it ain't because no one else knows it isn't, Soooo if we knew, by taking a turn, we wouldn't have to ask and then no one would be mad at us for asking, but we do ask because we really do care and we want to be informed members but because didn't know, we are left to be called nuts and weirdoes because we ask.

I hereby volunteer." (end)

Some members inform me they received a PW without registering. The EC over steps their boundaries by looking at states' pages and harvesting the membership names. Why not just confirm the members who register? Do they need a membership database linked with passwords, rather than a voting list?±

Handy dandy list from a neat person. Thank you. We will need this each year to establish which Board members have been SCs. It jumps out at you, don't it?

EC members:

Shirley Cullum - {shirlcullum @ sbcglobal.net} Chair

Paula Vaughan - {pajolova @ hotmail.com} Sec./Pub.

--Representative at Large

B. Jo Branch - {bjcb@bellsouth.net}

--Northeast/North Central

Angela Place -

Marcia A. Kuehl (MAK) -

--Northwest/Plains

Paula Vaughan

Linda Ziemann -

--Southeast/Mid-Atlantic

Nola Duffy

Everettee Carr

--Southwest/South Central

Terri Buster

Clarissa Loyd -

--Archives and Special Projects

Mary Hatton -

===================================

SCs and ASCs

Alabama

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Richard White

Margie Daniels al@usgenweb.org

mdaniel3@midsouth.rr.com

Alaska

State Coordinator Sarah Ligon

ligmann@skybest.com

Arizona

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Gail Meyer Kilgore

Sundee C. Maynez gail.kilgore@gmail.com

sundeecmaynez@comcast.net

Arkansas

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Betsy Mills

Jeff Kemp betsym@1starnet.com

kemp@netnitco.net

California

State Coordinator

Co-State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Richard S. Wilson

Martha A Crosley Graham

Clarie Martin

Cat Nielsen rwilson@cagenweb.com

marthagra@gmail.com

Haircut1@aol.com

catcn@cagenweb.com

Colorado

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Gail Kilgore

Ann Allen Geoghegan

Sundee Maynez gail.kilgore@gmail.com

anniegms@gmail.com

sundeecmaynez@comcast.net

Connecticut

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Maureen Mead

Jim Rothgeb MMeadPond@aol.com

jrothgeb@snet.net

Delaware

State Coordinator Shari Handley degenweb@tyaskin.com

District of Columbia

State Coordinator Debi Remer debiremer@comcast.net

Florida

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Darrel Bell

Jim Powell drdarrel1@yahoo.com

jpowelljr@gru.net

Georgia

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Ed Gordon

Vivian Price Saffold

edeye1@hotmail.com

msaffold@bellsouth.net

Hawaii

State Coordinator Maggie Stewart Zimmerman MaggieOhio@columbus.rr.com

Idaho

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Jason Mendenhall

Mike Shaw seidahogenealogy@hotmail.com

mags911@cableone.net

Illinois

State Coordinator Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com

Indiana

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Debby Beheler

Sharon Craig dbeheler@comcast.net

sharcraig@sbcglobal.net

Iowa

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Richard Harrison

Constance Diamond Isaiahh@cox.ne

kool34tiger@webenet.net

Kansas

State Co-Coordinators Tom and Carolyn Ward tcward@columbus-ks.com

Kentucky

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Sherri Bradley

Bill Utterback

Louisiana

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Edward Hayden

Annette Womack ehayden@sbcglobal.net

ACWomack@aol.com

Maine

State Coordinator Tina Vickery tsvickery@gmail.com

Maryland

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Shari Handley

Cyndie Enfinger mdgenweb@tyaskin.com

cyndiee@tampabay.rr.com

Massachusetts

State Coordinator Betty Thomas genweb04@yahoo.com

Michigan

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Jan Cortez

Pat Hamp janacortez@charter.net

patgen@casair.net

Minnesota

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Terri Shipp

Michael Andrews genwebmn@comcast.net

MNGenWeb@aol.com

Mississippi

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Everette Carr

Bill White statecoordinator@msgenweb.org

MississippiASC@GMail.com

Missouri

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Larry Flesher

Denise Woodside lflesher@fidnet.com

seek4fam@yahoo.com

Montana

State Coordinator Kevin Haddenham fenrus.ulf@comcast.net

Nebraska

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Connie Snyder

Bill Oliver cjsnyder@alltel.net

wnoliver@sbcglobal.net

Nevada

State Coordinator Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org

New Hampshire

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Peggy Tebbetts

Birde Rediger tcf@genealogist.net

Birde@bigfoot.com

New Jersey

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Denise Wells

Brianne Kelly-Bly dawells2@aol.com

bkbnj@optonline.net

New Mexico (The coo-coo's nest)

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Harold Kilmer

Karen Mitchell hkilmer@plateautel.net

km1109@ghvalley.net

New York

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Robert Sullivan

Martha Magill nygwsc@yahoo.com

hmwgenealogy@yahoo.com

North Carolina

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Denise Woodside

Paul Buckley

Nola Duffy seek4fam@yahoo.com

PaulDBuckley@worldnet.att.net

nduffy@patch.net

North Dakota

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator

Michelle Savre

Char Kibbie

ndcounty@att.net

csnkibbie@comcast.net

Ohio

State Coordinator Dale Grimm dale@kbanet.com

Oklahoma

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Ron Henson

Bobbi Dunn sc@okgenweb.org

okgenwebasc@gmail.com

Oregon

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Jan Bony

W. David Samuelsen jbony@ochoco.com

dsam@sampubco.com

Pennsylvania

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Joe Patterson

Nancy Janyszeski jpatter@comcast.net

nancyjanyszeski@yahoo.com

Rhode Island

State Coordinator Susan Irish Nahas RIGenWeb@aol.com

South Carolina

State Coordinator Victoria Proctor vproc@ix.netcom.com

South Dakota

State Coordinator Joy Fisher

sdgenweb@yahoo.com

Tennessee

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Connie Burkett

Nancy Cole tngennet@gmail.com

n_cole@bresnan.net

Texas

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Shirley Cullum

Bettie Wood

Elaine Martin

shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net

nana321@tatumtel.net

McStumped@suddenlink.net

Utah

State Coordinator Emmett Mason masontree@aol.com

Vermont

State Coordinator Ann Mensch mensch-family@att.net

Virginia

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Freddie Spradlin

Linda Lewis fspradlin@earthlink.net

Washington

State Coordinator Mike Sweeney sweeney2@wolfenet.com

West Virginia

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Les Shockey

Valerie Crook LesShockey@wildblue.net

vfcrook@earthlink.net

Wisconsin

State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Tina Vickery

Marcia Ann Kuehl tsvickery@gmail.com

maktranscriber@yahoo.com

Wyoming

Acting State Coordinator

Assistant Coordinator Suzanne Leonard

Kevin Haddenham sleonard@wyoming.com

dagwood@tdn.com±

On the U$GenNet faux CC list, a dancing bear made this comment in a rambling, barely coherent post,

"Technically, TNGenNet/TNGenWeb needs less than $100.00 annually to cover its costs so there is no need to even formalize a money collection/disbursment system. TNGenNet/TNGenWeb does not need larger amounts of money since USGenNet supplies the servers to TNGenNet/TNGenWeb for free. On the other hand, USGenNet does need money. USGenNet pays about $8,500.00 annually to The Planet in Dallas, TX for the three servers it now uses. IMHO, the *Real Issue* is that USGenNet does not pursue an active course to reach out for contributions and without a good active plan in place, USGenNet will need to fold up shop. Hand sitting will not bring in needed cash nor a reliance on a few major contributors will fill the coffers. ... (end)

He later revealed the password of a member so people could see how that member voted. See Integrity in the thought for the week.

He referred to folks who do not pay U$GenNet ( a closely held organization masquerading as a non-profit) as "moochers". Dancing bear has been spewing personal insults for years. What's amazing is why anyone would use U$GenNet with spokesmen like a dancing bear poisoning the reservoir. Circus clown is a better fit. He has a reputation as a bully. Bully the dancing circus bear? If he is remembered at all, it will be as a bully.

The faux CC list is just that. It's a list promoting personal insult toward CCs, not for discussing Project problems as they profess. With the recent tack of the USGenWeb Discuss list allowing truth and dissention, there is no need for the U$GenNet faux CC list. If that faux list fails, there is a real possibility U$GenNet will fail. (A few fat cats keep their personal toy--U$GenNet, afloat. Bleed, suckers.)

I wonder if people who donates to U$GenNet know their money goes to support "TNGenNet/TNGenWeb for free"? Is that within the legal articles of incorporation of U$GenNet ?±

The 2008 Run-off Election is now underway. We will report the results when they come in. BTW, a member who has the list of election passwords deciphered how the AB members voted. Apparently the AB majority voted for other candidates instead of the current NC.±

Those damn lists: Are the lists being turned into advertising media? Some members have noticed that ads disguised as posts are showing up.

Here is one from NM: .

"Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008

New - New Mexico Disasters added to the database at

http://www.gendisasters.com

Events That Touched Our Ancestors Lives:

Deming, NM Fire Destroys Business Block, May 1914

Sandia, NM Train Wreck, May 1908

To view these and other disasters- click on "Browse by State" and then "New Mexico" or just go to

http://www3.gendisasters.com/category/united-states/new-mexico"

Here is one from GA:

"Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:28:58 -0500 From: "old news"

Subject: [GEORGIA] Georgia Train Wrecks, Fires and other disasters

New - GA Disasters added to the database at http://www.gendisasters.com Events That Touched Our Ancestors Lives: ...snip..." What's the world coming to? ±

Buyer's remorse? Looks like the AB is fixing their incomprehensible handling of the GC fiasco. The AB took it upon itself to select the replacement members, --and rejecting three qualified members who the GC already approved. Now, they want to redo. This webmaster complained to the entire AB about their illegally rejecting replacement members of the AB. The only good result is they have so far successfully locked out members who are sympathetic to U$GenNet.

Here is proposed correction.

From: "Phyllis Rippee">

To: <Board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:34 AM

Subject: [BOARD] Proposed Motion

Madame NC:

I request that the following motion be considered under the requirements of general consent:

I move to amend Standard Rules, Section V Grievance Procedures as follows:

Section 1, Committee Qualifications and Appointments, by changing the last sentence in regard to future selections of Grievance Coordinators to read:

"Future appointments will be by vote of the Grievance Committee and will be for a 2-year term."

Section 1, Committee Qualifications and Appointments, by adding the following:

"The initial appointment of an Assistant Grievance Coordinator will be made by the Advisory Board. Future appointments will be by vote of the Grievance Committee members and will be for a 2-year term."

Section 3, Duties of Grievance Committee Members, section 4 heading by adding the words "and Assistant Grievance Coordinator."

Section 3, section 4, by adding the words "The Assistant Grievance Coordinator shall fill in when the Grievance Coordinator is temporarily unavailable, or is unable to complete the term.

This amendment will go into effect immediately upon passage.

Respectfully submitted,

Phyllis Rippee

SWSC CC Rep.

The AB stocked the pond with their type of people. The pond water will not change much in the coming years. This proposal does not include provisions for the "approval" of the committee's selection of new members by the AB. It will be interesting if the GC appoints someone in the future who the AB does not like. Will they over-rule the BC again. It will be like Russia invading independent Georgia. That would please the advocates for an Imperial AB . This quickly passed without discussion.±

From: "Phyllis Rippee"

To: <Board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:53 AM

Subject: [BOARD] Motion to Appoint

Madame NC:

I request that the following motion be considered under the requirements of general consent:

I move that Dorman Holub be appointed as Grievance Coordinator for a term of one year and that Joel Newport be appointed Assistant Grievance Coordinator for a term of two years. This will go into effect immediately upon passage.

Respectfully submitted

Phyllis Rippee

SWSC CC Rep.

This will be approved quickly and without discussion as well.

8/14/08 --It passed.±

This week ends with a whimper.

Week ending Aug 23:

Fuzzy Math: USGenWeb is controlled and "owned" in one sense of the word by a few insiders. The AB does not do things to benefit the membership. They operate to the benefit of insiders. Read between the lines.

"From: "Daryl Lytton"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 5:32 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] website host issues

JoyF wrote:

>> When USGenWeb moved to the sdgenweb.com account, I signed over the entire account to the National Coordinator.

According to WHOIS, sdgenweb.com is registered to you. You are the SDGenWeb SC, and Tina is an ASC. This situation certainly isn't moving from Ancestry / RootsWeb in order for the USGenWeb to establish its own identity ... this is a "takeover" of the USGenWeb, by SDGenWeb and Archives people. We haven't established our own identity, the situation has been made worse. The membership should have been informed of the true nature of the move. We should have our own independent account.

>> Please quit looking for issues that do not exist.

That's a pretty odd thing for you to say, considering your June 30th post to the Archives list. Daryl" (end)

The scoop is this: Apparently Tina didn't tell the membership all the facts about moving the USGenWeb from RootsWeb. The move was supposed to be so the USGenWeb would establish its own identity, i.e., not be associated with another genealogy organization or person. When the move was announced, details were withheld from the membership deceived. USGenWeb is now an add-on account to sdgenweb.org (SDGenWeb), registered to Joy Fisher an Archives person. One of the SDGenWeb ASCs is Tina Vickery, also an Archives person. The other ASC is Alice Allen, Discuss list co-moderator. Here is what says: http://www.directnic.com/whois/ What a tangled web. BTW, who pays for our webspace?

Domain ID: D4610705-LROR

Domain Name: SDGENWEB.ORG

Created On:23-Mar-1999 05:00:00 UTC

Last Updated On: 11-Jan-2008 21:06:42 UTC

Expiration Date: 23-Mar-2012 05:00:00 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar: MyDomain, Inc. (R92-LROR)

Registrant Name: Joy Fisher

Registrant Organization: Joy Fisher

Those are the facts: You decide the meaning. Be nice if the membership had a say in what went on. So, what the hell is this all about? It's about keeping the power within the proper family members. Another question could be: Is the Archives part or separate from USGenWeb? Why do they need their own lists? Below are a few.

±

Jeff and friends are at it again. They, with the sponsorship of Indiana and Mississippi, are attempting to change the Bylaws again. If the AB puts this on the slate next election, it will pass. All proposals appearing on the slate usually pass. Here is what they want. To change the current 2/3 (two thirds) requirement for altering the Bylaws now required to a simple majority vote. Well, that sounds democratic. The problem is this: Only twenty percent of members vote. Of that total most are SCs, former SCs, AB members and former AB members, and Project Managers. Get it? If this amendment passes next election, the ruling minority elite will control The USGenWeb Project. That is because most members do not vote and do not care. They get what they deserve.

But there is a second part to it. The revisionists want to give the AB authority to put Bylaws amendments and changes up for a vote if they feel it is best for the project WITHOUT five States sponsoring the change. Get it? These two proposals will create an Imperial AB backed by an Imperial elite. At least my one vote in the general election against the proposals will require 1 vote plus 1/3 vote to over ride. ±

The F Word

From: List Administrator of USGENWEB-DISCUSS To Barnum

To: Charles

Cc: DC & Alice Allen

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:01 AM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship of proposed amendment to the by-laws

Charles,

From the list rules:

1. Any post that, in the opinion of the moderator(s), is inflammatory, derogatory, demeaning, or otherwise inappropriate will be subject to an immediate period of moderation of 5 to 10 days at the moderator(s) discretion. This applies to all. We might add, this includes those subtle, veiled emails that are derogatory and demeaning, and that we have been seeing from time to time lately.

It is not WHAT can be discussed that is at issue here. It is that you are discussing PEOPLE. You also used AND forwarded curse words - even "disguised" ones count. The discussion, as shown by the subject of the emails, regarded a proposed amendment to the by-laws. Stick to the subject.

>Abuse of LCs is appropriate for the list.

No, it is not. You will not discuss abuse of any one person or persons by another on the Discuss list. Go discuss it where it happened, not here. Your message was inflammatory and you will not be warned again.

Betsy

At 11:10 PM 8/19/2008, Charles wrote:

Are we limited to what can be discussed on the list?

Abuse of LCs is appropriate for the list.

I'd move to China if I wanted censorship.

I will not post any more links as you command, although I note that others have posted links to other web sites and much more.

Please provide a list of appropriate subjects to be discussed on the list.

Charles

From: Betsy

To:

Cc: DC & Alice Allen

Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:05 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship of proposed amendment to theby-laws

Charles,

Do not post any more links to other list messages containing hateful statements made by others. That post has nothing to do with this discussion.

Betsy

Co-Listadmin

At 07:36 PM 8/19/2008, you wrote:

I also agree. I lack the gift of words to express it as well. I agree with Derick too on this point (and Alice). But I do not agree with

the way business is conducted against LCs in Derick's home state.

That is more in-line with what NM does: RE: F-- word, S-- word and H-- word directed at a LC.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS/2008-08/1219168083

Charles

To the List Administrator: "Derick made the following personal remarks about me on the USGENWEB-DISCUSS list:

"From: "Derick Hartshorn"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:55 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship of proposed amendment to theby-laws

Charles

I am not going to continue this discussion except to say that those who were discontent with our state and national Project continue to

snipe at it. Archives will also show that you, Charles, resigned from the Project and made angry threats when your resignation was accepted. Archiving private mail is a despicable tactic employed by those beneath the dignity to be responded to." (end)

He is discussing me as a person, not any issue. This is direct violation of list rules that you applied to me, but I did not mention his name, only published a link from another USGENWEB list which OTHERS have done in the past.

I demand that he be moderated for discussing me as a person. RE: "Archives will also show that you, Charles, resigned from the Project and made angry threats when your resignation was accepted. Archiving private mail is a despicable tactic employed by those beneath the dignity to be responded to. Archiving private mail is a despicable tactic employed by those beneath the dignity to be responded to." (Derick) (end)

Do you apply rules only to some people and not all? Please get back to me about what action you are taking in Derick's inaccurate and personal attack. " (snip)

Charles Barnum

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles

To: Betsy

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:38 AM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship of proposed amendment to the by-laws

Hidden (to list admin)

I assume Derick was so warmed when he mentioned Fred recently.

I assume David S. was warned when he attacked Daryl recently, and the many, many, many, many, many, many times in the past he has done that, but is still on the list.

I assume Nola has been removed from the list for the same reason since she has attacked people countless times over the years.

I assume Burow was warned for his multiple personal attacks on people of the years.

If so, Great job Betsy. You are a bright star for us all.

Thank you so much.

So, this list is not to be used as a forum for discussing abuse of LCs? Glad you make it official. Keep the LCs under your thumb at all times. Do not propose solutions to help them nor expose the SCs and former SCs (in this case Derick) or other people who abuse LCs.

Charles Barnum

PS, posting a link to what a person said is not demeaning that person, it is exposing what he said. That person demeans himself by his own words. Ban the abuser, not the messenger.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS/2008-08/1219168083 The F Word ±

This week is making up for last week's doldrums: The Bylaws revision, change or whatever you want to call it gets more involved all the time.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship of proposed amendment to the by-laws

> At 12:09 AM 8/20/2008, Laverne (snip) wrote:

>>I fail to understand how clarifying muddy, inadequate bylaws a complication. Who said anything about limiting the number of links a county or state site can have?

>

> If they are so muddy - how have they more or less worked since 1998?

>

> The issue has not been muddy albeit there may be such parts, rather the issue is not adhering to the Bylaws that say in plain English that most people except Bill Clinton could understand.

>

> No one said anything about limiting the number of links a county or state site can have. Let me then restate what I said in simpler terms. Right now, most states only link to one site per county. I'm saying that why should states limit themselves to just one site per county?

>

>>Standing Rules cover things not addressed in the bylaws, Standards of Operation govern the day to day operation.

>

> And just who comes up with those? The AB creating rules to fit the situation retroactively so that those being victimized by the AB would be guilty before charged?

>

>>For that matter by your words, why indeed do we have a bylaws to begin with.

>

> Exactly. Having the Bylaws has not stopped the NC/AB from doing anything they well pleased to do. Nor has it stopped SCs or CCs or

> anyone else from doing what they well pleased to do. Control of others can be used for good or it can be used for not good. For the

> most part good has occurred except where there was someone who didn't do what someone else in power told them to do - showed an independent streak, then conflict arose. Some went quietly into the night, others did not.

>

>>Over on the ab chat or whatever it is called they are discussing things such as setting up and collecting fees from members to pay for hosting for the national projects. That requires a change of bylaws, because before you can instill membership fees you have to define the members by type and class.

>

> If they wish to drive more members away quicker that is a great way to do so. I'm sure AHGP or ALHN or some other entity would be glad

> to have the infusion of web sites and/or talent.

>

>>The current membership elegibilty states that all one must do to be a member is have an interest in genealogy and or family history. By that standard every person who is or has conducted a family search is a member.

>

> Ah, but that's only part of the membership issue. I believe Article IX goes on to further explain such. In other words one must maintain

> a web site or work for one of the national SPs to obtain the right to vote, actually do something in the Project. Also see Article VII Section 6.

>

>>Once members have been defined and classified in order to assess dues you would need to become a legitimate organization AND licensed

>>to solicit fees by each state authority. In Florida that would be the Dept of Agriculture, Division of Consumer Affairs. In order to be licensed to solicit you must first be a Florida Non Profit or a registered non profit from a state whom Florida has reciprocation of Incorporation and that wold then require a dba and a soliciation permit.

>

> Defined and classed sounds like securities trading or singling out animals for slaughter. Do other Internet entities go through all this rigamarole to sell stuff (Ebay), ask for dues, etc via email?

>

>>Applications for grants are being bandied about, that would require incorporation as a non profit and a 501c 3 1023 letter from the IRS before you can be qualified to apply.

>

> I'll just bet individuals could apply for grants, obtain them and donate material purchased and/or transcribed and one wouldn't have to fool with the government at all.

>

>>Agai, I reitierate, USGW needs the states and counties, but we don't need them.

>

> Elsewhere someone spoke of the Project as being a house of cards. Even a house of cards has validity unless it burns down without the possibility of being rebuilt.

>

> If every single state project seceded from the Project or multiple counties / coordinators left the holes would just be filled by others.

>

> There may be fewer coordinators but then perhaps that's what those folks want? For many years its been said over and over if those pesky people (to put it mildly) would just leave then the Project would be perfect. Fact is over the years for long term members alliances have been made folks get ticked and break such, form new ones. Friends become enemies, enemies become friends and the dance continues. Tim (end)

By damn, its nice to read a post from someone who knows what the hell he is talking about!±

The week was finished out with discussion of servers and duties of the National webmaster. One astute person pointed out that the duties were already covered in the Bylaws. You know them there things we are supposed to use to run our Project. Then Joy was slapped for assuming that U$GenNet owned their own servers.

Joy replied:

"OK, sorry for the mis-information. Last I heard, they were buying servers. I stand corrected.

Connie Burkett wrote:

Joy,

What information are you basing your "fact" (assumption) that USGenNet "owns" the current servers they are using? Your information may have been true years ago, but that is not current information. Connie

snip

Here is gennet's operating budget:

http://www.usgennet.org/usgnhome/financial/08budget.html

Not included here is the fact that they own, not rent the servers and there is nothing set aside for disaster insurance, repairs and/or

replacement of the servers." (end and a tiny snip)

So U$GenNet does not own its own servers?? Beats the hell out of me! I like many others have concluded from what people close to them have said and from reading their web site that they needed $10,000 immediately for a new server or else bad things would happen. Joy, I was mislead just like you. I bet most people think U$GenNet owned their own servers. If not, are they saying it takes so damn much money to buy their service and they do not even own their own damned equipment?????

Webmasters would be better off getting their own server space with a legitimate ISP than to fool around with those clowns.±

Thought of the week: Just where did the AB get it's authority for Parliamentary procedures?

"The Parliamentary procedures are NOT implemented, they are declared by the Board, but not accepted system wide, never have been approved by the membership, and unless Named specifically in the Bylaws have no legal standing, or application not covered by "precedent". ... You can't rule on "intent" because you can't prove "intent" the written rule always trumps "Intent", our Project seems to ignore such processes at will." Tim.±

Saturday: Not too surprised-- the AB appoints another committee to do their GD job! That is: to study the duties of the Webmaster and what server (or ISP) to use for the national page. Can't the AB do anything for itself? Lord help us.

I'm going on a family picnic in California, at Eagle Lake. Bye until Monday.±

Final week of August:

The Bylaws 'change' proposal continues: One member said that there are people that want USGenWeb to fail if will not support the proposed Bylaw changes. Horse hockey! Many members do not want a change, but not because they want USGenWeb to fail. The Bylaws can change every year for all I care, but if they fail to address Local Coordinators' rights, then changes are immaterial. The people who approve of forbidding LC rights are the ones that make USGeWeb fail. It is failing now, slowly, year by year because LCs have no rights.

I will not support any Bylaws change or amendment that does not include a section like this:

Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, political views or free expression. Project Managers and State Coordinators shall publish web page requirements on the Project web site. A LC whose web site does not comply with the written standards shall have 45 days to correct it or he/she may be de-linked from Project listing. Local Coordinators' web sites shall not be delinked for any other reason.

Section 3. A project member may use a pen name so long as the State Coordinator or Project Manager is informed beforehand. If a pen name is used, it must be used for all Project web pages. If a member uses different pen names for voter fraud then that member shall be denied voting rights in USGenWeb elections for a period of five elections. Their web sites shall not be delinked from the Project listing.

If above LC rights were included in the Bylaw--written better than I can, it will virtually eliminate abuse-of-power that some State Coordinators use to keep their group in power, and prevent them from ousting a CC who does not support a tightly controlled state such as New Mexico. The last two State Coordinators have replaced CCs with friends and family members. Look at the sorry state of NMGenWeb today and you may draw your own conclusions. Dona Ana County has never had any data on it. That (voting) CCs does not know how to build a web page. That website has not changed except cosmeticly in ten years. I know of other (voting) CCs in NMGenWeb who do not know how to build web sites. Those are the facts.

AB members, State Coordinators and others who wish to continue to allow abuse of LCs are responsible for the sorry state of USGenWeb today. That includes the current support of revising the Bylaws but who refuse to allow protection of LCs.

So, do not imply nor say members opposed to the recent Bylaw proposals are disloyal. The people pushing to implement an Imperial AB with Lords for State Coordinators are the ones who will insure failure of USGenWeb over the long term. ±

Who owns the server space of USGenWeb national site?

Submitted by a reader: >> From: Joy

>> To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

>> Date: 8/20/2008 9:23:13 PM

>> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] website host issues

>>

>> I originally bought the account for sdgenweb last September (almost a year ago) and only intended to host sdgenweb on it. When rootsweb began making changes in their policy - and IXWebHosting changed their account policies, I started offering to set up ftp accounts for any USGW member who wanted space. ONCE THE ACCOUNT CEASED BEING A SDGENWEB HOST AND BECAME A USGENWEB HOST, I OFFERED THE ACCOUNT, LOCK STOCK AND BARREL TO THE NC. THE ACCOUNT IS IN HER NAME....

>

>

> From IXWebHosting Aug 23 2008 (caps were added):

> Dear Daryl,

> According to whois database information, an owner of following domains is

> Tina Vickery (These domain are registered with her name):

> http://who.is/whois-org/ip-address/usgenweb.org/

> http://who.is/whois-org/ip-address/usgenweb.net/

> http://who.is/whois-org/ip-address/usgenweb.com/

>

> All these domains are pointed to our web servers and hosted with hosting plan assigned to Joy Fisher. As can I see the sdgenweb.com domain is pointed to the same hosting plan, but OWNER FOR THE PLAN IS STILL JOY FISHER. Thank you. (end)

I'll not cover this issue again. If you have eyes then read. If you have a brain, then know the truth about this matter.±

CENSUS: The truth hurtrs. The string below is too complex to break down without loosing meaning. As always, any person not wanting to be quoted or claims copyright to their posts, can email me so I can fix the situation. Regard Jeff's remarks with caution. He promotes an Imperialist AB. His remarks are often biases in that vain.

SENSE about Census:

From: "Ron"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:18 AM

Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Census Projects Name

> Joy:

>

> 1. As far as I or others understand, The Archives has every thing. The second Census Project was copied from the files of the first census Project and named "The USGW Archives Census Project". The Census Image Project didn't happen until

several years later, and the second Census Project pulled or was pushed away from the Archives Project and rebranded

with the name of the first census project in their attempt to become the official census project of the USGWP. But they are illegally using a registered servicemark.

>

> 2. I never said Kay Mason "started" the Census Project, I said she was actually the first Project Coordinator of the Census Project and she was on the AB. I know who and when the Project was started and I know why they started bickering. I

was there right after it was started and have been there ever since. And as you have correctly stated The legally registered > and servicemarked Census Project is the original Census Project started by Linda and Ken and directed by Kay, and is the > rightful owner and bearer of the name.

>

> What I don't understand to this day is why the original Census Project was allowed to be treated as it was, when they never left or tried to pull away from the USGWP, but merely wanted to be autonomous from the Archives Project. It was people,

not the Bylaws, that >started and fueled the problems we had. People who were pro-Archives on the AB and wanted the Archives to have their way.

>

> The Bylaws and Procedures need to be changed so that things like that can never happen again to anyone or any group. It was the actions of individuals that twisted the Bylaws to say what they wanted them to say in order to do what they wanted to do and that was to supplant one group and install a new group, then pit them against each other for the seat on the AB.

> Thanks Though, Ron

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: usgenweb-discuss-bounces@rootsweb.com

> [mailto:usgenweb-discuss-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joy

> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:57 PM

> To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com

> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] important bylaws question

>

> Ron:

> 1. The Archives does not have a Census Project. We have a Census Images Project.

> 2. Your census project was started by Linda Lewis and Ken Hollingsworth, not Kay Mason.

>

> Ron Eason wrote:

>> Jeff,

>>

>> Your statement of: "no other "company" in the genealogy field" could use the name might very well be correct, but it does Not keep non-company groups from illegally using a registered Servicemark.

>> The USGenWeb Census Project obtained a legally registered servicemark and yet that name is still illegally used by the Archive Census Project to this day, years later, when it was asked to stop using it.

>>

>> The USGenWeb Census Project has not chosen to pursue any legal recourse but it would seem that anyone could actually go and start >>another project and call it the USGenWeb Project, and unless the original project had some deep pockets and chose to try and pursue >>it in the courts, anyone can do whatever they want to. The Advisory Board has not tried to convince the Archives Census Project to >>change their name back and stop illegally using the name they changed to.

>>

>> So in the matter of states, it may not matter who does what first, but rather who claims the rights to say so first. Someone who has had a page for a long time and starts the servicemark process first has a very good chance of getting the rights of the name unless here is an appeal to the process by someone else also initiating the process at the same time or

before the other one is completed.

>>

>> As for the Census Project, I would state it here, that I would appreciate it, greatly, if the Archives Census Project would

cease and desist from using the legally registered name of "The USGenWeb Census Project" which is still active, and

includes Project members who were actively involved since 1997 with Kay Mason who was the original Project Coordinator.

>> >> Ron

>>

>> From: usgenweb-discuss-bounces@rootsweb.com

>> [mailto:usgenweb-discuss-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Scism

>> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 12:24 PM

>> To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com

>> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] important bylaws question There is precedence for this, several Rootsweb employees

>> incorporated the US GenWeb Project in the late 1990s. Yes they owned a corporation, but the USGenWeb Project wasn't theirs.

>>

>> You can establish that your state org is in existence for long before such incorporation occurs. Incorporation doesn't give you ownership of what others own, or run, independently.

>>

>> IF such a thing gets to court the Courts will pretty quickly tell the offenders that they can own the corporate entity, but it doesn't include

things they do not own. The USGenWeb state project can exist separately from that corporation, and will indeed have a presumed

copyright issue/Trademark issue if such happens. This is why the USGW got a trademark registered. Once that was done no other

"company" in the genealogy field could use their name. If you are worried, I would get the trade/service mark for your state Org.

>> Jeff

>>

>> Sandy wrote:

>>> Okay Jeff and other "bylaws experts," I've got a question.

>>>

>>> Is there anything in our bylaws that says a state project belongs to that state's full membership - i.e., that it cannot be someone's personal corporation? Most of us think our state project belongs collectively to "us," the membership. But I can't seem to find anything in the bylaws that says that's the case, let alone ensures it will be the case.

>>> So what happens if someone goes off and incorporates our project without our knowledge? Do they just get to own "XX-State GenWeb Project of the USGenWeb Project"? What happens to us? Are the members just left up the creek with no paddle?

>>>

>>> Thanks, Sandy (end quote of string)

Note the observation Sandy's reference to "bylaws expert" when referring to Jeff. Re-read Jeff's statement several times and you will see it has little meaning--Just words, but unlike Obama, Jeff's words count little.±

Betrayal! Secret Incorporation! Shafting with a sharp stick.

Pull up your pants!!

----- Original Message -----

From: "Sandy" <teylu2@gmail.com>

To: "NCGenWeb"

> Denise, I regret that I no longer have confidence or trust in you, Nola or Paul. The only reason we know about this is because I stumbled upon it. You three have kept this secret for over a year. How much longer would you have kept it? Till somebody found out?

>

> I can think of no possible benefit to our membership for Nola's secretive incorporation of our project a full nine months before the motion to incorporate. The three of you withheld this information even as the membership voted to incorporate ourselves.

>

> I will repost your very own words of March 15 posted during the discussion period on the motion for the membership to incorporate: "Nola has offered to pay the cost of incorporation. Filing as a non-profit charity (501 3c) allows for maximum transparency. The primary reason for this incorporation would be to place the do main name and hosting server into the hands of a group who belong to NCGenWeb rather than a single member."

>

> You wrote it knowing full-well that Nola had incorporated NCGenWeb a full nine months earlier. You knew that not just the domain name and hosting server were in the hands of a single member, so was NCGenWeb.

>

> And it only gets worse. Nola didn't just incorporate. She specifically chose to incorporate NCGenWeb as a private non profit corporation that "will have no members." That declaration is not accidental. It is a specific choice which ensures

that _only_ the corporation's board of directors is allowed to vote; the membership is not.

>

> Being honest and forthright is a choice. So is being deceitful and secretive. When people choose the latter, it's usually for their own benefit, not someone else's. Nola's incorporation sought to remove control of the project _from_ the full membership and vest it in the hands of a few directors. She should be required to dissolve the corporation immediately. Sandy

>

> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Denise Woodside <genweb@gmail.com> wrote:

>> As many of you are aware, earlier this year the membership of this NCGenWeb project voted to incorporate our NCGenWeb project. Bylaws were presented to me the group creating them, and I have been slow to review them and get them posted for you all to look at. I will try to complete that process and get them to you soon.

>>

>> As has come to light this weekend and posted to the web by Sandy, the name "NCGenWeb, Inc." has already been incorporated in the state of North Carolina by Nola Duffy. Sandy has posted a copy of the incorporation papers and Nola has posted a response. (See the ncgenweb-discuss mailing list archives if you need more information: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS/.

>>

>> Anyone can create a corporation in any state for any reason at any time. Nola incorporating "NCGenWeb, Inc." in NC because of her fear that someone else would snag up the name. Yes she did this in 2007. Yes I was aware. This tied up the name "NCGenWeb, Inc." which Nola had said from the beginning that she would transfer to us, the NCGenWeb project, if we ever decided to incorporate.

>>

>> I do understand that some of you have concerns about these actions. Although I do not tend to be as cautious and concerned about things like someone else taking the "NCGenWeb" name as Nola, I did not tell her she couldn't take the actions she took. If truth be told, she can do what she wants - the same as anyone else. That does not mean that this "corporation" is our corporation. Obviously, it is not. I will say that I do trust that Nola will turn this same corporation over to us as our corporation and have it modified as we require. Not only do I believe that she will do that, I appreciate her for it as she has also paid the required fees.

>>

>> However, ultimately, I am YOUR state coordinator. Additionally, Nola is an Asst. State Coordinator that I chose. If you, the volunteers that are NCGenWeb have lost confidence in my ability to be your state coordinator, or if you have concerns about Nola continuing as ASC, please contact me privately or on this list publicly. Denise Woodside (end)

Other chatter about this ruse:

From: "Elizabeth"

NCGENWEB-DISCUSS Important

Nola Wrote:

>>>Some of you are already aware that I have personally incorporated the state as the first step toward getting the state ready to function as a corporation. The charter shows that Denise is the current president and Paul is the VP and I believe I show as the secretary.

Elizabeth responded:

>> Nola, I didn't know anything about this until today, but frankly I am appalled that you filed to incorporate NCGENWEB in JULY 2007, according to the posted document, yet let us go ahead with a vote "to incorporate" in MARCH 2008. We voted to incorporate AS A PROJECT, but the posted document shows your name, and your name only, and it specifically states that the organization will NOT have members.

If it was as above-board as you would have us believe, and if Paul and Denise were part of it also, then why did none of you say anything when we were discussing incorporating in March? Elizabeth Harris (past SC) (end)

NCGenWeb, Inc., incorporated 03 July 2007

incorporator: Nola Duffy

type of corporation: Non profit which "will not have members."

North Carolina Secretary of State web site (search for NCGenWeb):

https://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/CSearch.aspx

NCGenWeb-L mandatory state list archives

NCGenWeb-Discuss list archives

10 March 2008: motion for the membership to incorporate our project as nonprofit in a manner which enables us to obtain tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3);

06 April 2008: SC announces motion approved by a vote of 31 "yea," 3 abstentions; there were no "no" votes.

SC simultaneously announces a "bylaws development team" will be formed, and that bylaws will require a vote of the full membership. No further information has been provided since as to who is serving on the bylaws development team, the progress or status of the bylaws, or anything else concerning incorporation.

The membership was never told that Nola Duffy personally incorporated NCGenWeb herself the year preceding (on 03 July 2007) as a nonprofit corporation which "will not have members" (see item 7, articles of incorporation).

The Last Word is one of Censorship, naturally!

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com>

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:40 PM

Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Sticking to issues

>I realize that the topic of discussion regarding incorporation of the NC GenWeb Project is of interest to many here, and I'm just writing to remind everyone that we need to stick to issues and not people. I realize this may be difficult to do under the circumstances, but please try.

> Thanks,

> Alice Allen

> Co-Moderator, Discuss List

USGenWeb deception to the core! I wonder if NCGenWeb and NMGenWeb's elite exchange texts in plots to screw their members? They are two peas in a moldy stew.

Worth Quoting: