From merope@Radix.Net Sat Apr 1 07:47:51 2000 Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:47:50 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Live from Georgia...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 31 March 2000: Board Secretary Ken Short declares Pam Reid's motion to send Motion 00-6 to a Special Committee out of order, noting "No action can be taken on Motion 00-6 unless motion 00-6b passes." He also reminds the Board that if Tim votes "in favor of 00-6b then Motion 00-6 will be brought to the floor for discussion and Pam may make her motion at that time." Pam Reid says that her motion "was NOT out of order when it was made. At that point in time, it was assumed the 00-6b was a done deal." She didn't want anyone to think she was a "twit". She says her motion "was well within the guidelines set out by Roberts," says she was really careful about it, and notes "I consider 00-6 and its careful consideration to be of utmost importance. The need for complete fairness to all of the volunteers involved is my primary motivation." Pam calls for point of order: "Will the Chair please present supporting text of RRoO which authorizes a member to withdraw a vote after the announcement regarding a motion has been made?" She notes that Tim "correctly ruled Jims' motion to reconsider as being out of order, BUT improperly allowed his vote to be withdrawn, thus negating the vote of the prevailing side." She also asks if the BS will be providing supporting text from RroO which authorizes the BS to make such a ruling. She considers it to be "usurping the authority of the chair." Tim tells Pam he can't give her any text from RroO supporting his ruling, because he "used something rarely seen - common courtesy in removing Jim's vote when he asked me to." He also notes that he asked the BS to send the ruling to the list. Tim posts the revised vote count for Motion 00-6b, noting once again that he removed Jim's vote "under the privilege of common courtesy." He notes "This left the vote at a tie, which as NC I have to break." Tim votes "yes" on Motion 00-6b, and posts the new "final" totals: "Yes - 8; No - 7; Abstain - 0; Not Voting - 1". He announces that "The postponement of Motion 00-6 and subsequent admendments are put on hold until the empty Board seat is filled," and asks the BS to forward the results to the appropriate lists. Tim posts a lengthy treatise on the Census Project issue, which he has apparently been thinking about extensively [uh oh]. Here are some excerpts: "From the time a person volunteers to transcribe a census for a county/parish/borough until it goes on-line for all to view several items must be addressed by coordinators along that path. Perhaps a solution can be found by a division of tasks rather than a merger of projects...the tasks involved include: recruiting volunteers, acknowledging their requests to volunteer on a timely basis, assignment of the transcription, maintaining web sites of what's available for transcription and/or status, assisting the volunteer in getting the materials to transcribe and software if need be, answering questions concerning transcriptions, keeping in contact with the volunteers to make sure that the transcription is proceeding without problems, assisting the volunteers in getting the completed transcription uploaded or turned in to the Project, formatting the files for viewing by the public, storing the files, updating web sites to current status of completed transcriptions.... please consider breaking down the tasks as follows: USGW Census Project (CP) retains their name, logo and project coordinator: recruits volunteers, acknowledges their requests to volunteer on a timely basis, assigns transcription, maintains their pages to show assigned census, assists volunteers in getting materials, software, answering questions, keeps in contact with volunteers, assists transcribers in getting the materials uploaded, modifies their recruiting web sites that transcription is complete. USGW Archives Census Project (ACP) retains their name, logo and project coordinator: receives completed transcriptions from CP, formats files for viewing, stores files, modifies census on-line web sites to current URL for stored files, contacts appropriate CP file manager with any questions regarding the files. ...someone needs to coordinate the process. It doesn't have to be someone with an iron hand but it does need to be someone who thoroughly understands every aspect of the process. It should not be a popularity contest. This person either needs to be appointed or chosen from qualified candidates." [Tim has posted this wherever he has posting privileges and has told the SC's to send it to their CC lists as well.] === "IMO, this entire situation has become a comedy of errors." ---Roger Swafford, USGW-CC-L, 30 March 2000 This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix,net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Apr 4 11:52:18 2000 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:52:16 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Tanned, rested and ready...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [I apologize for the scarcity of DBSs in the last few days; I was busy having "too much fun" and failed to read my mail. But we didn't miss much, as it turned out.] Monday 3 Apr 2000-Tuesday 4 April 2000: Gloria Mayfield sends a "test" message to Board-L, asking if everyone is still there, since she has received nothing from the list. Pam Reid says she's still on the list; she thinks "everyone is just being really quiet right now." Gloria responds that she doesn't blame them. Tim Stowell states that the next order of business for the Board is to fill the vacant Census Project seat. He says "Interested parties are asked to send their application to the National Coordinator for submission to the Board. With the permission of a person so named you may submit names other than your own." He will accept applications until 9 pm EST on Thursday 6 April. Ginger Cisewski asks Tim when the Board decided that they would take applications, as she does not recall "voting on such a plan of action." She asks "Where is your precedent for issuing such a dictate?" Holly Fee Timm also notes that Tim's action is "a bit precipitate with no discussion as to nomination procedure"; she also feels that the time frame for nominations is too short. === Not Interested Corner: NC Tim Stowell's so-called "alternative" solution to the census projects issue has met with something less than enthusiasm from most quarters. One project member called it "a stupid (to use a kind word) "solution" to a situation that just gets stupider and stupider and just points out the inneffectiveness [sic] of the umbrella "organization" that calls itself the USGenWeb project." Ron Eason, coordinator of the Census Project, in a letter to the Census Project mailing list, notes that Tim and the Board apparently have no clue as to what the real sources of concern are for the CP. According to Ron, Tim's proposal has nothing in it for the Census Project, and Motion 00-6 will result in nothing less than the end of the CP, which will become another Archives subproject whose coordinator is appointed by and answerable to Linda Lewis. Ron notes that the CP's own suggestions for merging the projects were rejected out of hand by the Board; his own candidacy for the vacant seat [for which he is the CP's elected choice] will apparently never be allowed to come to a vote. Ron, however, seems willing to consider other options; his message includes mention of both incorporation and moving [bold strategies, yes, but allowable under the bylaws and acceptable based on precedent.] BTW, a reader has pointed out one very good reason why the USGW Census Project should keep its name. That is what is is called --repeatedly-- in the bylaws. Get A Job Corner: The Archives is soliciting for persons to index the scanned census images. If interested, contact Linda Lewis at: cen_img@yahoo.com. More Is Always Better Corner: Root$web minion Tim Pierce has announced a Marvelous New Feature for Root$web customers: now all GenConnect Board postings can be gatewayed to a mailing list. According to Tim, "When a board is gatewayed to a mailing list, every message posted to the GenConnect board will be forwarded to the corresponding mailing list. The message sent to the list will contain the URL of the specific post to allow the list subscribers to respond directly to the message." Apparently, one can gateway the posts to _any_ mailing list, providing the mail list manager agrees [both parties must make administrative changes for it to work]. [Those poor PML subscribers...] Fresh New Look Corner: A week or so before it announces its "Get a New Homepage Designed for Free" contest winner, RW modified its homepage slightly. Major change of note: the surname/county "cluster" pages, formerly called "resources", are now called "Research Templates". === "Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ---I.F. Stone This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Apr 5 16:21:45 2000 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:21:43 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Whoa Nelly...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 4 April 2000-Wednesday 5 April 2000: Ginger Cisewski says "Unless one of you can think of some reason why the USGenWeb Census Project should be treated in a manner differently than the Archives Project, Tombstone Project or the Regions, I suggest that the appointment of Census Rep be carried out exactly as we have done in each of these other areas." She notes that since the bylaws were passed the Board has seated replacements of each group's choosing regardless of personal prejudices and has felt "honor-bound" to do so. Since "The clear choice of the Census Project is Ron Eason," she moves to appoint Ron Eason as Census Project representative. Jim Powell seconds the motion. Tim Stowell tells the Board that GingerC's motion is out of order, "as nominations are not made for appointed positions." He tells her she can submit Ron's name through the application process and notes that when the Board closes the applications process they can then consider how to choose among applicants. He says, "Options at that point would include appointment of a committee to study the names sumbitted [sic] and offer one or two to the Board for a vote. Or the Board can decide to select one or none of those on the list of applicants as a committee of the whole." In response to Holly's question of earlier [see yesterday's DBS] Tim notes that the time limit on the applications was put in place to speed things up but notes "if the Board wishes to drag the process out for several days/weeks that's ok." In response to GingerC's question [see yesterday's DBS] Tim says that the Board decided the vacant seat would be filled when it voted to postpone action on Motion 00-6. He says "Every single item that the Board addresses doesn't have to be motioned, then discussed ad nauseam, be held up to the 'light' of RRO to be handled...It's time for some common sense to return to the proceedings here. The members of the Project are tired of seeing nearly everything being completely dissected until nothing remains of the original question." He notes that some things should still be discussed but "they don't have to be belittled into meaninglessness." [Man, but Tim is full of piss and vinegar these days.] He notes that precedence for his action exists in the Board's selection of the NE/NC rep [In the post in which he tells GingerC her motion is out of order, Tim also says "The Board selected the Northeast Rep by inquiry of potential applicants and then voted upon those applicants." He fails to mention that the Board solicited applicants from the NE region only and then polled the NE members as to which of those applicants they preferred. Tim's process does not limit the pool of potential applicants at all; I could apply even though I have no ties to either census project. Nor is there any specific mention of polling the CP volunteers as to the acceptability of the applicants. But of course, the CP has _already_ elected the person they want to represent them. The Board instituted the applicant procedure for the NE rep position because the next highest vote getter in the previous election was someone they did not want to seat. Some members of the Board strenuously urged that the NE/NC members _not_ be allowed to elect their choice of replacement representative. So now its "precedent."] Pam Reid says she's glad this subject has come up since she feels the Board is letting too much time pass before the position is filled. She does not object to doing it through an applications process and notes "The bylaws don't spell out how the Board fills vacant seats - just that the Board do so. The applications process might bring forward someone with a great deal of interest whom nobody had thought of before." Tim says he's received an "application" for Ron Eason. GingerC challenges Tim's ruling and asks Tim to cite his sources. She notes that she made no references to "nominations" but moved to appoint Ron Eason to fill the vacancy. She then cites several instances in which Tim previously allowed similarly worded motions to be acted upon by the Board. One of these is Joy Fisher's recent motion to appoint Ron Eason to fill the position and GingerC also notes "that Motion 99-25B was a Motion to Appoint Ed Book as Board Secretary and Motion 99-26 which was a Motion to Appoint Richard Howland. None of the above Motions were ruled out of order and all of them were allowed." Gloria Mayfield also notes that the CP rep position should be "filled as soon as possible" and she sees "nothing wrong with it being done by applications." === Minor Irregularities Corner: This whole issue of choosing a CP representative has scared some interesting bugs out of the woodwork. As some of you may recall the USGenWeb Project had an election last July, as provided for in our bylaws. One of the positions on the ballot was that of Archives representative. Joe Zsedeny was the only candidate for this position and his name was forwarded as the "choice" of the Archives for its seat. On August 4, 1999 [four days after the election had ended] Linda "Dirty Tricks" Lewis posted a request to her file managers: "I've been contacted by the election committee and asked to provide something official about Joe being chosen as our board rep. Would each of you vote either aye or nay, yes or no, for Joe?" [ARCHIVES-L] Linda herself voted "aye" and presumably some majority of the Archives file managers did as well. Interestingly enough, though, the _only_ people who got to vote for Joe were the Archives file managers [According to Linda, 51 votes are possible, one for each state and D.C. Apparently, file managers get to vote as many times as they have states.] Members of the Archives subprojects, including the Archives Census Project, the Maps Project, and the Pension Project, were not allowed to vote, unless they were also file managers. Thus, Joe was elected solely by the rather small group of file managers, although at least theoretically he represents _all_ members of the Archives, including its subprojects. Linda now claims there "was no controversy" over who was allowed to vote, but at least one of her staff members disputes this. Another interesting irregularity in the last election is the way the Archives' "single candidate election" was handled. During that race, there were two other single candidate elections, and after much discussion on how to handle this circumstance, the Board Secretary cast the single vote necessary to elect each of these representatives to the Board. Why was the Archives election not handled in the same way? Why were they privately asked to provide "something official" after the election was over and why were they allowed to conduct a regular election outside the timeframe set by the bylaws? If Wishes Were Horses Corner: Neilsen, Inc. who does the TV ratings that allow junk like "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" to infest the airwaves, also does website traffic ratings, and they've just released some stats on genealogy websites. According to them the most active genealogy site in February was MyFamily.com [1.5 million unique visitors]; second was Ancestry.com [1.4 million unique visitors]; third was RootsWeb.com, Inc. [981,000 unique visitors]; and fourth was FamilyTreeMaker.com [640,000 unique visitors]. On top of this, MyFamily.com just got another 30 million dollars of investment capital. You go! Gag Me With A Spoon Corner: For some reason not immediately apparent to me, Linda Lewis has invited me to lunch with her. === "Why is there an applicaiton [sic] process. Every other project has submitted the name of the supposedly elected choice and the board has accepted that choice. We had a real election with more than one candidate. Why are you not seating our choice?" ---Veda Mendoza, CP member, to the Board, 4 April 2000 This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Apr 5 21:53:33 2000 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:53:31 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: DBS Special Late Edition Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: This is too Good To Pass Up, so here's a DBS Special Late Edition! Trouble in Paradise Corner: The Board has once again degenerated into nasty infighting, and it ought to get even better before the morning. Tim Stowell apparently decided to respond to Ginger Cisewski's comments in a less than professional manner. He basically told her he was allowed to change his mind "on stuff" and that the bylaws don't say he has to use RRoO exclusively and they infer that "folks will use their common sense, if they have any." [and nyah, nyah, nyah...] In the course of responding to this, Ginger quoted the bylaws at him and said "Changing policy from one week to the next to suit your personal agenda under the vague umbrella of 'common sense' is the poorest of excuses." Only it turns out that Tim made his remarks to her on BOARD-EXEC, and she responded to him, quoting his post in full, on BOARD-L. And guess what? In a powerful demonstration of leadership and maturity, Tim not only summarily unsubbed her from Board-Exec, he also managed to imply that she is responsible for the myriad leaks of material from the secret list. But it gets better. GingerC next asks why he unsubbed her and he quotes RRoO at her! Guess his "common sense" failed him on this one. [Actually he gave her a page number out of "RRoONR"; she apparently has no idea what this section says.] For her part, GingerC blames the "mistake" on her preoccupation with her week old grandchild and has apologized. No word from Tim yet as to whether or not he'll be big enough to accept it. [Darn, _where_ is a kindergarten teacher when you need one? I know some people who need to go for a time out.] In Other News: We hear that the nominations for Ron Eason are coming in one right after the other. Along with the questions as to why the Board just can't accept him as the elected choice of the CP and quit wasting time that could be better spent in other ways [like maybe learning how to play nice with others.] There you have it...a DBS Special Late Edition! -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Thu Apr 6 09:08:15 2000 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:08:14 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: We live in interesting times...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* its a doozy today! contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 5 April 2000: As support for his declaring GingerC's motion out of order, Tim Stowell cites "common sense" and asks her if she would "deny others the right to offer names?" He also reminds her that the appointment time is ongoing and "Since all potential candidates have not been presented nor is the time called for," her motion is premature. [This is the "nice" version of the message he sent to Board-Exec.] Tim tells the Board that he's received Sundee Maynez's name for the CP seat. Joy Fisher forwards a message from Veda Mendoza saying that if the Board can't bring itself to seat Ron, she will accept the seat. Ginger replies to Tim's Board-Exec message on Board-L [reported last evening] and Tim responds by unsubbing her from Board-Exec. GingerC asks why, he tells her "for cause" and at her request provides the RRoO reference, which essentially says that anyone that violates the confidence of "executive session" can be removed from the meeting. GingerC apologizes, but Tim tells her, essentially, that he doesn't believe a word of it. [It takes a big man to accept an apology.] Jim Powell tells GingerC not to worry, "The atmosphere out here is much better." And GingerC agrees with him. Tim publishes Executive Order 2000E-1 in which he notifies Ron Eason that the Census Project has been delinked for being "not in good standing" and claims that he can do this within his "rights as National Coordinator" and under his "day to day administration duties." [This is a stretch Tim. Delinking a project or page is so important a responsibility that the bylaws devote an entire section to it. And guess what? Its not up to you, its up to the Advisory Board to determine who is not in good standing and who is to be delinked. Read a litle further down next time.] Tim offers to provide evidence of the CP's sins to the Board upon request. [According to other sources, the CP has been removed from all national pages, and all urls that formerly went to its pages have been replaced with redirects to the Archives Census Project.] Noting the extreme importance of the "executive order", Richard Howland believes that it is also necessary that the Board confirm it. Therefore, he moves "to over ride the National Coordinator's delink of the USGenWeb Census Project." Jim Powell, while hoping that "that Robert's Rules doesn't have another meaning of over ride" and assuming that "it means repeal, do away with, make null and void, etc." seconds Rich's motion, although he notes "although we will probably be ruled out of order." [Good job, guys! At least someone recognizes that Tim has just usurped for himself the only real authority the Board has.] Ginger Hayes tells Tim that he is "gravely overstepping" his bounds as NC and provides him with the bylaws to support her statement. She notes that article VI, section 5 was "specifically instituded to prevent one person from having the power to remove state or special projects at will." She believes Tim owes the Board and the CP an apology and says that she finds his actions "reprehensible." She says "Since this action was taken without due process by the Advisory Board, I suggest that the link to the USGenWeb Census Project be restored IMMEDIATELY." [Unfortunately, it takes an even bigger man to admit he made a mistake.] GingerC agrees with GingerH's sentiments. === The Man Who Would Be King Corner: Over the last year, I've heard from various people who were on the original bylaws committee, and all have assured me that the bylaws were written in such a way so as to prevent a single individual from "being a dictator." The NC has no meaningful vote and is limited to chairing the meeting, managing a handful of mailing lists, and performing "day to day" administrative duties [undefined, but which definitely don't include unilaterally deciding who gets to be in the project and who doesn't]. As a measure of the relative importance of the NC to the Advisory Board as a whole, Article VI [which sets out their duties] devotes one smallish section to the NC and _seven__ to the Advisory Board [the remaining section gives qualifications]. Section 5 of this Article specifically gives the power to delink projects to the Advisory Board and sets out specific procedures which must be followed. The ability, after due consideration, to delink projects is the _only_ real power the Board has, and Tim has just attempted to execute a coup of stunning proportions. If he can do this to the Census Project, he can do it to any one of us [and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he has a list]. Tim managed to look the other way for over a year while the Archives Census Project ignored a motion duly passed by the Board. The Archives Census Project is currently in violation of the bylaws [no USGW logo on its pages]. Yet is apparently in "good standing". Whether or not one believes that the Census Project negotiated in "good faith", that is simply not a criterion for being in "good standing". Nor is it an excuse for usurping the Board's authority in this matter. The Census Project is recognized by name in the bylaws and has the same standing as any state or other special project. While we can all understand the frustration of not being able to get our way as quickly as we'd like, the Board is slowly in its own blundering way moving toward a resolution of this non-crisis. Under most circumstances it is better to let the wheels of deliberative assembly work at their own speed, so perhaps our Tim has suddenly realized that he may not have the 2/3 of votes necessary to pass Motion 00-6 [or indeed any motion concerning this issue] and is now unwilling to risk a vote? Of course, if Tim has some new evidence of perfidy on the part of the Census Project, we urge him to share it with the project, allow the Board to assess it and determine whether or not it warrants delinking. After all, if it is good enough evidence for Tim to invoke executive privilege and violate the bylaws, it ought to be good enough to convince the Board that the CP is "not in good standing". Mea Culpa Corner: We reported yesterday that, based on communication with Linda Lewis, it appeared that voting in the Archives' elections was done by state rather than on a "one person, one vote" basis. We have been corrected in our misunderstanding; Linda tells us that each Archives file manager gets only one vote, regardless of how many states they manage. We apologize for the misunderstanding and any confusion it has caused. === "Power does not corrupt men. Fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power." ---George Bernard Shaw This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Fri Apr 7 08:24:38 2000 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:24:36 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: In a world without heroes...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* we're knee deep in editorial content here. Read at your own risk! Thursday 6 April 2000: His Serene Highness Tim Stowell gives Rich's motion to over ride the delinking of the Census Project number 00-8 and opens the floor for discussion. Gloria Mayfield tells Tim that "this is POOR Timing and NOT necessarily in the best interest of the volunteers of the USGenWeb Project." She notes that the project comes first, not the Archives or the CP and points that the CP was in the process of appointing a representative when Tim delinked them [actually the Board was doing this, but we get the point.] Gloria has transcribed for both the Archives and the CP and also works for the Tombstone project and has had no problems with any of them. She says ""Talk about the frying pan into the Fire." This action needs to be reversed NOW. I support Richard's motion to OVERRIDE Tim's Delinking of the Census Project." Pam Reid says that "Tim is correct in his assessment that the Census Project is NOT operating within the guidelines and can, therefore, be delinked." She feels that the Board needs "to do something about the files that are already there. The most sensible action is to combine the two projects, and put the Census files back where they belong, in the USGenWeb Archives." In her opinion, the Archives are "our" digital library and "the proper place of storage for ALL records." She says "The Projects themselves are irrelevant to this opinion," and the Board needs to act quickly to resolve this issue. [I have to confess that I have read this post numerous times, and it makes absolutely no sense to me.] Pam asks what happened to Motion 00-7. Tim tells her that it was Holly's abortive motion to reconsider the motion to postion Motion 00-6; the one he declared dead. Friday 7 April 2000: Tim posts a message from fellow Board member Maggie Stewart Zimmerman in which she invites census project volunteers "to continue the hard work and efforts of providing census material on-line for the visitors of the USGenWeb Project and the USGenWeb Archives Census Project." Tim posts a message saying he will post a series of message "that will show where the census talks started and where they ended," and invites "project members" to forward them elsewhere. He then posts two messages from September 1999, one from himself and one from Maggie. Tim's message sets out some areas of discussion for a merger of the two census projects, and Maggie's is a response to those discussion topics. Others cc'd on the message include Ron Eason, Connie Burkett, and John Jacoby. [This sequence of events preceded the merger talks described in detail at: http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chaptr5a.htm. According to several sources, the "september talks" were secret and more or less petered out with little being accomplished. The talks did not included Linda Lewis or Kay Mason and Maggie makes repeated reference to those two needing to "work things out" before any issues could be resolved. Thus far none of the replies from Ron, Connie, or John have been forwarded, and Tim has yet to provide any evidence that the Census Project is not in "good standing". === Fixing A Hole Corner: The space formerly occupied by the Census Project on the first page of the nation website now has a link to something called "Census Lookups". This site is not a part of the USGenWeb Project, but is some private project to coordinate Census lookups. When did we start linking to non-USGW sites off our main page? Something like this is certainly valuable, but belongs with the "resources for researchers", not prominently featured on the front page. Methinks that Tim needed something to fill the hole where he carved out the Census Project and he isn't enough of a coder to figure out how to move things around so there isn't a big obvious empty space. Peanut Gallery Corner: Some comments have been forwarded my way concerning this mess. Some have gone to the Board, and some have not. "I would like to know the means by which to file a grievance against Tim Stowell as well as the method for removing him from office due to his obvious inability to deal serve all members of the USGenWeb." ---Veda Mendoza "Can I just tell you all that I think it stinks that a few people out of hundreds seem to be on the road to either causing a political division or completely ruining such a fabulous project that is a model to other volunteer organizations. Can we even begin to count the multitudes of people that contribute to GenWeb on a daily basis? How about the folks that use GenWeb and its resources? Can you imagine what would happen if this bureaucratic subterfuge is allowed to continue, and the folks that count on us for assistance and information in one place had to continuously go back and forth trying to find something?...I hope that a reply is made, not only to myself, but to all the members, of USGenWeb, that explains exactly what is going on, why its going on, and who is responsible. I think its fair to say that even in a volunteer organization, there has to be accountability, and if it hasn't gone on in the past, maybe it needs to start now." ---Susan Anderson "This is absolutely ridiculous!!! What reason have they given for delinking the census site and what do they consider in good standing. This make me just sick... This not only effects us but everyone in the genealogical community. When all the trouble in the past happened I immediately stopped giving any of my files to them. Who do they think they are....grrrr!" ---Anonymous DBS reader "Tim's "Executive Order" is a very sad omen of the USGenWeb Project's state of affairs. Even the fact that he felt he had the right to take this action is indicative of the undemocratic organization our project has become. Just when did the true goals of our project turn from the volunteers, the transcribers, and researchers? When did these few people become the ruling tyrants of the project? When did these few people gain the right to ignore or interpret the bylaws at whim? Tim's action has seriously hurt the trust of many people and will be very hard to amend.... Tim, the last two messages you have sent to the USGenWeb have proved to me that you don't understand anything about these issues. Your message about the division of duties between the two projects was absurd and your "Executive Order" should lead to your immediate removal from office. If I were you, I would resign and slink away to never be heard from again." ---Sue Soden "I am saddened by the thought that a project that started out with such a wonderful goal in mind is being damaged by folks who cannot overcome their own attitudes and work together. But more important I am saddened by what this means for those hundreds of volunteers who have worked so hard, given their time, effort, and even financial resources to support this project (yes, I purchased a copy of the census I am transcribing as did many others) all with the idea of making that data available to others. All of them felt that in doing so they would be part of a wonderful national project. And now it appears that their efforts will not be part of that project. Now why don't all you folks get your act together and start putting the concerns of the project and that project's ultimate goal as top priority (instead of individual feelings) and see if you can't get this project back on track again." ---"Emma" "Mr. Stowell, Not being a board member or in any capacity other than transcriber and proofer, I formally request the return of my property: [census, will, cemetery, marriage file names deleted]. I withdraw my permission to post the above listed transcriptions for USGenWeb." --Anonymous, quoted by "Emma" "I will not stop transcribing census data but I will no longer submit it to USGenWeb until such time as the Census Project is restored to autonomy. I have my own web site where I can make the census data available and there are at least two census indices online that provide state and county indexing of census files." ---Anonymous, quoted by "Emma" "I have sat here day after day reading all this, now I have had it. I am no longer, like many others, interested in this nonsense and am unsubscribing. I will also no longer be doing any more census transcriptions. I can offer my volunteer efforts to other forums." ---Anonymous, quoted by "Emma" "Can someone tell me how to remove my transcription from on-line until this mess is settled? To hell with both sides of the issue." ---Anonymous, quoted by "Emma" "I have also forwarded some letters to Linda from volunteers demanding that their files be taken out of the archives. All that has happened in the past 24 hours has not advanced the ACP position but hurt it as we are losing files because of it....We must work within the by laws without disregarding them or this is not a true organization but a chaotic machine ready to fall apart....As was pointed out earlier today, Tim's action was totally out of scope of his authority. Delinking can only come from the AB. The links need to be re-established and merger talks resumed in the normal manner. I am truly disheartened by all of this. If this isn't dealt with the board immediately, there will be nothing to deal with down the road as volunteers will be lining up to remove their files." ---Stacey Orchard "Like I said, unfortunately, no one cares about the volunteers. These latest events including Tim's has caused such a rift that I doubt the USGW can withstand it. Too many people will be resigning. Tell me why the Archives feel that they have to have complete control over the census project?... The USGW has control over its projects NOT the archives. I want a solution to this problem as it is causing havoc all the way down to the county level! You will be getting an onslaught of letters requesting the removal of their files and if the archives do not comply, I believe some will actually take it to court as the files specifically state that the copyright belongs to the submitter. The project cannot withstand that sort of injury." ---Stacey Orchard, letter to Linda Lewis "...one of the biggest problems here is that the USGW Project is becoming defunct while being taken over by the USGW Archives. Many volunteers believe they are one and the same since the Archives have so much power over all the other projects. This needs to be corrected and the Archives need to go back to being only a special project whose duties revolve around the storing of data brought in by the other special projects." ---Stacey Orchard, letter to the Board [in which she requests a formal name change for the Archives Census Project to the Census Project] "Maggie? Tina? These are the ladies that NEVER had the guts to reply to my requests for volunteering to the point of exasperation. Is it any wonder the other Census Project is by far more active in transcribing and putting online?!...How can you (Maggie) expect us to follow you when YOU and your folks continue to IGNORE us, the transcribers/volunteers?" ---W. David Samuelsen, message to -ALL "Too many people are stepping over the boundaries of the by laws and as we saw today, have taken upon them the role of dictator. The AB is the one that decides who is delinked, not the NC and yet, that is what happened today... Not only do we have the Archives wanting to keep their fingers in the census pot, the NC has decided to do things his way. This is not what the by laws state nor is this the way the USGenWeb project is suppose to run....we are losing volunteers fast and the demands for file removal are coming in daily... This cannot be the intention of the ACP or the Archives. If it is, then we are in dire straits. This contraversy is not helping the cause, only hurting it. Before long, there will alot less files in the archives and we all have to start all over. " ---Stacey Orchard, message to the Tombstone Project === "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for who we really are." ---Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Sat Apr 8 08:58:20 2000 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:58:18 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Sic semper tyrannis...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* editorial content? You're soaking in it! Read at your risk! Friday 7 April 2000: Ginger Hayes posts a message entitled "'Tis a sad day for The USGenWeb Project". She is appalled with current events and at Tim's actions and notes she has "no doubt that some of you were aware of what was coming." She reminds the Board that "when a previous NC made a similar statement about their executive privilege some of you, that are still here, went up in arms, with the result of the resignation of that NC....Now, when another NC has taken such power upon himself, you appear to support his position by your very silence. Where is your outrage now? She points out that those Board members who had foreknowledge of it and endorsed it should have "had the fortitude to do it publicly, instead of behind closed doors," and brought it to a vote before the Board. To the rest of the volunteers in the project she says she is "deeply ashamed" of these receent events and finds it "incomprehensible" that adults would act in such a way as to destroy the project. She also notes "that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Neither side has a spotless record," and that no one is indispensable. His Serene Highness Tim Stowell notes that John Jacoby has declined permission to forward his correspondence so " any input he may have made will not be included." [This is apparently in reference to HSH Tim's plan to post the messages from the September merger talks; John was a member of the discussion team.] Joe Zsedeny tells his fellow Board members not to ascribe motives to him "that only seem to reflect what you would do in like circumstances because in all likelihood you will be wrong." As a Board member, he will continue to vote his conscience. He also wishes "everyone would cool it and let Richards' motion work it's way through the discussion and voting process. Then you can pick your targets for whatever invective seems appropriate. If his motion passes the Board says no and the link returns." Joe notes that he and HSH Tim are friends and often discuss issues privately, and Joe understands Tim's frustration with the Census project, but "only the Board can vote to delink. We must respect the ByLaws or else we make it up as we go along and the Boards behind us do the same and chaos reigns." Shari Handley asks GingerH not to assume that silence implies support [of HSH Tim's actions] and notes "We have a motion before the board, #00-8, Richard's motion to override Tim's executive order.... It is clear to me that de-linking is something that can only come from the AB. This is spelled out quite clearly in the bylaws. Allowing any NC to make a unilateral decision and pronouncement such as that sets a perilous precedent. If delinking needs to happen, then it needs to follow the standard "motion-second-discussion-vote" path." [This precedent was already set, when HSH Tim "declared" Kay Mason's seat vacant.] Shari also suggests that if the royal decree is overturned the Board needs to quickly appoint someone to the CP seat and begin to deal with Motion 00-6. GingerH asks "would someone please explain to me how we can have a motion to overrule an action that the NC had no right to take in the first place." She feels he should have been declared out of order and instructed to refrain from further similar actions. She notes "Moving to, what basically amounts to a, veto of his actions implies that he had the right to take those actions in the first place. Which he clearly did not!" Ginger Cisewski says its a rare day when she agrees with GingerH, but in this case she does. She thinks "a Motion for Sanctions or something similar would be a better way to handle it and avoid setting dangerous precedents by implication or inference as Ginger has pointed out." Teri Pettit does not agree with their position, however. She thinks Motion 00-8 is a declaration by the Board that HSH Tim's action was out of bounds. She agrees that the Executive Order "was flagrantly outside the ByLaws," and says that the Board needs "to vote to make it official that the NC does not have that authority. And official actions are introduced via motions." She is concerned with the clause requiring a 2/3 majority to pass motions, noting "If a motion to declare an NC's action to be illegal requires 2/3 approval to pass, then any NC with a 1/3 support on the Board can do anything illegal they want, by issuing one Executive Order after another, and those opposed needing 2/3 approval to override it!" She points out that "Traditionally, clauses that certain votes require more than a plurality to pass are reserved for a few specified actions, such as requiring 2/3 majority to pass a new tax or to forcibly unseat an officeholder - or to delink a project! Requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any motion makes the likelihood of change oversensitive as to whether the motion is worded so that change will occur when it passes versus when it fails. Some very good ideas get voted down because 35% of the Board opposes them, even though 65% think we should do it, and some dubious actions get allowed because somebody with web page control or directory access does them, and the Board needs 2/3 agreement to force them to undo whatever they did." She hopes that Motion 00-8 will pass, a CP rep can be seated, the Board can then deal with Motion 00-6, and then perhaps turn its attention to amending some of the bylaws. She had hoped that working on the bylaws would be the major focus of attention this year and thinks the CP issue has been a real distraction. She says "I don't think there is that much of a problem with the two Census Projects the way they are. A bit confusing, yes, but not nearly as much of a headache as trying to force volunteers to merge when they don't want to, and getting everybody up-in-arms at being coerced." She notes that she prefers the suggestion of a joint committee or a fact-finding liason "to ANY solution worked out by the Board and handed down from on high, no matter how sound or fair or even positively inspired the Board's plan is." She notes that people will be happier with a plan they come up with themselves than one forced on them, "even if it turns out to be the same plan in the end." In a separate message, Teri tells the two Gingers that if a motion is couched as a censure or sanction, then "people who would vote for a simple motion to declare EO-2000 void and without authority might not vote for a motion to censure." She thinks some people on the Board might think the executive order represents an "innocent misinterpretation of the ByLaws"; they would vote to overturn it but might not vote to sanction HSH Tim. She notes that Joy Fisher has expressed similar sentiments. Tere points out that "Since any motion needs 2/3 majority to pass, I would be *very* cautious about amending Motion 00-8 to be any harsher than it is. It doesn't do much good to put your righteous outrage into a Motion if it results in the Executive Order standing." === $64,000 Question Corner: So, many are wondering, what prompted this sudden action by His Serene Highness? We have to admit we have no idea. shortly before the Royal Decree was issued, Tim had opened the floor for the submission of potential appointees to the CP seat, and that seemed to be going well, except that the vast majority were suggesting that the Board honor the CP's recent election and seat Ron Eason. Maybe that's why Tim suddenly decided to pull the plug. Maybe its because the diversion of all the motions and counter motions gave the ACP the time it needed to get its own house in order [new software, etc.] and they were just "ready" to take the place of the CP? Tim's reasons for suddenly delinking the CP certainly don't hold much water. A quick view of the Census Project main page [http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwcens/] shows them to be in order and per the bylaws. There are no obvious errors to correct. The accusation that Ron Eason was failing to respond to email is also not borne out. Less than a month ago [March 12] Tim contacted Ron about re-opening merger negotiations; Tim noted "If you delay or decline, it is fairly obvious that the Advisory Board intends in some fashion to force a merger and/or resolution which may make folks more dissatisfied than satisfied with the results." Ron responded to this correspondence on the same day, indicating a willingness to continue merger talks. So the "unwillingness to negotiate in good faith" reason is also so much hooey. Ron and the CP have participated in the September talks, they participated in the abortive November-December talks [which Ron backed out of when he felt the agreement was not being honored by the ACP], and they are willing to start new talks. HSH Tim so far has not provided any further elucidation of his evidence against the CP and we really don't expect him to. More From The Cheap Seats Corner: More comments from various places regarding the delinking of the Census Project: "It appears to me, per the bylaws, that Tim didn't have the authority to delink the UsGenWeb Census Project. The Advisory Board could though, but they *didn't* authorize this action." ---Debi, USGENWEB-ALL "I agree that both sides are not spotless but we have to do what is best for the project. I agree too that the NC overstepped his authority by delinking the CP. I have read the preceedings and it specifically says that if goodwill is not shown by one side or the other, the AB has the right to delink. It does not say that the NC has that right...Can anyone suggest something that we other "peons" can do to resolve this NC matter and the census matter?" ---Stacey Orchard, USGENWEB-ALL "Well I see that some on the Board seems to be following the tradition of "I don't like you so I'm going to find something wrong with your project" tradition. For a volunteer project of this type, with so many dedicated county coordinators who don't like to get involved with the politics of this project, these type of actions are pitiful, and the county coordinators deserve something better....Now we have these "Executive Orders" to get rid of projects. Is such a power given to the Director in the bylaws or are some people making up the rules as they go? Just what terrible crime did the leader of the Census Project commit that deserves being delinked from the USGenWeb project?" ---Gary Martens [former Board member], USGENWEB-NW "Were there votes by the Advisory Board to first delink the Census Project, and then to make the Archives Census Project the only census project? This message seems to me to be premature unless there has been a vote by the Board....Let's get this mess straightened out, but not by using strong-arm tactics that will turn everyone 'off' from working with any USGenWeb project, whether it's a special project or a state/county project. This latest move makes me wonder just how we managed to place so much power in the NC and AB in the first place." ---Connie Snyder, STATE-COORD-L "I would like to ask one question - where in the bylaws is it written that a project can be delinked without a vote of the Advisory Board? I have been following the various and asundry arguments etc and had finally seen some progress in seating a member of the Census Project. And now this???? No one person should have the power to delink a project. I believe that is why there are bylaws." ---Mary Saban, STATE-COORD-L "I would also ask each Board Member to consider that just because the Bylaws give the AB the power to DE-link a project, it also does not specifically prohibit the NC from doing so. Since the AB chose to follow the parliamentary procedures of RRoO, then Tim was well within his rights. I would also ask each Board Member to consider that accusations towards Tim are changing the focus from the problem at hand: namely, resolving the original problems in the Census Mess. And, finally, I would ask that each Board Member continue to work to resolve the census mess, but to refrain from taking it to the CC's until the Board has, at the very least, resolved item 00-08." ---Carol Askey, STATE-COORD-L "The NC does not have the authority to delink a project. The AB has that authority but there has been no vote by them. This was an arbitrary action taken by the NC without regard to the by laws. I guess no one cares about the by laws anymore except when if furthers their cause in some way and then they will quote a portion of it....Something need to be done about the NC overstepping the boundaries and the AB's inablity to control it. Not only is the project delinked but if you try to access the URL from your own links, it is rerouted to the ACP pages....The most that should have happened in this case was delinking from the USGW site but not interrupting others use to access that url from any other site. THAT is very wrong." ---Stacey Orchard, STATE-COORD-L "On the other hand, everyone clearly and explicitly gave permission for their transcriptions to be posted by the CP. But then someone, without consideration for most of the genealogical world, decided to wipe the CP out of existence.... I think that Tim what's-his-name should either (1) make a major apology and restore everything to its original state until things are worked out, or (2) he should resign his position immediately, or (3) he should be ousted now by a special election if necessary. We cannot tolerate his kind of tyranny." ---Dennis Miller, CENSUS-L "As a county host in several counties and a transcriber of one county sensus, I am saddened upset and my true words cannot be put into print, by the goings on of the board of the USGenWeb Project. First I would like to address your leader. It appears he or she has never had any leadership training. To create the confusion or whatever you would like to call it is definitely not leadership." ---Fred Dethlefson, to the Board And finally... "If you have in fact delinked the census project from the archives I DEMAND that you remove my transcriptions. If they are not removed I will seek LEGAL remedy against the archive group for copyright infringement." "If you are delinking the census project from the archives, I want you to remove MY transcriptions NOW. " "I did NOT, repeat NOT, sign up for your ARCHIVE, REMOVE me from your site at once!!! I will continue to transcribe but YOUR ARCHIVES will not get it; I expect to be removed from your site by the end of the day." ---various Census transcribers === "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." ---James Madison This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Apr 9 09:33:49 2000 Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 09:33:48 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: They have the guns, but we have the numbers...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* Lions and tigers and editorial content, oh my. Read at your own risk! Saturday 8 April 2000: His Serene Highness continues to post the correspondence between himself, Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, Connie Burkett, and Ron Eason from the september merger talks. [This correspondence is too extensive to summarize here. He's apparently published them in order, so I'll work up a timeline and post it.] HSH Tim Stowell posts a message from Census Project staffer Connie Burkett. His Nibs had asked her for permission to forward her merger correspondence, telling her "If you want a fair hearing on Board-l - I'm asking your permission to release the mail from Census-Discuss" [this was a mail list they set up to talk about merging]. Connie gives the permission and reminds him: "As I recall...there were still four of us sitting at the merger committee table waiting for you to recap. By mid-September the discussions had reached the point of your recap. And since we never heard from you by mid-October Ron emailed you and cc'd me asking where the discussions over and where you going to recap. Here is a snip of your reply dated the 17th of October. As far as I'm concerned, no. I'll see if I can't resume them later today. And that was the last we heard from you on the First Merger. Are the First Merger discussions resuming now?. Are you going to do your recap now 6 months later? If not, what's the point of rehashing the discussions?" [Oh, very interesting. Tim, who is well-known for and who publicly admits to not bothering to read all his email, apparently is the end reason why the Semptember talks failed.] [We share Connie's confusion as to why the september merger talks are of any relevance at this point. They failed, for whatever reason, and new talks were instituted in November. Those failed, for whatever reason, and Tim approached Ron again in March, although he apparently never responded to Ron's affirmative reply. Now, according to Ron Eason, Tim has _again_ approached him with a proposal to initiate merger talks. What happened way back in September is old news, interesting from a historical perspective, but hardly relevant to the current situation, which as we recall, involves not the only the delinking of a Special Project without due process and in violation of the bylaws, but the rerouting of it URLS, which makes it very difficult to find, get information on, or volunteer for, the Census Project.] Sunday 9 April 2000: Ginger Hayes asks HSH Tim why he has failed to call for a vote on Motion 00-8, as the customer 48 hour discussion period ended "some time ago." === More From the Little People Corner: Following are some more excerpted comments regarding the recent de-linking of the Census Project. As is the usual occurrence in the USGW the discussion has begun to stray a bit from the topic at hand [the illegal --per the bylaws-- rerouting of a Special Project] to other topics [Root$web, the Archives' power grab, Linda Lewis' character, etc.] which are not germane to the current issue. The comments below do not reflect the range of this discussion, but focus [or try to] on the issue of His Serene Highness' violation of the process clearly spelled out in the Bylaws for the "delinking" of a project from the USGW. There are not as many comments supporting Tim's action as opposing; this reflects what I have seen, not any deliberate attempt to minimize any support he may have. "So what personal issue stands between Tom and Ron? This looks like a hatchet job." ---Donald O'Collaugh Kelly, USGW-CC-L "Mr. NC, you blew it. You didn't have the right to do what you did... delink an acknowledge project. (pretty bad when a CC figures out you goofed) Linda. you are terrific but why do you have to have to have control of the Census when there is so much more you and your crew could work at? To the members of the board. This isn't right and you know it. It's been wrong for a long time and you let it continue.... To the Eason's and the Census Project... What can I do besides saying that your group has my support?" ---"Darilee", USGENWEB-ALL "Removing links from the main page so there are no active links from the USGW page to the CP is fine. But when they start rerouting the consumer, that is wrong. If the consumer wants to view those pages, they should be able to. No one should be able to control another project like that. I am concerned that people are abusing their authority. Where does that leave the rest of us?" ---Stacey Orchard, STATE-COORD-L "The problem I'm having with all the discussions popping up all over the USGW, either CC or SC, is that we don't seem to know what part of the negotiations finally broke down to the point that Tim took his action to DE-link. Enough of the discussion goes on in Board-Exec that we just don't have all the facts, and maybe we never will...This wasn't a precipitous decision to DE-link. It came after a long, hard, painful year during which every attempt to resolve the census mess has failed...Whether or not Tim redirected, changed files, got completely fed-up, or had every right to do so under the "rules" of either the Bylaws or Roberts Rules, seems a lesser issue than resolving the census mess....This has been a circumstance that has boiled so long that it's time to clean the pan, and get something done!" "Carol", STATE-COORD-L "Tim took his action in total disregard of the Bylaws. I believe there were several board members aware of this plan of action but there was never a vote to delink the CP, unless it was without the full board and behind closed doors. His action is in flagrant violation of the Bylaws and a slap in the face to every member of the USGW Project.... I do not support in any way the NC's actions and I'm learning more and more that I seem to be living in a world peopled by control freaks who have forgotten that everything they needed to know they learned in kindergarten. This constant squabbling does great harm to the Project and absolutely nothing to further the free access to genealogical information on the internet, which is supposedly our goal, it in fact hinders it greatly." ---Ginger Hayes, STATE-COORD-L "The Board does know that it isn't right and that Tim overstepped his authority. There is a motion on the floor to overide Tim's delink of the Census Project. (Motion 00-8) The only problem with this motion is that there shouldn't be a motion. Tim had no right to do delink in the first place. The links should be restored immediately without him having a say-so. If this motion doesn't pass, where does that leave the bylaws? The USGenWeb? Will this leave one person with the right to say what a Special Project can be delinked?" ---Debi Kendrick, USGENWEB-ALL "Mr. Eason when people are in receipt of stolen goods it is not often that they are ask them to be returned. However you were. Time and time again. Is it any wonder, that finally the stolen accounts were frozen until such time as a final disposition can be worked out?...you are correct the accounts were stolen. You were given stolen property and you continued to use that stolen property. You continue to lead your hard working Transcribers into thinking that their info is going into a USGWP and being stored in an appropriate USGWP accounts. Maybe this delink should have been called a relinking....here is only one reason this delink hadn't taken place before.... The innocent people that joined thinking they were joining and giving their time to a safe respectable project flying the USGWP logo. Those people the Advisory Board is here to help protect and serve. Time and time again though these "bullies" have sought you out to attempt a quiet simple solution. Time and time again you have declared foul and dived back behind those trusting people...Now you want them to follow you out to the unknown world. If this board is so power hungry, Mr. Eason. why is it that we have waited this long. Why is it nearly split down the middle on every subject. Why is it that nearly every member is split on this matter. The only thing we do agree about is that we want the best for USGWP as a whole. And not a bunch of little kings dictating in anyway that suits them this month." ---Rich Howland, USGW-CC-L [and other places, reply to Ron Eason] === "Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." ---Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Mon Apr 10 00:07:57 2000 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:07:56 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Late Breaking News Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: DBS Late Breaking News...Get it while its hot! Mergers and Acquisitions Corner: John Schunk, of SK Publications [upon whose generosity both the Census Project and the Archives Census Project depend heavily] has recently proposed a "solution" to the census issue. It appears to be in good faith and is quite simple, having only two points: "1) The USGW Census Project remains the Census Project and functions as outlined in the Bylaws. Its purpose is get census transcriptions in the USGW Archives, but it is an autonomous project...The USGW Archives Census Project ceases to exist as such. 2) Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman becomes Coordinator of the USGW Census Project...CP (Census Project) personnel are retained, but ACP (Archives Census Project) File Managers are also welcomed to be integrated into the Census Project structure. Ron is allowed to select what leadership role he would like to perform in the Census Project." According to Joy Fisher, one of the Board members privy to this proposal, "Many of us accepted his proposal with certain modifications or stipulations. Ron rejected it. He has not budged one bit from his "my way or no way"." [These "certain modifications or stipulations" remain unknown to me at this time, but I will bet a census transcription that one of them includes retaining the name "the Archives Census Project".] According to Ron, he rejected the proposal because it violates the wishes of the Census Project volunteers, who recently elected him as their coordinator and as their choice for their Board representative. Ron says, "I offered to my constituents that I would step down and move out of the way if they wanted to just turn everything over to the Archives. They resoundingly rejected that idea and so I will honor their wishes." Ron also noted that although this proposal has been under discussion for some time, he had seen no response from Tim Stowell, Maggie, or Linda, and had no idea what their position on the proposal might be. However, he says, Tim _did_ contact him privately after John made his proposal and "told him the score" and that "He and Linda and Maggie have already made an agreement but it had to be on the grounds that I [Ron] accept." According to Ron, "They have made a pact that if I will go away peaceably and turn the Project over to Maggie that Tim will do everything he can to expedite me being assigned to the Board." He says he's willing to talk but "this deal was already done before we started talking." In his opinion, a Board seat is not worth the price of selling out his volunteers. Joy Fisher and Linda Lewis deny any knowledge of any such "pact", although Linda Lewis has noted that that, while she has recommended to her representative that Ron should be seated as the CP rep, "Board rep and project coordinator are two different things." John Schunk _specifically_ recommends the CP representative seat as Ron's "leadership role" in the Census Project. Other Board members involved in this proposal, including Tim Stowell and Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman, have so far declined to comment. More news as it develops; it's sure to get more interesting. -Teresa merope@radix.net