From merope@Radix.Net Mon Apr 16 14:20:34 2001 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:20:33 -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: Robbing Peter to pay Paul...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 16 April 2001: Joe Zsedeny posts the following message as a preface to an upcoming motion: "For well over three years the fuss has gone on over the Census Project. Now it has two heads and the fuss continues. The motion that will follow this message is an attempt to put this behind us and do what we all came into the Project to do, put genealogy online. Neither side will be completely satisfied with the proposed solution but the one group that could care less is the researchers, the group we came here to serve. The Bylaws recognizes ONE Census Project. My motion will, therefore, fulfil that requirement. So fellow volunteers bear with me on this and please support this effort." Joe moves that "1. Sue Soden, elected by the CP, be appointed by the Board to fill the vacant Census Project (CP) Board position until September. 2. Members of both census projects be allowed to nominate names for the CP Board position for the election in September. 3. The election to fill the CP position to be conducted by the official USGenWeb Election Committee." [Odds are that Tim will rule this one out of order immediately. If he does not, and it passes, prepare for the stampede as both projects rush to sign up as many eligible voters as possible before June 1. Because if both projects can submit nominees, it comes down to a matter of who has more voters.] === Trumped Up Excuses Corner: Here's Our National Commander on why he decided on his own initiative to solicit the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project for candidates for the Census Project's Board seat: "It was an effort on my part to get the Board off their collective hindquarters and fill the seat too long left empty. As I pointed out to them I'll take my part for not getting it filled sooner. The Board is in violation of the Bylaws for not filling the seat. The Bylaws say that the AB will appoint a temporary person to fill a seat until the next scheduled election." [USGENWEB-ALL, 16 Apr 2001] The answer to this one is easy. If the Board feels Tim has overstepped his bounds [again] then they need merely not seat the candidate. After all, completely aside from whether or not Tim has acted appropriately in this matter, the only person who asked for the job has a rather tainted past, and might not be the best possibly representative under the circumstances. === "Where there is no shame, there is no honor." ---African Proverb This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Mon Apr 16 21:00:12 2001 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:00:11 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 04/17/2001, #2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: From the frying pan into the fire...its Your Daily Board Show! Monday 16 April 2001: [and the Board heats up...] Joy Fisher seconds Joe Zsedeny's motion. Maggie Stewart [who heads the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project] expresses her dismay at Joe's motion: "This motion is out of order. The USGWCP THAT Sue Soden represents DOES NOT EXIST AS FAR AS THE USGWP is concerned. You cannot place someone in a AB Rep position from a project that has been severed by the AB without first undoing that...The AB is not GOD. We are here to advise the NC in his running of the USGWP...If you all (and I'm sure you had a mass meeting on mIRC and decided how you were going to proceed) are going to ignore the Bylaws and do what you want then why don't we just throw out the bylaws, dissolve the AB and go back to having an NC and each state running their own business. This AB as a whole spends more time harrassing the folks that work on the Census or in the USGW Archives than actually helping the SCs and CCs of the project...As I said in my private message on -Exec (some weeks ago) I think that the two projects should both be equal parts of the USGWP with the only requirement being that a copy of all their transcriptions be placed in the USGW Archives. If either project refuses to do this then they are not serving the researchers or the project itself." [She also notes that Joe "looks stupid" for writing the motion.] Holly Timm moves to amend the first part of Joe's motion to read: "The Board accepts Sue Soden and Kay L. Mason as volunteers for the vacant Census Project seat and will choose between them in the same manner as they will choose from multiple volunteers on the other current vacancies." Holly also denies that Board memmebers met in IRC to discuss how to handle this. Teri Pettit approves of Holly amendments and proposes further amendments to the remaining sections of the motion: "2. Members of both census projects be allowed to nominate names and vote for the CP Board position for the election in September. 3. The election to fill the CP position to be conducted by the official USGenWeb Election Committee. The coordinators of each census project shall submit a list of qualified voters in their Project to the Election Committee, with each voter's full name, email address, and position(s) held." Richard Harrison notes that Joe's motion is out of order, saying "...the motion asks us to appoint to the vacant Board position someone who has been selected by a group no longer associated with The USGenWeb Project. This is inappropriate unless the Board first rescinds the motion severing the Census Project...Secondly, the motion asks us to sanction candidates from the severed Census Project in the next election. This also is inappropriate unless the Board first rescinds the motion severing the Census Project." He asks the National Commander to declare it out of order. Joe Zsedeny tells Richard that "The "other" or Archives Census Project does not exist because the Bylaws only allows the AB to declare a project a special project and that has not been done in their case." His motion is an attempt to recognize that there are two census projects and to "bring peace and closure to this problem." Teri Pettit discusses the status of the two census projects: "The USGWCP that Sue Soden seeks to represent was once a part of the USGenWeb Project and was severed by a motion that may or may not have been in accordance with the Bylaws, depending on how you interpret them. The USGWCP that you [Maggie] head and that Kay Mason seeks to represent was, until recently, a component of the USGenWeb Archives. As such, it had the same standing as the Kidz Project, the Lineage Project, and other endeavors of the USGenWeb Archives Project, to wit, that its Board representation was fulfilled by the Archives Representative." She notes also that "we are dealing with two Census Projects, one of which was once recognized as the Census Project mentioned in the Bylaws but which has been severed by an Advisory Board motion, and the other of which was never recognized by the Advisory Board to start with." She notes that it is possible to reinstate the Census Project if necessary and to recognize the PFKATACP as a USGenWeb Special Project. She also reminds Maggie that the NC is not a deity, but that "The Bylaws charge the NC with the day-to-day operations of the Project, but in giving the NC no Board vote..and in requiring a Board vote for **every single one** of the significant actions that it mentions...it is clear that the intent of the Bylaws is that 'day-to-day operations' is only those matters upon which there is no controversy or potential for conflict, and which do not change any structures or policies of the organization." In her opinion Joe's motion is an attempt to "heal a rift by treating the volunteers of both Census Projects as valued members of the USGenWeb Project." She also did not participate in an IRC meetings to discuss this issue. Teri forwards a message from Ron Eason to the group [included in whole per Ron's request at the end of this message]. Joy Fisher also affirms that she did not attend any Advisory Board chats. Teri replies to Ron's message, noting that there is no consensus regarding Tim's action with the vacant Board seat; she observes that "The Board is a collection of individuals who often disagree as to what is in the best interests of the Project." She also reminds him that the Board can seat anyone they like in that seat "so long as they fulfilled the requirement of being a member of that project." She remembers that several Board members supported Sue Soden being seated inthe position, but before the Board could act on it, Tim delinked the Census Project. She also notes that she appreciates the CP's stance in regards to the USGenWeb Project. Shari Handley notes that she also did not participate in any IRC chats. === Bookkeeping Corner: You are getting two of these today because 1) its been busy and I want you all to keep up; 2) I'm on the road tomorrow all day and don't want to get too far behind. The DBS may be a bit sporadic the next few days, but we will keep you apprised of the shenanigans that are bound to ensue. [Gads, I love it when they get this way.] === "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." ---Ralph Waldo Emerson This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. === Ron's message to the Board: From: "Ron Eason" To: "Teri Pettit, SE/MA CC Rep" Cc: "Holly Timm Rep @ Large" Subject: Abuse of Powers and Wrong Doing Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:52:28 -0400 Hi Teri, I would like to address a few items I found disturbing in the DBS the other day. First and foremost would be the request by Tim Stowell to the Archives Census Project, to fill the Census Project Board Seat of the USGW Advisory Board. I went to the Archives Search Page and looked at the message myself and was appalled to see his request. That Board Seat was mandated by the USGW Bylaws for The USGenWeb Census Project. According to the Bylaws, a legal election was held and the position of Census Project Board Representative was filled. For some reason the Board chose not to follow the Bylaws and allow the seating of that Representative, but the person and the position is still filled, currently by Sue Soden. And my question would now be, how can the National Coordinator be asking for candidates for a position that is already filled, and for candidates from a Project that is not entitled to the seat? And how is this possible if the AB knows nothing about it? Is this yet, more "Everyday Business"? As for your remarks about working together to ensure that no conflicts arise in the granting of the USGW Projects application or ours, I want you and the rest of the Board to know that it has not been our desire to be disruptive in any way in regards to the USGW Projects application. Not withstanding the Boards actions against us we have gone above and beyond to prove that we have and are still upholding our position as supporters of The USGenWeb Project, as a Special Project and will continue to do so. We have one goal in mind, and that is to be the best Census Project on the web. As a Special Project of The USGenWeb Project we have and still offer our hand to others in the name of unity. Very Respectfully, Ron Eason, Coordinator The USGenWeb Census Project http://www.us-census.org Permission to post this email to the Board-Exec list is denied. Permission to post this email to the BOARD-L list is granted, for the purpose of sharing with all other Board Members, as well as discussion in a public forum as long as it is posted in it's entirety. === From merope@Radix.Net Tue Apr 17 19:00:03 2001 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:59:57 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 4/17/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Lean and mean...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 16 April 2001: Richard Harrison affirms that he also did not attend any IRC meetings. Richard notes "We will not bring peace and closure to the project by taking action that is clearly out of order. While the Bylaws declare there should be a USGenWeb Census Project, they don't say which project that is. When the Board severed the former group it created a vacancy--there is no USGenWeb Census Project. That vacancy should be filled by rescinding the motion to sever, or by designating another census group to be the USGenWeb Census Project, or by amending the bylaws to remove the requirement for a USGenWeb Census Project." He reminds the group that the two census projects are not two parts of the same project, but that "If the members of those two projects could work together to resolve their differences there would be a much smaller problem. Instead they continue to elect/appoint ultra-partisan and contentious leadership who widen the gap between the two groups. Both claim to be part of the USGenWeb Project, but both behave in a completely independent and uncooperative manner. It appears their attention is not the well-being of the project as a whole, but is getting as much mileage as they can out of the USGenWeb name." He favors amending the bylaws to remove the Census Project and promises to submit one shortly. Maggie Stewart asks the propriety of allowing candidates for the empty seats to apply for more than one seat, since this is not allowed during regular elections. Pam Reid also affirms that she did not attend Board IRC meetings. Shari Handley agrees with Richard and would support a motion to introduce an amendment to remove mention of the Census Project from the bylaws. She suggests amending the bylaws to remove mention of all specific projects and reduced the Special Projects representation to one seat. She notes however that "However, such a motion should not be made hastily. It should be carefully weighed and worded. A motion calling for an amendment which hasn't been well-thought-out could do more damage than good." Betsy Mills also affirms she has not attended Board IRC meetings. Teri Pettit stresses that the Kay Mason who used to head teh census project is _not_ the same person as the Kay L. Mason who has volunteered to serve in the Census Project rep seat. Tuesday 17 April 2001: For some reason, Tim Stowell forwards to the Board list two messages from former Board Secretary Esse Frye. One suggests that IRC meetings were held to railroad Sue Soden and "Linda" onto the Board with benefit of a project wide vote. The other one is supportive of Maggie's rant in opposition to Joe's motion. As predicted, Tim declares Joe's motion and the suggested amendments out of order. He notes "perhaps it would be best if further discussion took place on this before proceeding further. If not, the chair will entertain another motion on this same subject." Richard thanks him for declaring the motion out of order. Tim posts the following: "Kay L Mason was not nominated by any Project to be the Census Representative no more than any other volunteer for the current open slots was nominated by their peers to serve in the capacity for which they volunteered." [Tim's in babble mode again. Can anyone make sense of this?] === This has been your Daily BoardShow. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Fri Apr 20 08:45:16 2001 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:45:15 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 4/20/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Out of sight, out of mind...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 20 April 2001: Editor's comment: We apologize for the absence of a DBS during this busy time. Our internet connection is very slow and unreliable here in the lovely mountains of NW Tennessee, and under the circumstances its not good to tie up the only phone line. So, please bear with us; we'll be back with a complet update as soon as possible! === This has sorta been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Apr 22 07:22:55 2001 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 4/22/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Back in the saddle again...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 17 Aoril 2001: Richard Harrison says he is too tired to post a proposal for an amendment to the bylaws regarding the Census Project. Richard moves to amend the bylaws to 1) remove the Census Project and Tombstone reps and replace them with a single "Special Projects" rep [the Archives rep position is unchanged]; 2) change the quorum requirement from 9 to 8; and 3) change the voting procedures so that the combined membership of all the Special Projects other than the Archives elects the "Special Projects representative". In response to a private suggestion from Teri Pettit, Richard withdraws his motion so the Board can work on revisions to it without necessitating amendments. Maggie Stewart notes that she's written some stuff along the same lines and thinks that she can easily find a state to sponsor the amendment. Richard notes that the Board will want to push this amendment through under the emergency procedures outlined in the bylaws so that it can through prior to the upcoming election, or follow the standard procedures for amending the bylaws. He thinks it will depend on whether or not whether or not the EC can handle an emergency project-wide vote. Teri Pettit believes that the "necessity of clarifying who can sit on or vote for the Special Project Board seats BEFORE the upcoming election was sufficient to qualify it as an urgent matter, which would be voted on in a special project-wide election before the main election." Otherwise they will have to conduct an election for the Census Project seat. She thinks the project should vote on the amendment as soon as the Electin Committee can set it up. Teri suggests keeping two Special Project seats instead of reducing to one because 1) "it is a smaller change"; 2) "here is likely to be fierce competition between the Special Projects for that single seat"; and 3) "having a broader Special Project representation on the Board helps ensure that the Special Project issues are getting a fair deal." She also suggests getting "some more clarification as to who is the 'staff' of a Special Project." She recognizes the potential for the Special Projects to engage in excessive staffing in order to elect their own representative to the seat. She also notes "Another possibly sticky question is, do we need some clarification as to when a Special Project is a non-Archives Project? Or is the section about how new Special Projects are set up sufficient? There are currently several Projects listed under the Archives that were never voted on by the AB because they were treated as internal affairs of the Archives, but many people think of these groups as Special Projects in their own right." Wednesday 18 April 2001: Richard also notes this problem, saying "The way to Special Projects page...is laid out makes it look like The USGenWeb Archives Project includes: The Census Project & Census Images, The USGW Digital Map Library, The Pension Project, and Special Collections Project. The following look like freestanding Special Projects of the USGenWeb Project: The USGW Tombstone Project, The Kidz Project, The Lineage Project, Genealogical Events Project." He notes that per the bylaws only the Board can establish new Special Projects and asks if anyone has an accurate list of the "Special Projects". [This question is apparently never answered.] He has no objection to two Board seats if there are enough people and projects to warrant it and notes that "the Special Projects Reps would represent the "independent" SPs and not those that operate under the auspices of the Archives." Maggie thinks they should "take the extra time to do this amendment carefully" and follow the standard amendment process. She suggests a "temporary motion" that would have the current Tombstone Project rep become the "Special Projects" rep so that the proposed amendment can be revised and enacted. Maggie questions whether "there really needs to be a Special Projects Representative at all." She thinks that perhaps the SPs should be represented by the Representative at Large, as from her perspective this would meet the needs of her project [the Project Formerly Known as the Archives Census Project]. It appears to her as if "all these Special Projects Representative seats have done is drive a wedge between the Special Projects and the USGenWeb Project as a whole." She notes that many members of the Special Projects are also Archives file managers and so would be represented by the Archives representative. Barbara Dore, forwarding and responding to a message on BOARD-EXEC [for which she inexplicably does not appear to have been suspended], supports Joe Zsedeny's opinion that "George Waller stands head and shoulders above the rest" of the candidates for the open SC rep seat. She thinks George is fair and level-headed and would ably represent the SCs. Teri agrees with Maggie that the Board should take time to carefully formulate the proposed amendment to the bylaws, but notes that going through the usual procedure will not affect the quality of the finished project [nor anyone's ability to vote on it]. She notes that the suggested "temporary motion" will not resolve the problem of the vacant seat, since if the amendment fails, they will still need to fill the vacant CP seat. She notes "anything we can do within the current Bylaws will either favor one group of Census Project volunteers over the other, or force them into a single project structure that they may well refuse to accept. So I feel it qualifies as an "urgent matter affecting the well-being of the USGenWeb Project" to seek an Advisory Board structure that will permit legal parity between the volunteers of both Census Projects." Teri agrees with Maggie that eliminating the seats entirely would remove any competition among projects for the seat and notes "The vast majority of Special Project staff members other than Archives File Managers are CC's or SC's anyway. And they still get to vote for the National Coordinator and the Representative at Large even if they aren't CC's or SC's." Teri also suggests a "straw poll" of the affected SPs to see what structure they would prefer. Teri notes that "One downside of eliminating all Special Project seats is that it reduces the size of the Advisory Board. Within reasonable limits, a bigger Board is generally better. Smaller bodies have a higher risk of not being a representative sample of the whole. Smaller bodies increase the perception of isolation and eliteness that we already suffer from. Smaller bodies are more highly impacted by resignations. And with a Board any smaller than we already have, the size of a clique that is able to block a 2/3 majority vote gets alarmingly small." She suggests removing all SP seats except the Archives seat and increasing the number of Representatives At Large to 3 or 4. She also suggests polling the membership on this question. [This would significantly dilute the ability of the Archives to impact the Board.] Shari Handley is in favor of cutting down the SP reps to one seat that would represent all the Special Projects, including the Archives. Shari agrees with making the proposed amendment an emergency amendment. Richard notes that following the usual amendment procedures would not affect the quality of the amendment and that "Changing the title or responsibilities of the Tombstone Rep without changing the bylaws first would be ignoring the bylaws." Tim Stowell reposts Maggie's question about the legality of allowing the same person to apply for more than one of the vacant Board seats. Friday 20 April 2001: Joe Zsedeny moves that "the Board establish a census project (CP) to be known as the Official USGenWeb Census Project. This new CP will elect a Advisory Board representative during the next scheduled annual election under the guidance of the USGenWeb Election Committee. The AB representative will be elected from nominees submitted by both of the present census projects. The elected AB representative will act as the coordinator between the two census projects, if they choose to participate, as well as others who may choose to join the project. Motion #00-10 and Executive Order #2000-F-1 are declared null and void in so far as they conflict with the intent, purpose and/or establishment of the Official USGenWeb Census Project. This motion shall be declared null and void upon passage of an amendment which eliminates or changes the requirements of Article XIII in a way that would cause confusion or conflict between the Bylaws and this motion." Joy Fisher seconds this motion. Sunday 22 April 2001: Maggie notes that Joe's motion is out of order since "an executive order cannot be overturned or amended with a motion." [*sigh* gone for _days_ and nothing has changed.] === "Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and fork?" ---Stanislaw Lem This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.