AUGUST DBS 2005

Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Grand Finale
'Til the bitter end...its Your Daily Board Show!

TURNING BLUE: The Board list is still locked down tight, and from various conversations we
have seen, Shari has also closed the Sekrit List and is heavily moderating DISCUSS. Apparently
Shari intends to continue her temper tantrum right up until the very last minute. We wonder if she
will forego the usual NC parting speech as well, since the meeting is closed, or if she has
something snarky planned as a send off to her esteemed colleagues.

SAYONARA: Today is the last day for several Board members, some of whom we will miss more
than others. Departing for private life are:

Shari Handley: Pretty much everything that can be said about this train wreck has been said. We
never really expected much of Shari, and she didn't surprise us by being a wise and good leader.
Or, actually, any kind of leader. Although it would be nice to see her fade into deserved obscurity,
we suspect we'll see her again. Probably on the EC. That ought to be good for the Project.

Betsy Mills: Another old war horse moves out to pasture. Although its always a pleasure saying
goodbye to Betsy "Color of Jerk" Mills, we hope we never have the opportunity to do it again.
Some things, though, you just can't get rid of, and we're fairly sure she'll wash up somewhere in
the future as well.

Teri Brown: Quiet and unassuming, Teri managed to complete a full two-year term without
embarrassing herself. She will most likely enjoy retirement.

Kathi Jones-Hudson: Robbed of the second year of her term by really poor planning and a
stubborn refusal on the part of the Board to face reality until it was too late, Kathi retires a little
earlier than she had planned.

Denise Woodside: Another Board member who managed to complete a two year term with her
head above it all, Denise was recently elected to the SC seat in NCGenWeb and we imagine she
has a busy retirement planned. We doubt she will miss the Daily Wrangle all that much.

Don Kelly: The Project's Poet Laureate. Although we expect the coherency factor to go way up
on the Board now that Don is gone, we also expect the poetry quotient to go way down. The BQ
corner will be a dark and lonely place without him. On the other hand, the Board might be able to
get more done when it no longer has to spend bytes explaining to him how motions actually work.

Gail Meyer-Kilgore: Gail is another more or less quite Board member, who came somewhat into
her own near the end of her term.

Scott Burow: The Board's dark horse. In just a couple of months, Scott came out of nowhere and
showed 'em all how it was done. You could practically see some of the ladies on the Board
swooning dead away. If not for a stumble right at the end, he'd damn near be a saint by now. We
expect, and hope, to see more of Scott in the future. [And we'll be damned if we can figure out
why Phyllis Rippee hates him so much. Oh well].

MOVING RIGHT ALONG: Angie Rayfield and Jan Cortez, the two remaining members of the
Grievance Procedures Committe, have posted a call for volunteers to various project lists. If you
are interested in volunteering, you will need to contact either Angie or Jan with the following
information:

1. Your name
2. Your position(s) within USGenWeb
3. The URL(s) of the site(s) for item #2
4. Your email address
5. Your reasons for wishing to serve on the committee, along with any
special skills or training you bring to the task.

The call for volunteers didn't say how long the window of opportunity would be open, so don't
delay in submitting your application if you are interested in serving.

PARTING SHOT: A class act right up to the end, outgoing Board member Scott Burow had this
to say over on the SW list last night:

"What a sad, sad way to close out a term...everyone is unceremoniously shoved out, the door is
locked, and the project is flipped a collective bird by an NC who doesn't want to follow the
majority and the very rules she's supposed to enforce. What a sad way to go out, adjournment by
force without determining the will of the body...I'm going to make a request of those who are
calling for a challenge to the seating of George Waller...Let it go. Drop your challenge. A
challenge...does nothing but cause disruption to the aims of improving things for our membership.
If the board is distracted by that, then they're not being concerned with the big issues that face this
project. When...the NC can simply ignore the procedures that have governed this project and
close the doors on the Board and there is no recourse - we've got a problem. When our elected
Board members do not listen to the majority of the members, and advocate their personal opinions
over the members opinions - we've got a problem...As long as the Board members keep in mind
that they represent a group, and support the majority of the members of that group, the end result
should reflect what he majority believes is the right thing to do. As we've seen this last month,
presenting a majority opinion and sticking to that, even in the face of adversity, will win out in the
end to the benefit of the majority. The majority of the voters elected George Waller...Do not
spend the AB's important time with a challenge to that...Do not lower yourselves to mis-use or
selectively use Sturgis or protocol to attempt to overturn the majority vote for this seat. To do so
will start this next term in no better position than this last one ended. If you proceed and force a
new election, if nominated, I will not accept unless George has declined to run. I will not run
against George for his seat."

There you have it. The DBS bids fond adieu to yet another term of the USGenWeb Advisory
Board. But tomorrow is another day, and there's never a shortage of bad news. See you on the
other side!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Showing 'em the door since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 6 comments   
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Taking My Ball And Going Home
Dead as a doornail...its Your Daily Board Show!

SLEEPING WITH THE FISHES: With two days left to go in its final session, the Board meeting
is still held in illegal lockdown by National Toddler Shari Handley. [Apparently, everyone in the
Project needs to follow the rules but Herself. Can you just imagine if Tim Stowell had pulled this
kind of thing? Why, he'd be fired!]

BONUS QUOTE (by popular demand): "The August 2005 meeting of the AB is no longer in
session, objection or no objection. If you need to take something up, you'll have to wait until the
September meeting opens up. Don't continue this thread, please." --Shari Handley

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
On a high horse since 1998

posted by merope at 5:45 AM 13 comments   
Monday, August 29, 2005
Lights On, No One Home
If it weren't for bad luck we'd have no luck at all...its Your Daily Board Show!

GOING OUT WITH A WHIMPER: Shari's last few days in office will apparently be very quiet
ones, at least on the public Board list, which she has apparently closed to all but herself for the
remainder of her term. [Board-Exec was at last report still open; god forbid we shut down the
secret list for five minutes.] We know of at least three Board members [Angie, Bettie, Jan] who
have objected to the adjournment of the Board's August meeting. Those messages have not come
over the Board list and we have heard from a veritable flock of birds on the matter that Shari has
unilaterally adjourned the meeting over the objections [which is not permitted by Sturgis], and
locked down the Board list to prevent further comment. At least one Board member has taken to
posting questions related to Board business to our so-called lame duck National Coordinator on a
regional list and on DISCUSS, where they are not being answered or even acknowledged.

Future Board member Jeffrey Scism has made a Sturgis-based objection to the un-resignation of
George "Waffle" Waller. Shari has, however, also unilaterally ruled that the challenge is invalid
and that George will be seated come September 1. Her response, which was on the DISCUSS list
and not the Board list, is below.

TEMPER TANTRUM: We guess no one can force Shari to keep the mailing list/meeting open,
but what a fine note to go out on. In a fit of pique after losing a vote on a motion that she didn't
support, and facing a request from the Grievance Procedures Committee for its new list, and
facing a challenge to George's un-resignation, AND facing at least three objections to her attempt
to adjourn the meeting, she just took her ball and went home. Classy. In a few days, she'll go back
to being the private citizen she so richly deserves to be and will probably be remembered with
about as much fondness as Tim Stowell.

MAKES SENSE TO US: Here is the challenge made to Georgie's resignation:

"I challenge the seating of the NE/NC SC representative to the USGenWeb Project Advisory
Board. I state that the resignation submitted by George Waller is clearly under the rules in The
Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures, ( Sturgis), 4th edition, page 225-226, and can not be
retracted once tendered. George Waller MUST run for the Office again as specified. This section
clearly states that a resignation may be tendered at any time, and that it is effective immediately,
does not require acceptance, and is unrevokable."

As evidence, Jeff cites Shari's message that George had resigned his future seat, George's own
clear declaration that "I am definitely not on the AB now or for the next season," and George's
abrupt reversal a short time later. Here's Shari's response:

"This list is not for political wrangling. Do not continue this thread. To clear up any questions,
though...You are an AB member-elect...and neither are you a member of George's
constituency...You have therefore no grounds to challenge anything...George is not an
office-holder at this point, and so has no office he CAN resign from now. A future time was
understood, as his term off office hadn't even begun yet. Having rescinded his intention to resign
before the term of office has begun, the resignation is therefore null and void, and George may
take office as though he never announced an intention to resign....As far as I am concerned, the
matter is closed."

WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN: Over on the "DISCUSS" list, which was also put on
moderated status, Shari was all apologies for her fumble fingers and claimed that she had
"inadvertantly screwed up the list settings last night and it made it so that posts didn't go
through." [Apparently she only meant to close down the Board list.] As soon as the list was back
open, however, and despite her admonishment, people started talking about the George issue and
Bettie Wood started peppering her with questions about the GPC's new list and why the meeting
on Board-L was adjourned over objections and without a vote of the Board members, as is
required by Sturgis. Shari, however, has vanished.

BONUS QUOTE: "That is one way to adjourn a meeting, just put everybody on the reject list and
go home. LOL" --David Morgan

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "I think that is what happened, accidentally perhaps. But admit it
was an effective ploy, whether or not intended." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Outlasting National Coordinators since 1998

posted by merope at 6:35 AM 12 comments   
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others
Like taking candy from a baby...its Your Daily Board Show!

A TRIP TO LOURDES: Apparently invigorated by lively debate on one of the project's lists and
fully recovered from whatever it was that ailed him, George Waller rescinded his resignation and
will be taking his seat on the Board on September 1. There is some little relief expressed in the
several Board messages that follow this sudden announcement. [Actually, George blamed us and
Fred Smoot for spurring him back onto the Board. Apparently he feels he can do something about
us there. We really do have to wonder about the initial health excuse though; how bad could it be
if having a snarky email exchange or two fixes it right up?]

With that, Shari attempted to adjourn the Board. However, Bettie Wood objected, noting that not
only had she herself asked a question of the NC, project members had as well.

NO TAKE-BACKS ALLOWED: We've heard through the grapevine that a challenge has been
filed regarding George "Miraculous Cure" Waller's rescinded resignation. The challenge is based
on a passage in Sturgis that states that a resignation intended to be effective at a future date may
be withdrawn until it has been accepted or until the effective date of the resignation. Now,
although the Board immediately proceeded to behave as if it had accepted his resignation, it did
not in fact formally accept his resignation, and we imagine this will be Shari's argument against the
challenge [if she even chooses to acknowledge it]. On the other hand, Shari did not show
George's resignation letter to the Project [and perhaps not to the Board either] and if it contains
anything along the lines of "I resign, effectively immediately", well then, that's a different kettle of
fish.

FAIR IS AS FAIR DOES; Over on the DISCUSS list Linda Haas Davenport, our newest Discuss
List Dominatrix, gave the project a sneak peak at her management style: "Come Sep 1st I...will be
in charge of the list and I will administer it, at least for awhile. One of the very few campaign
promises I made was to treat everyone in this Project fairly...I had already planned on unbanning
the banned come Sep 1st and giving everyone a 2nd chance. It will be up to each individual as to
whether or not they will participate pleasantly on the list. If they do not then I will ban them
again." All well and good, but then she decided to run her own personal preference poll: "There
are at this time two...members who have been deemed to be "Not in Good Standing" I'd like to
hear your opinion about whether or not these two people should be allowed to participate on this
list." [We think its a little odd to, on the one hand, claim to treat everyone in the Project fairly, but
then on the other hand to subject two of them to a public popularity contest.]

We imagine Linda is getting an earful privately, but the comments on the list are pretty much of a
piece:

"If you are talking about Teresa Lindquist as one of them, I would like to see her back on this
list." --David Morgan

"I don't believe there should ever be permanent expulsion, reject, ban, or Not In Good Standing.
Even some of the worst criminals have the opportunity for parole." -Daryl Lytton

"I'm aware of a number of times when someone has been ejected or prevented from joining one of
the lists managed by Project leadership that have been allowed on later...they should ask for
reconsideration or they should have a friend should ask for them...I'd like to see a consistent set of
guidelines established for these lists. I'd also like to see list discipline take place mostly off list...I
think it would work better on the lists than the current approach I see often which is warning and
calling someone on the carpet publicly on the list." --Mike St. Clair

[We actually like the idea of consistent guidelines for the Project's official lists, particularly
DISCUSS and the regionals, and also including the upcoming GPC list. Its very odd to us that list
rules for official project lists are basically the whim of the whoever is administering the lists.
That's why you end up with situations like the SW list where discussion is lively, invigorating,
sometimes difficult, but always happening, and the SEMA list where its dead as a doornail
because the list owner says no political discussion is allowed. The vagaries of the DISCUSS list
are legendary, with restrictions being added whenever some particular behavior peeves the list
owner. While we would not advocate that the Board mediate list membership disputes, we think it
might be a good thing to establish certain basic parameters, find list admins that can live with and
apply them evenly and then just get out of the way. As for admonishing people in private, well,
where's the fun or satisfaction in that? Its hard to serve up someone as an example when its just
between the two of you, you know?]

"I'd prefer that when unbanning the banned, you include all project members whether in good
standing or not." --Mike again

"...MNGS has nothing to do with whether or not a person can conduct themselves properly on a
list, or whether or not a person can make a meaningful contribution to the project. Someone that
is not in good standing is still a member..." --Angie Rayfield

"I...was glad when the trouble makers were put on the reject list...Because we do not have a large
percentage of the membership participating - I just thought it would be nice to get at least the
ones that do back on the list...At least keep giving them a chance every year after the
election....But the rules should be kept." --Debbie Clough Gerischer

"It appears to me as though those banned from this list, are folks with an exceptional knowledge if
the inner-workings of the USGenWeb. Where is the balance of knowledge, if those who know
best aren't allowed to speak?" --Daryl Lytton

"My straw vote is to "unban" anyone and everyone who has been put in "time out"." --Sharon
Tabor

"Nothing should be said on these lists that couldn't be shared with every CC in this
project...people should be given a second chance and...if after that second chance they refuse to
behave in a civil manner to their peers, they should be penalized and put on moderation again!"
--Suzanne Shephard

"Start out as you intend to go forward....with a clean slate. Do not make the mistake of letting
someone else's judgment be your standard. Put everyone on equal standing and let us/them make
our mistakes or a fresh start. If you're not going to give everyone an equal chance then don't even
begin." --Joyce Reese

"I, too wish to see Teresa back in good standing, her past conflicts not
withstanding. I feel she performs a valuable service t this organization, keeping
things "honest" through the same functions of the Media...This organization needs somewone
willing to say things we may not want to hear, and I think she should not be penalized for doing
so. She should be teated just as any member of our group who has an opinion and...an audiencxce
interested in it...How many times have things been more carefully done in a more honest manner
because Teresa's site was "there"?" --Jeffrey Scism

"Were it to come to a list member vote, I would vote to continue your ban." --George Waller

"I am not arguing that enough time has passed where it seems that Ms. Linquist deserves another
chance on DISCUSS. The posts I have seen in the last six months seem to be on a creative,
constructive track and the quality of thought she can bring to this Project has never been in
question, IMO." --Jana Black

"I would like to see all bans dropped and the title of MNIGS completely done away with. I would
like to see us perceived as a friendlier project than what we are." --Karen Mitchell

"If she was banned from this list, it has NOTHING to do with her MNIGS whatsoever...I don't
mind her back on the list as long as she abide by the list rules as I am. Banning should be reserved
as last resort if the offender is determined to disobey the list modicum." W. David Samuelsen

Anyways, you get the picture. Apparently we are much missed over in the Public Sandbox. And
our Soon-To-Be Enthroned National Coordinator has just informed us that we *will* be resubbed
to DISCUSS just as soon as she as gets the keys. Apparently whether we like it or not.

BONUS QUOTE: "I have rescinded my resignation mostly due to the negativity of Teresa
Lindquist and Fred Smoot. Teresa's more subtle but Fred's most obvious. Also I feel my health is
much more positive at this time." --George Waller

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Waffling since 1998

posted by merope at 7:00 AM 15 comments   
Saturday, August 27, 2005
The More Things Change
The more nothing really changes...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS: The results of the run-off election were announced last night. In
the bad news column, Linda Haas Davenport will be the next NC. In the good news column,
Betsy Mills got handed her walking papers and Mike St. Clair will be the next RAL. In the neither
here nor there column, Jeffry Scism won his race, Fred Smoot lost his, Sundee Maynez will be
joining the Board, and Bettie Wood will be returning as SW/SC CC representative. Immediately
upon learning of the results of the election, David Morgan and Betsy Mills suggested adjourning
until September 1. But it appears they may have pending business to discuss.

SHORT ATTENTION SPAN: Shortly after the announcement of the election results, Shari
announced the resignation of George Waller, who would have taken his seat next week with the
rest of the incoming Board. Along with her announcement, Shari noted "Since the term has not
even yet begun, it seems that the fairest way to fill the seat would be to hold a special election."
The EC has most accomodatingly agreed to handle the special election along with the election for
the SP seat. Jan Cortez asked for unanimous consent to seat Scott Burow [big surprise there] in
the seat until the special election can be held. David Morgan objected, however, noting that the
seat is not vacant, will not be vacant five more days, and it's the next Board's problem.

OUT OF THE GATE: Angie Rayfield asked Shari to provide the Grievance Procedures
Committee with a mailing list so that she and Jan Cortez, the last two remaining members of the
committee [although we think Don Kelly and Denise Woodside are still on it, at least for the next
few days] can issue a call for volunteers.

DROPPING THE BALL: Yesterday, well in advance of George Waller's resignation, Scott "Can
Do No Wrong" Burow posted this deeply cryptic message on the Board list:

"...would it be possible to advise Tina of the probability of the need for a special election ahead of
time so that the EC has as much prep time as possible?...the best way to make sure that they have
all the time they may need is to give them as much advance notice as possible. Since they're doing
the one special election anyway, I'm sure it would be easier to do two at once rather than two
seperate ones."

Now wouldn't you have wondered what that was all about? We sure did. So we asked about it on
the SW list, where our representatives hang out, and basically got stonewalled. In fact, our
returning CC representative made quite a game out of being coy. In short order no fewer than
four (!) Board members wrote us and asked us to back off probing this too deeply lest some
marvelous thing be prevented from happening. They hinted at great future happiness on our part if
we would just let this sleeping dog lie. One of them even tried to bribe us with a scoop if we let
the issue play out in the Sekrit Sandbox. They all implied that too much attention might scuttle
whatever it is, and they all said that it would be something we'd like to see happen. So of course
we got curious. And what we found out was not at all what we expected.

As it all turned out, it was just a big nothing. A future Board member resigned and they didn't
know what to do. Perfectly understandable. From the little birds it was apparent that some
number of them wanted to hold a special election and some of them pushed for just appointing the
"logical" person [three guesses]. Apparently some of them worried that Shari would push the
whole thing to next month, when it most certainly would have been a resignation and the Board
would have had a clear precedent to follow. [Or maybe not. Who can tell what surprises await us
with Linda "Just Like Shari, Only Worse" Davenport in the Big Chair.] Some of them think that is
exactly the right thing to do. We suspect that our interest in the topic pushed the issue into the
public eye earlier than it might otherwise have gotten there, since the consensus our
correspondents seemed so desperately to desire is not in evidence.

SUCKER PUNCHED: Silly us. We thought somehow or other Motion 05-13 signaled some sort
of sea change for the Board. They, almost to a person, threw off years of tradition and managed
to do the right thing by the project in soundly rejecting yet another secret committee. It was like
watching the dawn after a storm passed through [yeah, yeah, sappy]. You think at least some of
them would run with that. But nothing has changed. The ink wasn't even dry on the paper before
they started right in on more secret machinations. Apparently answering a simple question in
public forum is just too darn hard. And what really frosts us is that some Board members
apparently believe that: 1) we will approve of their scheming, or at least turn a blind eye to it, if
the outcome will be personally pleasing to us; 2) we will connive with them to keep their plans
secret long enough for them to accomplish their goals; and 3) we would sell our integrity for a
scoop. [Sheesh. We may not be all that but we are the closest thing to an independent press the
project has. And we do have our pride.]

Listen. We do not personally care if the schemes they are cooking up in sekrit will please us or
benefit us. That is irrelevant. The point is that instead of answering a simple question with a
straight answer in the public forum in which it was asked, they brought out the damage control
troops and tried to keep it out of the headlines. Scoops are nothing; we always get the bad news
eventually and our forte is more in describing the train wreck than in somehow digging up the
secrets and dishing them out. [Don't get us wrong. That's loads of fun too. But we don't live for
it.] And we really can't see ourselves actually collaborating with the Board to keep so common
and trivial a secret. So we can't imagine what they were trying to do. Buy time maybe. Avoid
looking machiavellian or self-serving maybe. Whatever it was, that little plan seems to have
backfired. We'd go far enough out on a limb to consider that, with all the effort our little birds put
into trying to convince us that they were not trying to manuever Scott Burow into a more
permanent seat on the Board, that is exactly what they were trying to do.

What we would really like is for Board members to get over themselves and drop the sooper
sekrit stuff. There is nothing going on in this little volunteer genealogy Project that warrants the
effort people apply to keeping secrets. The big secret discussion was all about how to fill a seat.
This is beyond silly and hardly warranted getting the cloak OR the dagger out of the closet.
Maybe the next time someone accidentally posts something they shouldn't have, our elected
representatives could consider just answering our questions instead of playing games with us.

This whole thing did prove to be useful however. We learned some very interesting things about
certain Board members. What a sad, stupid thing to squander your karma on.

BONUS QUOTE: "...trust me on this one." --Board member, private correspondence

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
since 1998

posted by merope at 8:25 PM 18 comments   
Friday, August 26, 2005
Now What?
From the cheap seats...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE FAT LADY HAS SUNG: With 9 YES votes and 2 NO votes, Motion 05-13 has finally
passed. No further action was taken by anyone after the announcement. [The motion is unclear as
to who will make the call for volunteers.] This most likely closes out this Board's business for the
remainder of its term. With 6 days left [and counting], there is not enough to time to start
anything new. We still do not have a grievance committee, but we are one baby step closer.

CORRECTION: Apparently we were too hasty in our admiration of Shari Handley's
magnanimous gesture in releasing Angie from moderation. As several readers have pointed out,
Angie was gagged for one week on August 17. Her suspension was lifted on August 24, exactly
one week after it was imposed. Our bad for not checking dates before we gave Shari more credit
than she deserved.

PINS AND NEEDLES: The run-off election wrapped up late last night, and so far there is no
word on the results. Despite all the premature elation about the impending end to the current term
and the hopes for the "New Board", in our experience we will be at the same place this time next
year as we are now. The election results may give us some bright spots, but usually those get
snuffed out pretty quick. In any case, we should know something by the end of the day. Keep
your fingers crossed.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not too optimistic since 1998

posted by merope at 6:45 AM 15 comments   
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Thank You Madam Chair
Sometimes things work out...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE END IS NEAR: Discussion on motion 05-13 continued only briefly yesterday. Bettie Wood
called the question, Scott echoed her request, and shortly thereafter Shari called the vote. Thus far
the vote stands at 7 YES votes and 2 NO votes. The vote runs through tomorrow.

CLASS ACT II: Yesterday, after Bettie Wood and Jan Cortez joined Scott Burow in personally
vouching for Angie if Shari would remove her from moderation, Shari acquiesed and restored
Angie's posting privileges. [Although we have heard dark mutterings that Shari did this only to
forestall a vote of "no confidence" as her final legacy on the Board, we doubt that very much. We
know from personal experience that she can be both reasoned with and reasonable. It just takes
some effort and a few days.]

TIME IS RUNNING OUT: The run-off election ends today and within a day or two we should
know the bad news. If you haven't voted, there is still a bit of time left, so please Just Do It. Only
YOU can prevent Linda Haas Davenport from happening.

BONUS QUOTE: "The lack of direction was not intended at all. The opporunity presented itself
when it happened." --W. David Samuelsen

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Totally mystified since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 11 comments   
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Million Dollar Question
Some things speak for themselves...its your Daily Board Show!

TO THE BITTER END: Thus far, 9 members [both a quorum and a majority] have indicated that
they have no further discussion to offer on Motion 05-13. None of the remaining Board members
offered any discussion in the time since the floor was opened for discussion. Thus, Scott Burow
asked if the Board could call the question and proceed to a vote. [This may not be the quickest
approach. If Shari wants to drag this out to the bitter end, she can use the motion to end debate to
tack on another 48 hour period in which members may voice their objections.]

Shari ignored this request.

CLASS ACT: Scott also made another request of Shari. Noting that the end of the Board session
is rapidly approaching [8 days and counting], he observed, "Also coming to an end are the terms
of office for several of us. In my state, and in our nation's governmental bodies, this is a cause for
celebration for what was achieved, and for what was attempted. At the end of the terms and
sessions in our nations capital, our senators and representatives throw papers in the air, shake
hands, and pat each other on the back - even if they stood on opposite sides of debates and often
argued against each other with all the fervor, fire, and brimstone that they could muster. We
should be no different." He then requested, "in the spirit of goodwill," that Shari remove Angie
from moderation. He noted, "It would be a shame to cause a board member to sit outside and
pass votes in through the door in these final session days, and not take part in the celebration of
what was achieved during this past term of office. With the emotional debate of 05-13 apparently
ended, there's little likelihood that things will be as highly charged as they were a week ago, and
even less likelihood...of statements you would find objectionable to decorum....there's nothing to
be gained by further moderation, and everything to be gained by demonstrating that we as board
members can get along and that you, as NC, can be firm, but magnanimous and fair at the same
time." He then personally vouched for Angie and offered to allow himself to be moderated if she
again causes disruption to the list.

Shari also ignored this request.

[So little to lose, so much to gain, and yet...]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sitting in the corner since 1998

posted by merope at 5:45 AM 31 comments   
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Get On With It
Counting the days...its Your Daily Board Show!

MOVING RIGHT ALONG: Shari Handley announced that, with 13 YES votes, the motion to
amend Motion 05-13 had passed and opened discussion on the amended Motion 05-13. [There
were actually 13 total votes, 12 YES votes and 1 NO vote.] We hope that this moves to a vote
soon...it does appear that the Board has reached the saturation point on discussion of this issue.

ELSEWHERE: The project has been quiet, more or less, although there is a lively discussion
going on down in the Letters to the Editor regarding the moderation of representatives on Board
business lists, the management of project lists in general, and membership on State-Coord-L. We
appreciate everyone's insightful comments, particular on appropriate management of the Board's
discussion lists. Having been moderated out of hand by two administrations, just because they
could, we have a personal interest in this topic. We do agree that no decision of a Chair to
moderate a member should be immune from appeal by the Board, particularly if a representative's
constituents and/or other Board members object. We understand the Chair's responsibility to
insure decorum in a meeting, but if the majority of the Board does not object to the moderated
member's comments then it becomes hard to argue that the moderated member was in fact
disrupting the proceedings, and it begins to look more as if the moderated member's comments
were upsetting to no one but the Chair.

The instruction in Sturgis on the conduct of meetings is pretty clear. Discussion is to remain
impersonal and focused on business, not on members. The particular comment in question, in
which Angie publicly questioned Betsy's motives in regards to provisions of Motion 05-13, was
clearly in violation of this, and as Chair, Shari had both the right and responsibility to step in and
encourage more civilized discussion. [Whether or not she should have moderated Angie is a
different question. This sort of thing goes on in Board meetings fairly regularly with only sporadic
interference by the Chair, and the perception she applies the heavy hand inconsistently and with
some bias may have some merit.] Angie had been previously warned that her conduct was
stepping over the line, however arbitrary that line may appear, and Shari was acting within the
scope of her duties as Chair in temporarily ejecting her from the meeting. However, by her own
admission, Shari did not do this action as "Chair" but as "list admin", and thus she tried to shield
her action from interference by the Board, which could choose to appeal and overturn her action.
At this point, any vote by the Board on a topic of this nature would be little more than a
popularity contest, and its one that Shari could very easily lose. There really isn't enough time left
in either this Board session or Angie's sentence to mess around with this, but it would certainly be
a worthwhile item of business for the next Board to take up.

On another topic from the Letters, someone has suggested that the state-level coordinators of the
Special Projects be allowed to join the list. Traditionally, the list is reserved for SCs and ASCs of
the 50 state projects [and presumably DC's project] and Board members. We had not previously
considered the issue of allowing state level coordinators of the Special Projects to also participate
in the list. The analogy between the national Project and the Special Projects in terms of their
structure and organization has been made before, and one could make an argument that the state
level file managers in the SP serve the basic same organizational function as an SC or ASC. This
may be particularly true in the Archives where each state level file manager may easily have
dozens of county level file managers working with them. Traditionally, however, the Special
Projects themselves are considered analogous to the state projects and their coordinators are
similar to State Coordinators [although we don't believe the SPCs are invited to join
State-Coord-L either]. State projects and the SPs are treated very similarly in the bylaws, which
would also lead one to consider them as more or less state-level type projects. This would make
the state level SPC file managers more like county coordinators than state coordinators. In any
case, we believe that most, if not all, of the Special Projects run their own lists for their members
and since most official lists are information distribution systems, membership on the most local list
relevant to your particular interests is usually sufficient. In fact, SC-L is one of the deadest lists in
the project, unless you are interested in the comings and goings of state coordinators, the
occasional dead state link, and the identification of missing servicemen from various of this
country's conflicts. Otherwise, it just posts the same announcements as every other list. While the
Board could certainly take up the issue of just who should be allowed to participate in any of the
Project's official lists, we doubt it's worth the effort.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Moving on up since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 14 comments   
Monday, August 22, 2005
Drive-by
Just a quickie...its Your Daily Board Show!

NEARLY DONE: The Board continues to vote on whether or not to amend Motion 05-13. The
vote count currently stands at 8 YES votes and 1 NO vote. That's a majority and the motion to
amend has passed.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Getting up to bring you the news since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 21 comments   
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Warts And All
Whatever floats your boat...its Your Daily Board Show!

IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER?: Until early this morning, the Board continued to discuss
Motion 05-13, although most of the discussion consisted of a futile effort to convince Don Kelly
that defeating Scott's amendments would not place his version of the motion back on the table.
Incredibly, he appeared to be under the assumption that should the motion to amend fail, the
whole thing will revert back to his version. He noted, "If this hostile motion of substitution
fails...then the matter as I understand it reverts back and the AB can then vote on the real motion
05-13 as it was before it was stopped in mid discussion (about four days) by the hostile motion of
substitution...after four days of discussion four members of the AB supported the hostile motion
of substitution, and four supported the main motion. Four to four does not a majority make...it
seems more like a wash, so we will now get to vote and see if we can seat a committee sometime
during this century." [This is too rich for our blood so early in the morning. Please insert your
own pithy comments about why this whole process has taken so long here.]

Several Board members rushed to correct Don's mistaken "assumption about overidden main
motions," mostly by telling him his motion had been voted down by a 2/3 majority of the Board
and was effectively history, yesterday's news, and dead as a doornail A couple indicated, again,
that they were ready to vote on the amendment. Angie Rayfield called the question, but before
anyone could second, Shari called the vote on the amendment. As of this writing, the vote stands
at one YES vote and one NO vote.

SAUCE FOR THE GANDER: Over on that free-wheeling debate forum that is the DISCUSS list,
Shari Handly moderated Don Kelly for his "back pedaling" comment yesterday. Her action came
after several people publicly complained about it, and Shari noted she was doing it "to be fair." [A
better approach to fairness would be to unmoderate everyone who has offended her in the last few
weeks, apologize to them for having such a thin skin, and then let the DISCUSS list members
actually discuss something. But whatever.]

BONUS QUOTE (by popular demand): "I may disagree or agree if my understanding is
correct..." --Don Kelly

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "I believe we can practically proceed to vote on this hostile motion
warts and all. I hope the objection will help by simply saving time." --Don Kelly [in whose
universe two votes can apparently be done in less time than one]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pushing the envelope since 1998

posted by merope at 7:10 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Burow's Buffoons
Marching to the beat of a different drum...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHILE THE CAT'S AWAY: In a message to NC Shari Handley, Scott pointed out, "It has been
24 hours since my request for unanimous consent to amend 05-13...eight board members have
given stated assent to the request, which...shows nine of fourteen board members in
agreement...There have been no objections. It has been 12 hours since I requested leave to amend
05-13 with the specific wording of the proposed amended motion. Still there is no objection by
any board member." He then asked her to "please recognize my request for leave to amend 05-13
by unanimous consent and make an announcement." Shari did so, and thus far 8 Board members
have indicated "no objection" to the proposed amendment. Don Kelly, however, objected, thus
forcing the proposal to amend Motion 05-13 to a vote.

Neither the amendment nor Motion 05-13 in its current form are in any real danger of failing at
this point. Don's objection, however, will probably push back the final vote on the final version of
the motion by at least a week. There are less than two weeks remaining in Don's term and it
appears by this point his main strategy is just to keep the motion from coming to a vote in any
form [other than one he approves of] before the current Board adjourns and the motion must be
discarded as unfinished business. It can be restated in the next term, but at least one of its most
avid supporters will be gone and the ratio of supporters to non-supporters in the next term may
change enough that the amended version will not pass without the secrecy provision and without
ceding control of the committee to the NC and/or the Board. It would save time on this if Board
members do not wait for Scott to return, but to move to amend Motion 05-13 as he has suggested
and to call the question as soon as it is seconded. We can't see much point for further discussion
on this matter, other than providing fodder for the BQ. Plus, this might cut back on Shari's and
Don's stonewalling. We note that Shari did not recognize Don's objection and did not call for a
motion to amend, even though she has been online since he objected and could easily have done
both. [We also note that precedent exists for her to reject Don's objection as dilatory. Page 125 in
my copy of Sturgis notes that tactics used to delay a vote can be ruled out of order by the chair
and members that continue to use such tactics can be denied the floor. Her mentor, Dick
Harrison, used to do this to us all the time. However, we think this course of action is highly
unlikely.]

Don continued to flog his dead horse: "I'm sure you heard...what several experienced committee
volunteers said about how open lists distracted them from their task. If you don't believe that is a
distraction, I can affirm it is...Snips and insults coming in from all directions is the trademark of a
totally open list where rules are discussed. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe what
members of high integrity have told you....you stated several times that nine members agree with
you and eight members disagree (17 members is more than the AB has), please consider this. Four
people as I recall disagreed with the main motion and you were one of the four. While touting the
value of your substitute motion, which by the way that prevented a vote on the best motion, I
hope you re-evaluate your position. You can do anything you want with your motion of
substitution..." [Oy. He can apparently neither read nor count. And it should be apparent by now,
even to Don, that Scott is doing what he wants, and what a majority of Board members wants,
with the amendment.]

After correcting Don's misunderstanding of the number of members supporting Scott's
amendment, David Morgan noted "The only distraction I had while serving on a USGenWeb
committee was when one committee member stepped out of the committee room...and blasted
everyone inside the room. This person later served on the AB, and she is now blasting the present
AB. She also keeps quitting in a huff, and then keeps coming back. Yet she did a good job while
serving on the AB. If you consider making motions, voting for them, and then asking for the
motions to be rescinded, to be a good job..." [We can only assume he means Phyllis "I'm Leaving
For Good This Time" Rippee.]

Shari made a point to chastise David Morgan for accusing her of killing the straw poll. She noted
"What I remember doing is asking that all points be placed on the table with multiple choices, so
that the TRUE will and intent of the AB be determined on ALL points...If...the majority of the
AB DOES want an open list, and if...the majority of the AB DOES want the previous committee
members to be automatically made members of the new committee...then I fail to see why anyone
should fear and fight the straw poll including those choices." [Well, it seems pretty clear these
days what the "true will and intent" of a majority of Board members is. Its a pity that a few of
them don't seem able to face reality. In any case, as Shari well knows, what Scott objected to was
not including those choices on the straw poll. Those choices were included on the straw poll. He
didn't fight the straw poll, and obviously did not fear it. But he did object to Shari's insistence that
he withdraw and rewrite the entire motion to reflect the results of the poll. And even then, he just
pointed out that he would not personally amend the motion to include provisions that he and a
majority of the Board have already rejected numerous times, and that no friendly amendment
would include those provisions. However, he left often the possibility of a hostile amendment that
included them.]

GRASPING AT STRAWS: During the course of the discussion, Scott accidentally posted a
message to the Board list indicating he would be away from his computer until Sunday in order to
do Good Work guarding lives. Don Kelly took the opportunity to imply that this might be "An
arguement in favor of moderated lists", although why this might be is unclear.

CHAIN OF FOOLS: Over on the DISCUSS list, Don accused Scott "wimping out" on his
suggestion of a straw poll. This caused David Morgan to point out that the two members most
deserving of moderation are Don Kelly and Shari Handley, since their "innuendos are despicable."
This is turn caused Shari to give Don a mild slap on the hand and to moderate David, presumably
for the remainder of her term. She noted "I fail to see where I ever made ANY innuendo, much
less a "despicable" one. The tone and the message here are offensive...your future posts to
-discuss will be moderated...you have been...moderated in the past and are very well aware of the
posting rules for this list." [Well, we could start with the "what are you afraid of" comment the
other day (and see above). It probably doesn't reach the bar for despicable, but its certainly
innuendo. If anyone else has some favorite innuendos from our Esteemed Lame Duck, send 'em in
and we'll publish a Shari's greatest hits parade. Unfortunately, David himself can't respond to her
in the forum in which she challenged him because she banned him. How convenient is that?]

Shari, like Tina before her, really does appear to have a very simple set of rules, albeit
unpublished, for list management. If you say anything less than entirely flattering about herself or
any of her friends, you will be warned, moderated, banned, and possibly tarred and feathered. If,
however, you are a FOS and you are offensive on any of her lists, you will get a mild pro forma
warning and no threat of moderation. You can, as today's BQ illustrates, even continue to make
snarky personal comments about fellow members without further hassle from the list moderator.

BONUS QUOTE: "I really prefer back-peddling because that more clearly described what
happened after he saw another opinion that worried him." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Your source for innuendo since 1998

posted by merope at 8:30 AM 30 comments   
Friday, August 19, 2005
Heart Full Of Soul
The hobgoblin of little minds...its Your Daily Board Show!

EYES ON THE PRIZE: Yesterday morning, Scott Burow proposed to amend Motion 05-13 to
include several proposals preferred by most Board members, and asked for unanimous consent of
the Board prior to amending the motion itself. Throughout the day, a majority of Board members
responded affirmatively to Scott's proposal [Larry, Don, Linda, Jan, David, Bettie, Cyndie,
Angie], although several of them noted that if unanimous consent was not achieved, they wanted
to proceed with a vote on the main motion first thing in the morning. After a decent interval,
Scott asked the remaining Board members to let their wishes be known so he could proceed with
the amendment. The remaining Board members continued their silence, however, and late last
evening, Scott asked Shari for unanimous consent to amend Motion 05-13 to read as follows:

"I move that the current grievance procedures committee continue to be seated, and that those
AB members having resigned or who are no longer on the AB not be replaced. The committee
would be chosen by the current committee members from volunteers from the project membership
in good standing, with the slate approved by the AB, and that future vacancies in the committee
be similarly filled by project volunteers until the committee achieves membership of no more than
2 AB members and up to 7 non-AB members, but no less that 5 non-AB members. The full
committee shall elect their own chair or co-chairs upon being seated. Further, that an email list be
established for use of the committee, and that the list discussions be archived and permanently
open to all project members. That during the discussion of grievance procedures, the list may be
moderated during specific discussion by the committee members, but shall be open for posting by
all subscribers at all other times. The committee will submit a complete set of proposed grievance
procedures no later than sixty days after being seated, with an option to request additional time
should it be needed. The AB will vote on whether to adopt the procedures in their entirety by a
yes-or-no vote, with a simple majority required for passage."

Don Kelly immediately objected to the amendment. [No big surprise there.] He noted, "From
what little I read every point including those issues involving counterpoint included also your
point of view. Somehow I am seeing a retreat from an agreement here which portends a loss of
courage of conviction here....something just isn't making sense here. I really thought we were
moving away from intractable positions. Everything in my proposal was put on the table
everything was subject to amendment...Now this just looks like samo, samo...no material
improvements at all." [Yes, this is the same Don whose name appears in the list above of Board
members who agreed to Scott's proposals. And lack of courage of conviction is pretty much the
last term we'd use to describe Scott.] Scott replied, "...you need to come to the realization that
your opinions on the most important issues are not the same as the majority of the rest of the
people who will vote on the GPC motion. The motion proposed and voted upon should reflect the
majority opinion, not the minority...Read the proposed amendment again, and perhaps you'll see
that it is a material improvement on the other issues, rather than just the two that you don't like.
As you've said, we give the committee the tools, and let them do their jobs. The amendment does
just that." They continued in this manner for a couple more posts, and David Morgan pointed out
that if Don would go ahead and formally object to the amendment, they could all get on with
voting on the motion.

As of this writing, no other Board members have responded to the request for unanimous consent
on the motion, and Shari has not recognized it.

IF I HAD A HAMMER: Bettie asked Shari for an explanation of why Angie was moderated but
no one else was. She noted, "This list is for elected officials, & is an official USGenWeb "work"
list, not for just "any" list admin, & not your personal property. This list is basically our "assembly
hall", & I believe we, the Board, have the final say in this. I did not see you forward Angie's email,
so I ask yet another question, how did her email violate list decorum?" Shari responded, "Among
the NC's responsibilities has always been keeping the discussion civil here on this list, and it has
been necessary from time to time to moderate members...Precedent for this has existed since long
before I was in office. Precedent has also existed for requiring that AB members do NOT forward
messages from the moderated person to the list. Two messages...have been forwarded from Angie
to this list by AB members. This will not be tolerated. If it happens again, the person who
forwards the message...will also be moderated." [Ah, yes, another tried and true precedent for the
thin-skinned NC, moderating those you don't like, whose opinions challenge your own, and who
look like they are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the Board and the membership,
and then threatening to moderate those who disagree with your repressive policy. There's no
fashion accessory quite like a gag.]

The second message from Angie that was forwarded to the Board by an approving David Morgan
[and most definitely not forwarded by Shari, who would prefer that the Board not see these
things] read in part: "...the Chair should not be the list administrator...It should not be possible for
someone...to prevent a board member from speaking freely with no option of appeal. If this were
a physical meeting, it would be impossible for a chair to take the action you have just taken as a
unilateral decision...moderating or threatening to moderate anyone whose "tone" you don't like is
effectively censorship. There's no way to tell in advance what's prohibited and what is allowed,
because personal perceptions of "tone" differ from person to person...Betsy's tone has been rude
and hateful towards me, but she hasn't been moderated or even chastised. But I've found myself
NOT responding and discussing when I should because there seem to be so many things that you
find offensive...you have censored our contributions, you've censored the discussions, and you've
deprived our constituents of their voice. And that should NOT be permitted with no avenue of
appeal." Powerful sentiments indeed, but we do wonder where all this concern for constituents
was when Holly Fee Timm banned us, when Dick Harrison continued the ban, when he also
banned Tim Stowell, and when Shari banned Rich Howland and David Morgan. Those are the
precedents of which Shari speaks. The office of the NC does have a rich tradition of gagging
difficult members, and we welcome Angie to the club.

BONUS QUOTE: "Frankly, there was a little candy handed out, but I detected no material
improvements." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Been there, got a t-shirt since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 17 comments   
Thursday, August 18, 2005
14 Days And Counting
Case closed...its Your Daily Board Show!

SWITCHING HATS: Angie Rayfield attempted to appeal Shari's ruling placing her on
moderation for a week. Bettie Wood seconded the appeal, but Shari quashed the attempt
immediately, stating "This is not a ruling of the chair. It is the decision of the list admin, and is not
subject to appeal." As an aside, she also threatened to moderate Bettie if she forwarded any more
of Angie's messages to the list. This caused David Morgan to comment, with apparent approval,
on the shortness of Shari's remaining tenure. [Now, can you imagine in a real meeting how well it
would go over if someone not the Chair attempted to silence someone? The Chair does have the
right to discipline unruly members in a meeting, but if Shari claimed her prerogative as Chair in
this matter, the assembly could possibly have the right to appeal her action and she'd probably lose
that one too. Thus her little "I'm not the Chair when I do this" charade.]

BACK TO BUSINESS: When she could take the time away from moderating Board members
and threatening to moderate Board members, Shari turned her attention to Scott's message from
yesterday, in which he carefully delineated the Board's remaining options on Motion 05-13. She
noted, "How could [an amendment] be hostile...if it is...crafted according to what the AB
members choose as the way they want the committee done? Do you not want a motion that is
composed of points that are most acceptable to the majority of your fellow AB members? What
do you have to fear?" [Yes, she completely missed the point.] Scott laid it out for her again:

"I think we can fine-tune 05-13 as far as the number of members, time-frame, and majority for
adoption without difficulty...The issue of the majority to adopt the final product is up in the air. If
that could be decided I would ask leave to amend 05-13 to include those 'fixes' by unanimous
consent, and we can proceed from there...By my count there are 9 board members who will
oppose any motion that contains a closed list, and 8 board members who will oppose discharging
the existing committee. Both are majorities for the AB...The AB members have taken their
positions on those two issues and I have no indication anyone is wavering or going to change
their mind on them...I call them non-negotiable and will not compromise on them because if either
of those items are changed, the motion will fail, and I don't want that to happen...We can vote
05-13 as it exists, fine-tune it to deal with the issues and vote on it, or we can have delaying
tactics to try to prevent this to come to a vote. I don't think the latter is the legacy that some of us
want to leave the AB with at the end of the month."

LAME DUCK: Shari seems inordinately concerned with "fine tuning" and adjusting Motion 05-13
in order to create something that will pass, but fails to realize that the motion as it is right now
will most likely pass with ease. She now finds herself staring down a more or less implacable
majority of Board members who have decided that there are some things in Motion 05-13 that do
not warrant compromise simply because a majority of the Board approves of them the way they
are. Although she would like very much to position this as stubborness, inflexibity, or even fear on
Scott's part, its obvious that he does not stand alone, is not stonewalling or foot-dragging, is not
unwilling to compromise, and is not the one preventing action on this motion from going forward.
Those peccadillos might be more appropriately laid at Shari's feet. We wonder when it was
exactly that she squandered all her remaining political capital. Was it when she started playing
favorites among Board members? Or when she decided that leading by intimidation was a viable
strategy? Or when she figured that when she can't have her way, applying a mixture of
passive-aggression and the powers of her office to prevent others [even a majority of the Board]
from having their way was an acceptable substitute?

We think its time for someone to call the question.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Looking to the future since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 17 comments   
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Cruel, Cruel Summer
Double your pleasure...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACKED INTO A CORNER: The Board continued to discuss Motion 05-13 throughout the day.
We wish we could report progress, but we fear its another case of "one step forward, two steps
back." Although, given the events toward the end of the day, things might be coming to a head
sooner rather than later. The day's discussion was marked by the following events:

Betsy Mills joined the conversation by remarking that she favors a smaller number of members on
the committee, would prefer that the motion not specify which Board members will serve, and
"might or might not" be willing to serve on the new committee herself. She also suggested
rewording to allow incoming Board members an opportunity to serve. This got Angie's back up,
and she noted "...in essence you're proposing that the board/committee make no effort to get
started...until after the election, so that people that might or might not be elected to the AB and
might or might not be interested...can volunteer if they feel like it. Or are you saying that as long
as Jan and I are dumped, it's all good?" She and Betsy dickered back and forth on this until Shari
came online and informed Angie that she would be moderated for one week. [We knew this was
coming. We are just surprised Shari didn't go ahead and ban her for the rest of her term. We can
imagine how personally satisfying that would have been.]

At several points during the day's discussion, Scott Burow clearly stated that no friendly
amendment to his motion would include any provision that would provide for a closed list, or any
provision that would terminate the current committee. [This, of course, leaves open the option of
yet another hostile amendment, but such an attempt would be unlikely to succeed in the current
climate.] Don continued to insist that all of Scott's suggestions were "dooable" under his own
original motion and persisted in suggesting that certain provisions in Motion 05-13 constitute
"micro management control," and urging Scott to drop them from the motion. Scott appears,
however, to have left off responding to Don's posts.

Several Board members began to provide their preferences from the list of options that Scott
provided in the straw poll. Before Shari stepped in and put a stop to it, five members had given
their opinions of the various options. Most of them did not have strong opinions on the number of
committee members, the length of time the committee was given to do its work, or how
committee members or the chair were chosen and confirmed. But all five of the respondents were
in favor of an open list, and a few of them even stated baldly that the one thing they would not
compromise on was an open list. Unfortunately, before any more Board members could respond,
Shari popped in, told Scott she was amending the straw poll to include options "that must be
kept on the table," and to explain precisely what the various options meant. This would probably
have been acceptable to most of the Board members, except for the deal killer she apparently felt
compelled to add at the end: "I'd like a general agreement that any current motions on the table
will be withdrawn in favor of a motion resulting from the winning choices of this poll."

Following this, Linda Barton noted "...my understanding was we were trying to get discussion
moving on this amended motion...so that we could actually vote on it. I thought you ruled that the
question could not be divided but it appears that's what is being attempted by this "straw poll". I
don't consider this straw poll to be binding...I was expressing my preliminary opinion on these
suggested changes." She then withdrew her poll answers and indicated that she was ready to vote
on the motion as is.

And finally, Scott laid the situation out for Shari in pretty blunt terms:

"I will not withdraw my motion. I agreed to a straw poll to...determine what changes a friendly
motion to amend will contain, not to replace it with something that is completely different
or...which does not include the two things that I will not compromise on. We have four choices at
this point...1. Vote on 05-13 as it is. It will pass with a minimum of 9 votes in favor. 2. Adopt a
friendly motion which contains the original motion with some substitutions...I will not make a
friendly motion that gets rid of the current committee members or which closes any list that the
committee uses. 3. Attempt a hostile motion to amend, for which there is insufficient time in this
term...and will end the month with no committee. 4. Table the entire thing, and...give no
committee to our constituents. This motion has taken too long to get to this position, and I will
not take away from those that have fought so hard to achieve it."

THE WRITING ON THE WALL: So that's where it stands. Shari probably just blew her last
chance for any meaningful input into or influence of Motion 05-13. Several members have pretty
much told her there will be no sekrit list. Period. No matter what else is decided. And its getting
painfully clear that she doesn't have the votes to block Motion 05-13, since it will most likely have
all the votes it needs to pass even with its few provisions that could stand some clarification. So
the die has been cast, so to speak, and it looks like Motion 05-13 will be headed for a vote and
probably passage soon.

At least Shari finally found an excuse to stuff a sock in Angie's mouth. That had to feel good.
Petty little power displays are always a nice fallback option when you can't actually throw yourself
on the floor and have a good tantrum.

PROPS: As several of our readers have noted, Scott has very skillfully backed Don and the
supporters of his motion into a corner from which there is no real escape. We don't know how he
did it, whether it was skillful negotiation and persuasion somewhere off the list, or his carefully
reasoned positions and patient explication and responses on the list, or his willingness to adapt,
compromise, listen, and remain flexble. Whatever it was, if we do end up with a Grievance
Procedures Committee sometime in the next decade, it will be mostly because of his and Angie's
efforts and the support of several Board members [notably Jan, Bettie, and Linda] who have
steadfastly stood up for their constituents throughout the many long months of wrangling,
fighting, and epic non sequiters. Kudos to all. [And we hope this is not premature. Who knows
what Shari will whip out of her bag of tricks? Desperate times do indeed call for desperate
measures.]

BONUS QUOTE: "For this guidelines committee, what is an example of a committee action that
would require a 2/3rd majority vote? If that kind of vote were the rule, seven members would
work, but nine members could be deadlocked 6 to 3." --Don Kelly [we know math is not our
strong point, but isn't 6 out of 9 members a 2/3 majority?]

DOUBLE BONUS QUOTE: "About throwing the baby out....it elicits mind pictures, but was not
very original. Bathwater we know is expendable, but what is the baby in this context? Was it just
a *hot button* (like quagmire) to get support for your version? Was it a phrase intended to
mislead and elicit knee jerk reactions? Will you explain why you keep using that phrase, and what
the baby part represents?" --Don Kelly [no, we do not make this stuff up.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Giving the people what they want since 1998

posted by merope at 11:05 PM 0 comments   
No Rest For The Wicked
256 messages and counting...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER: After several hours of inactivity and no further discussion of
Motion 05-13 on the list, Scott Burow moved to close debate on the motion. He noted, "there
have been 11 requests made by various members to discuss the issue, and three who have said
they're ready to vote...But through it all, there has been no significant discussion on the merits of
15-03 [sic] other than to repeat what has been said ad nauseum." Don Kelly immediately objected,
citing his still unseconded motion to divide the question. Linda Blum Barton, Bettie Wood, and
David Morgan all seconded the motion, but Scott asked Shari for leave to withdraw it in view of
the discussion it apparently stimulated [see below]. She granted it and the motion to close debate
was withdrawn.

And lo and behold, a bit of lively, constructive, and effective debate did then ensue. Angie
suggested giving the committee a flexible range of membership, so that it could operate with a
smaller or larger number of volunteers, depending on needs and availability of qualified
volunteers. She also indicated that both herself and the one remaining member of the original
committee after the end of the session [Jan Cortez?] are both still willing to serve. Linda said she
like to see a committee of 9 members, and Don agreed that 7 to 9 members sounded "like a
reasonable compromise." He also asked to revisit other issues, among them the secret list, the
retention of the former committee members, and the requirement that 2/3 of the committee agree
on the final report. On this latter point, he suggested using "the traditional 50%+1 voting
mechanism instead." Scott explained that 1) the Board seems in favor of the current suggestion of
a single open list; 2) the composition of the committee is "last months argument," and that both
the original composition he proposed and the compromise he has recently suggested maintain a
non-Board majority on the committee; and 3) his suggestion of a 2/3 majority vote came directly
from Don's original motion and he has no personal investment in either approach.

Apparently pleased at this point that he wrung some sort of concession out of Scott on the
number of committee members, Don magnanimously noted "About the other five points
mentioned yesterday, I have no problem discussing those informally one by one and I will
consider the tenants of the move to devide the question as satisfied. I don't know if we can go that
far without a vote somewhere, but time is short and I hope we can discharge those points as easily
as seven or nine members were agreed upon." Scott reminded him the four of them [himself, Don,
Angie, and Jan] do not constitute the entire Board and the remaining members might like a say in
the issue.

Shari suggested a brief poll on the various issues on which Board members disagree and the
options associated so far with each. Scott agreed to this in principle but asked to reword her
suggested set of issues and options to more closely conform to the wording of Motion 05-13.
Shari agreed to this and Scott shortly presented a revised version of her list of issues and options.
Nothing further came of this by press time; we don't know if Scott is awaiting Shari's approval of
his reworded version or if the rest of the Board members are busily sharpening their No. 2 pencils
and studying in preparation for the spot quiz. [This is a great idea, and its a pity no one thought of
it sooner. It will be interesting to see how many Board members actually take the time to respond;
hopefully turnout will be high enough to provide meaningful input so that exercise actually turns
out to be worthwhile.]

And with that, the Board apparently tucked itself in the for the night for some well-earned rest.

BRINGING UP THE REAR: Last but not least, Shari finally also took time out of her busy
schedule to rule on Don's motion to divide the question. She said, "Don's request does not need a
second, and...does not need the permission of Scott. The decision belongs to the chair, but is then
subject to appeal by moving that the motion be divided by the assembly. However, I find that the
parts of Scott's amendment cannot stand alone if other parts would NOT be passed, and therefore
the question cannot be divided." [Whew! We hope after driving a stake through its heart, she also
sprinkled the corpse with garlic and holy water. Just to be sure.]

WHITE OUT: Just incidentally, we've noted some creative numbering options for the motion
under discussion [15-03, 03-05, etc.] The correct number of the motion is 05-13, or possibly
05-13a since its been amended.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Wondering at the marvels of a good night's sleep since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 16 comments   
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Sax And Violins
Come hell or high water...its Your Daily Board Show!

IN PERPETUITY: Since this morning the Board has pounded out truly amazing amounts of
verbiage, all of it more or less about Motion 05-13 (amended). Really. There were 225 messages
in all of July, and we hit 229 today, halfway through August. There haven't been this many
messages on the list since May 2003. They are actually posting faster than we can write this up.

Two basic threads have developed, a gigantic one discussing the propriety of Don Kelly's attempt
to divide the motion into several parts, and a smaller one consisting of a brief flurry of substantive
discussion of the motion itself. These are presented separately, for your convenience and the
sanity of the interns in the DBS newbunker, who had to spend all day reading this crap. Buckle in
and get a snack...this will be long.

THE GOOD: Scott opened the discussion of the motion by noting there are two basic issues
people seem to have with it: the number of people on the committee and the open list. On the first
issue, he suggested "we could agree to not replace the members who are leaving this board or
who have resigned, leaving the number of AB members on the existing committee at 3, and then
adding 6 CC/LC's for the 2/3 majority - giving us a committee of 9."

On the issue of the open list, he suggested that the list's moderator(s) should be able to control
member behavior on the list by instituting standard rules of decorum and limiting discussion of
confidential matters. This of course prompted Shari Handley to pop in for her usual whine about
the necessity of secret lists. Scott noted that "what is posted outside the list is beyond the scope of
what the committee can control. If folks are so thin skinned that they cannot handle a bit of
criticism or name calling...they shouldn't ask or volunteer to be on the committee. As you well
know, it's a tough job." Jan Cortez noted, "...when a list is closed, then those same people are
subject to innuendo, speculation and suspicion about what is going on behind closed doors on the
sekrit list...I would rather see the list open than to see the more than likely unfounded accusations
that would surely come forward." Angie Rayfield agreed, stating, "...innuendo and speculation
could doom any grievance procedure that the committee could come up with. The handling of
grievances is very much a sore spot to a lot of project members..Every complaint made has the
potential to split a group down the middle...They may or may not have all the information. They
may or may not have accurate information. But people are going to to have an opinion...We can't
ensure that everyone has all the details to make an informed opinion. But we CAN make sure that
the process is well-defined and transparent, so that the members can feel assured that everyone is
getting treated fairly. And I believe that one way to give members some confidence in what the
committee comes up with is to let them be involved in the process."

Midway through this, and perhaps a bit prematurely, Bettie Wood asked if she could call the
question. [We are unclear if this was for Motion 05-13 or the motion to divide.] Shari told her
there was discussion ongoing, and Don reminded her that there is an open motion to divide the
question on the floor. He noted, "As a member of the grievance committee...it appears we will not
get everything we want in motion 05-13 as it stands, rather will be strangled by currently
proposed micro management. If the committee is in the end strangled by micro management, I
will resign from the committee and encourage other members of the committee to do the same. If
a new committee is formed that has the full latitude to do the job, reasonable composition of AB
and non AB, with the tools we need to do the job, I will be interested in being a member of that
committee." Both Scott and Bettie then astutely pointed out that in order for the motion to divide
to be on the table it would need a second.

THE BAD: Apparently unaware of the other discussion, Don Kelly pursued his dream of dividing
the motion. He noted, "The exercise is to facilitate a detailed discussion and fix parts of a flawed
motion...I asked for a division of the question so we could discuss and fix the bad parts of the
motion and keep the good parts...If changing a word will close the discussion on symantics, I will
change the word. We need to move forward on this matter." And this: "Without a division of the
question, discussion of 05-13 is useless because we would be helpless to change it...UNLESS
there is another way within Sturgis to facilitate a really good motion that could fix what
constituants and team mates don't like." [No, we still have no clue what he is talking about.] He
also offered to request a ruling from Roger [who we imagine has moved and left no forwarding
address by now].

Scott once again tried to explain how this whole Sturgis thing works, and noted "The statement
that discussion is useless is only accurate in what I perceive to be "your world". With the adoption
of the amendment, it becomes the main motion. If we discuss, come to a compromise that we all
can live with and propose it as a substitute by consent of the movant and the Board, we can then
proceed to vote and get the ball rolling." Angie Rayfield noted "Discussion is not useless, if we
could get into a discussion of the actual merits of the proposal, or even of what is seen as the
problems with the motion. We are not helpless to change a motion...but it makes more sense to
have a discussion, reach more of a concensus, and THEN edit it."

After this, things got a little ugly. Don went on the offensive and challenged Scott: "...you should
withdraw your motion and allow the primary...motion to be voted on by the membership. What
are you afraid of? I believe the AB would support that compromise...you should apologise to the
entire USGenWeb membership for thirty days of wasted effort, not just for one day...the move to
divide the motion, as we all understand it, stands. Your permission is respectfully not required."

Scott replied, "I will not withdraw my motion...If the AB did not want my amendment, they
wouldn't have adopted it. Now you are saying that I should drop the approved and adopted
amendment for the one they turned down in the first place? That's a ludricious idea....The AB
would support that compromise? What compromise?...'ve asked for your input on compromise
and all you give back is "do it my way". The AB has already voted that "your way" isn't the way
they want to go. We need to go forward with what the majority wants, not what the minority
wants....I will apologise to the membership when it's due. In fact, I have. Can you say the same
for offering this "do it my way only" compromise, or for wasting more time with these comments,
or for refusing to discuss any options other than "your way"?...Your motion to divide the question
isn't seconded, and it's not on the table...You're still obviously confused between the difference
between a motion and a request. For the last time that I'm going to ask ... would you like to
discuss 05-13, make an offer, comment on the possible proposal?"

Incredibly, Don managed to puff his chest out even further: "Let's hear the truth...The AB did not
turn the motion down, They didn't get to vote on it. That's the truth...I was always open to
compromise. Perhaps you should open your eyes...Thirty days have been wasted. We would have
been done long ago. Have you paid attention to the viewpoint of the NC?...There is a move on
the table to divide the question and it does not require your permission. Do you intend to ignore
it?...Divide the motion and allow each section to be voted on. Then we can discuss it in detail.
That is the compromise on the move to divide the question...How long it takes to get a second if
needed is up to Sturgis or our Parliamentarian not you. So talk all you wish...Only action
impresses me. Withdraw your motion so we can move ahead and accomplish something. Call to
action: Are you up to it?" [Wow. Them's fightin' words...]

David Morgan, generally a man of few words, pointed out that 05-13 "...is not Scott's motion
anymore. It was voted on and passed. It belongs to the assembly now. We will either vote for it or
against it shortly." This didn't impress our Don, who clung tightly to the security blanket of
mindless repetition: "I asked for a division of the question. That has not been done, and cannot be
ignored. Something must happen to it as it won't just go away, or be imagined away, or wave a
magic wand and gone." Finally, Jan, Bettie, David, and Scott just simply asked Don to get over
himself and allow the discussion on Motion 05-13 to proceed.

THE UGLY: This sordid discussion hasn't spilled over into DISCUSS yet, but its gotten
downright snarly on the SW regional list [still the only list that ever actually talks about anything].
Most of the rancor has been driven by Phyllis "Aren't I About Due For Another Dramatic Exit?"
Rippee, who has, in no particular order, 1) accused Scott Burow of usurping the NC's job; 2)
accused Scott and others who supported the amendment of foot-dragging and one-upmanship; 3)
attacking Mike St. Clair [of all people; now we know she's completely mad] for taking a stand on
something; 4) accusing all and sundry of being adamantly opposed to compromise of any sort; and
5) making wild predictions about the motives and future behavior of Board members who
supported the amendment. While Phyllis was busily engaged in foaming at the mouth, Shari
Handley took some time off from the pressing discussion on the Board list to note that "The
argument that Don's request to divide the question somehow is frivilous and impeding progress
could also very well be made toward's Scott's motion to amend by substitution," and that any "will
of the people" that's she's seen has tended toward a smaller committee. [This is, of course, an easy
statement to make, and she didn't provide any actual figures.] Don's contribution to the discussion
has mirrored his statements on Board-L, and we'll note that he, Phyllis, and Shari make for a very
interesting threesome indeed.

GRATUITOUS RANT: We find it very ironic that the very people so tenderly, deeply, sincerely
concerned about the presumed delicate and tender constitutions of any potential Grievance
Procedures Committee members are the same folks currently busily engaged in throwing around
rumor, innuendo, snarky comments, and ad hominem attacks on the lists. [Present company
excluded, of course. We don't practice what we preach because we aren't the sort of people we're
preaching to. The only difference between us and Shari Herself is that we do our snarking in the
open and she does hers where she thinks no one can see it. She also likes to put frosting on her
nastiness, whereas we serve ours straight up...although perhaps with an olive when we are feeling
frisky.]

Anyways, presumably people who want to see the committee work in the open [because THERE
IS NO DAMN REASON TO KEEP EVERYTHING SO FREAKIN' SECRET] have no feelings
or concerns that need to be considered in this matter. [Yes, thank you, I do feel better.] Its not
OK for anyone to assume that the committee will use secrecy to mask behavior and discussion it
would rather people not see, but its peachy to assume that "mean-spirited people" who "have
nothing better to do than tear down, find fault, second-guess, and snipe" will attack the committee
members just for the hell of it. As everyone knows, all criticism in USGenWeb is unearned,
nonconstructive, and gratuitous, and all people who serve on committees are saints with no
ulterior motives. Shari obviously liked Don's motion and wanted it to pass and she seems more
than a little bitter that it didn't, but from comments made by several Board members it was
rejected at least in part because people are just finally sick and tired of all the hush-hush, sooper
sekrit, cloak and dagger idiocy that passes for governance in this Project. Like everything else in
this project, an open list will work if people want it to work, and it will fail if people don't permit
it to work. But it certainly seems like an idea whose time has come, and perhaps the dinosaurs
should read the writing on the wall and get out of the way.

Anyways...you get the picture. After all of this jibber jabber the motion to divide has not been
seconded. Shari has been active on at least two lists throughout the day, and other than
mentioning Don's motion briefly, she has not addressed it. She has not recognized it. She has not
called for a second. She has not declared it dead for lack of a second, although it seems pretty
clear that no one is interested in seconding it. She has not apparently requested a ruling from
Roger. She has not addressed Scott's observation that it is out of order because it was not
properly stated. She has done little but another drive-by gripe about project members who don't
fit her idea of decorum. As many people suspect, she's apparently withholding any actually
Chair-like behavior for as long as possible in the hope that the motion to divide will be seconded
and they can force a vote on it. Although what they hope to accomplish with that is a mystery. It
doesn't seem to be a very popular idea. Perhaps the idea now is to play for time. In two weeks the
Board will have to close this session. If they don't finish this matter by then, they get to start over
in September with a new mix of members. Maybe, as Phyllis noted, they're hoping to table it and
hope for a more sympathetic Board next time around.

At least they've stopped posting for a bit; it must be suppertime. We need a break now. We doubt
this is over, so stay tuned. [Someone fetch me an olive....]

BONUS QUOTE: "Playing on words Scott? You know the score." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Spitting into the wind since 1998

posted by merope at 7:50 PM 2 comments   
Like A Broken Record
Nothing to see here folks...its Your Daily Board Show!

SHAKING THROUGH: As predicted, the non-discussion of Motion 05-13 went on into the wee
hours of the morning. To recap briefly: the amendment passed, Shari opened the floor on the now
amended main motion, and Don Kelly immediately [and we do mean immediately] moved to
divide the motion into its various constituent parts. This had the effect of stopping discussion on
the motion itself while Don and Scott [primarily but with some input from a handful of other
Board members] debated the propriety of the motion to divide. When we left off last night, Scott
had just reminded Don that no further discussion of the main motion could proceed until the
question of division was decided by either a decision of the Chair, by general consent of the
membership, or by a formal vote. We now rejoin the show already in progress...

Don: "Same as a motion of substitution prevents a vote on a main motion...I don't know how I
can personally help while facing a passed motion composed of details which need to be
examined....from what I hear...there are potential compromises in composition, leadership,
replacement of members, timeframe to perform, and means of communication for the committee.
Like a broken record, I suggest form the committee, give them the tools, and let them go...Any
other opinions, pro or con, anyone? Are there other suggested compromises?"

Scott: "You're missing the point...No one can offer any opinions...other than on your motion to
divide. There can be no suggested compromises as long as your motion is on the table. You've
closed the door to discussion on 05-13. You can't ask for opinions on 05-13. Until there is a
ruling on your motion to divide, or you withdraw it, you've taken 05-13 off the table."

Don: "...then let's get a ruling then address the details."

Scott: "Or withdraw it so we can discuss it...depends on how long you want to
wait."

Every early this morning, Scott apologized to the Board for mistakenly insisting that Don's
motion to divide the question precluded all other discussion until it was divided. He noted, "Had
Don made a request to divide the question, it would have indeed frozen the discussion until the
request was ruled upon, however Don made it as a motion, not a request. If a Division of the
Question is made as a MOTION then it requires a second...I guess we'll find out who on the AB
wants to discuss the merits of 05-13, and who wants to stall...I'm open to questions and
suggestions from the floor on how we can make the GPC happen this month."

Throughout this entire discussion, Shari Handley was conspicuously absent from the floor. Don's
motion has not been recognized, nor has Scott's point of order been addressed. We think Don is
not the only one that is stonewalling.

BONUS QUOTE: "Micro management is not my personal style and I won't go there." --Don
Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Still the same old story since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 9 comments   
Monday, August 15, 2005
Follow The Bouncing Ball
Better late than never...its Your Daily Board Show!

TANNED, RESTED, AND READY: After a long, quiet, and apparently restful weekend [well, it
was nice here in the newsbunker at least], the Board is back and bustling. The amendment to
Motion 05-13 passed and the Board began discussing Motion 05-13a. Well, perhaps it would be
more correct to say it began discussing how to discuss the amended motion. A scant 15 minutes
after Shari posted the outcome of the vote, Don Kelly motioned "for division of the question."
And then there ensued a lively bit of back and forth between Don, Scott Burow, and David
Morgan. Scott started the festivities by observing that it might "be wise to at least discuss the
question before doing so." He next noted that motion was out of order, provided a brief lesson on
Sturgis, and observed, "There is no way that any paragraph of the existing motion would stand
alone on it's own merits. There are not two or more independent parts, but one large motion of
the whole...I'd really rather see a honest discussion of the merits rather than delaying motions,
and, as it was most recently described, 'foot-dragging'." Don thanked Scott for the timely lesson
but he essentially blew it off, noting, "Both motion and proposed amendment were composits,
with room to compromise on each point which can be best accomplished by dividing the questions
and voting on the best compromise on each. This could have occured with or without the
substitution amendment, but quicker without, if speed is considered an issue." [Yeah, we know.
He's not exactly the most consistent person in the world.]

Scott wondered aloud why, if Don understood the Sturgis pointers, he was still pursuing the
motion. He also suggested that rather than discuss how they were going to discuss the motion,
they just actually begin discussing it. Despite repeated invitations to begin the discussion on a
topic of his choice, Don continued to resist, sidestepping direct questions, and insisting that
dividing the motion would save time, prevent errors, etc.

Somewhere in all this, David Morgan leapt into the fray and objected to the motion to divide,
objected to wasting any more time on this matter, and pretty much recommended that the Board
discuss it, vote on it, and be done with it. Don replied, "I agree time has been wasted. The
substitute motion was a waste. We still have to make a workable decision, yet we are exactly
where we were a month ago. We could have had that committee working before now." [Yep.]

Don did eventually provide the Board with his suggested division of Motion 05-13a. It turns out
he is suggesting that the motion be divided into anywhere from five to eight separate motions.
After providing the breakdown, he observed, "These are rough drafts of the questions...all have
been discussed at one time or the other, as has this motion been discussed at length...We need to
vote on these questions in an effort to get everything right...OR...Let the committee form best
way, give them the tools they need, let them go...they can complete this task without micro
management." Scott [very, very patiently] explained to Don why the various divisions he
proposed do not qualify as dividing the question under Sturgis, and noted, "We can?t vote on the
parts independently because they are part of the larger whole. We can discuss the parts you
mention, and maybe even come up with something that we both can live with. I do acknowledge
that you ask some important questions for discussion if you ever let us talk about the proposed
motion, but we can?t do that as long as you delay progress with your motion."

Don was not moved by any of this discussion and his next salvo continued in the same vein:
"...what act brought discussion on the original motion to a halt? In retrospect was not that in fact
an unnecessary delay? I focusing on avoidable delays, I don't really think you want to go there. I
will compromise anywhere to get this committee up and running this week, with tools and a free
hand to accomplish their task. But I cannot amend your motion...only you can do that..." Scott
replied, "...I cannot amend my motion as long as your motion to divide is on the floor. There can
be no discussion leading to a compromise or amendment while you've locked the discussion of the
motion. The ball is in your court on whether you proceed with your motion or withdraw it." He
also observed that "A motion to divide the question does not require a second. It simply stops the
discussion on the motion until it has been decided."

BEFUDDLED: We admit defeat. We can't figure out what Don is trying to do here. Though Don
does seem to genuinely want the committee up and running, we're hard pressed to see how his
current tack will accomplish this in our lifetimes. We spent a good deal of time today trying to
tease out from Don exactly why he thinks that splitting one motion into 5 or more parts would
save time and/or prevent errors from being made, but we had no luck whatsoever getting anything
out of him but the usual dodges, fudges, and delightful non sequiters.

The immediate impression among several of our readers is that he's just trying to slow the motion
down, or prevent discussion on it, or try to eke out some sort of victory for his pet provisions of a
secret list and an NC-appointed committee. Others think he's sincere but just terribly, terribly
confused. Still others think he is sneaky like the fox. He knows full well that no matter what
claptrap he spews about dividing the motion, its main effect is to stop all discussion until its
decided one way or another. Which means we are waiting on Shari to decide whether or not
Don's proposed divisions qualify under Sturgis, or conversely on either general consensus [fat
chance] or a formal vote of the Board.

Although we might grant Don his sincerity in wanting to "do it right", we will also note that
despite a professed willingness to "compromise anywhere" to get the committee going, he's
shown a remarkable lack of interest in actually compromising anywhere. He refused to withdraw
his own hostile amendment by substitution attempt against Angie's motion and refused to permit
any revision of it, even when it was obvious it would not pass. He refused to consider amending
his second motion, and in order to prevent a premature vote on it, Scott submitted his own hostile
amendment by substitution. Don is now delaying discussion on the amended motion in an attempt
to force a line item discussion and vote, while simultaneously claiming to want the committee up
and running by the end of the week. [For the humor in this, consider how long it will take the
Board to discuss and vote on just the minimum of five separate motions even if they do them all
simultaneously. Then add in the length of time needed for a call for volunteers, and for Shari, who
is often not online much, to weed among them to pick the winners, and for the Board to vote to
approve the slate. Its a full plate.] And, you guessed it, he is unwilling to effect compromise by
withdrawing his motion to divide, and thus discussion of the actual merits of the motion itself are
now in limbo awaiting the decision of the NC. Wherever she may be.

Anyways, this looks like its going to go on all night. We'll update the "discussion" in the morning.
Sweet dreams, y'all!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sleepyhead since 1998

posted by merope at 11:10 PM 2 comments   
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Houston, We Have A Problem
Sweltering...its Your Daily Board Show!

ONE STEP CLOSER: Yesterday, Shari Handley opened the vote on the amendment to Motion
05-13. Thus far, 7 Board members have voted YES and 3 have voted NO.

[As an aside, Shari scheduled the vote to end on Sunday am. Didn't the Board pass a procedural
rule some time ago that votes would not end on Sundays?]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Nothing but net since 1998

posted by merope at 7:20 AM 5 comments   
Friday, August 12, 2005
Bless This Mess
Generally speaking...its Your Daily Board Show!

AND SO IT GOES: In response to Scott Burow's point of order, Shari noted, "if the amendment
is adopted, another vote on the motion as amended will be necessary...Cyndie had specifically
asked for additional time for discussion...That was just yesterday. I will call for a vote on whether
to adopt the amendment later tonight." No vote was called, however.

BELATED RECOGNITION: Noting that it falls under the rubric of "day to day administration,"
Shari belatedly confirmed the "co-chairpersons for the USGenWeb booth at FGS 2005 in Salt
Lake City as W. David Samuelson and Mike St. Clair," and requested that the webmaster put a
notice regarding the conference on the national website. [Finally.] She also noted, "A need for
funding is an inherent part of putting together a display booth, and it makes sense to ask fellow
volunteers if they would be willing to support the effort with a monetary donation...any such
requests should be carefully worded to avoid sounding like "strong-arm" tactics. A friendly note
explaining what is being done and asking for support is sufficient." [This last bit is in response to
scattered complaints about David's spamming of volunteers and his repeated demands that list
administrators also spam their lists with soliciations of funds for the conference.]

Just as an aside, didn't we used to have a Publicity Committee? What happened to it? Wouldn't
this sort of thing fall under the scope of their duties? Not that Mike and David haven't done a
fabulous job whipping something together with little public support or encouragement from the
national level on down [its actually interesting how studiously most Board members and many
SCs have avoided publicly supporting this], but really, is it necessary to form a separate new
committee every time we want to participate in a conference or trade show? Wouldn't it be more
efficient to have an established group that arranges and coordinates USGW's participation in
national and state level events, manages fund-raising and expense accounts, handles
communications with project members and event organizers, publicizes USGW's participation in
these events both within and outside the Project, and produces quality, standardized, and official
USGW literature [or at least approves that designed by others]? Poor David has of late gone hat
in hand to several lists looking for someone to design a general overview type of brochure for
USGenWeb for the FGW 2005 booth and he's basically been told he's out of luck and to use the
handful of outdated state level brochures that were designed for various previous conferences.
This seems a bit self-defeating. We get everything together for the conference, have a nice
internet-ready booth with a nice banner and nice people standing at it, and we have no nice
literature for visitors to walk away with? Artistic ability is not among our talents, but how hard or
expensive can it be to slap the logo, a descriptive blurb or two, and the pertinent URL on some
shiny paper and run it through a color copier? Why, after all the years of talking about effectively
publicizing the Project, don't we already have something as basic as a publicity brochure?

UP AND RUNNING: The problem with the run-off election has been resolved. You all can have
at it now.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
The lesser of two evils since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 AM 15 comments   
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Let There Be 47 Lists
Cracking up...its Your Daily Board Show!

FINALLY SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT: With Motion 05-14 out of the way and Cyndie
Enfinger safely enconsced for the time being, the Board members turned their attention to the
Burow amendment to Motion 05-13. Angie Rayfield and Scott Burow patiently explained the
several differences and similarities between the amendment and motion 05-13 itself for Don Kelly.
Don, however, was unswayed and noted, "I am unconvinced the committee has to be larger than
seven to accomplish the task, or take out a block of ninety days to write a simple set of linear
guidelines. The reigns, to so express, change hands at the end of this month...Perhaps some
members are unclear about what I mean by *simple linear guidelines*. I have two days off from
work...and I'll take a couple of hours to build a sample set of guidelines... seven members...and
three weeks is adequate to complete those guidelines. But we need to be expedient about this.
The membership is waiting." [The reigns change hands? We assume that is a typo, but maybe not.
In any event, Betsy Mills and Ellen Pack are probably busy right now writing up "simple linear
guidelines" for Don. Want to bet they end up looking a lot like Betsy's proposal to the original
grievances procedures working group?]

Although Scott "agreed to disagree", Don continued to flog the poor old horse. His arguments
didn't change, but the poetry flowed. Our favorite: "Members of the AB have enough trouble
keeping posts to discuss, board and exec lists in mind. I have posted to the wrong list a couple of
times in three years and was my face ever red. Two lists for the committee just makes sense."
[Yes, after just explaining that he himself cannot keep two lists straight, Don recommends ... two
lists.]

[A close second for favorite quote: "...how much gas would we get and how fast, if we debated
the issue of cost of gas, the condition of the asphalt pad at the pumps, the temperature of the day,
and the length of the line of cars at the pump, with the gas station attendant? Our tank gets filled
by driving up, shutting off our engine, asking the attendant to fill it up with regular unleaded,
he/she asks cash or credit card?, three minutes (five if a big tank) and done and out, with no
debate. It is so true that things can get done the easy way, or the hard way." Bettie Wood actually
asked him to do this one again in English and suggested he might not be getting enough rest.]

Shari Handley used her bully pulpit to flog the secret committee idea. She opined, "One of the
major advantages the [Election Study Committee] had...was the very fact that their discussion, the
"hashing out" process, was done on a closed list...There is no doubt that the ESC was the most
successful committee...in the history of this project...an open list for their deliberations will expose
them to pot shots, derision, questions of their intelligence and/or loyalty and/or motives, and other
unpleasantness from the small but vocal contingent in our project who seem to delight
in...destructive team-killing. The best way to ensure the failure of this Grievance Procedures
Committee, or to ensure that they come up with a watere-down, poor set of grievance
procedures...is to make them do their discussing on an open list." [She also posted this, or more
snarky versions of it, to other lists.] Don said he was "detecting major agreements to these
points," but we haven't seen any other than that from the usual suspects.

Scott finally rose to a point of order and asked the Madame Chairwoman "While I understand that
the merits of the amendment must be considered by the Board while discussing the adoption, we
seem to be debating the merits of the amendment at this point. I suggest that this is
premature...Since there does not appear to be discussion on the issue of adoption or not, would it
not be prudent to call for the question and allow the Board to make that determination before the
discussion of the merits goes on much longer? If a vote of the Board defeats the motion to amend
then this entire discussion is moot...debating the merits of the issue prior to the vote on the
amendment will simply be duplication of the discussion that would occur should the Board vote to
amend." Madame Chairwoman did not respond to this point of order.

BEATING ANOTHER DEAD HORSE: Linda Blum Barton took objection to Don's "foot
dragging, or riding the brake" post in reference to Bettie Wood's attempt to recognize a desire by
a member to be considered as an interim Special Projects representative. She noted, "in some
circles this would be known as a hard working, sincere CC Rep doing everything in their power to
see that their constituent's...are represented in a fair and equitable fashion...Bettie was waiting on
a reply from the Chair of this board - not dragging her feet or riding any brake...this post is totally
uncalled for...A MEMBER of the project objected and asked to be considered for this seat also -
Bettie attempted to respond to that request...when someone asks a question or tries to obtain
more information or act through the procedures we're supposed to use we have the obligation to
respect their right to do so." For her part, Bettie asked Don, "would you have ignored this
member that objected & wanted to be considered for the SP seat? Since I thought it wasn't right
to ignore a member, any member, I requested to witdraw the motion, waited on a ruling from the
Chair before I cast my abstain. How is that foot dragging?" Shari finally stepped in, told both of
them to play nice, and officially closed discussion on Motion 05-14.

PUBLICITY HOUND: Darilee Bednar asked Shari and the Board to publicly recognize the
efforts of Mike St. Clair and W. David Samuelsen regarding the FGS 2005 conference. She asked
"I would like to see something on the USGenWeb Project Website that acknowledges this
recognition. I would like the members of the Advisory Board to announce to lists their support of
this effort." Don agreed to "second such a motion," should anyone make such a motion. Bettie
noted that the conference committee's solicitation for funds violates Root$web's rules and
provided information on how members might obtain approval to post such requests.

TAKING NOTES: Last but not least, Board Secretary Mike St. Clair has posted the minutes of
the July meeting. And really fine minutes they are too, very detailed. Mike has posted them to an
alternate site until the USGenWeb webmaster can get them up on the home page
[http://www.saintclair.org/temp_minutes/05-07minutes.htm]

ELECTION BLUES: We've heard scattered reports that the run-off election is not workig as
advertised; people's passwords aren't being recognized. We are sure this will be addressed in short
order, so don't be overly alarmed if it doesn't work the first time through.

BONUS QUOTE: "As long as they are open and archived so that the membership can see how
things get done, let there be 47 lists." --Scott Burow

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Just too funny since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 15 comments   
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow
Closing a door and opening a window...its Your Daily Board Show!

TAKING THE LONG WAY: After a convoluted process by which Shari had to remind Board
members to vote in order to reach a quorum, David Morgan and Bettie Wood argued back and
forth about whether or not the motion could be withdrawn and what constituted "the last vote",
and Roger Swafford swooped in with wisdom pearls to soothe the roiled waters, Motion 05-14
finally passed with 8 yes votes, one abstention, and 4 members not voting. Shari welcomed
Cyndie Enfinger back onboard and the Board began saying its good-byes to Kathi Jones-Hudson
last night.

NOT EXACTLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION: A couple of days ago, Angie asked if the
nominations and registration period for the special election could run simultaneously. Tina
Vickery, chair of the EC, responded: "No. Any USGenWeb Project Member may nominate for
any available position for which the nominee is qualified. However, only those members qualified
to vote in a given region/area/position may vote in that respective region/area/position. Members
may nominate themselves. Nominator names are confidential. The registration period will be for
all USGenWeb Project members." Now, perhaps we haven't had sufficient caffeine this morning,
but we don't see how this actually answers Angie's question. If someone could perhaps provide
the portion of the EC guidelines that would preclude it, we here in the caffeine-deprived
newsbunker would be most grateful.

OH YEAH, THAT OTHER THING: Other than Angie saying she much preferred Scott's
amendment to "Don's" motion, and Don deciding that the amendment seems "about the same" as
his version, there was no further discussion of Motion 5-13, at least by Board members.

The discussion on the one list that's talking about it [USGW-SW, of course] has turned into a
discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Is it 7? 9? 12? 15? And how many
of the angels should be Board members? You get the idea. We don't honestly know what the ideal
number of members for any committee might be, but its always interesting to see the arguments
used to justify one number over another. In any event, 15 is probably as good as any other
number, and Scott's reasons for settling on it [it retains the original five Board members and gives
non-Board members a 2/3 majority on the committee] make sense. A committee of any size that
wants to do the work will manage to get it done, and a committee of whatever the perfect number
is will not get it done if their members would rather be somewhere else [as we witnessed with the
immediately past grievance procedures working committee]. No one has budged in their opinion
of whether the angels should have an open list or a secret list.

BONUS QUOTE: "We can't have a...It's my way or the hi-way...mentality on the AB." --Ellen
Pack

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Same old, same old since 1998

posted by merope at 6:05 AM 17 comments   
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Instant Karma
Nutty as a fruitcake...its Your Daily Board Show!

BY THE WAY: Looks like we weren't the only ones that noticed that Shari managed to get
online and spend time threatening and moderating people yesterday, but couldn't manage to
actually recognize the proposed and seconded amendment to Motion 05-13. Scott Burow actually
had to ask our "Madame Chairwoman" to "recognize the motion to amend and the second to that
motion." Shari responded to this by recognizing the amendment three times. David Morgan noted
that he likes the amendment and recommends that it be adopted.

PERSONNEL ISSUES: Bettie Wood noted that Our Esteemed NC also could not be bothered to
recognize and respond to her request to withdraw Motion 05-14 and make a new one that gives a
choice between the two persons who have volunteered to serve. Shari did not recognize this
request when she logged on and recognized Scott's amendment. The vote on Motion 05-14 to
seat Cyndie Enfinger as the interim Special Projects representative is up to seven YES votes.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Looking under rocks since 1998

posted by merope at 8:05 AM 9 comments   
Monday, August 08, 2005
Conflictionated
Leading a life of quite desperation...its your Daily Board Show!

PERPETUAL MOTIONS: The Board quite busily and actively continued to discuss the two
motions currently before it:

Motion 05-13: Following Shari's threat to call a premature vote on "Don's" grievance procedures
committee motion, Scott Burrow moved to amend the motion by substition to include his points
as published here previously. [We told you precedent was a dangerous thing.] The motion to
amend was seconded by Jan Cortez, and Don Kelly immediately began griping about the size of
the committee and the length of time allotted for its work. Scott replied:

"...this is a project with 2000+ members...The broader the scope of opinions, the more likelihood
there is that all points of view will be discussed and considered, and the higher likelihood of a
quality product. It is not a two to three week committee - the motion calls for a 90 day return,
which on my calendar covers approximately twelve weeks...since all on the committee are
volunteers, the allocation of human resources is a moot point. We are not allocating anyone - it's
up to them to allocate themselves based upon their own availability of time and energy to the
creation of these procedures."

This failed to appease Don, who still believed that "...short of failure to cooperate as a committee,
a set of quality linear procedures can be written in one or two weeks. Many technical writers can
accomplish that task in one or two days...And what about grievances that need to be delt with
now..next week..next month?" Scott patiently responded:

"...something could be slapped together in a couple of weeks, but do we want a slapped together
procedure?...the membership wants a Grievance Procedure that works and is fair. That's not
something that can be cobbled together, but requires thought and work....Your comment about
the upcoming grievances is nothing more than a smokescreen...That's not an issue and you know
it. What has been happening with the grievances over the last couple months that this has been on
the AB table and we've argued failed motions repeatedly? There is a method of dealing with those
that have been filed, and it would continue to do so until the new procedures were implemented."

Both Jan and Linda Blum Barton spoke in favor of a larger committee and a longer time frame
than Don proposed. Darilee said she's in favor of fewer people, and noted "I'm pro a time element.
and I'm guessing I'm pretty much anti-amendments..." [Hmmm...against an amendment just
because its an amendment. Interesting position to take.] After these comments, the Board was
again distracted by the Special Projects rep issue and no further discussion ensued. As a final icing
on yesterday's discussion, Shari Handley threatened Angie Rayfield with moderation yet again:
"this will be your final warning about your tone and language on this list....you will be moderated
if you cannot control it and post in a respectful, non-sarcastic manner."

Motion 05-14: After some chitty chatty in which a handful of Board members expressed the
opinion that an interim appointment was desirable and that a vote would be the way to go, Shari
popped in and called a vote "on whether to appoint Cyndie Enfinger as interim Special Projects
Rep until a special election can take place to fill the seat on a permanent basis." Thus far, the vote
stands at 6 YES votes.

When she called the vote, Shari noted that "It is not appropriate to discard this motion and
consider any other candidates since to "call for volunteers" was issued, and...this motion has not
been withdrawn. The only thing an objection to passing this motion by general consent has done is
to necessitate a vote on it." Bettie asked if she could withdraw the motion and substitute one that
would add Charles Barnum to the ballot. Shari has not yet responded to this question, but its
unlikely that will be permitted. If Board members wanted Charles or anyone else instead of Cyndi,
or wished for a call for volunteers to be issued, they would only need to vote down Cyndie's
appointment. That's also unlikely, so the DBS will go out on a limb and be the first to welcome
Cyndie back to the Board.

While he cast his vote, Don made another of his amazing free verse contributions to the Board's
business:

"While discussing conflictions, please think about these points. A few members hold a point of
view that the reps for the SPs were immediately discharged when the vote was announced that
their positions were abolished? Was the NC immediately discharged when the result of the
election was announced? Were other reps discharged immediately after the vote was announced?
Were any other members of the AB discharged immediately after the vote was announced?...we
have a ramp down procedure...and everyone who reached the end of their term will relinquish
their positions at the end of this month....some ignore all of that and hold that the SP reps seats
were immediately discharged? Isn't that a confliction? Why cannot the reps serve until the end of
this month like the rest of us? Think about it." [Well, Don, they can't serve because their seats do
not exist anymore. The NC's seat and the other seats were not abolished, and the bylaws do
provide for new members to replace old members on a certain day every year. That provision was
unfortunately absent from the amendments and the affected seats were abolished upon passage.
Thus, there are no seats to sit in and no terms to complete. Its not a "few members" that hold this
opinion, either. Its pretty much everyone but Don, including the NC, the rest of the Board,
everyone that's expressed a public opinion anywhere, and the parliamentarian. While a few have
protested that they did not mean for their vote to kick Cyndie and Kathi to the curb, they have
recognized that as the unfortunate outcome of Betsy's poor planning and zeal to get rid of the
census project seat. Its a bummer, but it is what it is.]

OTHER BUSINESS: The Board also briefly discussed the EC's proposed special election
schedule. Betsy "Queen for a Day" Mills asked if anyone had any objections to the proposed
schedule. Angie said she had no objections, but wondered "Do procedures allow for registration
to take place simultaneously with nominations and campaigning, or do they have to take place
consecutively?" Its an interesting question, since if there is nothing to preclude simultaneous
nominations and registration running them concurrently would shorten the time frame for the
special election by some small amount. We are sure the EC can multi-task; we've heard nothing
but how fabulous they are ever since the election ended.

BONUS QUOTE: "At some point, we must have thought 15 people was a pretty good number to
represent a project this size -- after all, the Advisory Board was set up with more members than
that." --Angie Rayfield

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Comfortably numb since 1998

posted by merope at 8:40 AM 14 comments   
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Five Easy Pieces
Back to square one...its Your Daily Board Show!

HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE: Scott Burow seconded Bettie's nomination of Cyndie
Enfinger to serve as interim Special Projects representative, "with the understanding that it is to
fill the newly created seat until the special election is held." Shari numbered this motion [05-14]
and then told the Board that "There seems to be general support for this action...Kathi
Jones-Hudson has indicated that this is also her wish, and Cyndie has indicated to me that she is
willing to serve as interim SP Rep...if there is no objection, I will declare this motion passed by
general consent." Six members had no objection, but Charles Barnum threw a monkey wrench
into the works and volunteered himself to serve as the interim rep. [He does have a point about
precedent being to ask for volunteers.] This provoked David Morgan to file an objection to
appointing Cyndie as interim representative. He suggested that the Board "not make an
appointment at all, since we can conduct a special election with about a much speed as we can
conduct a preferential poll." [The EC might differ with that assessment; see below]

BLINDING SPEED: On the subject of Motion 05-13 ["Don's" grievance procedures committee
motion], discussion has been almost nonexistent. Angie Rayfield supported Scott's suggestions
"with no reservations," and urged him to "reconsider his reluctance to propose an amendment by
substitution and make such a motion." Scott, however, told her, "The reason I have not proposed
my suggestion as an amendment by substitution is because doing so would close discussion on the
original motion. I want to foster discussion on both ideas and hear the pro's and cons to
each...During that process of discussion I would hope that we as a group can come up with ideas
and an overall sense of what is needed ... THEN an amendment by substitution offered that will
include the best of both ideas and is something that will pass when it comes to a vote. It would be
better to have one motion that will pass than two that don't. Another month of posturing and
voting on motions that fail gets us no closer to forming a Committee to deal with Grievance
Procedures." [Man, he's so dreamy...]

Shortly after this comment, Shari [who claims to be out of town and having connection issues]
authorized Betsy Mills to call a vote on Motion 05-13 this afternoon. This provoked something of
an emotional outburst from Angie: "It's been less than 12 hours since the last comment on this
motion. On a weekend. During the summer. In the last few "vacation" weeks before school starts.
Isn't it a bit premature to talk about a vote...?" There has been no further discussion on this
motion.

The Board is clearly experiencing some kind of "grievance fatigue" and no one other than Scott,
Angie, and perhaps Bettie are all that interested in carrying on further discussion of it. The Board
members seem to be waiting for some magical motion that will please them all, or at least enough
of them to just get something passed, and don't seem at all interested in having the discussion
necessary to craft something that will both be passable and that will actually work. Don proposed
a more or less standard-issue motion, Scott proposed some provocative alternative ideas, and
poof, that's pretty much as far as its gone. The Board seems to have spent whatever passion it felt
for this issue, or perhaps the members simply feel that everything that can be said has been said.

We will note, however, that discussion of other matters, specifically that of the glaringly empty
Special Projects seat, has taken up the Project's attention and may be distracting the Board from
the grievances issue. While there is some theory that the Board can handle more than one topic at
once, we've never known this to work all that well when both of the issues are difficult or
complicated. Since Motion 05-14 seems near to some resolution [even if that will mean having a
vote to confirm Cyndie's appointment], it would not be unreasonable to postpone Motion 05-13
temporarily pending the outcome of that issue, when the Board can devote its full attention to the
matter. Postponement would also mean that the Special Projects would have a voice in the issue,
since neither Kathi nor Cyndie can currently vote on any motions before the Board. Plus, Angie is
right. What's the hurry? We imagine, however, that Shari will be offline with "connection issues"
long enough to allow Betsy to call the vote on this motion, unless someone moves to postpone it.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG: The EC forwarded the following proposed schedule for the special
election to the Board for its consideration:

"-- two (2) week period for registration [required];
-- one (1) week period for nominations;
-- one (1) week period for preparation/campaign for nominees;
-- two (2) week period for voting."

Their message didn't note when they plan to start the clock, but apparently it won't be until after
the end of the runoff election, which ends August 25.

WELCOME TO THE MONKEY HOUSE: The conversation down in the Letters to the Editor
section has been lively the last few days, what with all the folks posting their iPod playlists and the
qualifications for their dream RALs. The DBS would like to extend a warm welcome to first time
poster and Board member Betsy "Color of Jerk" Mills, who dropped by to explain how calling a
constituent a jerk isn't really calling them a jerk, even when you do it twice in a follow-up email to
your constituent explaining why it applies to them. [Betsy lives in an interesting world. We fondly
recall the time she publicly claimed there was no Sekrit Board list, on the exact same day that
BOARD-EXEC was founded.] Apparently the issue is losing her some votes. Whatever her
explanation for it, we have a hard time imagining this sort of email even coming out of her worthy
opponent, much less him having to come onto a cheesy news rag and attempt damage control.
Perhaps next time Betsy drops in she can give us a definition of "is." We'll keep cookies out.

BONUS QUOTE: "Dear God, are we trying to set a new land speed record or have a rational
discussion?" --Angie Rayfield

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Breaking the sound barrier since 1998

posted by merope at 8:20 AM 25 comments   
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Not Your Father's Oldsmobile
Another fine mess...its Your Daily Board Show!

DANCING IN THE DARK: The Board did not really discuss either of the issues currently before
it much since our last publication. Angie and Shari danced around a bit over Shari's ruling that
Angie's motion to suspend all Board discussion but that of the new seat until September 6 was out
of order. Bettie Wood, who has been away and is catching up on old business, responded to
Shari's call for discussion by nominating Cyndie Enfinger for the newly created Special Projects
seat and asked whether both Kathie and Cyndie have been unsubscribed from the Board's lists.
Shari did not acknowledge either the nomination or the question [we're fairly certain that both
remain on the lists]. Don Kelly tried to claim that because both of them were "duly elected by
their constituants to serve fixed terms," there was no authority to turn them out of their seats.
Bettie had to remind him that the seats no longer exist.

NEW AND IMPROVED: Only one Board member addressed "Don's" latest motion. Since Scott
more or less took the words right out of our mouth, we'll let him speak:

"...I think the Board rejected the "throw out the baby with the bathwater" version of the GPC last
month...Why demolish the existing Committee, rather than simply expanding it?...you're giving a
single person dominion over the composition of the committee, and setting up a private mail list
for discussion...What discussions that could possibly take place on this committee should be
unarchived and private? Have you not seen how this fosters distrust and a lack of faith in the
process by the membership? This process should be transparent...One list is needed only. When
the committee is to discuss a specific item amongst themselves, let it be moderated so that only
the committee can speak at that time, but keep the discussions out in the open where the members
of this project can see them and know how these procedures were developed."

Scott then suggested the following ideas for discussion: "The current grievance procedures
committee continue to be seated, and that those AB members having resigned or who are no
longer on the AB be replaced with volunteers from the AB. The committee would be expanded to
15 members, to be chosen by the current committee members from volunteers from the project
membership in good standing, with the slate approved by the AB, and that future vacancies in the
committee be similarly filled by project volunteers until the committee achieves membership of no
more than 5 AB members and up to 10 non-AB members. Further, that an email list be established
for use of the committee, and that the list discussions be archived and permanently open to all
project members. That during the discussion of grievance procedures, the list may
be moderated during specific discussion by the committee members, but shall be open for posting
by all subscribers at all other times. The committee will submit a complete set of proposed
grievance procedures no later than ninety days after being seated. The AB will vote on whether to
adopt the procedures in their entirety by a yes-or-no vote, with a 2/3 majority required for
passage."

[Man, we cannot believe that the NE/NC SCs preferred George "Goon Squad" Waller over this
guy. Wait, yes we can...he ain't dancing on the party line. That whole "let's just for once not do
this in secret" stance is probably what sealed his fate too. Pity.]

AROUND IN CIRCLES: The Board has not addressed Scott's comments or even "Don's" motion
any further. [We've also noticed that the Secrecy Squad has more or less gone underground,
probably to lick their wounds.] Most of the chitty chatty on other lists has involved the election
and/or the situation the Project finds itself in with the passage of the bylaws amendments. There
have been multiple suggestions that current RAL Betsy Mills could provide all the representation
the Special Projects need, but this is less than satisfactory to many, because 1) she's not known to
actually be a member of any of the Special Projects; 2) she's very possibly a lame duck [although
Mike St. Clair could take over this duty if/when he is elected]; and 3) well, would Betsy be your
first choice of an interim representative? [It would certainly open up a whole new class of people
she can call jerks.] We've heard through the grapevine that Cyndie "Still in the Sekrit Sandbox"
Enfinger has asked the Board to appoint both her and Kathi Jones-Hudson to the vacant seat in
some kind of undetailed and novel sharing arrangement, but that idea has apparently gone
nowhere. Given that the EC will not conduct a special election until after the run-off is concluded
[its against their rules to re-open the registration system until after the election is completed], the
most likely scenario is about two months before the new position is filled. We are now a week
into August. So far the only Board member who has done anything even remotely toward moving
this issue forward is Bettie Wood, who has both advocated an interim apppointment and
suggested someone for the seat. Let's see if the Board moves on it.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Hoping for a miracle since 1998

posted by merope at 8:30 AM 17 comments   
Friday, August 05, 2005
Mystic Crystal Revelations
What's on your iPod?...its Your Daily Board Show!

A WEALTH OF MOTIONS: In a truly amazing flurry of activity, the Board had three motions
going on the Board at one time yesterday. It didn't last, but it was fun while it lasted. First up is
Don's new grievance procedures motion [if anyone reading this really believes Don wrote it]. Don
apparently decided wordier is better after all and made the rather longish and detailed motion
published yesterday. Darilee seconded it, its been numbered as Motion 05-13, and the floor has
been opened for discussion.

Next up was Angie Rayfield. She noted that "...I don't believe it's appropriate to continue other
discussions while something as important as the representation of an entire portion of our project
is up in the air." She then moved that "...all discussions other than filling of the Special Project
Representative seat be tabled until September 6, 2005." [Even to us, this seems a little drastic.
Should the Board actually resolve the Special Projects seat issue in a timely fashion, passage of
this motion would preclude them from doing anything else until the new Board is seated. We
suspect that Angie's goal here is to postpone further discussion of the grievance procedures issue
until some fresh blood is available to talk about it, since its likely that the current line-up is more
or less fixed in its different opinions by this point.] Shari quickly declared this motion out of
order, both because of Motion 05-13 and because she had already directed the EC to get going on
a special election and sees no reason to suspend all other business. Angie argued that her motion
was made before Don's was seconded and before Darilee's [see below] was even made, and noted,
"we have a very out-of-the-ordinary situation, two board seats done away with...and one seat
empty. I think it would be much better if everything was settled and the vacant seat filled before
any other business is considered for discussion."

Last but not least, Darilee then moved "...that a special election be called for seating a new Rep
for special projects." She urged both Cyndie and Kathi to run for the seat. David seconded the
motion, but Shari quashed this one as well. She noted, "...the motion is not necessary. The
amendment...has eliminated the Archives and TP rep positions as of the date of passage, and we
will obviously need to conduct a special election to fill the seat...I would like to see...discussion of
what to do in the meantime. Does the AB wish to leave the new SP rep seat vacant until a special
election is held, or do you wish to appoint someone to fill it on an interim basis until an election is
held? We can discuss the particulars of such a motion concurrently with discussion on 05-13....If
we... decide what we want to do now, we can just go ahead and have a motion to appoint
someone as soon as motion 05-13 has been dealt with." For a couple of messages it appeared that
Darilee wasn't going to let this one go, but after Shari convinced her it was more or less moot, she
agreed not to press the issue.

[Whew, for a moment there it seemed like everyone on the Board was going to make some
motion or other...]

MERRY GO ROUND: The EC has announced that the run-off elections will start August 11 and
run through Aug 25. If you dont' get a password in the next few days be sure and let them know.

BONUS QUOTE: "It was NOT the intent of good number of us to dismiss Cyndie and Kathy
outrigh immediately but to phase out their seats as their terms end or resignations. The object of
the amendment was the vacant CP seat." --W. David Samuelsen, learning a lesson the hard way.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Running out of ideas for taglines since 1998

posted by merope at 6:54 AM 8 comments   
Thursday, August 04, 2005
We Told You So
You're soaking in it...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON: The Board struggled yesterday with the issue of the eliminated
Board seats and the new Special Projects seat. Shari called the Board to order early [see agenda
below] and stated specifically that "any motions presented outside of a regular AB meeting...are
out of order and must be restated once the meeting has been called to order." [You read it here
first.] Cyndie Enfinger [who is no longer a Board member] seconded David Morgan's
out-of-order motion. David next restated his motion, but it was also declared out of order by
Shari, who noted "As much as I would like to let this motion through, and as much as I would
have liked to have seen a provision for Cyndie and Kathi to both finish out their terms of office,
I'm afraid that there is no "leg to stand on" from a parliamentary standpoint....unfortunately, this
motion must be called out of order...I will direct [the EC] as soon as possible after the runoffs, to
arrange a special el ection to fill the new Special Projects Representative seat...Until that seat is
filled, can we not allow Cyndie and Kathi to continue on in their present positions? I would not
like to see the Archives and the TP go without representation during this transition period." Angie
Rayfield responded, "...I don't think Sturgis gives any wiggle room...a better idea would be to put
off any discussions until after a new Special Projects representative can be seated. We *can* do
that without any issue of violating either the by-laws or parliamentary procedure."

Linda Barton asked why the special election can't be held with the run-off election and in response
EC Chair Tina Vickery had Shari post the sections of the EC guidelines that require both that a
two-weeks registration period be allowed prior to any special election and that the EC's
registration system be closed for the duration of the current election cycle. Tina noted "Inclusion
of this special election in conjunction with the run-offs can not be accomplished. The USGenWeb
Election Committee respectfully requests that the Standing Election Procedures be strictly
adhered to in this matter."

YESTERDAY'S NEWS: Keeping his eyes on the prize despite the confusion swirling around him
[or perhaps being unable to let go], Don Kelly moved that "a committee be formed for the
purpose of drafting a proposed set of procedures to handle grievances submitted by USGenWeb
members. The proposed procedures may not conflict with The USGenWeb Project Bylaws. The
committee will be comprised of six USGenWeb Members In Good Standing, two of whom are
current members of the Advisory Board, and four of whom are neither current Advisory Board
members nor Advisory Board members-elect. The NC will issue a call for volunteers willing to
serve and will then submit a prospective slate of committee members to the AB. The Advisory
Board will vote on whether to approve the slate in its entirety by a simple majority yes-or-no vote.
If the slate is rejected, the NC will submit another slate for approval in the same manner. This
process will continue until a slate of committee members has been approved. The committee will
choose a chairperson from among themselves. They will meet on a private, unarchived mailing
list. They will also be subscribed to a second list, which will be opened up so that any member
who wishes to subscribe can make suggestions to the committee and so that the committee can
discuss ideas for the grievance procedures with the membership. The committee will submit a
complete set of proposed grievance procedures no later than six weeks after being seated. The
Advisory Board will vote on whether to adopt the procedures in their entirety by a yes-or-no
vote, with a 2/3 majority required for passage."

[Oooo...people have been busy in the last few days. And they just can't let that sekrit committee
thing go, can they?]

Indicating that she was entirely willing to allow discussion of both the grievance procedures
committee and the dilemna of the Board seats to continue simultaneously, Shari asked for a
second to Don's motion, but so far none has been forthcoming.

GET IT TOGETHER: The august members of the Board seem to be missing the point. Kathi and
Cyndie are no longer Board members. Their seats were eliminated three days ago by the will of
the electorate. Discussion of them continuing their terms is entirely moot; the seats they filled no
longer exist. They should not even be permitted to post to the Board list, much less second votes
pertaining to themselves or their old seats. We've asked parliamentarian Roger Swafford if there
would be anything in the bylaws or Sturgis that would prevent the Board from appointing one of
them to the new seat until a special election can be held for a Special Projects representative, but
so far have received no response. [And of course, our suggestion has been echoed by Shari
Handley over on DISCUSS. We should start demanding royalties.] Sentiment on DISCUSS has
been running against appointing anyone to the seat, but we honestly don't see any reason why an
interim appointment can't be made. The bylaws say the Board can appoint to a "vacant" seat,
without any specification of how the seat became vacant, and the new Special Projects seat is
most certainly vacant. Of course, that approach would require the Board to choose between
Cyndie and Kathie or to pick someone else entirely, and we imagine that would be difficult, but its
not like the Board wasn't warned of this outcome weeks and weeks ago. Their failure to plan for
the unlikely eventuality of the passage of the amendments is nobody's fault but their own.

WHAT'S UP DOC: Here is the August 2005 agenda. Our readers will note that it is not as
ambitious as previous agendas and that several long-standing items have disappeared.

"1. Call to Order
2. Election Results
3. Minutes
4. Grievance Procedures Committee Discussion
6. New Business
a. Passage of Bylaws Amendment and its implications
b. Family History Month Committee
c. Other new business (if necessary)
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment"

JULY SCORECARD: Here's how the Board did on its July agenda:

1. Call to Order [done, July 6]
2. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes [done, July 7]
3. Grievance Procedure Drafting Committee [not done, discussion consumed entire month]
4. Logo Contest Voting - Discussion [not done]
5. New Business [members communication page suggested and implemented]
a. Family History Month Committee [not done]
b. Evaluation of Special Projects (discussion) [not done]
c. State web sites checkup (discussion) [not done]
d. EC Procedure Change? - Eligibility Verification (general discussion) [not done]
e. Other new business (if necessary)
6. Announcements [a "New Member Survival Guide" was published by NC Shari Handley]
7. Adjournment [done, July 30]

About all that can be said of July was that the Board basically accomplished opening its session,
closing its session, and posting last month's minutes. The entire rest of the month was filled by one
topic, that of the hapless grievance procedures committee, which of course was unresolved at the
end of the month. And while the Board has a really important fish to fry in its last month in office,
apparently it will be consuming at least part of August with the same topic. The more things
change, we suppose, the more they stay the same.

BONUS QUOTE: "...both seats no longer exist and these two people no longer have the right to
vote, nor enter into discussions as AB members...only AB members have the right to post
directly...if new precedent is going to be set by allowing "commoners" to post directly...then, I
want to have the privilege too. Does anyone else wish to have the privilege of posting to
Board-L?" --Phyllis Rippee, DISCUSS [we told you she wouldn't be gone long]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Thrilled to be here since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 13 comments   
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The Day After Tomorrow
Picking up the pieces...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHAT ELECTION?: Our prediction that NC Shari Handley would make herself scarce for a
while after adjourning the July meeting proved correct, although we underestimated her absence
by more than a day and half [and counting]. While waiting for the meeting to re-convene, David
Morgan moved: "that the two special project representatives be allowed to serve their full terms.
If they should resign before the end of their terms, the positions will not be filled. I also move that
the new position of Special Projects representative not be filled until the next scheduled election in
2006." Thus far, the motion has not been recognized by our conspicuously-absent NC, and has
not been seconded.

David's motion brings up a couple of issues. The first is a just niggly procedural thing. If Shari is
going to go through the charade of adjourning and reconvening meetings each month, then no
business can or should be conducted before the meeting is in session and any motions made when
the meeting is not in session should be routinely declared out of order.

As for the second issue, wow, what a bold move to negate the results of an election! Although
more project members voted on the amendments than voted for NC or RAL, and the margin of
victory was reasonably comfortable [in a world where one percentage point difference is
considered both a landslide and a mandate], apparently the "will of the people" [not to mention
procedural rules] is not all that big of a concern. David's motion requires that the new Special
Projects seat sit empty for a year, and that both the Tombstone rep, whose term is up in August
2006, and the Archives rep, who was just re-elected to a 2-year term, be allowed to complete
their terms. The only election result immediately retained would be the elimation of the Census
Project seat. Although both the other SP seats were also specifically eliminated, apparently that
part of the amendments will be ignored. Basically, the status quo will not change for a year, and
then the Archives will retain its current seat for another full year and probably fill the new Special
Projects seat as well.

The most practical and immediate effect of this will of course be that the Archives retains two
solid votes on the Board for at least a year [and probably two] instead of losing one immediately
and having to compete with the other projects for the remaining one.

Fortunately, David's motion is out of order under Sturgis. The bylaws were amended and the seats
were eliminated the moment the election results were announced. If there was concern about the
transition to the new Board composition, that should have been addressed in the amendments
themselves. That Betsy failed to do so should not be an excuse for negating the results of an
election. Both Cyndie and Kathi should be immediately removed from the Board and the Sekrit
Sandbox and the new Special Projects should be placed on the run-off ballot so that the new
member can take his/her seat in September with the rest of the new Board. Nothing prevents
either of them from running for the new seat, along with any other qualified candidate from any of
the USGenWeb Project's recognized Special Projects.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Telling it like it is since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 15 comments   
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
There Is No Joy in Mudville
Same stuff, different day...its Your Daily Board Show!

DEMOCRACY AND SAUSAGES: As most readers should know by now, the first set of
election results are in. We say "first" because, in a long-standing USGenWeb tradition, only a
handful of the races were decided on the first go 'round. 6 of nine races for Board seats had no
definite winner and will go to runoffs. In another long-standing USGenWeb tradition, nothing
much is apparently going to change. Even though most races are undecided, most of the
non-establishment candidates were knocked out of their races, with the exception of the NE/NC
and SE/MA CC seats. Surprisingly though, this was not a good election for incumbents. Only five
races had incumbent candidates; three of those lost outright and one appears likely to tank in the
run-off. So there will be a few new faces on the Board come September, although whether or not
they will bring new ideas to the mix remains to be seen. Here are the results summarized:

NC: No winner. Board newcomers Linda Haas Davenport and Sherri Hall will face each other
down in a run-off election. No matter who wins this contest, the project loses. [And, alas, no
more of Don Kelly's poetry!]

RAL: No winner. Newcomer Mike St. Clair and incumbent Betsy Mills will bare-knuckle fight it
out in the center ring. May the best man win.

NE/NC CC rep: No winner. Newcomers Jeff Scism and Bob Sweeney [did we mention the eyes?]
will use battling robots to determine the winner of this one. The ayes have it! [get it?]

NE/NC SC rep: Old warhorse George Waller came out of retirement to beat incumbent Scott
Burow for this coveted seat. 'Tis a pity too. In the few months he's been on the Board, Scott has
impressed us far more than George Waller has managed to do in the entire 8 years we've seen him
in action.

NW/P CC rep: Newcomer Karen de Groote-Johnson kicked incumbent Gail Meyer Kilgore to the
curb. See ya!

NW/P: SC rep: No winner. The bake-off for this seat will be between newcomers Sundee Maynez
and Jason Mendenhall. Whoever the heck he is.

SE/MA CC rep: No winner. Perennial bridesmaid Fred Smoot will challenge newcomer Suzanne
Shepard to a jello wrestling contest to determine the winner of this plum position. In an utterly
unexpected outcome, candidate Ellen "unofficial Board member" Pack had her heinie handed to
her by Fred Smoot. Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

SW/SC CC rep: No winner. Incumbent Bettie Wood will face down challenger Trey Holt with
six-guns in the street at high noon in front of the saloon. She packs a mean Colt and she knows
how to use it, so everyone duck!

Archives: Incumbent Cyndi Enfinger won this one by running unopposed, but its a pyrrhic victory.
The passage of the bylaws amendments eliminated her seat. So long Cyndi, and better luck next
time.

Logos: Well, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that none of the four
highest vote-getting logos suck. They are all pretty much of a red, white and blue piece and
should please the 40 or so people that voted for each of them. The bad news is that the Jolly
Roger logo didn't make the final four. [We may have to run it up the flagpole anyways. There is,
after all, no rule about having two logos on one's page.] As for the basic outcome of this little
exercise, its up to individual readers to decide for themselves if having all this hoo-hah to choose a
new official logo only to have the current logo get the most votes and thus remain the official
logo was worth it. [On the upside, no page editing will be necessary!]

Bylaws: Saints be praised, and despite difficult odds, the bylaws amendments passed. However,
since neither the current bylaws nor the amendments themselves allow for any sort of phase-in
period or start date, Sturgis rules apply. And according to Sturgis, bylaws amendments go into
effect as soon as they are passed. Since the Census Project, Tombstone, and Archives seats were
just eliminated by the passage of the amendments, both Cyndi Enfinger and Kathi Jones Hudson
are out of a job and the Board has an empty Special Projects seat on its hands. While we'd like to
think they've been studiously debating the issue in the Sekrit Sandbox and devising a solomonic
approach to the problem, somehow we doubt that's the case. Since they didn't come back into
session yesterday, we imagine they are sitting around the sandbox in stunned silence. Or they are
still dickering about yesterday's news.

There you have it. Another USGenWeb annual election almost down the tubes. See you in the
run-off!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Whacking moles since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 21 comments   
Monday, August 01, 2005
Read It And Weep
Here they are in full folks. There are very few surprises, except that the bylaws amendments
passed. We'll be curious to see how the Board deals with that one.

-Teresa [you know the rest]

=========

Please forward to all USGenWeb Project lists.

National Coordinator.

Davenport 208 41.683
Hall 116 23.246
Carpenter 102 20.441
Kelly 73 14.629
499 100.000%

499 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Linda Davenport and
Sherri Hall.

---
Representative at Large
St. Clair 227 45.951
Mills 191 38.664
Barnum 76 15.385
494 100.000%

494 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Mike St. Clair and Betsy
Mills.

----
NENC CC
Sweeney 46 31.081
Scism 38 25.676
Oliver 27 18.243
Hestand 19 12.838
Mead 18 12.162
148 100.000


148 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Robert Sweeney and Jeff
Scism.

---
NENC SC
Waller 8 61.538
Burow 5 38.462
13 100.000

13 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares George Waller the winner.
---

NWPL CC
De Groote-Johnson 53 60.227
Kilgore 35 39.773
88 100.000

88 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares Karen De Groote-Johnson the winner.
---

NWPL SC
Maynez 4 44.444
Mendenhall 3 33.333
Bony 2 22.222
9 100.000

9 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Sundee Maynez and Jason
Mendenhall.

---
SEMA CC
Shepard 68 34.872
Smoot 57 29.231
Pack 42 21.538
Tabor 21 10.769
Simpson 7 3.590
195 100.000

195 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Suzanne Shepard and
Fred Smoot.

---
SPAR Enfinger 70 100.000

70 votes cast. Ran unopposed. USGenWeb Election committee declares Cyndie Enfinger winner.

---
SWSC CC
Wood 65 45.139
Holt 53 36.806
Allen 26 18.056
144 100.000

144 votes cast. USGenWeb Election committee declares runoff between Bettie Wood and Trey
Holt.

---

Bylaws - http://www.usgenweb.com/volunteers/notice.shtml

Yes 344 68.254
No 160 31.746
504 100.000

504 votes cast. ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS Section 4. Voting on any
proposed amendment to the bylaws shall be during the annual voting period of July 1-July 31 and
a two-thirds (2/3) majority, of the members voting within that time frame, is required for the
amendment to pass. Bylaw amendment passes.

---

Logo

The USGenWeb Project Logo Contest. 8. All eligible entries will be placed before a vote of
USGenWeb members during the regular elections period in July, 2005. The top vote-getter will be
USGenWeb's main Official Logo. The next three top vote-getting designs (or less if there are not
three additional entries) will be the Official Alternate Logos. In the event of a tie, the Advisory
Board will vote to break the tie. The decision of the Advisory Board will be final. There is no
monetary
compensation for this contest.

AB5 58 http://www.usgenweb.com/logos/images/usgenweb.gif
AA7 43 http://www.usgenweb.com/logos/images/USGenWeb02.gif
AD8 42 http://www.usgenweb.com/logos/images/USGW07_small.jpg
AA2 40 http://www.usgenweb.com/logos/images/USGenWeb05.jpg
[complete results of logo ballot will be available on USGenWeb Project website within 24 hrs.]

Information regarding run-offs will be available as soon as possible.

The USGenWeb Project Election committee wishes to thank all who have participated and extend
a very special thank you to Larry Stephens.

Sincerely,
Tina S. Vickery, Chair of the USGenWeb Project Election Committee

posted by merope at 6:00 PM 3 comments   
Early Returns
DAILY BOARD NEWS FLASH!

There will be a run-off for the SE/MA CC representative seat. The lucky candidates are Fred
Smoot and Suzanne Shepard.

There will be a run off between Mike St. Clair and Betsy Mills for the Representative At Large
seat.

Jeffry Scism and Bob Sweeney [of the beautiful eyes!] are in a runoff for the NE/NC CC
representative seat.

More news as it develops...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Yadda yadda yadda since 1998