From: merope Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 7:29 am Subject: EC 4th Qtr 2001 Report The latest EC quarterly report. Its about what you'd expect. -Teresa >>From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >>To: "Holly" >>Subject: EC 4th Qtr 2001 Report >>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:11:11 -0600 >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >>X-postini-filters: (C:0.5788083 S:0.0672441 ) >> >>Holly will you please forward this to the AB? Thank you >> >>****************** >>USGenWeb Election Committee >>4th Quarter 2001 >>January 31, 2002 >> >> >>The Following Quarterly Report is submitted to the Advisory Board of the >>USGenWeb Project: >> >>The EC seated and welcomed new AB member Teresa Lindquist on Sep 1st. >> >>The EC took a two week recess in Aug. At the end of the recess the EC went >>back to work on formulating working procedures and discussing some of the >>problems encountered by the EC during the nomination and election period. >>Also under discussion was the need for replacements for those EC members who >>had resigned. >> >>Before the EC had progressed very far Ken Short resigned from the AB and the >>EC was asked to host an opinion poll for the voters of his region to help >>the AB select a member to fill Ken's seat. The EC took the opportunity >>afforded by the opinion poll to test its new voter registration and >>nominations software. Bugs were worked out of the software during the >>nomination and registration period and the software now works extremely >>well. The voters like the self registration and the number of voters >>registering was higher than during the regular election. The EC also set up >>an alternative means to vote for those people who had any problems with the >>regular voting booth software. The Grievance that was filed during the >>regular election about the software was withdrawn. The EC hosted the >>opinion poll and the AB seated a new member. >> >>On Oct 1st the EC went back to its discussion of the need for new members >>and a call was issued for volunteers. There was very little response. The EC >>issued a second call. The EC unanimously decided that during the discussion >>and voting on new members that the two AB ex-officio members should be >>unsubscribed from the EC list. Both members were notified, removed and the >>EC, after due discussion and voting, selected: Joy Fisher, Lorraine >>Sonnenberg Newsome and Barbara Dore as the slate of new members. The EC >>forwarded the slate to the AB for approval and resubbed the two ex-officio >>AB members to the list. The AB approved the new members on Oct 12, 2001 and >>they were seated on Oct 13, 2001. >> >>Our ex-officio member, Teresa Lindquist, objected to the EC's choice of >>members and posted a extremely unprofessional attack on one of the new >>proposed members and one of the existing EC members on her Daily Board Show >>on Oct 8th. Teresa had been posting items about the EC in her Daily Board >>Show off and on from Sep 1st. >> >>The discussion of what to do about Teresa was held off-list. On Oct 18th the >>following request was forwarded to the AB" >>To: The Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. >>From: The USGenWeb Project Election Committee >> >>Teresa Lindquist recently attacked one of the members of the EC, one of the >>replacement volunteers for the EC and the EC as a whole on her Daily Board >>Show. This is not the first time that Teresa has posted inappropriate or >>unprofessional remarks about the Election Committee or its members. She is >>the Advisory Board member who has been elected to represent all volunteers >>of this Project and her attacks on the volunteers she is suppose to >>represent is, in the unanimous opinion of the members of the EC, >>inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. >> >>The Election Committee of the USGenWeb Project is committed to protecting >>the privacy of the volunteers of this Project - not only the privacy of the >>volunteer's vote but the privacy of any communications between the EC and >>the volunteer. The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be >>guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member >>of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her >>Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private. >> >>The EC members have worked extremely hard this past 9 months to prove to the >>membership of this Project that the EC can be trusted. It is our unanimous >>opinion that our hard won Trust will be eroded if Teresa is allowed to >>continue as an EC member. >> >>Therefore, in Accordance with Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study >>Committee Guidelines: >> >>If a member of the EC is not performing his/her duties on the EC or is >>disruptive of the EC's business, the EC may petition the Advisory Board via >>the National Coordinator and/or the Representative-at-Large for replacement >>of that member by a new volunteer. EC members [can] be removed only for >>cause, which shall include but not be limited to failing to respond promptly >>and considerately to members of the EC, or continually disrupting the >>business of the EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior. >> >>The members of the Election Committee hereby unanimously requests the >>replacement of Teresa Lindquist with another Advisory Board member. >> >>Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >>Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >>Linda Haas Davenport, Keith Giddeon, Barbara Dore >> >>After submission to the Request to the AB the EC returned to working on >>formulating working procedures for the committee. On Oct 20th Keith Giddeon >>(the EC member featured in Teresa Lindquist's Daily Board Show) posted his >>resignation to the EC list. After discussion and being told that the AB was >>discussing the EC's Request on BOARD-EXEC Keith withdrew his resignation. >> >>On Oct 24th Teresa made public the EC's Request and Keith Giddeon's >>resignation post. >> >>On Nov 3rd, Keith Giddeon resigned. >> >>Holly Timm as NC requested mediation between Linda Haas Davenport (to >>represent the EC and Teresa Lindquist). Two AB members were present as >>impartial observers. >> >>On Nov 14th the EC Withdrew its Request: >> On Oct 17, 2001 the members of the Election Committee submitted a Request >>to >>the Advisory Board asking that the Advisory Board remove Teresa Lindquist >>from the Election Committee and replace her with another Advisory Board >>member. >> >>It is the decision of the members of the Election Committee to withdraw this >>Request, at this time, while reserving the right to resubmit this Request at >> >>a future date. >> >>Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >>Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >>Linda Haas Davenport - Agree >>Barbara Dore - On Vacation >> >>On Nov 27th the EC sent the following to the AB: >> >>The Election Committee seated a new member on Sept 1, 2001 and several >>welcome messages to the new member were posted on the EC list. The new >>member did not respond to any of these welcoming messages. >> >>On Sept 5, 2001 the EC was beginning a discussion about a request made by >>the AB. Less than 8 hours after the beginning of the discussion the new >>committee member posted a message on BOARD-L reporting that the EC was >>reluctant to perform the request. The Chair sent a private message to the >>member asking her to refrain from posting information about any on-going >>discussion the Committee was having. In response to the note the committee >>member posted an exceedingly unprofessional comment about the Chair >>(finding fault with her conduct) on the DBS. By the 6th of September, 6 days >>into her time as a committee member she had abused her access to committee >>discussions. >> >>When the committee unsubbed the two AB members from the list while it was >>discussing volunteers this committee member once again took her unhappiness >>with the committee, of which she is a member, public on the DBS. >> >>On Oct 8, 2001 the committee sent its list of new volunteers to the AB for >>approval. The new member attacked a fellow committee member and a potential >>fellow committee member on the DBS. Her comments were highly offensive and >>extremely unprofessional. The result of this post was the resignation of a >>very valuable and hard working fellow committee member. >> >>In her Oct 8th remarks the committee member also stated that the EC members >>have access to everyone's voting records. This remark was untrue and the >>Chair posted a rebuttal on the ALL list. The committee member posted a >>correction and an apology for the misstatement the following day (with a >>qualification) but she did not apologize to her fellow committee members and >>to date she has not done so. >> >>When the removal request was sent to the AB it was discussed on BOARD-EXEC. >>However, this committee member took it upon herself to publicly post the >>information. One of the results of making this knowledge public was the call >>for the resignation of the entire EC on the ALL list and also some very >>harsh posts from some AB members. This committee member's actions served to >>harm the reputation of the EC with the volunteers of the Project. >> >>The committee member was offered the opportunity to discuss this matter with >>her fellow committee members and she refused. This member has not posted one >>message on the committee list since she was seated on Sep 1st. >> >>Since Oct 8, 2001 the regular business of the EC has been disrupted as a >>result of the actions and publicly posted comments of this new committee >>member. >> >>Therefore, it is the decision of the below signed EC committee members to >>place committee member, Teresa Lindquist, on suspension for 4 weeks (which >>shall included being unsubbed from the committee's list) and on probation >>for the following 3 months. If during the time of suspension and probation >>this committee member violates the Committee Guidelines, the confidentiality >>of the EC list or again publicly publishes or posts unfavorable comments >>about any fellow committee member or the committee of which she is a member >>she will be removed from the committee. >> >>Signed by: Sara Greer, Lorraine Newsome, Alice Miller, Joy fisher, LaRae >>Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Teresa Hodges, Bob Chada, Linda Davenport, Marti >>Graham. >> >>**************** >>If the AB would like to appoint another AB member to the EC list for the 4 >>weeks that Teresa is on suspension please let the Chair know so that she can >>sub the temporary member >> >>Teresa Lindquist was unsubbed from the EC on Nov 27th. She was resubbed on >>Dec 27th. >> >>Dec 31st is the end of terms for EC members. According to the Election Study >>Committee Guidelines the first EC was to have 1/2 of its members serving one >>year and 1/2 serving two years. The Guidelines also state that the one year >>members may volunteer for a 2nd term. All of the one year members >>volunteered for a second term and the EC issued a call for volunteers for >>the seat left vacant by Keith Giddeon. The NC notified the EC that it had to >>issue a call for all terms expiring Dec 31st. The EC agreed and issued a >>call for volunteers. 6 volunteers responded. During this time EC member >>Alice Miller notified the EC that she was resigning due to a move to a >>location without adequate internet access. The EC selected a new slate of >>volunteers and forwarded it to the AB on Dec 27th. >> >>The Election Committee, by unanimous agreement, selected the following >>volunteers to serve on the Election Committee for a two year term (unless >>otherwise noted) >> >>This slate of proposed EC members is hereby submitted to the Advisory Board >>for approval. >> >>The EC would like to apologize for submitting this slate so late in the >>year. We acted as quickly as possible and had the message ready to send when >>the AB began its recess. >> >>Slate of Proposed Members: >> >>Northeast/North Central Region: >>Lorraine Newsome - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >> >>Northwest/Plains Region >>Marge Reid - one year term (finishing out Alice Miller's term) Jan 1, >>2002 - Dec 31, 2002 >> Joy Fisher - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >> >>Southeast/Mid Atlantic Region >>Diane Montgomery Parsons - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >>Barbara Dore - one year term (finishing out Keith Giddeon's term) Jan 1, >>2002 - Dec 31, 2002 >> >>Southwest/South Central Region >>Kenny Thomas - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >> >>Member At Large >>Marti Graham - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >> >>Special Projects Region >>Bob Chada - two year term - Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2003 >> >> The USGenWeb Project Election Committee >> >>The slate was approved by the AB on Jan 11, 2002. >> >>While the slate of volunteers was under discussion by the AB the EC >>continued to work. The EC began sending Voter/Membership lists to all SCs to >>bring the lists up to date. >> >>Submitted by: Linda Haas Davenport >>Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee > From: merope Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 8:33 am Subject: GenTech 2002 A report on the recent GenTech conference. -Teresa --- >Although the USGenWeb Project booths at GenTech 2002 were not an Advisory >Board sponsored activity we though you might like a brief report on it. No >comments are necessary. > >Holly >---------------------------- >GenTech 2002 was held at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston, >Massachusetts January 25th and 26th. The GenTech committee generously >donated a double booth space to The USGenWeb Project. This did not include >phone or electric hookup or conference registration. Lorraine Newsome, >Tina Vickery and Holly Timm set the space up on Thursday evening. > >In the center of the two tables was a 19" monitor raised up to near >eyelevel with a PowerPoint presentation looping to attract the passersby. >It accentuated that The USGenWeb Project is a free online genealogy >organization, and stressed the volunteer aspect. > >On the right (facing the booth from the outside) was a laptop hooked up to >the internet and a computer projector loaned to us by the Computer >Assisted Genealogy Group of Cleveland, Ohio. This was used to show >visitors USGenWeb sites and how to get to them. > >On the left was a monitor hooked up to a laptop which was used to show >html and other data handling tips to visitors including several County >Coordinators. This system was also hooked up to a printer which we used to >print out state url lists and other items for our visitors. > >Brochures provided by USGenWeb Project County Coordinators, State >Coordinators and Special Project volunteers filled the tables and >completed our presentation of information provided to our visitors. We >received both files which were printed and then copies made and also >received brochures already printed up in varying quantities. > >Gentech seminars ran an hour long, separated by half hour intermissions >during which we had most of our visitors although some taking a break from >the seminars and others coming in just to visit the exhibit hall kept us busy. > >Many of our visitors were familiar with The USGenWeb Project and expressed >their gratitude and thanks for what we do. Others knew of us and wanted to >know more. Best of all, several of the speakers at GenTech were referring >to The USGenWeb Project as the place to start and as a major resource. >Several of our visitors, new to genealogy and/or the internet came up to >find out what the project is all about and how to use it. Others came >asking how they could help and be a part of what we do. > >Costs of brochures were paid by those who copied and mailed them. All >other costs were paid by the undersigned. > >Holly Timm >Lorraine Newsome >Tina Vickery > > From: merope Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 9:02 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 3 Feb 2002 Making mountains out of molehills...its Your Daily Board Show *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 27 January-3 February 2002: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws revision committee): Some minor discussion on part 2 of this motion continues. Holly suggests a compromise of 15 committee members. Phyllis Rippee is opposed to "changing the numbers, or "categories" of the committee composition proposed by the BFC," but is in favor of "allowing the 4 AB members, to choose the rest of the committee without having to have them approved by the AB......as long as there was a public call for and public posting of all volunteers. OR...to drop the stipulation that they had to be approved as an entire group, and allow the AB to reject anyone on the proposed slate......as long as there was a public call for and public posting of all volunteers. I would also be in favor of allowing the SCs and ASCs to choose their own representatives and the CCs to choose their own, in the manner originally mentioned by Jana" She suggests adding "a stipulation to this section that would allow for the replacing of committee members in the same manner in which they are originally selected." She also notes that the committee should act publicly and "serve at the will of the general membership, by letting the light shine on its work." Holly Timm, noting the lack of anything approaching consensus on part 2, moves the discussion to part 3 on January 29. Noting that there is not enough for the committee to complete its work this year, Teresa Lindquist suggests adding a year to all the deadlines mentioned in this part of the report. Phyllis Rippee notes that "while the time mentioned is not feasible.....the Bylaws Revision Committee will be an ad hoc committee. That is, it will be established with an assigned task given to it. That means that it will have whatever time it needs to complete that task. Therefore the time limitation should be stricken/deleted/removed from Part 3." She later notes that she is against putting a time limit on the process, stating "To assume that the work of a standing (ad hoc) committee will never get done, is not showing any faith what-so-ever in those who are willing to take on such a task." She also notes that "according to Sturgis, there is a difference between proposed amendments and an actual revision process. Sturgis says that the revision is to be submitted to the authority which requested it. That will be the AB. The current USGW P Bylaws do not provide for a revision process...The revised set of bylaws does not have to be submitted to the SCs to obtain the approval of 5. Therefore, I am in favor of striking that provision also." Teresa Lindquist asks for clarification on Phyllis' suggestions, particularly who will be approving the final version of the bylaws. Phyllis responds "the AB will not be the final authority on accepting or rejecting a revised set of bylaws. The bylaws will have to be presented to the general membership for voting up or down...The AB is the authority which will establish the Revision Committee. The AB is the authority which will receive the final report and revised set of bylaws...the AB will then have the authority to go over/through/consider each part of the bylaws and change anything they might wish to. The AB is the authority which will then present the bylaws to the general membership for approval." Teresa points out that Sturgis does not allow for a vote by the membership on new or revised bylaws but mentions only the majority approval of the Board. Tim Stowell suggests using the "emergency amendment" procedures outlined in the current bylaws to "vote on new Bylaws." Several Board members, notably Betsy Mills, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel and Phyllis Rippee object to the closure of discussion of part 2. On January 30, Phyllis calls for a ruling from the Chair "as to why there was no vote, either regular or by general consent, on Part 2 of the Bylaws Formation Committee report?...I would like to ask how the National Dictator reached a consensus without a vote by the AB." Jana and Phyllis ask why consensus was not obtained on part 2 as it was on part 1. Kathy asks why the entire report can't just go up for a vote immediately, noting "I see no reason for this to drag on and on. I can vote now and be spared having to log on and find nothing is being done or will this drag on for another 2 -3 wks? As it stands now this whole concept that you asked the AB to participate in on Oct. 2nd (? correct me if I am wrong) can not be completed. There is no way a committee can be seated, and come up with a better set of bylaws than we now have. Because of the time factor they would have to rush something through and the membership would be compromised again..." After some discussion, Holly notes that "There is clearly one major area of Part 2 of this motion which will need addressing, either by an amendment to the Motion or by returning the report to the Bylaws Formation group for further revision. This area is the number of members of the committee and the related issue of definition of position requirements." She also reminds the Board that it was not possible to obtain a consensus vote for part 2 because there was no consensus obtained on any aspect of it. She notes that moving to part 3 does not preclude returning to a discussion of part 2. [We find the tack this discussion has taken to be very interesting. Apparently Phyllis wishes to reserve for the Board the right to determine in full the format of the final revisions or amendments, whatever they end up being called. If the proposed Bylaws committee is ever formed--and I have my doubts about that--it will prepare its revisions and present them to the Board and the Board will then amend them however it sees fit and vote on them. And that version is what will get presented to the membership, if that even happens. Remember, under Sturgis a vote by the general membership is not necessary. Now consider what happens if we use the procedures outlined in the current bylaws. The committee prepares its revisions and presents them to the Board. Assume the Board doesn't like them and votes them down. Any state could then take the proposed revisions and _independently_ submit them for approval and inclusion on the ballot. If there are four other sponsors, the Board can't do a thing about it. Heck, the revision committee could bypass the Board completely and just present their report to the membership and solicit sponsors. Or suppose the Board does like the proposed revisions and approves them, but the membership is not impressed and five state sponsors cannot be found. Nothing the Board can do about that either. So we find the current thrust of this discussion, although entirely valid under parliamentary procedure, very illuminating.] New Business: On 1 February, Tina Vickery moves "that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule to present, discuss and vote on more than one motion at a time. This motion is intended to multitask the day to day business of the board. It is also intended to grant to the National Coordinator the role of exercising judgment as to the magnitude of the motions presented, and be given final judgment, as to whether motions presented can indeed be considered together with others and still be afforded full consideration to detail that the work of the USGenWeb Project requires." Diane Parsons seconds the motion. There is some brief discussion of it, but Holly Timm reminds the members to refrain discussing motions before they are on the floor. Phyllis in particular notes "Means that the AB will give the NC the authority to pick and choose among the motions made and seconded; present them in any order without regard to the order received; and otherwise put on the back burner any motion that said NC does not want the AB to discuss and vote on." [Phyllis seems to have a burr under her saddle regarding Holly these days: http://members.getgoin.net/~wchs/Volunteers.htm ] Other Business: "What are we doing?": On January 30 Jana posts a message under this subject line that notes that she finds herself "in quandary of confusion and frustration in attempting to work on this Board." She posts a list of Board accomplishments in the past five months, which includes the passage of 8 motions and the formation of 3 committees, two of which have completed and submitted reports to the Board. She notes "I volunteered for 2 of the three committees and think it is fair to say that communication has been sporadic on the lists created for discussion of the subjects...several motions have been made which have not been acknowledged or numbered while AB members seem to flounder figuring out how to proceed...we are about one third of the way through our first AB year and the issues dear to my heart (those I campaigned upon) are nowhere even close to the table, let alone works in progress...we seem to have quite a few AB members who do not participate in AB discussion, leaving the rest of the AB to wonder if silence = agreement or disagreement, frustration or disinterest..." Noting that she is a teacher (! yeah, it scared me too), she begs the Board's indulgence while she quotes extensively from Sturgis and then suggests that the Board postpone the Bylaws "starter" committee report to a more convenient time. She then rehashes the recent events over the call for volunteers, questions Holly's actions on that matter, and notes that the current method of handling the committee report will "1) keep the BFC Report from being adopted 2) render moot the hard work of the BFC 3) keep the USAGE [sic] Project stuck in a morass of non-action on very important topics while time slips by." Then she suggests "on other boards upon which I've served, there is an annual "closed session retreat" where board members take the time to get to know each other, assess progress, hash out what is working and what is not working in an effort to work as a team...and attempt to create agreements...regarding how next to proceed." She then suggests that "we consider such a retreat weekend on Board-Exec where we would all agree that what is said in Exec will remain in Exec..." [This is a long post and covers many topics. Its one of the more cogent posts Jana has made and truthfully, I was right along with her on many of her points until she suggested retiring to the secret list and keeping whatever may ensue secret from the membership.] There is no response to this post by any Board member. Election Committee: Linda Haas Davenport forwards the EC quarterly report to Holly, who forwards it to the Board on 31 January. [Of course, its a hoot. At _least_ 2/3 of it is concerned with the EC's intensive and eventually futile efforts to remove this author from their Secret Sandbox. Of course, the telling of the tale from Linda's perspective is a bit selective. There is no mention made, for example, of Keith's threat to resign if I were not removed from the EC immediately--the event that prompted all the brouhaha--or of his eventual resignation because the Board wasn't acceding to his wishes fast enough or publicly enough. There is no mention of the shameful outcome of the mediation session, in which Linda apparently intended to talk me into resigning, but failing that decided instead to utterly reject my offer to apologize to the offended EC members. Nor is there any indication that the eventual "suspension and probation" she decided on as a power play with the Board and myself was little more than end run around a Board that she knew would not vote to remove me permanently. Still, in the proportion of ink it expends on the events, the report is an accurate representation of how the EC's chair chose to spend the EC's valuable and limited time.] GenTech2002: On February 1, Holly Timm presents a report on her recent attendance at the GenTech 2002 conference in Boston. {It has already been forwarded to this list.] Root$web: On January 30, the Board is notified by Teresa Lindquist that Jake Gehring is leaving Root$web and will be replaced by Laryn Brown as the "Executive Producer", effective immediately. [Paul Allen is also leaving...if I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the original Ancestry folk have been shuffled off the scene.] Mr. Brown is apparently a techie (Html coder) and administrative person and not a genealogist. In related news, Jana posts a message from Linda Lewis from early January regarding her firing from Root$web in which Linda notes "I want to stress that the USGenWeb Archives will not change. They were hosted by Rootsweb before I was on staff and they will continue to be hosted by Rootsweb as long as we continue to get the same services...Also, because I know these accusations will start, the USGenWeb Archives trademark will not be sold." [We've heard something similar before, and right out of Linda's own mouth too. Why do I not not feel all warm and fuzzy?] She also goes to great lengths in her letter to note that her duties at Root$web had nothing to do with data acquisition and indicates that Root$web was kind enough to give her a whole 24 hours notice before they showed her the door. Service Mark: On Jan 31, Tim Stowell posts a report to the Board concerning recent action on our service mark applications. According to Tim, some minor wording changes were suggested and approved [a scanned copy should be posted shortly] and our attorney notes "The examining attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d),15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d). TMEP section 1105.01. RE: Serial Number 76/232779." On February 1, Holly forwards a report from the Service Mark committee from Joe Zsedeny wherein it is noted that "The letter referred to by Tim indicates that the Service Mark, USGENWEB, will receive approval...It seems appropriate at this time for the AB, if it so wishes, to have placed "SM" above and to the right of USGenWeb on our national page and on any other locations desired." Procedural Issues: Holly Timm returns from Boston and the GenTech meeting on January 27 and reassumes the Chair of the meeting [yes, my reign of terror is over...]. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === "Even if the voices are not real, they have some good ideas." ---Unattributed ;) This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 9:19 am Subject: Daily Board Show, midweek edition, 2/6/02 Living in a rainbow of Chaos...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [Yeah, yeah, another midweek edition. We've been gabby again.] 3 February-6 February 2002: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws revision committee): After discussion on the -ALL list on parliamentary procedure regarding committee reports and extensive discussion on unrelated business on Board-L, Teresa Lindquist calls the question again on this motion on Feb 4. Phyllis Rippee seconds and Holly Timm calls for a vote on the call. Thus far, 8 Board members have voted yes and 2 have voted no. On February 4, Phyllis responds to a question regarding how any bylaws revisions might be approved by noting "[the original bylaws] were presented to the general membership for approval. Therefore, a revised set of bylaws, according to parliamentary authority when is now in effect, must be presented to the general membership for approval/rejection. Since a BRC would be a special committee, established by the Advisory Board, its report would be presented to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board would proceed from there." Other Business: Nate Zipfel's resignation: Following a comment on the -ALL list that the motion to accept Nate's resignation is not necessary and should be withdrawn, Kathy Heidel (who seconded the motion) and Jana Black pressure Tina Vickery to withdraw her motion. Tina refuses to do so. There has been no further action taken on either motion regarding Nate's resignation or selecting his replacement. Standing rule motion: On Feb 3, Tina withdraws the original version of this motion and then moves "to suspend the rules and adopt the following resolution: I move that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule to present, discuss and vote on more than one motion at a time. This motion is intended to multitask the day to day business of the board. It is also intended to grant to the National Coordinator the role of exercising judgment as to the magnitude of the motions presented, and be given final judgment, as to whether motions presented can indeed be considered together with others and still be afforded full consideration to detail that the work of the USGenWeb Project requires." After much discussion, Kathy Heidel seconds this motion. Both Phyllis and Jana later say they will vote against this motion. Jana asks why this motion is necessary since "the NC already has the authority to move motions around according to priority." Tina replies that she wants the issue discussed regardless of what Sturgis says. There ensues much discussion of what Sturgis says and where she says it and eventually Tina suggests that we "Put down the book, and let's get on with business." Several Board members express concern that the motion as stated gives the NC too much control over which motions come to the floor and when. Kathy Heidel believes "The whole problem stems from the fact we are not getting motions recognized, numbered, identified and on an agenda. If this were being done we would know the order of the Motions and therefore vote properly and get on with business." She notes that "The problem with giving one person permission for final judgment is not necessarily fair to any of us. We are making a rule and we might live to regret it as we have with several other ones that are already on record. I believe we need to not be frivolous with our freedoms and pursue this with more thought." Tim Stowell notes "the motion made and now seconded is frivolous and not needed as the NC is already acting that way - and/or dragging out each motion...What the motion should have said was that more than one motion should be allowed on the floor at once - distinguished by numbers, subjects; that a daily report from the Board Secretary, would assist AB members in keeping track of the motions; for in truth in our daily lives we multi-task and there is no reason why this Board can not do the same...Now that that motion has been withdrawn and a second nearly identical motion other than the multi-tasking proviso has been added the unending dragging out of every motion is squarely in the NC's corner...The Bylaws say we are to be governed by them and PP - which does not make Sturgie the be all, end all. Since the Bylaws do not prevent multiple motions from being discussed/voted on simultaneously then PP can not trump the Bylaws and say they can't." [Tim has always been a big proponent of the "the bylaws don't say I can't" way of conducting business. His comment here of course makes no sense whatseover.] Teresa and Jana both think the Sturgis book is useful and should be followed. Richard Harrison suggests a "bulletin board system for multiple discussion items." After Tina reiterates that she wants a standing rule passed to deal with multiple motions, Jana asks Holly [at least three times] to take volunteers and appoint a Special Committee to address Standing Rules for the USGW Project. [Her zeal in keeping this idea alive is commendable. No one else seems all that interested though.] The purpose of her proposed committee would be to "use Chapter 14 "Order of Business" to investigate and discuss what standing rules would best help the AB to work effectively in a virtual working environment. The committee would form its opinions and recommendations and report its results back to the AB." She again offers to keep a list of all suggested standing rules." [This committee will of course operate in secret; see below] There is some discussion of "precedence"; some Board members seem to think that "precedence" refers to relative importance of the motion, while others note that it refers to the order of proposal. Jana, for instance, argues that "the numbering system [she has] seen used takes motions as they come in and does not in any way "sort" the motions into classifications. Holly points out that she is not limiting discussion, and that "Precedence as used in Sturgis is not a measure of relative importance or priority. As long as one main motion...is on the floor, no other motion of the same level of precedence (main motion) may be on the floor...Prior to the adoption of Sturgis we did have multiple motions and not only do I not have anything against doing so, I favor it." Phyllis does not advocate multiple motions, and says "If we are discussing a motion and it becomes necessary to propose a motion for consideration on a somewhat "speedy" basis, we should not have tied our own hands in a fashion that it would first have to go to a committee...Holly should not have to "stretch" a point in parliamentary authority in order to do what needs to be done...She should be able to bring such a motion (duly made and seconded) to the floor, even if there was already one being discussed." Phyllis later notes that Sturgis allows past procedure to take precedence over parliamentary rules and asks "Is there any reason why the NC could not ask for a general consent approval to place more than one motion on the floor at a time?" On Feb 4, Teresa Lindquist raises the following points of order on this motion: "A motion to suspend the rules may be made only when another motion is not pending or if the suspension is for a purpose connected with that motion. I fail to see how this motion is connected with Motion 02-01, which is currently under discussion. Also, rules may be suspended only for a specific purpose and for the limited time necessary to accomplish the desired action, otherwise it constitutes an amendment of the rules. I see no specific time frame for this suspension of the "rules" and the "resolution" appears to accomplish a rule change in and of itself. Also, I would like some clarity on what "rules" are proposed for suspension. Sturgis requires a clear presentation of the object of suspension and the suspended rule goes back into effect as soon as the purpose for which it has been suspended is completed." Ron Eason agrees that greater clarification of which rules are to be suspended is needed. This point of order has not yet been addressed by the NC. Publicity/Promotion Committee: On Feb 3, Tina Vickery resubmits the report of the Promotion/Publicity "starter" committee. The text of the report reads as follows: "The Publicity/Promotion starter committee hereby respectfully submits its report on the formation of a Standing Committee for the USGW Project to be titled the Publicity/Promotion Committee. The goal of the committee will be to constructively promote and publicize the USGenWeb Project internally within the project, and to the greater genealogical community, both online and off-line. The task of the committee will develop means of publicity and promotion such as but not limited to newsletters, brochures and web pages to accomplish their purpose and will be available to work with all committees and organizations within the USGenWeb Project to assist and advise them with publicity and promotion. The committee itself shall consist of nineteen, (19), USGenWeb Project volunteers, and the National Coordinator, as an ex-officio member. This committee is not a policy setting committee, but a working committee, there is no need to restrict volunteers by position or region. Acknowledging that the nature of publicity and promotion is task oriented and ever-changing; acknowledging that the talents, interests and level of involvement will vary given the task to be accomplished; the Publicity/Promotion Committee will solicit volunteers from across the USGenWeb Project to work on Task Teams to assist in accomplishing the tasks placed before them. Said Task Teams will in future be formed by vote of the committee but preliminary discussions have made it clear that there must be a Newsletter Team and a Brochures Team and volunteers for these will be solicited in the initial volunteer all. Task Teams may be ongoing (such as Newsletter) and some may be short-term (such as preparing for a specific event). All task Team members do not need to be members of the Publicity/Promotion Committee, but at least one member of the Task Team must be on the Publicity/Promotion Committee. The Publicity/Promotion Committee will make quarterly reports to the Advisory Board on the activities of the committee and its Task Teams with Interim Reports as appropriate. To initially form this committee we recommend the AB move to appoint Jana Black, Kathy Heidel and Tina Vickery, who shall choose a temporary chair and proceed with soliciting and accepting volunteers for the committee itself, as well as for specific Task Teams. Once the committee is selected, the full committee will elect a chair annually." [This report is essentially unchanged from the one submitted on 5 November 2001, although provisions for electing a new Chair each year and reporting to the Board quarterly were added; there were several other concerns and issues raised then that the committee apparently felt it was not necessary to address. Apparently they intend that three people --Kathy, Tina, and Jana-- will decide how our project is presented to the public.] There is no discussion of this report. A Wealth of Committees: Jana Black, after perusing the Sturgis book, decides that the best way to handle Board business is "the simple use of committees for discussion." She elaborates: "The committee mail lists we have used, even ploddingly, have worked. They allowed free discussion in a protected environment. No one has accused those committees of operating in secret because the committees final product is a report that is submitted to the AB for adoption or filing. Additionally, Sturgis has provisions to manage and remove any committee member who does not participate, thus eliminating the question regarding how to interpret silence....All AB members can choose to join the committee, provided they will participate in the discussion....The NC is ex officio on every committee, so will have access to the discussion and be available for questions from the committee...If a committee report is adopted by the AB, we are bound by the report in its entirety. If the AB files the report, we can still *use* the report and tweak it as necessary to accomplish the final desired outcome. Motions come out of committee reports so this allows the discussion to take place before anything is made into a motion...The NC has the authority to appoint committees, or to take volunteers and comprise a committee. Operating as we did in the formation of the three current committees, AB members volunteered on Board-L to participate, so it was known right up front who chose to focus their energies where AND there could be no question that the committee was not something contrived or stacked by an NC." In a later message, she again suggests "multi-tasking" by "using committees as described in Sturgis as a compartmentalizing tool." Phyllis Rippee notes "We've had..an example of what happens when a committee has discussed, compromised and reported out to the AB. Had this been reported out in the form of a motion, all the discussion which has taken place so far COULD have led to the amending/changing of same. Saved time?...If every time a topic for discussion comes up, we assign it to a committee........eventually a report is going to have to come out of committee and even if it comes out in the form of a motion, the entire AB is doing to have to discuss it....make suggestions....etc. Why not just have the discussion in the open, on Board-L, to begin with?...Rather than breaking into smaller committees as a matter of course, IMHO it is better to have topics suggested, topics posted on a bulletin board type website along with the date suggested, with discussions by the AB and motions coming after the discussions." Jana places great store in the idea that no one has complained about the three current "starter" committees working and Teresa points out that is because the committees have not worked in secret. In short order, an extensive discussion of backroom politics ensues. Both Kathy and Teresa point out that Jana's proposal would increase the secrecy of the Board's actions. Kathy notes "How much "secret" is enough and how much is too much and etc. We could conceivably accomplish the very same thing by using Board Exec. this was done in the past and very much frowned upon...I can't agree with the "private" lists. I understand the concept, but abuse is easily come by also. I believe openness is a priority, and will strive for that." Teresa says she doesn't see any point to creating secret committees and notes "Operating in secret will solve nothing." Jana posits that working "in committee" with "no minutes, no archives" does not constitute secrecy. Kathy Heidel asks "If a committee works without minutes, or an archive, and the members are not to discuss what is taking place, how is this not in "secret"?" She notes "What we need and we have proven works is more openness. Everyone knows what we are doing and why. Everyone sees our zits and they have gotten use to the fact we are just like everyone else and will not hide. Most of the time we are flying by the seat of our pants and we know that, we are doing the best we know how to do, and most of the time ALL is quiet...please do not suggest we close any more doors." Jana however continues to draw a distinction between "in committee" [with no minutes save those available to the committee members] and "in secret". She notes "The point is not *how* we get to the report, the point is that we get the report completed and submitted to the AB...My initial comment that the RAL picked up on was that no one had accused the 3 formation committees of operating in secret. She said that is because they were not operating in secret. I agree with her assessment; we were not working in secret, we were working in committee. You know that we were working on closed lists without archives and you also know it worked for us and for the BFC as well!...We are NOT closing ANY doors, we are just providing ourselves an approved method for multi-tasking business which in fact allows us to include MORE people in the work. Remember, committees will submit reports that everyone will see and that the AB can question before adopting or filing the report...There are so many protections built in to insure that committee work gets done within the boundaries set by the assembly, there is no way for anything to be misinterpreted ... and we will not be operating in secret." Jana then notes that "We are not making them [committees] private, secret or unavailable, PA makes them so." And later: "I surely wish we could get the idea that we all must see every detail or something is wrong out of our heads. Was it just last week that the AB was being accused of carrying on endless boring going nowhere conversation? I guess I am just at a point in my life where I do not need to be involved in all the details regarding how a committee reaches its conclusions so long as I get to see and question the final report." Teresa has to point out to Jana that at least two of the "starter" committees did not act in secret; their activities were reported in the DBS and information on their activities were shared upon inquiry; she notes "Producing a report at the end does not mean something wasn't done in secret." Jana suggests that by responding to her constituents' inquiries, she "got away" with something and that "Committees formed post Sturgis will not allow you the same latitude." Phyllis Rippee notes that "I can understand the need to establish smaller special committees from time to time....such as the three that were. However, I think that to form a committee each time someone proposes a topic for discussion would be entirely too time-consuming and in reality would be a re-creation of the "old days" of suspicion regarding the activities on Board-Exec. Unless, as has been pointed out, their lists were made "read only" and available to all USGW P members." Although both Kathy and Teresa ask Jana why she feels the need for such secrecy, Jana does not respond. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === The Peanut Gallery Roars Corner: After Jana's throwaway comment about silence on the -ALL list indicating general consent with the Board and its activities, a tangential discussion on this topic starts on that list. Apparently now that its being discussed, folks ARE unhappy about the secrecy on the current committees and any gag rule on the proposed committees. They aren't much taken with the idea of more committees and no one is fooled by Jana's emphasis on "multi-tasking" in order to get more accomplished. It seems pretty clear that the idea is once again to lock the Board's activity away from public view and allow the membership to see only what the Board wants it to see. Clearly the emphasis on secrecy is no accident, although Jana does try to shift the onus from herself onto poor Alice Sturgis. The rules demand it; thus it must be so. Of course, a standing rule requiring all Board-appointed committees to operate in public, with read-only lists and/or public archives, would resolve that issue. [Hmmmmm....] Jana also heavily emphasis the idea that even though Board members could sign up for any and all committees, they'd be punished for failing to participate. What constitutes an acceptable level of participation is not defined, but presumably any Board member who wishes to join a committee and merely listen to the discussion in order to developed opinion prior to voting would be booted from the committee. Jana is big on the idea of punishing people; she has repeatedly suggested using Sturgis to limit the activities of her colleagues. Apparently she now wishes to determine how Board members may participate in Project business. Should this ludicrous idea be adopted, look forward to a Board even more hobbled by procedure than it is now. Imagine half a dozen committees formed at the NC's discretion working in secret and under gag rules to formulate guidelines, bylaws, standing rules, and whatever. They have no deadlines, no rules for operation, no requirement to report to the Board with anything other than a final report. Anyone who doesn't "participate" can be booted from the committees. Whatever reports they produce must be accepted as is, "filed", or rejected and sent back. No one but committee members will see the bickering and partisanship, but they won't see the deliberations and debate either. If all Board members are not allowed to serve on all committees, the potential exists for the crafting of committees to ensure certain outcomes. If all Board members do join all committees, then we have half a dozen separate secret Board lists. And the final result will be as intended: a secret Board that meets in public only to rubberstamp its approval of a predetermined outcome. Thankfully no one seems to think this is a good idea and, like most of Jana's ideas, its unlikely to go anywhere. === "Being busy does not always mean real work. The object of all work is production or accomplishment and to either of these ends there must be forethought, system, planning, intelligence, and honest purpose, as well as perspiration. Seeming to do is not doing." ---Thomas Alva Edison This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 8:05 am Subject: Wanted - Board Secretary If anyone is interested... >(please forward as appropriate) > >Position does not require a lot of time but it does need consistent >(generally daily) >checking of Board-L mail and the ability to read, digest and summarize >Board-L activity >and be able to work with the National Coordinator. > >The Secretary will need to be subscribed to all the major project lists in >order to post >announcements as requested by the Board. > >Those who are interested should write Holly Timm, the National Coordinator, at >hollyft@bright.net giving their qualifications and thoughts about the >position. > From: merope Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 9:30 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 2/9/02 Ensuring that whatever hits the fan is evenly dispersed...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 6 February - 9 February 2002: [I'm putting out this week's edition a day early folks, since I'll be a bit busy tomorrow. Have a nice weekend!] Motion 02-01 (Bylaws Revision Committee): The motion to end debate carries with 8 yes votes and 2 no votes; a late vote brings the count to 9 yes votes and 2 no votes. Holly Timm calls for a vote on the main motion on Feb 6. The motion fails on Feb 7, with 2 yes votes and 8 no votes; a late vote brings the number of no votes to 9. Holly asks the members to indicate whether the committee report should be returned to committee or filed. At this time, four Board members have recommend filing the report and seven have recommended returning it to committee. Other Business: Standing Rules: After Tim Stowell suggests that "its time we appointed a paralimentarian to make these rulings instead of each member of the AB coming up with their own idea of what PP means for a given situation," this discussion morphs into a discussion of the need for a parliamentarian. Ron Eason asks each member to "post their intentions as to whether they would agree to follow the advise of the parliamentarian" and notes "It would be very counter-productive though to have a parliamentarian to make a suggested ruling only to have AB Members ignore good council." Kathy Heidel takes the idea of a parliamentarian and runs with it and suggests "perhaps 2-3 people be impaneled and not be members of the AB. This should insure we would an unbiased, objective help." Jana notes that, per Sturgis, a parliamentarian can only be appointed by the Chair and that "We can "encourage" we can "implore" we can "beg" but we cannot make the NC do this." Kathy Heidel suggests Roger Swafford as parliamentarian and asks "In your estimation will this require a Motion or can you just ask for his services and appoint him to help?" Teresa suggests that there may be better choices for parliamentarian and hopes that if she chooses to appoint one, the NC will consider other volunteers. [This discussion parallels one on the -ALL list where, surprisingly enough given his history, Roger Swafford seems to be the immediate and hands-down favorite for parliamentarian. As a few of us probably recall, Roger chaired the infamous Election Commmittee of two elections ago, the one that arbitrarily set the membership deadline two months early in order to prevent "vote packing", an action that Roger vigorously and publicly defended. There are more than a few people who believe Tim Stowell won that election because Roger was able to keep enough of his opponent's supporters from voting. The fallout from that disastrous election prompted the formation of the Election Study Committee and the current standing Election Committee. Slightly more than a year ago, there was a huge outcry when Tim Stowell tried to appoint Roger Swafford to the Board Secretary position. The attempted appointment was seen as an obvious payback to Roger for "services rendered" during the election. So we are now interested to see some of the same people who argued loudly against Roger last year so favorably inclined toward him now. Memories must indeed be short. I will note, however, that a couple of people have pointed out the interesting coincidence that it was Tim who started the discussion on appointing a parliamentarian, a discussion that rather quickly segued into a discussion of appointing _Roger_ as a parliamentarian. In any case, given Roger's response to Holly on the -ALL list, it is unlikely he'll make any short list of parliamentarians she might consider in the future. This discussion takes exactly two days, generates quite a lot of email, and is now more or less gone without a trace.] Holly's Manifesto: [I don't know how else to categorize this. It touches on many topics of current relevance, but it works more powerfully as a whole, rather than split and quoted topically. There are a long series of replies to this as well, which I will also include] On February 7, Holly posts the following message: "The last several days have seen a barrage of messages on various topics on this list, principally from just a few board members. There have been several directions as to what actions I should take which is now deteriorating into rude comments because I haven't jumped on any of their individual bandwagons. To address several of these issues: Parliamentarian - it has been suggested that I appoint a parliamentarian, in fact over on the -ALL list it appears that he has already been chosen and I am a slacker for not immediately making the appointment...I have a bit of a problem understanding how several board members can promise to obey the dictates of a parliamentarian and yet ignore and run right over any attempts by me at following procedure. If I decide to appoint a parliamentarian, I will ask for volunteers and qualifications and make my own choice. Agenda - the Board Secretary was posting an Agenda every Monday for a few weeks. Then she stopped...As we have been in the midst of complicated discussion on an important motion, I was holding off addressing the Board Secretary's sporadic participation just a bit. Multiple Motions - Until this fall, multiple motions on the floor was not the norm. It was made patently clear that my common sense and experience were not to be trusted and Sturgis was adopted and I have tried to follow it to the best of my ability...All the Board has to do if they wish to allow multiple motions on the floor is to make a Standing Rule saying just that. Standing Rules - I don't think we need a special committee to study this. All we need to do is develop Standing Rules as we go whenever we bump our heads up against something in parliamentary authority designed for face to face that is awkward and a detriment to our medium of meeting. The only immediate item I see is the issue of multiple motions...I am being condemned for not immediately having the answers to the barrage of requests and demands that have poured out in the last couple of days. Excuse me for considering the pros and cons of these demands and requests and not just popping off the top of my head with knee-jerk reactions. I regret now that I believed this board could truly communicate with each other and work together, discussing, compromising, respecting differences of opinion... whatever it took for the good of the project. Actually, I still believe that of most of you, if the few would let you get a word in edgewise." Jana's Response: "...apparently this AB is damned if we do and damned if we do not. You told me last week that you thought the lack of participation by all AB members in discussion was very rude...none of us yet has the power to *make* anyone post a thing, so puleeese, do not blame those who do post if others do not post. Apparently, since a few of us tried, we are now chastised as the "barraging few"...I certainly know that you have indeed received several recent *requests* over a period of days and you did not bother respond to them. I said elsewhere that it does not matter to me if you agree or disagree, act or do not act, but for crying out loud, you can communicate daily on what is raised daily...It is very frustrating to be entirely ignored for days. 1) Parliamentarian -...Creating a member parliamentarian falls under your area of authority. The issue is not who it is, the issue is that you address the concept and help the AB to work better. 2) Agenda - ...it is your job to correspond with the Secretary. If you cannot get hold of her, what keeps you from posting an agenda yourself...3) Multiple Motions - what the AB voted re Sturgis had not one thing to do with an opinion on your personal common sense or judgment than it had to do with any of the rest of us. It had to do with attempting to level the playing field and regularize the AB's ability to accomplish business...Teresa and I agreeing that Sturgis helps surely suggests broad based support...We need to try and give it a chance before we do anything else...4) Standing Rules - How do you suggest we "develop Standing Rules as we go whenever we bump our heads up against something???" According to Sturgis, we cannot even discuss anything if there is a motion on the floor...Give us a way to do anything "immediately"...Whether you think we need Standing Rules or not, obviously several AB members think we need them...5) In our virtual environment, no one can interrupt another as we all post separately...I still believe this AB *can* "truly communicate with each other and work together, discussing, compromising, respecting differences of opinion" BUT, you have to set the tone and show us the vehicles you want used...I do take offense at your suggestion that anyone in this group is "keeping" anyone from getting a word in edgewise...Holly, I humbly submit that your comments here are mostly an end-run of whatever the reasons were that you had for not answering our requests...Respect offered is a two way street. I submit that what was requested was offered with respect. I would also submit that your reply here is beneath your position. Perhaps had you replied promptly, your colleagues would not have reached a point of frustration." Kathy Heidel's response: "I have never been disrespectful of your position although I do not always agree with you. I appreciate the fact that you finally addressed and identified several of the areas where there are problems...I do want to say though not all of the problems can be laid at the doorstep of just a few. It would not behoove you [sic] to acknowledge us and our questions on a daily basis...Holly, putting a name to the PA is not the root of the problem we both know that. You always have had a PA as expressed in the Bylaws, all we did was identify which one. I am not doubting the fact that you have commonsense and experience...The reason multiple motions were not on the Board-L prior to this session is because Board-Exec was used for that purpose...Now I am not saying that wrong took place, what I am stating is the discussion took place out of sight and then the vote was made. I personally believe that it is the Open List that is causing problems not Sturgis. I think that the Open List is the best thing that has ever happened to the Board and I hope that the doors are never closed again...Could you not have told your fellow AB members that you would take into consideration that a parliamentarian might or might not be an option? Could you not have told us about Keith's wonderful software addition to help Sundee? Could you not have told us about the PTO report, without waiting for almost a month before conveying that information?...I guess the bottom line in my book is the fact that leadership, respect and trust are the important factors of your office. I want to have all 3 of these for you, and I could if you would give us all the opportunity and apply these same factors to all of us." In reply to Jana's and Kathy's comments Holly notes that she does not spend all her time chatting, but is doing other things such as reading email and attending to USGW business while in the chat channel. She does not have a problem with Sturgis but thinks "that there is a need for a standing rule or two to deal with adapting it to our medium." She denies that motions were previously made on Board-Exec first and then brought to the public list for a vote. [This is both true and not true. While it was certainly never standard or common practice for the Board to "hash out" motions on the secret list first, prior Boards did occasionally discuss motions out of the public eye, and in at least two cases, conducted the _entire_ discussion and vote on the motions in secret.] She reminds Kathy in particular that the issue of a parliamentarian is all of two days old, and notes in general "why should I say anything when what I do say is ignored. For example, I explained the entire matter of precedence and multiple motions thoroughly on December 16th only to have it return to haunt us in a scrambled version on February 3rd. I spoke clearly about the Call for Volunteers being up to the Bylaws Formation group and was ignored. Those weren't just suggestions that were tossed out... they were instructions, directions." Mary Ann Hetrick also takes offense at Jana's suggestion that the quieter Board members are not participating or are not interested and notes "I don't feel like many of my few posts to this list have even been noted. I do try to read my Board mail at least once a day...I have only missed one vote. I have participated in the Bylaws Starter Committee. I may not be standing on a soap box 24/7, but I do care. I suspect that the few other board members that are silent, are that way for their own reasons. This doesn't equate with a lack of interest. just letting you know I do pay attention to this list. I just choose not to add to the over abundance of opnions that are posted to it." New Business: Agenda: On Feb 6 Kathy Heidel suggests that the group begin discussing an agenda. She notes that a regularly updated agenda would help everyone and that a lack of one has been a problem since the beginning of this Board session. She asks for comment on whether or not a motion is needed. Teresa notes that a motion should not be needed, since the motion establishing the Board Secretary position gave the NC discretion for determining the scope of the position. Jana Black thinks a weekly updated agenda would be ideal. Resignation of Board Secretary: Citing a lack of time to do the work, Sundee Maynez resigns as Board Secretary on Feb 7. On February 8, Holly accepts her resignation and posts notice that she will send out a call for volunteers later in the day. The call for volunteers goes out in the evening of Feb 8. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === New Toys Corner: Keith Giddeon has made a little program for tracking Board activity and has made it publicly available at: http://www.giddeon.com/basst/ I have not tried it personally, but it looks very useful. A big thanks to Keith! New Kid On The Block Corner: USGenWeb member Bob Maley has announced a new complementary project called GeoGen. Its located at http://geogen.org/ The purpose of this project is to provide a database of geographic coordinates for cemeteries throughout the United States. The site went live on January 23 and is still growing; there are currently over 11,000 cemeteries entered. Bob has posted a call for volunteers on the -ALL list; both states and counties are up for adoption. [As is typical in USGW, the first public reaction to Bob's message was a nasty attack on the site and its originator and a lame attempt to smear both based on the two USGW volunteers who have also volunteered to coordinate states for GeoGen. Keith Giddeon, who we recall not so long ago promising to be both kinder and gentler, led the attack with some ill-formed criticisms that were not obviously based on actual familiarity with the site. Apparently he objects to how Bob "implemented" the site, to how he chose to set up his servers, to the volunteers he's accepted, to the wording in his use statement, and etc. As is not uncommon for Keith, he led off his attack with a thinly veiled threat--which he later denied making--and accusations of profiteering.] === "Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel." ---John Quinton This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 9:10 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 17 Feb 2002 Dreaming the impossible dream...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 9 February-17 February 2002: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws revision committee): On February 11, The Board decides by a seven to five vote to return the report to the Bylaws "starter" committee rather than filing it. [see below] Motion 02-03 (To accept Nate Zipfel's resignation): On February 11, this motion is numbered and Holly Timm asks to proceed immediately to a vote if there are no objections. The Board immediately begins voting and on February 12, the motion is passed with 13 yes votes. Motion 02-04 (To direct the EC to conduct a poll to fill Nate's vacant seat): Holly numbers this motion and opens it for discussion on February 12. It is immediately pointed out that the motion will have to be amended since the date by which it directs the EC to return poll results to the Board has already passed. Tim suggests a deadline of two weeks after passage of the motion and Linda Haas Davenport emails Tim Stowell, begging him not to include a date in the motion. She notes that "You all have been talking about it but have yet to contact the EC to see how quickly we can host the poll." [This message is cc'd to Board-L and is forwarded to the list by Holly]. Phyllis Rippee then suggests eliminating the date altogether. Teresa Lindquist moves "move to postpone this motion until the EC can provide us with a date by which they can have a poll completed and results returned to us," and suggests amending the motion to include whatever date the EC comes up with. Richard Harrison thinks it would be quicker to amend the motion to leave out the date and several Board members agree with him (Jana, Tina, Diane, Pam, Betsy). Diane says she is sure that the EC is ready to conduct a poll, and Teresa has to remind her fellow EC member that "The point of Linda's request is that the EC is _not_ "prepared and ready" to conduct a poll." Teresa suggests soliciting for volunteers immediately in order to determine if a poll is even necessary. Holly converts five members' agreement with Richard into "general consent" and calls a vote on the "revised" motion on Feb 13. Teresa Lindquist immediately raises a point of order, noting "This motion was opened for discussion yesterday. Six people have spoken in favor of the amendment. How do you get "general consensus" out of that? There has not been sufficient time for discussion of the motion or the proposed amendment, and a motion to postpone is under consideration and may yet receive a second." Voting proceeds despite this point of order; 8 Board members vote yes and one member notes he will refrain from voting until it is addressed. On February 14, Holly addresses the point of order, noting "The proper procedure is to cease all discussion and ask if there is a second to Teresa Lindquist's Motion to Postpone allowing a minimum of 24 hours for that. If there is a second to the Motion to Postpone, then we must proceed to a vote on the Motion to Postpone, another 24-48 hours. If that motion succeeds we must then start all over when the EC responds with a date, fulfilling the condition of the postponement. If it fails, we then return to the motion itself which as it stands must be amended in some manner as it contains a date that is no longer possible. Then we may return to the discussion of the amendment striking the phrase containing the date. After 24-48 more hours are allowed for discussion, we then vote on the amendment (24-48 hours). If the amendment passes we then proceed to vote on the motion itself (24-48 hours). The Chair apologizes for trying to expedite a fairly straightforward piece of business." Several Board members agree that the Chair did nothing for which she needs to apologize. One of them, Phyllis Rippee, notes "I agree with my colleagues that the NC has done nothing to apologize for in this instance. The 8 members who commented favorably on the suggested amendment, did so in such as way as there was no doubt each one was giving general consent." She suggests that "It's time to put Sturgis in the background." [Actually the Chair ought to be congratulated for doing things the right way, per our adopted parliamentary authority. Corner-cutting usually causes trouble, it won't hurt for people to get used to professional procedure in board meetings, and --as my sainted grandmother said-- its generally quicker to do things right than to do them over.] Holly solicits a second to the motion to postpone; no one seconds the motion to postpone and it fails on Feb 15. Holly then reopens discussion on the amendment to the motion [which would strike the date]. Betsy Mills calls for the vote on the amended motion and Phyllis and several Board members post premature votes on the amended motion. Holly rules that the call for a vote on the amended motion is out of order and calls for a vote on the amendment on Feb 15. The amendment passed with 10 yes votes; a late vote brings the "yes" count to 11. Holly calls for a vote on the amended motion on 16 February; currently the vote count stands at 9 yes votes. Other Business: Board Secretary vacancy: It is determined that Board members are not eligible to apply for the Board Secretary vacancy. There is no further action on this issue. Procedural issues: Phyllis Rippee asks how many Board members "will agree to discuss a subject (maybe more than one at a time, but not so many as to get confusing) and then, let a motion come out of the discussion?" She says will agree to do so, but doesn't think a motion is necessary. This begins a long discussion between Phyllis and Jana Black that quickly devolves into another discussion of Jana's "many committees" idea. Notably, she has dropped the idea of keeping all the committee business secret [although she's still flogging it over on the guidelines "starter" committee]. She notes "I raised the concept of using committees to accomplish rudimentary discussion last week since the primary difference between assemblies and committees is that in a committee, "a matter may be discussed at great length before a specific proposal is even formulated" whereas, in an assembly "one can speak only to a motion that has been made and seconded" (Alice p. 240). I think Kathy's idea of setting up a variety of read-only lists where those who are interested can see the discussion take place while allowing the discussion among appointed committee members to take place without interruption is an excellent one. Otherwise, using subject headers carefully on BOARD-L to differentiate "kinds" of business I think could work." In a later message, Jana suggests "Perhaps we need to consider forming committees including CCs to address discussion of various topics of importance to the Project and have the officers in charge report out the progress to the AB???? Again, we could use read-only lists so everyone could see the discussion but where only those on the committee would actually participate in the conversation until consensus is reached and it is time for the "officer" to report conclusions back to the AB???" Jana then begins to discuss the removal of non-participants in committee work, noting "being a committee member means you must participate in the work of the committee, and that anyone who does not participate is bounced...It makes sense to me that not only do we need to know who is on the committee, everyone must participate in the work of the committee, since that is what we are there for, so I need to have advise form the NC regarding her opinion on this...we need further instruction from our NC regarding how to proceed. Do we need to abide by what Sturgis says and open up the list to read only so that secrecy will not be accused? Do we use Roger's definition that silence = consent???? Do we bounce those who do not participate and what criteria do we use in a virtual environment to determine adequate participation?" Phyllis does not agree that the "multiple committees" idea will expedite Board business and points out "in our particular situation, they do not expedite matters...As far as a requirement for participation in a committee, or you get the boot.........well, who is going to determine what "participation" is?...What if a member simply posts "I agree" each time someone makes a suggestion on a committee, but never contributes an original idea. Does that constitute participation? Doesn't necessarily mean the person is interested doing any actual work, just wants to observe for the sake of knowing what is going on in that particular committee." The two of them discuss how committe business might work in the absence of overt participation by a majority of committee members and how to determine responsiveness and what to do with nonresponsive members [this discussion goes on for quite a bit, even though Jana makes a point of noting that her continuing to discuss matters not related to the business on the floor is out of order.] Guidelines "starter" committee: Jana asks if the Guidelines committee still exists, since she posted a message to its list on Feb 12 and by Feb 24, no one had responded. Holly does not respond to her question. Standing Rules: After several members expressed confusion over the process of voting on Motion 02-04 and some brief discussion of standing rules, Ron Eason proposes the following standing rule: "I hereby recommend that a standing rule be voted on, from this time forward, that when a simple motion is brought to the floor of a general nature, which does not affect the overall operation of the USGenWeb Project; and are not being introduced as governing policies or being used for the purpose of modifying or eliminating previous and/or future motions, policies or guidelines, that the original submitter of the motion in cooperation with the second of that motion may request their motion to be revised to either include, eliminate or update a portion of that motion, however limited to times, dates, names, addresses or other single item issues contained within the motion, so long as the changes do not in any way change the initial idea, purpose or concept of the original motion as proposed. This action shall be deemed as concluded upon majority consensus of the voting body, and the motion as amended can then proceed to a vote under regular and adapted rules of procedure as outlined in the current Bylaws and accepted Parliamentary Procedures." Jana adds this to her list of proposed standing rules and notes "apparently until all motions are off the table everything else is being ignored and is likely technically out of order. I have no idea what the NC is thinking regarding how the meeting will be handled if there are no motions on the table until she says so...we now have a list of 10 suggestions for Standing Rules to discuss if ever we are allowed to do so in this meeting environment. I will copy them below again. The question is how to get to any discussion if a motion is on the floor." Kathy Heidel again suggests "that perhaps Holly might begin the effort by allowing a few AB members who are interested in this begin to form a committee to set about doing this. This does not require a motion only her approval. This could help expedite our efforts and make a fair playing field for all of us. It is not in our best interests to continue to want to stay in the comfort of what was, it is time to look at what can be and begin." --- In Executive Session: Messages by Holly Timm, Tim Stowell, Phyllis Rippee, Ron Eason, Pam Reid, and Richard Harrison on February 13 ; message by Tim Stowell on Feb 14 [this discussion does NOT pertain to the grievance published on -ALL a few days ago] Bylaws "starter" committee: Discussion begins on modifying the committee report; the committee decides to forego proper reporting procedures as outlined in Sturgis and report only a motion back to the Board Guidelines "starter" committee: Jana Black posts a summary of progress and comments to date; Teresa suggests that the committee explore both the current USGW guidelines and the various state guidelines; Teresa asks for a discussion of specific deficiencies in the current guidelines and bylaws in order to determine how to proceed; Holly reminds the group that its job is not to make recommendations as to new guidelines; Teresa and Jana discuss the scope of the committee's duties. === Tin Dictator Corner: Many of you have seen the recent grievance posted on the -ALL list by Kelly Courtney Blizzard, but for those who haven't, here's a nutshell [emphasis on "nut"] summary. Terria Baynor is CC for a county in NCGenWeb. She needs a co-CC to help her out. She picked Kelly and added her to the site, and Kelly has begun to work on pages. Terria sent a notice to her SC, Sharon "the Axe" Williamson, notifying her of the new co-CC and asking her to sub Kelly to the necessary CC lists [NC has two, a mandatory read-only announcement list and an optional discussion list], and put her on the county list on the state page. I don't suppose that any one will be surprised to learn that Sharon has adamantly refused to respect these simple requests. Sharon's reasons for this are obscure, but its plain she doesn't want Kelly back in a voting position in the state. She accuses Kelly of stripping her county pages, roiling the NC discussion list, and stomping off in a huff sometime over a year ago, and now claims to want to avoid a repeat performance. She also claims that Kelly caused some unstated number of CCs to resign, although a brief review of NCGenWeb's history since Sharon took over the helm shows that more people have probably left because of her hamfisted control than for any other reason. There is no history or guideline in NCGW of CCs needing the permission of the SC to choose a particular co-CC or Asst CC, and Sharon's actions certainly violate the spirit and tradition of USGenWeb's grassroots, "bottoms-up" management policy. In fact, the county in question was handed from the previous CC to Terria without any input from Sharon at all. We suspect the real reason that Sharon is opposed to Kelly [other than the personal ones] is that she maintains tight control over who votes in the state elections and who she sends to vote in project-wide elections. Kelly and Terria have both been villified on the NC mail lists, by Sharon and others, and it is clear from past behavior that Sharon will not hesitate to remove CCs that displease her. Sharon is currently keeping counties vacant for months at a stretch because she doesn't want to give them up to people who may not vote the way she likes in state elections. One county has remained vacant for six months now. Although someone has repeatedly volunteered to adopt it, Sharon has not even bothered to reply to their inquiries. Sharon also reportedly controls who has access to the optional discussion list, a list on which she occasionally conducts state-wide votes, even though not all CCs are subscribed and some claim they are not permitted to subscribe. She has stated specifically that she does not want to include Kelly as a voting member of NCGenWeb, although she is welcome to provide uncredited help to Terria on the pages. The only circumstances under which she will accept Kelly back into the project is if the CCs of NCGenWeb vote to allow her to return. This is an easy concession to make; Sharon has already systematically gotten rid of most people who would support a CC's right to choose their own co-CC. A handful of Kelly and Terria's representatives have been conferring with them, Sharon, and amongst themselves, and as usual, things are at a standstill. The mediation option is closed off; Sharon has indicated she will not budge from her position and is not willing to have the matter mediated. The matter is now before the entire Board as a formal grievance filed jointly by both Terria and Kelly. It is _highly_ unlikely that the Board as a whole will be able to judge this issue on its merits, rather than on the personalities involved. A substantial number of Board members are state coordinators themselves, and no doubt will be sympathetic to a SC trying to keep someone she considers a troublemaker out of her state. In what is probably a view of things to come, one Board member has already suggested that Sharon file a grievance of her own against Terria and Kelly. We predict that the Board will leap on Sharon's suggested popularity vote like grateful lap dogs ; it allows us both to claim that we supported the "grassroots" approach to the issue and wash our hands of it at the same time. === "Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other and greater ones invariably slink in after it." ---Baltasar Gracian This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 9:39 am Subject: Brief survey regarding guidelines Hi everyone, As you may know, several of us are working on the establishment of a guidelines committee. In order to assist the committee as it works to formulate , I would like to get your opinions on several issues that have come up before the committee. Please add any comments you feel are necessary, and please feel free to send this along anywhere you like. I'd appreciate as many responses as possible and from as wide a range of project members as possible. In your response, please let me know if you are a CC and/or SC and/or a member of a Special Project. FYI, the current guidelines for CCs are posted at: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/countypage.html; guidelines for SCs are here: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/statepage.html. There are also some minimal page requirements in the bylaws, which are here: http://www.usgenweb.org/official/bylaws.html 1) Have you ever visited or used any of the pages above, prior to this survey? If so, did you find them helpful? 2) What, if any, are the deficiencies you see in the current guidelines? 3) What changes would you like to see to the Guidelines in this respect? 4) Does your state currently have its own guidelines established? (please identify the state if the answer is yes). 5) Should the USGenWeb retain the query page requirement? 6) Should the proposed guidelines committee include the formation of guidelines for the Special Projects? 7) In your opinion, does the Project need national level standardized guidelines for state, county and special projects pages? 7) What are your opinions on the establishment of an "oversight" committee to assist CCs and SCs in meeting these guidelines or any future guidelines that may be addressed? Thanks in advance for your responses! You may respond directly to this list or to me directly. I will forward all responses to the Guidelines 'starter' committee. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net From: merope Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 7:15 pm Subject: Preference Poll AB Replacement If you are interested, qualified, and didn't get this message via other means... Nominees may also be Assistant State Coordinators. -Teresa >Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:32:23 -0700 >X-Original-Sender: lhaasdav@mindspring.com Tue Feb 19 05:32:19 2002 >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >Old-To: "USGW ALL List" , > "SC List" >Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:30:44 -0600 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >Subject: [ALL-L] Preference Poll AB Replacement >To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/23828 >X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com >X-Status: >X-Keywords: > >Dear USGenWeb Member: > >Nathan Zipfel has resigned as the USGenWeb Advisory Board State Coordinator >Representative of the Northeast / North Central Region. The Advisory Board >has requested the Election Committee to host a poll to determine the >preference of the SC and Ass't SCs of the NE/NC Region for his replacement. > >If you are interested in volunteering for this seat or if you would like to >nominate someone for this seat please go to: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/- select the nomination link and >complete the form. If you are nominating someone for this position please >remember they must be a State Coordinator in the NE/NC Region. > >Thank you for your participation. > >The USGenWeb Project Election Committee > > > > > >==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== >The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. From: merope Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 8:04 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 2/24/2002 Stating the obvious...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 17 February-24 February 2002: Motion 02-04 (to direct the EC to conduct a poll): The motion passes on Feb 17 with 12 yes votes. The Election Committee is now soliciting volunteers for the position. Motion 02-05 (Standing Rule motion): Holly asks Tina to restate her motion "without the leading sentence regarding suspension of rules as being confusing and immaterial to the matter intended to be addressed by the motion." [This is the motion calling for "suspension of the rules" in order to permit multiple motions on the floor at one time; apparently this request of Holly's constitutes her response to the point of order raised when the motion was first proposed.] Tina restates the motion as follows: "I move that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule to present, discuss and vote on more than one motion at a time. This motion is intended to multitask the day to day business of the board. It is also intended to grant to the National Coordinator the role of exercising judgment as to the magnitude of the motions presented, and be given final judgment, as to whether motions presented can indeed be considered together with others and still be afforded full consideration to detail that the work of the USGenWeb Project requires." This version of the motion is seconded by Kathy Heidel. Holly numbers the motion on Feb 18 and opens it for discussion. Phyllis requests that the motion be amended to drop off everything but the first line of the motion. Kathy Heidel disagrees with her but Betsy explains that the motion is just the one sentence and the remainder is clarification. Tina reiterates that her motion is meant in its entirety and explains that it "is not putting the cart before the horse but putting the day to day needs of the USGenWeb Project first before our friend Alice." She has to reiterate this for Tim Stowell's benefit. Jana Black thinks the motion is not necessary, and notes "I think we are putting the cart before the horse with this motion to put multiple motions on the floor. Given the way the NC is interpreting PA, once a motion is made all_other_discussion_stops. As others have pointed out, discussion is supposed to take place *before* a motion is made and that discussion is intended to create motions that likely will pass...Our problem is not the inability to have more than one motion on the floor, our problem is that we need to be able to have multiple *discussions* going on out of the way of voting on motions...We need to create a place for discussion of multiple topics, not multiple motions. Our problem has been that motions have been in the way of discussion with discussion taking place after the motions are put forth, meaning we have to go thru several other steps in order to actually accomplish any business...I am not in favor of this motion. I think it is ill advised and will only lead us into a further mire." Kathy Heidel believes the Board should be able to hold more than one discussion at a time and suggests "that prior to making motions we be allowed to discuss them...If we were face to face as I have stated several times most likely a motion would be the culmination of an Idea which would be discussed, then if enough interest is shown, a motion is made and then voted upon...If we were to put in our Subject line "Pre-Motion Discussion" as an indicator, this will work, in fact it has worked because I did this and it appears to work well. It seems to me if we can vote on more than one motion, we can discuss more than one." She asks if a motion is necessary for this. Holly considers the motion to include discussions as well as actual motions. Jana notes however that "I do not object so much to the idea of multiple motions as I do to the fact that according to the NC's interpretation of Sturgis, if *any* motions exist, discussion cannot take place...However, I am realizing that provided that a vehicle for multiple pre-motion discussion is created, it is OK with me for us to deal with multiple motions. Until we have a way of ensuring a place in our ongoing AB meetings for discussion however, I think a motion for multiple motions is putting the cart before the horse." There is a bit of back and forth between her, Phyllis, and Holly on this topic, with Jana and Phyllis' basic argument being that the motion does not specifically state that discussion will be included and stating they don't want to rely on Holly's word that multiple discussion will be allowed. After some negotiation over wording between her and Jana, Phyllis moves to amend the motion to read "I move that the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule allowing the National Coordinator to present for discussion more than one subject and/or motion at a time, but to limit voting to one motion at a time. Advisory Board members may also introduce topics for discussion to the assembly. This motion multitasks the day to day business of the Advisory Board and still allows the National Coordinator to exercise judgment as to whether the motions and topics for discussion presented can be considered together and still be afforded full consideration to detail that the work of the USGenWeb Project requires." Jana seconds the amendment. Holly notes "Topics to discuss should be presented very much like a motion except instead of saying "I move that..." a board member would say something like "I request that we discuss...". Just as a motion requires a second, a request for discussion would require some interest beyond the original requestor. The way this is now stated, Board members could willy nilly present anything and everything for discussion all at once." Jana notes that Sturgis allows Board members ""Full and free discussion of every proposition presented for discussion is an established right of members" and that Board should therefore have the right to present anything they want to the Board. She also notes however that the proposed amendment still relies on the discretion of the NC as to whether multiple items can be presented simultaneously. Tina expresses some confusion over the proposed amended motion and asks how it is different from Holly's suggested word changes. On Feb 21, Phyllis withdraws her amendment and submits this new version: "I move that in order to multitask day to day business, the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board adopt a standing rule allowing the National Coordinator to present for discussion more than one topic and/or motion at a time, but to limit voting to one motion at a time. Topics for discussion and/or motions must be presented to the Advisory Board in the order received, unless it is determined by general consent that a topic or motion should be moved to the floor immediately." She explains that "The rest of the original motion gave too much authority to the NC...Also, to allow for the placement of topics on the floor for discussion by anyone other than the NC, is an open invitation to chaos." Jana also seconds this amendment and notes "I am of the opinion that your motion as stated gives way too much discretion to the NC and creates a situation where any NC can ignore any topic for discussion that a member of the assembly wants to raise for discussed...The goal I would like to see achieved is that we create a way to multi-task business in our virtual environment so that, in effect, we are creating the same "compartments" in our environment for The Order of Business as are shown on page 114 by adapting Sturgis to fit...Usually, members of the Assembly at the beginning of a board term volunteer for and are appointed to chair committees to handle discussion of topics they think are important. The reports and recommendations of said committees are then brought back to the assembly with recommendations for motions, etc. I think we can set up ways to do this and I think it will work...By virtually compartmentalizing our business and allowing it to take place concurrently with clear understanding that to hold discussion in an electronic environment is separate from votes on motions, we will go a long way. Discussion on other business does not need to stop if a motion is on the table in our environment as we all have the chance to read, at our convenience, every item verbatim." After some comments among Holly, Jana, and Phyllis over why Holly is not taking immediate action on the amendment [egads, no one commented in 24 hours on a weekend!], Teresa suggests that Jana call the question if she believes the group is ready to proceed to a vote. Other Business: Bylaws "starter" committee: Phyllis Rippee announces that she has withdrawn from the Bylaws "starter" committee. Election Committee poll: The Election Committee is currently accepting nominations for the Board seat recently vacated by Nathan Zipfel. Anyone who is a State Coordinator or Assistant State Coordinator in the NE/NC region is eligible for the seat [with some restrictions as listed in the bylaws]; you do not have to be a member in those regions to nominate a candidate. Nominations are being accepted until 11:59pm CDT on Feb 25. Please visit http://us-genealogy.com/nomination.html to nominate someone. --- In Executive Session: Feb 17: messages by Holly Timm, Kathy Heidel, Richard Harrison, Jana Black, and Ron Eason Feb 18: messages by Ron Eason, Tim Stowell, Diane Parsons, Holly Timm, Jana Black, Phyllis Rippee, Kathy Heidel, Tina Vickery Feb 19: messages by Kathy Heidel, Ron Eason, Betsy Mills, Pam Reid, Richard Harrison, Tina Vickery, Tim Stowell Feb 20: messages by Ron Eason, Kathy Heidel, Jana Black, Richard Harrison Feb 21: messages by Tina Vickery, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel, Tim Stowell, Holly Timm, Phyllis Rippee, Robert Bremer, Ron Eason, Richard Harrison Feb 22: messages by Tim Stowell, Holly Timm, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel Feb 23: messages by Tim Stowell, Jana Black, Betsy Mills, Tina Vickery, Kathy Heidel Feb 24: message by Tim Stowell [since the current topic started on Feb 17, there have been 128 messages on Board-Exec; we are precluded from telling what topic we are discussing, but you can probably guess] Bylaws "starter" committee: the necessity of a formal report to the Board is discussed further; Phyllis Rippee and Ron Eason are nominated for committee chair; Phyllis withdraws from the committee Guidelines "starter" committee: Committee is precluded by the NC from discussing anything but the formation of a guidelines committee; there is minimal discussion of alleged deficiencies in the current guidelines; Teresa recommends that the committee be placed on hold until the Board recommends the formation of a guidelines committee; Teresa sends out a survey to several lists soliciting opinions on the current guidelines, which is objected to by Jana and Diane but endorsed by Holly Timm with some clarifications; Teresa posts a suggested list of discussion topics === You Say Tomato, I Say Jack Booted Thugs Corner: Working on a committee can sometimes be a rewarding experience. You sit together with your colleagues and work through difficult problems, explore alternatives, and hammer out details. Sometimes its tough, sometimes its fun, there's give, and there's take, but when you are done you have something you can be proud of, both for yourself and for your organization. Then there's the Guidelines "starter" committee. This committee became active on October 11 and contained myself, Nate Zipfel [who has since resigned], Diane Parsons, Vicki Shaffer, Mary Ann Hetrick, Tina Vickery, and Jana Black; Holly is ex-officio. Only five of us have ever spoken on the list as far as I can tell, and only four of us have participated since the discussion began again this week. Our directions were as follows: "1) What is the function/goal of the Guidelines committee to be? 2) How many people would be a viable functioning number and yet allow for some breadth of perspective and opinion?" The committee has, to say the least, floundered badly in its mission. There was brief discussion of the scope of the committee's work back in October, which ceased abruptly after I challenged it on the failure to include the Special Projects in the proposed committee structure. \ Discussion started again a few days ago, when Jana Black posted a summary of the committee's minimal discussion so far. I responded by asking the committee to identify deficiencies in current guidelines in order to help us determine an appropriate size and focus for the official committee. It seemed like a pretty straightforward discussion item, one that would assist us in determining not only how big it should and on what it should focus, but also whether a committee is needed at all, but Holly stepped in and informed us that there _will_ be a committee and discussions of deficiencies in the current guidelines are out of order. We are merely to determine the size of the committee and the scope of its duties. Given that we have no idea of what the scope of the issue is, how many project members really want the guidelines revised, or what should be revised if there are revisions to be made, it seems silly to form a committee under these circumstances. But form we must... The idea that the "starter" committee has the right and/or responsibility to recommend that the guidelines do not need to be revised at all was rejected out of hand. Apparently we are just to whip some numbers out of air, call it a committee, and be done with it. It took several requests to get Jana to enumerate a list of things she believes to be deficient in the current guidelines; the best she could come up with was some broken links on the web page and the lack of guidance for new CCs [and her attempts to sidestep my question were amusing]. Holly pointed out the the requirement for a query page needs to be addressed. Jana has already mentioned the need for some sort of national level "content guidelines" several times and has stressed constructing guidelines that will define "excellence" on USGenWeb pages. [Even though she went out of her way to note that any national "oversight" group would not exist to "police" pages but to "support" the CCs, her comments elsewhere do not lend a feeling of security to her assurances.] Diane Montgomery spoke in favor of national level guidelines that everyone will follow [even though we have those and they are followed pretty much when people feel like following them], and Tina Vickery suggested maintaining an up to date web page, exploring the query page requirement and including resources for the volunteers. Basically, though, the issue comes down to a few broken links, a possibly outdated query requirement, and a perceived lack of "content" guidelines or oversight. One committee member gets all het up at even the slightest suggestion that we should discuss as a committee what needs to be done in terms of revisions and expansion before we go about making recommendations for a committee that may well end up a permanent part of USGenWeb; the others are relatively quiet. As you can imagine, the committee was bogged down for days in fruitless nondiscussion, punctuated by admonishments from the Chair and and a spectacular temper tantrum. On Feb 18, I released a brief survey in order to help myself get a handle on what my constituents desire in this matter. As usual, claims have been made that lots 'n' lots of people are clamoring for revised guidelines, but since I have seen very few actual comments on this matter and even committee members can't put their finger on what needs to be done, I figured it would be a useful thing to do. Jana's first response was to bust yet another gut and post a public disclaimer to the -ALL and several other lists disavowing any knowledge of the survey and noting "it is beyond the scope of the task of the *formation* committee...Know that if you choose *at_this_time* to do this work, it may not go anywhere, not because it is a bad idea in general, but because it is beyond the scope of the task our committee was given." [Heh, she's just mad 'cause she didn't think of it first.] The discussion then moved to the -ALL list and discussion on the committee list ceased entirely. Eventually discussion ceased on the -ALL list as well, and there's been no committee action of any kind since Feb 19. Perhaps this is because the Board is preoccupied with something on the secret list; perhaps the committee members don't know how to proceed. Jana has taken to harping on Holly's alleged lack of leadership in every forum in which she has the chance, and Holly for her part has been rather quiet since she endorsed the survey and called Jana to task on the -ALL list. The committee now appears to be more or less at an impasse. Which, given that this is USGenWeb after all is said and done, is probably a good thing. [Response to the survey has been great though. Sadly, not a single guidelines "starter" committee member chose to respond to it.] === "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought." Isaiah, VIII,10 This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 10:32 am Subject: Guidelines Survey responses Hi everyone, On February 18, I released a brief survey on the guidelines. Since responses have stopped coming, I thought I would post a brief summary of the responses so far: There were 22 responses since Feb 18. One response was withdrawn by its submitter and is not included below. One response could not be sent to the committee; for some reason the mail system at RW refused to accept it no matter how I reformatted it. I've included this response below. One person did not respond to the individual questions, but submitted separate comments; those and other additional comments are included at the bottom. All responses were forwarded to the Guidelines "starter" committee anonymously, unless the respondent posted their response to a public list or included indentifying information in their response. Respondents were: SCs: 2 (1 CC respondent is a former SC) CCs: 11 SPCs: 1 Not indicated: 8 No Guidelines "starter" committee members or sitting Board members responded. Responses came from DBS subscribers, -ALL list members and members of various state and regional lists to which the survey was submitted. Please feel free to continue to respond to the survey. I have found your responses very interesting and helpful and will incorporate any additional responses into the summary. Please also feel free to forward this to your other lists if you think people will be interested in it. Thanks to everyone who has responded so far! === Question 1: Have you ever visited or used any of the pages above, prior to this survey? If so, did you find them helpful? Seen guidelines?: 19 responses, 16 yes, 2 no, one not clear Helpful?: Of those who had seen the guidelines, 9 found them helpful, 4 did not, and 3 did not answer Selected comments: "I read the guidelines when i first started..and have visited the by laws on several occasions They were very helpful" "When I was a state coordinator (NC, 1998-2000) I referred to them frequently, and at the time, I found them to be very helpful." "I did visit the CC site in order to learn the requirements regarding maintaining the county site. I initially found them helpful, though later realized (for example) that other than an initial visit, no state coordinator ever visited my site to view resources (or if they did I was never given any feedback about it)." "Not visited recently. Can't think if I have ever looked at any guidelines for state coordinators and can't remember the ones for CCs. Didn't like the bylaws in the first place and have paid no attention to them since voting no." "No. Didn't know of their existence." "Yes, I've visited them. The bylaws page can be confusing due to the legal tone to it. I think it is helpful and important for new volunteers. The scope of the project can be a little overwhelming for new volunteers. These pages help to clarify the details." === Question 2: What, if any, are the deficiencies you see in the current guidelines? Question 3: What changes would you like to see to the Guidelines in this respect? These questions were hard to quantify and I have tried to summarize them as best as I can. They were sometimes answered in tandem, so I am combining them; numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents that mentioned that item. Deficiencies: too long (2), copyright info not recommended (1), lookup requirement not recommended (1), query requirement needs to be amended/updated (2), info on SC mailing lists unnecessary (1) promotion of site development (3), lack of enforcement (4), lack of requirement to have contact email (1), no "front door" sites (1), none (5), no opinion (1) Recommended changes: standardized/minimum standards (2), enforced (3), surname lists (1), contact email (2), grievance procedure (1), query requirement updated/revised (1), requirement to post data to Archives (1), guidelines to report non-responsive members (1), simplified (2), require basic HTML coding ability (1), encouragement to add content beyond the minimum (1), none (4) Selected Comments: "I think this [query requirement] is totally outdated. It was a reasonable requirement in the early dates of USGenWeb, when there were few if any other query systems, but now it should be sufficient to provide links to one or more existing query systems for your county, e.g. rootsweb, genealogy.com, whatever. The link to the Query Management page takes you to a page that is very much out of date." "Personally I would like to see a requirement for actually developing the site. Some people become County Coordinator and after their initial modification to the site is completed, little or nothing changes from that point on...I would like to see a requirement established that would promote development of the site, yet not provide undue pressure to CCs. One resource to be added every six months? With other stipulations such as removal options as CC if there is NO site development. Allowing people to sit on counties and do nothing at all is counterproductive." "While I believe that each county coordinator should have a lot of freedom in the presentation of his/her web site, I do not believe it is right that some coordinators flaunt what seems to me to be non-compliance to the minimal standards for our sites. " "I don't see any crying need for changes apart from the need to update the Query Management page, which still refers to the defunct GenConnect. CCs might be notified that, despite the collapsing of GenConnect special pages into an all-in-one Queries page they can maintain Biographies, Obituaries, etc links to Rootsweb-based Query pages by entering the relevant term as a search on their county Query page and then linking the results page." "First, I think there needs to be accountability for the county pages and coordinators to keep their pages up. If a volunteer is not keeping their page up, there should be a process of warnings and attempts by their leader or responsible person to correct/update their pages. If they do not in a reasonable amount of time (set by the guidelines), they should be removed from the project...If the volunteer received a certain amount of complaints from different people, they should have their responsibilities reduced to a level they can handle or removed all together...I feel that the State Pages should contain resource information (as most do) for mailing lists, query boards, local society, links, etc., but that the data should be consistent by only residing in the Archives. My thought behind this is that I see all kinds of strange html pages with data, that while they may look pretty, they do not follow any standard and it does not help the researcher to know where to find stuff. Researchers should not have to hunt for data, they should know that if they need to find a link to a historical society go to the county page and to find census data go to the county's archives page. Also, text data takes up less space on the server(s) and is searchable by the national search engine." "I don't think there are any deficiencies. Better to have broad but helpful guidelines than pages of detailed "rules" that scare people off." "I do not see any deficiencies in the guidelines, but I did find them long-winded as with anything set up as a more or less political entity tend to be. Simplify!!!" "We don't need anyone looking over our shoulders. As I put in the original guidelines, the "bare essestials" were queries, lookups and the logo and link to the state and USGW. I see no reason to change that. We don't need a committee checking the pages for them... our visitors after almost 6 years are well aware of what they are supposed to find and let us know when they don't. Any committee contacting me about my page can take a hike." "One thing that I think is missing is some indication that coordinators are encourged to get original source data (such as birth records, death records, marriage records, cemetery records, census records, probate records, land records, tax records, etc.) on-line. I think originally it was envisioned that the Archives would be the repository for these records (and they still have the unique role of storing standardized transcriptions in a consistent directory structure), but more and more county sites have been posting such records in varying formats -- so it seems reasonable to me to update the guidelines to recognize (and encourage) this development that has occurred during the past four years." "Most do add more content than is required and it should be encouraged that relevant content be added to the site they coordinate if it is possible for them to do so. I am not saying that this should be mandatory, but it should be encouraged." === Question 4: Does your state currently have its own guidelines established? (please identify the state if the answer is yes). 12 respondents indicated that their states had guidelines in place. States indicated as having guidelines were: NC, GA, OH, MI, WI, NY, IN, MD, KY, NV and TX 5 respondents either didn't know or were not sure if their states had guidelines 3 respondents said their states did not have guidelines [one respondent indicated that some of her states had guidelines, one does not, and she appeared not to be sure about the other one] === Question 5: Should the USGenWeb retain the query page requirement? 6 respondents think the query requirement should be removed; 13 think it should be retained. Several respondents [both "yes" and "no" responders] think that a link to a query system such as GenForum or the Ancestry message boards should be required or encouraged. Selected comments: "I think the query thingy is almost out dated these days...though i update my queries immediately upon reciept. I think a county mailing list is just if not more important to a county website" "Yes. Since this can actually be a simple link to the rootsweb/ancestry boards at the most minimum level, it requires little management or work from the CC. This is (in my opinion) providing another resource." "Unless this project is prepared to work out some system for queries that will preserve them for the Project as part of its 'data store', the current system is SO bad that it really doesn't matter." "Yes. This is one of the few services some county pages offer." "Yes, I believe it is OK, although the wording here is a little strange...Each Page should have a query page...I read this to mean each County SITE should have some way to handle queries, which can be a link to Genconnect pages, an email and post arrangement, etc. The queries are the heart of the USGenWeb Project!" "Yes. I think that CCs should be required to at least link to the Rootsweb/Ancestry board even if they have thier own message board in place. The Rootsweb/Ancestry board has more exposure than just people visiting the state or county site." "YES BUT it should be allowed to link to ALL existing query pages, whether USGenWeb hosted, Ancestry, or any other location found by the state and local coordinators." "Yes, but there is no reason that the CC has to be responsible for the queries. Since the demise of GC, the basic system is still there and the CCs can point to it as well as GenForum and other query sites. When we started this there was nowhere for them to post except the county sites. That is no longer true." "No, but I believe that a link to an automatically generated query system should be required. Some websites are extremely active in their query process and I believe those CC's would be taxed in their efforts to keep up with the queries. The ability to have just automated boards would be very helpful." === Question 6: Should the proposed guidelines committee include the formation of guidelines for the Special Projects?" 6 respondents answered yes, 6 answered no, 4 either didn't state a preference or weren't sure, 2 said "maybe", and one didn't care. Selected comments: "If we maintain a KISS posture (Keep It Simple, Stupid), then GUIDELINES should be able to just cover the whole dern project. If you've gotta go making different guidelines for different aspects of the project, that's a pretty good indication that the "guidelines" have gotten way out of hand." "Every time we lump Special Projects in with the county pages, somebody throws a fit of one kind or another. Although it seems a waste of effort in some respects, I think a separate committee for SPs is the only way to avoid conflicts." "Special projects should be not belong to the whole Project. They are just affiliates with their own structure, staff, and rules. After we get the service mark issue resolved, they could be 'licensed' to use the logo, but not really part of the project at all. I also don't think members of the special projects should be entitled to vote in project elections or considered project members." "Not really informed on this, but it would seem to me that the guidelines for a Special Project would necessarily need to be developed in concert with the project objectives. To define a special project and who "owns" it would make sense." "No. Other than they must meet the requirements of the USGENWEB guidelines and, therefore, be related to genealogical research." "No... no committee... and no more damn guidelines/rules/regs. We have too much of that now. Let's quit all this bs and everyone get on with what we are all here for. Everyone joined USGW because they wanted to vol. to help others. All this political stuff is for the birds and will eventually ruin what we have all tried to build. Everyone quit interfering with our reasons for being here and get on with it." "Yes, if there's a guidelines committee, it should oversee the guidelines for all aspects that are part of the USGenWeb Project." "That depends, if a Special Project is sanctioned by USGenWeb Project, then USGenWeb project needs some control of content, format, and availability. With this in mind, "loose cannon" projects need to be controlled in a contractual agreement, and license of the USGenWeb Name, logo and other marks should be by specific written agreements, otherwise "outside" interests can take the identity of the project and use it to their own profit." === Question 7: In your opinion, does the Project need national level standardized guidelines for state, county and special projects pages? 6 respondents said "no"; 12 said "yes"; one response could not be classified as either yes or no. Selected comments: "If you're gonna have a national project, you probably need project-wide "guidelines." But "guidelines," by definition are simply that -"guidelines." Guidelines are not the same as some lengthy, detailed "handbook" or operations manual. You can scare off a lot of good volunteers by getting overly picky and detailed with "guidelines."" "Yes. We need to maintain some kind of quality control and unity of purpose at the national level. However, the "look" of state and county pages should not be regulated at the national level beyond the basic requirements of the project logo and links." "Yes. I think some standardization would help to "brand" the USGenWeb in the minds of users. The quality and organization of USGW sites are unpredictible, and often difficult to navigate. I think the WorldGenWeb is an excellent model to consider and has a good foundation for standardization." "Only such guidelines that uphold those now in the Bylaws and which ensure to the public that they will get a certain minimum of service from project pages. Any raising of the minimum standard needs to be done in the Bylaw, not with new guidelines." "Yes, for consistency. Most researchers are going to visit more than one state and the site will be more user friendly if the information housed on these pages are consistent." "Yes, I do believe they do. What you find on one site, you should also be able to expect on another within the project and I have definitely found this is not the case when using the system to do my own personal research." "Yes, but "guidelines" is the operative word here. The only national "requirements" that I see are (1) query page, (2) USGenWeb project logo, (3) pointer to State County Selection List, (4) subscription to state mail list. I may be overlooking some others, but I would be hesitant to suggest any additional requirements." "YES, it isn't a ORGANIZATION unless it has Organization, top to bottom." "Yes, especially for State and County Projects and those Special Projects that are used by all the State Projects. I think that every visitor to the state and county sites expects some kind of uniformity and expects the same basic type of content." === Question 8 (originally the second question numbered as "7"): What are your opinions on the establishment of an "oversight" committee to assist CCs and SCs in meeting these guidelines or any future guidelines that may be addressed? Because I asked for opinions and everyone has one , responses to this question turned out to be hard to classify as "yes" or "no" answers. Quite a few people think some oversight is needed, but many of those suggested the oversight should remain at the state level. Several were opposed to any oversight at all, and at least one supports an oversight function with the power to remove members who are not in compliance. Here is my summary of the votes, but keep in mind that several of the statements were qualified and hard to categorize: 10 respondents think a national level oversight committee is not necessary; three of those think oversight should be left to the states. 7 respondents think that national level oversight is useful; three of those also think that oversight should be done primarily by the states. Selected comments: "Given the history of this project, this sounds like a great excuse for a witch hunt. I think it's pretty absurd, not to mention unnecessary." "to assist CCs and SCs in meeting these guidelines or any future guidelines that may be addressed? Let the States controll the CC's and maybe someone to check on the State would be ok ...." "While I think there's a need for some oversight, I'm not sure that guidelines questions alone are sufficient justification for forming a committee. It might be a reasonable function to be assumed by a more general oversight committee that also handles grievances, dispute resolution, etc." "There are two ways of viewing this. One I would consider to be something on the line of "oversight" where pages are being viewed and assessed for compliance. The second is a means of forming working teams, whereby people who are novices at HTML, FTP, other required skills are mentored through the process. I feel this could certainly possibly help in the following ways: 1. Help establish and promote positive personal relationships within the project 2. Working on data transcriptions involving more than one person would ensure greater accuracy and might even be prohibitive of resources being removed 3. Permit positive feedback for the CC" "Page police? No. There should not be any national page police. Any policing should be from the state level and a state should be held responsible if any county pages fall below the national standard now set....Should there be rules/guidelines about enforcing and mediating the national standards now established in the bylaws? Yes. But that group enforcing standards already long-established should work as a passive (called upon) not an active (checking pages randomly) force... "It doesn't seem practical. This should be able to be handled at the State level. Perhaps each State needs a coordinator appointed by the State coordinator." "Not needed - the States should be able to handle their own. The National should be there to act as a grievance board." "I haven't seen anything productive emerge from central action within GenWeb, so I'd be opposed." "I think the State Coordinators should be the overseers of the county pages, but there needs to be someone who makes sure the State Coordinators are doing this. I think too many people are getting involved if there has to be a whole committee for this. One overseer and an assistant should be enough." "I think these are best handled at the state level. But consider establishing a roster of volunteers at the national level upon whom state may call for assistance. A state oversight person can have any number of personal emergencies to hamper the work of scheduling link checks for each county and checking proper placement of logos, etc." "I don't need a committee!" "I think that volunteers in the form of a "committee" or any other designation you might wish to give them, to help answer questions and guide CC's, SC's, etc. would be quite helpful." "Absolutely not... already too much interference/rules etc. Do away with the AB and the bylaws. We don't need them. The NC should only be there as the person that handles the USGW webpage and answer questions from public, SCs or CCs." "Not sure, but I think most of the implementation of national guidelines has to take place at the state (and special project) level. SCs should be providing this oversight to assist their CCs. If some SCs should need assistance, perhaps a committee of more experienced SCs could help them out." "This is why CCs have SCs and SCs have national people. Some states (Illinois, for one) also have regional people to help the overwhelmed SC. We don't need a police department, too." "not interested in oversight" "A "Quality Control" program should be instituted, not as "site police" but as a routine minimum requirements inspection, and the site manager needs to meet those standards or NOT be a USGW site. Defining those minimums should be done at the National level, supplimented by the State CC, and the county CC needs to meet those minimums." "I would assume that the upper level are keeping the SCs informed of new changes and that information would then be passed onto the CCs. If there are SCs and CCs that are having problems recieving information about the guidelines then a advisory board maybe needed." === Additional comments: Some respondents either did not respond to the questions specifically or added comments to the survey. These are presented below: "Guidelines will chase the good sites away. A bad thing. Good sites don't need them - our standards are already way ahead of anyone else's "guidelines." All the owners, not coordinators, of the best sites that I know will leave the project if this guideline nonsense gets out of hand. Don't risk chasing the best sites away. That would be a tragic mistake. Your most creative and innovative associates won't tolerate guidelines. We are a group of volunteers, not a staff of employees. I use that philosophy in dealing with my volunteers, and it is a critical one...If there is anything worse than guidelines for volunteer independent creators, it is standardization. That would just shut off creativity and innovation in a heart beat. Bad idea." "My main point is that when "doing genealogy on the internet", what you are looking for on the Internet is not data, but PEOPLE...real, living, breathing people who are able and willing to help! The USGenWeb query pages are the heart of this...one of the best examples of using the power of the Internet to bring together two people with a common interest...whether you find someone who has posted a query on your family, someone who responds to queries in the area where your family lived, etc. doesn't matter, what matters is that the basic concept of USGenWeb works! So, the best thing that leadership in USGenWeb (or the states) could do is to concentrate on educating current volunteers, finding new ones, and inspiring the ones we have to use whatever resources they have to aid others, and to help others find those who can help them!" "Concerns have been raised about sites which "disappear" -- when, for example, a County Coordinator takes all his/her county data and leaves the Project. Such action weakens what the Project has to offer visitors, and there is always the potential problem that persons who contributed data intended for it to remain with the Project. This is an issue that should probably also be addressed. Also, the question of coordinator non-responsiveness to visitors (i.e., not answering visitors' e-mails) is important, but probably this is best handled at the state level. The SC is in the best position to determine when a CC is no longer active (perhaps no longer even on-line)." "I think in general we have a very effiecent group of volunteers!" === -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, The USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net From: merope Date: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:20 pm Subject: Fwd: [ALL-L] Committees Hi all, Our fearless leader has taken matters into her own hands. If you are interested, reply directly to Holly at hollyft@bright.net She did not list a deadline for applying, so I would not delay if you are interested. -Teresa merope@radix.net >Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:51:10 -0700 >X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Feb 26 04:51:08 2002 >X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:52:06 -0500 >Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com, > USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com, > USGenWeb-NE-L@rootsweb.com, USGenWeb-NW-L@rootsweb.com, > USGenWeb-SW-L@rootsweb.com, USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com >From: Holly Timm >Subject: [ALL-L] Committees >To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/24115 >X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com > >To the Board and the USGenWeb Project: > >Whereas the presiding officer has the inherent power to appoint special or >standing committees, I request volunteers for the following three committees: > > Publicity/Promotion > Bylaws Revision > Guidelines Study Committee. > >Please respond with your choice of committee. If you are interested in >more than one, please list them in order of preference. > >Holly Timm >National Coordinator, The USGenWeb Project > >(please forward to all state lists and anywhere else appropriate) > > >==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== >The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. From: merope Date: Thu Feb 28, 2002 6:38 am Subject: Fwd: [ALL-L] Discussion on Proposed Bylaws changes- POSTED proposals FYI: -Teresa >To view the text of the proposed bylaws changes we have been discussing, they >may be viewed here: > >HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~nvchurch/proposedbylawschanges.htm">http://www.r\ ootsweb.com/~nvchurch/proposedbylawschanges.htm > >The formation of the Committee by the advisory Board, and NC should not stop >the process of trying to get changes made this year. ( This committee if >formed will NOT likely get anything done this year, and implementation would, >by the bylaws have to wait until June 2003 to "try". > >Please consider trying to get something done this year. > >None of these are "Chiseled in stone" so let's work out what we want to get >done? > >Input welcome. > >Jeff Scism > > > >==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== >The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. From: merope Date: Thu Feb 28, 2002 8:49 pm Subject: Daily Board Show, midweek edition, 2/28/2002 Folded, spindled, mutilated...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [I may or may not be around this weekend; on the off chance I'm not around, here's an early DBS. Enjoy, and don't feel bad if you need to take notes; it does get a little convulted. The motto for this week is "Be careful what you wish for..."] 24 February-28 February 2002: Motion 02-05 (Standing rule): Holly Timm calls the vote on the amendment to Motion 02-05 on February 24. The amendment is declared passed on Feb 26, with 11 yes votes and one no vote. On Feb 28, Jana Black calls the question on the amended motion. In order to prevent a second on the call to end debate, Holly calls a vote immediately, although there is an appeal pending which should take precedence [see below]. Teresa seconds the call of the question, and Jana withdraws her call, since the vote has already been called. At press time, three Board members voted yes. New Business: On Feb 25, Noting that she is "tired playing", Kathy Heidel moves that "the Bylaw Revision Committee, Guidelines Committee, and the Publicity/Promotion Committees be formed. And that no AB member be allowed to be on more than one Committee, other than the NC who would be the Ex-Officio Member." Phyllis Rippee seconds the motion. Jana asks if the proposed committees are meant to operate under committee guidelines as listed in Sturgis. Kathy says they are and Jana responds with a more specific list of suggested committee operating procedures. She notes "If this is what we are talking about in this motion, I think we are finally taking a step that will get this AB moving to make the changes we all know are needed in order for this Project to finally come into its own!" [Heh. Over on the -ALL list the rank and file are light years ahead of the Board on this. They are already proposing and discussing extensive amendments and have made it pretty clear they are not interested in waiting for the Board to form a committee or to work with one if it does. Which is what prompted this -very- poorly thought out motion of Kathy's. God forbid the Board lose control of this process.] This motion is superseded by subsequent actions by the NC [see below]. New Committees: On February 26, Holly sends out messages to Board-L, -ALL, STCoord-L, and the regional lists, with a request to forward it to state lists and other appropriate lists. Noting that it is her "inherent power to appoint special or standing committees", she requests volunteers for the Bylaws, Guidelines, and Publicity/Promotions committees. At the same time she disbands the "starter" committees by unsubbing all the participants. This sets off the usual hemorrhage of protest, mostly from Jana Black, Phyllis Rippee, and Kathy Heidel. Kathy and Phyllis have a motion pending to establish these very same committees and are upset that Holly apparently has "ignored" this motion. Phyllis raises a point of order, noting "Since there was a motion on the floor to appoint committees...and since the presiding officer had not shown any inclination to appoint such committees until AFTER the motion had been made and seconded, there should be no action taken toward forming these committees pending the outcome of AB action on the motion." Holly responds that there isn't any reason for her _not_ to form committees and notes "Members of this Board had over four months to do this themselves but could not manage sufficient agreement on details to do so." Jana takes great offense at this, noting "I think there was a bit more to it than that...Try considerable confusion initially among committee members regarding just what our charge was on at least two of the three committees, lack of response by the NC to questions posed by committee members regarding structure and procedure within the committees and thus a demonstration of questionable leadership skills by our NC. Add to this confusion regarding who was even on the committees, a lack of active participation by some and criticism w/o substituting constructive suggestions by others and I think you will present a truer picture to those who read this list. I am sorry, but I find it quite offensive that you would suggest that is was just about a lack of "sufficient agreement on details."" She notes however that she is pleased to see the committees formed after all and asks for response to a very specific list of questions on committees procedures. In other discussion, Jana forwards an opinion from a constituent, which she appears to endorse, that argues against the need for a bylaws committee. Kathy asks if perhaps Holly overlooked her motion and Holly indicates she did not. Kathy then asks if perhaps Holly is ignoring her motion and Holly notes that "It is simply moot as is Tina's motion regarding the Publicity/Promotions Committee." Jana tries again, quoting Sturgis, and asks whether Kathy's motion should take precedence over Holly's action, since it is a main motion. Kathy Heidel asks that Board members and volunteers from the membership be limited to service on one committee and notes "When a member is on the Guidelines and the Bylaws there is a definite conflict in my opinion. Also there are not than many Committees that would require a Board member to be on more than one. If we flood the Committees with AB members just how would the membership be represented? This would be unfair to all concerned." Teresa Lindquist disagrees and points out that "The two committees are not in "conflict" and I see no inherent conflict between these two committees and the publicity committee either." Teresa also notes that she is sure Holly will "will establish effective, functional committees along the guidelines outlined in Sturgis. I am equally sure she will ensure that the membership will be adequately represented and that Board members who wish to serve will be allowed to do so." Ron Eason suggests waiting to see what Holly does with the committees and notes "Since she has the option of forming the committees, she also has the right to instruct them as to their duties, similar to a judge giving instructions to the jury as to their duties." He agrees that volunteers should not spread themselves too thin, but also thinks "until there is a rule or guideline to such a thing we are hardly able to place such a restriction on anyone...If being stretched thin is to be a disqualifier, then it is likely to include quite a few people." Kathy also mentions that "The main problem with these Committees is the time left prior to Elections of the new NC and etc is limiting to some of these committees." Teresa is opposed to the idea of limiting membership to one committee and points out that there is no time constraint whatsoever on two of the committees and that "rushing through Bylaws revisions just to get them up for sponsorship in four months will probably be disastrous. They don't need to be tied to the election cycle either. There is a provision in the bylaws regarding emergency amendment, and of course, as has been pointed out repeatedly, if the bylaws are "revised" as opposed to "amended", we can ignore that section of the bylaws entirely." She also notes "six months into this Board session, we have no Bylaws committee, no Guidelines committee, and no Publicity/Promotions committee. The "starter" committees that produced reports were unable to convince the full Board to accept their recommendations. The committee that did not produce a report was not really able to get off the starting line. The committee that had its report sent back self-combusted shortly after discussion resumed. The membership got tired of waiting for us to do something, and began the process on their own. This is failure." Jana, Kathy and Phyllis proceed with appeals to Holly's call for volunteers for the three committees. Phyllis notes "in the real world a "thought" does not take precedence over documented proof." Kathy notes "our NC was out of order to ignore my motion, to not notify the AB members that she was shutting off voting on the P/P Report which is on the floor at this time and has not been acted upon...I feel as though Holly's call for Committee's is unfair, considering a Motion addressing this same function was placed before this assembly prior to her call." Jana supports the appeal and point of order, and says "The NC's apparent choice to "rule" by ignoring serious questions from her board members is very ill-advised and certainly not good for the Project...all members need to offer their agreement or disagreement along the way in order for this AB to be effective in its virtual environment." [Of course, this would not be USGenWeb without a little conspiracy theory to liven up our days. Jana also asks "as some have suggested, is there a hidden agenda know to only a few to keep any changes form occurring????" extraneous punctuation in the original.] Phyllis piles on with this: "Holly has impugned the character of all of the AB members who chose to follow her lead on what she chose to call "formation committees." How? By stating that it is our fault that the "real" committees have not already been formed when she prohibited our making any motions until scope and purpose had been determined by those committees." Phyllis also points out that "Sturgis also states that any committee is responsible ONLY to the authority that authorizes it. So, if Holly is allowed to form the committees, not only will she have the say as to who serves on what, but they will be accountable ONLY to Holly." [This is probably the gist of Phyllis' objection.] Jana feels the failure of the original committees rests with the NC, noting "the idea for the formation committees came form the NC. If there is any "failure" at hand perhaps it comes from the NC having a bad idea in the first place...maybe, the NC does not want us to accomplish anything - hmmmmm. [there's the conspiracy again. Oh well, its a bit better than the sore losership being expressed elsewhere in Board business.] Richard Harrison also goes on record as opposed to Holly's actions and notes "The NC should be a leader, not a usurper." Apparently deciding to pester Holly until she gets an answer, Jana again posts her point of order on 27 February and asks Holly to inform the Board of her decision. Holly tells her that she didn't make a motion, she took action. Holly notes also that she did not intend to put Board members "on busy work" [as the 'starter' committees have been characterized], but that "it was hoped and intended that the request on October 5th to come up with proposals for the three committees could be achieved within a few weeks." Holly responds to Phyllis' appeal by noting that her opinion is unchanged, the motion is now moot, and the committee formation is in progress. She also notes "The work of those on the pre-formation groups is not being ignored. First, I am taking much that was said into consideration. Second, some who were present for those discussions will probably be on the committees when formed. The reports that were prepared will be posted to each committee as a starting point." Holly later explains her actions: "As has been pointed out by others the track record here has been to pull these motions apart and dissect them, dragging them out considerably. I saw no need to wait any longer and followed the suggestion a ways back from Ms Black for the chair to simply appoint committees...I am well aware that I am far from perfect as a leader. I had hoped and expected to quietly facilitate things and allow this board to lead the project. That has not materialized and thus a change in leadership style is required." Teresa, Tina, Kathy, Jana and Phyllis debate for a time the propriety of Holly's action and her leadership abilities and Jana [who is rapidly becoming the Project's unofficial harridan] treats us all to another detailed explanation of Holly's failures as a leader. Kathy, Jana, Phyllis all stress the "disrespect" theme [although Holly has just handed them exactly what they want, apparently Kathy needs to get the credit for it or justice is not served]; Tina and Teresa point out the more positive aspects of her action. Holly's call for the vote on Motion 02-05 starts a mini-firestorm of protest. Kathy quotes Sturgis and notes that an appeal needs to be voted on by the assembly. Phyllis notes "The presiding officer CANNOT ignore an appeal, but must put it to a vote of the assembly." Tim Stowell notes "You have a challenge to your ruling regarding committees and a Point of Order to contend with first [prior to the vote]. These both take precedence." Despite all the brouhaha, the following Board members have expressed interest in the following committee assignments: Bylaws: Phyllis Rippee Guidelines: Jana Black (1st), Teresa Lindquist, Tina Vickery Publicity/Promotion: Kathy Heidel, Jana Black (2nd), Tina Vickery --- In Executive Session: Feb 24: messages from Holly Timm, Phyllis Rippee, Tim Stowell, Jana Black, Tina Vickery, Richard Harrison, Ron Eason, Pam Reid, Mary Ann Hetrick, Kathy Heidel Feb 25: messages from Kathy Heidel, Vicki Shaffer, Phyllis Rippee, Robert Bremer, Jana Black, Tim Stowell, Richard Harrison, Diane Parsons, Betsy Mills, Ron Eason, Mary Ann Hetrick Feb 26: messages from Holly Timm, Jana Black, Kathy Heidel, Ron Eason, Tim Stowell, Jana Black Feb 27: messages from Phyllis Rippee, Ron Eason, Holly Timm, Pam Reid, Jana Black, Betsy Mills, Kathy Heidel, Richard Harrison Feb 28: messages from Diane Parsons, Phyllis Rippee, Jana Black, Holly Timm, Ron Eason [on Feb 27, the Board began a new topic on the secret list; messages for Feb 27 and 28 are thus a mix of both topics] Bylaws "starter" committee: --The committee is disbanded on Feb 26 by Holly Timm Guidelines "starter" committee: --Survey results are posted by Teresa Lindquist; the committee is disbanded on Feb 26 by Holly Timm === Taking the Bull By the Horns Corner: Seizing the initiative the Board failed to show, Jeff Schism has started an extensive discussion on the -ALL list regarding proposed changes to the bylaws. Jeff is new to USGenWeb but he's probably familiar to many of us with black sheep in our families. The current suggested changes are posted here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nvchurch/proposedbylawschanges.htm Jeff has indicated that anyone is free to participate in the discussion and it may be forwarded anywhere. He is also glad to accept your comments; his email address is available at the URL above. Discussion is ongoing on the -ALL list as well. The Times They are a'Changin' Corner: Root$web has finally come down off its high horse and decided to host state domains for USGenWeb. Decent of them, if a little behind the curve; other servers figured out how to do this years ago. For details you can contact our Ancestry "liaison", Betsy Mills, at betsym@1starnet.com === "Whenever you have a bunch of clowns, you're going to have a circus." ---Unattributed This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.