Sunday, February 27, 2005
Staring At The Sun
Better than sliced bread...its Your Daily Board Show!

INCHING ALONG: Apparently in an itchy mood and noting that discussion on the proposed
Grievance Committee has again ground to a halt, NC Shari Handley asked whether a motion
would be presented; if not, she'd "like to move on to another item." Shortly thereafter, Angie
Rayfield moved:

"...that the volunteers to the Grievance Committee meet on a separate list in order to develop and
present a new set of procedures and policies for the handling of grievances within the USGenWeb
Project. This list will be open to subscription by any project members on a read-only basis in order
to solicit participation by all members of the USGenWeb Project, and an announcement/invitation
will be announced on all relevant project lists. The procedures and policies for the handling of
grievances will include the handling of requests for mediation within the USGenWeb Project.
Upon completion of a draft of the procedures and policies, the committee will present their
recommendation to the full Advisory Board for a vote on their acceptance. The volunteers are as
follows: Betsy Mills Angie Rayfield Jan Cortez Denise Woodside Don Kelly Bettie Wood."

Larry Flesher seconded the motion but as of this writing it has not been numbered or opened for
discussion.

WEAPONS OF MASS CONFUSION: We are STILL not sure what "committee" Angie
references in this motion. We have no "Grievance Committee" per se, and her motion does not
establish or ask the NC to establish one. She has merely taken the list of those who volunteered to
serve on a GC and tasked them with the different duty of coming up with "policy and procedures"
for grievances [something which is very sorely needed; see below]. I cannot find any message
where Shari formally appointed a "Grievance Committee," although she did appoint Betsy Mills
Grievance Coordinator [or Mediation Coordinator as she is referred to in some messages]. As
part of a failed motion, Shari did propose that Betsy chair a Grievance Commmittee and that the
members listed above compose the body of the committee. But the motion failed and we don't
have a GC or any "Grievance Committee volunteers." Also, IIRC, Bettie Wood requested that her
name be removed from the list of volunteers a week or so ago.

SO YOU WANT TO FILE A GRIEVANCE?: Since our post a couple of days ago a handful of
USGenWeb members claiming to have gone through the mediation/grievance process since the
mediation procedures were instituted last year have contacted us. They tell some interesting tales.
In the interest of not getting anyone into trouble, we will not regale you with the excrutiating
details [they aren't all that important], but suffice to say that if the Board is going to continue to
handle grievances it definitely needs to get its stuff together. While we suppose one could
technically claim they have a "grievance process" that is really a very generous description for
what appears to go on.

When one files a grievance, the process as described on the national page is fairly simple. One is
assigned a mediator and the mediator subscribes all parties and their advisors to some sort of
private communication system. The mediator then listens to each party's position and assists them
in "reaching [a] fair and amicable settlement of issues on which disagreement exists." The entirety
of participation of the full Board in this process is described in the last line: "In the event that a
resolution has not been reached, the Advisory Board will then review the issue with the Mediator,
call on the parties involved to submit further statements only if deemed necessary, and issue a
ruling."

But is this how it goes? Sort of yes, and sort of no. First off, EVERYONE who wrote cited poor
communication from the Board as a problem. Apparently a grievance filed is commonly a
grievance ignored, until someone makes a second request or some other kind of stink. As we have
seen, follow-up messages are occasionally responded to inappropriately by Board members. What
is important though is what happens when oen files a grievance is very arbitrary. In general, it
appears that members who file grievances are generally not given any sort of feedback as to what
will happen next. They aren't promptly informed where they are in the queue, who will be their
mediator, when the mediation might begin, how the process will work, etc. Sometimes they don't
even receive notice that their grievance was received by the Board. Sometimes members received
very prompt receipt notices from the Board and then never heard another word about it. Even if
the Board eventually gets around to these issues, they are now months old and probably no longer
resolvable or even relevant. Presumably our new Grievance/Mediation Coordinator will correct
these oversights. No one should lose the opportunity for timely and effective mediation because
there is no oversight of the system or because no one is sure who is supposed to be
communicating with them.

Once the communication hurdle is overcome and the mediation gets on track, other issues surface.
From what we can tell the process is idiosyncratic and depends very heavily on who is doing the
mediating. Mediators seem to have little understanding of what mediation is, but rather act as if
their job is to listen to both sides, determine who is "right," and make some statement of
resolution. Under this approach, there is no compromise or mutually acceptably outcome and
someone always loses. Not surprisingly, every person that wrote to me about their mediation said
their mediation had failed. The mediation process itself seems to take different forms. In some
cases only the mediators and the parties seem to have been involved, but in others participation in
the mediation itself appears to have involved one or more other Board members. In some cases
the presence of Board members on the mediation list was not announced in advance to the parties.
We can't really tell from the complaints or the identity of the complainants why part of the Board
or the full Board would concern itself with one grievance and not another, so must assume this is
idiosyncratic as well. It may relate to a difficulty with letting go of issues that have always been
firmly in their purview or just to a personal or organizational interest in the individual matters at
hand. There is also no apparent consensus on when or how a mediation is to be declared "failed."
Suffice to say, the reasons are quite varied, ranging from an actual failure to reach a mutually
agreeable resolution, to personality conflicts, to what can only be described as technical
difficulties.

Once a mediation has failed, it seems that usual practice is to refer it to the Board. At that point,
grievances tend to disappear but it seems that the general idea is that Board in its wisdom will
consider the particulars of the case and issue some kind of final and binding ruling. This doesn't
appear to have actually happened yet in recent times [olden days are another matter; back then the
Board could move very swiftly to resolution if it was a matter in which they were interested], but
we have noticed a distinct tendency since Shari took the reins for words like "final," "binding,"
and "unappealable" to creep into the Board's missives. We guess they think it makes them appear
business-like and in charge, rather than pompous and windy. It is not at all clear what sort of
enforcement mechanism they propose to use to ensure that the parties follow their rulings. It does
seem that some kind of backlog of failed mediations has at least in part prompted the current push
for a more formal approach to the matter and thus the proposed Grievance Committee.

At some point in the undefined future, we may have some kind of formal process in place and they
may even decide to post it somewhere the average project member can easily find it. It remains to
be seen whether the Board can bring itself to relinquish final control of the process to non-Board
volunteers.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Blinded by the light since 1998

posted by merope at 9:35 AM 2 comments   
Friday, February 25, 2005
There's No There There
For the finest in yellow journalism...its Your Daily Board Show!

SAY WHAT?: The Advisory Board currently has two issues before it, the sporadic discussion of
a Grievance Committee and the intermittent discussion of the gag rule Shari would like the EC to
help out with. Yesterday's discussion on the Board's public list touched on both of these. Betsy
Mills started the duel off with this:

"Since discussion seems to have stopped on [the discussion of the grievance
committee]...and...project members have had time to give input to their reps, I would like to try a
new motion this evening. We do have a grievance that has been through all the other steps and
this committee is needed for a final resolution."

Angie Rayfield replied: "...if there's something that needs to be handled immediately, then it needs
to be handled with what we've got. It's not fair to anyone to slap together something just to say
we have a new grievance process...I think it's more likely that discussion stopped on this because
someone introduced a new topic into the meeting in the middle of the grievance committee
discussion. But if everyone's just dying to have a motion, I'd be glad to introduce one for you."

Angie next rehashed her original idea of having "the AB members appointed to the grievance
committee" [no idea who she is talking about here] meet on a separate list to hash out details and
report back their recommendations back to the Board. She also wants project members to be able
to subscribe to this list so that they can follow discussion and provide commentary to their
representatives. She noted " The more involvement from the members, the more likely we are to
come up with a fair and workable solution." She also noted "...it's not as though there isn't a
grievance procedure already in existence...it's not perfect, but it *is* workable, and it *is*
there...it's ridiculous to suggest that we need a new procedure RIGHT NOW because we have a
grievance that's "been through all the other steps and needs a final resolution." Would this
grievance just be left in limbo indefinitely if someone hadn't suggested that we could use a new
procedure?"

[We are at a loss. The Board already has a grievance procedure? What procedure would that be? I
mean, other than the one that involves ignoring someone for months and then calling them a jerk?]

Shortly after posting the above, Angie moved that "that the current appointees to the Grievance
Committee meet on a separate list in order to develop and present a new set of procedures and
policies for the handling of grievances within the USGenWeb Project. This list will be open to
subscription by any project members on a read-only basis in order to solicit participation by all
members of the USGenWeb Project, and an announcement/invitation will be announced on all
relevant project lists. The procedures and policies for the handling of grievances will include the
handling of requests for mediation within the USGenWeb Project. Upon completion of a draft of
the procedures and policies, the committee will present their recommendation to the full Advisory
Board for a vote on their acceptance." [Again, we are at a loss. What "current appointees" to
what "Grievance Committee"?]

Jan Cortez reminded Angie that the recent motion to establish a GC failed to pass, but David
Morgan noted that he thought Shari had appointed Betsy as Chair, along with two members and
two alternates. Angie was also under the impression that Shari had appointed the committee
members and said she'd resubmit the motion [as of this writing, that has not happened]. And at
this point, David wondered aloud "so how many grievance committees are we going to end up
with?"

So let's see. Apparently we already have some sort of grievance procedure in place that goes
beyond the information provided to members on the national website. That site only includes
information on the mediation process, which is apparently woefully inadequate. What happens
beyond that is a currently a mystery [which is convenient, because the Board can change the
procedure at will]. However, this secret grievance procedure apparently is also inadequate, so
much so that some Board members [or maybe just the one] want to rush through yet another
procedure, so that a grievance currently in the pipeline can be addressed in a more or less timely
fashion. Huh. Who knew the Board had a "grievance procedure"? Most people I talk to that
submit grievances don't hear from the Board in anything remotely like a timely fashion. When they
do finally manage to get someone from the Board to address them they may be told anything from
"I don't represent you", to "you're a jerk," to "we have a very long line of grievances ahead of
you." They may go to mediation, but they aren't told of what happens after that. Apparently failed
mediations go to the Board, which has some "steps" to handle them, but what are the steps? And
how is the current process different from the one that Shari proposed and why is it so inadequate?
Who knows? Apparently its another deep dark secret.

On the other topic that currently engages the Sages o' Secrecy, Angie suggested that "...rather
than a EC procedure change, we should be discussing an AB procedure change. A discussion that
could be handled *after* the already started discussion on the grievance committee/procedure."
To which Don Kelly replied, "I seariously doubt a constituantcy would knowingly elect a rep who
could not or would not represent them." [This might be true, but it begs the question of whether
secrecy is required in order to adequately represent the Project.]

RELEASE THE POODLES: The discussion of Shari's proposed gag rule is starting to peter out
over on the DISCUSS list. Now that most of the intelligent discussion is over and the talk has
turned to rehashing the many excellent points made in the debate, someone apparently felt it was
necessary to let the Board's attack poodle out to fiercely shred the ankles of the enemy.
*You*know*who*I*mean* Its always a hoot when she comes out to play, and never more so
when one can watch her snark at two of her fellow Board members who don't quite remember the
Board as being the competent, selfless, agenda-free, "cream of the crop" that she does. [You
know what they say...cream may always rise to the top, but so does pond scum.]

There was one interesting statement on DISCUSS, from David Morgan, which sheds some light
on the development of the proposed gag rule. He says that "This issue was brought up by an AB
member, on a private list, back in November. The NC has decided to make it public now. It is the
wish of some AB members to have this rule." Let's see, what was happening back in November.
Oh, that's right...we were publishing the transcripts of Tim's trial. Yes, we can certainly
understand why having that embarrassing fiasco brought so vividly to light might encourage them
to think of ways to prevent people of conscience from even considering running for office.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
On the A list since 1998

posted by merope at 1:35 PM 0 comments   
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Rise And Shine
Pulling no punches...its Your Daily Board Show!

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT: In the last couple of days there has been only sporadic comment
on the proposed new EC procedure to obtain consent to a gag rule prior to allowing a Project
member to run for national office. Here are some highlights:

"...the "declaration" of confidentiality is best made at the time new members are subscribed to the
confidential lists. If someone does not agree, a statement is then
made...that xyz, xx rep for xxxx region has chosen not to be subbed to the discussion list...I
would hope that the constituency would be digruntled enough to let their representative know...it
would be nice to filter out these people prior to election,
but I don't know that it is appropriate for the EC to try to do that." --Denise Woodside

"...I would not like to see the EC involved in asking for agreements. I don't believe this to be legal
per the current bylaws...I would like to see..the Advisory Board members, upon election, required
to take an oath of office...to uphold the bylaws, work in the best interest of the project, and to
uphold confidentiality in dealing with personnel matters such as grievances..." --Jan Cortez

"I like that idea...what would happen if an AB member-elect refused to take the "oath of office"?"
--Shari Handley

"...one does not take their seat until they have taken the oath of office." --Jan Cortez

[Hmmm..interesting twist. Rather than having the EC decide who may run, the Board can decide
who is fit to serve with them. See below for another take on this idea.]

Tangential to the gag rule discussion, Jan also started a discussion of the proper use of
BOARD-EXEC, the Board's primary Sekrit Sandbox:

"When a Board goes into an executive session, it is my understanding that a motion is made to
take the matter to executive session, discussion ensues, then the matter is brought back to the
board table for resolution and motions, in a public forum...if we followed this policy, it would help
a great deal...xxx person makes a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of
discussing a grievance, legal matter, disciplinary action, etc."

Denise supported Jan's idea, and noted "I like this idea very much. I never had that
understanding...but I would greatly appreciate handling the executive sessions in this
manner...Even in the cases where we are discussing a grievance where the details are private,
something should be said mentioned on board that the executive session is taking place. I'm not
sure a motion is necessary, just a statement."

Jan's proposal is certainly nothing new, its been discussed several times before, and always
abandoned in favor of expediency and secrecy. The Board likes very much to claim that it never
or rarely uses the secret list, or that they use it strictly for matters requiring discretion. In my
experience, though, the list is used more commonly than the public one. Aside from the
grievances and trials and whatnot they discuss in the Sekrit Sandbox, many topics are floated on
the secret list before they ever make it to the public side, and having to make a motion every time
someone wants to bang around a possibly incendiary idea would be tedious. If they were
constantly making motions to go in and out of "executive session", that would be all they ever
did. At various times in the Board's history NCs have claimed with an apparently straight face that
1) Board-Exec is just a social area where members can let down their hair among like-minded
individuals and no one is to assume that any official business takes place there; and 2) Board-Exec
is the Board's official executive session list and only business that requires confidentiality under
the bylaws and Sturgis is ever discussed there. They defend its secrecy most vociferously; merely
publishing a roster of who makes posts to the list every day is forbidden. Its the only way to keep
the members from knowing what their elected representatives are really up to, and it allows them
to claim whatever is expedient about the nature of the secret list. I doubt there will be much more
than lukewarm support for Jan's idea this time around. After all, it would really tie up business and
perhaps more importantly, it would force certain Board members who prefer to work in the dark
out into open discussion. Can anyone recall the last time Linda Blum-Barton made a public post?
She's a regular chatterbox in secret, don't you know.

PEANUT GALLERY: Over on the DISCUSS list, Board parliamentarian Roger Swafford has
finally provided his opinion on the appropriateness of Shari's proposed gag rule:

"It is common knowledge that the board sometimes uses executive session for
particularly volatile or personal issues. Members who run for office are aware of that fact when
nominations are accepted. Those elected are considered to have accepted an obligation to
participate in such proceedings as a duty of office...The secrecy requirement of such proceedings
are for the protection of all involved and violation of those requirements subjects the offender to
disciplinary action...EC procedure change is not necessary. All that is necessary is for the AB to
hold accountable those who violate the secrecy requirements."

And last but not least, former NC Dick Harrison and former EC Chair Ellen Pack avowed their
wholehearted support for the gag rule [told ya so], while Linda Haas Davenport, another former
EC Chair, has spoken against it. Linda added an interesting twist when she suggested that "the
AB should contact the candidate for such agreement. If the AB then determines that the candidate
will not agree to abide by whatever rule the AB requires, it can then...instruct the EC that the
candidate is not eligible and let the AB fight the resulting battle." [Yes, I can see that going over
well. The Board starts deciding who can run for office. Why don't they just save some time and
declare everyone they don't like MNIGS?]

REFLEX ACTION: Well, it appears that story time last night hit a raw nerve. As they say in the
big time, only the names were changed to protect the innocent. Any one who claims otherwise is
invited to prove it. My inbox is open.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Large and in charge since 1998

posted by merope at 6:07 AM 5 comments   
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Story Hour
Once upon a time...its Your Daily Board Show!

FAIRY TALE: We promised you something of an explanation as to why the Board is suddenly so
fired up about a Grievance Committee and why they are suddenly so willing to consider having
non-Board members sit on it. Turns out there is a many-faceted situation brewing that no one
member of the Board or the "Board" itself wants to get anywhere near, having as it does serious
political and possible even legal implications. So, we begin...Once upon a time, there was a CC in
one of the oldest states in the USGenWeb Project. We'll call him Jason. Jason was a highly placed
member of his county's local genealogical/historical society and through him that society had
allowed over a thousand pages of materials from its archives to be displayed on the county page.
However, Jason committed an apparently venal sin by displaying within his pages a link to
information on for-pay services offered by the society. For some reason we cannot be entirely sure
of but which seemed to rest entirely on the fact of his association with the G/H society, the SC of
this state fired Jason and replaced him with a new CC. We'll call her Debbie. Jason's removal was
accompanied by a smear campaign conducted against him by members of the county mailing list,
apparently instigated by the SC [who we'll call Hilda]. Jason agreed to allow Debbie to continue
to display the society's materials and also, since she was new to HTML, to help her with page
design. When Hilda found out about this she was livid with rage and threatened Debbie with
dismissal if certain very strange conditions were not met. One of these requirements was that she
had to remove every notice on every page that contained Jason's name, and there were
considerably more than 1,500 pages she needed to edit. Debbie was forbidden to accept Jason's
help with the site, was ordered to post new materials from people other than him, and was
directed to remove any mention of the G/H society's commercial activities from the pages. She
was given two weeks to accomplish these and some other conditions. Unfortunately, when she
had to remove the copyright notice from the G/H society materials, Jason requested that his
materials be removed entirely, and Debbie complied with this request. A few days later, her
assistant CC resigned in a huff and sent an email full of vicious allegations about Debbie and Jason
to Hilda when she did so. Debbie was fired from her county one day before the end of the
deadline for removing the society's materials from her pages, for continuing to collaborate with
Jason, and for having bad links on her county site.

The plot thickens, however, as plots are wont to do. The two CCs that replaced Debbie, one of
whom was her former ACC, commenced almost immediately to reposting all of Jason's
information with someone else's name on it. They apparently were not clever enough to use a
different page style or format, so their violation of copyright is fairly apparent. Jason, on behalf of
the G/H society, wrote letters both to Hilda and to our dear friend Betsy Mills demanding that the
society's copyrighted materials be removed immediately, and that links to the society's researchers
be removed as well. Hilda's response is not known to us, but Betsy told him not to contact her
further about the matter. Within the state, Debbie's abrupt firing led to calls for an impartial
"administrative review" of the SC's actions. Hilda not only denied this request in the most extreme
language, she threatened anyone who challenged her further, publicly or privately, on her actions
as SC with moderation and/or removal. After that outburst other members of the state filed
grievances against her with the Board. Finally, and perhaps fittingly, although Hilda had made a
loud and long stink about commercial activity on Jason and Debbie's pages, the very first link on
the new county site is labeled "For Sale", and goes directly to a page of genealogical materials for
sale. And as a last bit of icing on the cake, Hilda is busy soliciting input on Root$web mailing lists
from anyone who ever had any trouble of any kind with either Debbie or Jason. Apparently, she's
gathering her evidence for the hearings.

Here's how the Board apparently sees this situation. Debbie has filed a grievance against her SC.
Other CCs in the state have also filed grievances about this same matter against the SC. Jason and
the county G/H society have made noises about extensive ongoing copyright violations and the
possibility of further action. The SC has demonstrated some low-key Derick Hartshorn-ish
tendencies [or perhaps Tim Stowell-ish tendencies?] and coming so soon on the heels of the Late
Unpleasantness in GAGenWeb, they have a bit of a quandary. They've dealt with this SC before,
she was neither pleasant nor cooperative in the mediation environment, and they only managed to
eke out an arrangement with her the last time a grievance was filed against her because the new
CC she had given someone's page to was willing to give it back. They do not relish a new fight
with her, especially since this time no agreement will likely be possible and both the CCs and the
G/H society have very good cases. They can't remove her, they can't force her to do anything, and
its not a very good time politically to come out in favor of an abusive SC or even to ignore one.
On top of everything, this has been bandied about publicly enough that people are going to know
about it no matter how hard they try to keep it under wraps.

So, what to do? I know, let's have the CCs do it! What an excellent solution! Not only can the
Board look inclusive, they can use the membership as a shield. No matter the outcome, the Board
can say, hey, it was your fellow members that found against you/in your favor [whichever the case
may be], not us. Its a brilliant solution, and once established can be used to deflect all sorts of
responsibility. Throw a few CCs on a few committees and presto! the fat is out of the fire!

Lest any of you wee ones think my cynicism has gotten out of hand, let me note that I really do
think this is an excellent solution. CCs should be involved in this process. This particular set of
circumstances is a sticky mess [and the Board may want to consider handling the copyright facet
of it on is own, since it could have repercussions], but the Board has backed itself into a severely
limited corner in terms of what it is willing to do to an SC who decides to be ugly. Other project
members won't have that problem, unless the Board puts a priori limits on what they can
recommend. And it really might make a difference to people that their peers made the
recommendations and not secretive, inaccessible, and often dismissive members of the elected
elite. So we still recommend without reserve opening the Grievance Committe to non-Board
members. Its just that its sort of an odd coincidence that this very ugly mess has surfaced right
around the time a few very isolationist Board members have suddenly decided that including CCs
in secret committees would be just dandy. It really explains why we need this committee "NOW."

So, children, that is the end of story hour this fine evening. Later we'll get back to the "if it bleeds,
it leads" portion of our news show. But for now, rest easy. The Board is watching over you.

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

posted by merope at 6:35 PM 4 comments   
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
First Thing We Do, Lets Kill All the Lawyers
Working for the clampdown...its Your Daily Board Show!

ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN: In a new low even for the Advisory Board,
National Coordinator Shari Handley has proposed that the Election Committee start screening
candidates for national office based on whether they will agree a priori to keep the Sekrit Sandbox
secret. From one end of the horse or the other:

"...in the beginning of this term, we experienced some unfortunate breakdowns in the
confidentiality of the board's private lists. At that time, I believe we were pretty much in
agreement that, if something could be done to increase the likelihood that future AB members
would honor the confidentiality of these lists, it would be a good thing...Upon consultation with
the Elections Committee, the following change to the EC procedures was suggested....We already
know that this would be "doable" for the EC, and we can talk about if it is "doable" for
us...PROPOSED: 1. When nominations are made, the EC shall be responsible for obtaining
verification that the nominees are eligible to run for and hold the office for which they are
nominated, and for obtaining verification that the nominees understand and intend to abide by the
confidentiality aspect of lists which may be used by the Advisory Board...Verificaiton of eligibility
will be made by contacting the appropriate project leadership, and based solely on the criteria in
Article VI, Section 9 of the Bylaws. No determination of eligibility shall be made by the EC,
including that of good standing. Nominees shall be assumed to be in good standing unless
determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators or Special Projects
leadership...Verification of understanding of and intent to abide by the confidentiality aspect of
Advisory Board lists will be made by asking the nominee to read and agree to the following: "As a
nominee for a position on the USGenWeb Advisory Board, if elected I agree to refrain from
divulging information from any confidential Advisory Board list, without prior permission from
the Advisory Board and/or the National Coordinator."...Nominees who do not meet eligibility
requirements, or who fail to agree to the terms of a confidential Advisory Board list will not be
accepted as nominees."

[We were actually having a hard time believing that Tina Vickery would agree to something like
this, but then we recalled that 1) Ellen Pack was EC Chair up until the end of December, and this
is right up her alley; and 2) hey, who are we kidding? Tina would bend over backward to ensure
the safety of the Board's secrets. Heh, she HAS bent over backwards. Selling out the EC's good
name is but a small price to pay for her weekly ration of snausages and tummy rubs.]

Anyways, there hasn't been a lot of public comment by the Board. David Morgan thinks Shari's
brilliant idea is nothing but an attempt to politicize the EC; he noted "The EC has no business
determining whether or not somebody can run for office." He also stated, "The EC has a great
and well-deserved reputation of being fair and impartial. Let's don't soil that reputation by getting
the EC involved in politics...Let's keep the EC out of politics altogether." Angie Rayfield posted a
rather long message that basically boiled down to "I like the idea but not the approach." She said:

"The by-laws do not specifically give responsibility for determining eligibility to the EC...The
practice has always been...that it is not a proper function for the EC to determine eligiblity...But if
the EC is given a mandate to ask questions specifically of the candidates, questions that are not
required under the by-laws and relate to qualifications not listed in the by-laws, and has the
option/mandate to deny a place on the ballot based on those questions, are they not then
determining the eligibility of the candidate?...I don't have a problem with the EC formally
notifying candidates for any position of the requirements of the position, including the necessity of
maintaining confidentiality. I don't have a problem with the EC formally notifying candidates that
some of the e-mail lists that are used for project business are confidential, and that information
received on those lists must be kept private. I don't have a problem with the EC formally notifying
candidates that there can be adverse consequences for violating that confidentiality, or notifying
candidates that refusal to maintain confidentiality could result in their not being subscribed to
some business lists...I don't mind the EC asking candidates if they understand these
requirements...I don't mind the EC asking candidates if they will abide by those restrictions. I
don't even mind if the EC publishes the response to the question...But I have a problem with
saying that the EC should be able to refuse a nomination based on the potential candidate's answer
to the question. I tend to think that it's putting a responsibility on the EC that was never
envisioned."

I'll say. The Board has had a burr under its saddle for years about the sanctity of its sekrit lists.
Closing them, or using them only sparingly, or having some set rules for using them are not an
option. They insist that they MUST use them whenever and however they please and even the
blandest pleasantries exchanged in secret must not be revealed to the sweaty masses. Even telling
your constituents that the members are discussing "things" on the sekrit lists is a no-no. Now our
NC is proposing that in order to even run for office, a member will have to sign a confidentiality
agreement, and she's willing to sacrifice the good name of the EC and violate the bylaws [again]
for little or no return. Historically, when some brave or pissed off soul has violated this sacred
trust, the response has been to just kick them off the list. Sometimes they kicked off the list before
they've actually violated confidentiality, but whatever. Signing a confidentiality agreement is not
going to prevent the next brave or pissed off soul from sending me whatever it is they think the
Project needs to know. That's what whistleblowers do. The real problem the Board has with this
is that whenever their secrets get leaked, they end up looking like idiots. If they would conduct
themselves professionally on the secret list, that wouldn't be such a problem, but the simple fact is
that they cannot help themselves from talking nasty about other Project members when they think
the doors are closed. Its like they never learned the first simple rule of politics: "The mike is
always on." Now the Board wants to write itself a blanket permission to hide anything and
everything from the membership, bylaws be damned.

If they are so concerned about secrecy, then they can just ask the new Board members at the start
of the session if they agree to abide by the gag rules. If they don't, then don't let them play in the
Sekrit Sandboxes and kick out anyone who later goes back on their word. This system has
worked fabulously for years. It does no damage to the EC or the bylaws, and appears to have had
no ill-effects on either David Morgan or Richard Howland [our two current refuseniks]. It hasn't
exactly stopped the flow of leaks, but then neither will a meaningless unenforceable agreement to
which someone acquiesces so they can be allowed to run for office.

Are we going to be whipping out a Bible, signing in blood, and executing some convoluted secret
handshake just for the privilege of hearing the secret ramblings of a small group of dangerously
over-inflated gasbags who pretend to run a small online volunteer genealogical society? What's
next, a Loyalty Oath?

BORING DETAIL: Apparently the EC got its stuff together, and passwords are going out for the
logo poll. Funny thing, I haven't got mine yet.

HAVE YOUR LAWYER CALL MY LAWYER: Turns out Shari Handly wasn't bluffing when
she told Richard's lawyer she had a pet lawyer of her own. Yesterday a Ms. Marcia Smith,
Attorney at Law, of Corbin, KY faxed a little mash note over to Richard's lawyer. It contained the
usual lawyerly blather along the lines of "your client doesn't have a case" and the usual collegial "if
you mess with us, we'll take your ass for all its worth." Ms. Smith's argument boils down to a
claim that she's seen the Sekrit Sandbox mailings [Wow! Project members can't even see those!]
and the USGenWeb bylaws, and in her opinion "any action by the Advisory Board suspending Mr.
Pettys from membership would be sustainable in a court of law." She also notes that it is her
learned opinion that Richard could not possibly have sustained any damages due his abrupt
removal from GAGenWeb, apart from "emotional distress." She admits to an unfamiliarity with
GA law, but notes that in KY "no lawsuit will lie for emotional distress only unless the tort of
outrage, also called intentional infliction of emotional distress, has been committed," and its her
opinion that didn't happen. She laughs off Richard's civil rights claims. She concludes, "...this does
not appear to be the type of matter which should be litigated in state or federal court. As I am
certain you are aware, both Mr. Pettys and his attorney would be subject to attorney's fees and
other sanctions were a court to find the lawsuit frivolous." [Well, they could always try Judge
Judy.]

BTW, if Ms. Smith's name sound a bit familiar, its because she's John Schunk's sister and the same
lawyer who did the pro bono work for the Sooper Sekrit hosting agreement with Root$web and
the trademark application. Looks like USGenWeb hit her up for another freebie. Wonder how far
Shari is willing to go with this...will there be another legal fund pledge drive?


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Every day and sometimes twice since 1998

posted by merope at 10:45 PM 2 comments   
We've Been Here Before
Going over the same old ground...its Your Daily Board Show!

HOUSEKEEPING: Board member David Morgan protested the vote count from yesterday's
recommendation to declare Richard Pettys a Member Not In Good Standing. He wanted the
record to correctly show that he did not abstain. Shari then directed the Board Secretary to amend
the record to show "present, did not vote" for David.

DAY LATE, DOLLAR SHORT: In a message that brought wisps of fond memory to us here in
the DBS newsbunker, EC Chair Tina Vickery announced yesterday that due to "an unavoidable
delay", passwords were not issued for the logo poll that was supposed to start today. The poll has
thus been delayed until further notice. [We have not yet heard if anyone will be banned for this.
You don't suppose this has anything to do with Richard's trial, do you? Or did Larry just go off
for a long weekend vacation and forget to tend to it before he left?]

PARTY LINE: Getting back to the Grievance Committee discussion [aka, the mindless blather
we put off til another day], a couple of days ago now Cyndi suggested that the idea of regional
representation be dropped from the proposal. Betsy Mills responded that "Actually...The list of
volunteers could be endless as a different volunteer would be selected for each...grievance. The
only reason...would be to assure a good mix on the committee and to assure that there was good
representation across the project. I have heard from several that they wouldn't want all the
volunteers to be from (example only) California and they are hearing a grievance from Maine."

We are unclear as to why the good volunteers from California, who may not live anywhere near
California and who may have any number of counties anywhere else in the project, would be
incapable of hearing a grievance brought by volunteers from Maine, who may not live anywhere
near Maine and who may have any number of counties anywhere else in the project. Remember,
under the current thinking, any GC volunteer with counties in multiple regions gets to pick which
region they will "represent." So the person who chose to "represent" the SW/SC region may also
have a county or two in the NE/NC region. If regional affinity is a valid argument, then it makes
just as much sense to include only members from NW/NC in the complaint, since apparently they
are more likely to understand it than anyone else or to somehow be better able to "represent" the
region. I can't remember ever hearing about a grievance that had anything to do with the region of
either complainant. The vast majority of complaints are between SCs and CCs over some
perceived misbehavior on the SC's part, or between some project member and the Special Projects
[usually the Archives] over alleged copyright violation and/or theft of materials. Yet apparently
including members from the Special Projects on the GC is not included in "good representation
across the project." We haven't seen calls yet for even "representation" of SCs and CCs on the
committee, but that also makes more sense than regional "representation" and we're sure its
coming down the pike.

Ah well, we aren't the ones who will be coordinating four or five separate lists of volunteers for
this process, and if Betsy "Don't call us, we'll call you" Mills wants to manage it the complicated
way, more power to her. At least we know now why she is such a rush to get this committee
formed and in business. And we'll tell you all about it tomorrow.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Leaving you wanting more since 1998

posted by merope at 6:03 AM 0 comments   
Monday, February 21, 2005
Like Thieves In The Night
A DAILY BOARD SHOW NEWS FLASH!

The following statement was sent to us from Richard Pettys. He asked that we publish it. Due to
the holiday, he won't be able to consult with his legal counsel until tomorrow, but he expects there
will be more news after he talks to his attorney. Needless to say, he's astonished at this latest turn
of events.

[The following statement was edited for spelling, punctuation and grammar only. All statements
following are those of Richard Pettys and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editor or
publisher of the Daily Board Show]

=====

STATEMENT OF RICHARD PETTYS, JR.

"I have yet to discuss this matter with my legal counsel. Rest assured, it will be discussed shortly
after my return home. In the meantine, I would like the membership of the project to see exactly
how mean-spirited and nasty the AB and its members are.

"The charges that they have found me 'guilty' of are not the charges that were initially raised.
Likewise, my counsel and I neither received a copy of the 'charges' raised by members of
GAGenWeb nor were we afforded an opportunity to respond to these alleged charges.

"Moreover, out of an interest in being good-natured and giving the members of the AB the
opportunity to respond to my attorney's letter, I agreed to extend the deadline. The members of
the AB took this action in the dark like thieves in the night, during a period in which the deadline
had been extended. We believed that the AB was acting in good faith in extending the deadline.
Obviously, they were not. It is clear that the AB acted in bad faith to obtain an extension, and to
then act to amend the charges and find me guilty of something.

"It is my opinion that the actions of the AB did not comply with the demands placed upon them
by my attorney on two separate occasions. It is also my belief that these people dug their hole
deeper than they could imagine.

"I will, after consultation with my legal counsel, decide what steps to take. I will respond directly
to the findings in short order, after consultation with my counsel.

"To those who have stood beside me during these times, I thank you from the bottom of my
heart."


=====

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show

posted by merope at 4:17 PM 0 comments   
Road Man For The Lords of Karma
Digging a deeper hole...its Your Daily Board Show!

SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT: In the wee small hours of this morning, National
Coordinator Shari Handley [who is apparently some kind of vampire; she only comes out at night]
published the findings of the Petty Trial committee and the Board's final verdict:

"The USGenWeb Advisory Board Hearing Committee issues this finding in response to the
charges brought against Mr. Pettys by members of the GAGenWeb Project and recommends that:
1) Because of Mr. Pettys' actions while RC of GAGenWeb wherein he was not responding
promptly to email, not actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information, and not serving
as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project, it is the finding of
the hearing committee that Mr. Pettys shall be found MNIGS. After a period of one (1) year, Mr.
Pettys may apply for removal of MNIGS status...2) Mr. Pettys' counties were never "removed"
from him, only his affiliation with GAGenWeb was suspended and that affiliation will not be
restored by the Advisory Board. Therefore, after MNIGS status is removed, the AB will
recommend to the SC of the GAGenWeb Project that Mr. Pettys' application for any open county
be considered at the end of his MNIGS status just as any other person's would be; however,
should the GA leadership ever decide to reinstate Mr. Pettys, the AB recommends that it be on a
probationary basis depending on demonstrated and continued good conduct within USGenWeb
and GAGenWeb Projects...3) As an appointee to the positions of ASC and RC in the state of
Georgia, Mr. Pettys' appointment ended upon the termination of the appointing SC, Tim Stowell,
and therefore, he has no further claim upon these positions."

[And then there were three: Me, Tim, and now Richard. The MNIGS Club is getting crowded.]

The recommendation of the trial committee was adopted effective today. The following 10
members voted in support of this finding: Cyndie Enfinger, Kathi Jones-Hudson, Betsy Mills, Jan
Cortez, Don Kelly, Gail Meyer Kilgore, Denise Woodside, Linda Blum-Barton, Larry Flesher,
Bettie Wood. Two abstained: Darilee Bednar, David Morgan. Three did not vote: Richard
Howland, Teri Brown, Angie Rayfield.

Well, this certainly explains why Shari emailed Richard's lawyer a couple of days ago and
requested an extension on the 10 day limit [she also claimed to have acquired her own lawyer, but
apparently not a good one]. She probably thinks her bad self is very clever. Not only did they
squeak by on the outside window of the 10 days, they squeaked by with just the necessary 10
votes. By "terminating" the trial in this manner, not actually finding Richard guilty of any of the
charges, and claiming to have not taken his counties from him, they probably feel they have met
the lawyer's terms. But you know, they may have only dug themselves a deeper hole. For one
thing, they claim to be responding "to the charges brought against Mr. Pettys by members of the
GAGenWeb Project." Where did that come from? We recall no charges filed by members of the
GAGenWeb Project in the original list of charges. They were all charges filed by the Board and
devised after the fact of Richard's removal. Then they instituted entirely new charges after
receiving the lawyer's letters, charges of which Richard was not informed and to which Richard
was not allowed to respond. These new charges [not answering email promptly? Please. Shari
recently took over two months to respond to someone regarding a grievance against the
Archives] bear no resemblance to the ones that the Board was actually trying Richard on and are
charges on which any member of the Board could themselves be held to task ["color of jerk,"
anyone?]. They just basically whipped these out of the air because they are in no way associated
with the original charges, and they provided the framework on which to hang the MNIGS label.
They are apparently trying to shield themselves from the charges in the lawsuit that almost
certainly will be filed against them, but since they have continually harrassed Richard and broken
the rules of the organization of which he is a member and of which they are elected
representatives, this may be a vain hope. In truth, once they decided to drop the old charges and
institute new ones, a new hearing committee should have been seated, the new charges formally
presented, and evidence provided to Richard for his rebuttal. That would not, however, have
accomplished the purpose of the "finding", which was to get this behind them as soon as possible,
lose as little face as they could manage, and protect themselves legally.

So now they've washed their hands of it. They've shown the Project they are both brave and wise.
They've saved USGenWeb from the sorry likes of Richard Pettys, and hopefully saved their own
asses in the bargain. They didn't cave in to the lawyer by openly terminating the trial and they
managed the solomonic [or is moronic the word I'm looking for?] feat of switching the charges in
the dead of night so that they could find Richard guilty of something and not appear to the Project
like craven whimpering dogs. Plus, if it all works out as intended, everyone and their mother
won't be having lawyers file their grievances. What a sad, sorry lot of losers they are. They can't
convict Richard of what they charged him with and fired him over, but they can't bear to admit it
either. As long as Richard gets punished, apparently they feel like they've done their job.

We aren't entirely sure their plan will work as intended, but whatever happens next is sure to be
interesting.

OTHER BOARD BUSINESS: There is other Board business, but its meaningless blather. We'll
talk about it tomorrow.

IN MEMORIAM: Happy trails, Duke. See you on the other side.

"First, there's a huge difference between being arrested and being guilty. Second, see, the law
changes and I don't. How I stand vis-ŕ-vis the law at any given moment depends on the law. The
law can change from state to state, from nation to nation, from city to city. I guess I have to go by
a higher law. How's that? Yeah, I consider myself a road man for the lords of karma." --Dr.
Hunter S. Thompson


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

posted by merope at 8:50 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, February 20, 2005
What Noisy Cats Are We
Over the edge...its Your Daily Board Show!

JUMP START: Late-ish yesterday, Betsy Mills attempted to breathe some life into the moribund
discussion of the proposed Grievance Committee, noting "We do have grievances waiting and we
NEED this committee formed now." [What happened to the Mediation team?] Her proposal for
the membership of the committee included a Board member to serve as the non-voting Chair, one
other voting Board member, and four voting non-Board members, one from each region of the
project. She provided a few details: "Take volunteers with them specifying which region they will
be representing
so they are only listed one time. Have a list for each region. Take one volunteer from each
regional list for the committee. When the grievance ends, those volunteers go back to the bottom
of the list nd the next ones listed go on the committee for the next grievance. The same would
apply to the AB member (or members)." She added a caveat in another message about not
allowing Grievance Committee members to be from the same state as either of the parties to the
grievance.

Her proposal is interesting, but there are a few concerns. First, why no members from the Special
Projects? They seem to get left out of pretty much any proposal, but they are just as much
members of USGenWeb as anyone else and they are CERTAINLY involved in grievances. Why is
regional representation even of concern? Its not like the GC members will be polling their regions
or representing the opinion of regional members when dealing with grievance related matters. The
proposal also lacks detail, such as how will the volunteers be acquired, how will the list be
ordered, who will keep the list, and how volunteers will be selected for participation in a
particular grievance. There are essentially no provisions for conflict of interest, other than not
allowing members from the same state(s) to participate. And Betsy kept the originally proposed
procedures for the Grievance Committee, which actually deal primarily with appeals of the GC's
decisions and not with the GC itself and which now list an incorrect number of members. [Why
the Board wants to open itself to a three layer process for every grievance it gets is not clear to
us.]

There has been some discussion of the proposal, most notably from Gail Meyer Kilgore, Cyndi
Enfinger, and Angie Rayfield. Angie wondered why members of the same state should not sit on
the committee, since this assumes they would be biased. She pointed out that she hadn't "seen a
suggestion that any AB member that's in the same state, or the same region, should be barred
from hearing a grievance." Cyndi Enfinger suggested removing the wording regarding regional
members, noting "This will avoid...the trouble the EC had when an area didn't have anyone
volunteer. Also, it allows for all members of the USGenWeb Project the opportunity to
volunteer..."

Angie also suggested that the Board not leap right to the motion stage of the process:

"...Once a motion is made, the time for being creative and brainstorming all the options seems to
disappear -- the only appropriate discussion is the merits of the motion itself. Then we always end
up re-wording and re-writing the motion, mostly because we didn't have the discussion
*first*...Personally, I would like to have time for project members to give input to their
rep's...Would there any reason that the AB members appointed to the grievance committee
couldn't meet on a separate list to hash out procedures, then present a report to the AB as a
whole?...Ideally, I'd like to see the list announced on project lists, and make it possible for
members to subscribe on a read-only basis...they'd be able to reply off-list to the AB members
involved with their suggestions, criticism, etc...The more involvement from the members, the
more likely we are to come up with a fair and workable solution." [hear, hear.]

Angie also appended a suggested procedure submitted by a project volunteer that involves
soliciting volunteers willing to serve on Board committees, numbering them in order received, and
assigning them to committees in that order. GC members would be pulled from this list as needed
and the list would be published so that volunteers could see their progress up the list.

We look forward to continuation of this discussion in various forums.

ONE GOOD IDEA AFTER ANOTHER: The discusson of the proposed bylaws amendment for
removing SCs and ASCs from office is continuing apace. The most vibrant discussion is occurring
on DISCUSS and a couple of intriguing ideas have been proposed. One member proposed an
"interim election" that would be held when members of a state petitioned the Board for a new
election. As he noted, "Any member of the state, including the existing SC, would be eligible to
run for the position. We remove the unpleasant task of proving gross negligence, malfeasance,
whatever, and require only a majority of those voting to elect." Another member suggested
making regular elections within state organizations a requirement of the bylaws. She noted,
"Rather than having a provision for the removal of an SC, it would be better to have a provision
for the regular election of an SC...No matter what the SC is doing or not doing, you can always
hunker down in your foxhole until the next election and vote the bounder out. Then there is no
quorum and a majority/plurality wins." This same member also noted the inherent difficulty in
trying to come up with a specific number or percentage of CCs needed to initiate a recall action
due to the widely varying number of counties in US states.

There is also the usual concern about voter roll padding. "Padding" has been a recurrent issue in
elections, and can of course be accomplished in several ways, some less legitimate than others.
SCs can allow or encourage a basically limitless number of co-CCs and Assistant CCs, each of
which is allowed a vote under current rules. Members can adopt counties in as many regions as
possible and vote in each one, which is also allowed. Members can create accounts under different
names and presumably use these different identities to vote more than once. "Inadvertent" padding
has occurred when members use slightly different names and different email addresses for
different counties; our voting procedure will recognize these as different persons and will mail
separate passwords. SCs are perfectly within their rights under the bylaws to remove CCs and
replace them with more supportive members. And of course, a careful SC can create phantoms to
hold counties and presumably vote.

The biggest concern about "padding" of any kind in the current discussion is the number of CCs
required to either initiate a recall petition or to vote the SC out. Any SC who knows s/he is in
trouble can replace anyone likely to vote against them with real or fake CCs whose vote is more
assured. Unfortunately in our virtual world it is often impossible to determine who is "real" and
"fake", who is merely holding a county to support an SC or to vote in regional elections, and
which members are really other members in disguise. [In the recent GA trials, members who didn't
update their pages or respond to emails were assumed to be fake, although the evidence was
extraordinarily flimsy and at least one of them was known to be a real person.] Although there is a
great desire to address this issue, the proposed solutions are usually themselves worse than the
problem.

So, what to do? Rather than dickering about what is padding and what is not and what to do
about it, a better way to deal with this issue might be to build more protections for CCs into the
bylaws. For instance, CCs recently removed from their counties might be allowed to participate in
a recall process. SCs might not be allowed to fire CCs without demonstrating cause, or might be
allowed to remove CCs for only a limited number of reasons [ie, incommunicado without
explanation for more than 6 months, apparent abandonment of their pages, violation of the
bylaws, etc.] SCs can be required to hold counties open for 30 days while the suspended CC
appeals their removal. Etc. Taking power from the SCs and giving it to the Board does not result
in the empowerment of the CCs.

The trouble with these discussions, no matter how lively and useful, is that the Board does not
seem to have the stomach for a radical restructuring of the bylaws. And some of these proposals
are radical. Although we disagree with many of the BRC's initial proposals for revision, at least
they tackled the whole document and proposed serious changes to how USGenWeb is
constructed. The problem with their approach was that they tacked their proposals onto the
framework of the old document, when what is needed is a complete de novo start. Scrap the old
bylaws, start afresh, and ask the serious questions. Don't tinker around with cosmetic
restructuring of the regions and the number of Board members. What is the purpose of
USGenWeb? How is it organized? [Maybe its time to rethink the 'bottom up' thing somewhat.
Maybe not.] Who are its members? What are the duties and rights of each of its members and
each of its elected officers? How is the majority to be respected and the minority protected?

Anyways, the BRC's members are in general very quiet when these things are discussed on the
lists so we do not know how many of the ideas presented in various forums are being considered.
In any case, we do hope they are reconsidering their current proposed amendment. Its doubtful
that it will fly.


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

posted by merope at 9:30 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A Stiff Drink
Leading off the weekend...its Your Daily Board Show!

STALLED: Since Shari encouraged continuation of the discussion on a Grievance Committee,
there have been only a few comments. Betsy suggested that Angie work up "her" idea [we just
love this] into a motion that would include "a 'revolving' type
membership." Gail suggested that this include "volunteers from each region on a rotating basis so
the same volunteers aren't used all the time." Fine ideas, but so far, no follow-up.

WHERE THE REAL ACTION IS: Early yesterday, a member of the Bylaws Revision Committee
asked for member input on a proposed amendment to Article XII, Section 9. The original version
of the section reads like this:

"Section 9. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to possible removal
by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory Board and a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within the state. A
quorum of 75% of the Local Coordinators shall participate in order for the vote to be binding."

And the proposed amendment reads like this:

"Section 7. State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to removal for valid
cause; by vote of the Advisory Board, or by majority vote of the Local Coordinators within the
state subsequent to a recall petition submitted to and approved by the Advisory Board."

Big change, no? As anyone who reads any of the larger project lists knows, discussion of the
magnitude of this proposed changed has been hot and heavy. There are a few basic camps: 1)
those who think the current version is just dandy and should not be changed; 2) those who
recognize the need for some change, mostly to make it at least slightly possible for the LCs to
recall their SC; 3) those who see the proposed amendment as giving the Board nearly unlimited
power to both remove SCs and to ignore CCs who wish to remove their SC; and 4) those who
think the Board needs the power to quickly remove SCs in order to protect the Project. There are
many shadings among these camps and we don't mean to leave anyone's favorite position off the
list.

Truly, as the Board has recently discovered, the current section makes it nearly impossible to
remove an SC, no matter how much s/he is in their disfavor. Strictly following the bylaws and
their own standing procedures got them nowhere. The proposed amendment would essentially
codify the Board's actions in GAGenWeb as legal under the bylaws [We don't mean this
retroactively, but apparently someone must think they will need to do the same thing in the
future.] Leaving aside personal opinions on whether the coup in Georgia was a good thing or a
bad thing, one can note that the proposal will give the Board the power to remove any SC at any
time for any reason if anywhere from 6 to 10 of them are even mildly peeved about something,
regardless of the opinions of the CCs in the state. [The Board does have a history of, shall we say,
acting in haste and repenting at leisure.] It will for instance give them a bylaws-sanctioned way to
remove those last few grandfathered SCs that don't have to stand for election every year [a beef
several Board members claim to have had against Tim Stowell]. Or those hold-outs who host
their state pages somewhere other than Root$web, or who use some other data storage site than
the Archives. Or SCs who refuse to give their contact information to the NC. Etc. Since most SCs
are elected these days, this will have the effect of over-turning an election [hmmm...where have
we seen that before?].

Conversely, let us say CCs in a state circulate a petition and obtain a significant number of
signatures in support of recalling their blatantly abusive SC, and let us also posit that this SC
happens to be a Board pet. The proposed amendment allows the Board to disapprove the petition
and thus prevent a recall of the SC. So, in other words, if the CCs want to keep their SC the
Board can say "too bad," and if the CCs want to boot their SC the Board can also say "too bad."

We are not sure of the reasoning behind the BRC's version of this section. We know that Roger is
a great fan of basic bylaws and specific standing procedures, but we also know that the Board has
managed to pass but a handful of standing procedures in its six year history. Assuming that they
will leap to the task of composing new and specific procedures for the handling of SC-removal
may be optimistic. In the event, we cannot believe that giving the Board such blanket power can
be a good thing for the project. For one thing, it will radically change the basic founding tenet of
USGenWeb, which is that it is a "bottoms up" project. [That this hasn't actually worked in
practice is an issue for another day.] We very much like the idea that has been bandied about a
few lists that the SCs are essentially officers of the Project and if Sturgis is followed, only those
who elected them should be able to remove them. Others have suggested the addition of language
that would require CC participation in a recall but would allow the Board to quickly suspend SCs
who are doing things that concretely harm the project [ie, breaking the law, displaying porn or
obviously copyrighted materials, that sort of thing] and being very specific about what these
things are. Still others have suggested language that would lower the bar somewhat for
ascertaining that CCs really want to get rid of their SC and for including immediate past members
who may have been removed by the SC to prevent them from being able to participate in a recall
vote. All good things that aren't present in the proposed amendment.

RUMOR MILL: We've heard through birds singing on the grapevine that a member of the BRC
has resigned, and that at least one member of the Board has retained personal counsel in the
matter of the Trial of Richard Pettys. More news as it develops...

BONUS QUOTE: "I have misgivings about some means to an end. Balance of circumstances are
an engine to drive means." --Don Kelly


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

posted by merope at 9:30 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Lost In Space
Picking up the pieces...its Your Daily Board Show!

FINGERS AND TOES: NC Shari Handley announced last night that Motion 05-02 failed with 6
YES and 7 NO votes. Her count is correct; one of the members voted twice and was accidentally
counted twice in our summary yesterday. The two members that did not vote were Richard
Howland and Teri Brown.

When she posted the result, Shari also encouraged continued discussion of the Grievance
Committee: "I don't believe anyone feels that we don't need a Grievance Committee. There
is...disagreement on the makeup...with the majority of you seeming to favor membership from
outside of the AB. Let's discuss it and come up with a motion that...most of you can support."
[Actually, "most of" them isn't enough; it needs to be at least 2/3 of them.] Gail Meyer Kilgore
expressed her desire for outside input for the committee and noted "I would really like to see
some of the membership volunteer to join this committee."

MAKING NEWS: Well, what do you know? Yesterday, we pondered aloud about whatever
happened to the logo poll, and lo! last night Shari announced that "The poll will be conducted
from February 22, 2005 concluding March 9, 2005...Passwords will be mailed to all registered
voters beginning on February 17, 2005." If you haven't received a password by Feb. 22, contact
the Election Committee.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
All the news thats fit to print since 1998

posted by merope at 5:50 AM 1 comments   
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Ars Longa, Vita Brevis
Moving right along...its Your Daily Board Show!


WRAPPING UP: The vote on Motion 05-02 has ended, with 6 YES votes and 8 NO votes.
Although Shari did not announce the results, the motion has been defeated.


FOLLOWING UP: Wasn't there supposed to be a logo poll right about now? Has anyone heard
anything further on that?


ACTING UP: A little bird flew by and gave us some more information on the Trial of Richard
Pettys. It seems that one of the Board members personally contacted Richard's lawyer by phone.
Apparently the purpose of this was threefold: 1) to verify that the lawyer is real; 2) to dig up
information on Richard [apparently some questions of a personal nature were asked]; and 3) to
beg the lawyer not to sue them. There also apparently was some sort of bizarre attempt to turn
Richard's lawyer against him. We have no further word on the status of the trial at this point,
other than the rumor that it has been indefinitely suspended. In any case, time is running out. The
second letter from the lawyer went out on February 7 and Darilee received her copy on the 11th.
Depending on when you start the clock, the 10 day deadline to terminate the trial, restore Richard
to his counties, and forestall litigation is rapidly approaching.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Takin' it to the streets since 1998

posted by merope at 5:50 AM 2 comments   
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Penny For Your Thoughts
Like a breath of fresh air...its Your Daily Board Show!

WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT: Voting continues on Motion 05-02, to establish a Grievance
Committee. Thus far, voting stands at 5 YES votes and 7 NO votes. We think this motion cannot
pass at this point. There are currently 15 voting members present on the Board and 12 have
voted. Even if all three remaining members vote YES at this point, that will still give only eight
votes for the motion and 10 would be required to pass. If fewer than three vote before the time is
up, the motion cannot make the required "2/3 majority, of those board members voting." And at
least one of the remaining three members has not voted in a very long time.

Along with Angie's comment from yesterday, Board members made the following comments with
their votes:

"I would like to see this rewritten to include non-board members and would certainly vote FOR it
if that was added." --Betsy Mills

"I would like my name removed from the list, to allow room for project member's...to
participate." --Bettie Wood

After Angie's comment, Shari ordered the members to cease the practice of continuing to discuss
the motion during the voting period. She noted "The discussion portion has ended and you had
ample time to make your comments then," and reminded them to "post ONLY your vote" after
the vote has been called.

We are truly looking forward to the next version of this proposal, to see how the Board proposes
to work non-Board members into the grievance process. We'd also like to thank those Board
members who voted against it, particularly those who did so specifically so that non-Board
members could participate in whatever process they eventually establish. Non-board members
have functioned effectively on other committees established by the Board and we think that can be
the case with the grievance process as well.


FLOCK OF SEAGULLS: I awoke this morning to the singing of a little bird. It told me that the
Trial of Richard Pettys has been indefinitely suspended. More details when I know them....


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
On pins and needles since 1998

posted by merope at 6:02 AM 0 comments   
Monday, February 14, 2005
Hearts and Flowers
Like a good neighbor...its Your Daily Board Show!

AND IN OTHER NEWS: After several days of the Board talking about other things, Shari
Handley calls for a vote on Motion 05-02, which if passed will establish a secret Board-run
Grievance Committee. Thus far there have two YES votes and one NO vote, with the following
comment by Angie Rayfield:

"As written, this motion appears to establish nothing more than an AB clone, a "mini-me"
required to have every move approved by the AB, with its decisions & actions to be
rubberstamped by the AB."

Angie also goes on to state: "Would it be possible in the future to introduce the topic, have the
discussion, and THEN let someone make a motion that maybe incorporates the ideas
discussed?...This particular situation seems to have been about as backwards as you could
get...Instead of letting the committee discuss and submit a proposal to cover the operating
procedures, which could then be approved by the AB...the chair asked for a motion to approve
procedures that aren't specified and don't exist...Once the motion is already made & seconded, it
seems a little late for discussion."

[She does have a point.]


THE HOBGOBLIN OF LITTLE MINDS: Our anonymous visitor dropped by again, and whereas
last time they visited they complained that we were too consistent, now the concern is that we are
not consistent enough. She notes:

"But you're NOT consistent. I seem to remember that in the past, one of your big complaints was
about SCs that were allowed to do anything they pleased and no one on the AB would take
action...Now it seems that the shoe is on the other foot, and it appears that the AB should ignore
complaints -- apparently multiple complaints from multiple CCs. The lack of backbone that you
complained about with prior AB's is apparently preferable after all, at least when the complaints
involve one of your anointed project "saviours."

I would heave a deep sigh here, but what would be the point? Our guest seems to have us
confused with someone else. First off, if anyone has canonized either Tim Stowell or Richard
Pettys we are unaware of it, although we do note with some alarm that Tim in particular has been
happily accepted into the bosom of those whom in the past he has grievously harmed. Tim seems
pretty willing to make himself a tool of whoever will have him; in the past he did the Archive's
bidding and now he is the poster boy for the loyal opposition. He seems incapable of recognizing
when he is being used. I am also fully aware that Richard Pettys has a "history", although he does
improve on acquaintance. His biggest problems are a sharp temper and a tendency to back the
wrong horse. However, as one of our friends on the Board reminded us, even serial killers deserve
a fair trial. The fact that the Board tried and failed repeatedly to remove these two from
GAGenWeb using legal measures does not give them the option of then using illegal measures to
remove them, and it does not relieve them of the obligation of giving them a fair trial. It does not
help that the Board was only "rectifying" a situation that it created in the first place. I personally
think the evidence against Tim Stowell was good [although it wasn't the evidence the Board
presented] but it should have been presented before they removed him from his state positions,
not more than three months down the road. The Board didn't even have the charges against him
prepared when they fired him. They made them up later. And they have no evidence against
Richard at all. Can you imagine how they would wail if in some alternate universe Shari Handley
or Dick Harrison were being treated like they have treated Tim and Richard?

As for the idea that we only want the Board to help those CCs that we like or punish those SCs
that we don't, this is actually one of the few areas in which we have been more or less consistent.
We have always recognized two basic things: 1) the SCs have nearly unlimited power over the
CCs; and 2) the Board has basically no power over the SCs. While we have publicly deplored this
situation on more than one occasion, we have also recognized that it is what it is and we do not
recall ever advocating that the Board use extralegal methods to remove SCs or CCs. We fully
understand that the Board is between a rock and a hard place and has very limited options. What
we have complained about is the uneven nature of justice in USGenWeb and the failure of the
Board to recognize its own biases and to act dispassionately in determining who is at fault. If you
are Derick Hartshorn you can get away with increasingly bizarre and abusive behavior and the
Board will publicly applaud you, but if you are a no-longer-useful Tim Stowell you are repeatedly
attacked by fair means and foul. Most CCs just get told "sorry, we can't intervene in your
problems with your SC," but a lucky few get told, "don't worry, we'll fire the bastard and give you
your counties back." Why should the fine volunteers of GAGenWeb get preferential treatment
when the equally fine volunteers of NCGenWeb were told to "live with it"? One could claim
Derick was duly elected, but we do recall him firing most of the CCs that opposed him just as Tim
was alleged to do in Georgia and thus rigging an election. One could also note that most dictators
run elections every few years and they always win by impressively wide margins. And even
elected officials can go off the deep end, as Derick clearly had. So why was the Board obligated
to save GAGenWeb but not NCGenWeb? You don't suppose it had anything to do with the
identity of the CCs who were begging them for help, do you?

And let us not forget, the Board of course did manage to smack around the CCs in GAGenWeb
on its way out the door. The first order of business for the new SC imposed on the state after the
coup was to fire all the CCs, except for the ones that the Board reinstated with full seniority when
it fired Tim. It truly does pay to have friends in high places.


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

posted by merope at 7:02 AM 1 comments   
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The Devil Is In The Details
Go tell it on the mountain...its Your Daily Board Show!

A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: Since publication time yesterday there has been little activity
on BOARD-L. The only public message was from Angie Rayfield begging Darilee Bednar not to
resign as Chair of the trial. She noted:

"...As a chairman, you do not have a vote. All you need to do is keep us moving, ask for the votes
when necessary, and tally them up when we've voted...If we fold the committee now, Pettys has
won, and by the same sort of deceitful tactics used to create an atmosphere of distrust and
fear...that he used in Georgia. We will just have demonstrated to him, and to everyone else in the
project, that if you stomp and snort loud enough, you'll get your way, no matter how many people
you hurt in the process."

This is a very interesting post. It seems that Angie advocates moving forward with the trial
regardless of the potential cost if for no other reason than to prevent Richard from "winning". Its
also pretty clear from this message that Angie herself is incontrovertibly biased against Richard,
since she feels that by involving outside legal advice he is using the same sort of tactics he used in
Georgia. This is interesting since as of a few days ago they had seen no evidence against Richard
nor heard testimony from him, yet Angie apparently already "knows" he used such tactics in
GAGenWeb. Angie also strongly encourages another admittedly biased Board member to
continue as chair of the meeting. As Chair, Darilee is in an extraordinary position of power within
the trial and permitting her to lead and direct Richard's trial after she has admitted she is biased
against him will probably raise a few legal eyebrows. Gail Meyer Kilgore yesterday also admitted
to bias against Richard.

RAMPANT EDITORIALZING: Richard's threat [or promise, depending on you look at it] does
put the Board in a tough spot. He has demanded through his lawyer that the Board stop the trial
immediately or he will file suit against the lot of them. His second letter was allegedly sent to the
Attorney General of the State of Indiana and to the President of MyFamily.com, Inc. [These may
have interesting consequences for USGenWeb. After all, we are not sure that the State of Indiana
is aware that its taxpayers' resources are being used to run our elections and Richard Harrison
committed the Project to paying $10,000 of MyFamily's legal costs if the Project's actions end up
getting them sued.] The Board does not have many options. It can continue the trial as if no
letters had been received. Although the trial committee is down five or six members now [one
publicly recused, one probably recused, one thrown out of the meeting, two who have avowed
bias, and one who inadvertently but publicly admitted bias], they should still have a quorum and
theoretically at least could go forward with pretending to hear evidence and voting on the
charges. But then they run the risk that Richard is indeed serious and continuing the trial will get
them all sued. In Georgia.

The Board could stop the trial immediately, as directed in the attorney's letters. In some respects,
this is the Board's best option. They can terminate the trial, have Vivian give Richard back his
counties [she serves at their pleasure and will almost undoubtedly do as they ask], and then
proclaim to the Project that although they had plenty of evidence against Richard their hands were
tied, they are not rich people and cannot afford lawsuits, they did not want to expose the Project
to potential loss and negative publicity, etc. In other words, they can lift the threat of a lawsuit,
relieve themselves of the burden of pursuing the trial, and continue to slam Richard all they want
in any forum they choose. The little matter of there being no evidence against him will evaporate.
They do run the risk of looking like craven pipsqueaks cowering in front of a stern letter from a
lawyer, but memories in USGenWeb are pretty short and in due time those who rewrite project
history will be out in force, bathing the Board in shimmering praise for throwing itself on its
sword to protect the Project.

The Board could also "stop" the trial by holding an immediate vote on all charges. We are not
sure how this would work out. The Board could find Richard "not responsible" on all charges,
recommend that his counties be returned, and announce to the Project that it reviewed the
evidence and could not find strong enough proof that he was guilty of the charges. This, however,
would mean that Richard "won" and that seems to be an unacceptable outcome to at least one
Board member. The Board could, if it made them collectively feel better about things, find
Richard guilty of a couple of the more minor charges, but still recommend that his counties be
returned to him since the charges for which he was held "responsible" were negligible. This may
leave the Project wondering why he was removed so abruptly in the first place and subjected to a
trial if he hadn't done anything so horrible. Of course, the Board also has the option of finding
Richard guilty of all charges. Although this might provide immediate gratification, somehow we
don't think that would be the end the matter.

What will they do? I certainly haven't a clue, but the version of the second letter that I saw gave
them 10 days to decide. And apparently there will not be a third letter.


NYAH, NYAH: Apparently Shari Handley does have a sense of humor after all:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/start.htm


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Howling at the moon since 1998

posted by merope at 8:30 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Monkey's Uncle
Everything but the kitchen sink...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACKING OFF: In another big surprise, Darilee Bednar announced to the Board's public list that
she was resigning as the acting Chair of Richard Pettys' trial:

"Tonight I received an email that was suppose to be from Mr. Pettys attorney...who threatens me
personally with litigation if I continue as chairman of the hearing currently being held...Because of
this threat I find myself severly bias against Mr. Pettys which means I can not remain
impartial...My deepest apologies to the people who supported me"

[In her message, Darilee also indicated that she had to use the DBS to get information on what
Richard was accused of. While we are happy for the shout-out, we are kind of concerned that
those trying Richard aren't intimately aware of the charges against him and have to go to an
opinion-plagued scandal rag to find them.]

Shortly after Darilee posted, Gail Meyer Kilgore noted that "I don't think there is anyone of us
that isn't biased," and asked NC Shari Handley for some direction. None has been forthcoming so
far, but we imagine that this discussion will proceed out of the public view in one of the Board's
many Sekrit Sandboxes.


NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T: A reader writes to point out that the "public
notification" provision of Article VIII has been removed in the BRC's newly proposed
amendments. This is the section that says, "For major issues, the Advisory Board will announce,
at least 48 hours in advance, when the vote will be taken in order for members to have the
opportunity to voice their opinion." There has already been discussion of this on the BRC's public
comment list. Roger Swafford noted that "In our cyberworld the notification requirement is met
when a motion is made and announced by the chair." This is all well and good, but as we noted in
that forum, 1) not very many project members read Board-L and announcements are not made to
every state list everytime a motion is made; 2) Roger's statement avoids the apparently pro-active
intent of the current bylaw, which appears to require that the Board take definite action to notify
project members when "major issues" are before them; and 3) the current bylaw requires that the
Board give 48 hours notice of when a vote on a "major issue" will occur [NOT that it will occur,
but WHEN it will occur]. That this provision of the current bylaws has been honored mostly in
the breech is not relevant. We cannot recall a single instance of the Board giving project-wide 48
hours notice in the seven years since the bylaws were instituted, much less informing the project
when it is debating "major issues" either publicly or privately.

Case in point, and an apropos one too: Back on May 28, 2004, just prior to the Board's removal
of Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys from their positions in GAGenWeb and elsewhere, then-NC
Richard Harrison posted a message to the DISCUSS list noting that

"The AB will file charges against [Tim Stowell] regarding treatment of CCs in GAGenWeb
suspending him for 60 days while a hearing takes place on whether or not to expel him
permanently from the project...It had been the intent of the AB to present the motion Tuesday
morning. However it turns out Tim's status for the upcoming election is determined by the EC as
of his status in the project as of midnight, May 31. I think the AB members behind this will
present their motion tomorrow."

[This message was meant to be confidential to DISCUSS list owner Tina Vickery, but Richard
inadvertently published it to a public forum.]

Very early on May 29, 2004 the motion to remove Tim and Richard from Georgia was made. By
the end of that day, the vote was called. The result was announced on May 31 with an hour or so
spare before the EC needed the Board's decision, and thus were Tim and Richard denied not only
the opportunity to run as candidates but also to vote in the election. By any stretch of the
imagination, this was a "major issue," given that it represented the Board's most overt expression
of project control to date, violated any number of bylaws and standing procedures, and was a
profound departure from precedent. If it were not for Richard's mistake, the Project would have
received no notice of it at all. As it was, the Board did not give the Project the required 48 hours
notice that a vote would occur, and although one could argue that the 48 hour voting period itself
leaves enough time for member comment, the fact remains that no project-wide announcement
was attempted as required by the bylaws. Only the relative handful of subscribers to DISCUSS
and BOARD-L would have known about it. Although in this particular case it is debatable
whether member comment could have stopped the juggernaut, the Board is still responsible for
allowing the reasonable time required by the bylaws for member comment and for notifying the
project in a timely manner that it is comtemplating far-reaching changes to the Board's
relationship to the Project. These seem to have been forgotten by the Board in its zeal to get
Richard and Tim suspended before the cut-off date for eligibility to participate in the election.

In any case, no Board that we recall has ever gone out of its way to notify the Project of pending
"major issues," and without a clear definition of "major issue" we doubt that any Board ever will
bother to do so. So the removal of the provision will have no discernable effect on day-to-day
operations of the Board, although it will place more of a burden on the membership to keep
abreast of Board business. Should this amendment pass, members will need to decide for
themselves whether they care enough about what the Board may do to subscribe to the Board's
public list. Members, of course, will not be given the option of following the progress of Board
decision-making on the Sekrit list.

AND BY THE WAY: We are shamed to admit we were caught somewhat by surprise by
Darilee's announcement on BOARD-L. Although we had discussed briefly with Richard the
contents of his lawyer's second letter to the NC and the acting Chair, we had asked him not to
send it in its current form because it contained a notice that publication of the letter in the DBS
would serve as "appropriate notice to all members of the USGenWeb Project of their potential
liability." Although we would love to hear that the DBS is avidly devoured each and every day by
vast numbers of project members with their morning lattes and beignets we doubt that this is the
case. In the event, the DBS is a personal journal. It is not an official publication of the
USGenWeb Project and cannot be considered an official venue to provide "appropriate notice" to
project volunteers of matters which may affect them. That would be the Board's job. We asked
Richard to remove that section of the letter prior to sending it to the Board but we have not
discussed this further with Richard and do not know which version of the letter was finally sent.
Our apologies for not being on top of this, but we were reluctant to print what may have been an
incorrect version of the letter.

Just so you know, if the statement involving the DBS was included in the letter, I did not suggest
it or approve it and would not have allowed it if asked before the letter was written. The DBS
reports on activities in Richard's trial because they are newsworthy in the context of USGenWeb
and that is all. It does not serve as the mouthpiece of any project member but me.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Your window on USGenWeb since 1998

posted by merope at 10:40 AM 0 comments   
Friday, February 11, 2005
All's Quiet On The Western Front
Paved with good intentions...its Your Daily Board Show!

BOARD NEWS UPDATE: Well, there isn't much of one, as it appears that Root$web's archiving
is down and perhaps even the mail list server is on "vacation." However, last night Angie Rayfield
posted the following message:

"I would personally prefer to see a grievances heard by a committee consisting of a chair
(non-voting), 2 AB members, and 3 non-AB members. I've received several emails that contained
excellent suggestions on how non-AB members could become more active in this sort of situation,
and I think that it would be a benefit to the project...I don't think it's to the advantage of either the
AB or the project members as a whole to set up a grievance committee that appears to be nothing
more than a tool of the theoretical "elite." I also don't think it's to the advantage of either the AB
or the project members as a whole to create a situation where the AB is, or appears to be,
micromanaging the grievance process."

We are indeed very encouraged to see this approach considered by at least some Board members.
It could, if carefully implemented, go a long way toward improving the Board's image among
those who need to rely on it for redress. Of course, it could also make things worse, but at least
they are considering a different approach.

IN OTHER NEWS: Roger Swafford has posted another amendment approved by the Bylaws
Revision Committee:

"ARTICLE VIII. ADVISORY BOARD PROCEDURES Section 1. A majority of the current
voting members of the Advisory Board shall constitute a quorum. Section 2. The vote
requirements for motions to be adopted shall be in accordance with the parliamentary authority,
except as specified in these bylaws. In all cases determination shall be made by the legal votes
cast. Section 3. The Advisory Board shall utilize "roll call votes". Members are responsible for
expeditiously responding to vote calls. The duration of voting time for motions shall be a
minimum of 24 hours. The maximum duration shall be at the discretion of the presiding officer,
except that the voting
period shall not exceed 72 hours. Section 4. Voting records of the Advisory Board shall be posted
publicly."

This is a substantial change to the current version of Article VIII and will make it much easier to
pass motions and complete project business. It will also make it harder for a handful of members
to prevent something the majority favors. There are some slight concerns, however. We asked
Roger for a clarification of "current voting member" for the purposes of a quorum and his
response implied that the Board could continue to function and conduct business no matter how
many members were currently serving. There have also been doubts expressed about the flexible
length of the voting time, with concern that the NC could manipulate the voting period to
influence the outcome. While we feel that the specific designated time will actually prevent abuses
of the system (such as recent promises to keep votes open until quorums are met, and recent
periods where votes were left open for days before the outcome was published), we understand
the concern. We will note, however, that NCs have always had the power to close a vote
whenever it suited them or leave it open as long as they pleased, and we are not aware of any
instance where an NC closed a vote early in order to force a desired outcome. There has been
only one recent instance where a vote was held open past the announced time to encourage
members to vote; whether or not that influenced the outcome is debatable.

POT, KETTLE, BLACK: A bravely anonymous reader deposited this comment in our inbox
following Tuesday's column:

"The comments and views are only surprising to you because you consistently respond to any AB
action or member in the same way -- they're all horrible, they're all wrong, and they're only
thinking of ways to screw the project and the members. The most consistent "agenda" I've seen in
all my years with this project is yours. That would be the anti-AB agenda. AB members can do no
right, your friends can do no wrong. If only life were so simple....Admittedly, your goal has never
been total objectivity. Or even anything remotely resembling objectivity. If it were, you wouldn't
be so shocked when something goes against your preconceived notions of everyone else's
intentions."

Now see, if I were interested only in being consistent, I'd have found a way to put a negative spin
on Betsy's very out-of-character suggestion that non-Board members be involved in the proposed
committee. It was surprising, since Betsy has been a consistently ardent supporter of secrecy and I
was quite glad to see her suggestion. Sometimes things mean more when they come from an
unexpected direction. As for objectivity, well, I call 'em like I see it. And what I have seen for the
past what? seven years now? is a Board that either by design or by accident consistently manages
to harm the Project, its members, and its image. Sadly enough, I think its by accident; I'm not
among those who believe that there is a secret conspiracy to steal the project and give it to
Root$web/Ancestry/MyFamily/the Archives/the Masons/the Knights Templar, or whoever. I just
think they allow themselves to be swayed by emotion and personal feeling far too often and since
their hissy fits tend to affect the Project as a whole, I don't think its a good thing when they base
their decisions on personal politics. I don't think its good that secrecy is so important to them that
it has become an end in itself and they keep secrets they don't need to keep just because they can.
I don't think its wise policy for the Board to violate the bylaws and its own procedures in order to
punish someone for doing things the Board has either condoned or encouraged in others. I don't
like the impression that the Board itself is somehow above the law or outside the law and that
they are the sole arbiters of what is "good for USGenWeb." That said, I don't think all Board
members are horrible; there have been quite a few that have been exemplary public servants. But
for some reason, those folks don't seem to run for office more than once. I wonder why. Bottom
line is, I'm reporting on what I see and editorializing on what I think about what I see. And what I
see is that in its public sessions and particularly in its secret sessions the Board often behaves very
badly. Any public official in any walk of life should learn to behave as if the microphone is always
on. Its not my fault if they don't learn that lesson and they keep embarrassing themselves.

Anyways, we'd like to thank Betsy for dropping by and although we're sorry she didn't get her
"urgency" amendment passed, she really shouldn't let it make her so bitter.


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

posted by merope at 8:30 AM 3 comments   
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Put A Lid On It
Going overboard...its Your Daily Board Show!

AGGRIEVED: There was a brief spurt of discussion on the Grievance Committee motion
yesterday, with both Angie Rayfield and Betsy Mills providing some surprising views on the
matter of a Grievance Committee:

"...I don't think I could approve the committee in this current form. I've received emails with
several excellent suggestions regarding the committee, including some that would increase
member participation. Increased participation could only be a good thing, and hopefully could
move us away from some of the more automatic knee-jerk reactions against anything the AB
attempts...it should be pointed out in the procedures somewhere that the committee that hears the
grievance will not include any member directly involved in the grievance, which would include
anyone who had
acted as a mediator if the complaint had been through mediation first." --Angie Rayfield

"This committee should be made up of non-board members. I would like to see 3 members, not
counting the chair so that the chair has no vote." --Betsy Mills

[We will admit this caught us by surprise.]

Larry Flesher then seconded the motion as amended, and as soon as Shari opened it for
discussion, discussion stopped.

BRAVE NEW WORLD: Riffing on Betsy's seemingly off the cuff comment about composing the
committee of non-Board members [whew, heady stuff that!], we doodled the following short
proposal on a virtual napkin yesterday:

Since having the Board choose the non-Board members or having the same set of three serve for
all grievances would probably not be seen as impartial, you could set up something like a jury
pool. Issue a project-wide call for volunteers for people who want to serve as Grievance
committee members. Maintain this list and reissue a call periodically, perhaps each year at election
time so that there is a constant pool of potential committee members. When the Grievance
Committee is needed, three members would be randomly chosen to serve along with the three
permanent Board members [this makes five voting members, with the Board members in the
minority--it will be impossible for some project members to ever have a fair hearing in front of a
majority of Board members and the Board should just accept that]. You'd have to do something
about conflict of interest, perhaps by allowing each party to the grievance one or two strikes of
members, but you wouldn't want them to go too far with it or they'd shop for "friendly" members.
Once you have a committe of five set up, they'd all retire off to hear the grievance, and report
back to the Board their findings and a recommended solution (ie, "we find in favor of the CC and
recommend that they be allowed to have their county back," or "we find in favor of the file
manager that there is no copyright violation and recommend that the Board take no action in this
matter.") The Board could then do whatever the grievance procedures would call for them to do.
We recommend that the Board automatically accept the finding of the committee, but they may
wish to vote to accept or deny the proposed solution. It would look pretty bad if the Grievance
Committee finds in favor of one party and the Board votes to reject that finding [why have a
committee if you don't trust it?]. But they should be free to accept or deny the proposed remedy,
based on their understanding of the bylaws, the limits of their power, etc., although we still
suggest giving heavy weight to the GC's recommendation.

Details would need to be worked out, particularly regarding conflicts of interest between parties
to a grievance and both Board and non-Board committee members, and in regards to how names
of potential committee members would be acquired, maintained, updated and randomly chosen.
The logical person to coordinate that is the Grievance Coordinator. But we think it could work.
In any case, it would bring some fresh blood and ideas into the process, perhaps mitigate to some
extent the perception that it is "the Board vs. us", and perhaps result in findings that do not appear
to be pre-ordained by the identities of the parties to the grievance. And if it doesn't work, then the
Board can scrap it and try something else.

OUR READERS WRITE: A reader submitted a comment about the grievance process that is
pertinent to the discussion at hand and warrants more exposure than it will get in the nearly
invisible comments display. So here it is:

"The Grievance process starts with a flawed Mediation procedure. In no other world does the
Mediator happen to be a member of the interest group involved. In no other world does the
interest group's leader sit in on the mediation hearing to dictate to the Mediator off-list. In no
other world does one side of the Grievance have a representative who is also part of the interest
group. In no other world does the appeal go directly to the interest group's committee. In no
other world does the next appeal go to yet the same interest group. In the real world, if an
employee, or similar person, went to a Mediation regarding his supervisor, and found his
supervisor's 'brother' appointed as Mediator, and the supervisor's 'cousin' as representative, and
behind a curtain in the corner, found the plant owner secretly barking orders into a hidden
microphone, there would be such an uproar by the Union and Governmental authorities that it
would force the removal of the whole bunch from that work place. That's exactly the situation at
USGenWeb, except the only person who gets the boot is the one who files the grievance. The
goal of Mediation is to find a solution that is acceptable to both sides. It is not to force the
Petitioner to yield. "Our way or the highway" could be the motto of this Advisory Board."
--Charles Barnum


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

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 3 comments   
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
One Secret Cabal is Never Enough
Playing catch-up...its Your Daily Board Show!

MOVING RIGHT ALONG: On Sunday afternoon, Shari asked for a motion to accept her
proposed guidelines, procedures and membership for the Grievance Committee, which will
address cases where mediation has failed. Don Kelly "motions to accept" the procedures as
written, but later amends the procedures to exclude Grievance Committee members from voting
on appeals, after Jan Cortez points out that "...they would have already made up their minds and
shouldn't have a block vote of three." Shari has asked for a second, but as of press time, none had
been received.

STAR CHAMBER: The proposed membership of the Grievance Committee is:

Betsy Mills, chair [who has, shall we say, an exemplary and consistent record of putting down
members in a variety of creative ways]

Angie Rayfield [who has an expansive definition of words like "hack" and "steal" and appears
somewhat wedded to the status quo]

Jan Cortez [ah, dear Jan...she who fired a hugely generous volunteer over a petty personal
grievance; currently a mediator]

Denise Woodside, alternate ["I think you are right, but I'm going to rule against you because I
don't like the way you talk to me." --paraphrased; currently a mediator]

Don Kelly, alternate [speaks for itself, but not in any coherent way]

Bettie Wood, alternate [managed to turn a personal issue with Tim Stowell into a Board
seat...now basking in the glow of being with the "in-crowd"; also a mediator]

Yes, you read that right. Half of the proposed Grievance Committee members are also mediators.
Perhaps a wee bit incestuous, but it is efficient.

So...if you have a grievance with someone, here's what happens: Mediation [with a Board member
as your mediator]; when that fails, Grievance Committee [with a Gang of Three pulled from the
talent pool listed above]; when that fails, the entire Board [minus the three who've already decided
against you] will judge you. Three strikes and you're out! It will take a dedicated and probably
masochistic petitioner to climb to the top of that mountain, indeed.

KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY: A change in personnel notice went out a day or so ago,
welcoming Board member Denise Woodside and Board Secretary Mike St. Clair to the ASC
positions in MOGenWeb, where Board member Larry Flesher is SC. The states where Board
members and fellow-travelers are not in positions of power are numbering fewer and fewer. This
is really ingenious. If the Board can maneuver friends into State Coordinatorships throughout the
project, then it has less to worry about with CCs who aren't team players since the SCs will do
their bidding and get rid of any inconvenient dissidents. If fired CCs file grievances, well guess
what...not only are the grievances heard from top to bottom by Sekrit strike teams of Board
members [who either actually are SCs or are friends with the SC], there is always the Prime
Directive to fall back on, where-in it is Written that the Board shall not tell SCs what to do
[unless they are Tim Stowell]. Its become painfully clear in recent months that the Board has no
clear understanding either of an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one, nor do they
care. They are working toward a kinder, gentler, and very, very quiet USGenWeb by any means
necessary.

Go back to sleep...


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Banging the drum slowly since 1998


posted by merope at 6:05 AM 1 comments   
Sunday, February 06, 2005
No Time Like The Present
Trying to make sense of it all...its Your Daily Board Show!

EERIE QUIET: There has been no activity on the Board's public list for a few days now, other
than an "absence from duty" notice from Larry Flesher. Is this the calm before the storm?

JANUARY SCORECARD: Although the January 2005 session of the USGenWeb Advisory
Board was not officially adjourned, it is over. Let's take a look at how they did, shall we? Here is
the official agenda as posted on January 3, with commentary.

1. Call to order [done, January 3]

2. Continue with closed-session hearing [this they certainly did in spades, but no resolution had
been reached at the end of the month, due mostly to the lack of timeliness on the Board's part and
its stubbornness regarding the sanctity of SC power.]

3. Reading, correction, approval, or disposition of minutes [done, January 3]

4. NC Report [done, January 5]

5. New business
a. BRC request [done, introduced Jan 5, vote completed Jan 9, requested denied]

b. Non-responsive State Coordinators [discussion began Jan 10, not resolved before the end of
the month, although it was discussed sporadically throughout]

c. Policy Statement: County sites vs. Archives as repository of collected data [not done]

d. Evaluation of special projects [not done]

e. Application received for possible new special project [not done]

f. PR committee [not done]

g. other [There were several items that we guess come under the umbrella of "other new
business": 1) On Jan 7, Shari appointed Betsy Mills as the new "Grievance Coordinator", a
position the project has sorely lacked; 2) On Jan 18, Shari sent out a call for volunteers for a new
"Grievance Committee," a new, Board-members-only committee complete with a secret list; after
a couple of calls several volunteers were identified, but no formal announcement of the committee
was forthcoming by the end of the month; 3) On Jan 14, Shari announced a "serious breach of
ethics" when this author used passwords Shari had failed to safeguard to look at her Root$web
mail list settings; although Shari threatened to have me expelled, the issue was not resolved by the
end of the January session; 4) On Jan 17, the Board began to discuss possible wording for the
upcoming logo poll, and at the urging of the Election Committee they finally settled on wording a
week later; 5) On Jan 27, the Board began to debate the urgency of a pair of bylaws amendments
submitted by Betsy Mills complete with several state sponsors, but debate was not resolved prior
to the end of January.]

6. Begin Grievance Hearing in Closed Session when disciplinary hearing complete [done? not
done? We did report throughout the month on a mediation process undertaken by the Board, but
we do not know for sure if that particular grievance was the one announced in the agenda. After
all, the Board supposedly has an extensive queue of grievances lined up; it could be any one of
them.]

7. Announcements [done? not done? It depends on what they consider an announcement, I
suppose.]

8. Adjournment [not done]

All in all, January was a fairly active month for them, given that alongside all the public business
they conducted they were probably quite busy playing in their various and sundry Sekrit
Sandboxes. They did leave rather a lot of business unresolved at the end of the month, though.
One of these items, the business of Betsy's bylaws amendments, has since been completed. And a
number of intriguing items were not touched on during the course of the month.

As of this writing [February 6], no agenda for the February meeting has been posted. As we
noted, its been very, very quiet over there.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: We were reading over some older DBS posts the other day and
came across mention of GenSoc.org, Inc. You old-timers will recall that this was the non-profit
genealogy site that Brian "Getting Better All The Time" Leverich announced more or less at the
same that he announced that he had incorporated Root$web as a for-profit company in Delaware.
GenSoc.org, Inc. was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS in February 2000. And then it just
disappeared. The domain was registered to Brian for quite a while but the site was never activated
and in June of 2000, Brian sold Root$web to MyFamily.com, Inc. for an undisclosed sum and
retired to the gentlemanly pursuit of rock climbing. GenSoc.org, Inc. was never mentioned
publicly again. So anyways, we were wondering: "what ever happened to GenSoc.org?" We recall
Brian making his usual inflated promises about how fabulous it would be, but where did it go? As
it turns out, GenSoc.org is now an active link. It has a nice website, full of interesting information,
useful links, and tastefully designed and presented graphics. Only thing is, it belongs to the
General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of New York City. The General Society is a fine,
respected, and very old charitable organization, but it has nothing to do with genealogy. We
checked with the IRS and GenSoc.org, Inc. is no longer listed among tax-exempt non-profits.
This is probably for the good; Brian never did really seem to get the hang of running a
not-for-profit business. And we're fairly sure that MyFamily.com frowned on the idea of him using
his name and reputation in the genealogy community to compete with their for-profit business
using a non-profit, tax-exempt entity after they gave him all that money. But we do hear that the
rock-climbing business is very good...


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


posted by merope at 10:05 AM 0 comments   
Friday, February 04, 2005
Through a Glass, Darkly
A little light reading...its Your Daily Board Show, part 2!

JUST DROPPING BY: Now that Richard's trial is officially finished, or at least my part in it is, I
thought you might all like to read what it was really like jousting with the Board. Now, keep in
mind, this isn't like Tim's trial transcripts. Richard refused to agree to the Board's gag rules and
insisted [and is still insisting] that any hearing or trial of him be held in the fresh air. Because of
this, neither Richard nor Paulette [and certainly not me] were subscribed to the trial list. So you
sadly won't be treated to the scary/sad/amusing daily blow-by-blow stuff from the Sekrit Sandbox
[although to hear them tell it, they weren't actually doing anything in the last three months]. One
of the reasons I agreed to participate as Richard's advisor, aside from the entertainment value, was
that I was curious to see if we, meaning both the prosecution and the defense, could make it
work. It should have been possible for the Board to hold a fair and impartial hearing via email
without requiring draconian gag rules and without the repeated threats of expulsion from the
Project. And you, know it could have worked. We spent a considerable amount of time compiling
our evidence, and fully intended to expend similar effort rebutting the evidence they told us they
would provide. But the Board ignored most of our messages, denied or ignored every request for
evidence, and finally and drastically changed the rules three months into the trial. At that point,
Richard pretty much decided "why bother"?

So, here for your reading pleasure is a summary of the Trial of Richard Pettys. We have no doubt
this saga will continue.

The Devil Went Down To Georgia

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pushing the bright, shiny, candy-like button since 1998

posted by merope at 7:32 PM 0 comments   
Them's Fightin' Words!
Letting others have a turn...its Your Daily Board Show!

YADDA YADDA YADDA: There's no news today folks, but we are pleased to present a Guest
Editorial from Richard Pettys, who is currently undergoing a trial for something or other that the
Board alleges he may have done, but which they apparently cannot find evidence for. Read it
and...well, you know the rest.

***Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the following DBS Guest Editorial are solely those of
the author and do not represent the opinions of the author, editor or publisher of the Daily Board
Show.***

===

How Dare They!
A special column by Richard Pettys

As most of you know, I retained an attorney to notify the NC that the "trial" is over. Apparently,
either the AB is stupid or they truly think they are above the law.

Mayhaps they believe that they called my bluff. They didn't. Unlike the previous NC, I do not send
"warning shots" over someone's bow. I fire precise shots, and I do not miss when I fire a shot.
And I did not miss in this case.

Sadly, the targets chose to act like drones and are continuing with their fiasco. On the advice of
counsel, it will be completed without my participation, if at all. My counsel is sending a second
letter to Ms. Handley. A copy will also be addressed to Ms. Bednar. They will both receive the
letter via email and via United States Mail.

The letter informs them that, if the "trial" continues, I will seek redress in an appropriate court. It
also reminds them that the USGenWeb Project provides no corporate protections from their
actions and that they may be held personally liable for their actions. Since I am also naming the
USGenWeb Project, it means that all of the individual CC's may also be liable for the actions of
their elected officials.

Finally, a copy of the letter is being sent to the powers that be at MyFamily,Inc.com and the
Attorney General for the State of Indiana, since the elections in which I was denied the right to
suffrage were held on the servers of the University of Indiana.

In an email sent last night or this morning, I am being required to respond to the same charges for
the THIRD time. That's right. The THIRD time. And I am being asked to submit evidence in my
support. But they will not submit their evidence to me because I have not agreed to abide by their
confidentiality policy (according to the terms of their confidentiality policy, discussing the issue
with an attorney could have brought me expulsion from the project).

For the record, members of the AB, what do you have to hide from the membership? Why hide
behind the sacred veil of a personnel matter when the person on trial has waived the
confidentiality attendant therewith? Is it because you are afraid that the members will see your
true colors? Is it because you are afraid that someone might say something you don't like? Is it
because you may not be able to sustain the charges that you brought? Is it because the evidence
does not stick up, but it does not matter that you convict me because the members of this project
will never see it?

You want to have this trial? Let's do it in an open courtroom - a real courtroom. Let's do it in
front of a real judge and a real impartial jury. See you in court.

====


There you have it...some strong words. Will they be followed by strong action? Time will tell, and
it may be sooner rather than later.

We will have another brief announcement later this evening, so stay tuned!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Toying with your emotions since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 PM 1 comments   
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Ruffled Feathers
Telling it like it is...its Your Daily Board Show!

THAT'S ENOUGH OF THAT: Although commentary on Motion 05-01 ran heavy following our
last broadcast, David Morgan bit the bullet and called the question, noting "The motion is to
decide whether or not the AB considers this to be an urgent matter, not to decide whether or not
to amend it. If this motion fails as urgent, then the amendment will be voted on in the regular
election cycle." Betsy seconds the call in short order. This would required the Board to vote on
whether it wanted to continue the discussion, but Shari Handly declared the motion out of order
based on advice received from Roger Swafford [see below]. She noted, "...this motion is declared
out of order, as it has the effect of extending authority to the states to propose urgent
amendments to the bylaws by precedent. The amendment proposal...will be placed...on the July
ballot under bylaws Article XVI, Section 3. If the Advisory Board wishes to propose an
URGENT amendment under Section 5, it must draft its own version of the amendment and then
vote as to whether it considers the matter 'an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The
USGenWeb Project.'" Shari then requested that the webmaster post the corrected version of the
amendments to the national website [it doesn't appear to be up yet] and posted a notice to
STATE-COORD as well.

WISDOM PEARLS: Below is excerpted text from Roger Swafford's opinion regarding the
motion currently before the Board:

"The easiest way to understand the parliamentary viewpoint is to equate the Amendment from the
states to a report from a standing or special committee...A board cannot put words into the
mouths of those who authored and approved of the amendment. So...the AB can't amend/alter the
amendment...The sponsoring states have met the bylaw requirements to the best of their ability
and are entitled to have the amendment on the upcoming election ballot. The motion...simply
requires a response to the question of urgency. Technically the motion is improper, in that if
approved it would extend authority to the states to propose urgent amendments to the bylaws by
precedent...the situation the amendment seeks to resolve has existed for a long period of time and
has not impaired operation of the project. Under Article XVI Section 5 an amendment must meet
the standard of "an urgent matter affecting the well-being of The USGenWeb Project". The
project has continued to function without resolving the situation for a long period of time,
therefore...there is no urgency to warrant use of Section 5."

Thanks to Roger for providing this commentary. I had several interesting conversations with
Board members yesterday; none strayed too far from the gist of the Board's public discussion and
none really addressed the motion before the Board: are the amendments urgent enough to require
a special election? From Roger's perspective, the Board should not alter the amendments as
presented, and the matter does not warrant urgency and as it turned out Shari agreed with him.


A WHOLE NEW LEVEL: Yes, as it turns out, Richard Pettys apparently has retained
honest-to-god legal counsel and said legal counsel did send a letter to Shari Handley yesterday
morning. We've seen the letter [on real letterhead, no less] and checked into the lawer. He was
admitted to the Georgia bar in 1993 and currently practices with a partner in Marietta, GA. His
law degree is from Hofstra University, he was formerly on the faculty of the John Marshall Law
School in Atlanta, and he has experience in first amendment law and entertainment law [and
USGenWeb is always entertaining]. So, not too shabby. Here are some exerpts from The Letter:

"The purpose of this letter is to place you, individually and in your role as National Coordinator of
an unincorporated association, on notice that, unless this “trial” is immediately stopped, Mr.
Pettys will enforce any and all rights available to him in an appropriate court with jurisdiction to
hear this matter...Mr. Pettys further contends that the Advisory Board and the National
Coordinator have clearly overstepped the boundaries of allowable procedure, both in terms of
violating the bylaws of the USGenWeb Project, and in violating that which is allowable by
recognized parliamentary authority...Mr. Pettys alleges that the Advisory Board does not have the
authority to take the actions it has taken by violating its own grievance procedures, in violating its
bylaws, in violating the bylaws of the GAGenWeb Project and in not completely following
accepted parliamentary procedure...Mr. Pettys asserts that the Advisory Board is continuing to
violate one or more of the above in creating and/or changing rules as the “trial” proceeds. These
rules include the refusal to produce “evidence” of the alleged wrongdoings of Mr. Pettys, after
having previously stating that the evidence would be forthcoming...should this “trial” continue
beyond receipt of this letter, Mr. Pettys will exercise all legal remedies and rights available to him
in which he will name each member of the Advisory Board that is participating in this trial, he will
name the National Coordinator and he will name the USGenWeb Project as an unincorporated
entity...your actions may bring liability upon each and every member of the USGenWeb Project
for the claims of Mr. Pettys including, inter alia, defamation, civil rights violations and other
intentional tortious conduct with regard to my client...Mr. Pettys demands that the Advisory
Board immediately drop any and all charges against him and restore him to the counties which he
has previously hosted."

The Board's public list is, of course, silent on this development. We imagine they spent a frantic
evening checking out the lawyer and also discovered he is real. [Many on the Board consider
Richard Pettys to be a flagrant fabulist.] What do you suppose they will do next? We can hazard a
guess, but its only a guess, that they will swiftly terminate the trial by issuing some sort of "not
guilty, but not innocent either" finding and recommending [but not ordering] that the current
GAGenWeb SC return Richard's counties to him. They'll then tell the lawyer that they have
complied as best they can with the terms of the letter given the inability of the Board to actually
force an SC to do anything. Under the circumstances, its probably their best option. They will
have 1) stopped the trial as requested; and 2) made a good faith effort to give Richard his counties
back. [It would be a bonus if they could convince Vivian to actually give him his counties back,
but that might look too much like meddling in state affairs.] They might of course also decide
Richard is bluffing and call his bluff any number of ways [ignoring the letter, quickly finding
Richard guilty out of spite, etc.], but given that by now they know the lawyer is not a figment of
Richard's imagination those might not be prudent courses of action.

We have no idea how serious Richard is about pursuing this to a court room, but in discussion
with him he seemed quite angry about the Board's willingness to deny him any semblance of a fair
trial and adamant about seeing this through whatever is necessary. So who knows? We may get to
be a court reporter someday.


OUR READERS WRITE: A reader commented yesterday about an error in an earlier post [I
typed "1994" when I meant "2004]. We have corrected the error and deleted the comment.
Thanks for the heads-up!


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Meddling in the affairs of dragons since 1998