Editor's note: The following synopsis of the trial of Tim Stowell was taken from materials available at the onebatcave blog (which on a fast connection takes about 20 minutes to load). Please note that the synopsis follows the order the documents were in the original materials and since some messages are not dated this presentation may not follow the correct sequence of events. Other materials are from the USGenWeb Advisory Board's public list (BOARD-L), its secret list (BOARD-EXEC), the trial list (USGW-CONF2), other publicly available sources, and from interviews with participants. As the Board is extremely secretive about its actions there will be gaps in the record; thus any corrections and supplemental materials are welcome and the identity of correspondents will be kept confidential.

As always, editorial comments are mine. Read at your own risk!

Sentence first---Verdict Afterward: The Trial of Tim Stowell Continues...

Day 3--Circa Aug 19 2004

Still on the topic of Article I of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, Rich Howland points out that the article does not even call for a state logo or describe what it should look like, and such guidelines are also not found in Article XII. Nor has he seen any evidence of any violation of Article 1.

Moving over to the BOARD-EXEC side of the discussion, Rich responds to Linda Blum-Barton's message of the previous day. Addressing her directly, he notes that its his duty as an Advisory Board member to represent the project as a whole and it makes him sad that "you have bullied The AB in to the mess that is now taking place. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have been harmed by the accused and yet you are still here wanting to judge the evidence that you brought against them." He suggests that she should "be thinking just how it will look to the USGenWeb Members."

Following this message, Richard Harrison puts Rich Howland on moderated status on BOARD-EXEC, noting that accusations against other Board members are "out of line" and that Rich had gone "well beyond the limit with your unfounded allegations."

[Ed. Note. Ah, but Rich's allegations weren't unfounded, and Richard knew this because he had seen the grievances against Linda Blum-Barton. We have recently seen in other forums and via private communications just what effect Linda Blum-Barton had on GAGenWeb when she was active there. She had a known history of been emailing new CCs and telling them not to trust Tim. She also filed the original complaint alleging commercial activities on John Rigdon's GA and SC counties, but did not acknowledge this when Tim and Keith Giddeon were accused of firing him inappropriately, essentially letting Tim take the heat for a process she started. She continually harrassed Tim and the ASCs over a county she wanted to manage, although the county was currently being coordinated by a perfectly competent CC. It appears that her intent was to sow dissension and distrust among the CCs regarding Tim and the ASCs and to drive off volunteers, perhaps as part of a coordinated effort by other Archivists (Kim Gordon, Virginia Crilley) to get control of GAGW. Despite her documented dislike of Tim and her active efforts against him, she did not recuse herself from any of the trial proceedings or votes. A handful of Board members went on record publicly and privately disagreeing with Richard's Harrison's censoring of Rich Howland but it availed them nought. Richard is entirely comfortable with silencing those he does not want to hear.]

At this point, Richard Harrison notes "it would be more expeditious to deal with the body of the Charges rather than the Summary," and asks the members both to vote on whether Tim violated Article I of the bylaws and to begin discussion on the first charge, that Tim and Richard Pettys " used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes."

[Ed. Note. We are going to go out on a limb here and guess that Our Esteemed National Coordinator saw the writing on the wall: 1) discussing individual bylaws violations was going to take forever; 2) the general sense of the group was that bylaws violations either didn't occur or were piddly, nit-picky distractions and didn't even warrant being included as charges; 3) convicting Tim of piddly, nit-picky, and perhaps even non-existent bylaws violations would expose Board members and other fellow travelers to accusations of same.]

In response to Darilee's earlier question as to whether the trial would have to start over with a new set of Board members after September 1, Richard noted that he didn't think so but that it would "be up to the new NC and AB."

At this point, the discussion on BOARD-EXEC turns briefly to the case of Richard Pettys, who was accused with Tim and included in each charge against him. Richard Harrison [this project has too many Richards.--Ed.] had received some requests from Mr. Pettys; he informs the Board of these requests and how he addressed them:

"Please ensure that I am subscribed to the hearing list instanter [sic]. I will be filing several motions later in the day." Richard told Mr. Petty that he would be subscribed to the trial list when the Board "was ready to take up his case."

"I hereby object to the form of the hearings and the separation of Tim and I for your hearing purposes. Tim and I were suspended together, charged together and should be tried together. Therefore, I hereby object to the form of the hearing and demand that the hearings be held together." Richard denied this request and notes "The roles of Stowell and Pettys were different and the degree of their participation in the various events was different...the truth can be arrieved at much more effectively by considering their cases separately."

"Please take notice that I hereby place the Committee on notice that I wish to be represented in these proceedings by Teresa Lindquist. Ms. Lindquist may be reached through her email at merope@radix.net. All further communication should be sent both to Ms. Lindquist and myself. All communication from me shall be through my personal representative, Teresa Lindquist. [This is my personal favorite.--Ed.] Richard Harrison notes that he hadn't taken action on the request, didn't think Mr. Pettys was entitled to a personal representative, "especially one who is a Member Not in Good Standing of the project." He expresses some concern about subscribing me to the trial list.

[Ed. Note. Actually, the only thing MNIGS status proscribes is running for national level office. I can be and still am a CC; I can allegedly vote although that part doesn't seem to work too well; I can serve as an officer at any other level of the organizatioon I can serve on committees, I can write a newsletter, I can serve as an SC, etc. Point being, MNIGS or not, I am still a member, although I suspect that will change shortly.]

Angie objects to Richard's statement, noting, "As a member not in good standing, Teresa Lindquist is not qualified to participate in activites of the USGenWeb Project only as outlined in the bylaws and guidelines of the project. Nothing in the bylaws or guidelines prohibits a MNGS from acting as an advisor to a member during a hearing or mediation procedure." She offers to bring the matter up for a vote on BOARD-L,since, "there may be many people on the board that disagree with me. But I think that if Richard's request is to be denied, it should be by a vote of the board, not an executive order of the NC." Denise offers to second any such motion. Richard notes that the reason that I am a MNIGS is because I "failed to respect the confidentiality of this list...she has never expressed any regret for having done so nor indicated that she would in the future respect the confidentiality of any list. Subscribing her to the Hearing List would guaranty all posts to the list would appear in the DBS." [Well, that worked out well, didn't it?--Ed.]

Phyllis Rippee says she'll also support a motion to allow me to serve as Richard's representative, noting "which is going to make the AB look less foolish......allowing Teresa Lindquist to represent Richard Pettys and expecting posts to show up in the DBS, OR....denying Pettys' right to a personal representative of his own choice and expecting posts to show up in the DBS?" She also wonders if Tim, Richard Pettys or any of their personal representatives are subbed to the list and thus able to see the Board's deliberations. [She doesn't specify BOARD-EXEC or USGW-CONF2 and perhaps means both.--Ed.]

Back to Angie: "My personal opinion would be that permitting Pettys to choose his own personal representative is the "less foolish" choice. If she [agrees to keep the proceeding confidential] then I see no reason not to let Pettys have his choice...Agreeing to confidentiality and then breaking her word would show her lack of integrity. If...Richard Pettys doesn't protest her actions, or *does* protest her removal, it would show a lack of integrity on his part. But denying Pettys the choice of his personal representative would...show a lack of integrity on the part of the AB." Denise agrees with Angie, suggesting "Once she violates confidentiality then remove here, but don't deny her because you know she will violate confidentiality." Cyndi Enfinger agrees "with allowing Richard to choose whoever he wants to represent him," and removing them if confidentiality is violated.

Don Kelly weighs in: "Does anyone else share the feeling that this is what Petty's wants, to further muddy the waters?..let her represent him.....post her messages to defend him on the list, but be subscribed to this list, that is not at all necessary. Theresa [sic] can't participate in project business anyway."

Jan Cortez also agree with Angie that Richard should be able to have a representative of his choosing, noting "if Teresa publishes anything...she needs to be removed immediately....then again she may refrain from posting to the DBS, and as soon as its over, publish the whole thing...I think that Tim and Petty's will do the same thing anyway. Sometimes I wonder if the whole thing was made public, as it goes, it might have been better, since both Tim and Petty's asked for a public hearing." [Interesting concept, the Board having a public trial.--Ed.] Angie agrees: "If it's made public by Tim and/or Richard, well, so be it...if they choose to make it public, then the "the AB defamed me" becomes a non-issue...Because the AB *didn't* make the information public...If they choose to take the charges and the evidence into the public view, if they end up looking bad, it's their own actions, not ours. [Actually, when the Board's secret meetings end up going public, its usually the Board that looks bad. You think they'd learn.--Ed.]

Next up is Larry Flesher: "I also support allowing Teresa Lindquist to act as personal representative - however, the "groundrule" of confidentiality should be clearly explained to her...at the outset, along with the penalty for violation as immediate removal from the position of qualified personal representative."

Still on BOARD-EXEC, Denise also addresses Linda Blum-Barton's concerns from the previous day about changing the charges in the middle of the trial: "I know this will be a tough battle to fight because many of the things that Tim and company did aren't things that you can have concrete proof of...I certainly feel as though the Hearing is the correct forum to bring up the evidence that is available. As far as bring up new charges during the hearing, are you saying that there might be charges that aren't on one of the articles or sections of the bylaws mentioned? I thought by going through the bylaws, we could pull the evidence together that way, but maybe you don't think that is an effective way to proceed? Will that cause issues with the evidence you have to share?...I'm definitely NOT question [sic] you Linda, or your motives. I like you and have a lot of respect for you, and I don't envy you for having to go through all this mess."

Back on the trial list, the vote on the Article I violation proceeds:

Denise Woodside: NO

Angie Rayfield: Not Proven

Phyllis Rippee: "I vote to drop this Article I business. I vote to drop ANY accusation of misconduct stated in the Summary that does correspond specifically with one of the stated charges." (Angie Rayfield suggests she use the "Proven/Not Proven "because it seems to me that for each charge, there is either evidence to prove it, or there isn't. I don't like using "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" because they seem more appropriate for the final outcome, as in a trial...I see the hearing as kind of a two-part process. 1) Are the individual charges proven? and then 2) Do the actions rise to a level of gross misconduct, deserving of sanctions?")

Darilee Bednar: Not Proven

Don Kelly: Proven/Guilty. He notes, "the evidence is clearly shown on the webpages for everyone to see, no doubt about that, and the bylaw is equally clear; State Project names are XXGenWeb to denote membership of USGenWeb...I find there was a violation of the bylaw, however slight..........still it is undeniably present." In another message he expresses concern over how a not guilty vote would look to other SCs: "Some members may want to let this one slide because it it relatively innoceous [sic], yet there are technical violations and they are documented. It seems to me that relative weight of one complaint against another is not THE issue. If there were violations we must vote YES, or if there were no violations, we must vote NO. I am fundamentally against giving a free pass...other states are watching...If a free pass to violate bylaws is given here, what do we do the next time a violation crops up? We must treat everyone the same.....every state the same. To set a bad precedent now bodes ill for the future We have little choice in this matter except to vote YES, or sweep the entire matter under the rug." And yet again: "Here we have an opportunity to uphold a bylaw...Every decision made by this AB sets a precedent for future ABs to follow...ARTICLE 1 is clear. The pages in violation are clear. Violations in other states are immateial to this particular issue. So do we uphold this bylaw today, or do we just let it slide and in effect devalue it?" [Violations in other states are immaterial!?--Ed.]

Bettie Wood: Proven. She notes "The bylaws say "shall be", not "may be", not "can be"..." and posts links to several messages from GAGEN-L indicating that a year ago or so members of the GAGenWeb [but not Tim] were discussing how to display the GAGenWeb project name. She also notes "I'm not real sure we should be voting on each one of the charges until the hearing is over, & then vote on everything as a whole...I hope we are reserving the right to NOT dismiss these Articles/Charges after they are voted on, & will basically hold them until the hearing is over."

Cyndi Enfinger: If we can prove notice was given by the AB and ignored, I'll vote proven, otherwise, I vote not proven.

Shari Handley: Not Proven

Teri Brown: Not Proven

Linda Blum-Barton: [her vote is too long to reprint here, but I think she voted guilty--Ed.]

Over on BOARD-EXEC, Darilee is frustrated: "This is driving me crazy everyone...We have to have guidelines... I was assuming the NC and the people who worked up the charges had created guidelines... and now, we are directionless clowns... This is totally unprofessional, illogical, and a plain waste of time... I want everyone to take two steps backwards while someone (s) submits a guideline ..." She also shares her thought on Article I by telling a long story about parking her trike in front of her store and then being told she couldn't do that anymore because other people had gotten tickets for doing the same thing. She notes "The POINT IS: If something is WRONG for one person it is WRONG for everyone else. So the idea of "website nazis" better be discussed again and preparations better be made to enforce the same standards on all state websites. That's why I voted not proven..." Richard expresses confusion over her request for guidelines, noting, "Stowell and Pettys have been accused of some things by the AB. They are either guilty or not guilty of each of the charges. It is the responsibility of the individual AB members to make decisions about that." Phyllis Rippee joins in, stating "When a list of charges was sent to Stowell and Pettys, there was nothing in that list that stated there was a violation of Article I of the bylaws. That statement was in the Summary......that is NOT where charges should be and to take anything presented in the Summary and go inch by inch through it, is not proper...there are CHARGES to deal with and anything in the Summary that does not support the CHARGES should not be dealt with now....and would not be dealt with now in a real world court.....nor in the conducting of a fair hearing."

At this point, Linda Blum-Barton decides to change the subject and starts to discuss the evidence that Tim submitted with his response to the charges.

[Ed. Note. Here Linda refers to Exhibit 8 in Tim's evidence--Amy Hedrick's resignation--which includes specific charges against Linda, specifically Amy's warning to Tim that "Linda Barton is out to get you "impeached". She has consistently sent me notes on how I should be careful posting messages stating I need help with my site, because you might take the site from me. Or when I posted about Wayne County, she emailed me telling me to expect a backlash and be ready to lose my site over that. When I first got started she told me not to tell you I need help anymore, or you would "fire" me. She has a real problem. As do several more. She tried to "win" me over to her side right off the bat, but I didn't respond the way she wanted me too." This does go on a bit, so buckle in.]

Linda says she's presenting the evidence not because Tim posted the resignation letter in a public forum but "because I believe the body of this correspondence and other evidence referenced is relevant to several of the charges against Mr. Stowell..." Linda claims that Exhibit 8 reveals the following: 1) That Ms. Hedrick had been asked by the previous CC...of Glynn County to take over Glynn County as CC before she resigned (Feb 7, 2003) from GAGenWeb. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GAGEN/2003-02/1044749863

2) That Ms. Hedrick requested to adopt Glynn County on Feb 14, 2003...the [Regional Coordinators] were responsible for responding to adoption requests...Ms. Hedrick stated to me on April 10th, 2003 and earlier...that Mr. Pettys had never responded to her requests to adopt the county but Mr. Stowell had after her second request went to both of them on 2/26/2003.

3) That during this time period, the county table changed many times concerning Glynn County. Being linked to the website of Sue Peterson, being linked to a new site created by Mr. Pettys in rootsweb space showing himself as County Coordinator...this same website...revised by Mr. Stowell apparently to reflect Amy as the CC; and finally Amy's own website.

3) That on 4/10/2003 before Amy had a password for her webspace or had been given any direction in the beginning of her website, she received a password to vote in the SC Recall vote in GAGenWeb. In effect, according to the GAGenWeb Guidelines, she had not been a CC for 30 days at this point. She had also not been subscribed to the GAGEN-L.

The County Selection list of Mr. Stowell's for GAGenWeb with last update of 21 Feb 2003 shows Glynn County as Adoption Pending with Richard Pettys listed because he was the Regional Coordinator of the Coastal Region.

Amy Hedrick's name was on the County Selection List of Mr. Stowell's for GAGenWeb on 16 Mar 2003. Her name was listed as CC but the email link went to Mr. Stowell's email address. The link to the county site went to http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html

Linda includes the text of an email she wrote to Amy on March 27, 2003 in which she welcomed her to GAGenWeb and offered to help her if she had any questions. To which Amy replied on Mar 27: "I don't know whether I have gotten the Glynn site or not. I noticed one was up on Rootsweb, but Richard Pettys is the coordinator...Is this just a formality until I take over the site, or is he taking it over? Tim Stowell never sent me the password and any info on what to do yet."

Linda replied to this email on March 28 2003 telling Amy that the "The Georgia GenWeb Table of Contents has your name as new CC of Glynn County as of 3/16/03 but the email link there went to Tim's email." [Oh look at that...Linda seems unclear on the correct name of the Project.--Ed.] Linda had to find Amy's email on a message board about Glynn county. She asked Amy "Do you want me to look at the archives of > our list and see if he has announced you as CC of the site there yet? I just assumed you had the site since your name is posted on TOC."

Amy responded ["in part", per Linda.--Ed.] on March 28 that she also thought she had the page and that Tim told he had no idea that Richard has started up a Glynn county page. Tim told her he would set up skeleton page and get back with her. Amy said that Susan Peterson [the former CC] asked her to take over the page at the beginning of February and "I sent emails to Richard and Tim starting on the 14th. Tim answered the second one on the 26th. Then he finally decided to accept me, because he couldn't get in contact with Richard." Amy notes that she hopes nothing untoward is going on, "especially after I have already been told that I have the site and I am really looking forward to doing this, plus I am local, I live on the Brantley/Glynn county line, and as you can see from the Glynn message board, I do a lot of lookups for people...I am supposed to be the new CC of the Glynn site...I have been waiting on this since February."

[Ed. Note. Although Linda provides headers and date information with her own emails, she neither provides this information with Amy's emails, nor does she appear to include Amy's complete emails. For example, in Amy's letter to her on March 28, there is a huge gap where Linda apparently removed some information about Richard Pettys, although she included enough to make it appear that Richard Pettys was engaged in something underhanded in regards to the Glynn county site. While I have redacted Amy's letter here, it is apparent that she was both concerned and confused over the fluctuating status of the Glynn county site. Now, anyone who knows Tim knows that he tends to read his email in batches separated at long intervals will commonly respond to dozens of emails at a single sitting. Its annoying, but its hardly criminal. Linda knew this and could have explained it to Amy, but she didn't.]

Linda includes the following county selection history for Glynn county, as well as the history of her correspondence with Amy:

------------------------------------------------------------------

County Selection List History on Glynn County -

1/28/2003 - Glynn - Adoption Pending - Richard Pettys - url linked http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html

2/06/2003 - Glynn - Bob & Sue Peterson - url linked http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html

2/21/2003 - Glynn - Adoption Pending/Richard Pettys - url linked -http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynncco.html

2/23/03 - Same as 2/21/2003

2/26/2003 - Same Url is linked for Glynn Co site - Richard Pettys listed - no Adoption Pending notice; email addrress [sic] is mailto:rpettys@smyrnacable.net

3/25/2003 -- last update date; saved on 3/28/2003 - Line is in Yellow which indicated Under Construction; URL goes to petersnn.org address above; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick new as of 16 Mar 2003; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net

...First correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick 3/27/2003...
...Second correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick 3/28/2003...
...Third Correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick, instigated by her because she had received a voting password to vote in the SC Recall Issue for GAGenWeb Dated 4/10/2003...[This is discussed below.--Ed.]

4/16/2003 - Last Update date - 4/06/2003; saved on 4/16/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to petersnn.org address above; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick new as of 16 Mar 2003; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net

4/23/2003 - Last Update date - 4/20/2003; saved on 4/23/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net

4/28/2003 - Last Update date -4/28/2003; saved on 4/28/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net

05/01/2003 - Last Update date - 05/01/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net

05/31/2003 - Last Update date - 05/31/2003; Line is Green indicating New website;URL goes to http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is amylyn@btconline.net (Amy Hedrick's email address)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linda then posts series of emails to and from Amy, dated April 10, 2003 [she includes headers with this one.--Ed.] Amy had received a password to vote in an upcoming "State Coordinator Recall Election Poll" then being conducted by the Election Committee. Amy said "Seeing as how I am new to this, I don't think I want to vote on the removal of Tim Stowell, as I don't have any idea on what is going on." She asked Linda how she should respond and noted "I am not familiar with how things work, or what all of these abbreviations stand for, like ASC, etc." At that point, Amy was still waiting for Tim to return from an out-of-town trip for family business and said "I will agree on one aspect, he is not very timely on returning emails...I downloaded all of the software last week, all this week I am waiting for him to have time. Maybe someone else can show me the ropes on uploading pages, and maintaining the site."

In Linda's response to Amy on April 10, she told Amy she didn't have to vote but that "it will help the "whole project" to at least mark "present" instead of ignoring it. Apathy in our elections is one of our problems." She also explained to her what an ASC is. And then she proceeded to tell Amy [with more apparent large gaps where something was removed.--Ed/] exactly why the SC was conducting the poll to remove Tim: "The base reason this vote is being held is because he was approached about trying to get our GAGenWeb guidelines revised to allow for election of SC (State Coordinator) every 2 or 3 years. He could run in this election and if his CC's were happy, he would be reelected but he does not want elections." She assured Amy that plenty of people would be willing to help her set up her pages, and offered to help her herself once Amy had the password and software.

For this message Linda explains the apparent gaps: "I have removed portions of this email that I don't care to have spread around the internet." She offers to show complete versions of the emails to "anyone who wants to see them that I believe will not use them outside of this forum." [Probably meaning that Tim and Richard Howland were not invited to request full versions. This is probably the part of the email where Linda shared with Amy what a loser she thinks Tim is.--Ed.] She continues: "at this point in time there had been many CC's added in time to get them on the voter list before the recall vote. I tried to explain a little to Amy about the background of what had gone on...I told her the vote was to recall Tim, not to change the guidelines...It was obvious to me and others that this website and Amy were in the middle of some sort of *struggle* between Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys and I could tell she would be a good CC because of the work I had seen that she had done and did not want to see her get used in whatever this *struggle* might be. I did use the word "gestapo" in my description." [Lovely. How nice for newcomers to the project to see us talk about each other in those terms.--Ed.]

From Amy to Linda, also dated April 10: "I do agree that the SC should be elected every 2 to 3 years...Power can be an evil thing. I was already warned about Richard by another CC whose site was just taken over by him without her consent or notice. I will vote "present", I just wanted to make sure this is what to mark if I didn't want to vote at this time. If this vote is to change the "laws" and have an election every 2-3 years, I am for that. Right now I have nothing to loose if I vote "yes", except for the password to the site." She also assured Linda that she had FTP and HTML software and although she had not yet received the password or think she'd been subscribed to GAGEN-L, Tim had promised to help her get started and she didn't think he'd fire her for asking for help.

Linda responded to this by telling Amy that she'd received a ballot because "Tim included you as a "legal" CC even though he hasn't changed the TOC to reflect that......but, that is Tim!" Linda assured her that she'd have nothing to fear however she voted because "the EC is run by honest people and it is a very protected process. No one knows how you vote in any election.....ever. Well, one or two people on EC do, but no one else." [Actually, no one on the EC should ever know how anyone votes, since the votes are all run through Larry Stephens' server. Somehow the reassurance that only "one or two" people on the EC actually do get to see our votes is not very comforting.--Ed.] She tells Amy that "Richard, Tim and a couple of others are posting there [GAGEN-L] trying to "urge" people to not vote at all......which would cause us not to receive a quorum......which means the vote will not count. A "present" vote at least gives us a quorum if enough people respond, whether they vote yes, no or present. Not voting at all stacks the vote in their favor." Linda goes on: "I would love to see you vote with us, but in no way want to mislead you in thinking that a vote here is for changing the guidelines...This vote is to remove Tim Stowell as SC or not and nothing else. There are alot of us who feel we will never get elections unless he is gone, thus the push. It is nothing personal on our side, he has made it so. The only way to get the guidelines changed...is to get it approved through the SC...and the GAGenWeb Council......the council members are almost all "appointed" by Tim...I don't have to tell you what that means."

[Ed. Note. Remember, this a brand new to USGenWeb CC that Linda is addressing.]

After this, Linda goes back to the minutae of webspace management and asks whether the former Glynn county CC gave her permission to use materials on the new county site. She encourages her to get her website ready so that it can be uploaded as soon as she received the password, but reminds her that the page "needs to meet all Georgia and USGENWEB guidelines." She uses the opportunity to get in another dig at Tim: "We used to have a great Help for CC's page at Georgia's state pages but alas the person who keeps it is someone that doesn't always agree with Tim so she had that "privilege" taken away."

Amy then expresses some frustration with getting started in USGenWeb. She's not familiar with the software, doesn't know how to design a website, and hasn't ever done this before [email dated April 10]. She tells Linda that the previous CC had removed all her data, but that most of it was Amy's anyways and she wanted to revise it to reflect current copyright law. She notes that the old CC "is going to share what she...has done, with me. She suggested leaving it at her web site and I can link to it from mine for now. I agree with this, as ...it would be a lot easier for her to put her stuff up and not have to send it to me right now...I want it up immediatley and this would be the quickest way to do it." She goes on to say that she will vote in the election and asks how to sign up for the mailing list.

[Ed. Note. Thus endeth Part 1 of Linda's evidence against Tim.]

Day 3 Continues...

Linda Blum-Barton continues her back-and-forth with Amy Hedrick on April 11, first asking about the HTML software she uses. Amy says she's just waiting on the password and some help to get started and may go ahead and buy Front Page. Linda tells her she can't find the Glynn county page because its not linked to from the Georgia county page, which is still pointing to the old Glynn county page. She's not sure who authored that page, but thinks whoever did would have the password Amy needed to put her new page up. She again offers to help Amy work on her pages or answer questions she may have. Amy thought that Tim may have had a hand in the page because the intro, which Amy thought was a little rude, had been changed and her name and email address added to the page. Linda responds that the Root$web version of the page (http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/), which she assumed to Amy's new page, was not linked to from the "Georgia GenWeb" table of contents [Oops. There she goes again.--Ed.], but that the old Glynn county page was. Linda pointed out that "which means no one will be going to the "new page" until it is changed unless they happen upon it on a search engine." Apparently, she cannot resist the opportunity to take a dig at Tim: "It doesn't really matter at this point but sometimes we wonder if Tim does stuff like this for "an underlying reason" or just because he is pretty lax about getting things done." Amy then tries to explain the confusion over the two Glynn county pages: "The first address you listed is the site that Richard started without telling anyone, and then Tim took it from him because it had already been promised to me. Then Tim changed the intro paragraph, because I asked him too. The second address is Susan's site, which she took down all of the links until I get started, plus she had to rework them. From talking with Tim, I think he is getting tired of Richard and his antics. Apparently he encountered some trouble with him on this Glynn Site, he never told me what happened or why Richard just started the site after ignoring my email to volunteer, and Tim's emails suggesting me as the CC."

At this point, Linda admits that she has no further emails with Amy saved. She claims to have helped her with Front Page and with FTP and Amy was succesful in getting her pages started. Linda says "She built a great site for Glynn County, GA researchers. My only recollection of any correspondence I had with her after that was when I posted on GAGEN-L that I was working on a transcription of an 1869 Masonic Biography & Dictionary and offered to send transcriptions relative to any county or the state to anyone who asked for them. She wrote me and said she'd like to have anything about Glynn county and I sent it to her. This was in April 2003..." Linda claims that she next wrote to Amy in January 2004 when Amy made a post to GAGEN-L regarding a county site that appeared to have been abandoned. Linda recalls "It was highly unacceptable to the SC and RC's for this type of post to be made on GAGEN-L and there are numerous cases in 2002-2004 where a post concerning someone's disappearance or broken links were met with nasty replies about keeping personnel business offlist. I don't believe I told her she might lose her site over it, just tried to warn her she might get emails from RC's because of it." Despite her rather obsessive documentation of every thing else in this matter, Linda claims that she did not retain a copy of this final email to Amy.

Linda believes that the evidence so exhaustively supplied above applies to the following charges: [Let's just take a look at this, shall we?--Ed.]

(1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project.

[Ed. Note. Based on the evidence submitted above Tim accepted Amy's offer to adopt Glynn county and apparently put her name on the voter's list. So she ended up getting a password to vote in the poll the EC was running. This may have been a oversight on his part or the part of the EC (which may not have been familiar with the GA Guidelines), or he may have given Amy the vote so she'd vote for him. If the latter were the case, do you think she'd not have any idea what was going on when she got the poll message? There is ample evidence presented above that someone attempted to manipulate Amy's vote; Linda seems quite pleased with her own diligent efforts to convince Amy to both vote and to vote against Tim.]

(a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee.

[Ed. Note. Linda's supplied no evidence that Tim did not subscribe Amy to the CC list, although appears that he did not subscribe her before he went out of town, but she was eventually subscribed, as evidenced by her own subsequent posts to GAGEN-L. The EC has its own mailing lists to contact members and SCs are not to my knowledge required to use the state mailing for that purpose. In any event, a brief perusal of the mailing list archives shows that Tim appears to have been fairly diligent in forwarding EC messages to the list.]

(b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project.

[Ed. Note. No evidence of this is provided in Linda's documentation whatsoever. Amy never once complained that she had repeatedly requested to be subbed to the list--in fact, she appeared unfamiliar with it. She was subscribed, as noted above. Linda also does not demonstrate that former members remained subscribed to the list.]

(c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought into compliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required.

[Ed. Note. Again, no evidence of this is provided. Glynn county apparently was passed fairly seamlessly to Amy from the old CC; that Amy needed to get familiar with HTML and FTP software and get a password from Tim, who was out of town, is not evidence that the old CC was holding a place or using her vote, or that Glynn had gone for years without being updated.]

(d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods.

[Ed. Note. Now she's just being sloppy. Basically all she did was document a series of emails over a few days between herself and a newbie, in which she 1) very kindly offered to help her get started; and 2) never missed a single opportunity to turn this newbie against Tim. Furthermore, she redacted portions of the emails she presented as evidence against Tim, making it impossible for the rest of Board to judge the true nature of her conversation with Amy or for Tim to defend himself. And at no point did she explain how it is that Amy came to have such a dim opinion of her. At some point, you kinda have to wonder why Linda initiated this correspondence with Amy in the first place and how it came to be that her interactions with Amy and the day-to-day history of links to the Glynn county page are so obsessively documented. Linda is after all a Board member, an Archivist, and a CC; you think she'd be kinda busy. You don't suppose it was her job to get this information, do you?]

Back on BOARD-EXEC, poor Darilee says "I want written guidelines in an outline I can follow. I want a clear beginning and ending to each specific charge Some said lets look at each one separately... You said good idea You called for a vote...People are still discussing the first issue...and not voting on it. I would like leadership... Please"

Phyllis bluntly requests evidence that Tim violated the specific allegations against him in Charge 1: "I would like to see the proof that CC were not subbed to the mail lists....that people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not member of GAGenWeb....that sites were not updated and that this prevented a quorum from being reached when a vote was taken...that Tim Stowell adopted counties above the limit of 3....and was not merely babysitting them as he claims....that CCs tried to adopt counties and were rejected...that co-CCs or ass't CCs were denied being added when requested by the CC...that CCs were placed without being announced on the lists...that "phantom CCs" existed."

Responding to an earlier point made by Darilee on BOARD-EXEC, Bettie notes "theses [sic] other states DO need to be told about their violations...They need to correct the spellings wherever they are, not just their logos, but they are not the ones with all the charges against them If Tim is using this as a defense...then why aren't the majority of the states doing the same thing? They don't use StatenameGenWeb, & then go to another gen project & use the same logo or spelling there."

Angie Rayfield asks to address a point on the record: "I believe it would be inappropriate...to begin discussion of the next set of charges without concluding the voting on Article I. As near as I can tell, we haven't received votes from everyone yet. I think we should also stick to what is the normal routine -- once the vote has been called, discussion of the issue being voted upon should end."

In a message on BOARD-EXEC, Cyndi Enfinger notes that has not voted on Article I because she cannot access the trial lists from work. She agrees that "It would make sense to me to have Isaiah manage the discussion time, voting time, etc. for each charge, like is done with motions on BOARD-L. If we follow the same structure as motions with each charge being clearly defined for discussion, I don't see where an outline is necessary."

Cyndi also addresses the "evidence" supplied by Bettie in the Article 1 issue: "Was proof offered that two week notice was given to Tim by the AB to correct the XXGenWeb issue as listed in the by-laws (not discussion messages on the GA list, but notice from the AB to Tim)?...If we can prove notice was given by the AB and ignored, I'll vote proven, otherwise, I vote not proven.

On BOARD-EXEC, Darilee asks if the USGW-CONF2 list going to be archived and notes that if it is, "I can guarantee everyone that if Teresa is allowed access to that list it will be all over the net...I still say MNIGS should mean something... and so far for Teresa it doesn't mean squat." [Well, no, it doesn't. And why should it? Darilee seems unaware that any list that is archived on Root$web is publicly available to anyone, and I would not have to post it "all over the net." Of course, if they could behave themselves none of this would be necessary in the first place.--Ed.]

In a subsequent message on BOARD-EXEC Darilee continues her quest for some sort of leadership: "...I just want someone to take charge... and I want to see documentation...I would suggest Shari... the way things are dragging out...the new AB will be seated before we finish the hearing...or Phyllis because most of the time I understand her long explainations [sic]. But I defer to the NC..."

Linda pops back into the discussion on USGW-CONF2 with documentation that Tim and/or his ASCs allowed members to adopt more than three counties after the GAGenWeb guidelines were passed in April 2002. Anyone with more than three counties at that time were allowed to keep them. She notes: "Mr. Stowell violated this guideline in two ways, by himself adopting more than 3 counties after the Guidelines were passed; and by allowing some of the Regional Coordinators to do the same."

State Coordinator -

From the passage of the GAGenWeb Guidelines - Tim Stowell went from 3 counties, down to 2 and then back up to 5 in 2004.

Feb 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, and Ware Counties.
May 31, 2002 Update - Saved June 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties
Oct 2, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties
Dec 19, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties
Jan, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties
Feb 21, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta and Hancock Counties
Feb 7, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. Forsyth and Troup are shown in Green indicating New websites.
May 24, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. All counties are shown on normal background indicating existing websites, not adoption pending or up for adoption or under construction or new. Charles Barnum has been added as Co-CC with Tim Stowell on Troup County as of 29 Apr 2004.
June 01, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Evans yellow indicating new website; Forsyth, Hancock, Troup w/ Charles Barnum

Regional Coordinators -

At the time the guidelines were passed, Brenda Pierce had six counties. She had given Spalding County to her husband, Chuck Pierce...around the time the guidelines passed, she took Cobb County which gave her seven again. Then she gave Cobb county up again some time in 2002 which left her with six counties. The entire time that Chuck Pierce was listed as CC of Cherokee County on the County Selection List with Vanessa Sanders; Brenda's name was listed on the actual website as the County Coordinator. Vanessa Sanders name was never to be found on the website.

Feb 2002 - Brenda Pierce - CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding, Spalding
May 31, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Cobb, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
Oct 2, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
Dec 19, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
Jan, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
Feb 21, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
Feb 7, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding
May 24, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding

Feb 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of None
May 31, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Spalding
Oct 2, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (shown as New site with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding
Dec 19, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding
Jan, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding
Feb 21, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding Feb 7, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene as of 21 Jan 2004, Spalding
May 24, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene, Spalding

Feb 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer
May 31, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer, McIntosh
Oct 2, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh
Dec 19, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh
Jan, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh
Feb 21, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh
Feb 7,2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Echols, Evans, Gilmer, Liberty, McIntosh
May 24, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh
June 1, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer Counties; Liberty County has at this time been adopted by Letha Bailey...McIntosh county has been adopted by Sarah Hughes. Neither of these CC's ever added their name to the website or changed anything on it. Letha Bailey had been CC long enough to have been in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines for time given to a new CC to make changes.

Feb 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Jenkins, Macon, Treutlen
May 31, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon
Oct 2, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam new as of 21 Sept 2002
Dec 19, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam
Jan, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam
Feb 21, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam
Feb 7, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart
May 24, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart
June 1, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford, Macon, Putnam; On this TOC - Hart County is listed with a new URL but the CC is still listed as Deb Lowe; The new URL goes to Margie Daniel's present day Hart County website http://www.rootsweb.com/~gahart/ ...even though the County Selection Table still showed Darrell Ertzberger as CC of Stephens County, the URL went to this site http://www.rootsweb.com/~gastephe/ The copy of this website I kept shows a last update date of 5/16/2004 with Margie Daniels listed as the contact...

Day 4--August 20, 2004: And So It Goes...

[Ed. Note. For some reason, Linda's long message about Tim and his ASCs having more than three counties is reposted. We won't bore you with it again.]

The discussion of Richard Pettys being allowed to choose a representative of his choice also continues on BOARD-EXEC, with Don Kelly stating he has no objection to it, but that "Teresa is NIGS and cannot participate in project business or be subscribed to a project mailing list unless she obtains a waiver from the NC...Not being subscribed to this Hear list will not hamper her defense of Richard P. IMHO she should not be given a waiver to use this Hear list in any way she chooses." Angie however notes that if they allow Richard his choice of representive and he chooses me, "then if we do not permit her to be subscribed to the list, then we are effectively giving him PERMISSION to take posts off-list." [Horrors!--Ed.] She thinks its better to "request the confidentiality agreement and subscribe her, then remove her if the posts show up elsewhere, than to create a situation where it can be argued that we basically put someone in a situation of either violating confidentiality or not getting the assistance they chose." She's convinced that I'm itching to post the information wherever I can but says she has "nothing to hide" and that "the end result won't be any more slanted than it will be when she gets bits & pieces forwarded to her...personally, I think Teresa will be about as useful to Richard as a bike to a fish, and I don't think "assistance" in the hearing is actually the purpose. But I don't think it's right to deny someone the assistance they request in a matter as serious as this."

Phyllis recalls that "confidentiality didn't mean anything to someone, or the message containing the charges wouldn't have appeared on DBS. And, then there's the boast by W. David that he knows everything that is transpiring...Confidentiality didn't mean anything to Teresa when she was running for office, or during the time she served on the AB...I suppose that we could also stipulate that only ONE of them will be allowed to post statements, while the other will be subbed in "read only" mode. Furthermore that if an attempt is made to post statements from both in an email from the one with that privilege, TL will be unsubbed immediately." [And the point of that would be? It certainly wouldn't keep their precious secrets under wraps.--Ed.]

Angie agrees that "the odds are slim that Teresa would (a) agree to confidentiality, and (b) actually keep discussions confidential...under the circumstances it would be better to let her re-post a post or two than to penalize Richard before the fact (and that's exactly how it will be spun if we don't let him choose his advisor)...if she refuses to agree to confidentiality, I would say it would be reasonable to refuse to subscribe her to the hearing list in any form...Richard, as the accused, shouldn't be read-only, no matter whether or not he wants Teresa to have a forum. His advisor...would be subscribed in read-only status...and should not be actively participating. In other words, the advisor speaks to the accused, and no one else -- no speeches posted by way of the accused, no commentary. After all, the advisor's role is just that -- to ADVISE." [Ah, so that's what they are worried about. They don't want anyone else on their soapbox.--Ed.]

Getting into the spirit of preventing either the accused or their representatives from actually being able to say something that might offend the Board, Phyllis suggests "If the accused are to be privy to the comments that we make, they have to be in "read only mode" until we have something that we want to ask them for further clarification.....they should not be able to interject a comment whenever they wish. ...how about.........requiring confidentiality from the accused and personal representative.....requiring a choice of who is to post replies should we want more information....breech of confidentiality means immediate removal and the necessity of exchange of info between accused and advisor." She notes that I won't "have any more influence with the members than she's ever had. Those who are out to B M C about the AB degrees> [sic] are going to do it anyway; others will wait for the synopsis from the AB when it is over; others don't give a hoot and haven't the slightest idea that anything is going on." [No, I don't have any idea what "B M C" means.--Ed.] Shari Handley thinks this is a good plan.

At this point Richard Harrison steps in and notes that he's asked Mr. Pettys to hold his requests until the Board is ready to begin his trial.

Richard Harrison admits to trying to move the process along too fast, noting that some members are not ready to vote on the Article I violation. He also admits that "voting on one item while the next one is being discussed seems to be too confusing for some members." He then suspends voting on Article I [Heh, it wasn't going his way anyways.--Ed.] and says "At a future point I will call for additional discussion on this item. After the discussion we will start the vote over." He then asks the group to continue discussion of Item 1 from the Charges.

On BOARD-EXEC, Cyndi notes that "grievances or personal messages that would support the charges of this hearing" have been received by the Board or it members individually. She asks: "How do we go about using this evidence without breaching the confidentiality of those who wrote the messages? It is clear that if this information is posted on HEAR, it may end up elsewhere. [Oops.--Ed.]

Angie guesses that Cyndi has received information that she's been asked to keep confidential and suggests they be asked if their statement can be used in the trial with their name attached, and says, "If they don't want their name used, period, I'm not sure how we could use the evidence, at least not for the most part...If someone is saying, for instance, that they asked on X occasions to be subbed to the required list but weren't subscribed, it doesn't seem right to use it -- there's no way for someone to say that the evidence is incorrect if they don't have specifics. If they have an email they say was written by Tim or Richard that proves any of the points being argued, I don't know much way to present it without headers to *prove* that it came from who they say it did, although I suppose it would be possible to edit the headers to have the "from" information without the "to" information." She notes however, that she would have no qualms about accepting as evidence an email without headers from someone claiming they feared reprisal, noting "The only reason would be because they are speaking to their opinions or feelings, not something you would normally consider a statement of fact. And I would only agree that the statement should be included if the AB member forwarding it can attest that he/she has personally checked any verifiable facts in the statement...And preferably it would only be statements that include feelings or opinions based on first-hand observation..."

At this point, Rich Howland [who apparently is still moderated on BOARD-EXEC] sends an email to the Board members personally noting that Tim has been silent through all this because he lost his modem in a lightning storm. He agrees with an earlier comment from Phyllis that Tim can't "be good all by himself."

Shari Handley notes that the trial list is itself a confidential forum and the Board should operate under that assumption. She says "The fact that this is a personnel matter and some of the evidence is of a private nature is the very reason that we are holding a closed hearing. If the information ends up elsewhere, it will be due to a serious breach of confidentiality. We cannot totally prevent some untrustworthy person from doing this, but we do need to be able to conduct a thorough hearing."

Day 5--Circa Aug 22, 2004: The Defendent is Brought Forth

Darilee Bednar starts the day off by thanking Linda for providing "detailed documention, and notes that she is surprised that "Mr. Stowell chose to send to a list a letter from Ms Hedrick that "attacked" you and Mr Pettys." [hmmm...Much of Linda's "documentation" is of her attacking Tim in front of a new volunteer.--Ed.]

At long last, Tim Stowell is brought before the court, but not before he acknowledges to Richard Harrison's standard blather about confidentiality and the consequences of violating same. [We note dryly that he does not actually agree to it.--Ed.]

Linda Blum-Barton weighs in again on the Article I violation: "...as volunteers if we are going to be asked to follow any rules then we should be asked to follow all rules, not just some...The fact that other states use the full name of their state in their logos and on their pages is interesting but doesn't mean to me that the GAGenWeb shouldn't use the name correctly, just that the other states should be required to follow the same rules...Apparently the writers of the original Bylaws thought there was a good reason to have service marks reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project...Why would there be reserved service marks if they weren't meant to be used? It doesn't seem that you would only do that to keep someone else from using them." [Unless you were Linda Lewis.--Ed.] Linda goes on to provide several definitions of "service mark" and "trademark," and segues gracefully into a discussion of violations of the GAGenWeb guidelines 16A and 16B. She notes, "If the specification of a servicemark is included in the bylaws and the use of an official logo is required in state guidelines then there must be a reason why." She notes that during Tim's tenure as SC [which if I recall correctly stretched over 7 years], "there were numerous variations of logos and names used on the State pages and on pages of Regional Coordinators who were appointed by Mr. Stowell to serve on a ruling council and to *assist* and recruit CC's." She provides two urls of old archived GAGenWeb pages from the Wayback Machine (one of which has the pink peach GAGenWeb logo that Tim had used for years, and one of which shows only broken graphics links) and two links to email messages on GAGEN-L (one of which is Tim asking CCs to use the correct GAGenWeb logo in May 2004, and one of which is Linda herself after Tim's expulsion explaining why Tim's logo is no longer in use).

[Ed. Note. The two archive.org links I suppose are supposed to demonstrate "numerous variations of logos" and I guess the email links are supposed to show Tim "assisting" CCs. Whatever. Its not evidence.]

Linda goes on to note that after Tim reminded the CCs of the correct GAGenWeb logo, she was contacted by Sylvia Rankin, CC of Pickens county, who had been asked to remove her "grayed out" logo. With Sylvia's permission, Linda posted some email correspondence between Sylvia and Bill Clody, a GAGW Regional Coordinator. On May 14, 2003 Bill had written to the two CCs of Pickens county, GA to congratulate them on "a great looking site". He noted in particular that "it is very elegant, professional looking and some how conveys the cool freshness of the mountains where you are located. I don't know if it is the color set that you chose or the carving from the church but there is almost a feel of the mountains." Sylvia also included a statement:

"Originally Tim emailed me (several years ago--when I first did the Pickens County site) that it was perfectly OK on my black/white or greyscale website aimed at low graphics to use the greyscale logo...There was an email to the GAGen list about being in compliance with the official pink logo, noting that everyone had to update their sites and use the correct logo. Bill Clody...backed Tim in saying that we had to remove the greyscale logo. I did it immediately, with an email to Tim reminding him that he had approved it several years prior...The first I heard of new compliance rules was his posting on the list, mentioning specifically "grayed out"...Knowing of the "bad climate" within the GA GenWeb project at the time, I elected to replace the greyscaled Georgia logo with the pink one so as to not provide any fodder for the perceived gestapo-type leadership. I wanted to keep Pickens County. I noted that they did not require the official non-greyed out logos for USGenWeb, etc.

[Ed. Note. Let's see if I have this down correctly. All Linda has shown is that Tim was somewhat belatedly bringing the counties into compliance with the guidelines. Tim appeared to be making an effort to bring states in GAGenWeb into compliance with the state guidelines via a general post to the CC list. He mentions no one by name but does provide examples of logos that are not acceptable. Linda has brief correspondence with one CC who apparently felt singled out because the words "greyed out" were used in Tim's message. Linda cannot provide evidence that anyone else was using a greyed out logo, that "numerous" different logos were in use, that Tim approved anything but the sanctioned logo, that Tim was treating some CCs differently than other CCs, OR that Tim harrassed this woman over her logo. In fact, Sylvia notes that he did not correspond with her at all on the matter. And if Linda is so worried about CCs leaving USGenWeb and taking their data with them, maybe they should have thought about the repercussions of pissing people off before they started this.]

Linda goes on [and on...]: "Do I personally view the previous "official" logo and name usage as a violation of Article I of USGenWeb Bylaws? Yes, I do because of my interpretation of it. Do I agree it could be interpreted another way? Yes. Do I believe there were violations of GAGenWeb Guidelines #16 A & B allowed to continue by some members of GAGenWeb under Mr. Stowell's tenure as SC while others were ignored? Yes...Do I believe the violation that I see of Article I of USGenWeb Bylaws rises to the level of suspension on it's own merit? No, I don't. I believe it is one small part of a much larger issue...Do I believe the violations that I see of GAGenWeb Guidelines #16 A & B allowed by Mr. Stowell and his ruling council rise to the level of suspension? Yes, as part of a continued pattern of total disregard of these guidelines allowed for some members and enforcement of them *against* others. It was prejudicial towards the members who were targeted."

Don Kelly thanks Linda for pointing out "the falacy of interpretation, " and notes "This bylaw is written so clearly that there is no room for interpretation...Any project name not written as XXGenWeb is clearly out of compliance." He wonders, "will we enforce the bylaw, or will we just throw the bylaw out?"

Over on BOARD-EXEC, Linda tells Denise that she has "no concerns about the charges and evidence being discussed at all," but that her concern "was over the discussion beginning to take place in the middle of a hearing that seemed to be questioning the order of the hearing itself and seemed to be heading in the direction of questioning the charges & summary themselves that had already been agreed upon." She appreciates the attempts to bring order to the meeting and notes that she has "quite a bit more evidence to present concerning the charges and will be sending that as promptly as possible this week." She begs their indulgence for any delay in their posting and asks "I hope you all appreciate the fact that each of these presentations is and has been time consuming for quite awhile and will have patience."

At this point Richard Harrison [probably fearing a flood of Linda's "evidence"--Ed.] chimes in to remind the group to "limit you [sic] comments at this time to ITEM ONE from the list of Charges. There will be opportunity for other topics later." He says that if there is no further discussion by the following morning, he will call a vote.

Angie asks for evidence relative to the specific charges: "Do we have a list of non-members that were subscribed to the list, or any specifics? And do we have statements to be submitted from members that had to make repeated requests before they were subscribed? If so, I believe it would be appropriate at this time to submit those." She notes that concerning Charge 1c (websites not in compliance), "The response from Mr. Stowell does not...really address the issue....Whether or not there are currently counties that need to be brought up to speed is not the issue here, the issue is whether Mr. Stowell permitted County Coordinators to remain with the project although their pages did not meet guidelines...On the list provided by Mr. Stowell as his defense, I noted that 4 [Catoosa, Floyd, Whitfield, Towns] of the listed counties showed to have been last updated a year or more previously, although the guidelines specify 9 months...These pages have all been non-compliant in regards to updates since Mr. Stowell's tenure as State Coordinator...do we have any additional violations to be presented?"

[Ed. Note. I'm not sure that this proves what she thinks it proves. Take my own pages for example. If you go to the home page it shows a "last update" of 9/2003, well over a year ago. But I post 5 or so queries a month, answer look-up requests every week, and have updated archives pages within the last week. You get none of that information from the update information on the front page. I've also been known to just forget to change the date, and I have run across pages that don't have update information readily available. More importantly, if someone were doing nothing to their page but using it to add data to the Archives that would not count as updating under this approach. So perhaps using the date at the bottom of a home page is not the best indicator of how active a CC is.]

Regarding charge 1D, Angie notes "Mr. Stowell's exhibit does seem to show people with more than 3 counties, but there are no dates to show when these counties were adopted, so there is no way to know whether these counties had already been adopted before the guidelines went into effect...Although there are quite a few counties noted as "adoptable" on the exhibit provided by Mr. Stowell, none of those notations appear on counties listed for the SC or the RC/ASCs, even though one of the ASCs shows to have 9 counties under her control in addition to a special project site...Do we have specific complaints from prospective volunteers concerning refusals to adopt counties?" She also wants to know "Do we have specific complaints from CCs detailing requests that were denied?

At this point, Darilee crossposts a message from USGENWEB-DISCUSS, a mailing list run with the Board's approval by former Board member Tina Vickery. She notes "..I'm forwarding this comment from Margie Daniels...in response to a note from Donna Parrish...Any desire to keep this hearing quiet is negated by Margie Daniels...." In the email that Darilee forwards, Margie outlines a sequence of events in which Donna Parrish [a former GAGW CC] claimed that the [GAGW] council had voted to remove her from GAGW and that she had received a dismissal letter [while she was out with open-heart surgery, no less]. Margie claims that there never was a vote to remove Donna and that Donna never received any letter dismissing her from GAGW. Margie claims that Donna quit rather than produce a copy of the dismissal letter when requested to do so. Margie notes that under the GAGW guidelines co-CCs could not be added without going through the proper channels and notes, "When you [Donna] quit the last time, you left the data with the stipulation that Tim take the county and Tim agreed to this in order to keep the data for the state all 5 pieces of it. Did you know then that this would cause him to have charges brought that he exceeded the 3 county limit? In fact this is one of the complaints against him." [Interesting. --Ed]..."This lie caused distress to the members of the council that had once again had to endure a member's false accusations on an open list."

After posting this message, Darilee says something very strange: "It seems Tina has opened the door to discussing the issues on discuss..." and posts two additional messages. One is from an unhappy would-be GAGW volunteer named Jane Combs: "...at least some people were able to act as CC and be removed... I wanted to adopt a GA county and was rudely (and I do mean RUDELY) turned down because "he" didn't like the fact that I was associated with the MSGenWeb!" Another is from Derek Nichols, who notes "I am not denying that CCs in Ga were treated unfairly and removed incorrectly...I am saying...those charged need to be treated fairly and not just have the same thing done back to them...We live in a society of innocent until proven guilty. And a society where if found innocent that ALL rights and priviledges are returned."

Darilee then posts a link to a message from Tim to GAGEN-L explaining that Donna has left the project; he notes that he is sad they couldn't work things out and that "She...said she would consider donation of material to the site, if I took over as CC for Forsyth. To honor her request and in respect for what she has contributed by her service to GAGenWeb, I will be doing just that." For her part, Donna thanks Tim and says "I do believe that he believes in placing genealogy online for free use and will protect what material I donate. I appreciate his agreeing to be the new CC for Forsyth County."

[Ed. Note. OK, I will confess to being a little confused by this. Apparently Tim and Donna parted ways amicably; Donna even notes that her recent health issues had made her want to spend more time with friends and family. Is the Board honestly intending to use Tim's adopting the page at Donna's request against him?]

Don Kelly says he can provide evidence regarding "section C" [charge 1c]. He notes, "I was denied an adoption request and the CC for Habersham County AHGP is a supporting witness...She was a member of GAGenWeb when it hppened and wanted to give the GAGenWeb county to me. However, neither Tom [sic; he means Tim] nor Richard had a direct hand I know of in that refusal. It was the RC who later resigned. He may have consulted with Tim, but I don't know it as a fact." [Then it isn't evidence.--Ed.]

The final message on Day 5 is on BOARD-EXEC and is from Angie Rayfield. It is apparently a cc of a message she sent to Margie Daniels: "If you have facts or evidence relevant to the proceedings, I would be glad to present it during the hearing on your behalf....as an AB member taking part in the current hearing...it would be highly inappropriate to take part in a personal and private discussion of the proceedings...Despite your constant -- and public -- accusations of bias, I have every intention of basing my decision on the evidence presented during the hearing, and ONLY on that evidence. Personal conversations outside of the hearing can only lead to an appearance of impropriety, and concerns of an attempt to influence the proceedings."

Day 6--Circa Aug 23, 2004--Moving Right Along

We start Day 6 with another set of "evidence" from Linda Blum-Barton.

[Ed. Note. The following evidence concerns a woman named Carolyn Golowka, who at the time she was a CC in GAGW was also a file manager in the Archives Project. Her disagreement with the management of GAGW over where files donated to her county should be placed was intense, and it is believed by some that she obtained a county in GA in order to spy on Tim and possibly to serve as a disruptive influence. At the time of Tim's trial, one of Tim's former ASCs and codefendents had both a grievance before the Board and a complaint filed with Root$web because Carolyn used her name to obtain an email address and used that email address to subscribe to several mailing lists. The Board has to all appearances ignored the complaint, but Root$web at least took the complaint seriously and put the bogus email address on a watch list.]

Linda notes that Carolyn was welcomed to GAGW in May 2002, and although Linda searched for her name in the archives of that list for 2002-2004, "The only other posts in 2002 were wellcoming her; and again when an email written by her to someone else was forwarded to GAGEN-L. No posts in 2003 and none in 2004 before June." [And? I can't remember the last time I made a post to my state's list. Doesn't mean I'm not subscribed to it.--Ed.] Linda then supplies a message from Carolyn herself dated Aug 21, noting "Just in case you need it - I applied several times to join the GAGEN list while Tim was administrator for the state of Georgia. I was not on the list for years as far as I can tell. The last time I requested to become a member of the list was April...I have looked for a sent email but apparently I don't have one for that month. I know that I tried to join before Brenda decided my site was to be eliminated...I had requested to join several times over the years. I was on for a while some time ago and then I wasn't. Requests to reinstate me were ignored...If there were elections, I was never included. I was not part of the rules and regulations they created for GA. I didn't even know it was going on." [Not to worry, Carolyn will show up again in these proceedings.--Ed.]

Noting that it would help them identify discrepancies, Cyndie asks if there is available a "list of the CC's subbed to GAGEN-L at the time of the suspension to compare to those listed as CC's on the Table of Contents at the time of the suspension?

Day 7--Circa 24 Aug 2004--Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!

To start off Day 7, Don tells Richard that since some sections are "cut and dried" and others more complicated, "including new yet unproven facts which seem to arrive daily," the Board should "vote on each section in the order of charges it appears." He believes "there will be less confusion that way, and members can bone up on sections one at a time, which by normal accounts should yield more accurate results."

Linda says that she would prefer to be "able to send all of the evidence through that pertains to Charge #1 before we begin voting...it covers a multitude of issues and I am sending more evidence today...I am trying to divide it up into the subsections as best as I can now in order to send it that way since it was "divided" up." She also answers all of Angie's and Cyndie's questions about the evidence with "yes," but wonders "whether or not the evidence I sent through on Friday before I left town reached this list and reached Angie as that addressed parts of #1 also."

Richard Harrison notes that he's already allowed more time than he said he would before beginning a vote on Charge 1. He asks "Do you want to vote on the charge as a whole, or vote separately on each subsection?" He also forwards a message from Rich Howland from Tim asking if Tim is allowed to have an "Advisor Representative" since the beginning of the school year is a busy time for him. Richard Harrison just notes that since Tim is subscribed to the list "If he wants as advisor subbed here he needs to ask."

In response to Linda, Richard notes that its not a problem to hold off on a vote if more evidence will be forthcoming. Her post did make it to the list, but Richard did have to split it up because of its length. [Heh.--Ed.]

Over on BOARD-EXEC, Denise recalls that Rich Howland is moderated on the USGW-CONF2 list, but does not recall that he is moderated on BOARD-L or BOARD-EXEC, yet she noticed "today that his forwarded messages were saying {not a subscriber}. What is going on?" Richard responds that Rich hasn't been unsubscribed from any lists but is being moderated on both Board lists and the trial list because he snarked at another Board member. Richard notes "He still receives all mail sent to the three lists. I review his posts before either forwarding them to the lists or returning them to him (in the case he chooses to make additional inappropriate comments)."

Denise thanks Richard for his explanation and notes "I wasn't aware that his comment on HEAR had caused the moderation on Board and Board-Exec. Is it possible for it to be lifted on Board-Exec, since this list is not public and not archived?" She asks Rich if he is receiving all posts on the three lists and wonders "Do you have list appropriate messages that aren't be sent through to the group?"

Back on USGW-CONF2, Linda provides a list of "persons who were listed on the County Selection List for GAGenWeb as County Coordinators and who were not subbed to the GAGEN-L mailing list which is the required list for County Coordinators. As of early June 2004 when Joy Fisher took over the Administration of this list." Linda also claims there were "numerous" co-CCs were also were not subbed to the list." [my notes based on name searches of GAGEN archives for 2002-2004 are in brackets.--Ed.]

Kenneth Brown; kenbrown_ct@yahoo.com; Tattnall County [active 2002]
Ross Vinson; ross@redoaktree.org; Terrell County [active after Joy's coup]
Barbara Caramba Coker; rootsreality@yahoo.com; Towns County [active in 2002, left GAGW in Oct 2004]
Tonya Crosby; thcrosby@yahoo.com; Twiggs County [active 2002]
Greg Holley; gholley@dca.net; Warren County [never active]
Amanda Logue; alogue@washemc.net; Washington [never active; but her email address was known to be inactive in late 2004 so she may have bounced off the GAGEN list]
Gail Lacy; GLacy44222@aol.com; Wheeler County [active in 2002]
Donald H. Clark; dclark@mail.telfair.public.lib.ga.us; Wheeler County[active in 2002]
Arlene Woody; arlene@brookensfamily.org; Bartow County, Peach County[active in 2002, 2003, 2004; was apparently not a member when Joy took over, but was restored to her counties at that time]
Cindy Millwood; clm41358@bellsouth.net; Bartow County, Peach County [never active; co-CC with Arlene Woody]
Thomas Earl Cleland; tomcle@aol.com; Brantley County [active 2002]
Myra Watkins; MyraWatkins@prodigy.net; Butts County [active 2002]
Marsha Reese; candlercounty@dcemail.com; Candler County; mcduffiecounty@dcemail.com; McDuffie County [joined 2003, not active on the list]
Greg Wainright; Satillroots@aolcom; Charlton, Wayne Counties [never active]
Carol Ann Tindell; cat@ancestraldesigns.com; Dawson, Old Walton, Fannin Counties [active 2003]
Hank Burnham; h.burnham@worldnet.att.net; Dodge County [Hank Burnham requested to be unsubscribed in February 2003 because of all the crap on the list; he left the project for good when the Board threw Tim out]
Linda Aaron; laaron@uga.edu; Elbert County [active 2002 and after the coup]
Wayne Dorough dorwgd@cox.net; Glascock [active 2002 and after the coup]
Dan Pierce tworunga@hotmail.com; Hall, Lumpkin counties [active 2002 and after the coup]
Deb Lowe deb_way@bellsouth.net; Hart County [not active]
Brent Currie; currie1@bellsouth.net; Long [thanked for something on the list in Aug 2003, but made no posts himself]
Harry Folsom miamibig@bellsouth.net Lowndes [left the project in Jan 2002]
Marlene Berry MarleneBerry@earthlink.net; Morgan [not active]
Sandy Ward Stewart rskhdr@bellsouth.net; Pierce [not active]
Scott Dingler scottdingler@attbi.com; Polk County [left the project in May 2002]
Marj Thompson; ivey@raex.com; Rabun County [not active]
Harry Folsom miamibig@bellsouth.net; Lanier County, Lowndes County [see above]
Brent Currie currie1@bellsouth.net; Long County [see above]
Harris Hill harrishill@starband.net; Schley County [joined in 2003 and was actively welcomed but was not himself active on the list until after the coup]
Alan Anderson alanande@bellsouth.net; Sumter County [not active]
Carolyn Golowka cgolowka@prodigy.net Newton, Rockdale Counties [active 2002 and after the coup]

Laura Schmidt DigMyPast@msn.com Previous CC & RC in GAGenWeb; Linda includes a statement from Virginia Crilley, dated 2004: "When Laura Schmidt resigned in 2003, she should have been removed from the GAGen list...If you look at GAGen messages you will find that she sent 4 messages in 2004 even! I think she was probably still on until Joy took over the GAGen list and started to clean it up." [Yes, indeed, Laura did send four message to GAGEN in 2004.--Ed.] Linda also includes Laura's resignation letter from Feb 2003: " Do [sic] to time restraints, health, stress, and personal problems in general; I hereby resign my posts as Peach county coordinator, Greene County coordinator, and East Central Georgia Regional coordinator."

Charmaine Holley - archivehobbit@mac.com (this address was subbed twice); according to Linda, Charmaine Holley adopted Troup County in either January or March 2003 but never did anything with the website and "Her retirement from GAGenWeb wasn't announced on GAGEN-L but she was listed on the above table in April 2003 and Tim Stowell had adopted this county by December 2003."

Olivia Saffold: Here Linda posts 2 links to GAGEN posts that come up blank [the only post I can find in the archives from Olivia Saffold discusses a tip file she had put up in Feb 2004.--Ed.] Linda says "Tim's post explaining Ms Saffold's post to GAGEN-L was a little puzzling in itself because it would be hard to forget what had just occurred the previous month concerning the African American Special Project for GA and the Georgia African American Mailing List that was instigated through this same email address...This apparently precipitated the resignation of Babe Linn and Sandy Johnson, the previous African American Special Project Coordinators and the appointment of Tru Black as the new African American Special Project Coordinator."

In her next message Linda says that Carol Ann Tindell contacted her and said " "I asked Tim Stowell several times over the period of about 2-3 years before I resigned from GAGenWeb to place me on the list. I never was. However, that may be my own doing, not sure. During this 2-3 year time-frame, I had a local ISP in which I viewed all incoming email at the web level, before I used that ISP to send/receive email into Outlook on my puter...My main, permanent email of cat@ancestraldesigns.com is part of my owned domain. All email sent to this permanent addy is automatically forwarded to my local ISP inbox that isn't known to the sender. I would send email via my ISP connection, which is required, yet have the reply-to addy as cat@ancestraldesigns.com. I can also change ISPs as need be and not have to worry about getting mail or need to send out change of address notices. This method created two email addresses for me in using RW email lists...if I remember correctly, you can't have 2 email addys combined this way. That may be the reason why I was excluded, but Tim did not try to work with me to resolve this problem."

THE TRIAL CONTINUES...