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 8--Circa 25 Aug 2004--The Accused Speaks
[Ed. Note. At long last, we hear from Tim Stowell himself. We will warn you: Tim is rarely able to contain himself and usually opts for the snide rejoinder rather than the reasoned response. Its unfortunate because it in no way helps his case before people that were already prone to look unfavorably on him, but that's what it is.]
Tim's first series of responses are to materials that are days old:
To Darilee Bednar, who was surprised about Tim posting the full letter from Amy Hedrick that "attacked" Linda Blum-Barton, Tim responded: "To do otherwise, would have been dishonest. It would have required selective to cut out items that might sound adverse to my ASC. Nope, better to send it all - warts and all, for that was her true and full letters to me."
To Don Kelly, who noted that the "GeorgiaGenWeb" logo was out of compliance, Tim replied, "Will your august body now go after all the other SC and CCs that are not in compliance on this particular issue?...Just when will the AB begin abiding by ALL the Bylaws? Why should any SC/CC/LC, whatever, obey ALL the Bylaws since their own AB has ignored them for the sake of what the situation of the moment (this or any other) may offer the AB the chance to create retroactive rules out of thin air?"
Of Angie's list of outdated pages he asks, "Did you look at every page within the said site, not just the front page? Often folks update, add other pages but don't update their main page."
To Don, who did not know which ASC denied him a county site: "the RC for the Habersham region was Margie Daniels - definately not a he. She did not resign as RC for that region until after June 1st."
Regarding Carolyn Golowka, Tim told the group he'd post something the next day "my computer got tired of searching old emails, froze up and killed 2 messages I was writing for this list. 330 AM now - bedtime."
Don Kelly responds that he had no direct contact with the RC. The [former] CC said that Don was "denied for "personal reasons" which is a quote." Don notes "The point is I was qualified and denied for personal reasons. I don't know who was responsible, or who approved of the refusal, but the buck stops somewhere."
Angie says she she'll change the wording of her presentation of the outdated pages evidence to be specific of the dates of Tim's tenure: "The pages became non-compliant as regards to updates during Mr. Stowell's tenure, and remained non-complaint in that regard through the duration of Mr. Stowell's active tenure as State Coordinator." She also says that if Tim can "If you can point out pages or data added to those accounts during the period in question, please feel free to do so." She claims to have been unable to locate any.
Day 9--Cir Aug 27 2004
To begin the new day of testimony, Tim now posts a series of correspondences between Brenda Pierce [one of his former ASCs and also originally a codefendant in the charges] and Carolyn Golowka:
Brenda to Carolyn, 1 Sept 2003: "I really need to know if you plan to maintain and add data to Newton and Rockdale. They have not been updated since Sept 11 and Oct 5, 2002 and both still show under construction...the cc's voted on the guidelines, and I must do my part in requesting that sites come under compliance. I will, of course, be happy to help with your sites if you need a helping hand, just let me know...I will certainly help you get them fixed up and help with what ever I can." Carolyn to Brenda, 2 Sept 2003: "I do intend to maintain the sites [Newton, Rockdale counties]. I will make sure the correct date is available and that they have current data. As an Archive person, much of what is available is placed there when folks send in transcribed data...I do agree that they need more work and will take that on ASAP...You are doing a great job and I appreciate it."[Ed. Note. Well, that certainly turned nasty fast...This little exchange illustrates the problem many of us have had with trying to force CCs to put their data one place or another. There are lots of reasons why submitters might want their data to go into the Archives and just as many reasons why they would not. There is no inherently "better" value in having it in one place over the other; arguments can be made for and against storage in the Archives just as they can be made for or against storage on the county site. Its hard to define "county site" anyways; since all CCs have been free to use whatever web host they choose, its not inconceivable that they have their home page at one place and their data on another. In my experience, most attempts to tell CCs they must put data "on their county page" is code for "you may not put your data in the Archives." Whatever. A Board member told me a while ago that this incident with Carolyn "Who Am I Today?" Golowka was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back with the Board. Although they were steadily building a sort-of case against Evil Tim and his Band of Ruffians, Brenda's abrupt removal of Carolyn pretty much pushed them over the edge. Tim was removed from both GAGenWeb and SDGenWeb a week later in the dead of night, so to speak. The first indication he had of it was when his name disappeared from the Who's Who list and the links to his state pages went dead. While I can't say that I agree with the way Carolyn was let go or the reasons for it, in all truth if some little tart mouthed off to me like that, I'd have fired her too. After all, as the Board has told us all many times, no one has a right to any county and its perfectly acceptable to fire someone for no other cause than that you don't like them.]Brenda to Carolyn, 12 May 2004: "I am writing about the Newton County site, it needs data on there badly and Kaye Stowe is graciously allowing us to use items that she has and some she has not sent to the archives. Can you let me know if you can post this material on the Newton County site, if so I will forward it to you as she sends what she wants us to post....I am excited that Kaye is sharing with us for the site, as we don't have any real data there. I realize that having it in the archives is great, but we really need the data on our County sites as well for those that wish to view it in html."
Carolyn to Brenda, 12 May 2004: "I am certainly happy to accept any submissions that anyone wishes to send...Remember, Brenda, as you know, .txt can be read by any computer...The saying goes use 'kiss' - keep it simple stupid...Just because you can use all the bells and whistles doesn't mean you should...there is litteraly TONS of stuff in the Archvies...I would be happy to accept any submissions anyone wants to post for Newton County. Kaye should send me what ever is appropriate for the site. I will see that it gets uploaded. Not a problem. Tell me, did Kaye try to contact me directly?"
Brenda to Carolyn, 13 May 2004: "I contacted Kaye directly, she has some very nice things in the archives that will work well on the county site and she is being very generous with us...I asked for her permission and told her that if you did not have time to put it up that I could, so that the data would be at the county level as well as the archives. She will still submit for both the county and the archives, so please don't feel that I am taking away from the archives...There are folks though that come to county sites because they want to view "web pages" in html format, they like the look and feel and are comfortable there, and as such I really do want our county sites to have as much data there as possible for them to view. The .txt files are fine for those that want to view them, and prefer to view them, but that is not everyone's preference...I will forward what Kay has sent thus far for your site...She has some really great items, some of the items that I had not seen before. I know everyone is thrilled to have her contributing information, and now it can be enjoyed in two places...I don't want to overburden folks, but I would like to get our counties data filled for the folks that choose to visit there."
Carolyn Golowka to Kay Stowe, 13 May 2004: "I also received a message about the photo you sent into the Newton County Archives...in which you stated the following: 'This is a great photo. Has my grandfather and 2 of his brothers, 5 siblings of my grandmother, one of my nieces great-grandfather on her dad's side not kin to me (whose sister also was a great-aunt to me). Are you lost yet? And I can tell you how all those Meadors are related, but not sure we're actually kin. Just seem to live next door for about 50 years.' Would you like any of this connected with the photo? ...I wouldn't think it safe to say your relationship, but the relationshiop between siblings, etc, by name, could be noted. You can also find the link for the photos on the Newton County website, just as with the Bible Records...THANK YOU very much."
Kay to Carolyn, 13 May 2004: "Am glad you're out there watching out for me! No, the info on the people was not intended to be linked to the photo...Just ignore any other requests for duplication for me, and I will let her double-list the stuff I send to BUTTS co if she wants to. Maybe that'll make everybody happy! I have spent a LOT of time on a lot a websites over the past 3 years "playing" genealogy, and have found yours one of the friendliest and easiest to use...you and I must think alike, because the way the info is organized just seems to make sense...Am truly sorry for my part in this confusion. Just ignore anything else that comes your way, and no need to change anything...Thanks for everything!"
Carolyn to Brenda, undated: "Kay likes my site. Leave it alone. I don't want to fight. I want to SERVE THE RESEARCHER. I don't want to play politics. I have better things to do with my time like link the 179 more new files I received for Newton and Rockdale Counties in the Archives. These will automatically be available to the researchers who come to my pages very quickly, SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE RESEACHER. That is what is important. I have done all I can to SERVE THE RESEARCHER as efficiently and following good computer programming practices."
Brenda to Carolyn, 14 May 2004: "I don't want to read anything incorrectly, but after reading a note from Kay where she sent some items for another site, it said something in there about Newton County preferring she thought to use links and that was ok with her, it made me wonder what happened between the message below and Kay's message. Can you clarify if/when you are putting up Kays information on the GAGenWeb County site? There are several others that have given permissions as well, and it is quite a bit of data. Our county sites have to have data on them per USGenWeb, and that is why I have asked for this data. So, please clarify what is going on."
Carolyn to Brenda, 15 May 2004: "...there is lots and lots of data available to the users of the Newton County pages and I will like [sic]to them directly as it is the best use of time and materials...the Archives is nothing more than a database...it is extremely important to have only one place where the data is and then have the users...access the data. It would be absolutely ridiculous and time consuming to have the data both in the database and on the county site. There are literally hundreds of files just for Newton County in the Archives. It would not be efficient use of time or server to have these hundreds of files in both places. Either site, Archives or County, could miss something and that does not serve the user..We are here for the researcher. I REPEAT - WE ARE HERE FOR THE RESEARCHER. There is nothing in the bylaws that requires me to have the source material on my County site...It does not matter that the information is on my server or not. It does not matter that I use html or not. I REPEAT - WE ARE HERE FOR THE RESEARCHER. We want to make it easy for the researcher to find what they need...good programming is not repeating all the files in the Archives into the County. That is absolutely ridiculous...Poor programming practices is what gets businesses in trouble. And it can get these two entities of the same organization in trouble as well. You and Tim, a member not in good standing, and others, only want the information under your control. You want to "own" it. It is apparent you do not want what is actually best for the researcher. My site indeed links to the Archives. It is what the researchers are looking for - data. I REPEAT, DUPLICATION FILES DOES NOT SERVE THE RESEARCHER. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT REQUIRE ME TO USE HTML PAGES FOR DATA....I do not have to put it on my server at all. If my site were on a different server and not rootsweb...I would want to limit what was there WITHOUT EFFECTING THE RESEARCHER...I would certainly link to the Archives for the LIMITED information there. The Archives doesn't have everything so the rest of my server space would be for what is NOT in the Archives. I realize that you and Tim, the member not in good standing, have some sort of agenda. I am not going to be a part of your agenda. I AM GOING TO SERVE THE RESEARCHER THE BEST WAY I HAVE BEEN TRAINED...fighting over where the data is stored does not serve the researcher, the prime objective of the USGenWeb. If you and Tim are woking on making your own, new, genealogical online organization, fine and dandy. Just don't drag the USGenWeb with you. Just get on with it and leave the organization. It is apparent in the discussions lists I have seen that the GenWeb know of the problems Tim, the member not in good standing, and you and others have created. We do not need this. WE NEED TO SERVE THE RESEARCHER USING GOOD PROGRAMMING PRACTICES. Leave it alone, Brenda."
Brenda to Carolyn, 15 May 2004: "Your sites under the following guidelines have been deemed to be "abandoned", and you must remove the logos from your site that pertain to this project." Brenda then cites the relevant GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws justifications for firing Carolyn.
Angie notes that it does not appear to be the case that the handful of counties she noted had gone without for well over nine months could have been updated without changes being reflected on the home page. She posts a letter from Vicki Thauvin, Root$web's accounts manager, who notes "I can tell you that neither ~gacatoos nor ~gatowns have had files uploaded since 2003. Anything more than that, the account holders will need to email RootsWeb." [Nice to see Root$web always stands ready to help.--Ed.]
Day 10--Circa 28 August 2004--Moving Right Along
Tim Stowell withdraws his original request for the "full legal names and home addresses at which service may be effected by an officer designated perfect such service of process." He says he doesn't need them anymore. [We hear that Tim has been quite helpful in providing the Board members' home and work addresses to interested parties.--Ed.]
Tim posts a message regarding an event that had slipped his memory: "one person who later resigned, we tried to work with and finally gave up trying - whom this group allowed to file a grievance against me...Paulette Moon, Jackson County CC, had a ghost CC working behind us on her site stating she was basically filing the slot while he did the site - a fact found out only during the grievance process - namely Keith Giddeon."
Tim then asks why Richard Howland is no longer on the trial mailing list, noting "I've seen no message saying he has recused himself." He also remarks that if "the chair is going to start tossing off folks who may agree with me, to be fair the chair should also remove ones who've brought previous complaints, thus being accuser and judge namely Betty Wood and Linda Barton."
In response to Angie's evidence of the apparently abandoned counties, Tim notes "a portion of the Georgia Guidelines...states that data put in the Archives counts as an update. If the CC was linked to the Archives and an a file was added to the Archives in that time frame according to that regretable guideline the county site would be considered updated. I don't have the time to go and visit the Archives to see if such was done. On the other hand I'm willing to bet that perhaps except for Delaware with 3 counties, most states have sites that haven't had updates in that same time frame and well before that as well." He then asks the Board to let him know "when we can discuss the Bylaws this body has broken with regards to the situation in Georgia and North Dakota."
In response to "C.A.T." Tindell's message about not being able to get subbed to GAGEN-L, Tim posts some information that appears to be subscriber information from Root$web. [Quite frankly, its gibberish to me...--Ed.]:
Tim then posts a series of email headers from Jan 2003 and Mar 2003 from C.A.T. Tindell, showing her attempting to post to GAGEN-L from an email different from the ones under which she was previously subscribed, and then later posting an email from that address.-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:43:31 -0700 X-From_: nobody Tue Dec 10 17:43:30 2002 Old-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:43:30 -0700 From: Nobody To: GAGEN-L-request@lists5.rootsweb.com Subject: subscribe X-Processed: GAGEN-admin@lists5.rootsweb.com subscribe cat@ancestraldesigns.com The prospective subscriber address generates the following multigram matches to the current list: 23 claire@genealogy-quest.com 3982 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 68 geniesanders@lycos.com 3866 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 43 carlac@ncweb.com 3126 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 47 ChuckandKim14@aol.com 2900 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 89 GenealogyGeorgia@aol.com 2780 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 21 sigler-sanders@mailcity.com 2364 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 16 SumterCoGaGenWeb@aol.com 2262 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 45 mdaniel3@midsouth.rr.com 2262 cat@ancestraldesigns.com ====================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:49:31 -0700 X-From_: nobody Tue Dec 10 17:49:31 2002 Old-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:49:31 -0700 From: Nobody To: GAGEN-L-request@lists5.rootsweb.com Subject: subscribe X-Processed: GAGEN-admin@lists5.rootsweb.com subscribe cat@tds.net The prospective subscriber address generates the following multigram matches to the current list: 37 Connie@wvdsl.net 4808 cat@tds.net 53 lab@boone.net 2213 cat@tds.net 39 gholley@dca.net 1556 cat@tds.net 27 donald@allen.net 805 cat@tds.net 57 donald@allen.net 805 cat@tds.net 55 dbyrd@lightcom.net 744 cat@tds.net 41 cdmchugh@bellsouth.net 545 cat@tds.net 66 ken@pro-usa.net 365 cat@tds.net =====================================
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:26:27 -0700
X-From_: catindell@direcway.com Mon Jan 27 17:26:27 2003
Reply-To: "C.A.T. Tindell"
From: "C.A.T. Tindell"
To:
Old-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:26:28 -0500
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
Subject: {not a subscriber} Re: [GAGEN] Rights of CC - Role of Co CC
Sending from an address not subbed at the time.
===================================
Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:32:26 -0700
X-Original-Sender: catindell@direcway.com Fri Mar 7 10:32:24 2003
Reply-To: "C.A.T. Tindell"
From: "C.A.T. Tindell"
Old-To:
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:32:23 -0500
Subject: [GAGEN] Music on County Pages
To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4409
X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com
Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com
Posting to GAGEN from that address.
========================================
Tim to C.A.T. Tindell, 30 August 2003: "Are you ready to be resubbed to GAGEN? I had a report that the Fannin site was down, so I checked and your site is up and running, so I'll let the folks know it is as well. With regard to your complaint regarding the North Carolina folks - the North Carolina SC and associates are not going to do anything - so I suppose that's a dead issue."Tim also notes that he did not subscribe C.A.T. to "GAGenWeb" because "that was the SC/ASC/RC list."C.A.T. to Tim, 30 August 2003: "...my site was down on Friday due to server maintainance & upgrades thanks to the 2 virsuses recently attacking computers world-wide...Yes, you can re-sub me to GAGENWEB-L. please use: cat@ancestraldesigns.com as email addy. To bad NC can't see the harm that they are causing. It is just those attitudes that was the catalyst for them to lose many outstanding Western NC CCs over the years and why researchers find the bulk of information on this area at sites other than NCGenWeb."
In response to Linda Blum-Barton's meanderings on the Article I violation, Tim notes that "reserving" the XXGenWeb designations for the Project "does not mean that web sites had to use logos in that format...No spelled out bylaw states that a state/county site had to use xxgenweb in its design...To my knowledge the Project is not under the dominion or definition of Black's laws or whatever other authoritative source you may wish to trot out. We only have our Bylaws to go by. Since they don't specifically state xxgenweb MUST use this designation - your argument falls flat on its face."
In response to Don Kelly's claim to have been denied a county he requested, Tim notes "It was not clear in your first statement which of the two times you requested to be a CC in Georgia that you were speaking of. I was under the impression it was the second time, while it seems you were speaking of a former time. During that former time, it is true that a male was the RC who subsequently resigned to be replaced by Margie Daniels...There is no Bylaw that states a SC/ASC, membership committee, whatever has to accept any particular person, qualified or not. To my knowledge no reason has to be given why someone is not selected as CC...Perhaps in some states they'll take any breathing body...we began a lengthy process of making sure folks would be a good fit, unless they were able to provide links to other sites they hosted which would lend credence to the fact that they did know how to build web pages and upload them. Did some slip through the cracks? Sure. Most of my RCs and I still work full time jobs, so problem took time to track down, validate, try to get the CC to do updates and so forth. While we could ask folks to do updates, we couldn't 'make them' do so....CCs also have lives and problems that come up that need attending to. Giving folks some slack...is I feel in the best interests of the various projects."
Next, Tim provides some information from Brenda Pierce on how Carolyn Golowka came to be a CC in GAGenWeb: "After Virginia (Crilley) and several others made such a big deal about Lisa Obegenski (who had had a baby, and other issues, and had not worked on her pages in a few months); and I contacted Lisa and she said if I could find people to take Henry, Butts, Newton, Rockdale that she would be fine with that because she really did not have time to work on them at present. I asked Betty Wood to help with Newton, Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, etc. She is the one that brought Carolyn in to take Newton and Rockdale and got Linda (Barton) to take Henry. Linda (Barton) already had Fayette. Kim Gordon took Clayton...I was at that time actively recruiting people and even asked for Betty Wood's assistance, thus ended up with Carolyn (Golowka) and Linda Barton."
Included with this information are some URLs from the Wayback Machine that show various GAGenWeb county tables in 2002 and 2003:
After noting that yes, she does "tend to get a bit testy over meaningless quibbles that avoid dealing with the issue at hand," Angie has a question for Tim: "are you saying that your interpretation of the GAGenWeb Guidelines that were in effect at that time is that the CC does not need to do ANY updating to the county pages as long as a link exists to the Archives, and the Archives have been updated?...if that is that case, then why would Carolyn Golowka be considered to have not updated her county even though the Archives in that case had been updated?" Angie points out that "the number and/or frequency of updates in other states is not at issue here? If nothing else, other states are not required to update according to the schedule outlined in the GAGenWeb guidelines...The USGenWeb Bylaws are silent on the matter of the number or frequency of updates."Donna (Parrish) and Brenda Webb no longer are listed on the 20020207 - February 2002 counties selection table. I can't remember what the deal was at that time. Also July .... not listed.... http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm Note she was listed as having Dawson with Donna Parrish. Not listed Oct 2002 - Donna Only. http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm 2003 Still not listed http://web.archive.org/web/20030207232509/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20030412204131/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm Still not listed.
Angie then notes that "upon closer inspection of the GAGenWeb Guidelines, I believe that you have stated the requirements improperly. The exact wording is "New links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update." She cannot think of any "possible way to add a link to new material in the Archives without updating or uploading files, which wasn't done for the two accounts that we have received the information on."
Don Kelly clarifies his experience applying for counties in GAGenWeb: "Since 1998 applied for same county five times....The last two CCs before now were fully aware I could maintain a website, and I had family there, and wanted to adopt...."for personal reasons" is discriminatory and has nothing to do with the rules for selecting volunteers...the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a good reason." [Its always been good enough for the Board before.--Ed.]
Bettie Wood notes that she has also tried to adopt a county in GAGW and been rebuffed: "I also tried to adopt counties, mainly McDuffie since it was neighbor to one I already did...I had 2 counties at the time, & my husband had none. The first 2 adoption requests went to all the RCs, the last only went to the SC & ASCs." She attaches the correspondence records of her attempts to adopt a county
[Ed. Note. I am not sure what this is intended to show, other than that Bettie sent in a couple of requests to adopt a county, and apparently was denied. She doesn't include any responses from the RCs, ASCs or Tim, so who knows? The county might not have been available; the mail form might not have been working as intended; the RCs and ASCs might have expressed perfectly acceptable reasons for denying her request. What is clear, however, is that more than one Board member bore a grudge against Tim over his failure to let them have counties in GAGW. Neither Don nor Betty could be bothered to recuse themselves from voting on any of the charges against Tim, and of course Richard Harrison did not suggest that they do so.]TO: varcsix@hot.rr.com, mmccook@bellsouth.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, margie@majorinternet.net, mannannan@maclyr.com, ltlbro@bellsouth.net, bclody@charter.net, jackij@chesapeake.net SUBJECT: County Adoption Request FROM: nana321@earthlink.net.papa321@earthlink.net REPLY TO: nana321@earthlink.net.papa321@earthlink.net ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Bob & Bettie Wood Sun Feb 15 13:12:52 2004 Want to adopt McDuffie County On Sun Feb 15 13:12:52 2004, the following message was submitted via the mailmerge server running on nobody@www.rootsweb.com (Nobody): NAME: Bob & Bettie Wood ADDRESS: @63.185.64.15 MESSAGE TEXT: Back to the form. This form generated by mailmerge. Lincoln D. Stein Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail Merge Gateway The following is a copy of the mail that was submitted. TO: varcsix@hot.rr.com, mmccook@bellsouth.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, margie@majorinternet.net, mannannan@maclyr.com, ltlbro@bellsouth.net, bclody@charter.net, jackij@chesapeake.net SUBJECT: County Adoption Request FROM: papa321@erathlink.net REPLY TO: papa321@erathlink.net ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Bob & Bettie Wood Mon Mar 1 13:12:28 2004 Wish to adopt McDuffie County, GA On Mon Mar 1 13:12:28 2004, the following message was submitted via the mailmerge server running on nobody@www.rootsweb.com (Nobody): NAME: Bob & Bettie Wood ADDRESS: @65.177.40.135 MESSAGE TEXT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail Merge Gateway The following is a copy of the mail that was submitted. TO: tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, mannannan@maclyr.com SUBJECT: County Adoption Request REPLY TO: ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Tue Mar 30 18:02:31 2004
Bettie then reposts Jane Combs statement from the DISCUSS list regarding be rudely denied a GAGenWeb county and includes a series of emails between Jane and the GAGenWeb management:
Jane Combs to USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L, 22 August 2004: 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! He" didn't like the SC so therefore I wasn't good enough for the GAGenWeb!"Linda Blum-Barton responds to Tim's post regarding how Carolyn Golowka came to be a member of GAGenWeb. She is concerned with Tim's mention of her in that post and wants to set the record straight: "I had never corresponded with Bettie Wood before I offered to take Henry County and Brenda Pierce put me in touch with Bettie because she had the passwords...Lisa Little's Henry County site [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4843/henry.htm]...says that she had Walton, Henry, Newton & Rockdale at one time...I am assuming that Lisa Little & Lisa Obeginski were one and the same person. But the information that Lisa Obeginski gave up Butts, Clayton, etc. seems to be incorrect as it doesn't appear that she was the CC for those counties and the information about Bettie Wood contacting me to adopt Henry is in error.Richard Pettys to Jane Combs, 12 May 2004: "...your interest in Echols was forwarded to me. Based on previous experiences, which included one of your fellow Mississippi CC's and your SC, I am reluctant to adopt Echols out to someone who may be associated with those two individuals. To that end, if you and I were to agree that you could adopt Echols County, there would have to be some agreement in place between us. In short, you would be on a 90 day probationary period. If, at the end of 90 days, you decided not to stay or I was unhappy with your work for any reason, we could terminate the relationship with no hard feelings. At the end of the 90 days, you would be a full member of the GAGenWeb Project and have all of the privileges and rights set forth in the Guidelines. Does this work for you?"
Jane to Richard, 13 May 2004: "I'm so very sorry you feel as you do...I do not know what you are talking about. I have been on the MSGenWeb for about 2 months now. I do not know the people on there!...As to you holding a grudge or whatever it is, then I'm sorry for you! I will not and do not care to have anything to do with the GAGenWeb if this is how you conduct your business! Just forget I ever contacted you or the GAGenWeb!"
"The February 2002 County Selection List at archive.org shows
Butts - Adoption Pending
Clayton - Pat Lowe
Henry - Lisa Obeginski
Newton - Lisa Obeginski
Rockdale - Lisa Obeginski
Walton - Joe Harrington/Bettie Wood."On Nov 20, 2001 -
Butts - Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption
Clayton - Pat Lowe
Henry -Lisa Obeginski
Newton -Lisa Obeginski
Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski
Walton - Bettie Wood
Aug 2001 -
Butts -Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption
Clayton -Pat Lowe
Henry -Lisa Obeginski
Newton - Lisa Obeginski
Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski
Walton - Bettie Wood"
Then she also attaches a series of emails regarding her correspondence with Brenda Pierce and her Henry county site:
Brenda Pierce to Linda Barton, 21 May 2002: "This is great - I would love for you to take Henry I will look at your site and let you know about compliance - trust me if anyone is going to be Thanks for doing such a wonderful job and I really appreciate your taking Henry. Thanks. again."Don Kelly says he sees a pattern forming.Linda to Brenda, 22 May 2002: "I think that my site is in compliance with new guidelines...please let me know if you see any problems there. I am considering offering to take Henry County if it is in fact going to be available.....if so, do you know how much of the site would be available for transfer to new pages? Let me know what you think about that"
Day 11--Cira 29 August 2004--Changing of the Guard
Richard Harrison starts the day off by noting that "Over the next few days I will be transferring various aspects of authority to Shari Handley, the incoming National Coordinator. In a few minutes I will remove myself from participation on this list and transfer the Chairmanship of this committee and ownership of the list to Shari." He thanks the Board for its "cooperation so far" [interesting choice of words.--Ed.] and offers his "best wishes" for "the successful completion of this difficult task."
[Ed. Note. So long Richard, don't let the door hit you on your way out.]
Don Kelly posts a recent email exchange between himself and a former CC for USGenWeb. He claims it "supports the theory that discrimination was practiced in awarding county adoptions. This may like an iceburg be 90% under the surface."
Don to Kim Gordon, cir Aug 29 2004: "You are doing great. You are now an experienced CC. Those incidents in GA hurt a lot. I couldn't believe how the application was handled. I was nearly convinced that I imagined the whole thing. I agree that personal reasons should never be a good reason to deny an application to adopt. The USGenWeb bylaws prohibit discrimination and I think you and I saw the beast face to face."[Ed. Note. "Those incidents in GA hurt a lot." Yet he still does not recuse himself from voting on any of the charges.]
Kim to Don, 29 Aug 2004: "I do remember. I moved the site to AHGP 26 April 2003. I no longer wanted to be part of the project due to Tim, Brenda, and Margie. I could no longer put up with their gestapo ways...I do agree that you were discriminated against in this instance...I was totally shocked when you were denied Habersham County because you have roots there. In my opinion that is enough to give a person a county. I don't have anything against Keith but think he should have given the county to you. I do recall it being stated that you were not given the county due to personal reasons. I hope this helps."Don thanks Richard Harrison and says he "did good."
Day 12--Circa 30 Aug 2004--So It Goes
Tim acknowledges that he also gets "testy" over "meaningless quibbles that avoid dealing with the issue at hand." He also notes that Carolyn Golowka did not break the specific guideline to which Angie referred [the one about putting data in the Archives counting as updating your pages.--Ed.], but "She refused to put data submitted to her for inclusion on the county website....the Bylaws of the entire project ...state county sites are the central repository for xyz county, not the Archives." He then points out that the majority of the Board are Archives personnel. He also notes "how Georgia's Guidelines are administered is not the AB's concern. They are a state matter, not a national matter...It is just not in your jurisdiction under the Bylaws. Of course you folks seem to find the Bylaws a nuisance since you've flat out ignored them." [*sigh*..this does not help your case, Tim.--Ed.] Tim notes that it is also not the Board's jurisdiction to address the number or frequency of page updates.
[Ed. Note. Tim appears to be mis-speaking here. From the email exchange between Carolyn Golowka and Brenda Pierce, it is apparent that Carolyn was fired because she "abandoned" her pages, not because she refused to put data on her county pages as opposed to in the Archives. I have no doubt that her Archives affiliation is what got her fired--she, and the rest of the Archives Strike Team in Georgia were expending considerable effort at the time to disrupt the state and discredit its management--but the reason given was that she had not updated her pages and thus had "abandoned" them. Tim would have done better here to attempt to document the turmoil being caused by Linda Blum-Barton and the other Archives hit-men in Georgia than to try and justify why Brenda --not Tim, btw-- fired Carolyn. And given Tim's well-documented inability to remain calm in the face of attack, their plan was a good one. The only other state in this entire blessed Union that was more roiled up than Georgia was North Carolina. Of course in North Carolina, the Board supported the SC's removal of a CC for "personal reasons". Not so in Georgia. Apparently, if its Board members, Archivists, and their various hangers-on that are causing flame-wars on your state lists and costing you good CCs, you are just supposed to buckle down and deal with it.]
Tim responds to Angie by again noting "Since the Bylaws...do not give the AB the jurisdiction to oversee state guidelines/bylaws - it is not your concern. If you aren't going to treat all states the same - you'd best find yourself another job...folks have lives outside this Project...I tend to give folks leeway to a point. Folks that do what they promised to do on joining...are living up to that promise. Folks that flat out refuse to do what they promised, create problems where none existed can find the door. None of these problems existed in Georgia until the Archives goons came to Georgia and started causing a fuss. Add to that were Mr. Rigdon who was running a commercial site. I hate to let him go, for he is the person who introduced me to the Project back in 1996 - our first contact in 30 years, growing up on the same street. I believed in the Archives concept for the fact that files would stay even if sites disappeared...when the Georgia Archives folks started stealing files from sites, plopping them in the Archives, with either their own names, the original poster's name without their permission or knowledge, or with no name, that support dropped. Called on the carpet, Ms. Crilley, the GA Archives mistress, denied such, even with the proof in public. When I asked for her removal, to someone that would be honest and forthright - I was told to basically stuff it. Ms. Crilley was smart enough not to sign the complaints, all the while working in the background with various parties named and unnamed, to foment discord in the GAGenWeb Project. I suppose had I been buddy/buddy with the NC like the North Carolina management team, I'd have been left alone but since I called him on his takeover when he first started his regime, he has been at war with me ever since. For those of you newbies - this is not the first time this has happened but the 4th time."
In response to Don Kelly, Tim says: "I can't say for 1998, since I was not in a position to know about such...Why you were refused earlier I don't know. I only know of 2 times...I can use the same argument...you folks are discriminating against me. Hassling me 3 times is abuse. You know the real truth, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there were troublemakers in Georgia, some sitting right here. In the 2 previous hearings/trials the rules were changed mid-stream to try to 'get' me. Some rules were made retroactive and all other kinds of shenanigans. So who is the real Bylaws breaker here? The AB/NC flat out, hands down...why aren't you all man/woman enough to acknowledge that you do not in fact have the right under the Bylaws to do this? If you're gonna go after me for some alleged sins, then you need to go back and clean out North Carolina for it is as bad as ever even now."
Tim says he can't comment on the Jan Combs issue since he has not seen a copy of Richard Pettys' reply to her about her request.
Tim denies Don's suggestion that a pattern is forming and notes "After getting requests from so many folks that turned out to be Archives folks, who put up only shell pages, no data, bare minimum requirements, or do nothing CCs, we began to become leery, to make just sure whom we were getting. In other words, was it another Archives plant? This started even before your first witch hunt in the Keith Giddeon era."
Shari Handley tells Tim that he is to "refrain from personal attacks, name-calling, and insults in this hearing. Any further instances of this will result in your responses being moderated. You are to present your defense and answer questions in an orderly, civil manner. All discussion here, from everyone, is expected to remain courteous and respectful."
In his very next message [which, to be fair, probably crossed Shari's in the ether.--Ed] Tim alleges that Kim Gordon "is the one who sent a note of sexual ineundo to one of my RCs, speaking of that RC and myself. That was conduct not becoming of any CC or volunteer in any project. She was immediately dismissed for same...If that was Gestapo tactics - so be it...Decent folks should not have to put up with such...That you defend trash such as this, is also an indicator of your character."
Don says, "You just said you know of two cases where I was denied an adoption...in the same breath you said projects have a right to protect themselves...your name never came up in either case. You don't have to comment further on that matter you know." [Huh?--Ed.]
Don posts an apparently off-topic post in which he notes "that is was easy to find projects in Arkansas and Iowa, each with over two hundred pages of data. It was also easy to find out if anyone was a member of any archives project. Protection? Protection from what?" [Huh?--Ed.]
Cyndi asks Tim, "How long from the time an "Archives" person adopted a county...were they given to put your definition of data on their site?...when I adopted a site that was abandoned by a previous CC and all pages removed, it took me time to get just the shell in place....I prefer to put my contributed data in the Archives for the same reasons you outlined. If the CC prefers to put their personally transcribed/contributed data in the Archives in GA and no researchers contribute your definition of data to the county, yet the CC is growing their site, I don't see why they are labeled as an "Archives Plant". Do you consider links to researcher's sites with data as being a data addition? If data is offered and the CC refuses, that is one thing, but is Ms. Crilley the only Archives person who has refused?"
Angie asks "Is there any more actual evidence to present from either side in regards to Charge 1? If not...are we going to vote on Charge 1 before proceeding to the charge re: Carolyn Golowka, or discuss all the charges before a vote?"
Shari notifies Tim that his posts to his own trial will be moderated, "since you have chosen to ignore last night's warning about the conduct expected here. Your responses and posts will be edited if you choose to attempt to post character attacks and/or insults again...if you have proof of your allegation that Ms. Gordon sent a note containing sexual inuendo, please provide it. Otherwise, the committee is to disregard that comment."
Darilee says that she personally "would not like to see any moderation on this list especially for Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys," and notes that "This is suppose to be a forum for them ...to Moderate them here ... is unwise and perhaps unfair." Teri Brown agrees with Darilee that "moderating Tim and Richard seems a bit unfair." She would like to "hear the things they have to say - directly from them." Cyndi concurs, noting "I'll agree to no moderation on this list also with the hopes that in the future points can be made by presenting arguments in the form of facts/evidence instead of insults."
Linda Blum-Barton warns Angie that she has more evidence on Charge #1 and hopes to have it ready within a day. She threatens that "It will include everything else I have or have been sent in regard to Charge #1." [I will just kill myself now.--Ed.]
Day 13--Circa 31 August, 2004--
Shari begins the day on a positive note: "I will not allow the hearing to become a free-for-all. Tim's notes will be forwarded to the list in their entirety. If he tries to post something with inappropriate content...I will return it to him with a request that he resubmit his response without the inappropriate content. This will in no way impede his ability to respond in a mature way to any charges or questions from this body." She considers this a request for "Order in the Court".
[Ed. Note. Yes, instead of a "free-for-all" the list will be a "free-for-some", most noticeably not the Accused. ]
Rich Howland asks Shari, "just what do you think this hearing is if not an insult and personal attack? It has been made up from the beginning by a few people to attack another they don't like. The only time it follows any sort of rules or procedure is when they vaguely suit it's purpose of attack and confutation...when are we going to get back to using the bylaws and parliamentary procedure that were suspended so that a few members could do what in their hearts they knew was right even if it was wrong? The Advisory Board may well win in this hearing, but it is not Tim that loses. It is USGenWeb project. This Board may not be able to admit the great big mistake it made in being led down this dastardly trail. But at some point it must be pointed out. The membership will have to know how they have been betrayed...Bending a few rules when compared to trashing everything the project and its membership stand for will not balance very well."
Day 14--Cir 1 September 2004--A New Day Dawns
[Ed. Note. September 1 is traditionally the day newly elected Board members take their offices. Although Richard turned over the keys and skipped town early, a couple of new people should have come aboard on this date, and a couple should have said their goodbyes.]
Don Kelly starts off the day by asking Tim, "Mr. Stowell addressed the issue of the state project name...To clarify my thinking on the complaint section 1 and Mr. Stowell's response, I pose a question to him. What section of the USGenWeb bylaws do you feel exempts Georgia from using XXGenWeb as the state project name as specified in the bylaw?"
Tim posts a clarification on the Golowka material supplied by Brenda Pierce. He notes that Lisa Little and Lisa Obeginski are the same person, that Brenda's note doesn't say that Linda gave up Clayton county, and that "Butts was a misspeak on Brenda's part."
Shari forwards this same message to the list again because she thinks Tim is moderated.
|
© 2004 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author; they may not reflect those of the USGenWeb Project or its members. The USGenWeb Project Advisory Board does not endorse this site and is not affiliated with it. Several people have helped me research this material, I'd like to thank them by name, but as they are still project members to do so would invite reprisals against them. So You Know Who You Are, and you have my thanks! |