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

Day 15--Circa 2 Sep 2004--The Hammer Falls...

In reply to Don Kelly's somewhat odd comment about finding sites that have two hundred pages of data, Tim notes "I don't doubt there are sites within the project with from 1 to hundreds of pages, but I daresay that the better of the two ends of the spectrum is that a site have more pages versus a shell site." He also notes that it hard to identify Archives employees when they use fake names: "only if they are truthful as to who they are...in, I believe it was, May, 2004 where one Sarah Hughes stated she was a person of that name only to find out that she was in fact someone else...I decided that thanks but no thanks even though I'd already added her name to the county selection table." He asks Don to elaborate on his comment about protection.

Tim provides an extensive answer to Cyndi's question about putting data on a county site:

"A set of links does not qualify as data...The 'Archives' persons in question had been with GAGenWeb well before the Guidelines were adopted, so that's over 2 years ago, yet at the time of their dismissal, still had shell sites. I started adding a book to the state site on state history, which had some county history sketches in it. I offered to pass along said histories to the CCs to be added to the county site only...The last time I looked the Baker County site did not have the history on it, instead it was in the Archives, with my name on it as the contributor. I didn't contribute it, nor did I authorize it to be placed there...[this] is an example of how data contributed to county sites were shuffled off to the Archives with neither the permission nor the knowledge most of the time of the contributor. Some felt if it was contributed to the county sites, it was ok to go ahead and send it to the Archives without the submitters permission...I believe we should honor our commitment to contributors that it goes where they say they are contributing it. We can certainly ask them if they would like to or would they mind if we passed it along to the Archives but we should never take it for granted that it is ok to do such...What a CC decides to do with data they transcribe is up to them - yet the Bylaws state the county site is the central repository...it would seem that while they can contribute it to the Archives they should first add it to their county site...One can only grow a site with data additions. Folks have contributed data, data was offered to them, yet poof off it went to the Archives not to the county site...I have no knowledge of what Ms. Crilley may or may not have refused. Ms. Crilley was the Archives person who either lifted data herself or authorized others to do so. Ms. Golowka is the one who refused to put data on the county site. Ms. Rankin also refused and put letters from the ASC Brenda Pierce and RC Bill Clody in PDF format on her web site along with no so nice commentary about putting data on her site that the procured for her to add. As mentioned above by the reference to Baker County, Ms. Crosby, also falls into that category."

In response to Shari's post that he is moderated, Tim notes that he doesn't post mail as he writes them but bulk posts and states "All the mail from 8/30 that I posted was sent before I ever saw any warning from you. I actually saw it on Monday 8/30 during the day, after my posts hit the list late Sunday night 8/29-early am 8/30. I couldn't therefore ignore something that came after my posts were made." He notes that the post he made regarding Ms. Golowka was edited and asks "If you are going to edit my replies to requests for information should I just send it to each Board member privately?" Tim indicates that he will provide evidence of Kim Gordon's inappropriate email "As long as it is kept private and not posted as part of the transcript of this hearing, I will. Otherwise it is a matter of record from one of the 2003 hearings minutes."

Again in reference to Carolyn Golowka, Tim notes "In the case of Carolyn - data a contributor had made, she placed in the Archives rather than the county site. When it was discovered in the Archives, the ASC Brenda Pierce wrote the contributor to ask if she would allow the data to be added to the county site. The contributor was happy to allow it to be placed there as well. Whether or not that particular submitter assumed it was going to the county site rather than the Archives, I don't know. If you are speaking of submitters elsewhere whose donated data was placed in the Archives without their knowledge or permission, yes I do have proof and knowledge of such. I've sent my own personal account along earlier...I don't think it is within the province of a CC to determine where a contributor wants their data placed. If a contributor sends data to me it goes on the county site. It does not go to the Archives unless they request it to be. A CC can certainly ask a contributor if they would mind or not if it goes to the Archives but cannot or should not assume for the contributor that it goes anywhere but the county site." [This message and the several preceding it were also forwarded to the list by Shari because she thought Tim was moderated.]

Shari Handley notes that "Since Tim has explained that he did not see my warning due to the way that he downloads and replies to messages...I have removed him from moderated status. Tim - you are free to post directly to this hearing list once again so long as you conduct yourself in a respectful manner." [LOL.--Ed.]

Don Kelly notes that in his experience submitters rarely mention the Archives so he places materials on his county site by default. He says that "The bylaws says counties will be repositories of data, so I will defend that bylaw, " but asks "Is refusal to put data on the county website grounds for removal?" According to him, "it depends...county site with just one database on board is in compliance..they qualify as having data on board...If they have zero data on board, and refuse to put data on board, and show researchers nothing but links, that is...a blatant violation of the bylaw, and they after a 60 days grace period are fired. Please note that our NC and I slightly disagree on interpretation of this particular bylaw."

Don next wants to know how "instances to support a mistake in awarding adoptions" affected his applications for Georgia counties. He notes "I belonged to no archives, had ancestors in the county, and knew how to maintain websites." He goes on: "It might help this committee if you will state for us exactly what the GAGenWeb policies and procedures for adopting out vacant county websites was/is. I have never seen that document. I have seen at least two cases written by witnesses where discrimination was clearly indicated, and suggestions of more. If discrimination is acceptable, it should appear in the project P & P."

Over on BOARD-EXEC, new Board member David Morgan thanks Shari for catching him up on events on the trial list, which apparently he was not subscribed to. He notes "Tim does have a point. The bylaws do not say the XXGenWeb Project has to be on the county web sites...Another point...When the bylaws were passed in 1998, there was NO service mark for USGenWeb or XXGenWeb. The bylaws saying there was does not make it so. While there is now a service mark for USGenWeb and The USGenWeb Project, there is NO service mark for GAGenWeb. This issue should be dropped."

Jan Cortez immediately wants to know how David knows what is happening on the other list if he isn't subscribed to it. [OMG, there might be a leak! Horrors!--Ed.] David tells her that Shari sent both him and the other new Board member, Kathi Jones-Hudson, copies of the trial transcripts.

Don Kelly takes issue with David's interpretation of Article I and exhorts him to read the whole Article. He notes "GAGenWeb represents USGenWeb so the XXGenWeb title designation is operative...I asked Mr. Stowell to quote the bylaw that exempted GAGenWeb from the XXGenWeb rule. I am waiting for the answer."

[Ed. Note. This is a fine example of "you say tomayto, I say tomahto." The bylaws do say that "USGenWeb" and the "XXGenWeb" constructions are reserved for use by members of the Project. But they do not say that Project sites have to use them, or how they may use them. While Don seems to be investing way too much importance in a charge that was tacked on as window-dressing in the first place, it is indicative of the "flexibility" of the bylaws. I have been assured by several people who were there when they were born that the "flexibility" was intended, but I have a hard time believing that they meant for the Article to be used in this fashion.]

In a follow-up message, Don asks David, "Are you saying GAGenWeb does not represent USGenWeb, so is therefore exempt from following the rules?...I don't see an exemption in the bylaws at all, not even close." David replies that the wording of the bylaws does not make it law that XXGenWeb has to appear on state sites. He also tells Don, "Feel free to go to the federal web site on service marks and see if you can find one for GAGenWeb or XXGenWwb. The service mark is for USGenWeb and The USGenWeb Project."

Don Kelly notes once again that bylaws are "our project law. That is what USGenWeb and member GenWebs live by." He says "my understanding is...one can have a service mark without registering it with the federal government, but if you want to protect it from use by another organization, you need to legally register it...But isn't this point of view a lot like straining a knat while swallowing a camel? What is really important?"

Shari Handley pops in at this point to say she has just subbed David and Kathi to the trial list.

And over on the trial list itself, as no further evidence has been presented, Shari calls for the vote on Charge 1. She notes, "We will vote on each section individually. There are 6 sections. Please respond to each of the 6 ensuing notes...by indicating whether you find Tim Stowell RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE for each section." Members have until 11:33 EDT on September 4 to cast their vote. She then sends each of the itemized charges separately to the list.

[Ed. Note. Although most of the voting took place on Day 16 and 17, I have included it here for convenience's sake.]

Charge 1a: (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee.
RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Cyndie Enfinger, David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathi Jones-Hudson
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Darilee Bednar

Charge 1b: (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.
RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Cyndi Enfinger, David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathi Jones-Hudson
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Darilee Bednar

Charge 1c: (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.
RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathy Jones-Hudson
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Cyndi Enfinger
ABSTAIN: Darilee Bednar

Charge 1d: State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to dothe 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.
RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Cyndi Enfinger, David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathi Jones-Hudson
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Darilee Bednar

Charge 1e: (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored.
RESPONSIBLE: David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Darilee Bednar, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathi Jones-Hudson NOT RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Cyndi Enfinger, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher

Charge 1f: (f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues.
RESPONSIBLE: Don Kelly, David Morgan, Bettie Wood, Teri Brown, Larry Flesher, Darilee Bednar, Linda Blum-Barton
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Cyndi Enfinger, Kathi Jones-Hudson

During the voting, Don notes "One charge appears to be missing here. The charge that GAGenWeb did not follow the bylaw which specified that names will be XXGenWeb appear sustained by prima facia evidence...Is this charge being dropped, or will it be voted on later?"

Day 16, Circa 3 September 2004

During the voting, David Morgan notes "I don't feel comfortable in voting these charge against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys at the same time. Tim was the responsible officer of GAGenWeb and should be held responsible." [Actually, as a new Board member who was only subscribed to the hearing the previous day, he shouldn't have been voting on the charges at all.--Ed.] Shari reminds David that the trial only covers Tim Stowell and they will try Richard Pettys when they are done with Tim. David remarks that the opening statement is "a little confusing." [No, its just the Board being too lazy to write separate charges for the two accused.--Ed.]

Over on BOARD-EXEC, Bettie asks "How long is the voting process going to be for? I was concerned because of the hurricane, & some AB won't be available because it's a holiday weekend, because we have new people that need to read all the evidnece because we don't know which, if any, AB members are missing...because I thought Linda had some more evidence to present. I had some too, but was waiting on that section to come up, & the evidence to be asked for...Will the voting be extended so all those that are away on holiday will be able to vote? Also how is the "verdict" going to be determined? By a simple majority? By a quorum?"

Apparently in response to Don's query about Article I, Shari notes "I copied...Charge 1 from the final version of the statement of charges that was sent to Tim. If it wasn't on there, he wasn't charged with it."

Day 17

During the ongoing vote Darilee Bednar notes "It's been my opinion from the start that the true charges are being buried among a pyramid of "litter charges"...I'm uncomfortable with the vote I just made... I believe that only one section was important... and in retrospect it's the only one I should have voted for. I believe strongly that if Mr. Stowell is being held responsible for some of these actions we need to begin actions against other SC's."

Day 18

Shari posts the results of the vote on Charge 1:

(a): 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1a

(b): 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1b

(c): 9 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 1 abstention, 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1c

(d): 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1d

(e): 5 "RESPONSIBLE", 6 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found NOT RESPONSIBLE for charge 1e

(f): 7 "RESPONSIBLE", 4 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused
Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1f

RECAP:
1a: RESPONSIBLE
1b: RESPONSIBLE
1c: RESPONSIBLE
1d: RESPONSIBLE
1e: NOT RESPONSIBLE
1f: RESPONSIBLE

"Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs. In 2003, a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC) was started by Mr. Pettys. The GRC worked to revise GAGenWeb guidelines to provide further protection for CC rights within the project, and to establish a grievance procedure that did not involve the State Coordinator or the appointed ASCs and RCs. The Committee asked for input from CC's throughout their work. Mr. Pettys threatened to stop the work of the committee, and did disband the committee before their work could be completed. Following this action, Mr. Stowell announced a vote to be taken on GAGEN-L The vote, which was counted by Mr. Stowell and Mari Byers of TNGenWeb, indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a non-binding poll."

Linda Blum-Barton provides "background on this issue," and refers the Board to "some of the posts" on GAGEN-L on continuing the Guidelines Revision Committee.

[Ed. Note. The links she provided all go to blank pages for me so I'm not sure what evidence she claimed to have. However, if you go to Root$web and search the GAGEN archives for "GRC" you find a very large number of posts from--you guessed it--Linda Blum-Barton, harping on everyone in sight over the results of this poll and the disbanding of the Guidelines Revision Committee. Why, Linda herself graciously volunteered to serve as the chair of a new GRC that--you guessed it--she herself proposed to form without the interference of the State Coordinator. I become more curious with each passing day why anyone affiliated in any way with GAGEN was allowed to sit in judgement of Tim. --Ed.]

Don Kelly revisits the outcome of Charge #1, noting, "I think my feelings about 1e were validated by the majority of voters...We had testimony about it, and bits and pieces streamed by about it, but after everything I looked at I never saw a smoking gun, so I had to vote not responsible. So the system works and from the bottom of my heart I thank everyone who participated in this part of the USGenWeb government." [Sheesh.--Ed.]

David Morgan notes that Linda's links are not working and suggests she use the archiver at Root$web instead. She just tells him to cut and paste the entire URL since it wrapped in her post. [Tried that...still doesn't work.--Ed.] Linda herself finally admits that she can't get it to work and tells the Board how to go find the posts itself, using the words "poll" and "mari."

[Ed. Note. Ah, ok. We did that, and we find a couple of messages that went over the rules of how to reply to the poll, some preliminary results, final results of the poll, and what must be Linda's smoking gun: a message from Mari Byers of TNGenWeb, who assisted in the poll, apologizing to the GAGenWeb members for helping Tim count votes. Mari said "I apologize for being a part of the recent GRC poll. It was my full intent to help maintain accuracy in the vote count...over 50% of the votes were in favor of continuing the GRC. Those results were correct. I had no idea these votes would be interrupted the way they were and for that I'm sorry." Note that Mari does refer to it as a "poll", rather than a vote. Interestingly enough Linda doesn't include Tim's explanation of why he didn't institute a new GRC following the poll, which was essentially that since it was a non-binding poll and only about 35% of the eligible CCs voted he didn't consider that feeling the project was strong enough to warrant it, especially since the former GRC had bogged down in the usual infighting. Although Linda beat the point relentlessly, Tim does not ever seem to have referred to this exercise as anything but a poll, nor to have ever implied the outcome would be binding. Linda, on the other hand, appears to have been crushed by Tim's interpretation of the results and unable to let it go and move on with her life.]

David Morgan [need we say, another GAGW CC?--Ed.] posts an enormous set of links, notes it more than the Board probably wants to read, and points them directly to Mari's message. He also tells the committee that "After Virginia [Crilley] posted this message [the one from Mari Byers] she was unsubscribed from the GAGENWEB Council list, where she had been a member since 1998, and put on read-only status on GAGEN-L."

Day 19, circa 6 September 2004

Although the vote is over, Tim continues to respond to the issues surrounding Charge 1. He notes that organizations have the right to defend themselves, and that "Folks must first meet the minimum requirements or be teachable...If more than one person volunteers to host a site, one can compare folks or perhaps instead of taking a known gamble on an unknown to broaden the base." He also notes that he had a hard drive crash which is why he was replying so late to the previous messages.

In response again to Don, Tim notes that he was only aware of two instances in which Don Kelly was denied a county in Georgia and cites the relevant section of the old GAGenWeb Guidelines about how new CCs could be selected. He notes "One of the charges was that I wouldn't allow an existing CC to take on more counties up to the 3 county limit. Why would one award another county to someone when they weren't even doing anything with the counties they had...Yet another charge by the same folks is I wouldn't let new blood in. One can't have it both ways. When new folks did come in, they were written by certain individuals with all sorts of wild tales about how I'd take their site from them if they didn't do thus and so...Even when the folks complained about me in two previous hearings/actions before this body, after it was over, NONE of them were dismissed. Now a vindictive person would have fired everyone of them on the spot. But I didn't. Yet even with my kindness towards them......here we are again. "

Tim tells Shari that she is mistaken in her reciting of Charge #2. He notes, "A majority of the CCs indicated nothing, since only approximately 35% of the members participated in the poll. Polls are just that, a poll. Polls are non-binding. Polls are done to gauge the feelings of a certain group of individuals on a particular subject. Right off the top, it was noted as a poll." He posts several emails from GAGEN noting 1) the beginning of the poll, specifically mentioning it was a poll; 2) the preliminary results of the poll indicating that only 35% of the members voted in the poll; and 3) the final poll results. [He also reminds Linda Blum-Barton how to use tinyurl.com, which I find most amusing.--Ed.]

Don Kelly asks, "Does anyone know for sure if the GRC was disbanded because the leadership didn't like what they were proposing? If another reason, what was the factual reason why the GRC disbanded?" He thinks he can understand why so few GAGW members participated in the poll.

Shari asks Linda to post the messages to the list, "For the purposes of the transcript, and to ensure that the evidence is presented here completely." [Thanks for thinking of me, Shari!--Ed.]

Linda next posts a long statement from Virginia "Sticky Fingers" Crilley, who is pretty famous around USGenWeb for not being too particular about where and how she gets data to meet her monthly quotas for the Archives:

"The Guidelines Revision Committee was originally formed by Richard Pettys in April 2003. I was asked to join in Aug 2003, after some members had resigned...From April 2003-Aug 2003, the group seemed to concentrate on a Bill of Rights for CCs. A great deal of time was spent on that formation, but my knowledge of this is only based on what was submitted to GAGEN-L and the Council. The Council was opposed to most changes that were suggested...Margie Daniels, and Gloria Holback, resigned from the GRC and from that point on spoke against the work of the GRC on Council. The Council would continually send back to GRC over some minor detail which kept the GRC from making any progress...As a Council Member, I tried hard to support the GRC, but my one vote didn't carry much weight. The rule was that nothing could be presented to the CCs for a vote unless the Council approved it first. Although the Committee did have differences of opinions on various specific wording of guidelines, I would never characterize it as a "bickering" committee or one that didn't get along...It was united in its efforts to make sure that some of the abuses and loopholes being used by the Council in getting "around" the Guidelines was improved...We were also united in that we wanted to hear from the CCs at every step of the way. We had regional reporters who asked for responses as each topic was brought up...[the GRC] worked at a steady pace, although often slowed down by there being no Chairperson to call for the vote so we could adopt the portion and move on. The Council consistently refused to approve any revision. In the later days of the GRC (after Richard had issued the note that we were given a deadline to complete the work), we consistently worked and covered the main issues of how decisions were to be made, how CCs had a voice in their State Project, and the purpose of the "appointed Council" vs "elected representatives". Richard had hampered the efforts of the GRC because of his long absences, and sometimes he would appoint Jacki as Chairperson...The alleged "bickering" that Richard used for his excuse to disband was...because Tim Stowell...interjected comments and appeared to be attempting to steer the GRC...There was strong objection to some of his comments which were not based on truth...He brought up a discussion of the role of the Archives which was to have been discussed at a later date. The Roles of the SC, ASC, RC were under consideration during the time period of 3/22/04 up until the time the GRC was shut down. Tim was not pleased with the GRC discussing the importance of the SC role and the various aspects of it. Tim's argument was that the Council and RCs were just following the Guidelines which were previously passed and that he as SC had little to do with it. Since several of us were present during the creation of those Guidelines, we did our best to point out that his statement was not true. This is a rebuttal that I posted on the "open list" which has since disappeared

'You as SC have given the Council power by your own choosing...This GAGenWeb controversy began when Keith called for an Election of the SC...You chose to take this personally, and have not to this day held an Election of the SC, as you have indicated many times that you would. If an election had been held when Keith requested it, I have no doubt that you would have won the position hands down. From the Keith controversy, came the dismissal of the Jackson Co CC, who Keith was assisting as her RC. That dismissal was not supported by ALL of the Council. When a vote was taken within the Council, one of the voting members of the Council, a Special Projects person that you had accepted, was "thrown out". This was a major step in the present ruling power of the Council.'

"After the GRC was ended...Tim held a "poll" which the CCs truly believed was their chance to voice their opinion. The results showed that CCs did want the work of the GRC to continue. Tim chose to treat this as a non-binding opinion, and did not re-instate it. Mari Byers (TN SC) was asked to count the votes along with Tim, and ...She sent to me an e-mail requesting that I forward it to the GAGen-L list. I was bann from the GAGen List for forwarding the e-mail as breaking confidentiality of the GAGen List. Also at that same time I was removed from the Council...and the Reporter who was giving a summary of topics of discussion was instructed NOT to mention my removal from the GAGenWeb in her report to GAGen. It was never clear if I was removed as RC, but I was no longer considered a part of the Council, and was not able to participate in their work after that. Council secrecy was enforced once more. [Hey, been there, done that. Its the suq, but no one seemed to have a problem with it when it was done to me.--Ed.] If there is anything else I can clarify, please do not hesitate to call on me. I worked with Tim and David Morgan when the Regional Coordinator concept first came into being. It is a good concept but was turned into a "power" position. The Council kept everything secret. I remember one member stating that ones at the bottom should not be telling management how to do things. I was appalled at a Council which considered our volunteer CCs as being "them" against "us"...That attitude and the fixation on votes and control is what caused the situation to deteriorate and which allowed the abusive action against any CC who dared to question or speak their views. Both Richard and Tim urged the Council to remove various CCs who were questioning the leadership. Those CCs who also happened to be on the AB were targeted, but fortunately the action was never taken against them." [Uh oh...one more reason for the GAGenWeb members on the Board to recuse themselves from voting...-Ed.]

Day 7 dawns anew with yet another post from Linda Blum-Barton. This one is a statement from Vivian Price Saffold, another vocal Tim critic and, wouldn't you know, the current SC of GAGenWeb:

"Richard Pettys invited me to become a member of the Guidelines Revision Committee in April, 2003...I wondered why the GRC had not been organized by State Coordinator Tim Stowell. I repeatedly questioned Chairman Pettys about this and got only vague answers. At one point he told me that he had organized the committee on his own because the Council had failed to act on the issue of guidelines revision. Another time he told me that he had the support of the SC and Council to organize the committee in this manner. I have studied the GAGenWeb guidelines intensively and realized that there was no way any revision could be achieved without support from the Council...I agreed to join this committee believing it was the only way for CCs to try to affect change....Stowell and Pettys made good use of two tactics for which they have become well known. Stowell was the master of misdirect. When the discussion was not going to his liking, he inserted another topic - often the Archives - that got the talks off track. Pettys did not participate in the process unless he thought it necessary to steer the group back to his point of view. The formation of the Guidelines Revision Committee...had one purpose: to push through some inconsequential changes to the guidelines in order to quiet the unrest that permeated the project at that time. Early on in the process, when Margie Daniels and Gloria Holback were members, there was more arguing on the committee, because there was a balance between those who supported the Council and those who did not. When the committee gained more anti-Council members, there was more agreement on positions that could have been viewed as against the powers-that-be. When it became clear that Pettys no longer controlled the committee, he pulled the plug. Although the GRC submitted proposals to the Council and tried to encourage the Council to participate in the guidelines revision process, every effort was rebuffed or ignored. What little input the GRC received from the Council was always negative. I had hoped that the committee could establish a dialogue which might result in compromise, but the lack of response made this impossible. After the Council's rejection of the Bill of Rights without comment or giving the GRC an opportunity for revision...I proposed giving the Council a deadline for responding to our questions concerning what the Council members found objectionable...My proposal was rejected as too harsh.

'I think this this committee should send a letter...to the GAGenWeb State Coordinator, with copies to every member of the council, requesting an official report on the outcome on the vote on the Bill of Rights, along with a detailed explanation of the council's concerns about the document. It should be made clear in the letter that the committee reserves the right to edit the BOR and resubmit it to the council...It also should be stated...that the committee believes the council should make a report to the membership, and if the council chooses not to do so, the committee will make its own report. The letter should give...deadlines...for reporting to the committee and...for reporting to the membership...giving adequate time for the council to draft its report. If the GRC chairman or secretary feels that writing such a letter might place either in a difficult position, the chairman may ask for volunteers from the committee to write the letter.'

'Because the guidelines stated that only the Council could propose revisions to the membership, no part of what was decided by the GRC ever reached the CCs. It is my opinion that nothing substantive ever would have been voted on by the membership. I do not think it is exaggerating to say that the members of the committee were stunned to learn that Pettys was disbanding the committee.'

Pettys letter of 6 Apr 2004: 'Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something.'

I believe Pettys' statement to be disingenuous. Pettys himself admitted that he had little time to devote to the committee.

Pettys letter of 18 Feb 2004: 'For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything.'

"I believe the straw that broke the camel's back...was the addition to the committee of Sylvia Rankin. At that point...Pettys had been absent for some time...due to demands of his employment. The committee believed it was in the best interest of the project and the process to continue under the leadership of Jacki Jonas until Pettys returned. The committee had lost a member, and proceeded to replace that member with Rankin...Pettys quickly resurfaced and made a motion to nominate Brenda Pierce...Pettys was a non-voting member of the committee. I believe it was inappropriate for him to make a motion.

Pettys letter of 10 December 2003: 'With three positions open...I will withdraw my opposition to Sylvia's appointment in exchange for the extension of an invitation to Brenda Pierce, who was also passed over...the last time around because I felt that the members would not approve of her based on her statements and her views of the issues. When the committee was formed, I selected from the volunteers who applied. I based my selection on the volunteers who embodied both sides of the issues we were facing. I based my selection of the volunteers based on what I had read from postings and from what I saw on webpages of the hardwork and dedication to this project. As members withdrew, quit or took their ball and went home, new members came on board. While I could have made the selections, I felt that the committee was the best entity to make these decisions....However, I also believe that it is incumbent upon me to guide the committee in its selection process...inasmuch as Jackie has opened this discussion as chair, she should complete the same as chair. Thus, I move to amend the motion as follows: I move we issue an invitation to Sylvia Caldwell Rankin to join the committee and that we issue an invitation to Brenda Pierce to join the committee.'

"Pettys' motion failed to gain a second. I addressed Pettys' reasons for disbanding the committee in a post to the West Central Region, the group with whom I was charged with communicating the business of the committee:

'By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the Guidelines Revision Committee...I would like to commend you heartily for all the interest you have shown in the committee's efforts to bring fairness and openness to the GAGenWeb project and thank you for your generous flow of ideas. I commend Richard for organizing the committee. I am quite disappointed that he felt he could not see the effort through to completion. I disagree with his reasons for disbanding it:

1. Belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues
2. Continuous off-topic remarks
3. Apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties

Do we debate? Of course. Debate is part of the process. Does debate sometimes become heated? Of course...the current committee members work well together, and ...there is no rancor...Do we sometimes digress into issues that some would call "off-topic." I suppose. The debate over the Archives, however, is relevant to the purpose of this organization...We are addressing complicated issues, sometimes debating every single word in a sentence. We deliberately allow time for CC feedback...I am sure you are aware that the CCs did vote to approve the current guidelines. I don't think that vote meant that those guidelines are perfect and never need altering. At the very heart of our current debate is the fact that...the members of this project *cannot amend their own guidelines.* Only the council can initiate a change to the guidelines. I do not believe we can count on the current powers-that-be to ever change that fact. I know I have attempted several times to go through the accepted chain of command, beginning with my RC, submitting requests for consideration of amendments to the guidelines. I have never even been granted the courtesy of a response. The GRC is the only vehicle we have for CC input into the rules by which we are governed.

"I found it interesting that Pettys declared my final report and that of Jacki Jonas and others (every member of the GRC posted a similar message) "inappropriate." Of course, by that time the reports already had been distributed.

Pettys letter of 10 April 2004: 'The Final Report as submitted by Jacki and others is null and void. It is the final report of a committee which did not exist when the report was made. Moreover, it is my position that a final report can only be made by the Chair of a Committee. To the extent that I was the Chair of the GRC, I am the only one who can make such a report. Inasmuch as I did not, the final report submitted by Jacki and others is wholly inappropriate and is a nullity.'

"I summarized my beliefs about the entire GRC experience in correspondence shortly after the disbanding:

"By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the GRC. Of course, since he formed it on his own, without council approval, he certainly has the authority to do this, even if...he has an ethical obligation to continue. I do find it ironic, however, that he has been, for the most part, an absentee chairman...the committee has been virtually leaderless from the outset. This lack of solid direction has been the committee's major problem. I also think that Richard's lack of participation has been in part deliberate. You can't be held responsible for something you took no part in...I believe that the underlying reason is that the committee was moving in a direction that did not fit his agenda. While he was absent the committee chose a replacement for a member who dropped out, someone Richard does not approve of. When he returned, he proposed that another member of the council be added, but the committee did not agree...the committee members recently have been more vocal in challenging the power brokers, and we in Georgia know that just won't do...I believe the purpose of the committee was intended to make it look like the power brokers were interested in reform and letting the CCs have a voice. I think the goal was to present a new set of guidelines that contained few real changes, so that a vote by the membership would reinforce the status quo.

After Pettys disbanded the committee, Stowell conducted a poll asking CCs if they wanted to continue the GRC. His interpretation of the result was, in my opinion, a cruel mockery of the membership he professed to serve.

Stowell letter of 19 April 2004: 'The status of the GRC is it doesn't exist. Richard disbanded it. The Council vote overwhelmingly confirmed his decision. As for the poll...17.7% of the members say they think the Guidelines need revision. 75.2% say either by voting or not voting that the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is. 7.1% of the total members prefer to completely do away with the Guidelines. While portions of the Guidelines may need revisiting...the vast majority of the members seem to be saying leave well enough alone. Therefore the GRC...will not be reconstituted. Members who wish to make suggestions for changes to the Guidelines may request same through their RC or to me.'

"Please note that I wrote my RC and the SC many times, and never even had the courtesy of a response. In an email on 21 April 2004, Council member Gloria Holback contended that the Council was under no obligation to follow the wishes of the CCs, because, "It was a poll and not a vote." [to which Saffold replied on April 2004] '...so a poll is just a pointless ruse, to make the membership think the council takes into consideration what the CCs think. And because it's not really a vote, it's OK to manipulate the outcome. I get it."

"Tim Stowell could have organized a Guidelines Revision Committee that would have had the advantage of his personal "seal of approval," but he did not. He could have participated in a more productive and positive manner in the deliberations, but he did not. He could have led the Council to work with the GRC, but he did not...he allowed Richard Pettys to organize a committee that was destined to fail, because it had no official support. In doing so, he was able to avoid any potential blame that might have ensued when the committee proved unproductive."

David Morgan believes that "people were justifiably upset that Tim ignored the poll and didn't continue the committee...Of all the things that have occured over the last two years, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Tim didn't plan to do anything constructive, then he should not have conducted the poll."

Linda next places in evidence a series of messages from the GRC's public Yahoo group mailing list, which was set up so that the CCs could follow the Committee's deliberations.

From Richard Pettys, 13 Feb 2004: "...I have placed the committee on notice today of my intent to limit our deliberations and work to a period of 90 days from this date...on or about May 13, 2004, you may expect to receive from me either the final recommendations on the revised guidelines or a report from me that states that the committee was unable to complete the task and asking for you to disband the committee. I have advised the committee members that, in the event one or more object to my actions, that they file with you a formal grievance, which I shall not fight, but which shall be met with a request to the GAGenWeb Council to disband the committee. I have copied the GRC members with a BCC on this email to the GRC list. I have also notified the First ASC of my intentions and my actions. The Secretary shall be directed to place my email on the Committee site and to forward the same to the GAGen list. With the exception of the parties identified herein and members of the GAGenWeb Council who may have a need to know of this missive, it is understood that the same shall remain private between the members of the GRC, you, First ASC Pierce and myself...I trust you will advise me in the event that you object to my decisions, intentions and actions."

Richard Pettys, 13 Feb 2004: "...We, as a group, need to get through this material...I know that some delay can be attributed to my lack of attention for several months and the fact that I refuse to check email more than once per day or on weekends. Part of the reason is the fact that the pace of this committee depresses me. Part of it is that the past year was very tough for me. And part of it is that *I* am losing interest in much of our proceedings and even the politics of the project...I simply do not have time for much tom-foolery. From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our task. So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or...report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council...I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the same. Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate grievance channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee be disbanded. I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing this through...Everyone on this committee is intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well-respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. Let's just push our job through, please."

Jan Cortez, 13 Feb 2004: "...I am appalled at your message. If you are losing interest in this committee...my best suggestion would be for you to resign and let someone else take over who does have an interest in this committee...To give us a 90 day timeline, and if this is not completed in that time frame is ludicrous. It either means that we must do a slap stick job of it, to get anything thru, or that the objective is that someone does not want this committee to succeed...even if we do hit the timeline and complete our work in 90 days, then we have a council that can vote it down...Anything of this nature must, in my opinion, be done in a well thought out manner...It takes time and it takes input from the CC's. Anything less will result in what we currently have. I appeal to the SC of this project to appoint Jacki as the Chairperson and allow us to complete the work that we have begun in a timely manner that will do all of us justice. Anything less..is a slap in the face to the CC's of this project who work tirelessly to put info online and to those, *all* of which I consider well respected, who have gotten us to this point."

varcsix@hot.rr.com, 13 Feb 2004: "...I am totally confused by your note and the method you have chosen to convey it...the long delays while we wait for you to give us the "go ahead" has been frustrating...we are all capable of doing the job this Committee set out to accomplish.... so let's all try to be as responsive as possible to messages as they are posted. Jan and I are ready to present the next sub-committee report and will do so as soon as the discussion of the purpose seems to have taken place."

Wyndell, 13 Feb 2004: "...I have real serious problem with the statements made by you in this message. If you have lost interest in this committee, or the entire project, then you need to step aside and let someone else take the lead...waiting for you to check email, or decide to do something has really gotten to me...I think this committee is capable of making decisions and coming up with a workable set of guidelines within a reasonable amount of time. However we need to have some direction and someone to direct us toward that goal....why all of a sudden a deadline to work against?...I am not sure just what respect I hold, but would like to see this committee move with the speed in which it has wanted to go."

Vivian Saffold, 15 Feb 2004: "If you are..."losing interest," then maybe it is time for you to move on and let those who remain motivated complete the job. While I strongly oppose setting a deadline, I agree that we need to move along with all deliberate speed. I firmly believe that appealing your decision through the current grievance process would result in the committee's forced demise...For the good of the project, I strongly urge you to reconsider."

Jan Cortez, 15 Feb 2004: "I strongly agree that we need to move along, however...we've now eaten up another few days in which we receive no answers or response from the GAGenWeb team...We...are not able to step in and take control of the committee and move things forward, it seems only our SC and council can allow that. We are powerless and in the hands of those who control and have the *power* within the GAGenWeb. It surely is a very sad state of affairs."

Richard Pettys, 18 Feb 2004: "For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything."

Pettys, 6 Apr 2004: "Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something."

Don Kelly says "There is more evidence to come and it is too early to draw bottom line conclusions, but...I have noticed a couple of things that disturb me. Evolving from charge#2 are activities that seem similar to items under charge #1...It appears the committee was permitted to deliberate on new guidelines, but restricted by guidelines designed to promote a pre-determined outcome which would favor management over membership...It also smacks of "make work".......keep progressive volunteers occupied expecting to help the project when in fact the committee had no support from the leadership for reform. I'll be looking for new material to reverse my thinking, but am not holding my breath. This just looks like samo and still more samo, and the SC is again involved in the fraud.

[Ed. Note. Too early to draw conclusions? Looks like he has done just that. But he does bring up an interesting point. Up until this time, it has been Tim vs. the Board, each one of whom seems to be predisposed to interpret the "evidence" against him in the worst possible light. There are 16 people on the Board and the _only_ people presenting evidence in this trial are those who at best were newbies inclined to go along with the crowd, and at worst were utterly fixated on destroying Tim. Several of them acted both as witnesses against Tim and as judges. The only Board member inclined to support Tim was Richard Howland and he was muzzled by both NCs holding the trial. When was the last time you were at a trial with 15 prosecuters? While Tim later got to have a representative before the Board and she made a vailant effort, it was far too little and far too late.]

Responding to the vote on Charge #1a, Tim Stowell claims that "Telling folks that they have the right to vote or not, is not manipulating any vote...It was not my responsibility if the EC doesn't get its information out, since CCs have to register to get the announcements from the EC." He asks for the proof on charge 1b, noting "Who was on the list who were not members or potential members or folks coming on board?...You are unaware of private correspondence as to why some folks were subbed to the list. Did I perhaps overlook someone who'd left who had more than one address subbed? Most likely. Making mistakes is not a crime." On 1c he notes "when the Guidelines were voted on/in, just a tad over 1/2 voted for them, so even on that very important issue we couldn't get folks interested to vote...just how is it I prevented a 75% quorum at some other time?" For 1d he notes "Caretaking counties is not against the rules...Evans county doesn't count for the handwriting was already on the wall - that space was in my name, I took it to prevent others from taking it. Troup was co-CCd until recently; Forsyth was a special circumstance, perhaps a plot, to trap me, I don't know. Hancock was taken over when the CC quit during the first ruckus in 2002-3. Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, was unresponsive to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton...Coweta was my original county." He also notes, "Why would anyone make themselves an open target for folks out to get them? After being criticized over posting/not posting changes to the state list, I quit altogether - for some folks nothing I did was good enough for them...I've seen zero PROOF of phantom CCs. Please provide such." He also asks about Rich Howland: "Was he even informed that this vote was taking place? I've seen no reference to him having recused himself. If he has been denied the right to vote, I trust he will inform the Project at large of these actions against an elected, non-recused member of the AB. No place I know of except perhaps China, Russia and like...are complaintants and judges the same. While Ms. Barton, Ms. Wood's can offer comment, they should not be allowed to vote."

On Charge #2, Tim notes "The committee was a committee sponsered by the ASC. He created the committee. He had the right to disband it." He says he talked with Jackie Jonas about continuing the GRC but notes "However, just because the 'administration' didn't have a Guidelines review committee in place - did not stop nor prohibit anyone else from forming their own committee and coming up with proposals...the CCs themselves could have started their own committee...the question was never asked or proposed by any CC."

Next Tim responds to Virginia Crilley's statement. He notes that he personally did not want anymore RCs on the committee [Virginia was an RC at the time.--Ed.] because he felt it would be too "top heavy." He says that oversight of the GRC by the Council "was only to make sure proposals didn't conflict with other parts of the Guidelines or the USGenWeb Bylaws," and that only one item was sent back to the GRC by the Council. He thinks Virginia's statement that the GRC was discussing his own status at the time the committee was disbanded is "baloney," and also claims that the Jackson county CC was so "wishy washy" that they finally gave up trying to work with her and accepted her resignation. He notes that the Council member Virginia claimed was a "Special Projects person", and who was removed from the Council, was never a Special Projects person and was removed because she was failing to do what she was taken on board to do. [Hmmm...perhaps Virginia knows something Tim doesn't.--Ed.] Regarding the poll results, Tim notes "The results showed that 20 folks out of 110+ wanted to continue. Nothing prevented them from forming their own committee." He also notes that Mari Byers sad note to the GAGenWeb was not unsolicited, but that Virginia had written to her first. Tim suspended Virginia for 6 months from the Council list but claims she was still "considered RC for her region." He further notes, "The Council list was much like Board-Exec - not everything you folks discuss is for public knowledge - ie personnel issues, other pertinent items. Board-Exec requires secrecy, each AB member agrees to such." He claims that that power of the SC is only to "find folks illing to host sites, to live up to what they agreed to do." He denies that the Council was secretive and notes that they discussed only potential applicants. [This would certainly meet the Board's definition of "personnel issues".--Ed.] He thinks Virginia's claims that the Council treated CCs as "them" and removed CCs who questioned the leadership were "poppy cock."

In response to Don Kelly, Tim reiterates that "The overview by the Council was only to make sure conflicts didn't exist between other Guidelines or the USGenWeb Bylaws." He denies that the work of the committee was solely to keep the volunteers occupied and wonders what "fraud" Don thinks he was involved in: "What fraud? The ASC created a committee out of thin air. While I was subbed to said list - I rarely read the messages posted to it, popping in only from time to time if a subject line caught my attention. For the period of the committee for which I have messages - 4/15/03 to 4/13/04, there are 2076 messages on the two lists the committee employed. Margie Daniels informed me she left after 975 messages of nothing being accomplished."

Bettie Woods says "If I was included in the charges, I would have certainly recused myself. If you were allowed to vote on fraud charges that directly involved you and some of your appointees, & there is no PP against us voting, then we certainly should be allowed to do so."

Shari tells Tim to stop dwelling on Charge #1 and that "The committee's findings in regards to Charge #1 are final." She tells him to limit his comments to Charge #2, and claims that Rich Howland "was free to vote on Charge #1 and obviously chose not to do so. He is subscribed to this list, and is not on moderated status."

In response to Tim's request for proff of "phantom CCs," David Morgan says "This may not be a phantom CC, but it really seems strange to me. On your http://www.gagenweb.org/ county selection page, Myra Watkins is listed as the CC, with her e-mail address. Yet, when you go to her county, Butts, the only e-mail address on the page belongs to Brenda Pierce." [A slow one? I would think that if they were going to the trouble of creating "phantom CCs" they'd go to the trouble of creating phantom email addresses for them as well. I wonder did any of the Board members actually try to contact any of these "phantoms?"--Ed.]

Linda Blum-Barton supports Tim's characterization of her as unteachable and unfamiliar with HTML when she started with GAGenWeb and notes "I adopted Fayette County, GA in March or April 2001. I had never had a website, did not know html or even what it was...I obtained MS Front Page and taught myself how to use it." She also claims there was another "Linda Barton": "...this other *Linda Barton* was never brought to my attention until I received this email from Mr. Stowell in December 2003." She encloses a letter from Tim asking if an email address belongs to her; she denied it and claimed to have "had the same email address and only one email address for Six years or so." She goes on to note that throughout 1999 there was a Linda Cox Barton who CC'd Chatham county with that old email address; she again denies that they are the same people and has "no idea what her affiliation or history was with GAGenWeb in 1999." She goes on to validate her own existence: "I have the first email address I ever had through a local ISP..I assume someone who knows how to track origination of uploads and emails could check the numerous posts/messages you should find through Google on me...and determine the difference between myself and Linda Cox Barton. All of my websites are on Rootsweb and it is my understanding that they can tell you who uploads to their webspace."

Angie Rayfield points out an quote from Tim's email to GAGEN noting that the GRC would not be reconstituted, and notes "That would not seem to indicate that CCs were free to continue the efforts of the GRC, or at least, not with any expectation that their efforts would be recognized."

Linda next includes a statement from Wyndell Taylor about the GRC:

In April of 2003, Richard Pettys...formed a committee to look at and revise the Guidelines that had been adopted by the membership of the GAGenWeb...In the first few months, there was a lot of discussion that went into a document that we called the BOR (Bill of Rights) for the County Coordinators...the committee came up with a document that was voted on and passed by the committee. Richard Pettys was asked to present it to the council...The council returned the Bill of Rights to us as unusable. The committee continued to work on different parts of the Guidelines and working out the differences. There were differences of opinion of what should and should not be in the sections, but there was no serious disagreements that was not being worked out. During much of this time Richard Pettys was missing and not answering his mail...He did make Jacki Jonas his Co Chair, and she did a good job of trying to get the forward moment going again. On February 13, 2004, Richard Pettys announced that we had 90 days to complete our work and submit to council our work, or he would adjoun the committee. From that day until April 06, 2004 when Richard Pettys adjourned the committee, an effort was made to finish our task. We did not get the 90 days that we were told we would have...the Guidelines Revision Committee was a farce...it was set up in an attempt to settle the County Coordinators down...the committee was the brain child of Richard Pettys with no input from the State Coordinator, or the other Regional Coordinators that severed as the 'governing body' of the GAGenWeb Project. I do not believe that there was ever a desire for the Committee to susceed. The State Coordinator wanted to keep the project just like it was. Most CC's were afraid to speak up for fear they would be removed...the above is only my opinion. And was formed over my relationship with the project since September of 1996. On April 07, 2004, I resigned my postion of Co-CC of the Cobb County page...Which County's CC was Richard Pettys...The resignation in effect removed me from the GAGenWeb Project."

Shari again reminds the group to limit its discussion to Charge #2.

Cyndie asks Tim to show "where prior to this vote it was clarified to all voters that a non-vote would be counted as "the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is" as opposed to their vote not counting or counting as one of the other options? Had members known a no-vote would be counted this way in advance, it may have changed their decision to vote."

Day 21--Circa 9 September 2004

[Ed. Note. Much of the information on this day in the batcave blog was reposted from Days 19 and 20. I have decided not to bore you with it again.]

David Morgan starts off Day 21 of the trial by asking "If we are thru with the discussion for Charge 2, can we vote?" Shari then asks for "any additional, questions, or evidence" regarding the second charge. If there are none, she says she will call for the vote "tomorrow evening."

Linda posts more messages from the GRC Yahoo group list. [These are all from Tim, all dated in early April 2004, and seem to have been posted to show how adamantly Tim was opposed to the Archives, which has nothing to do with the charge at hand. In many cases, Tim's correspondent in the messages appears to be Linda herself, but this is not always entirely clear--Ed.]:

Tim Stowell, 3 Apr 2004: "The members can join the Board-l list if they wish to be informed of national issues. It gives freedom of choice to the members. This keeps the state list free of such stuff and doesn't pester folks who don't wish to see such. Of course some folks like to force folks to see stuff they don't want yo see. I prefer not to."

Tim Stowell, 3 April 2004: "As the EC note of yesterday indicated it is the resposibility of the individual CC to maintain his/her current address with the EC the SC is no longer involved in this process."

Tim Stowell, 3 April 2004: In response to Jan, who asked how he can tell the difference between a Yankee and a southerner, Tim replies "Southerners know. Only Yankees have to ask."

[Ed. Note. I lived in the South for a bit; he's absolutely right. But I'm not exactly sure what Linda was intending to prove here. That Tim is a good ole boy? I don't seem to recall that he was accused of that.]

Tim Stowell, 4 April 2004: "one could send that prattle out but since the NC/AB do what they dang well please no matter what the Bylaws say, why encourage folks to vote? It is a useless excercise...perhaps the AB members here can explain to you folks why the AB discussed tossing out Georgia's guidelines specifically wholesale regardless of what the members of GAGenWeb want. Whether this was going to be by a vote of the AB or the NC's declaration - this discussion did take place earlier this year..." In response to a statement that he advised CCs not to vote, he replied, "I stated that folks have the right to vote or not vote, just as they have the right to vote yes or no."

Tim Stowell, 4 Apr 2004: regarding why Archives updates aren't posted to the state mailing list as they are in MIGenWeb: " If the Michigan sites wish to be a collection of links then by all means have at it. However, please be aware that that is in direct contrast with the national Bylaws which state that the county sites are to be the primary location for data - not the Archives...Furthermore the Archives - Georgia division is using our state logo without permission confusing folks into thinking they are donating items to the GAGenWeb Project when in fact they are donating them to the Archives."

Tim Stowell, 5 Apr 2004: [Here Tim notes the portion of the GA guideline he thinks should be amended]: [Considering links to the archives as an update] is in direct conflict with the National Bylaws and should be removed from the Guidelines. It is not an update to a county site to just add a link to data somewhere else. [A link to the Archives] is required by national so whether or not the Georgia guidelines include them is immaterial...The USGenWeb Archives - Georgia division is part of the USGenWeb Archives. It is not part of GAGenWeb. GAGenWeb consists of our 162 county divisions (current 159 plus Milton, Campbell and Old Walton), our State Special Projects and the state site."

Tim Stowell, 5 Apr 2004: To someone who said they had been "accused" of encouraging people to submit to the archives, Tim replies, "you've not been accused of encouraging people to contribute to the Archives. That's a fact. What is not stated in the appeals I've seen, no appeal to contribute data to the county site(s)." The other person then states that all Archives materials are submitted by individuals [as opposed to stolen from county pages, what a hoot.--Ed.], and Tim replies, "At first I didn't realize where you were coming from with this point until I went back and read my post - which I believe was a misread on your part or not clear enough on my part - I said "So we should throw into the CCs face that the Archives are taking data," I did not mean "stealing materials" but rather 'the Archives are accepting data' with not a thought or care about the county sites. However, since you brought up the subject - I know of several instances where materials have been 'lifted' without permission, someone got caught, and as best I know the material was finally removed from the Archives although it seems to take an act of Congress to remove the data." Regarding the unsanctioned use of the GAGenWeb logo by the Archives, Tim notes, "It doesn't [belong to the SC] but then again it doesn't belong to the USGenWeb Archives - Georgia division to use. Would you plop a Coca-Cola icon on your personal website just because you drink it?"

Tim Stowell, 5 Apr 2004: To someone who claims to be "working for the CC" and encouraging them to use Archives materials on their sites, Tim notes, "The CCs can not 'use' the material on their sites...without first asking the submitter for permission to do so. Having it donated first to the county sites eliminates this. Even better would be the situation where it is donated to the county sites first - with the question posed to the contributor - do you mind if we include it in an archives in case something happens to the county site? What is being done on several sites and/or the county mailing lists are appeals for data which goes straight to the Archives and the county sites left in the cold. Linking to data in the Archives doesn't work in some instances for some folks have had a cow when they found their material linked to without permission. Some folks only want a link to the top county page of the Georgia division of the USGenWeb Archives Project."

Tim Stowell, 5 April 2004: The National Bylaws in Section 5, Article XII - State Projects - "State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so lonag as they do not conflict with these bylaws." That means additional items - not repeating what National already requires."

Tim Stowell, 5 April 2004: "What I do have a problem with is Archives folks and some CCs promoting only the Archives - hardly ever or never the county sites putting all data they receive straight into the USGenWeb Archives - Georgia division instead of their county site - when the submitters have contributed the data to them for what they think is the county project...you have to give the submitters equal choice. Right now it is not being done. Just as the county sites may disappear so too can the Archives. Do remember that Linda Lewis holds the service mark on them and while a part of the USGenWeb Project - can if she so chose, leave and set up shop elsewhere and all the prattle by the AB/NC won't mean squat."

Tim Stowell, 5 April 2004: A simple majority is higher than 25%. A simple majority now would be 1/2 + 1 of 113 or 58. 25% - 28. What the plank says / means is that at least 25% of eligible voters would have to vote in an election to make it a valid election/vote. If you go with a simple majority of those voting - 3 folks can vote, 2 can say yes and the other 110 folks have to abide by the result of that vote."

Jan Cortez [GRC member] wrote 4 April 2004: "One certainly does have to wonder why you continue on with this project with your less than respectful attitude...To say "why encourage folks to vote" is certainly why we have the apathy that we do in the project." Virginia Crilley [GRC member] wrote 4 April 2004: "...although the registration process is available, I still think that the SC should be attentive and encourage CCs to be sure they do register." Tim Stowell wrote in response to Crilley 4 April 2004: "Sure one could send that prattle out but since the NC/AB do what they dang well please no matter what the Bylaws say, why encourage folks to vote?...perhaps the AB members here can explain to you folks why the AB discussed tossing out Georgia's guidelines specifically wholesale regardless of what the members of GAGenWeb want."

David Morgan notes that "the GAGenWeb logo was put on the archives by Carla, not by me, and not by Virginia. We do the same thing in Texas, use the logo even though we are separate projects."

Linda forwards more messages from the GRC committee, this time from February and March of 2004. [That list had thousands of posts...you don't suppose she's going to forward them all, do you?--Ed.] She also says she has more messages from April and another statement she will forward later.

Tim Stowell, 16 Feb 2004: Instead of waiting until the Guidelines are completely reviewed, why not send sections reviewed with suggested changes to the Council item by item? As long as the suggested changes meet the tests described in my note to the GAGEN today, those sections could be set aside as ready to vote upon pending the completion of the committee's task. [This] would it seem speed the process of getting the matter before the CCs to vote upon. Once the final section had been tested by the Council, then a quick final review...could be done and the whole work passed along to vote upon. Or if the committee thinks it advisable, each section could be voted upon by the members after approval of the Council..."

Tim Stowell, 27 Feb 2004: [regarding proposed membership changes]: "...this will conflict with National as they recognize asst. CCs as having voting rights."

Tim Stowell, 1 Mar 2004: [when asked to show the part of the bylaws that recognize Assistant CCs as voting members]: "I believe this was covered by some motion of the AB in the last couple of elections...under the EC policy. So while the Bylaws may not mention them, EC policy, supported by AB action, allows national rules to overrule state rules with regard to voting - ie every CC/co-CC, of which there may be a number limit...is recognized as a voting member at the national level whether they are or not in the state's internal voting."

Tim Stowell, 1 Mar 2004: In a discussion of the role of RCs, Tim notes that RCs are responsible for helping new volunteers get started, conducting roll calls, ensuring site compliance, and assisting CCs. Tim also notes that "If the Guidelines are crafted as such, there would be NO voting by council members...However, please remember that after the initial RCs, RCs were elected until no one volunteered to be RC, so we went back to appointing. The last time there were vacancies,(2), two people volunteered...It's rather hard to have an election with no volunteers."

Tim Stowell, 6 Mar 2004: To a suggestion that GAGW recognize just one CC per county since only one person can have final say over what goes onto a count page, Tim notes that has not been his personal experience and asks "That being the case, do you really want to disenfranchise members that are co-hosting a county if both add material to the web site?" In a discussion on the ratio of GAGenWeb Council representatives to members wherein it was noted that the Special Projects were over-represented, Tim notes "FWIW, the current SP reps rarely vote on anything brought to the Council and hardly ever even comment on anything said there."

Tim Stowell, 14 Mar 2004: Tim says making the GRC Yahoo list available to the GAGW membership is on his to-do list.

Tim Stowell, 16 Mar 2004: Regarding the SP representative issue again, Tim posts some demographics on GAGW: "114 unique names were sent to the EC in January, 2004 for unique positions including SPCs (2). There are 4 SPCs (African-American - 1, Native American - 1; Military - 2 There are only 3 possible votes here as Margie is one of the Military folks and already an RC." He then corrects himself to note "This should be 113 unique names - for I forgot my headings are on line 1 of the spreadsheet."

Tim Stowell, 13 Mar 2004: "From comments I've seen most don't want another list. I think that either Galina or GAGen would be suitable places for such...It's not 'my' council. The council was a creation of the former ASC, who was a major force in writing the guidelines to begin with. Under the responsibilities of the SC fall the duties which the ASC(s), RCs assist with - mainly finding hosts for county sites when they become orphaned, assisting existing hosts with problems they may encounter - technical or visitor related. I think this committee with its varied backgrounds is astute enough to figure out how to craft guidelines that will allow the SC/ASC/RC to take care of those responsibilities without having to vote on anything that effects the entire membership."

Tim Stowell, 13 Mar 2004: "The issues that the Council has voted on are mostly not for public consumption because they deal with personal matters. I have no problem having items that impact all members being publically discussed and voted upon in public...Special Projects cover certain subjects. As long as the data posted covers those areas as relates to Georgia there is really no reason to review or question the coordinators of those projects just as is the case with county coordinators...If the RCs were voting on items that affected the general membership that would be correct. However, since the prime reason for exsistence of RCs is to assist CCs...there is very little reason for RCs to vote on anything. The RCs don't 'represent' any particular region...I've stated before and will state again - if the Guidelines are so crafted, there is no reason to have a 'Council' to vote on anything."

Tim Stowell, 14 Mar 2004: Tim tells the GRC that as far as he is concerned, the committe has no deadline; however, "However, as I'm only one voting member of the 12 on the Council, I can only speak for myself."

Tim Stowell, 16 Mar 2004: "The 'council' was 'put in' by the Guidelines voted on and approved by the members of GAGenWeb. As I said I have one vote among 12. However, I do believe as chair, my vote may have a heavier weight (influence), as it were, than the others. So when a vote is held, I usually vote last if at all...What the RCs were originally supposed to be and what they have become because of the Guidelines are as different as Southerners and Yankees."

Tim Stowell, 16 Mar 2004: [as part of a discussion of how many counties CCs should be allowed to have]: "When the Guidelines were passed - anyone who had more than 3 counties was allowed to keep those counties until such time as they gave up the ones more than 3. In other words they were grandfathered in."

Tim, 16 Mar 2004: [To a suggestion by Jan Cortez that SCs, ASCs and Council members has "special priveleges" that other members didn't have in regards to having more than 3 counties]: "Babysitting is not considered a privilege by some, yet that's what a good number of the RCs are doing. I'd rather have someone looking after a county rather than no one looking after a county."

Tim Stowell, 13 Mar 2004: Tim responded to a request for information on the outcome of a Council vote on a "Purpose Statement" sent to the Council on 25 February. The Council was to have voted by March 4. On Mar 13, Tim told the group that "4 of 12 possible votes have been cast. (8 RCs, 3 SPCs, SC) One person was away with a family member near death, one was having ISP problems, one was having computer problems."

Tim Stowell, 14 Mar 2004: A GRC members notes [in response to the above], "What seems to hit me like a ton of bricks, is that while we can understand the problems of others, why are we as the GRC given deadlines? Members of this committee have suffered some of the same problems, and our chairman was busy with work a good deal of the time. I wonder if things can't work both ways?" Tim supports this statement.

David Morgan asks. "Has anybody had a stroke or heart attack waiting for their posts to show up on THIS list? Or did they just fall asleep?"

Day 22--Circa 10 September 2004--Justice marches on

Bettie Wood notes that she was on the Council at the time that the Jackson county CC resigned and "was one of those that voted NOT to remove her." Apparently being the person who said she would handle the Unknown Queries and then never did [see above], she also notes "You mean the project that I never received notice that I was supposed to maintain? And the project I never received a password for? An email from 09 Dec 2002 stating that "As the head of a state Special Project that is your right to be there." was the reason I was on the Council. If it was because of the Unknown Queries project that I was subscribed to Council...why didn't someone question why there had been no updates to that project? I know for a fact that this person...updates all her web sites monthly, if she has the info to update with." She then posts a message from Tim dated 29 Jan 2003 in which he said "...I added her in December...I felt the Family Group Sheets qualified as a Special Project." Bettie notes that after she signed a petition in February [this would be the one that got sent to the Board I sat on asking the Board to do something about Tim.--Ed.], she was removed from the Council, "after 6 weeks of service on the Council, & so the Council could vote on whether the FGS project could be a special state project afterall...Then no one told me how the vote went, although I took it for granted from the "delinking" of the project." She asks Tim if he notified Virginia of her 6 month suspension from the Council or "did you leave her guessing like you did me?" She agrees with Virginia that the Council acted secretively and was a first-hand witness. She also notes that "One only has to check the mail list archives, & will see that RCs were very, very seldom moderated, when they had less constructive & less postive things to say."

Day 23--circa 11 September 2004

The day starts with Tim catching up on older messages. In response to Shari's message that the Board's word on Charge #1 is final, Tim says "Perhaps in the eyes of this body. Perhaps in this venue." In regards to David's question about a possible phantom CC, Tim tells David he'll have to ask Brenda directly as he doesn't own the URL in question nor manage the page. In response to Angie's question about reforming the GRC, Tim notes "There was private talk of creating a new committee...I believe that was between Ms. Jonas and myself. The statement indicated that the SC/ASC/RC management team would not be forming such a committee...no one bothered to ask...if the CCs could form their own committee...all the Guidelines infer is that the Council would review amendments before they were voted on...One wouldn't want to vote in some amendment that would directly conflict with another bylaw unless both bylaws were amended."

In response to Cyndie's question about whether voters were informed that not voting would be interpreted as favoring the status quo, Tim says "It is a given. When folks don't participate - they are by not participating saying - we either like things like they are or we couldn't care less what rules you pass or don't for we're gonna do our thing to the point it becomes more aggrevation than its worth...Folks don't need voting explained to them, or what consequences of not voting may infer. If they were concerned enough about the issue they could have answered the poll."

Tim uses David's explanation of why the TX Archives project uses the TXGenWeb logo even though "they are separate projects" as support for a point he has made repetitively: "Finally, an admission. The Archives of xx state are not part of xx state project." David notes that when Trey Holt was the SC of TXGenWeb he used to refer to David, who was a long time employee of the Archives, as a "member of his staff." Now, however, David notes, he and Trey are "both CCs with no connection to the archives."

Noting right off the bat that "This observation may not be material," Don Kelly notes "I read...that the leadership members of GA GenWeb controlled about 34 county accounts...that information might empact upon two questions, who were phantom CCs and how many websites beyond three each actually adminned, including how many votes did each control....question to know how many county websites Brenda and other members of the leadership team controlled where someone else was actually listed on those webpages as CO-CC or CC. Finally, whom among those could be defined as phantoms, either as CCs or voters?" He says this issue "keeps nagging at" him.

[Ed. Note. Well, lets see...there were apparently 12 Council members. 34 counties is not quite 3 apiece. Problem solved.]

David asks Tim: "So you are not responsible for anything? Is that right?"

Day 24--Circa 12 September 2004

Tim responds to David: "At the present time - various county sites here and there. If you are speaking of the past - well that's sorta why we're here now, isn't it?" Tim notes further: "I don't own, maintain, host the site you mentioned [http://www.gagenweb.org/] I do own a domain gagenweb.net...awaiting some information to pass along to someone else. Since the site you reference is not part of the USGenWeb Project - it is no concern of yours or mine...Regarding the past, I've seen no proof of phantom CCs. I've seen folks pretending to be CCs, whose county sites were Archives shells - Baker, Lee, Pickens, Newton, Rockdale, but I've seen no 'fake' people, made up people, whatever, nor have I ever participated in or encouraged such."

David says that the reason he brought it up was that "it was exactly the same thing on the old GAGenWeb site when you were the SC. I would think you would be the responsible person, as you were the one elected." David then notes that "Obviously, Tim is not going to admit responsibility for anything." He says he's ready to vote on Charge #2.

Bettie Wood posts some of her own quotes from various emails on GAGEN about the demise of the GRC:

"I have high hopes that one day it the Comittee will start again."

Since the Council saw how the votes came in & that the majority that voted wanted the GRC to continue, I am going to ask that the Council take one more vote on continuing the GRC." She indicates that this last quote was sent to the Council, but it "just sat there" with no comments. [In a later email, Tim notes that he asked the Council about it, and it was "shot down."--Ed.]

Angie Rayfield, also referencing Tim's non-USGenWeb site, notes "While admittedly a state site associated with AHGP is not directly related to the matter at hand, your credibility *is* a matter of interest. You don't own, maintain, or host the site, but your name is listed as one of the three contact people?" She also points out that the page has an interesting notice that states, "We are the original GAGenWeb/GeorgiaGenWeb Project." [And they are.--Ed.] Don chimes in with another clearly clueless contribution: "...hold to the fact that the current GAGenWeb IS the original GAGenWeb...did someone with an AHGP state website claim it is the original GAGenWeb?????...very cheeky indeed...unless a person is a coordinator of some kind..how can they be an official contact person for a county website? Is this perhaps an unusual case of a volunteer looker-upper being designated as an official contact person?"

Day 25--Circa 13 September 2004

Not helping his case much, Tim begins the new day by noting that the credibility of the Board is itself at stake. He says "The members want to know, why the AB felt it necessary to suspend the Bylaws - there was no emergency, there is no provision for such, yet you have...When Linda Lewis put in her service mark application she added 2 or 3 folks to her application without their knowledge or approval before the fact. Should they be held responsible for Linda's actions? I can't stop folks from putting my name/address on any website, nor can one get some to remove one's name, even if one asks..I can't stop folks from lifting whole pages / sites as has been done previously from one sitting here and using it on some witch hunt for alledged ghosts that weren't there. Nor can I stop the NDsc from lifting whole pages intact, code and all and slapping their name on it. Or then having the EC chair accusing me of stealing my own pages...To date, I have no record of receiving any message from anyone concerning said website...Ron Eason's group claims to be the Original USGenWeb Census Project. Maggie ?'s group claims to be the Original USGenWeb Census Project. Linda Lewis' Archives group claims to be the Original USGenWeb Census Project."

To Don Kelly's observations about the management of Georgia controlling some 34 county pages, he provides the following list of counties managed by himself and the other GAGW leaders:

Tim Stowell - Chatham, Coweta, Hancock, Troup, Forsyth (Troup - co-CCd, Forsyth - special circumstances that didn't pan out) (4.5)

Richard Pettys - Cobb, Echols, Gilmer, McIntosh (cohost Echols, Gilmer, McIntosh) (2.5)

Bill Clody - Walker (1)

Ms. Crilley - Baldwin, Jones, Taylor, Upson (4)

Margie Daniels - Clarke, Crawford, Macon, Putnam (cohost Crawford, Macon, Putnam) (2.5)

Jackie Jonas - Colquitt, Randolph (up for adoption), Stewart (up for adoption), Webster (2)

Melody McCook - Atkinson, Coffee (2)

Brenda Pierce - Butts, Campbell, Cherokee, Clayton, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding (Butts being made ready for new CC; ditto for Campbell, Cherokee, Clayton, Douglas, Gwinnett) (3)

Chuck Pierce - Greene, Spalding, Treutlen (up for adoption) (2)

Even if one counted as one county one vote (which it is not) - 36. However as indicated above - 9 of these were in the process of being reformatted or being baby-sat until a new CC could be found. So there were 9 of us handling 27 counties.

Tim then corrects Don's misconception that the current GAGenWeb site is the original GAGenWeb site, and notes,

"Neither was the site I hosted. It was many iterations down the pike from the original GAGenWeb. However, for continuity, the site I hosted was the original flowthrough to that site. Your new one is an illegitimate birthed site...someone with a GAGenWeb/Georgia Gen Web site, an incorporated entity, has the AHGP logo, among other logos on their site...state/county sites can be hosted where they will. Perhaps this AB will change to rules requiring state/county sites to be on Rootsweb, but until then, each has the right to places their sites where they will. Now you folks, well some particular ones of you do, have the power to link / delink at will - forgetting the USGenWeb Bylaws, the members at large voted on, the rules of conduct for the members INCLUDING the AB, but hey don't let rules get in your way, for who has the power to stop you?"

He continues, "It has already been proven by the previous administration that the NC can more or less do as (s)he pleases, and there's not much other than fussing that even you folks can do about it...of course you can rubber stamp the NC's actions or you can stand for what's right otherwise you are guilty of breaking the Bylaws and should be removed from office. If there is a real emergency, then that is it. While you folks claim that the Georgia Council ruled over the CCs in Georgia with an iron fist, the fact of the matter is just the reverse - no one was dismissed after the first two rounds of the 'get Tim' excercise, although I was certainly urged to do so...I turned the other cheek only to be slapped again. Yet in white robes, the AB is in point of fact seeking to and/or ruling the entire Project with an iron fist - agree with us or we'll cut off your lists, agree with us or we'll have you unsubbed from the lists, regional and national, agree with us or we'll delink you Whether or not those robes have pointed hats is for you to decide. Get out of your glass house or hall of mirrors for when they break...

In response to David Morgan's observation that Tim isn't going to admit to anything, Tim states. "I'll admit responsibility for things that are true, that fell/fall within my baliwick of responsibility under the USGenWeb Bylaws. Will the AB be doing the same or will you continue to ignore the Bylaws to your purposes against the Project members? If you think some SCs are in rebellion against your actions - I'm willing to bet there will be more and among the CCs as well. I will not admit guilt where none exists or for items this body has no jurisdiction over." He tells the Board to go ahead and vote on charge #2 since "...the results were pre-determined before this whole scenario started. This...is just the AB's way to try to save face with the members at large, not that the AB cares what the members think, only that they agree."

At this point, Shari steps in and tells Tim, "You were warned before to stick to discussion of the current charge, and refrain from insults and personal attacks. Apparantly...you are unable to restrain yourself, and so I will assist you by moderating your posts for the duration of this hearing." She says she will not edit his posts, but "if they have any insulting extraneous content, they will be returned to you for editing before posting. Posts that deal with previous charges will be returned to you."

Linda Blum-Barton notes that she has "nothing further in the way of evidence on Charge #2." [Thank you, Jesus.--Ed.] Bettie Wood also says she has nothing further to contribute to the discussion.

Rich Howland notes, in regards to Shari's muzzling of Tim, that "This seems more that fair to me, since it was an AB member that baited Tim...I would like to asked once again for some sort of guidelines that this hearing is being conducted? What rules are we using? Perhaps Madame Chair we could have a little leadership and guidance?"

After a couple of arcane posts from Don Kelly [which we can't figure out, so we won't bore you with them], Shari calls for the vote on Charge #2: "Please respond by indicating whether you find Tim Stowell RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE in regards to Charge #2." She gives the Board until 11:59 EDT Wednesday, September 15th to vote.

[Ed. Note. As before, although the voting occurred over more than one day I will include all Board responses here for convenience's sake.]

Outcome of vote on Charge #2:

"Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs. In 2003, a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC) was started by Mr. Pettys. The GRC worked to revise GAGenWeb guidelines to provide further protection for CC rights within the project, and to establish a grievance procedure that did not involve the State Coordinator or the appointed ASCs and RCs. The Committee asked for input from CC's throughout their work. Mr. Pettys threatened to stop the work of the committee, and did disband the committee before their work could be completed. Following this action, Mr. Stowell announced a vote to be taken on GAGEN-L The vote, which was counted by Mr. Stowell and Mari Byers of TNGenWeb, indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a non-binding poll."

RESPONSIBLE: David Morgan, Don Kelly, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Bettie Wood, Larry Flesher, Darilee Bednar, Linda Blum-Barton, Kathi Jones-Hudson
NOT RESPONSIBLE: Cyndi Enfinger

During the voting, Don Kelly notes, "...comments from both parties when responsive indicate to me that both were involved, the majority of CC respondents wanted GRC to be completed, the GRC was disbanded, and the management team did not support reinstatement of the GRC. I cannot read the minds of those who did not support the GRC, but it appears the leadership did not want the CCs to have better input and more protection. The facts support RESPONSIBLE, so that is my vote." [Ah, apparently he CAN read the minds of the "leadership." What a maroon.--Ed.]

Rich Howand asks "I have read and reread and reread this charge! If one part is true, but not the rest, do we vote RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE in regards to Charge #2? If two parts are true, but not the rest, do we vote RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE in regards to Charge #2? Or are we going by percentage? More that fifty percent, or less that fifty percent? While you are answering could you explain just what by-law is being broken if Mr. Stowell is found responsible?"

Cyndie Enfinger notes "Though I personally feel the GA leadership made poor decisions, based on what I have read, Richard Pettys was responsible for the GRC as the Chairperson and responsible for its failure. Tim's message prior to the poll regarding the GRC does indicate it was a poll and he does not indicate that the results would be binding...I do not agree with how Tim handled this and feel a good SC would follow the results of the poll (of those who voted - not counting those who did not), but I do not see any by-laws broken..."

Apparently to Richard, Angie (after noting she is not trying to be a "smart-aleck") says, "...the answer to your question, in large part, is "wherever it fits into your comfort zone." If you're asking what is the standard of proof, the normal standard in an administrative hearing such as this is a preponderance of the evidence...But at what point those scales tip for you, only you can decide...A lot of words to basically say "vote your conscience." The original charge includes the list of USGenWeb Project bylaws and GAGenWeb Project guidelines that Mr. Stowell has been accused of violating...At this point, we are trying to examine the evidence presented in support of each charge, and determining whether we believe the charge is proven or not...when it's all said and done, the charges could be determined to be true, but the AB could vote that they do not rise to the level necessary to remove someone from the project." [hahahahaha...--Ed.]

Denise Woodside states, "I think that we can tell by the commentary being received with many of the votes that this was a difficult charge to reconcile. It was for me as well...If the majority of those on this hearing do find Mr. Stowell RESPONSIBLE for this charge, and it is discussed during a "sentencing" phase...I must say that although I strongly believe as SC that Mr. Stowell was responsible for these activities, I do not see this being supported as a "chargeable" offense. Poor management, yes. But not chargeable."

Denise then addresses Tim directly: "Prior to becoming an AB member, I have had no dealings with you and would not have known your name from Adam...I've not done any research in GA and never attempted to adopt a county in GA. Until quite recently, I'd never received emails from any GA CCs...I pride myself in being a fair minded person who seeks the facts regardless of feelings or reputations...The bottom line, and the purpose of this email, is to say that you do not endear yourself to others very well. Your attitude and unprofessional approach does nothing towards making anyone understand your side of the story. I will continue being fair minded as I move forward, and I realize you are a grown man and unlikely to change at this point, but it would sure be nice to have cival, convincing debate rather than what we are experiencing."

Day 27--Circa 15 September 2004

Larry Flesher thanks his fellow Board members for helping him make up his mind as to Tim's guilt. He says, "I, too, have found it difficult to decide."

In response to Denise, Tim notes, "I am not a professional...nor do I wish to be such a person. Professionals often have lack of common sense - which has done many in good sted in this country for well over 3 centuries...I'll take the common person any day over a professional. Professionals like to charge big bucks for their services that the common person would do for little or no cost. Professionals have a hard time getting their heads through doors with their pompous attitudes. I prefer instead to be a common person...had you been harassed by certain individuals for doing your job for the last two years - nothing done for the improvement of the whole was good enough for them, following the rules, wasn't good enough for them - you too might feel / understand better the exasperated attitude one would have grow on them with such treatment. Did I make some mistakes in judgment - sure. But since when is poor judgment a crime?"

[Ed. Note. Yes, he just. doesn't. get it. Sad thing too...Denise seems like she was genuinely trying to help. But believe me, honey, better people than you have tried, and for a lot longer, to get Timmy to realize that his pompous victim approach to every tiny bit of criticism, no matter how well-founded, does not win him friends, or even the grudging support of those of us who figure if he isn't safe, none of us are. Sheesh.]

Denise has to tell Tim, "Being professional and being a professional are two different things." She apologizes to the Board and says she's terminating the conversation.

Back to the Jackson county CC, Tim notes [and apparently Shari does not know how to properly use the "moderate" function on Root$web lists--Ed.], "She resigned - there was no reason to vote on removing or not removing her...it was moreso a confidence vote rather than a vote of removal. One can't very well remove someone who has resigned." He says he had been waiting on Bettie to tell him she'd handle the Unknown Queries, and that it was his mistake that she was put on the Council, as he was mistaken in his belief that Unknown Queries was a Special Project. He also notes that the Family Group Sheets link was to her county site, and not a state-sponsored site. [Bettie is all hot for Family Group Sheets and while she and Tim were fighting she got the Board to approve her FGS project as a USGW Special Project as a dig at Tim.--Ed.] He says that he removed the link to her FGS project when it was declared to be not a state project and that "the value of such 'data' is questionable hearsay, not factual data like hard public record data and could lead to folks chasing rabbits with quasi-truthful data." In regards to Bettie's perception that the GAGW leadership was not moderated on the mailing lists, Tim states "Just because they weren't publically lashed does not mean they weren't privately pleaded with to refrain from such."

Darilee notes "Mr. Stowell ignored the wishes of the majority of the CC's of Georgia. I believe that the intent of the by-laws is to protect CC's from misuse of power."

Darilee goes on to defend Tim, "I believe it is unfair to moderate Tim Stowell on a list he must present information...We can chose to ignore or consider his language and attitude...I'm going to protest the moderation of Tim Stowell and ask the NC to reinstate him to the list."

Don Kelly notes "...we all experience some difficulty with filtering the facts from the non responsive rhetoric, but consolidate the facts we must...to a degree we need blinders to help us focus on the task at hand. Thanks to all of you for your volunteerism.....you are every one of you special. [Don is sure "special." Blinders? Would those be so you can't see what you don't want to see?--Ed.]

Day 28--Circa 15 September 2004

[Ed. Note. Since it appears that Shari has finally learned how to moderate the list, all messages past this point purporting to be from Tim Stowell had to go through her first. So keep that in mind. ]

Shari posts a message from Tim noting that since the remnants of Hurrican Ivan will be passing by soon, he may or may not be online during the next 2 to 4 days. She also posts a response by Tim to Denise, in which he says, "...perhaps if you spoke to integrity instead of professional stances, common ground could be found. Although integrity seems to be alot like art - folks know it when they see it even if they can't describe it. Some folks like situational ethics and call that integrity. Others of us prefer that while some missteps may be made the general rule is that one is a person of integrity or they are not."

At this point in the transcript, a private message from Tim to Shari is included in which he accuses her of neither forwarding one of his posts to the list nor returning it to him. He notes "Such may be offensive to you - the truth often hurts however, you've seen that the AB members do not want my posts moderated. If you are going to distinguish yourself as different from Mr. Harrison, this is your opportunity to do so. Please unmoderate me and forward all posts, not already forwarded, unaltered to the AB."

Shari posts the outcome of the vote on Charge #2: "With 8 members voting "RESPONSIBLE", 1 member voting "NOT RESPONSIBLE", and 5 members not voting, Mr. Stowell has been found to be responsible for Charge #2."

[Ed. Note. Lets just take a closer look at Charge #2, shall we? The main charge is that "Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs." On its face, this is absurd. Tim didn't "ignore" the results of the poll; he posted them, discussed them, clearly acknowledged them, and explained his reasons for not reconstituting the GRC based on them any number of times. The Board and certain members of GAGenWeb may not have liked his interpretation of the results or his decision regarding them but he did not ignore them. The charge goes on further to state "The vote...indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a non-binding poll." This is inaccurate and no evidence was provided to support it. Tim never referred to the poll as anything but a poll, and polls are not always or even usually considered binding. The Board itself commonly takes straw polls on its secret list and has had the EC run polls for vacant seats that it then discusses not honoring should they turn out poorly. At no point prior to the poll did Tim say that the outcome would be binding; in fact he noted that it was an opportunity for the CCs to let him know their opinion. The pathetic turn-out does not "indicate that a majority of CCs wanted the GRC to continue," and other than arguing about how Tim should have interpreted the results, the Board presented no evidence that it did. That very few GAGW CCs could be bothered to vote is not in question. That only 20 of 114 members felt strongly enough about the GRC to want it reinstated is not a ringing endorsement of the Committee. Of those that bothered to vote, only 51% wanted the committee to continue, which although it does constitute a majority of those that voted, its not much of one. Its certainly not the outpouring of support the charge implies. Perhaps Tim should have said, "OK, you 20 want a GRC, go for it," but he did not. This is not a crime under the Project bylaws and does not constitute abuse of project members. From most reports, the GRC had failed in its mission and from his statements Tim felt no need to reinstate it on the basis of such a small turn-out. End of story, you'd think.]

Over on BOARD-EXEC, Shari tells the Board that she's had a hard drive crash and lost email and other saved items. She asks, "Would someone be so kind as to send me a copy of the charges? Once I get them, we can open up discussion on charge #3." [Too funny.--Ed.]

Shari responds to Darilee's request to unmoderate Tim and let him defend himself: "Similar to what is expected in a court of law, participants here are expected to control their behavior, refrain from outbursts, and not to disrupt the proceedings...As chair, it is incumbent upon me to maintain order. Tim is in no way prevented from defending himself by being moderated. His posts will be forwarded in their entirety as long as they are not disruptive...the hearing list is to provide a forum for evidence supporting and/or refuting the charges. Disparaging remarks about individuals or groups, mean-spirited sarcasm, attacks and insults fit nowhere in this purpose, and...such posts will be returned to Tim if he chooses to try posting them. If the post also contains information that *is* germane to the hearing, Tim will be given the opportunity to edit...and resubmit...he is being moderated so that this hearing can proceed in an orderly fashion. He was warned before and was aware of expectations, so I have no reason to suspect that he would conduct himself in a responsible, adult way if I were to give in and unmoderate him."

Denise responds that "Even in a court of law, the judge controls outbursts, etc., so what you are doing makes sense to me."

Bettie is still responding to Tim on issues raised by Charge #1 and her Family Group Sheet project. She notes "it seems it is ok for the Special Project (Unknown Query) gal, Denise Smiley, to resign more than once, but not for a CC to do so. Denise Smiley stayed on the Council...& resigned "again" the end of December 2002. I know this cause she posted her "resgination" to the Council list. That Special Project, which you as you stated "was not a SP" remained linked. The GA Family Group Sheet was delinked because you also said it wasn't a SP." David Morgan verifies this, noting "Denise resigned several times as the Tombstone Project Manager, and yet she kept working on it."

Shari opens the discussion of Charge #3, and asks the group to "refrain from discussion of charges #1 and #2, or any other topics not relating to charge #3."

CHARGE #3:

(3) The most recent dismissals of County Coordinators were in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines.

(a) IN THE CASE OF SYLVIA RANKIN, LINDA GEIGER and DEBRA CROSBY The GAGenWeb Guidelines do not state that "feelings that are burdensome To us as a whole" or feelings of being "extremely disgruntled and unhappy in the GAGenWeb Project" are reasons for dismissal. Nor is there a clause sanctioning dismissal for additional, unspecified reasons as determined by the SC or the GAGenWeb Council. The following are the only reasons specified in the GAGenWeb Guidelines for dismissal: Section 14: Abandonment of the site (defined in Section 13) and/or violations of these guidelines. Section 15 Offering Items for Sale on County Sites: "Persistent complaints to GAGenWeb about failure to deliver the proper items and/or refunds where applicable could result in dismissal from GAGenWeb. A coordinator who sells, or solicits items not covered within the exceptions above will be immediately dismissed from GAGenWeb." Section 19 (GAGEN Email list): Violation of rules of common courtesy on the email list "may subject the offender to loss of posting privileges or dismissal from GAGenWeb for a repeated pattern." Section 11 Settlement of Grievances: In the event of a disagreement involving a GAGenWeb site, or a disagreement over genealogical data stored on, or proposed for, a GAGenWeb site a coordinator has the right to ask the coordinator in the next highest position to settle the grievance up through the SC to the GAGenWeb Council. "After exhausting GAGenWeb's grievance procedures, a party may have recourse under the USGenWeb Bylaws." The fact that Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, and Debra Crosby were unsubscribed from the GAGenWeb list before SC Tim Stowell announced their dismissal and within "an hour or so" of the time that the GAGenWeb Council was notified indicates that none of them saw the statement that dismissed them. Finally, coordinators in violation of any page requirements "will Be given warning and 30 days to correct the infraction" (Section 16; cf. Section 20f). While "feelings that are burdensome" are not one of The requirements, the abrupt dismissal of the coordinators certainly violates the spirit of the stated rights of coordinators.

(b) IN THE CASE OF CAROLYN GOLOWKA - Brenda Pierce, in her position As ASC, engaged in a campaign to create or manufacture evidence Against Kay Stowe, as evidenced by her letter to Kay Stowe and by the case Of the Bible records data. Standards applied by Brenda Pierce in the case of Carolyn Golowka's site were not applied uniformly to the counties in her region, including county(ies) coordinated by Tim Stowell. Section 13 of the GAGenWeb Guidelines states that "new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may Be considered an update." Clear warning and sufficient time (30 days) to correct problems were not provided before Carolyn was dismissed. Tim Stowell approved of and supported Brenda's action and referenced Section 6 of the By-laws in writing to Richard Howland.

David thinks this charge "is a no-brainer," because "We don't get rid of volunteers just because they are unhappy. [Well, we might if they are making everyone else unhappy too. The Board has endorsed that approach before.--Ed.] He also points out that there is a misstatement in Charge #3b: "It should be charges against Carolyn Golowka, not Kay Stowe." He also asks to see the exhibits.

Shari has lost the exhibits in her hard drive crash and asks Linda Blum-Barton if she can repost them.

Day 29--Circa 17 September 2004

Shari posts the Exhibits for Charge #3:

Exhibit A: Message to Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, and Debra Crosby from Tim Stowell [The version she released is addressed only to Debra Crosby]

Tim Stowell to Debra Crosby, 23 May 2004: "It has often been stated that the ASC's and myself do not listen to the complaints of the CC's. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that you are disgruntled in your role as a GAGenWeb CC could not be more obvious to us.* This heavy burden that you carry is becoming a burden to the other members of the GAGenWeb Project. The ASC's and I have, after much deliberation, deemed it necessary to relieve you of your burden and suffering. This was not an easy decision for us. It was lengthy and difficult and while others wanted you removed long ago, I refused to let that happen. However, at some point, your continued displeasure being broadcast outside the realms of GAGenWeb, to the detriment of GAGenWeb can no longer be tolerated. You will be unsubscribed from the email lists run by and for the GAGenWeb Project, and your counties have been de-linked. You should remove the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb logos and any references to GAGenWeb or USGenWeb from your pages without delay. We wish you the best in your future and thank you for your contributions to the GAGenWeb Project."

EXHIBIT B: Message to GAGenWeb mail list from Tim Stowell

Tim Stowell to GAGEN-L, 22 May 2004: "...as SC, I have duties that are less pleasant than other duties...Tonight, I have had to perform one of those duties that I would prefer could be passed along to someone else...It is no secret that some CC's are extremely disgruntled and unhappy in the GAGenWeb Project. Their feelings are burdensome to them and to us as a whole. Sometimes, you must pick between the burden of a few against the burden they impose on the many...the ASC's and myself have seen the need to relieve some of their burden because of the burden they are imposing upon the remaining family members of the project. This is not a decision that we took lightly, nor is it a decision that we are interested in discussing with anyone else. The Council received notice of this action an hour or so ago, so the RCs of the individuals received notice of this action at that time. We thank you in advance for your understanding on this issue. The decision has been made to de-link the counties maintained by co-CCs Sylvia Rankin and Linda Geiger along with Debra Crosby. Their contributions to the GAGenWeb Project are appreciated. They will be missed. They have already been unsubscribed from this list, so any goodbyes will have to be said individually...the ASC's and I wish to thank each and every one of you for the great jobs that you do with your pages. It is because of each of you that the GAGenWeb Project is the success that it is...We also understand that the project needs you more than you need the project. For all of your sacrifices, we thank you."

[The Board does not mention this, but Linda Geiger was reinstated with full member privileges within the week.--Ed.]

EXHIBIT C: Message to Kay Stowe from Brenda Pierce [Kay's letter is actually below the one from Brenda]

Brenda Pierce to Kay Stowe, 21 May 2004: "...I understand that you are upset...please accept my apologies for my role by asking you to make contributions...Our county sites are governed under the bylaws...it is up to everyone in this project to govern their ownselves and their sites accordingly. Failure to do so may have consequences if in conflict with the bylaws of the Project...The purpose of the county sites are not to be a front door site to any other project...the cc's in this project are aware of what their obligations are towards the county sites and towards the archives...Simply because one person belongs to two organizations does not mean that they can forego the rules of one simply because they are in another...I sincerely apologize that you were brought into this, I do not like to upset the submitters to this project, and as such apologize profusely...the fact remains that people inside this project...must govern themselves according to the bylaws of that entity...I will stand by my statements that it is better for the researchers to be able to find data in more than one place...the best of both worlds is that the researcher can find data in both places...it is much easier to put everything in the archives and then have a page on the county site that goes to the archives where it is simply "copy and paste", however, that is not the purpose of the county sites...it is ultimately the person that submits the data to whatever project's right to contribute it where they wish to contribute it; however...cc's with county sites should be at least as concerned with putting data on their county sites, based on the purpose of this project as purported in our bylaws...We require a link to the archives from each county site in Georgia to the appropriate section in the archives...I can not force people to abide by the guidelines or bylaws...A refusal to place data on a site is not in accordance with the bylaws or the guidelines...the only way we can get the majority of data available for a county online is for everyone to work together to that purpose...The county sites however are the "basic unit of organization" for the USGenWeb project, and as such have specific guidelines/bylaws that pertain to the universe as a whole, as well as specific guidelines by individual states and it is ultimately the coordinator's responsibility to ensure that they meet those guidelines...It is my sincerest hope that you will understand the issue is bylaws and guidelines issues, and nothing to do with you, and again my sincerest apologies. I would never have requested the permissions had I known this would ultimately snowball to this. The coordinators are aware of what their responsibilities are, and therefore should govern and maintain their sites appropriately...I do not feel it appropriate to discuss the issues that have occurred since the time of our conversing since those are internal issues, but I will say that I can only ask people to do things, and ultimately they have to choose whether or not to participate in a project by maintaining their sites in accordance with the bylaws/guidelines, and when issues are brought forth, to address those and fix them. The real question is "is it really too much to ask a coordinator to put up a little data on a genealogical site"? I hope you can understand after reading the below and the above why there is importance on having data on county sites as well as any other place that people want to contribute. Where they contribute is not the issue, it should go where the contributor wants it to go, but there should be data on a county site whether as prescribed by our guidelines a submitter submits it, or the coordinator transcribes it."

Kay Stowe to Brenda Pierce, 20 May 2004: "I am very upset to see that Carolyn Golowka's Newton Co site is now up for adoption. I am especially upset for my part in it. I have been delighted with the Newton Co. Gen Web site and use it at least weekly...I have found TONS of information on all my lines there. Ms. Golowka has been tremendously helpful in my genealogy pursuits and I have especially enjoyed the ease of using the Newton Co site...I have no complaints whatsoever...When you contacted me out of the blue asking for my permission to double-list the info I have submitted to the GA GenWeb Archives, I responded by telling you that everything I have sent in was already available from both the Newton GenWeb and Archives pages. I commented that I did not see the need for what you were asking and for that matter did not really understand what you were asking. I gave you my permission because you told me that it would be better. I would never have given that permission had I known that it would be used as a means to force a change of administration...I have no objection to any info I send being listed twice, but neither do I see a need for it. I actually prefer having only one file that is linked rather than duplicating files, because it is so easy to make corrections and additions as I learn more or when I have made mistakes transcribing...seeing this happen to someone willng to volunteer time and expertise has certainly taken the fun out of it for me! I am outraged about what has happened and would have had no part in it had I realized the reason for your asking me for my permission to use my information again. I am sending copies of this to several interested parties so that everyone involved will know that I did not initiate any complaints and have only great things to say about the Newton Co.GaGenWeb page administration."

EXHIBIT D: Message regarding Bible Records

Carolyn Golowka to Kay Stowe, 13 May 2004: "There is a link currently online from the Newton County website to the Bible Records in the Archives which was added in September. I am currently creating a new Web page for Bible records for Newton County but for the moment the link goes to the Archives so people will not miss your file. You do not need to send the files to both the Archives and the County...it is best to have only one file and then link to it from various other web pages...if the file for some reason changes, all the other web pages will automatically have the changes...The Archives also has an automated system now that will upload your file that you create as soon as you hit "Enter"...Rootsweb will automatically notify search engines, such as GOOGLE, that it exists...The file is also added to the USGenWeb Archives search engine as well...I think I also need to explain to you that some people in "netland" don't like the way I have done this and want me to have a file both in the Archives and on the County site as well...to do duplicate work is, to me, a waste of time...if you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. You can ask me directly and do not need to go to anyone else about Newton County."

EXHIBIT E: Message notifying Carolyn of problems with site

Brenda Pierce to Carolyn Golowka, 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."

EXHIBIT F: Message notifying Carolyn of termination

Brenda Pierce to Carolyn Golowka, 18 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."

GAGenWeb Guidelines:

6. Purpose of a GAGenWeb County Site and Special Project Site. The purpose of a GAGenWeb county site is to provide genealogical researchers with freely accessible records about the county to help further their family research. A GAGenWeb county site will not be placed to serve primarily as a directory of county-related links to other sites, or as a Web site strictly devoted to selling genealogy-related items, such as books and CD-ROMs. 13. Abandoned Sites. A GAGenWeb county or special project site will be deemed abandoned if any of the following occur: a) A CC or SPC cannot be reached by email for 30 days, without prior notification to the RC or SC and the GAGEN list. b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9) months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than 100 years old. Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update.) c) A CC or SPC refuses to answer email from an RC; ASC; or SC. d) A CC refuses to add county-related, transcribed data to their site from a submitter, if the transcribed data does not appear to violate any person or entity's copyright. ("Violations" of this section will invoke an inquiry to find the cause of the refusal, to be sure of the reasons for the refusal.)

USGENWEB BYLAWS:

ARTICLE II. PURPOSE Section 1. The USGenWeb Project is an organized group of volunteers working to create an online center for genealogical research by linking every county in the United States. The purpose of this organization shall be to gather genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers Section 2. This purpose shall be accomplished by presenting websites which shall be central repositories of historical and genealogical research data, donated either by the website coordinator or other contributors. In presenting this information, the foundation of the organization shall be at the local websites (county, township, parish, town, etc.) which shall be linked to the state websites which shall be linked to the national website. The USGenWeb Project shall also provide a "digital library" called The USGenWeb Project Archives.

EXHIBIT G: Message to Richard Howland from Tim Stowell

Tim Stowell to Richard Howland, 22 May 2004: [Richard wrote: "...I would like to know what GaGenWeb's intentions are in the matter of Brenda Pierce and Carolyn Golowka as it has been brought before the USGenWeb Advisory Board."] Tim replied, "The only note I've seen on this subject...is Brenda's note to all the members stating that Ms. Golowka, has avenues to pursue in GAGenWeb under our Guidelines...Now as to the matter - Ms. Golowka refused to add data to her county site, even when presented with data to add - which goes against the USGenWeb Bylaws...Ms. Golowka has publicly stated that county sites are to be nothing more than a pile of links to data elsewhere...I refer you to Article 2 - Section 2...and Article 6 - Section 3...If you have further questions regarding this matter or any other item you would like to discuss...my door is open."

What is not explained, however, is why the Board suddenly felt compelled to rouse itself to defend CCs, something it has never done before in its entire six year history. Tim dismissed a handful of people, two of them with justification. Yet suddenly he is a danger and must be removed not only from GAGenWeb but also from NDGenWeb,which we will remind our readers has yet to be mentioned in these proceedings.]

Following this there are a few message from Board members about Hurricane Ivan. Linda says she has "quite a bit of evidence to present concerning Charge #3," [oh dear God.--Ed] but there may be a delay due to the storm. Cyndie wishes her luck riding it out, and Shari promises to keep discussion open "at least until you have an opportunity to post your evidence."

Day 30--Circa 19 September 2004

As yet another trial day begins, Shari tells the Board, "Tim has asked that Ginger Cisewski be allowed to represent him for the balance of the hearings. He has requested that they both be subbed to this list...so that he can see the questions and then replies would come through Ginger." She asks their wishes in this matter.

David Morgan notes that since Ginger is not a lawyer, "then she cannot be a legal representative." He sees "no reason for her to be on the list." Don Kelly, on the other hand, Tim can have anyone he wants. I can see thin ice, but I have no objection." Angie Rayfield notes "Since the grievance procedure specifies that parties can be represented/assisted by a project member of their choice, it only seems reasonable to me to allow members the same sort of assistance during a hearing, as long as she's willing to abide by the confidentiality of the proceedings and to comport herself in the appropriate manner...perhaps it would eliminate the necessity of moderating the proceedings...Tim would...have chosen his own moderator to assist him." She also notes that considering Ginger to be a "legal representative" is "irrelevant" since the trial is "not a court proceeding...It's an administrative hearing."

Day 31--Circa 20 September 2004--A New Face

After Larry Flesher, Bettie Wood, and Cyndie Enfinger indicate that they do not object to Tim selecting the representative of his choice, Shari subscribes Ginger Cisewski to the trial list and a few Board members welcome her. Shari notes, "She's here to represent Tim and to act as his spokesperson, with the understanding that anything and everything posted here is strictly confidential and may not be forwarded or shared in any way with anyone, even in summarized or abstracted form, and that all discussion must remain courteous." She asks the group to continue discussing Charge #3 and asks for evidence.

Ginger asks for "a complete transcript of these proceedings from inception through the present so that I may be brought up to speed on what has transpired thus far." She also notes that the "confidentiality was explained to me, but procedures and guidelines weren't mentioned. It would be very helpful if I could be provided with a copy of those as well, since it's difficult to follow the rules when you don't know what the rules are."

Denise notes that she's waiting to see what response Ginger gets to her transcript request since "This is not an archived list so any transcript is manual." Shari asks Greta Thompson [the Board Secretary] to "send Ginger copies of the digests for this list which have accumulated so far during the hearings?" She tells Ginger that they are working on Charge #3 and will not be revisiting Charge #1 and #2. She states "Once the discussion phase for Charge #3 has been completed and the board has voted on it, we will then move on to the penalty phase of the hearing. At that point, we will hear a final statement from Tim...for the board to consider before deciding what (if any) penalty or sanction will be placed on Tim." She asks Ginger to let them know when she is up to speed on the proceedings and reminds her to limit her discussion to Charge #3. Bettie wonders if she will get all the records or just the ones pertaining to Charge #3.

Greta says she's forwarded all the digests, exhibits, and charges to Ginger, Ginger says she has received them, and thanks Greta.

THE TRIAL CONTINUES...