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 43--Circa 6 October 2004

Ginger Cisewski, Tim's representative, posts a "Preface to Tim's Response" to the Board:

"I would like to preface the Response with the following, for those here who don't know me or who joined the Project only a few years ago. I was elected to the Advisory Board in 1998, in the very first USGenWeb election (which also voted in the Bylaws). I served a 2 year term and was, in fact, one of only 3 2-year people who managed to serve their entire term. It was a very hard time for that original Board as we struggled with trying to come to terms with the meaning and intent of the Bylaws, the role of the NC per the Bylaws, and the numerous resignations from the Board that seemed to come at every turn. We were ever conscious that whatever we did, or did not do, would set a precedent that others would rely on. It gives me a unique perspective since I was "there" at the very beginning.

After spending many hours reading through the transcripts provided to me regarding this hearing, I admit I'm deeply saddened by what I've read - to see that all our efforts in those early months have been ignored and forgotten. The first AB was committed to a bottom-up rule and it was determined that the NC was primarily a PR person with negligible power to accomplish any action independent of supporting motions initiated by the Board. The AB as a whole saw itself as powerless to interfere in either the State Projects or Special Projects as the Bylaws gave the AB only the power to mediate disputes.

Having said that, I will also say that I know from personal experience how easy it is to convince yourself that what you're doing is for "the greater good". The first AB made some of these mistakes too, and we all tried to learn from them. It's always dangerous to assume that a small handful of disgruntled people is representative of a larger group. It is equally dangerous to assume that the quiet folks don't care what you do.

Tim Stowell and I have never been friends, and those of you who served on the AB with both of us in 1999-2000 will remember that we continually butted heads and never agreed on anything. Someone told me once that they considered our arguments as falling in the "epic" category, in fact.

Deep in my heart, I believe that some members of the AB have allowed their own personal dislike of Tim Stowell to cloud their judgment and narrow their focus to an unreasonable and dangerous level. The AB has acted in a manner reminiscent of a dictatorship, committing the "ultimate sin" of interfering where they had no right to tread. By proceeding with a hearing and attempting to pass judgment, whether on Tim or any other SC of any state project, you are only compounding the problem you created yourselves. By insisting the hearing be held in secrecy, you give the membership the idea that you know your actions will not bear the scrutiny of the membership, and leave yourselves open to rumors and criticism.

I often reminded Tim and other AB members in 1999-2000 that any action the AB takes sets a precedent, and a bad one could come back to haunt you later. Tim is now seeing some of those precedents I warned him about are now being used against him.

All of you here share the same risk. If you don't turn from this destructive course, the tragic precedent you set may well prove your own undoing in years to come. Hate is always a double-edged sword."

Ginger next Tim's response and supporting evidence:

"All accusations and evidence submitted in this hearing and bearing a date prior to June 10, 2003 should be disallowed. The issue of Tim Stowell remaining SC of GAGenWeb was previously taken up by the AB, resulting in a Recall vote and subsequent challenge of the outcome of that Recall. On June 10, 2003 the AB concluded its review of those issues. [See Exhibit 1]

Any subsequent attempt by this AB to revisit charges and issues dating before June 10, 2003 is Double Jeopardy and is not allowable in any democratic society. This is a practice found only in dictatorships and primitive Third World countries, and such tactics are far beneath any democratic organization and a duly elected body such as this AB.

The remedies specifically set forth in the Bylaws and Standing Procedures for removal of an SC were ignored. The AB is only given authority to mediate a problem and does not possess the power to supplant any SC for any reason. This was deliberately crafted into the Bylaws to ensure that the ultimate power in the USGenWeb Project would always remain with the CC's/LC's at the bottom.

By forcefully removing a sitting SC, this AB has usurped seven years of past practice and established a new precedent which is diametrically opposed to the Bylaws and Standing Procedures that govern the USGenWeb Project. This has, in effect, turned the governance structure of USGenWeb on it's head, tossing the basic leadership premises and philosophies that were voted on by the membership right out the window.

The first time an AB was faced with problems regarding an SC was in 1998, just days after the first AB was seated, and the state was Georgia. The AB acted as mediators, however the state was allowed to work through it's own problems, and the AB steadfastly refused to interfere. When the SC in question finally disappeared altogether, an election for a replacement SC was finally held. [See Exhibit 2]

For the entire history of the USGenWeb Project each SC has been allowed to decide whether to allow an individual to adopt a county or not, and never before has one been "called on the carpet" and asked to explain their reasons for refusing someone. Likewise, SC's have always held the power to "fire" a CC for any reason, and even for no reason at all. Unless the CC filed a grievance with the AB and requested mediation, the AB didn't get involved.

This entire action, including this hearing, seems to be driven by a small percentage of AB members who coincidentally also happen to be Georgia CCs or potential CC's. Allowing these same members to participate in initiating a complaint, presenting evidence, arguing over guilt or innocence and participating in the final voting is tantamount to allowing the parent of a murder victim to act as prosecutor as well as sit on the jury at the trial of the accused murderer. As a democratically elected group, this AB owes it to the membership to conduct itself with the utmost propriety and maintaining the highest standard of ethics. If these individuals are allowed to vote on the outcome in this hearing, the membership of the Project will be done a great disservice.

The AB has failed to act in the best interest of the members of GAGenWeb. At the time Tim Stowell was removed from GAGenWeb and a temporary SC was put in place there were 109 individual members of GAGenWeb. Assuming there might have been as many as 15 aggrieved persons contacting AB members, that amounts to roughly 13% of the membership that was unhappy, hardly such an egregious situation to require the AB to act in the manner chosen. As a result of the AB's action in removing Tim Stowell, 40 individuals left GAGenWeb immediately, which is equivalent to 37% of the membership. That figure does not include individuals who left at later dates, and there were also some of those. The AB acted to please a maximum of 13% of the members, resulting in the loss of 37% of the members, statistics that clearly show the AB was not acting in the best interests of either GAGenWeb or USGenWeb as a whole.

In my capacity as Accounts Processor for the USGenNet server, I received a flood of requests for web space as a result of the AB's action. In the first 3 days, I received more than 70 requests for webspace. In my 4 years as Accounts Processor, I have never seen such a deluge. I was told by numerous individuals that they were afraid to leave their sites on Rootsweb as they were afraid the AB or new Georgia folks would lock them out of their own sites. Clearly the precipitous actions of the AB prompted this panic, and I mention it here in support of the fact that the AB has done a great disservice to the members of the Project.

This AB has further compounded the damage done by forcefully removing Mr. Stowell as SC of NDGenWeb, in spite of the fact that there was no grievance filed or complaint made by NDGenWeb members. Therefore, Mr. Stowell's removal was groundless and without merit. It is a blatant example of a strong-arm tactic and shows a blatant disregard for the membership of NDGenWeb and for the USGenWeb membership as a whole.

In closing, neither Mr. Stowell nor myself have any doubts that you will find him guilty of this charge, given that this entire hearing has been conducted based on the presumption of his guilt to the degree that Mr. Stowell was disenfranchised throughout the USGenWeb Project and his county sites in NDGenWeb have already been given to others. [See Exhibit 3] His "Suspension" has been one in name only, as you've already carried out the sentencing. There has been no presumption of innocence such as is found in truly democratic societies and this hearing, by whatever name you choose to call it, more closely resembles a Vigilante Committee meeting than any hearing in a democratic organization.

EXHIBIT 1

Richard Harrison to BOARD-L, 21 April 2003, Results - GAGenWeb SC Recall Election: "The project thanks Ellen Pack and the members of the Elections Committee and to Larry Stephens for all their efforts to conduct this election in a fair and impartial manner." USGenWeb Elections Committee to National Coordinator and Advisory Board, USGenWeb, 21 April 2003, Results - GAGenWeb SC Recall Election: "The USGenWeb Election Committee has certified the results of the GAGenWeb SC Recall Election, as follows: GAGenWeb CC portion of election -

>Ballots received:
Yes: 35
No: 27
Present: 2

Total: 64
A quorum was not reached.
Breakdown: The voter list that Tim Stowell sent...had 128 names on it...Of those 128, 10 addresses bounced. Checking the local web sites of those individuals resulted in resolving 3 of the 10. With the help of Jimmy Epperson...we were able to resolve 3 more of the 10. Of the 4 remaining, 3 have resigned...There is 1 MIA CC who is still listed on the web site, but for which we do not have a valid e-mail addy. All attempts...failed to turn up another addy....a total of 124 passwords actually reached voters. Larry Stephens reports there were a total of 73 ballots received. According to Larry: '...one Present voter has requested their vote be rescinded. They sent me an email stating they had no intention of submitting a ballot and their email account had been compromised. When I asked how, the explanation given was believable. If that is accepted by whomever, that will reduce the figures above accordingly. 3 votes disallowed because of incorrect passwords. Despite clear instructions a handful of people did not cut-and-paste their passwords. 2 or 3 others were technically incorrect but I accepted them."

Advisory Board portion of election:
A total of 11 passwords were sent to AB members. Ten passwords were originally sent, due to an error by the EC Chair. When it was learned on Friday, April 18, 2003 that AB member Vicki Shaffer had been inadvertently omitted from the list, a password was sent to her that day. From Larry Stephens: 'Seven AB members voted: "Tina Vickery, Jimmy Epperson, and Vicki Shafer voted Yes. Jan Cortez, Bill Oliver, Karen Mitchell and Phyllis Rippee voted No."

Thus concludes the GAGenWeb Recall Election. The EC would like to extend sincere thanks to everyone who participated, and especially to Larry Stephens."

EXHIBIT 2

Bridgett Smith to BOARD-L, 11 September 1998: " [ASC] Laura Cook...set up a way for folks to stay in contact with someone involved with the GAGenWeb project...Virginia Crilley and Tim Stowell are also able to retrieve mail through this system...Laura is back in France for a few days. I have joined the GALINA list, and it seems that Virginia and Tim are handling the project to the best of their ability. But is this fair or right?"

Nancy Trice to BOARD-L, 11 September 1998, re: GAGenWeb: "If Virginia and Tim are handling things ok and the CCs are ok with it then everything is ok. If they are unhappy with things they need to discuss it on their list and decide what to do...I would keep an eye on it Bridgett, but let them handle it."

Bridgett Smith to BOARD-L, 5 Oct 1998, re: GAGenWeb Problems: "...both the SC and ASC are out of touch with the county hosts...there are 3 county hosts "running" the day to day business of that project. The SC...has been in contact with one of those county hosts however not since about the 27th of September. I've also written to the SC with no response. The SC has posted one time since getting "back on line" to the mailing list for the county hosts and that was a month ago. The ASC...is still apparently in France and unable to take over/assume duties as SC. This Project is floundering and needs some guidance as what to do. Would like some suggestions as to what to tell those folks who are trying to keep it afloat."

Bob Bamford to BOARD-L, 5 October 1998, re: GAGenWeb Problems: "In the past...the SC rep and the CCreps have investigated the problem...and come up with a recommendation acceptable to the State's CCs...the board should stay out of it unless the state is going down or the CCs are unable...to find a solution...In the abscence of a functioning ASC the CCs could appoint a "temporary" ASC to manage things until the "missing" SC turns up. Barring that...the board could declare the SC position open and help the CCs to organize and hold an election for a new SC."

Trey Hold, 5 October 1998, re GAGenWeb Problems: "I can understand the relunctancy of the cc's to instigate an election to oust the SC but I think it is the responsibility of the state project...to govern itself...the cc's need to express the urgency of the situation on the state mailing list and illustrate to the other cc's just how serious the problem is. This way the other cc's will help them make the decision and maybe the SC will see how serious the situation is also and get their act together...if the cc's voted to oust the SC as the bylaws require that the board would have no problem supporting their vote."

Bridgett to BOARD-L, [no date, extracted from Trey's email]: "[The SC] did at first have problems regarding his move...His message to GALINA was to the affect "I'm finally back online, ready to continue my duties." I agree the board must stay out of this as much as possible, however, those 3 fill-ins are asking for help in what to do...the SC isn't even keeping up with his own counties, let alone the state. The bylaws state...'State Coordinators and Assistant State Coordinators are subject to possible removal by a 2/3 vote of the Advisory Board and a 2/3 vote of the Local Coordinators within the state. A quorum of 75% of the Local Coordinators shall participate in order for the vote to be binding...If a State Coordinator is unable to perform his/her duties, the Assistant State Coordinator, or other support team, shall serve until an election can take place within the state. In the case of state projects with more than one Assistant State Coordinator, they shall choose one among themselves to serve in the interim.'...I understand the feelings of these 3 folks that if they say or do anything to instigate an election process, it would seem like a coup when all they are doing is wanting what is best for the State Project. I think they are looking for our backing."

Bridgett Smith to BOARD-L, 7 October 1998, re: Ga again: "One of the folks that are keeping this project afloat at this time wrote to me and indicated that he had talked to the SC via telephone. Pat had agreed to a trial period of 30 days, along with announcing 1 or 2...ASC's...If after 30 days, he doesn't feel he can continue he will resign."

Kay Mason to BOARD-L, 1 Feb 1999, re: Election Results: [deleted national election results--Ed.] "Georgia State Coordinator results - 32 votes: 32 Tim Stowell"

EXHIBIT 3

From NDGenWeb's County Table:

County Date Formed Parent County County Seat Contact
Adams 1885 Stark Hettinger Lee S. King
Barnes 1875 Cass Valley City Michelle Savre
Benson 1883 Ramsey Minnewaukan Lorraine Newsome
Billings 1879 Unorganized territory Medora Dale Ahrendt
Bottineau 1873 Unorganized territory Bottineau Dale Ahrendt
Bowman 1883 Billings Bowman Lee S. King
Burke 1910 Ward Bowbells Robert Hill
Burleigh 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) Bismarck Lee S. King
Cass 1873 Original County Fargo Michelle Savre
Cavalier 1873 Pembina Langdon Holly Timm
Dickey 1881 LaMoure Ellendale Charlotte Kibbie
Divide 1910 Williams Crosby Robert Hill
Dunn 1883 Howard (Discontinued) Manning Holly Timm
Eddy 1885 Foster New Rockford George Barron
Emmons 1879 Unorganized territory Linton Mike Peterson
Foster 1873 Pembina Carrington George Barron
Golden Valley 1912 Billings Beach
Grand Forks 1873 Pembina Grand Forks Kathleen Hunt
Grant 1916 Morton Carson Beth Rau
Griggs 1881 Foster Cooperstown Lee S. King
Hettinger 1883 Stark Mott
Kidder 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) Steele George Barron
La Moure 1873 Pembina La Moure Lee S. King
Logan 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) Napolean
McHenry 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) Towner Michael P. Borchardt
McIntosh 1883 Logan Ashley Joy Fisher
McKenzie 1883 Howard (Discontinued) Watford City
McLean 1883 Stevens Washburn Lee S. King
Mercer 1875 Original territory Stanton Lee S. King
Morton 1873 Original territory Mandan Lee S. King
Mountrail 1873 Ward Stanley Kathleen Hunt
Nelson 1883 Foster, Grand Forks Lakota Mary Lindbo
Oliver 1885 Mercer Center Lee S. King
Pembina 1867 Indian Lands (Dakota) Cavalier Joe Zsedeny
Pierce 1887 Rugby Lorraine Newsome
Ramsey 1873 Pembina Devil's Lake Holly Timm
Ransom 1873 Pembina Lisbon Michelle Savre
Renville 1873 Duel, Pembina Mohall John Stafney
Richland 1873 Original county Wahpeton
Rolette 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) Rolla Mary Lindbo
Sargent 1883 Ransom Forman Charlotte Kibbie
Sheridan 1873 Buffalo (Discontinued) McClusky Lee S. King
Sioux 1915 Fort Yates
Slope 1915 Billings Amidon
Stark 1879 Unorganized territory Dickinson Crystal (Morrison) Lampl
Steele 1883 Original county Finley Kathleen Hunt
Stutsman 1873 Pembina Jamestown George Barron
Towner 1883 Rolette Cando Mary Lindbo
Traill 1875 Grand Forks Hillsboro Mike Peterson
Walsh 1881 Grand Forks Grafton Larry Reski
Ward 1885 Renville Minot Ward Legacy: Dale Ahrendt
Ward County Roots: Don Gardner
Wells 1873 Sheridan Fessenden George Barron
Williams 1890 Mountrail Williston Frank Lysy

Return to North DakotaGenWeb

Lee S. King - State Coordinator NDGenWeb Project
Michelle Savre - Assistant State Coordinator NDGenWeb Project

You are our 13833rd visitor -- thanks for stopping by!

This page was last updated Friday, 10-Sep-2004 15:15:56 MDT

This site is generously 
Hosted by RootsWeb

After Ginger posted Tim's response and his supporting exhibits, little Bettie Wood posts a statement from Jana Black. [As usual, Jana starts off by claiming she used to have all this incredible evidence, but sadly it was lost in a most convenient hard drive crash. There is a lot of that going around in USGenWeb.--Ed.] She states:

"...I am unable to share with you copies of the emails I collected and saved for so long just for the purpose of proving exactly what kinds of techniques were used in the GA Project to oust CCs and keep Tim Stowell in the SC position. I experienced a hard drive failure and lost it all back in August...as the AB at the time was experiencing leaks to the DBS, you will find copies of some of the posts on Ms. Lindfquist's site [Glad to be of service.--Ed.]...During the time when Tim was being examined by the AB based on a complaint petition from the GA CCs, Richard Pettys attempted to lead the AB to believe he was an attorney and was acting as "counsel" to Mr. Stowell. He used threats of liable lawsuits and other jargon referring to his interpretation of Mr. Stowell's legal status. Some of us...discovered that indeed, Mr. Pettys is not a licensed attorney and acted under false pretense...Tim Stowell repeatedly stated his personal dislike of the former NC...He sent emails top me full of threats and innuendo inferring...a personal agenda to get rid of or do damage to the reputation of the NC. He sent me repeated emails in which he alluded to a "grand scheme to come" in which he and others were going to get rid of [the] NC, and...to somehow undermine or overtake the entire Project to get it away from the elected AB. I was contacted by about 12 members (most of whom were before or since thrown out of the GA project by Tim and his ASCs) who sent copies of emails...showing clear evidence of arbitrary decision making by the ASCs and Mr. Stowell regarding CCs. The choices to throiw out CCs were attached to comments made by them that Mr. Stowell and hois creww considered threatening...Included in the emails were threats sent to CCs ordering them not to vote so there would not be a quorum in the vote (and that was successful). Many CCs merely wanting to work on their sites and to not lose their counties said they did not vote as a result....I continued to receive occasional emails stating that things were getting worse...and that CCs lived in a state of constant terror...I was encouraged top join the USGWP-CC mailing list to see some of the plotting continue. I "lurked" the list as long as I could stand it and indeed saw many posts by a small number of people who seem to support Mr. Stowell at all costs and even see him as some kind of martyr. While I had become convinced that it was not in the best interests of the Project for Mr. Stowell to continue as GA SC...Phyllis Rippee, continued to offer support....early this year, I learned that she too had finally changed her mind...I applaud the AB for conducting these hearings and hope that what I am saying will lead you to the information you need to make an informed decision."

Day 44--Circa 7 October 2004

Cyndie Enfinger begins Day 44 of the trial with the following response to Ginger's statements on Tim's behalf: "...this preface deserves a response...Work that was done by early AB members to develop guidelines/by-laws and such are valid, respected and a driving force of the growth that this project has experience. Being a NC or on the AB or a SC prior to the by-laws being adopted does not give one a get-out-of-jail-free card to treat other members poorly...Part of why this hearing has been held in private is to protect those who have had testimony to offer and may not do so in public as they do not want those conversations shared with the world for fear of retaliation...What has gone on in GAGenWeb shows exactly why this project at times needs guidance from an elected board of representatives...there are some passionate feelings with regards to testimony given, but after weeding out the harsh comments and looking at the underlying events and patterns, it is clear where the problem is/was. "Hate is always a double-edged sword" can also be applied to the fixation of previous GAGenWeb leadership towards the Archives."

Ginger responds to Cyndi: "There was no AB prior to the Bylaws. I served on the first AB, from 1998-2000, after the bylaws were passed. My entire term was spent with the Bylaws firmly in place...This Preface was intended...to share a bit of what I learned from my own mistakes...made with other AB members at a time we were all convinced we were doing something necessary and valuable for the Project and it's members. They were big mistakes, although made with good intentions, and I had hoped that sharing some of the lessons learned might be of benefit. My intent was certainly not to pick a fight with anyone on this list."

Don Kelly thanks Jana for her statement [although she wasn't on the list--Ed.] and says "You astutely jogged my memory of events before I joined the AB reported by independent sources about the leadership of GAGenWeb at that time. One immaterial here...is that ideas of turning GAGenWeb into a for fee genealogy project were kicked around by the leadership with the bigger idea to turn all of USGenWeb into a money making genealogy project...CCs were clearly unhappy with the situation there for some period of time and the major single complaint I detected was that leadership drove CCs out, adopted their sites, and then either adopted them out to strong supporters of the leadership, OR the counties remained under control of the leadership team for for the purpose of controlling those county votes."

[Ed. Note. Ah yes...let's bring up the old "they want to make money off of USGenWeb," rumor again. That is sure to inflame the jury/judges. Although of course, Don has no evidence of it and doesn't even attempt to pin it down to a specific person, time, or place. Its just something "immaterial" he tossed out for no apparent reason, except perhaps to further damage Tim's credibility with those who will judge him.]

Angie asks which portion of Tim's response addresses Charge #3. Don responds that he read the response three times and will review it again and in his view "it is non responsive to charge#3." He claims that it "instead declares that the AB has no jurisdiction over the matter." He notes "The logical conclusion to me is an SC can do anything they want, and the AB has zero oversight or jurisdiction unless a direct bylaw is violated. Not material, but my off comment is IMHO bylaws were broken. But that is precisely what we are trying to determine for sure, yes or no, point by point." Ginger corrects him and elaborates: "I said the AB violated the Bylaws by removing Tim from GA and ND. I didn't even state whether he warranted removal. The method used by the AB violated the Bylaws...to legally remove an SC or ASC always requires a 2/3 vote of the AB and also must include a 2/3 vote of the CC's/LC's of the state project, with a minimum of 75% of those Local Coordinators participating in the vote. There was no vote in either GAGenWeb or NDGenWeb, therefore the AB has violated the Bylaws in initiating this action against Tim and by forcefully removing him. It could have been done properly and legally, but the AB made no effort to do that. In this instance, Parliamentary authority cannot be claimed because the Bylaws give a specific remedy and thus is always given precedence."

Noting that "497 angels can dance on the head of a pin," Angie again asks "Does Tim have any response to Charge #3?" Ginger responds that "Tim has filed his response through me, and you've received it. Regarding Charge #3, the evidence almost entirely concerns situations that are being re-visited...because Tim was not found guilty in the last attempt...Of the newer evidence dates, the documents are few and are heavily reliant on hearsay and short on proof. I have seen no evidence presented to show that Tim acted any differently than many other SCs, who have always done so with impunity." Angie then notes, "...this isn't a legal proceeding...if you'd like to consider it in legal terms, then it could be said that the point of law you're attempting to brief has already been argued. The actions taken, and the hearing now, is/was not about removing Tim as SC. It's about expelling Tim from the project entirely." Angie asks what evidence Ginger feels is being revisited, and asks "Which of the dismissals listed in the charges has already been addressed? I have seen nothing in the response you submitted that directly addresses the substance of Charge #3. All I see is more of the same talking in circles." Bettie Wood notes, "What you are calling "revisited" evidence has been posted to show a pattern in Tim's & the leadership's actions, the negativity towards not only the CCs but the Archives as well. Is Tim saying CCs were not targeted?"

David reminds the Board and Ginger that "Megan had an appointed board that helped her make decisions, before the bylaws were passed, and before the first election was held." David also notes that Don's suggestion that anyone in the GAGenWeb leadership discussed profiting off USGenWeb is ludicrous: "I have never heard Tim Stowell discuss any such thing, nor Brenda Pierce, Margie Daniels, Richard Pettys, or even Keith Giddeon. John Rigdon might be a different story, but he was not in a leadership position in GAGenWeb when I got there in 1998."

Shari asks Tim, Ginger, and the Board members if they have anything further to present on Charge #3. David Morgan and Don Kelly say they have nothing further to contribute.

Day 45--Circa 8 October 2004

Linda Blum-Barton dissects Tim's response to the charges. In regards to the claim that more than 37% of the GAGenWeb CCs left the project as a direct result of the Board's actions there, she asks: "Who were the 109 individual members?...Who were the 40 individuals who left GAGenWeb immediately?...Who are the individuals who left at later dates? Why did they leave later?" She also notes that she didn't see the Board action "as something meant to "please" anyone but to protect CC's...from an SC and appointed Council who were trampling on CC's rights." She also responds to Ginger's discussion of the "deluge" of requests she received for webspace at USGenNet. Linda notes "I would imagine the flood of requests for web space came from a few individuals who voluntarily left GAGenWeb when Mr. Stowell was suspended," and speculates [And we stress that--Ed.] about who she thinks they are, the number of counties they took with them, and where they might have gone:

Brenda & Chuck Pierce - controlled 12 or 13 county sites within GAGenWeb before they resigned and took websites which included data donated to GAGenWeb...They are obviously in the process of starting a "new" project named GeorgiaGenWeb..."

Mr. Stowell has stated that his county sites he had at the time will "never" be a part of USGenWeb again so he may have applied for some webspace also.

Margie Daniels controlled Clarke County, Putnam County, Macon County, Stephens County, Hart County...Columbia - Quitman - were CC'd by her sister, Teri Hopper...her sites appear to all still be on rootsweb...Quitman County probably isn't since that space was taken away because of the theft of Debra Crosby's webpages.

John B. Ellis - 5 county sites that were not in compliance with 2002 GAGuidelines - not on Rootsweb or USGenNet server space.

Gloria & John Holback - 2 or 3 county sites that were not in compliance with 2002 GAGuidelines - not on Rootsweb space while a part of GAGenWeb.

Tom Hammack - two counties I believe - Wilkes is still on rootsweb - Taliaffero seems to be on gagenweb.org space.

Marsha Reese - two counties...suspected to be someone else who had recently adopted McDuffie county - both sites taken away from GAGenWeb...with materials...donated to GAGenWeb...The language used when *she* resigned from GAGenWeb was pretty foul and is suspected to have come from someone other than "Marsha Reese".

Janet Moore/Janice McGough - one of them is Gloria's cousin, I believe and their site is not on usgennet space either.

Sharon Wright of Ware county left but Kati Smith did not.

Tim Seawolf Self & Barbara Peck did not leave GAGenWeb.

Zaroga Goff did not leave GAGenWeb.

Charles Barnum has written several people and stated that he is not part of *GeorgiaGenWeb* and has asked that his name be taken off of Troup County...

Carol Ann Tindall left GAGenWeb but not because of any disagreement over the actions of the AB - she was working on another project...

Don McHugh...resigned from GAGenWeb two years ago. He has...listed his old Morgan County site with the other Georgia AHGP site.

Letha Bailey was never a CC in GAGenWeb - her name was added to the County Selection List but her name NEVER appeared on the website - was and is Richard Pettys site. Still on rootsweb.

Bill Clody listed several times on this county list is recently deceased. [He was, however, in the process of moving his counties and all his data to AHGP when he passed away. And Linda knows that.--Ed.]

Myra Watkins...did not do a website - Brenda Pierce did the Butts County site and no one did the Johnson county site.

David Stephenson did give Franklin county up for adoption.

David Thomason gave Habersham County up and stated that...he did not have time to do the site anymore. He gave his site/work to GAGenWeb when he left so I don't think he was "upset".

Brent Currie gave Long county up and stated that he had been trying to give the county up for a while.

[Ed. Note. I've heard this alot from Board members: "I have heard from "many" members, yadda yadda yadda." But no actual proof and no actual numbers. When I was a Board member, the volume of mail that I received was truly underwhelming and when I got a lot on a particular topic, it usually came from one or two people. So I get a little suspicious of Board members who claim, in the absence of any documentation, that they have received a lot of mail from a lot of CCs. Linda also probably heard from lots of CCs who weren't happy, especially the ones that Joy Fisher kicked out of the project when she was caretaking it so that she could give their counties to fellow travelers. I doubt that Linda gave their email the same attention that she gave to the email she received from those who said what she wanted to hear. She must not represent Those People.]

Day 46--Circa 9 October 2004

Ginger posts some responses to issues raised by Board members on behalf of Tim. In it he notes that Don's suggestion that he ever discussed profiting off of GAGenWeb or USGenWeb is ridiculous, and also suggests that perhaps he means John Rigdon. [Poor John. He never actually suggested profiting off the project either, but his long ago suggestion that perhaps the project should raise funds to cover its expenses has been treated ever since as proof that he intended to retire in the Carribbean on the Project's dime.--Ed.] Tim also notes that most CCs left GAGenWeb "of their own accord," and "There is just a short list of those who were removed." In response to Bettie Wood, Tim says that CCs were not "targeted" but that "Problems were addressed as they came up." He notes, "After the first two rounds of complaints to the AB, I could have dismissed all those who complained - but I didn't. Had I been a vindictive person, I could have, yet folks deserve another chance." In response to another of Don's posts, Tim says "Charge 3 involves items already...agreed that I was not guilty of the last round of the previous AB's hearings...There are methods in place, to replace SCs, which this and the previous AB ignored...One must apply the rules as they are, not as how one would like them to be. If you want the rules to say thus and so, then work to change them, but do not try to hold members accountable to rules that only exist in your collective minds as what should be...Bylaws were and are being broken...It has been pointed out, point by point where this AB has broken the Bylaws, yet you won't admit your error, or move to correct it."

Day 47

[Ed. Note. There are no materials in the transcript for Day 47]

Day 48--Circa 13 October 2004

Shari welcomes newly appointed Representative At Large Betsy Mills to the trial. She tells Betsy "...this is the list we are using to conduct the hearings for Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys. It is not archived, and discussions taking place here are confidential." [Oops.--Ed.]

Shari again calls for the vote on Charge #3. [According to the email, she had previously sent the call for a vote on October 11 but had not seen it come through.] She gives the Board members until 9 p.m. on October 14 to cast their votes. She also notes "If a quorum has not been reached by then, however, the voting time will be extended. [In other words "we'll leave the vote open until you vote, so don't even bother trying to fail this for lack of a quorum."--Ed.] She restates the charge:

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.

RESPONSIBLE: Angie Rayfield, Darilee Bednar, Teri Brown, Don Kelly, Larry Flesher, Cyndie Enfinger, Kathi Jones-Hudson, David Morgan, Linda Blum-Barton, Bettie Wood, Denise Woodside
NOT RESPONSIBLE:
ABSTAIN: Betsy Mills

Gail Meyer-Kilgore sends a test message to the trial list to see if she is still subscribed, but does not vote.

Day 49--Circa 14 October 2004

David Morgan asks Shari to fill Betsy in on the prior proceedings because "we will have something else to vote on after this"

Day 50--Circa 15 October 2004

Shari posts a message to the trial list noting summarizing the vote on Charge #3: "With 11 members voting on Charge #3 to find Tim responsible, 1 abstaining, and 3 members not yet voting, Tim is declared responsible for the charges..." She notes, "...Tim has been found to be responsible for all of the infractions outlined in all the charges made against him. We will now move on to the penalty phase of the hearing." She notifies Tim that she is removing him from moderated status and gives him 24 hours to make a statement of things he would like the Board to consider "as they deliberate the penalty/consequences of your actions..." She warns him that as soon as he makes his statement or after 24 hours has passed, "you and Ginger will be unsubscribed from this hearing list, and the AB will discuss and decide whether a penalty is warranted, and if so, what the penalty will be."

Shari asks Greta to provide Betsy Mills with transcripts of the trial and reminds Betsy that they are confidential.

Day 51--Circa 16 October 2004

Ginger posts her own final statement and includes Tim's final statements.

Ginger: "During Tim's tenure as NC, he set harmful and dangerous precedents, including many of those same ones you used to remove him from GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. The dictatorial style of top-down governance that he began in 1999 has now become standard procedure for any AB.

But we all reap what we sow, none of us being perfect, and one day each of you may be regarded in the same light you now view Tim in. How well will each of you fare under the close scrutiny of your every word?

No AB has the power to force any SC to remove a CC. If the SC should refuse, as is the right of any SC, that leaves the AB with the sole recourse of de-linking the state project in question.

Is this AB truly prepared to engage in the wholesale de-linking of entire states? Would that truly be in the best interest of the USGenWeb Project?"

Tim: "The actions taken by the recent AB and the current AB are illegal under the Bylaws. GAGenWeb, the scene of a lot of ruckus caused by members of this and the former AB, was removed from my control without due process as specified in the USGenWeb Bylaws.

NDGenWeb, where there was no open rancor, and no complaints, was also taken, without valid cause, other than a 'get even' attitude on the part of the former NC.

Imagine my surprise to find out this past Friday that this hearing is allegedly not about the removal of me as SC for GAGenWeb / NDGenWeb but about whether or not to expel me from the USGenWeb Project.

If the latter is true, why all the alleged evidence pertaining to my actions as State Coordinator in Georgia?

Regarding GAGenWeb / NDGenWeb - those are in the past. That's a done deal - even though illegal. In the best interests of the USGenWeb Project, that can stand. In fact you've done me a great favor. I now no longer have to work with, communicate with, have anything to do with folks who hate me. Thank you.

I have and will continue to build new sites for both those states elsewhere.

All I ask now is to be left alone to continue hosting my counties I host in other states.

I will not sue you, for I wouldn't waste any money on such. This is supposed to be a hobby of helping folks. I wish you would remember that.

I will no longer be bullied by you folks. If push comes to shove, I'll take what action I deem necessary to preserve my rights, status, good name. If such occurs, you'll only have yourselves to blame for how things turn out."

Shari thanks them for their responses, unsubs them, and says "AB members may begin discussing what, if any, penalty is appropriate." As a parting shot, she tells Tim he will be notified when the Board has decided his fate. To the Board members, she states, "...At this time, it is appropriate to discuss whether any penalty will be levied against Mr. Stowell and...what that penalty should be. You may take into consideration the severity of the infractions, the damage done to GAGenWeb and to USGenWeb, as well as Mr. Stowell's apparent threats in his final response...[the] former NC...did not allow the issue of Mr. Stowell's holding our domains hostage to be included in the charges. He said...that though this egregious behavior would not be part of the charges, it would be appropriate for the AB to take those actions, which were very much contrary to the best interests of USGenWeb, into consideration during the penalty phase of the hearing." [Nice.--Ed.] Shari suggests some possible penalties for the Board to consider: "Expulsion from The USGenWeb Project...Suspension from The USGenWeb Project for a certain period of time... Permanent removal from GAGenWeb only...Censure without stripping him of membership in USGenWeb." [We note that "no penalty" or "what we've already done to him is sufficient" are not on the list.--Ed.] Shari continues, "If it is your decision that expulsion is the appropriate penalty...we must also discuss the practical application of that penalty, should a State Coordinator refuse to delink him. I would be very hesitant to delink an entire state over this. If a state won't cooperate...my suggestion is that we "officially" not recognize his sites as belonging to USGenWeb, as long as he doesn't cause problems...since he would not actually be a USGenWeb member, his voting privileges would, of course, be removed."

Angi Rayfield is not interested in expelling Tim from USGenWeb. She notes, "...he deserves such treatment, but as a practical matter, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. I don't know that I even want to contemplate the possible fiasco that could/would result if just one state coordinator decided to make a "stand" against what would undoubtably be termed dictatorship, or maybe fascism, or over-reaching by a vindictive AB...The penalty I would suggest would be sort of an amalgam of the possibilities. Censure...And then a probationary period of 5 years. During that 5 years, he would be ineligible to hold any elected OR appointed office..in any state or special project, and would ineligible to vote in national elections...no state coordinator would be required to return counties controlled by Tim at the time of his suspension, although they may do so at their discretion."

David tells Shari, "I was surprised to discover that we were talking of removing him permanently from the USGenWeb Project. I thought we we talking about removing him from the GAGenWeb Project, and possibly some censoring...I have not seen one complaint concerning Tim in North Dakota. Tim is a Regional Coordinator in Tennessee. He has been in that position at least since 1998...He is a CC in New York and Minnesota. I do not see these SCs removing him. I do not want to destroy this project over Tim. I do not see him as an evil person. Perhaps we could permanently remove him from Georgia (where he was born!) and censor him from running for any USGenWeb or XXGenWeb office for a period of 5 years."

Day 52--Circa 18 October 2004

Noting that they "seemed to have run out of comments," David Morgan asks what's next. Angie asks Shari if they need a motion made "as to the penalty, if any, for Tim." David then moves "that Tim Stowell be banned from GAGenWeb for a period of five years, and that he be prohibited from running for office with USGenWeb or any XXGenWeb for a period of five years." Angie says she had "a little different wording in mind" but that was basically what she was thinking of. Linda Barton suggests that there "needs to be a "little" more detail in whatever our motion/statement...Is." She notes, "I think that's where the project keeps running into brick walls - the lack of details in motions, bylaws, etc.....and with this one, any and all possible ramifications ought to be considered." She requests the opportunity to read posts concerning the hearing and reminds the Board members that Bettie will not be online until the next day. She also congrats herself: "I've spent the better part of the last two days getting permission to "retrieve" about 30 wills previously donated to a GAGenWeb county site that was taken away from the project in June including all donations by "other" contributors. On to other records next....most of them had been donated by one person so I haven't had to write too many letters!"

In response to Linda, David says, "...we can drag this out until November, then have a hearing on Richards Pettys for five or six months, and then it will be time for another election." Shari agrees with David on this point, although she notes "...he could have phrased it a little less crabbily." She notes, "We need to get this horse in the barn. I don't think we'd be better served by a lengthy, wordy tome about the penalty. Cut-and-dried would work best."

Gail Meyer-Kilgore says she will have no say in the penalty phase as she did not participate in trial. She was away most of August and September and had asked Richard Harrison to unsub her from the list. She does however suggest a preface to the motion: "Having reviewed all the information submitted during the hearing and reading Tim Stowell's defense to the charges against him, we, the AB with a vote of ???? to ????, have found Tim Stowell responsible for the charges filed against him as the SC of Georgia, therefore, I make a motion [ and here put in his penalty....]"

Don Kelly think its "too strong." [Not sure if he is referring to David's Motion or to Gail's suggestion.--Ed.] Teri Brown thinks "it sounds fair," because "...he is only banned from Georgia - since the problem was Georgia. And he can continue his county sites in New York and other places." She also suggests a ban of 3 years rather than the 5 years suggested by David. Don Kelly would like to bar Tim from "management levels above CC or having authority over CCs in charge of CCs" for a period of one year. In this year, Tim could be a CC, but Don suggests that he be "NIGS so he could not vote." [MNIGS status does not remove one's right to vote; it only removes one's right to run for national level office.--Ed.] Don also suggests, "During the year everyone could see how it goes with a plan B for the second year if further trouble does develop, to make the ban longer."

Shari says this is all a start, but what she'd rather see is this:

"Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that he is hereby:

1. Removed from GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb.
2. Permitted to immediately apply for readmission and reinstatement as a CC for any county site he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04). However, the current State Coordinators are *not* required to accept him back.

David asks how this can be considered a penalty, since although Tim has been removed from both GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb, Shari's suggestion would allow him to "immediately apply for readmission and reinstatemetn as a CC." He does not understand why this should be an option at all. Shari explains that her suggestion formalizes Tim's removal as SC in both states, and "hands the reins to the state projects to decide whether to accept him as a CC again, or not." She asks for further ideas and notes, "The points that...are not negotiable are that his removal as SC for both states is finalized, and that the state projects are NOT forced to reinstate him as CC." David, however, likes his own approach better. He says, "I don't think he should have the option of claiming his counties in Georgia, even if the SC were agreeable." [Ah, so he wants the Board to continue determining what SCs can and cannot do. Interesting--Ed.]

Shari notes, "He has some counties in other states...that he could continue to coordinate...The reality of the situation is that he was never removed from those counties despite the suspension...he HAS already been replaced in ND, and though his counties are "on hold" in GA, I will not require *any* state project (particularly ND and GA) to reinstate him at any time, and I want that in black and white."

To this, David merely notes that they must not be on the "same wave length. Shari then suggests the following:

Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that he is hereby:

1. Removed from all positions held in GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb.
2. Banned from GAGenWeb for a period of _________ (fill in the blank)
3. Permitted to apply for readmission and reinstatement as a CC for county sites he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04), other than in GAGenWeb. However, the current State Coordinators are *not* required to accept him back.

Day 53--Circa 18 October 2004

David enthusiastically agrees with Shari's latest proposal, but then asks, "Does this mean that he can run for the AB next year, or...run for SC in some project next year?" Shari suggests that they add language that would prevent this. David then adds a fourth provision to the suggested penalty:

4. Banned from running for office with the AB or for SC of any XXGenWeb project for a period of two years.

Teri Brown says that it doesn't seem right to her to remove Tim from North Dakota. She notes, "All of the problems we addressed were with Georgia - and, as far as I know, there weren't any problems in ND." Shari responds that, "Tim created problems in ND after we suspended him. Lee has been...doing a wonderful job in North Dakota ever since we dumped this in her lap...she had no idea what was going on with Tim on a national level, but she trusted us when we asked her to step up to the plate for us, and...did what we asked her to do....when Tim was ousted as SC in ND, he stripped the state site, delinked his sites, and took them to the AHGP. He wrote nasty emails to Lee and to others...He chose to leave, and he left in a vitriolic rage. She has indicated that she won't have him back, and that if she is told she must have him back, she will quit. That will not happen on my watch. Lee has done everything we asked of her and more, and I will not see her rewarded with a slap in the face."

David asks, "...why was he suspended from North Dakota in the first place?" He notes that since there were no complaints against him there, "he had good reason to be in a rage."

Teri wonders how the suggested penalty of "barred from management for 1 year and on probation for the 2nd year" will affect Tim's appointed position in TNGenWeb, and asks "How do you feel about returning the counties to him - in Georgia and North Dakota?" David tells her that Tim has been a Regional Coordinator in TNGenWeb since 1998 and is also a CC in that state.

Gail asks, "How could there be any problems in ND. Between Tim and Richard Pettys they were CC's for more than a couple of counties." Shari responds, "Because we were not going the route of removing him AS STATE COORDINATOR in Georgia as outlined in the bylaws. That had already been tried, and because of his manipulation of the vote of the CCs there, it didn't work and would not work....what we are doing is holding a hearing about removing him as a member of the project...He was suspended...from MEMBERSHIP IN THE USGENWEB PROJECT until results of a REMOVAL HEARING...were known...even my proposal has the wrong focus. I will follow this note with something that is more in line with what we had declared the hearings are about." Shari then proposes the following wording:

The removal hearing for Tim Stowell has concluded. He has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that:

1. His membership in The USGenWeb Project is hereby terminated.
2. He is permitted to apply for readmission and reinstatement as a County Coordinator for any county site he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04). However, the current State Coordinators are not required to accept him back.

If he chooses to apply for reinstatement in any part of The USGenWeb Project, any such reinstatement will be subject to the following conditions:

3. He is banned from GAGenWeb for a period of two years from the date of reinstatement.
4. He is banned from running for national (USGenWeb) or statewide (XXGenWeb) office for a period of 2 years from the date of reinstatement.

Linda Blum-Barton says she wasn't suggesting "that anything become lengthy or get drug out - just thought through for 24 hours more or so." She notes that she is heading out of town in a few days and would also like to get this over with. She notes, "Georgia is holding 3 counties for Tim...GA was asked to post those counties as "pending" during the suspension/hearing...Tim took those sites...and stripped USGenWeb logos and added AHGP logos to them on his own." She thinks being banned from GAGenWeb for five years is "too strong," and suggests 3 years. She thinks that any temporary or permanent removal from either GAGenWeb or NDGenWeb "...needs to be spelled out...so the SC's are not put in a bad position." Linda also tells the Board that on 7 October 2004, Tim wrote to a GAGenWeb member who had been on the GA Council and notified that they were dismissed as a Regional Coordinator in GAGenWeb, and that he signed the letter ""Tim Stowell, SC GAGenWeb Project". As for NDGenWeb, Linda notes "It has been repeatedly stated that there were no complaints from there. Has anyone corresponded with the SC or the CC's there to find out if there were problems? Shari has stated that Lee King received correspondence from Tim that was inappropriate." [Yes, well this was after she helped the Board do its dirty work.--Ed.]

Linda includes "another note on GAGenWeb": "I was forwarded a letter written by a researcher and helper on one of Tim's county mail lists in TNGenWeb...this man...was shocked to find out that Mr. Stowell was responsible for a certain county site in GAGenWeb...he thought for a person in his "high positions" within USGenWeb (at the time, I think he must have been NC also) to have a county site that was neglected as badly as this one is/was. The particular county site has been hosted by *the same person* since 1996 or 1997 (Not listed as Tim Stowell). The *CC* originally responded to the new GAGenWeb's request to apply to keep the county...but was then non responsive for a long period of time. When they were approached...requesting that the site be brought "up to speed"...they responded they needed help. When help was immediately offered...this person became uncooperative. Since then, this CC has been totally non responsive and the email is bouncing...it may well be that GA still has some issues to overcome internally."

Linda suggests that "ND and GA be considered seperately from the other states Tim is a member of and let's resolve that part of the "penalty" and then move to the other part. I am not a rep in the area of ND so I don't know how that state is set up...if they have guidelines or bylaws or if they are working on some...GA is working on guidelines and the issue of SC term of office isn't set in stone yet... dare say it will take more than a year to work through all of the issues GA is left with...I am torn about a time period for GA & ND - Permanent? 3 years? 5 years?...I don't think 5 years is too long to allow these states to move forward. Mr. Stowell's own statement did not sound as if he planned to participate in those states."

Gail says that the last time she looked at Tim's sites in NDGenWeb, "Tim's websites were just fronts. Nothing on them and too many to be able to maintain...I wonder if ND was also a front state for more votes as Tim and Richard had so many counties that were actually worthless. It was like they were taking over ND and no one was paying attention...About the only sites in ND that looked like anything were Lee's and a couple of others."

Teri asks if they can change the wording from "readmission and reinstatement" to just "reinstatement. She notes "He was suspended, so he needs to be reinstated. Readmission sounds to me like he was fired."

Cyndie agrees that NDGenWeb should not be included, since "I don't recall seeing evidence presented to support that these problems occurred in ND." She points out that Shari's discussion of the problems Lee King made for herself was not presented as evidence in the trial, and notes "Bringing it up now when Tim and Ginger are no longer on the list and using it to develop a 'sentence' does not seem fair...The discretion should be left to whoever the current SC is. I'm okay with a wording such as 'discretion with regards to reinstating Tim as CC for counties managed prior to the suspension will up to the SC.' And 'Any elections to replace elected positions held by Tim will remain valid'."

Angie Rayfield suggests the following wording:

Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. It is the decision of the Advisory Board that he is hereby:

(1) Removed from the USGenWeb Project for a period of not more than 6 months, retroactive to his suspension 1 June 2004. Any county sites held in reserve for him pending the outcome of this hearing are immediately deemed "available" and may be held open for adoption.

(2) Beginning 1 November 2004, Mr. Stowell will be eligible to apply as Local Coordinator for any adoptable site within the USGenWeb Project. His application may be accepted solely at the discretion of the State Coordinator, and there will be no appeal of the State Coordinator's decision.

(3) Also beginning 1 November 2004, Mr. Stowell will be considered "on probation" within the USGenWeb Project for a period of 5 years. He may not run for, serve, hold, or be appointed to any position higher than the Local Coordinator level in any state or special project, or the National project.

Don Kelly agrees with the two paragraphs "to finalize the removals and put decisions firmly into the hands of the state coordinators." However, he thinks it "prudent" to "add a third paragraph barring him from voting or running for office, State or National for a period of one year, PLUS until MNIGS is lifted by the AB." He notes "Talks of three or five years, despite the violations, don't set well with me, though I can understand the desire to ban him for a thousand years if it were proposed. The threats against the SC alone would justify that..."

Shari presents yet another version:

The removal hearing for Tim Stowell has concluded. He has been found responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that:

1. The State Coordinator elections that were held in GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb after Mr. Stowell's suspension are affirmed and declared valid.

2. He is permitted to apply for reinstatement as a County Coordinator for any county site he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04). Acceptance or rejection of any such application for reinstatement will be at the sole discretion of the State Coordinator.

3. He is banned from GAGenWeb for a period of __________ (how long?).

4. His status in The USGenWeb Project will be as a Member Not in Good Standing (MNGS). He may apply to the Advisory Board to be restored to Good Standing after _________ (how long?). He is prohibited from running for national (USGenWeb) or statewide (XXGenWeb) office for a period of _______ (how long?).

Angie responds to Don: "I...had one reason for giving a specific time period of probation...to avoid a repeat of the sort of open-ended (and on-going) problem with Lindquist. One of the complaints I've heard about that situation wasn't that she was punished, but that it's sort of an eternal punishment. There was no time limit given...they didn't see anything she could do to reverse it. I don't think I'd like to see the AB having to explain why they won't "reinstate" Tim...I'm quite sure there are people that would demand it over, and over, and over..."

Angie says she prefer her wording to Shari's and would hesitate to indicate that Tim is banned from specific states. She notes, "If the SC of whatever state thinks they want him, then more power to 'em. I might think they were nuts, but that's another matter entirely."

Kathi Jones-Hudson thinks that 3 or 5 year suspensions are way too long and suggests that Tim be banned from GAGenWeb for two years and that "His status in The USGenWeb Project will be as a Member Not in Good Standing (MNGS). He may apply to the Advisory Board to be restored to Good Standing after 1 year. He is prohibited from running for national (USGenWeb) or statewide (XXGenWeb) office for a period of 18 months."

David again responds enthusiastically to someone's proposal [not sure if its Shari's, Angie's or some combination.--Ed.] Cyndi and Teri also respond positively to one of the proposals.

Darilee chimes in, noting that in "discussing a penalty in a real trial", the defendant's past history is admissable evidence. She reminds the Board, "18 months ago the AB spent months reviewing complaints against Mr. Stowell. He was accused of several things including voter fraud. Several CC's were fired from their positions within the state...I voted not-guilty and the evidence was there...Mr. Stowell did not learn from his mistakes and the lee-way given him by myself and other AB members...he deliberately and malicously removed CC's from GAGenWeb with no regards to their feelings or their desires...These people were not given a hearing...David's period of time 5 year was very appropriate although I never want to see Mr. Stowell in a position of power over the USGenWeb and would ask that he not be allowed to run for any USGenWeb Project office again."

Cyndie does not have "particular preference" for a time frame with the proposed penalties but notes, "if it is too long, I'm not sure we can guarantee that future AB members will uphold them." She also suggests replacing pronouns with Tim's name for formality's sake and says "I do like in Angie's wording the addition of an effective date of November 1 or in the case of the status and banning maybe effective immediately?"

Angie notes that it is possible that a future Board would overturn or shorten the punishment but isn't worried about it. She says "...we will have given a punishment that we believe is appropriate based on everything that's happened and the information we had available at the time...there's also the possibility that future AB members may be grateful not to have to deal with a repeat performance for the next five years."

Teri prefers Angie's suggestion of referring to Tim as "on probation" as opposed to "MNIGS." Don Kelly responds with alarm to Linda's inflammatory posting of Tim's alleged recent letter to a former GAGenWeb RC [which we have no doubt was the intended effect.--Ed.]: "Forcing authority he does not have and still claiming to be SC of GA? This trend can be taken into consideration pending his acceptance of the findings of the AB....it would be risky for the current SC to take him back...if he has taken records not his, that could be strike two. I'm tentatively for a short MNIGS which is predicated upon his continued good behavior...probationary period seems a good definition the time...On the other hand, perhaps forever is the best answer.......otherwise he could demand attention by his activities for years to come.....and this could happen again and again. If he is happy with the other project...just let him go."

David points out that "Somebody that did not know he/she was no longer a RC...is...an idiot. Perhaps the only person she would believe was...Tim."

Don then suggests making the ban permanent, and says "About ND the way I objectively see it, Tim had to be suspended from everything so he could not exercise power over anyone in an effort to wiggle away....he is apparently still trying to exercise power over selected individuals. With Tim out of the equasion...the problem was far more simple to solve than it would have been."

[Ed. Note. We thought Tim was the problem.]

Don agrees with Darilee that the potential exists that "...the AB would someday have to do this again." David remarks that he personally was hoping this would have been dealth with before he got on the Board. He then suggests that they vote on Angie's version of the penalty and if it fails they try something else.

Shari says that Angie's proposal works for her and many of the Board members seem to like it. She notes however that six months from June 1 is December 1, not November 1.

After making a few minor changes, Shari calls for a vote on the following proposed penalties for Tim Stowell. She notes that a simple majority will be needed to pass the proposal:

Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. It is the decision of the Advisory Board that he is hereby:

(1) Removed from the USGenWeb Project for a period of 6 months, retroactive to his suspension 1 June 2004. Any county sites held in reserve for him pending the outcome of this hearing are immediately deemed "available" and may be held open for adoption.

(2) Beginning 1 December 2004, Mr. Stowell will be eligible to apply as Local Coordinator for any adoptable site within the USGenWeb Project. His application(s) may be accepted or rejected solely at the discretion of the State Coordinator(s), and there will be no appeal of the State Coordinator's decision.

(3) Also beginning 1 December 2004, Mr. Stowell will be considered "on probation" within the USGenWeb Project for a period of 5 years. He may not run for, serve, hold, or be appointed to any position higher than the Local Coordinator level in any state or special project, or the national project.

YES: David Morgan, Larry Flesher, Cydie Enfinger, Don Kelly, Linda Blum-Barton, Angie Rayfield, Denise Woodside, Teri Brown, Bettie Wood
NO:

During the voting, David notes that this proposal would not prevent Tim from voting in USGenWeb elections. He asks to be corrected if that is not the meaning. Cyndie has no problem with him voting as a CC. Don also comments on voting eligibility: "Could the SC make the decision what members in good standing can vote at the state level. A person MNIGS...could not vote at any level until reinstated...Mr. Stowell is in effect MNIGS as we speak." [Again, MNIGS status does not prevent one from voting in any election, unless the State Coordinator refuses to certify a member as eligible.--Ed.] David says he wants Tim to be able to vote.

Linda says she not sure if this is the real vote or just "confirmation before going to BOARD-L [I'm shocked...they say they never run votes on the secret lists before doing them on Board-L.--Ed.], but she believes this is a good, moderate solution to the problem."

Darilee asks to be unsubbed from the trial list, and David asks her to 'at least vote" before she leaves. But over on BOARD-EXEC, Darilee states: "The proposed penalty for Tim stinks. I don't do well with people who I "trust" who turn out to be rats...The guy lets people who disagree with him go at a drop of a hat...I still believe David's original thought was correct remove Tim for a period of time... give the USGenWeb Project a chance to grow without him. You come up with a penalty... I'll vote yes...I don't want to participate in "kissin' Tim's *****" . David suggests to Darilee that she could vote NO is she doesn't like the penalty. Darilee then says she hates "the 6 month probation thing.... starting 1 June... because 1. we don't have a critia for probation... 2. it's too short..." She says she just needs to not be on the list and is not willing to argue with any of the members, and "...I surely won't argue in front of the brat..." She agrees to support any penalty the majority agrees upon. David tries to reason with her: "...his removal from the project is for six months, ending December 1...The probation, where he cannot run for office for 5 years, starts on December 1. If we tried to remove him from the USGenWeb Project permanently...Tennessee would ignore us. Then what?...do hope you can vote with us."

Jan Cortez [who up to now has barely participated in the trial and who has recused herself from all votes--Ed.] says "...I'm not going to be happy either, if what you are saying is that all the grief and aggravation he put the GAGenWeb thru and his horrid treatment of CC's there is going to be kicked aside and forgiven...His actions make those of other SC's pale in comparison, so guess we shouldn't even bother to say a word to any of them - logos or no logos, updates or no updates. They all are perfect in my book by comparison."

David Morgan thinks the proposed penalty is "very fair", and notes "It...shows that we are not as vindictive as he is. 5 years probation...is a very long time. No, we are not giving him the death penalty." Angie notes, "...I don't see it as either "forgiven" or "getting off scott free." He's been removed from the two states...unless the SCs of those states are psychotic enough to let him back in. He can't run for or be appointed to any kind of supervisory position within USGenWeb for five years...I doubt he'll stick around long enough to be a factor in any kind of race five years from now...if he can't do it his way, he won't do it at all." She continues however, "...do you REALLY want to open the can of worms that would result if the AB tried to force an SC that *wants* him in their state to get rid of him? What would you propose we do...De-link their entire state?...Tim has a presence in New York and Tennessee, and...there are very vocal supporters in both states that might be more than happy to throw the entire project into chaos just to prove that the AB cannot meddle in state affairs...Part of the reasoning the AB gave...was that we were only intervening in severe cases where repeated complaints had been brought to us, and so it was imperative to take action...How would we justify taking action against a state project that wanted to keep him?"

Jan responds, "...he has not been removed from the states, just as SC. He can return to create more chaos...We have had to hold his sites open for him, so it wouldn't be a case of an SC being psychotic enough to let him back in - THEY have to." Angie points out that the proposal requires no such thing, and notes "He's REMOVED from the project for 6 months, and the counties being held open for him are immediately up for adoption. He can APPLY for available counties AFTER the 6 months is up...it's left up to the SC whether or not to have him...he CANNOT appeal if they say no...for five years, he is NOT eligible to hold ANY position about that of CC." Shari also notes, "The proposed penalty states very clearly that 1. Any of the counties he held are now deemed "available" and open for adoption. 2. When he's eligible again to apply for open counties, state coordinators are free to reject his application." This seems to appease Jan, who notes "...I guess I could live with that. At least the SC would not have to take him back...Not sure the six month thing is going to work in TN and NY...Five years to not hold an office is a good thing...maybe...he'll leave if he can't have his ultimate power." David notes "...we can just make believe that he is suspended from NY and TN and MN for a month, and then be restored to those states on Dec. 1, when in actuality, those states have to do nothing, he is already there." Jan says she has has been in NY and "their just isn't any make believing..."

[Ed. Note. The "six month thing" was added in order to give the Board cover for ignoring the several states that refused to remove Tim when the Board decreed that he was suspended from the project. By the time the penalty was posted publicly, Tim had only about a month and a half remaining on the six months and since by that time the Board was embroiled in yet another secret trial they would have no time to address recalcitrant states before the suspension was up and SCs were free to welcome Tim back into the fold. Making the suspension longer or even permanent would have resulted in them either 1) looking impotent when states refused to go along and they did not retaliate; or 2) actually having to do something about states that told them to go to hell and then dealing with the resultant fall-out. So this was sort of their way of having their cake and eating it too. We very much enjoyed David's suggestion that the Board just play make believe with this and pretend that Tim is really suspended from the project. We are less amused that Angie Rayfield would lay the blame for any disruption in the project caused by an attempt to force states to remove Tim squarely on the CCs, instead of on the Board that would be instigating it in the first place.]

Still on BOARD-EXEC, Jan broaches the issue of Richard Pettys. She quotes the following from an email he sent when he resigned his county in MIGenWeb:

I am not going to be anywhere near the USA and will not have access to a computer. To the extent that they believe they are above the law, they are not going to comply with the terms and requirements of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. Moreover, I may find myself in harm's way for their right to do exactly what they are doing (which makes me sick to think of)."

Linda Blum-Barton suggests they investigate Richard's claims to be in the military: "...if we need to find out whether or not this is true, it...wouldn't be too hard to confirm or deny. The Georgia Bar Association has investigated him twice over his claims of being an attorney...he has claimed to be legally blind...I am fairly certain that would preclude someone from serving actively in the Naval Reserves or any other service...I don't know how many states he had sites in but he has stripped USGenWeb Logos from his Georgia sites." Linda also points the Board to Richard's Brevard county FLGenWeb site and notes "The first couple of lines on this site and the email link are interesting. First I have heard of this." Linda also tells David that "opting to run for a seat on the Advisory Board obligates us to deal with whatever matters come before us. "

[Ed. Note. In May 2004, the FLGW SC removed Richard as Brevard county CC, so Richard took the page independent. The links show both the email he received from Darrell Bell and the message on the front page of the county site. As it is no longer part of USGenWeb, it can be no concern of Linda's.]

Over on the trial list, Shari assures Linda that this is "the vote". She notes, "If you...decide that this will be the penalty, I will then present it on BOARD-L as a total package - charges, finding of "responsible" on all charges, penalty."

Day 55--Circa 20 October 2004

On this day, the Board continues its various conversations around the penalties proposed for Tim Stowell. Shari tells Darilee that, as a member of the Advisory Board, she is "obligated to remain on this list as long as the hearing is in session."

On BOARD-EXEC, Jan notes regarding Pettys that she doesn't think any of it is true, and she "sure would like to know if he is currently in GA, spewing more lies." She thinks it is a ruse and mocks Richard: "oh poor me, I'm putting my life on the line, while they are having hearings to get rid of me." She thinks that is the next story the Board will see on a website and suggests, "Could be Pam Reitsch is giving lessons on how to trash the SC's of the USGW." [Better than trashing the CCs, eh Jan?--Ed.]

Jan also asks what the Board will do if Richard cannot or will not make himself available for a trial. David suggests that they suspend the trial for six months, but notes "if he is really going to Iraq, he will be gone a lot longer than that." David doesn't want to make GAGenWeb hold his counties for that long, so he suggests holding the trial in absentia. Angie doesn't believe any of it is true and states, "From what I've seen, he doesn't tell the truth much more often than Lytton...it...amazes me that he...thinks he's the only person on the face of the earth with more than 3 working brain cells...why else would he so consistently spit out such ridiculous pseudo-legal insinuations, unless he assumes that no one has the good sense to see through his attempted intimidation?...I'm guessing that he's implying that the SSCRA would stay any proceedings against him. The Act provides that service members can request a delay of civil litigation if they can prove that their military activation would prevent them from representing themselves properly in court. Of course, this isn't civil litigation or a court proceeding, so it's totally irrelevant...maybe he's implying that he can't have his position taken away from him because he's been called up, although even if he were being activated for military service...the SSCRA wouldn't apply. First, the SSCRA has nothing to do with that...even if you could stretch a point VERY far and claim that USGWP is an employer that is required to hold a position open for an employee in the Guard or Reserves that is called to active duty...he's ALREADY been suspended. The action predates his supposed activation, and has nothing to do with the activation. And [Richard] didn't even get the name of the law right...You know, there's a cliche that someone who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Except that the reason something becomes a cliche is that it's so often TRUE. And we have amongst us living proof..." Betsy Mills notes "The first requirement of that Act is that Richard needs to ASK us to suspend the hearings. Until he does that, we don't really even have a reason to discuss it."

Angie agrees and goes on to note, "He would have to specifically ask for accommodation under the Act even if this *was* a civil court proceeding...to get a continuance in a real court, he would have to provide REAL proof of service...if he doesn't participate, then we evaluate the evidence presented and go on about our business. If he chooses not to make a defense, that's HIS decision...like a "real" court -- you don't have to present a defense, but it doesn't mean...you win by default...most of the time in civil cases, if you don't bother to show up, you LOSE by default."

Don says, "...Mr. Petty's name will come up again, but we have too much work to be distracted right now."

While she casts her vote approving the penalties proposed for Tim, Bettie Wood says "I wish we could add another section to this penalty...Like put firecrackers between Tim's toes."

Day 56--Circa 22 October 2004

Shari posts the results of the vote: "With 11 votes to approve, no votes to reject, the penalty has been approved as written." She says she will notify Tim and post the penalty to the project mailing lists.

On the following day, the following was posted to BOARD-L:

The USGenWeb Advisory Board, in a closed-session hearing of charges against Tim Stowell, has found Mr. Stowell to be responsible for each of the charges against him. It is the decision of the Advisory Board that he is hereby:

(1) Removed from the USGenWeb Project for a period of 6 months, retroactive to his suspension 1 June 2004. Any county sites held in reserve for him pending the outcome of this hearing are immediately deemed "available" and may be held open for adoption.

(2) Beginning 1 December 2004, Mr. Stowell will be eligible to apply as Local Coordinator for any adoptable site within the USGenWeb Project. His application(s) may be accepted or rejected solely at the discretion of the State Coordinator(s), and there will be no appeal of the State Coordinator's decision.

(3) Also beginning 1 December 2004, Mr. Stowell will be considered "on probation" within the USGenWeb Project for a period of 5 years. He may not run for, serve, hold, or be appointed to any position higher than the Local Coordinator level in any state or special project, or the national project.

A summary of the charges follows:

In his position as SC of GAGenWeb, Tim Stowell has
- violated the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Prroject and the Guidelines of GAGenWeb
- allowed the same Bylaws and Guideliness to be violated by his ASC and RC appointees
- used unfair, discriminatory, and deceiitful management practices
- created an atmosphere of secrecy, opprression, distrust and fear among GAGenWeb CCs
- ignored his responsibilities and dutiees in the position of SC
- violated the rights of CC's.

The above violates both the letter and the spirit of The USGenWeb Project and has done harm to both the volunteers and the researchers of the GAGenWeb Project.

CHARGES:

(1) Mr. Stowell used his position as SC not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project.
(a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee.
(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.
(c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought intocompliance 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.
(d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods.
(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.
(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.

(2) Mr. Stowell ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs. In 2003, XXXX XXXX started a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC). 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. XXXX XXXX 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 AAAA AAAA, 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.

(3) The most recent dismissals of County Coordinators were in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines.
(a) IN THE CASE OF BBBBBBB, CCCCCCCC and DDDDDDDDD [Debra Crosby, Sylvia Rankin, and Linda Geiger] 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 BBBBBB, CCCCCC and DDDDDD 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.

This concludes the hearing for Tim Stowell.

Later, on BOARD-EXEC, David Morgan asks "Does anybody find it odd that nobody is complaining about the penalty handed Tim, jut complaining about the voting?" Angie says that nothing surprises her anymore.

Darilee notes that Ginger Cisewski asked for a transcript of the trial and recommends against giving her one, noting "since we still need to do a hearing on Richard Pettys that it would be inappropriate to release a transcript right now." Don Kelly has two thoughts and says "Privacy is the reason we have hearings behind closed doors, AND announce only the decisions on public lists...I believe we would violate Tim's privacy if we released transcripts of a private hearing. I therefore must conclude that release of private transcripts to the public is highly inappropriate."

Day 57--Circa 24 October 2004

Linda says she doesn't have a problem with vote tallies from the trial being posted to Board-L, but she does have a problem with the suggestion [made on the DISCUSS list] that a transcript would be posted as part of the minutes. She notes "If that were to be the end result - then why were the hearings closed to begin with?...my understanding of the procedures was correct in that the evidence presented, etc. would not be made public by anyone including the NC, the AB, nor the individual participants. The hearing list was confidential, wasn't it?" She also demands a clarification prior to Richard Pettys' trial of what exactly the Board will classify as a transcript.

[Ed. Note. Here ends the transcript of the trial of Tim Stowell. It took the Board 143 days--nearly four and a half months--to suspend Tim, figure out what the charges should be, cobble together evidence against him that would either convince newer Boad members of his guilt or at least baffle them with its quantity and lack of focus, find him guilty on all charges, and determine the correct penalty to add on top of removing him from two states. By the time they were done, the only penalty they could come up with that had any teeth was a five year proscription against holding any elective or appointed office above the level of local coordinator. And if Tim doesn't care about that, its really not a big deal. They did not address Tim's status as a Member Not In Good Standing, a status that once granted is apparently yours forever. But again, all that does is keep you from running from national level office, and if you don't care about that...oh well.

The Board has since moved on to Richard Pettys' trial. Richard declined to cooperate with the Board's requirement of secrecy and refused to participate in the secret trial list. One Board member, Richard Howland, is prevented by Shari Handley's fiat from participating in the trial, and another has removed himself by choice from the proceedings. Shari's banning of Rich Howland has probably removed the only vote on the Board that would have been in Richard's favor. The Board also denied Richard his choice of representative at trial--me--due to their excessive concerns about security. Not a single person out of the 16 even bothered to contact me to find out if I would honor their gag rule. In effect, they believe secrecy is more important than allowing Richard the right to a representative of his choice. It has now been over six months since Richard was suspended and his counties and positions within GAGenWeb were taken from him. We suspect that before Christmas comes, the Board will publish a notice very similar to the final solution they came up with for Tim. All they will do is change the name of the guilty party.

On a personal note, several very loyal readers have written to me and asked, in essence, "What the hell are you doing defending Tim?" In my own defense, I can only note some obvious things. Tim is most definitely not the best poster child for defending anything within USGenWeb. He is certainly guilty of being petty, vindictive, hypocritical, overly emotional and two-faced. I never see an email from him in my inbox without wondering what he's up to. Its also the case that he was used by the Archives and its friends when he had the power to help them and dropped by them when he was no longer of use to them. Its unfortunate that he took his anger at this out on GAGenWeb, but the Archives files managers, most notably Virginia Crilley and Linda Blum-Barton, apparently made a point of provoking him incessantly. Although I don't really doubt that he did most of what the Board accused him of--especially where retaliatory firings were concerned--the Board was not able to provide much in the way of defensible evidence against him. And frankly, nothing he did was any different than what other SCs have done in the past. The Board sat idly by while Derek Hartshorn gutted NCGenWeb in order to get rid of Diane Mason. No stink was raised by anyone at the national level when Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman was found to have populated the ranks of her census project with fake people--and there was proof of that, unlike in Tim's case. Two of the three CCs that Tim dismissed were causing troubles in the state [the third was reinstated immediately], and under every known precedent set by the Board Tim had every right to fire them. The only CC that was fired for no real cause was Carolyn Golowka and Tim didn't fire her.

In order to succesfully get rid of Tim, who many of them once supported avidly, the Board had to violate the bylaws of the USGenWeb Project, an organization they serve as elected officers and whose rules and guidelines they are supposed to uphold. They justified this by the extreme nature of the crisis in Georgia, but in reality they had been trying for two years to expel Tim and had failed. They admitted that they took that route because nothing else they had tried had achieved their objective. The camouflage of "protecting the CCs" is very convenient, particularly given how uninterested they have been in CC rights right up until they decided Tim had to go. How tempting will it be the next time they have a disagreement with a state coordinator over something to pull the same stunt? How big will the disagreement have to be before they invoke "CCs' rights" and "an emergency" before they summarily take someone's state and counties away and begin expulsion proceedings? Although they claim not to want to do this again, they already have a list of states that aren't pleasing to them and its hard not to think of Tim's and Richard's trials as test runs. Perhaps they are just hoping to scare SCs into compliance or make them think twice before firing anyone who is a friend to a Board member or the Archives, but its also hard to ignore the frisson they apparently got from the raw exercise of power.

So we try not to think of this as defending icky Tim, but as defending something larger. This is your project; the Board serves you. And before your very eyes they have changed the rules under which you must live. They have violated the bylaws and had the temerity to fault Tim for the same. If Tim is guilty of preferential treatment of CCs, so is the Board itself. They suspended Tim and three others from USGenWeb, removed them from their counties and positions and only then came up with charges to make the punishment they already delivered seem reasonable, and then turned right around and accused Tim of doing exactly that. They speak darkly of Tim taking with him data that were donated to his counties, yet they happily tolerate project members who take the work of others without permission and "retype" or "reformat" it for the Archives. They have blindly accepted pathetically weak evidence compiled and submitted by people with obvious, admitted, and long term problems with Tim, while neither presenting nor accepting any evidence in his defense. In this trial the prosecutors were also the judges and at least one of them unequivocally stated he'd already decided Tim was guilty before evidence had been presented. We could get all Biblical here [judge not lest ye be judged, let those without sin cast the first stone, etc.] and we could also get apocalyptic [YOU could be NEXT!!], but I think the implications of the Board's actions are pretty clear to any reasonably well-informed USGenWeb member. The Board has a very different idea of what is good for the project than many of the membership does and the real difference between them and you is that they have the power to enforce their vision. They now also have the will and a precedent.]

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS