From: merope Date: Sun Jan 6, 2002 8:32 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition Same stuff, different year...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! December 30 2001-January 6 2002: Motion 01-34 (Revise EC guidelines): Postponed Motion 01-38 (Consent agreement): On January 2, Holly Timm asked if there was further discussion on this motion. When several members indicated there was not, and after some minor discussion on the history and status of the motion ensued, she called the vote on January 4. As of this writing (January 6), 6 Board members have voted yes, and 8 Board members have voted no. [This motion has failed, demonstrating once again that unless we have to to get something we want, USGW won't do the nice thing.] New Business: Election Committee members: On December 30, Tina Vickery moves "that this slate of proposed EC members be approved by the Advisory Board." This motion is seconded by Jana Black. This motion is not addressed further. Service Mark Application: On January 2, Tim Stowell notifies the Board that he signed the service mark paperwork and had it notarized. He later informed the group that the papers were mailed to the USPTO on January 4. Procedural issues: Noting that the NC is not acting in a timely manner to move business along, Phyllis Rippee suggests "Perhaps the Advisory Board should consider appointing an "NC--pro tempore" to act when the NC does not within 24 hours of "business arising."...This situation is unfair to the AB members, to the USGW P membership and in the language of my three-year-old nephew: "Is ree-dicka-dockle!"" While this suggestion is not addressed by the Board, it does apparently prompt Holly to call for further discussion on Motion 01-38 and eventually to call a vote. --- In Executive Session: Nate Zipfel posts a message; Teresa Lindquist posts a message [by accident, hit the wrong button] Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === "At present there are such goings-on that everything is at a standstill." ---Sir Boyle Roche This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Wed Jan 9, 2002 7:04 am Subject: Daily Board Show, midweek edition Saints be praised!...its Your Daily Board Show! [Its been a busy week thus far, so I am sending out a "midweek" DBS before things get too complicated and windy. -Ed.] *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! January 6 - January 9 2002: Motion 01-34 (Revise EC guidelines): On January 6, Holly reminded the Board that "Motion 01-34 was tabled pending the results of the mediation attempts. Afterwards, the maker of the motion, Richard Harrison, posted a withdrawal." She calls a vote on the withdrawal of this motion. This passes with 13 yes votes and 1 abstention and the motion is formally withdrawn. Motion 01-38 (Consent agreement): On January 6, Holly Timm declares Motion 01-38 failed, with 6 voting yes and 8 voting no. Motion 02-01 (Bylaws Committee formation): This motion is given number 02-01 on January 7. Kathy Heidel calls the question on it and Ron Eason seconds. Teresa suggests the motion needs more discussion, noting that "After receiving comments from constituents and given the increasingly short amount left to the committee to do its work prior to the "drop dead" date built into the motion," she can no longer support the motion in its current form. On January 8, Holly calls a vote on the motion to end debate and immediately several members note that they do not want the motion to come to a vote without discussion. Phyllis Rippee notes "I want the work on revising the bylaws to begin immediately...I do NOT want the BFC report to be adopted as is and that is what possibly could happen if debate is cut off on this motion...If debate is cut off on this motion, it means that we go to a vote on the motion itself. That means we adopt the report as is and proceed, or we reject it as is and then have to make a decision as to what to do from there in regard to revising the bylaws...I would rather the AB take the time to change portions of the report before adoption." Jana Black wants to change her vote to no after realizing that passing the motion to end debate would cause Motion 02-01 to be voted on its present state [at that time she had not yet actually voted on the motion, but had voted at least twice on the other motion currently on the floor.] Ron Eason suggests that he withdraw his second of the call of the question and asks Kathy to withdraw the call. This engenders some confusion as to whether or not this withdrawal needs to be voted on by the Board. Phyllis suggests that voting continue, since Kathy is away and it is unlikely that the motion will carry. Holly notes that such withdrawals would indeed need to be voted on but also notes that there is nothing preventing either Kathy or Ron from voting no on the motion to end debate itself, if their minds have changed on the topic. When Kathy returns she agrees to withdraw her motion and notes that she only called the question because she "thought since we had jumped motion 02 that no one was considering 01 and we would just move on." The call of the question on Motion 02-01 is handily defeated, with 12 no vote and 2 yes votes. Phyllis Rippee then asks "May we adopt a Special Rule to enable us to amend/change portions of the BFC report and then vote on it in its entirety?" Holly Timm doesn't think this is necessary and notes that determination of the whether or not the motion has passed requires a 2/3 majority and will also require waiting 48 hours before such a determination is made. Motion 02-02 (EC slate): Holly gives Motion 02-02 its number on January 7 and Teresa Lindquist calls the question on it shortly thereafter. Phyllis Rippee seconds the call and Holly Timm incorrectly calls a vote on the motion itself. After a handful of Board members voted, she corrected herself and called for a vote on the motion to end debate. Tim Stowell protests this, suggesting that more discussion is warranted, and noting that "it sure looks like a railroading job to me." He is in particular concerned about Diane Parson's presence on the suggested slate, and asks "whether it is according to the EC guidelines and/or if having more Board members there isn't packing/stacking the deck." Teresa responds that there is nothing in the EC guidelines to prevent it and that, given that only a handful of Board members will question the EC's decisions, there is nothing to be gained by prolonging the discussion. Robert Bremer asks Holly if she knows what was the rationale for selecting a sitting Board member to join the EC and how many volunteers were considered and rejected; Holly indicates that she will ask Linda Haas Davenport for the answers [apparently the personnel discussions were held off the EC's secret list]. After Teresa points out that there are currently seven people improperly subscribed to confidential list and with access to confidential voter information, Ron Eason notes "As Board Members, we were already voted into office and there was no question as to our pending status. The EC does not carry that same assurance unless you know how the vote will already turn out. They are not assured their position until Holly announces the results of the vote...Unless Linda knows how everyone is going to vote already, then her actions were a little premature." New Business: New Board member: Nate Zipfel resigns for personal reasons on January 6. Holly Timm notifies the project that the Board will be discussing his replacement on the secret list. Thus far, only a minimal amount of that discussion has taken place. Other business: "The AB's Impotence": On January 6, the entire AB received, via private email an message from a constituent [who wishes to remain anonymous but who gave permission to use his letter in any way provided his name was kept out of it], under this subject line, complaining about the slow pace of board business. This prompted a slew of letters from a couple of Board members complaining about 1) the NC's slowness in getting around to board business; and 2) the limiting nature of Sturgis in internet meetings [and you don't suppose our NC is hamstringing the process to get Sturgis overturned, do you?]. At some point in the discussion, the original correspondent was cut out of the discussion and Holly suggested the discussion be moved to either Board-L or the secret list; the general consensus from those who even bother with this discussion is to move it to Board-L. Kathy Heidel asks Holly to "let us know when a motion has been received," and points out that "Parliamentary Authority is not the problem. Individuals who use parliamentary authority to inhibit the workings of an assembly are frowned upon by Sturgis." Jana Black moves this discussion to Board-L on January 7. Phyllis Rippee doesn't want to adapt Sturgis and suggests instead "Wouldn't it be easier to just come up with some standing rules and then let Sturgis rule on anything else?" Holly replies that "developing Standing Rules is exactly what needs to be discussed in order to adapt those parts of Sturgis that don't function well for our method of meeting, adapting only those parts of Sturgis that are cumbersome online. Anything not affected by any Standing Rules would remain under Sturgis." Pam Reid notes that "The strict adherence to procedure has made the Board ineffective." and suggests that previous Boards accomplished more in less time [that's a laugh]. Jana suggests that Board members take it upon themselves to forward agenda items for the upcoming session to Sundee Maynez [who admits to not reading her email for up to two weeks at a time] for later discussion. She suggests "Seems we would save ourselves lots of trouble by using pre-discussion to hammer out the fine points of any idea, reach the closest possible agreements, then, use that discussion to word a motion which would be followed up with any final discussion and a vote." Procedural issues: Having had so much success with it before, Kathy Heidel notifies Holly that she wants to call Questions of Privilege for two pending Board actions, the suggested EC slate and the suggested Bylaws revision committee. Holly then notes "I think what you intend here is asking for a Special Rule to permit more than one motion on the floor, bringing the ByLaws motion and the EC Slate to the floor even though the withdrawal of Motion 01-34 is being voted on. This is procedural and relates to the present motion(s) on the floor." She then calls a vote on "whether or not to have a Special Rule permitting the Bylaws and EC motions on to the floor concurrently with the present action(s) on Motion 01-34." Holly assures a concerned Board member that "this is a Special Rule for just these two motions to be on the floor with the one being voted on." This passes with 11 yes votes, 1 "probable yes" vote and 1 no vote. Tina Vickery offers some comment on eventual proposed standing rules, noting "Board-L and Board-Exec are lists where we will discuss all matters having to do with the USGenWeb Project. These lists are our way to communicate with each other, and work together. Posting to these lists should be done with courtesy and respect for your fellow volunteers." Jana Black begins posting complicated and unwieldy suggestions for coding material posted to the Board list. [They are unlikely ever to be adopted; if you are interested in them, they are available in the Board archives.] [From the minimal discussion that has ensued so far on this topic, it appears unlikely that the Board will easily agree on any kind of special rules or procedures. Jana apparently finds keeping track of motions and voting beyond her, yet wants to institute complicated discussion rules. Sundee doesn't reliably read her email yet is expected to keep a current agenda. Tina disagrees with some of Jana's proposed procedures and suggests alternate procedures and viewpoints on agendas, old business, and minutes. Phyllis doesn't want to adapt Sturgis; Holly says we should. People who can't remember what motions are active and who vote on the same motion more than once insist that we have to have several motions active on the floor at once for the Board to be functional. _One_ constituent writes to say he's unhappy about the pace of Board action and suddenly all Board business must be done with Questions of Privilege, Calling the Question, and Special Rules in order to, as Tim notes, go "from sluggishness to hell bent on ramming through motions without a discussion period." Yadda yadda yadda. Sturgis has been our adopted authority for only a handful of motions and has not been given a fair chance to work by the Board and by the NC in particular, many of whom spend more time bitching about how constraining about how restrictive parliamentary procedure is and how to change it or get around it than in actually commenting on the motions at hand. It is business as usual over here.] GenTech Conference: Tina Vickery issues a call for brochures for the upcoming GenTech2002 conference. --- In Executive Session: messages by Phyllis Rippee and Kathy Heidel Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === "How these curiosities would be quite forgott, did not such idle fellowes as I putt them down." ---John Aubrey This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Jan 13, 2002 2:55 pm Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition Do the right thing...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 9 January-13 January 2001: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws Committee): The call for a vote on this motion failed on January 9, with 10 no votes and 2 yes votes and discussion on this motion is re-opened. Discusson on this motion is rather scattered, with Phyllis Rippee suggesting numerous concrete changes to the wording and format of the proposal, and requesting that other Board members provide specific suggestions for changes. Almost no one is responding to her suggestions. Kathy Heidel doesn't like the way the slate is selected; she is particularly opposed to the up or down vote on the full slate of proposed members. She finds it "unfair and undemocratic" and suggests that each proposed committee member be voted on individually. Tim Stowell suggests using the "popularity vote" method currently used for the mediation panel member selection. There are a couple of requests to repost the entire proposal. Kathy Heidel expresses frustation with the lack of comment on this motion and suggests that "This motion really needs to be addressed prior to accepting Nathan's resignation." Tina Vickery suggests specific and extensive changes to the proposed report based on a reading of the Sturgis book; she is also concerned with the idea of accepting or rejecting entire slates of volunteers. Noting that having full representation on the Board during the bylaws committee discussion is of more importance, Teresa Lindquist moves to table Motion 02-01 on January 12. Holly asks for a second on the motion, although she states that she thinks it is unnecessary. Phyllis informs the Board of a passage in Sturgis that notes that it is unnecessary to accept the resignation of a Board member who has resigned. Kathy Heidel protests the motion to table, noting "If we don't get this going so many things are going to be fumbled and dropped. We are "all" waiting for Guidance from this Committee it is shameful to put it off any longer!" Tina Vickery notes that she doesn't think its necessary to stop discussion on the bylaws motion in order to address her motion to accept Nate Zipfel's resignation [see below; she fails to understand that my motion to table action on the bylaws committee has nothing to do with her motion. It has to do with seating someone to represent that region while the committee's form and duties are being decided.] Motion 02-02 (EC slate): Holly Timm calls a vote on this motion on January 9. The motion passed on January 10 with 10 yes votes and four no votes. The vote was characterized by some interesting flip-flopping. Tim Stowell, Kathy Heidel and Diane Parsons all changed their votes; Tim and Kathy from "no" to "yes" and Diane Parsons from "abstain" to "yes". Although Kathy's vote change was pretty much par for the course [she can be and often is easily persuaded to change her mind], it is Diane's vote change that is instructive. Diane Parsons is materially affected by the outcome of this vote and she correctly abstained when the vote was first called. However, shortly after Mary Ann Hetrick cast the vote that defeated this motion, she changed her vote to yes. Within a very short time after that, Holly declared the motion passed, effectively precluding anyone else who wanted to change their vote. [It is comforting to know that when she wants to, our NC can conduct Board business with some alacrity. She has of late been rather slow in getting around to such things as numbering motions, calling votes and directing Board business. But when control of a rather important committee that is run and staffed by her good friends and fellow travelers is at stake, she can manage something approaching decisive speed. It is also not surprising that several of the usual suspects congratulated Diane on her vote change, notably Richard Harrison, Jana Black, and Pam Reid. Apparently behavior that would not be tolerated in certain other Board members is welcomed when it accomplishes the necessary end.] Other business related to Motion 02-02: Linda Haas Davenport replies to Robert Bremer's questions about the choice of a sitting Board member as one of the proposed slate. According to her, Diane was the only candidate the EC considered and was also the only candidate who volunteered. [Interestingly though...Linda is the only who receives volunteer notices. Who would know if anyone else volunteered?] Holly Timm was subbed to the EC list during the discussion of the new members but was not allowed to participate in the discussions, which were held off the list. Linda notes "The EC weighed the decision to chose an AB member very seriously. One of the things the EC took into consideration is the fact that Diane will not be up for re-election in July. She is only serving a one year term on the EC... Therefore will be no conflict with Diana as an EC and AB member during the election." [unless of course she decides to run again.] In a separate message, Linda also replies to Teresa Lindquist's observation that seven people are currently improperly subbed to the EC's secret list. She notes "1st the EC has often had non-members subscribed to our list for one reason or another. 2nd of the seven people mentioned above who have "access to confidential voter information" - five of those people are members who had access to their regional voter/membership list before Dec 31st...The two new proposed members have not been given their half of their region voter/membership list yet and will not be until approved by the AB...3rd - We would like to clarify the phrase "Confidential voter information" that Teresa continues to use. What the EC has is a list of members names, e-mail address and the job(s) they perform. This is a membership list and yes it is kept confidential but it is not "confidential voter information" which sounds as if members of the EC have some type of access to information on a member's voting record which no EC member has. We prefer the term "confidential membership list" to avoid any misunderstandings about what information the EC has." [yes, and Ronald Reagan liked to call ketchup a "vegetable".] There were several interesting comments both pro and con made by Board members regarding this proposed slate of EC volunteers: Tim Stowell: "No. For the pure and simple reasons that the NC by formenting pure mayhem and chaos on the list, voting to vote or voting, changing what was being voted on in mid-stream thereby confusing the process, not allowing an appropriate discussion period of the motions. This is not entirely the fault of the NC but was aided and abetted by the RAL." Robert Bremer: "For USGenWeb volunteers to have confidence in the election process, the EC must remain impartial and free of any one particular political viewpoint. That is not accomplished by seating a current AB member as a voting member of the EC. That is not accomplished by seating an additional 3 former AB members who appear to never vote differently from each other. That is not accomplished by seating 2 former AB members who supported the motion denying CCs the right to vote by moving the election cutoff date from June 1st back to April 1st in 2000 despite the lack of reliable evidence of any voter fraud. In supporting the election cutoff date, one of those former AB members then announced on the ALL list that she had deprived herself of the vote in doing so--unless that was the ability to vote for a second, third, or fourth CC rep in that election, it was blatantly untrue. There have been allegations in the past, that another of those former AB members attempted to vote twice for the NC. That same former AB member previously posted information on web pages concerning USGenWeb volunteers who had affliations with other projects and as such had questionable loyalities...The point is that the EC should be sensitive to the volunteers of this organization and not attempt appoint several high-profile people with particular political perspectives. To do so only invites distrust and controversy--the stuff of conspiracy theories...I can appreciate the EC's interest in appointing members who can work together, but in attempting to accomplish that objective, people with diverse perspectives have not been chosen over those who evidently share perspectives with other EC members. This slate is not at all representative of the volunteers of this project and even has the appearance of an attempt to stack the deck. We do a disservice to the project to approve this slate." Kathy Heidel: "I am inclined to agree in part with Robert and don't feel at this time I can agree with the entire list of candidates. I had hoped that there would be some "new" faces on this committee and there are not." [For some reason Kathy, but no one else, is severely taken to task by Keith Giddeon over on the -ALL list for this comment.] Betsy Mills: "Without providing a list of those who ARE willing to serve, this is a disservice to the committee who tried desperately to find people who would serve on the committee." Jana Black: "I think we need to be realistic about working with those we have respectfully and think about why the EC Chair had to report such pathetic volunteer stats to work with the EC. I see no reason to ask the EC to begin a "persuasion routine" when they advised us all that they were soliciting for volunteers in ample time and have received such little response...sometimes folks voting the same way means simply that all are in agreement in the best interests of the Project...Often times when people work together for a common goal, they will come to the same conclusions...I suggest the problem is not within the EC but perhaps instead sits as an AB responsibility to improve the Project public profile so that more volunteers would be willing to step forward." Kathy Heidel [after her vote change]: "When I voted against the EC Slate I did so based on my personal feeling of being used to uphold their Committee's Gag Rule. And I am upset that the AB could spend 4+ weeks sorting out their, the EC's problem, and the EC could not reciprocate and follow through with the Rules and Procedures as the EC had promised. This morning I have fought with my self over this issue realizing that I had erred. This is not about the EC this is basically about the candidate and I finally realized this." Jana Black [regarding Diane's vote change]: "perhaps she realized that she was only part of the slate, she approved of herself and she also approved of the rest of those on it. I applaud her for realizing that in abstaining out of personal humility, she was voting against the entire slate." Teresa Lindquist [regarding conflicts of interest in voting]: Actually, no, I wouldn't [change my vote]. Especially after the lectures I got from several of my colleagues here on the impropiety of casting a vote on a motion that materially affects oneself. Diane originally did the right thing and then, just as soon as Mary Ann cast the vote that defeated the motion, she changed her vote. And then Holly acted quicker than I've ever seen her act to preclude anyone else from changing their minds and defeating the motion." [Several notes from Board members point out that Sturgis allows members to vote on motions that affect themselves if "others are equally affected by the vote". As usual, they miss the point. Rules, guidelines, and laws often allow things that range from not quite proper to downright immoral and which to any reasonable person present an ethical dilemma. Does one do the right thing and abstain on a vote that affects oneself, or does one note that the rules allow it and vote anyways? Apparently for many Board members expediency in obtaining the desired result trumps any other issues here, unless it is me doing the voting.] Diane Parsons [now safely ensconsed in the EC]: "I wish to thank all the fellow members who emailed me in private, thank them for their kind words of support and wisdom...I did not change my vote at the last minute out of any kind " strategy" to boost myself, and/or pull a "fast one". I just came to realize that by abstaining, all I did was project the aura that I did not believe in the EC slate. Instead of a sense of humility, which lead me to abstain in the first place. As for the ones who highly questioned my reasoning...I am sorry you feel that way. Nothing I can do except respectfully decline to be drawn into a needless debate that no one wants to read or hear about anyway. I will now move on and do my best in the jobs I was elected/volunteered to do. I wish you all the best, and will answer any questions to the best of my ability to do so." [Humility again?] Robert Bremer asks Diane about her new EC duties: "As part of your service on the EC, you would presumably be involved in the selection of other EC members for open positions. Will you also be voting on the resulting slate when it comes before the Advisory Board? Betsy Mills notes that she should vote twice, since this is usual and expected of committee members, although Robert thinks it is unethical. Diane indicated that she most definitely will be double voting on slate members, noting "I will not "block" someone because of my personal feelings. And I will not manipulate the slate in any way for any reason. I did not volunteer to harm anyone, only to try and help. I also promise not to verbally attack any one just to make myself look better in the eyes of others." New Business: Resignation of Nate Zipfel: Tina Vickery moves "that the Board accept, with regret, the resignation of Nathan Zipfel and thank him for his efforts as Northeast/North Central State Coordinator Representative." Kathy Heidel seconds this motion. Both Phyllis and Kathy point out that precedent was set when Ken Short's resignation and replacement were addressed by this Board; Kathy suggests that having the EC run another "poll". Other Business: EC Guidelines: Kathy Heidel requests an update on the status of the revisions of the EC guidelines. AB Procedures: The discussion on standing rules for the AB continues. Jana once again flogs her comment coding scheme. Phyllis doesn't like the codes and wants full words used and also suggests that there be some rule about snipping unneeded text from replies. Jana and Phyllis are in agreement that proxy voting should be allowed [Don't worry, this discussion should peter out shortly enough]. Kathy Heidel protests Teresa's comment on Diane Parson's vote change, noting that castigating Diane for her vote was in violation of her rights, per Sturgis. Kathy notes "It is not an exaggeration to state that by ridiculing others votes is in effect undermining the USGW P...Fewer and fewer people are willing to volunteer for a position within the Board and its Committees because of this constant barrage of derogatory remarks. This is a shame and should be corrected and stopped as it reflects very poorly upon you and on the Project..How any of us vote is not anyone else's business, this is still America and no one deserves to be treated in this manner." Phyllis Rippee also notes that "I do not believe that parliamentary authority approves of members of the assembly to question, or otherwise comment upon another member's vote. Unless, it is to challenge the right of that member to vote." Jana Black jumps on board with a comment about the DBS and notes "It has come to my attention that Teresa released a mid-week DBS in which her remarks, to a one, put the most negative possible twist on AB activity...Pretending she can read the minds of AB members or interpret what they thought, felt or how they operate is cowardly behavior, unbefitting a fellow Board member in the absence of honest questioning...Sending out such messages to a public that does not necessarily have all the facts serves to undermine the organization as a whole... I do not find this acceptable and will be working to see what we can do to change it with Alice." [Oh, hmmm...better change my evil ways, before Jana throws the book at me! Interesting though, to see these two go on about what's proper and what isn't. In recent days, Phyllis posted a major lie about her health on the -ALL list for some obscure reason, then admitted it was a lie and was meant as "bait" in order to make some obscure point--about character, of all things. All she really seems to have accomplished is the resignation of a truly good person who Just Can't Take It anymore and some more ugly public comments by Keith Giddeon. Jana, who usually makes a point to comment on any behavior she finds "unacceptable", hasn't yet weighed in on Phyllis' faux pas. Perhaps she is figuring out a way to work the word "humility" into it.] GenTech Dissolved: Teresa Lindquist posts notice that GenTech has been involuntarily dissolved by the Texas Secretary of State and requests information on the status of the conference. Tina Vickery notifies that Board that the conference will still be held. Betsy Mills says she has been told by the GenTech management that "this not true. GenTech has not been dissolved." Teresa notifies the Board that she called both the Texas Secretary of State and the IRS and found that 1) GenTech has most definitely been dissolved; and 2) their tax exempt status is currently valid but will probably be withdrawn when TX notifies them of the dissolution [see below]. Holly tells the Board that GenTech's status is none of our business. --- In Executive Session: Message by Kathy Heidel Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Gone And Forgotten Corner: For the last year or so, we have heard unverifiable rumors that GenTech is in serious trouble, both with the state of Texas and with the IRS. The various members of the GenTech Board have not been forthcoming with information on this, for obvious reasons, but apparently the irregularities that have been detailed to me in the past were not only true but very serious indeed. The items listed in the "Involuntary Dissolution" order issued by the TX Secretary of State include: "1. That the entity is required to have and continuously maintain a registered in this state. 2. That the entity has failed to maintain a registered agent at the registered office address. 3. That the entity has been given not less than 90 days notice of its neglect, delinquency or omission by certified mail. 4. That the entity has failed prior to such involuntary dissolution to correct the neglect, omission or delinquency." The Secretary of State orders "that [GenTech] be voluntarily dissolved without judicial ascertainment and made null and void." [full text available at http://dfc.cc/secst.jpg] We have also been informed that the IRS is now proceeding to strip the organization of its tax-exempt status. What effect this may have on the upcoming conference in Boston is not clear. The GenTech webpage has not changed since this order was issued on December 27 and no mention is made of any changes to the conference or to hotel availability [hotels write off the discounts they offer to tax-exempt groups]. I called the Texas Secretary of State's office and the IRS on January 11 and this is what they told me. In April 2001, GenTech's resident agent resigned for unspecified reasons and notified the Secretary of State's office that they no longer wished to handle that responsibility for GenTech. In June 2001, the SoS notified GenTech that they had 90 days to register a new resident agent. GenTech failed to do so and the SoS initiated procedures to involuntarily dissolve the incorporation. On Dec 27, 2001 that action was finalized and GenTech was formally and involuntarily dissolved by the Texas Secretary of State. There is evidence from a GenTech Board meeting that they were aware in May 2001 that they needed to register a new resident with the state. The Internal Revenue Service was not aware of this action by the TX SoS and at this time GenTech is still listed as a tax-exempt organization in good standing. However, as soon as TX notifies them of GenTech's dissolution, the IRS will act to remove GenTech's 501c3 status. The rumors of GenTech's internal woes are now increasing. Apparently staff at Root$web were surprised to discover that GenTech had advertised a rather large symposium with them, although RW leader Jake Gehring was the only staff member slated to attend the conference [sound familiar?]. There are allegations of missing documents and improper withholding of documentation. We now hear that NEHGS is getting nervous about its association with GenTech with regards to the upcoming conference. For some reason, they are publicly denying that the dissolution has occurred. More on this as it develops, but for now it appears that USGW will still attend the meeting [provided it is held] on January 25. === "At present there are such goings-on that everything is at a standstill." ---Sir Boyle Roche This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:56 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition, 1/20/02 Driving Jana nuts...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 12 January-20 January 2002: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws revision committee): This motion gets complicated. The motion to table it fails for lack of a second on January 14. Jana Black, believing the report to go beyond the scope of its mandate, submits an amended report, which is basically ignored despite her invitation to "rip it apart". On January 15, Phyllis Rippee moves to divide the motion into four parts and work on each part individually. Jana offers to second it once all the implications are explained to her; Kathy Heidel actually commits to it and seconds. Holly Timm suggests instead handling each section "seriatim" [in sequence for those of you following at home] and asks for general consent on this suggestion. On January 16, after 11 Board members consent to this procedure, discussion begins on "part one" of the motion. On January 17, after two Board members indicated they had no problems with Part One, Phyllis suggests that the Board move on to Part Two. Holly suggests instead that some idea of consensus should be reached before proceeding on to the next section. Jana then asks if the Board can proceed on its own to the next section [meaning without Holly's direction to do so] "Once we have a majority count of voices posted on BOARD-L in consensus on a section, and knowing your work schedule." Jana and Tina repost their original suggestions for revision of this part and a few more Board members indicate they have no problem with the section as currently written. Other Business: Resignation of Nate Zipfel: No action is taken on the motion to accept Nate's resignation. On January 16, Phyllis Rippee moves "that the Election Committee be instructed to solicit volunteers for the Northeast/North Central Region Advisory Board seat left vacant by the resignation of Nathan Zipfel; submit the names of those volunteers to the eligible voters of that region as a preference poll; sending the results of the poll to the Advisory Board by February 2, 2002." Tim Stowell seconds this motion. [Apparently, the concept of "one motion at a time on the floor" is beyond people.] Standing Rules: Jana Black, now more or less the only participant in the standing rules discussion, conducts a long conversation with herself on the topic. She is now summarizing all past comments in a valiant effort to keep the thread alive. Noting that she received several complaints about this newsletter, she notifies the Board that she would like to give Teresa "no wiggle room except for appropriate function as an AB member." [Its interesting how discussion of rules always comes down to being cops, isn't it? I've been told by a couple of readers that Jana has also received email telling her "to stow her vendetta and use her time constructively for the project" but I doubt you'll hear about those.] Phyllis Rippee reiterates her suggestion that motions be numbered when received and seconded, but is told by Holly via Jana that "her [Holly's] opinion is that they will just sit in line until it is their turn...." New Business: New Official Logos: Teresa Lindquist forwards some suggested new logos to the Board for its consideration. Apart from a question from Phyllis Rippee regarding how the adoption of new logos would affect our service mark application, the topic is not discussed further. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: no activity Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Pink Slip Corner: For those of you have asked about the rumors, yes, they are true. Ancestry "restructured" in early January and Linda Lewis was laid off. We have heard a couple of others were let go as well, but have no names. Whatever, the old Root$web crew must be getting pretty thin by now. === "It's easy being a humorist when you've got the whole government working for you." ---Will Rogers. This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:31 am Subject: Daily Board Show, weekly edition Live, from the Lunatic Fringe...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! 20 January-27 January 2002: Motion 02-01 (Bylaws Revision Committee): This motion continues to go off in unusual tangents. On Jan 21, Holly Timm directs that the discussion proceed to part 2 of the original committee report. This section addresses committee size and composition. There are many comments on this section, most dealing with adjusting the number of members or how they are selected. The following proposals all occurred in relatively rapid progression on January 21: 1) Jana Black asks some questions regarding size of the committee and the rationale for the "all or none" approach to approving a slate of proposed committee members. She also suggests that SCs "recommend" members of their state projects for the committee, the regions hold separate elections for their regional members and then "acceptance or rejection" would be based "upon the same criteria for eligibility used to nominate/elect AB representatives." Phyllis Rippee explains how the number of committee members was arrived at, and also notes that she doesn't much care for Jana's proposal for selecting members. She also doesn't like the "all or none" method of approving volunteer slates and suggests some wording changes that would streamline the process of filling positions on the committee. Kathy Heidel later agrees with this approach, and Diane Parsons suggests doing both this _and_ soliciting volunteers. 2) Tina Vickery reposts an earlier message addressing this section. Its notable provisions are that any vacant SC or SP slots on the committee could be filled by CCs [a suggestion echoed by Phyllis in her earlier message], and that if 22 members were not obtained, the committee would consist of however many volunteers there were. She also questions the need for "all or none" approval of the slates, noting "I trust in the process of volunteering that the Advisory Board would acknowledge the expressed interest by virtue of volunteering of the volunteers and seat the volunteers that have stepped forward. Not to mention the fact that if a full slate isn't obtained, who would it be revised and resubmitted with?" 3) Betsy Mills suggests that all committee members be CCs, with no specification of SCs, ASCs or SPs. 4) Vicki Shaffer agrees with Betsy and thinks it will be difficult to find even 10 members willing to sit on the committee. She suggests soliciting for volunteers immediately, and notes "No use waiting until we hash all the guidelines out. Let's start taking names. Let's get this show on the road...That is the ONLY way anything is going to get done." During discussion, Diane Parsons, Jana Black, Richard Harrison, and Phyllis Rippee support this idea and on January 21 Vicki asks Holly for permission to post an immediate call for volunteers, again noting "Is a vote even needed to gather a prospective group of volunteers for this committee?...At present there is no need to know the size of the committee to be appointed...we just need to see if there are even any volunteers out there." [I can't decide if this is just unbridled enthusiasm, unseemly haste, or, as a few have suggested, an attempt to just know who might be on the committee before we decide how to construct it.] Holly says she has no objection to the "Bylaws Formation Group" putting out a call for volunteers "if they choose to do so." Phyllis volunteers to receive the names of volunteers and post them publicly. On January 22, Phyllis asks for permission to forward a call for volunteers and Holly reiterates that "if the Bylaws Committee Formation group wishes to do so, go for it." [This wording is crucial; see below for more on this]. During the discussion, some concern is expressed about fair representation on the committee itself. Tim Stowell wants to know who will represent the interests of the SPs and SCs if the committee members are all CCs. Responding to concerns that four Board member positions on the committee makes it rather top-heavy, Tina Vickery notes "by mere virtue of being an AB, SC/ASC, does that not make our voice any less within the project? The roles are different. Perhaps the numbers need adjustment, but whether the voice is CC, SC/ASC, Special Project, or AB, I do truly think that the entire USGenWeb Project Volunteer perspective be represented." She later notes "I have heard rumbling for a very long time now, that the SC's don't listen to the CC's, the CC's don't listen to the SC's, that we all need to facilitate a better relationship with the Special Projects, and heck for that matter, the AB listens to no one. I think it is very important now that we are given the chance to rework, re-craft, rewrite (whatever the proper word is) the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, that we bring to the table ALL of the players that will make it a working, workable document. Phyllis suggests some membership guidelines, if only to prevent the Bylaws committee from being _all_ Board members; Richard doesn't think this is necessary because "Board members are aware of the need to make this a broad-based committee that will take into account the views of the entire project." Ron Eason is also concerned that the committee represent all facets of the Project, although he allows as to how some adjustment of committee may be needed. Diane Parsons agrees with Ron, noting "We need all members represented on and by the BFC. Regardless of how the CC's view the AB, SP, SC & ASC these people deserve a chance to input their skills, knowledge & experiences into the project...We need adequate representation of all members or we will fail." Committee size and composition is debated. Basing her proposal on management consultant studies, Jana supports regional representation and suggests a committee size of nine [two members from each region and the NC as ex-officio]. Richard Harrison and Phyllis Rippee think a committee of 11 [10 members and the NC] would be appropriate and Richard suggests that the Board make the final selection if there are more than 10 volunteers. Kathy Heidel also thinks the committee size suggested in the report is too large and suggests "1 ex-officio, 2 AB members are enough or 1 AB and 1 SC, and the rest selected somewhat like the EC, by Regions. 2 or 3 at the most from each." She also suggests regional representation and that the Board select _all_ committee members similar to how it selects Mediation Panel members. Kathy later suggests "already percentage wise the Bylaws Committee is becoming overloaded with AB...I know there are CC's that are not being included because more familiar faces are selected and I personally feel this is wrong...If we can not fill the Bylaws Committee by region, then I personally feel that we choose from the "CC Volunteer Pool" no matter which Region they come from." [You see why this gets confusing.] Phyllis later notes that a committee half the size of the proposed committee [11 members] would be more feasible. Diane Parsons thinks "that 10 members is not enough. Maybe 20+ is too much, but 10 is not enough. The BFC has 4 parts, we need at least 4 per section. Three is not enough and more than 5 is too many. (per section)" Richard suggests that "No matter how we do this we won't please everyone. The point is to try to do what is best for the majority of the project and not to be distracted by the lunatic fringe." [Sadly, but not surprisingly, not a single Board member called Richard on this comment, not even the one who suggested only a couple of weeks ago that any Special Rules include provisions requiring Board members to be courteous to each other. I guess courtesy to the project membership does not rate the same level of concern.] Some procedural issues are also discussed. Phyllis points out that under Sturgis, special committees work until their work is finished and no time limit may be set. She is also opposed to a large committee dividing into smaller subcommittees [something suggested by Tim Stowell in an earlier message], and notes "I believe that this could get to be quite confusing, as all Articles must be compatible with each other." On January 22, Jana posts suggested wording for the proposed volunteers, noting that "Holly has given her permission". [This is presented not to the Bylaws "starter" committee as Holly directed, but to the Board. Jana is not a member of the Bylaws "starter" committee]. She and Phyllis Rippee discuss the wording of the call for volunteers. Phyllis doesn't think collecting info on anything but region is necessary but Jana wants county and page information so that she can judge whether volunteers are "clearly sincere and dedicated players in the Project." On January 23, the call for volunteers goes out to the -ALL, STATE-COORD, regional, and many state lists, and Phyllis posts a website of names of volunteers [http://members.getgoin.net/~wchs/Volunteers.htm] On January 24, Acting Chair Teresa Lindquist withdraws the call for volunteers, noting that it is premature, and apologizes to the project for any confusion. She refers it to the Bylaws "starter" committee for further action as originally directed by the NC. Phyllis removes the list of volunteer and instead posts a message informing people that the call for volunteers has been withdrawn by order of the "ACTING NC" [sic]. [Citing her free speech rights, Phyllis later publicly refuses to correct the incorrect information she has posted on her website.] After all this hullabaloo, Ron Eason finally notes "we are whittleing at this in a most unproductive manner. There should only be a few corrections to be made in this outline...we submitted this suggestion as a best means to set the Bylaws Revision Committee into motion. What we need to do is get it in operation, and yet we are still debating how many and how!...We debated the numbers and the way to select them...we have provided a well thought out plan for getting the committee to work......We don't have all year on this folks. I am not trying to ram anything down anyones throat, but the best time to have had this debate was when the call for volunteers to the BFC was called and only a few decided to join in. If everyone had been there, we could be past this now...We are debating this as though we have time. We do not. This committee is going to take a lot of time...Unless our objective is to try and not let them succeed, I would suggest that ideas of trying to rewrite this proposal, for whatever reason, be set aside." Kathy Heidel suggests scrapping the whole idea of revising the bylaws and finding a better use for our time. Phyllis notes that this will require a motion. Ron disagrees that the bylaws are fine as is and notes "There has been many an occasion that the Bylaws were used out of context and bad things have been perpetrated on good people because of it. If they had been sound from the beginning there would be no need to bother now." He suggests trying to obtain consensus on the various parts of the motion and then proceeding to a vote. Teresa and Jana bicker back and forth about page policing, subjective criteria and, fitness to serve on a committee. Jana is in favor of using pages to determine the "level of dedication and commitment to the Project the county pages show," and notes "My personal bias is to give more "voice weight" to those where content on county pages show that they are clearly sincere and dedicated players in the Project." Teresa considers this little more than page policing and suggests instead that "Rather than try and distill the wide range of contributions to this project made by its thousands of members into some objective criteria to determine their fitness to serve the project further [or worse, have some as yet undetermined number of people each applying their own sets of as yet undetermined criteria], I think it is more appropriate to apply the only bylaws supported criteria we have--that of membership in the project." [Fortunately, neither of us is likely to actually be selecting the committee members if the report passes as written, so this sad little discussion is moot.] Summing Up: Since this is a confusing topic and is very hard to follow, here is a summary posted of the "progress" so far: 1) Committee size: Suggestions range from a committee size of 9 to 22 (original report). The most popular suggestion is 10 plus the NC, with three or four Board members supporting a committee of that size. However, there are at least three Board members who think that committee size is too small. 2) Committee composition: Suggestions range from having all Committee members being CCs to having various numbers of CCs, SCs, SP, and AB members on the committee. There is no clear consensus on regional representation; some members have suggested that regional representation is not important, but most suggestions for membership include some variation of the phrase "x members from each region". There is no consensus on Board member participation in the committee. A couple of members have expressed concern about the committee being "top heavy", but others have argued in favor of including Board members on the committee. 3) The suggestion of an immediate call for volunteers was supported by five Board members and opposed by one; two Board members objected to the withdrawal of the call for volunteers. 4) Several Board members are opposed to the "all or none" method of approving volunteer slates. Again, it is a handful of Board members who have addressed it, but there have been no comments opposed to removing the procedure, and unless I missed it, none supporting the rationale for including it in the original report. Some suggestions have been made on how to choose among volunteers and appoint the final committee members; these have been similar in form to the method of selecting Mediation Panel members. 5) There have now been two broad suggestions regarding Motion 02-01: 1) to leave off the major attempts at amendment and accept the report more or less as is; and 2) to drop the idea of a bylaws revision committee entirely. [adapted from a post made to Board-L by Teresa Lindquist, 1/25/2002] Other Business: "Starter" Committees: Phyllis asks for a status report on the other committees [Publicity/Promotion, Guidelines]. Acting Chair: On January 23, Holly Timm notes that she will be away and have only unreliable internet access; she therefore names Teresa Lindquist as acting chair until her return on the evening of January 27. Procedural issues: A number of Board members indicate they are away from their computers over the weekend and ask that discussion be suspended while they are gone. Although there is a request for a postponement of Board business over the weekend, Teresa notes that there is a still a quorum of Board members and no postponement is necessary. Tim Stowell then decides to take the weekend off [in a transparent effort to force the meeting closed for lack of a quorum]; however, since Sturgis does allow meetings to proceed in the absence of a quorum, the meeting continues. GenTech: Tim Stowell posts a notice that GenTech will merge with the National Genealogical Society [http://www.gentech.org/gt02news/enews20020117.htm#announce]; we find it very kind of NGS to so graciously save GenTech from its own ineptitude.] Election Committee: Acting Chair Teresa Lindquist informs the Board that the Election Committee has re-elected Linda Haas Davenport as its Chair [big surprise] and has elected Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome as its secretary. GenTech: Holly Timm, Sunny Newsome and Tina Vickery are attending GenTech this weekend. Sunny Newsome has posted a few pictures of the USGenWeb Booth at: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~sunny/gentechbos/ Special Rules: No discussion. --- In Executive Session: no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: the committee discusses the call for volunteers for a few messages, the discussion is then dropped Guidelines "starter" committee: no activity === Cart Before the Horse Corner: At the time the disputed call for volunteers went out, this was the status of the discussion on part 2 of Motion 02-10: 1) No agreement had been reached on the size of the committee. There were several suggested sizes on the floor, ranging from 9 to 22 members; 2) no consensus had been reached on the composition of the committee. There were again several suggestions active on the floor, ranging from "all CCs" to various suggestions on how to adequately represent the various parts of the project fairly. At various times over the course of 24 hours, the same Board members have held different opinions on both numbers of members and on how to form the committee; 3) there wasn't even consensus that a call for volunteers was appropriate at the time. A grand total of five people thought an immediate call for volunteers was warranted, and suddenly it was a done deal, with no other input, no clear idea of what would be done with the information, and no real understanding as to why it was being collected. Here's how these events looked to me. I was unavoidably and unexpectedly offline for a couple of days. In that brief span of time, Holly opened discussion on part 2 of Motion 02-01 and there were some 55 messages on the topic. There was extensive discussion going off on many tangents in which many ideas for committee size and composition were suggested, but no one idea was accepted [at least openly] by any majority of Board members. At some point, an immediate call for volunteers was suggested, apparently in order to facilitate the Board's deliberations on committee size. Holly suggested that a call for volunteers would be acceptable if the Bylaws formation committee wanted to do it, and *poof* a call for volunteers was dispatched without further ado. I come back from my two day exile and find that not only is a turbulent discussion raging, but an important decision been made and action been taken by a couple of Board members acting more or less alone and assuming the approval of both the Board and the committee whose decision it should have been. _And_ I am unexpectedly acting as Chair in Holly's absence. I considered this situation, determined that Holly's intent was pretty clear and that her instruction had not been followed, and I withdrew the call for volunteers. Both Phyllis and Jana objected to my actions based on their reading of Sturgis, although neither challenged Holly's direction when it was given. Perhaps I am obtuse, but if the NC made a mistake in a direction given to the Board, the correct procedure at that point is to raise a point of order, not just charge off and do whatever it is one wants to do. I doubt either of them even saw the part of the message that directs the issue to the "Bylaws Formation Group." Given that Holly repeated it twice I would have thought it was pretty clear, but somehow the part where Holly says "I don't see why the ByLaws Formation Group can't go ahead and call for volunteers if they choose to do so," was transformed into "Holly has said it is OK." Neither of them were too concerned with their study of Sturgis until the call for volunteers was withdrawn; then of course they used it not to question their own actions but to question the direction of the NC and the acting Chair. Four days later, neither has raised a point of order on the matter and there it sits. Something that has fascinated me for some time about Board mechanics [or maybe USGenWeb Project mechanics in general] is the immediate weight given to suggestions that have very little overt support. In this case, a call for volunteers was suggested, a few Board members thought it was a great idea, and it was done in less than 48 hours with the total input of five Board members [slightly more than a third of the current Board membership]. There was not much discussion by the Board, there was none by the Bylaws starter committee to which it was directed, and there was certainly no vote by either of these groups. Yet somehow in the course of a handful of emails in a space less than 24 hours this idea got transformed into something more than an idea, a mandate perhaps, or a fiat. The same thing is happening with committee size. A few folks think 10 is a good size, but a whole lot more either think that is too small or have not commented. Yet those few who think 10 is a good size are proceeding as if that were the final decision. Directions are given to amend the text of the document to read "10 members" and that sort of thing. We've seen this before when a failure to immediately amend a motion when one board member requests a change turns into charges of foot dragging or stonewalling. It is perhaps a misfortunate sequela of the fact that some of us are louder than others, loud enough sometimes that we don't hear what others are saying or what their silence can tell us. *shrug* So it goes. === "Be good and you will be lonesome." ---Mark Twain This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2002 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From: merope Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:17 pm Subject: Fwd: FW: Change in RootsWeb organization FYI. Jake is apparently going over to HeritageQuest. -Teresa >>Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:10 PM >>To: FYI ALL >>Subject: Change in RootsWeb organization - resend >> >> >> > We are saddened to announce the resignation of Jake Gehring as >> > Director of RootsWeb. Jake has been a wonderful contributor to the >> > company for the past six years and we will miss him. >> > Effective immediately, Laryn Brown will be the Director of >> > RootsWeb. Laryn has worked extensively with the RootsWeb team in the >> > past and brings tremendous experience and talent to this job. Laryn >> > was most recently responsible for the very successful UK and Ireland >> > product. >> > We look forward to the ongoing growth in the RootsWeb community >> > and appreciate the tremendous work of all those that work on RootsWeb >> > projects. Thanks again to Jake and we wish him well. >> > >> > Gary Gibb >> > VP/Executive Site Producer >> > MyFamily.com >> > 801-705-7051 >> > GGIBB@MYFAMILYINC.COM