JUNE 2005 DBS

Thursday, June 30, 2005
Lives of Quiet Desperation
Keel-hauled...its Your Daily Board Show!

BECAUSE I'M THE MOM AND I SAY SO: Even though the Board is more or less adjourned,
Angie and Shari continue their discussion of the pending Grievance Committee. Shari claimed that
"the call for volunteers does not recreate the GPC, it merely repopulates it," that the new version
of the committee will use the same list and that the membership will be allowed to subscribed to
it. Angie didn't buy this load of whatever and noted "...there are currently 5 AB members on the
committee, specifically mentioned by name...Your email specifies 2 AB members on the
committee -- planning to throw off 3 of the 5? Or are you throwing off all 5 and starting
over?...either action requires a new motion...If a request from the committee chair to change the
status of the email list requires a new motion because the list status was specified in the motion,
then on what grounds may the NC "re-populate" a committee with an entirely different makeup?"

Shari, busy reminding people over on DISCUSS that their rights end where she says they do,
apparently had no time to respond to these questions.

BRING OUT THE GIMP: New DISCUSS Dominatrix Shari Handley has wasted no time in
getting medieval on members of the Project's so-called "discussion" list. In a conversation in
which Karen Mitchell made an actual helpful suggestion about list message taglines, and an
apparently deranged Tina "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" Vickery attacked her for it and then turn around
and attacked the Board for making her choose between the list and her job at the EC, Derek
Nichols somehow managed to again get himself "permanently unsubscribed." List members who
noted that "free speech" is an oxymoron on DISCUSS are now getting warnings to keep their
mouths shut if they have problems with the list rules, and to go somewhere else if the right to
speak their mind is important to them. On DISCUSS, the only free speech is the kind that pleaseth
Shari Handley.

LOOKING UP: There is, we are pleased to report, some good news from the OHGenWeb.
Something or someone appears to have finally gotten through to SC Sandra Quinn and we may
dare to hope that things are turning a corner. Yesterday, Sandra posted a long explanatory
message about why certain counties have been delinked and/or put up for adoption, and included
a nice apology for all the mistakes she's made and distress she's caused in the last couple of weeks.
All counties with active CCs have been relinked. A CC or two are helping her understand how the
list management tools at Root$web work and it appears that everyone who should be on the state
mailing list is now resubscribed with full posting rights. There has been no further talk of
moderation or delinkings, or of "national", for that matter, although Sandy says she is still going
through counties to award them her little golden trophy award. Even Lorraine has shown up on
the state list being friendly and helpful, even if she appears unclear about what state she is actually
in [Ohio is the Buckeye State, not the "Great Lake State."] Although there is still deep concern
about the loss of a state general discussion list, many CCs seem willing to accept Sandra's apology
at face value and try to work with her in the hopes they and she can undo the damage that has
been done. There is talk of working up formal state guidelines once things get calmed down, so
that everyone knows their duties and rights and these sorts of problems can be avoided in the
future.

We do note, however, that the vote stacking in OHGW has commenced. One of the abandoned
counties has been taken over by Lorraine Newsome, who has invited Holly Timm into the state as
her co-CC. Holly appears to live her entire social life on the #usgenweb channel, cavorting with
the likes of Lorraine, Tina Vickery, Betsy Mills, and Shari Handley. Holly learned the hard way
what kind of person she has to be to keep her "friends" in the "in crowd" and she appears to have
learned her lesson quite well indeed. She'll be a very safe and reliable vote in any upcoming
OHGW business.

SEE YA: Since its a holiday and the Board is off partying, unless something interesting happens
the DBS will most likely not publish the next few days. You all have a fun and festive Fourth of
July!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
What its all coming to since 1998

posted by merope at 8:30 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Rocket Science
Like buying a pig in a poke...its Your Daily Board Show!

WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN: After Shari belatedly dismissed her grievance committee
motion as out of order, Angie posted the following:

"...you're incorrect...the previous motion which formed the GPC has not been rescinded...But you
did NOT issue a call for volunteers to "re-populate" the GPC. issued a call for volunteers that
totally re-creates the GPC...the committee is already in place, and there are 5 AB members on the
committee. Those...members were specifically listed in the original motion, and cannot be
unceremoniously tossed out on their ear by executive decree. The original motion also specified
how the work was to be conducted -- on an list open to the membership -- which is no longer
mentioned....I'd like to point out, that list was closed without notice to any of the
participants...how can it be out of order to propose a motion that adds members to the existing
committee and requires the creation of a list for them to use? On what grounds are you ruling this
out of order?"

In response to these important questions and pertinent observations, Shari adjourned the Board
until July 5th.

RTFM: EC Chair Tina Vickery [who can lately be seen whining on DISCUSS about how ill she's
been used by everyone and how unappreciated she is] posted an announcement about the
upcoming elections. All you registered voters out there should be receiving your passwords in a
few days and the election will open on July 1. Pay careful heed to all the instructions included
with your ballot; apparently the EC came up with a ballot for the logos that might result in some
people who don't follow instructions losing their vote on that most critical issue. The EC has also
finally posted links to all the candidates' web pages [at least those that bothered to make them];
these can be seen here:


http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/national-2005/candidates-index.html

DEVIL ON YOUR SHOULDER: The OHGenWeb continues to fall ever deeper into chaos and
despair. Yesterday, there were hopeful signs that the beleaguered SC, Sandra Quinn, would
accept the help of some of the CCs who are more skilled than she at the intricacies of Root$web
list management, but shortly after the happy news was announced, she abruptly changed her mind.
Our little bird friends tell us that although the CCs have shown remarkable forebearance, Sandra
has met every overture with suspicion, indignation, and stubborn insistence that she has the
"backing of National" for everything she does. The CCs are at last beginning to realize that
Sandra has someone whispering in her ear, and that someone is more than likely her new best
friend, Lorraine Newsome. Lorraine volunteered to serve as Sandra's Assistant State Coordinator
almost as soon as the ink on the ballots dried, and has remained quietly in the shadows throughout
all the hubbub. She has not apparently offered Sandra any help with her list management issues or
any council on how to be an effective SC. She is the originator of the "unofficial" roll call
conducted off the state mailing list and the creator of the incomplete and inaccurate list of CCs
that Sandra used when she began her infamous "delinking" a week or so ago. Many of Sandra's
emails to her distaught CCs have specifically defended Lorraine, even though Lorraine has not
been mentioned by name or job title in any of them. Lorraine has been described as Shari
Handley's "best friend" [an ephemeral concept in USGenWeb, to be sure], and she's deep among
the crowd that spends its evenings in "chitty chatty" on the #usgenweb channel on Root$web's
IRC. What is perhaps more important is that she has a reputation as the Board's "go to" person
when they need someone to take over counties in states they want to keep an eye one. She's a
relative newcomer to OHGW and hasn't been overly active on the lists.

We don't usually go looking for conspiracies, but consider this one for a bit. Although many
people have assumed Sandra is a "ringer" and always intended to do the Board's bidding, we think
its more likely that she is [and was when she ran for office] an unknown quantity, both to OHGW
and to the national level administration, and in USGW the unknown is dangerous. OHGW has
been a burr under their saddle for a long time, mostly due to issues the Board had with its former
SC, and we are fairly sure that the Board wants to secure the state. So Lorraine, who is a bosom
buddy to most of the usual suspects, manages to get on Sandy's shoulder before anyone else does,
secures the job of ASC, and immediately begins an "unofficial" roll call, outside of official
channels, and refuses to use the complete and vetted list of CC email addresses recently compiled
the by state's election team. The subsequent delinkings, relinkings, moderations and unsubscribes,
and all the resulting turmoil have effectively served to disrupt and split the state. The SC is flailing
around incoherently. The CCs have formed an alternate list, where the despair is almost palpable.
At every opportunity, Sandra cites the support of "national" and the slightest hopeful moves
toward compromise and working together are suddenly and very suspiciously rescinded. [Its as if
she is running them past someone for their approval and not getting it.] It is obvious that Sandra
thinks her CCs don't have her or OHGW's best interests at heart; who do you think is encouraging
that? Is it farfetched to consider that this situation is exactly what "National" wants? If they can
dissuade Sandra from working with her own people, all of whom pretty much want to put this
past them and get back to a quiet, peaceful, and harmonious existence, then they can, in one way
or another, retain control of the state. "Problem" CCs will resign, leaving counties open that
Lorraine and/or "national" can recommend CCs for. Eventually the CCs will be fed up with the
gross mismanagement and abuse and try to force a recall or a new election. Sandra may remain as
"National's" puppet with Lorraine at her right hand, she may give up and resign, or the situation
may get so out of hand that the Board feels it must apply the "Georgia solution". In any case, the
Board will have its flunky in a position of authority long enough to get rid of troublesome CCs,
put more amenable CCs in their place, and ensure that the OHGW joins the ranks of controllable
state projects. You don't think they play politics this way? Take a look at what happened to
GAGenWeb.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Born to run since 1998

posted by merope at 7:20 AM 7 comments   
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Emporer Has No Clothes
Comes in 52 flavors...its Your Daily Board Show!

BECAUSE I SAY SO: After five days and several questions as to the status of the motion, Shari
finally declared Angie and Bettie's grievance committee motion out of order, noting "The previous
motion which formed the Grievance Procedures Committee has not been rescinded...The call for
volunteers to re-populate the GPC has already gone out and the process is in motion."

[She apparently got this idea from Board parliamentarian and lapdog, Roger Swafford, who has
also been busy counseling the OHGenWeb CCs that they are SOL with regards to getting
something done about their rogue SC.]

This action is hardly a surprise; Shari's really not interested in having a participatory grievance
procedures committee. All she's really interested in is a rubber-stamp group that will pass Ellen's
proposal before the end of her term. Time is getting short for her to leave a permanent scar on the
Project.

OVER IN THIS CORNER: The situation in OHGenWeb is not improving. The SC, Sandra
Quinn, has rejected the overtures of a Board member to help resolve the problems, and is now
blaming the disruption entirely on the people that ran against her in the SC election a few months
ago. She still claims to have the full backing and support of the National Coordinator and
Root$web in her project and list management decisions, and although she has removed the lame
Jeff Foxworthy quotes from the OHGW state page, she still insists on moderating the
"trouble-makers", a group that gets larger every time she opens her mouth. Apparently she is
unfamiliar with OHGW's code of ethics and other rules passed by the CCs over the years, and
seems to feel that in any case the opinion of the NC overrules them. Very few emails have
appeared on the OHGW state list in recent days, and several people have noted that even the most
bland comments are not permitted to go through. Recently Sandy has admitted being unable to
manage the list [the technical aspects are beyond her] and has unsubscribed everyone from the
OHGW state list so that she can start over. Unfortunately, she started the unsubscribes before
everyone got the message that she was going to unsubscribe them. Although its reported that
she's relinked nearly everyone she unlinked last week, she still claims to be sorting out who is in
the project and who is not. And scariest of all, in her emails she sounds more and more flustered
and defensive. That does not bode well for the project.

Meanwhile, over in TNGenWeb, in a fairly quiet and apparently well-managed election, State
Coordinator Mari Byers was nearly unanimously re-elected.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Working for the weekend since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Leading By Example
This will go down on your permanent record...its Your Daily Board Show!

BECAUSE WE SAY SO: Never let anyone tell you the USGenWeb Advisory Board can't handle
the tough stuff and get the job done. Do we have a privacy policy yet? Well...no. Do we have a
policy statement on data repositories? Ummm..no. Do we have a fair, impartial, and timely
grievance procedure in place? No. Does the Board ever get to half the items on its monthly
agenda? No. Did they manage to follow their own instructions and arrange a special election in a
timely fashion so that the BRC amendments could go on the ballot? Well, again no. But do we
have clarity on the eligibility cutoff date for candidates in national elections? Yes! Very early this
morning, Shari Handley declared Motion 05-11 passed with 13 YES votes, and noted "The
cut-off date for determining length-of-service eligibility for our regular yearly elections has now
been clarified as June 30th." Here in the DBS newsbunker, we are already sleeping better.

Although clearly online last night, Shari neither acknowledged nor numbered the motion made by
Angie and seconded by Bettie to establish another Grievance Procedures Committee. It has been
four days since the motion was seconded. But damn, we have clarity on the eligiblity date! That's
something!

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT: A couple of candidates, Phyllis
Rippee and Angie Rayfield, withdrew from their respective races. Phyllis published a dramatic set
of emails on several lists and then unsubbed from all of them. [While we do hope that nothing
untoward has happened to her or hers, in our experience, Phyllis is both a drama queen and an
attention hound. So we aren't too overly worried. She didn't give up her counties, and we suspect
she'll be back.] Angie apparently just sent a message to Tina "Gatekeeper" Vickery a few days ago
and that was that. [Her departure leaves a very sorry field of NC candidates, and makes the
obvious choice of Don Kelly even more obvious.]

FOR WHAT ITS WORTH: Don Kelly is now claiming that his unresponsivenes and failure to
participate in the Grievance Committee working group is because he was in "backup status" and
therefore wasn't supposed to participate. It took us some time to realize that he's referring to the
fact that he was named as a alternate way back in February when Shari initially tried [and failed]
to establish a grievance committee. [Bettie and Jan were also alternates.] We note that the motion
establishing the Grievance Committee working group in March did not differentiate among the six
volunteers in terms of their "active" status, and Don did freely participate in the early days of the
working group. Apparently it just occurred to him recently that he was supposed to be "backup";
this is the first time we've seen him make this particular argument in public.

MORE TO COME: Damn, OHGenWeb is getting crazy. Reports today are that the "roll call" that
everyone was supposed to have received and responded to back in April was not sent to the
OHGW list, but was sent privately to the CCs by ASC Lorraine Newsome, who specifically said it
was "unofficial". Several CCs who have since been delinked now claim to have never received it.
Its also been alleged that after her election, Sandra Quinn requested and received some general
information OHGW sites from members. The stipulation was that she would not use their work
on the sites, but the members are now claiming that work they did is still posted, but their names
are no longer on it. Several CCs have quietly contacted Board members both within the region
and without it and have reported that those members are both monitoring the situation and willing
to intervene with the SC on the CCs' behalf.

Sherri Hall must be happy as a bee in clover these days. No one is paying any attention to her
mismanagement of KYGenWeb anymore.

BONUS QUOTE O' THE DAY: "This is one of the twelve things on my growing list that I will
form a committee to look into. I have from the beginning generally supported this idea, but have
yet to surround all of the facts." --Don Kelly


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not clear on the concept since 1998

posted by merope at 6:50 AM 2 comments   
Friday, June 24, 2005
Meddling In The Affairs of Dragons
Not to be taken internally...its Your Daily Board Show!

TURNING BLUE: Shari has not yet numbered Angie's motion regarding the establishment of a
grievance procedures committee. Perhaps she is hoping that if it is ignored, it will go away.

CRAZY, STUPID...TAKE YOUR PICK: The situation only gets worse in OHGenWeb. Sandy is
obviously and admittedly taking marching orders from National Coordinator Shari Handley, who
for some reason most likely not having to do with the good of USGenWeb is apparently
encouraging her to abuse and humiliate everyone who disagrees with her. The following message
went out over the OH state list yesterday:

"The welcome message was composed by and is used by the National Coordinator of USGenWeb
and I followed through on her suggestion that I send this to you all...this list is
administrative...feel free to use the list to announce info concerning your counties websites, NOT
to inflame or to cause disruptions to OHGenWeb duties. Those CC's will be moderated."

Sandy has also told several CCs that have written to express their dismay at the turn things have
taken in OHGW that she is in direct contact with the NC, that actions taken against CCs,
including unsubs and removals, are done under the authority of the NC, and that the NC has
encouraged her to jettison anyone who disagrees with her. We have a hard time believing that the
NC would want to encourage a repeat of the GAGenWeb fiasco, but then again, its clear she and
the new ASC are using the Sandy to sweep the OHGW clear of undesirables. Why they are
undesirable is anyone's guess; the state has been one of the quieter states since before dirt was
young and it does not have a high dissident content. That will change though. There is already
talk of another election, grievances, a mass protest to the Board, and a recall attempt. Every
delinking and unsubbing makes the situation that less likely to be resolved amicably, and again, we
just do not understand why the NC would concern herself so deeply in the workings of a state
project or why she would encourage such inflexible, authoritarian, and unproductive behavior in
the SC. Then again, after seeing her philosophy on the management of the Project's discussion list,
maybe its not so surprising after all. She is, as someone even more eloquent than ourselves noted,
"orchestrating a purge."

In the last day at least four people have been summarily unsubscribed from the state list and more
counties have been declared abandoned. No mail has come through on the state list since the
above comment went out, although several OHGW members have sent messages encouraging
Sanda to reconsider, to be reasonable, and to follow the guidelines put in place by vote of the
CCs. Some have been harsh, but some have been very encouraging and friendly. Doesn't matter
though; all have been unsubbed. Some CCs have been delinked for being "nonresponsive" in one
county, but left alone in another. Some CCs have no clear idea why they delinked, as they were
delinked without any communication whatsoever with the SC. Some of the delinked actually
complied with all the instructions and were delinked anyways. None were given the notice
required by state guidelines. As several CCs have pointed out, Sandy is in direct and
documentable violation of the state guidelines and code of ethics put into place by the CCs over
the course of the project's history. Golly, the last time that happened, we had us a trial.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Jaded since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Cerca, Trova
More fun than a barrel full of monkeys...its Your Daily Board Show!

BORING STUFF: Motion 05-11 has passed, with 13 members thus far voting YES. Eight of the
members noted while voting that they "understand" that the motion is meant to apply only to the
regular July election. This is because they couldn't be bothered to amend and vote on a proper
motion, so they were asked by the NC to append a short statement to that effect with their vote.
Presumably the five who declined to do so don't have the same understanding. We wonder how
long it will be before no one remembers this "understanding" and the words of the motion are all
that remain. And also how long it will be before this causes problems.

Angie Rayfield moved "I move that the current grievance procedures committee (members: Betsy
Mills, Angie Rayfield, Jan Cortez, Denise Woodside, Don Kelly) be enlarged to add 5 members,
to be chosen from volunteers from the project membership, with the slate approved by the
Advisory Board, and that any future vacancies in the procedures committee be filled by project
volunteers. I further move that the National Coordinator request a permanent e-mail list be set up
for the use of the grievance procedures committee, to be turned over to the future Grievance
Committee for their use when procedures are in place. The list discussions will be archived, and
permanently open to all project members on a read-only basis; during the discussion of grievance
procedures, the list may be opened for posting by all subscribers by majority vote of the
procedures committee." Bettie seconded the motion. [We predict that this will be ruled out of
order in short order.]

INTERESTING STUFF: Sometimes when the Board is really dull and uninteresting in public,
they are actually quite entertaining in Sekrit. Today's Super Fun Quote issue of the DBS features,
direct from the Sekrit Sandbox [which alternately doesn't exist, or is never, ever used], a number
of quotes from actual Board members. For those of you whom get hives upon the slightest whiff
of editorializing, the following are offered without any commentary whatsoever. They pretty
much speak for themselves.

"I'm going to do my best for the short time left in this term. They may wish they had Tina back . .
. I'm a lame duck with an attitude, and I ain't got nothin' to lose...Bottom line is I don't really care
if someone who acts like a jerk on the list is mad that they get moderated or unsubbed." --Shari
Handley, discussing DISCUSS

"As for putting anything on hold pending handling of the grievance, I wouldn't count on
it....These grievances are a stupid waste of time and no one wants to handle them in a timely
manner...they are meaningless by the time someone gets around to them. I don't have the power
to push them through. My job is only to keep track of them and frankly, I am embarrassed by the
way they are not being handled." --Betsy Mills

"I understand that the list we were using is needed for a mediation. I think it would have caused
less confusion if a note had been posted to the list before people were unsubscribed, since there
was a number of people that aren't privy to the EXEC discussion and had no idea what was
coming...I'm a little concerned...because it sure does seem like there's some selective remembering
going on here. I suggested opening the list to full discussion, and was summarily shot down and
told that it would require a new motion...it's going totally ignored that the suggestion to solicit
new volunteers also requires a new motion...We need a new motion to entertain a request from
the chair to open the discussion more fully, but we don't need a motion to disband the
committee...and start over again?...One of the objections to moving forward and appointing a
permanent committee was the idea that somehow all the work would be thrown out the window
(not that anyone on the committee worked all that much), even though the defeated motion would
have retained the work done by the project members that volunteered their time and ideas. Is it
now just fine to start all over by tossing it all out the window and creating a new procedures
committee?" --Angie Rayfield

"Shari provided me with the list of mediators and asked that I assign them in order for the
outstanding grievances...as follows:
Jan Cortez - [A] vs. [Y]
Darilee Bednar - [B] vs. [Z]
Bettie Wood - [C] vs. [Z]
Denise Woodside - [D] vs. [Y]
...request a list from Shari, provide the names that will be subbed, and she will set you up...keep
the board apprised as to the progress of the mediation here on the board-exec list." --Betsy Mills,
coordinating those grievances

[Yeah, I removed the names, sorry. Bettie's grievance has already been withdrawn. Turns out the
complainant hadn't actually filed a grievance, but had inquired about how to do so. So she's off
the hook. She's also resigned as a mediator. Something about being too busy for it.]

SCARY STUFF: Here's the the latest from the OHGW SC Sandra Quinn:

"...I was sent email from Rootsweb that this list is an Administrative list for me to use to
disseminate information and for Cc's to share important news dealing with their county...If the list
was used for discussion and grievances in the past, this use was against the focus of the OHGen
Administrative list...The focus of this list is administrative. I have used this list for administrative
work at OHGenWeb. If you wish to create a discussion list at rootsweb please feel free to do
so...Yesterday the National Coordinator suggested I send a new announcement about this, our
OHGen administrative list to the group which I will do as it seems that some of this group do not
realize the focus of the OHGen list."

Reports are that more people have been removed from the official and required OHGen list for
their comments on it, which kind of makes you wonder how these people will respond to her
frequent "respond or else" roll calls. Sandra has also apparently been taking a page from the Shari
Handley school of management. According to a member of OHGenWeb, "The new SC for Ohio
admitted that she has been communicating with the NC about what she can and cannot do in
Ohio. She has also confessed that the NC told her she could "fire" any CC that she determined
was disruptive even if they otherwise meet all the requirements. I've never known that an SC
needed direction from the NC, but that is what is really going on." A new discussion list for
OHGW has been started, independent of the SC and not Root$web. We'll see how long that lasts.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST STUFF: As a final lagniappe today, we have learned that Tim Stowell
is no longer allowed to vote in USGenWeb. Apparently that was a Sekrit punishment bestowed
upon him by the Board, as we cannot find it anywhere listed in the transcripts of his trial or in the
Board minutes. They really never do know when to let up, do they?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
All dressed up and nowhere to go since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 4 comments   
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Into The Fire
We warned you...its Your Daily Board Show!

KISS OFF: A couple of Board members fell all over themselves to thank Tina for her hard work
censoring project volunteers on the DISCUSS list. Darilee noted how it "tough" it was for Tina
monitoring all those posts, and commiserated with her over "the hours you put in monitoring the
posts...[and] the effort it must have taken to not lash out at people who verbally attacked you for
doin' the job that was expected of you."

Although Denise Woodside offered to administer the list until Shari could find a replacement for
Tina, Shari decided to take on the mantle of DISCUSS Dominatrix her own self. After also
thanking Tina for her "many years of service," she noted "Under your leadership,
USGENWEB-DISCUSS has not often, and not for long, veered off into the free-for-all feeding
frenzy that we often saw on the old USGENWEB-ALL list...for the time remaining in my term as
NC...that will remain the case. I will admin the list myself for the remainder of my term...the new
NC can then choose a new admin his- or herself...It is my hope that this new admin would also be
someone who would demand the highest standards for posting to the list and not allow it to
dissolve into a place that causes the everyday CC to recoil in horror." [Well, I dunno. A whole lot
of us are recoiling in horror right now. Shari's second post to DISCUSS this afternoon was a
reiteration of Tina's rules, including the one telling you what you can put in your sig file. Things
truly do go from bad to worse in this Project. It must be our curse.]

Shari Handley opened the voting on Motion 05-11; thus far two Board members have voted YES.

PROPS TO THE COMPETITION: Darilee Bednar has started up her little Board newsletter that
she sporadically published over a few months back in the winter. She touched on some interesting
things in the issue she released yesterday. She mentioned Tina's resignation and Scott Burow's
recent selection as the replacement for the fired Richard Howland. Darilee also updated us on the
status of the FGS 2006 conference track. She noted "The selection has been decided. Last I heard
was 40 plus proposal submitted... with only 20 possible classes." We think this is excellent news,
but we are perplexed as to why we have not heard this great news from our National Coordinator.
We would think as much as she enjoys cheerleading, she'd have been right on this.

Darilee also touched on the matter of grievances, a topic that is causing some consternation on
the alternate CC list. According to Darilee, "Grievances...are still a major issue for the AB.
Grievance committee work...has tied up much of the energy within the AB. Currently Mediators
from within the AB have been appointed to several grievances." This is very interesting. We've all
heard Betsy, Don, and others claim there is a huge backlog of grievances. This apparently massive
pile of woe has supposedly caused the Board to seek about for a new way of handling them.
Some claim that the backlog is growing while the Board waits for this magic to happen. Others
say, no, no, we are mediating them while we work on something new. Then we hear that the
mediators won't mediate and that the Grievance Coordinator has had to assign four or five other
Board members to mediate grievances. And today, Linda Davenport claims she was told in
passing by a non-Board member that "they couldn't understand why so many people were talking
about a backlog of grievances when there were only two." Two. Hmmm...if its the two we know
about from Kentucky, they have been languishing for months. If its not the two from Kentucky,
then what happened to the two from Kentucky? Darilee says "several" mediators have recently
been assigned, which makes no sense if there are only two grievances, unless they are
tag-teaming. It all gets very confusing, and makes one wonder exactly why all the obfuscation. As
a couple of people have noted, there is absolutely no reason that the project cannot know exactly
the number of grievances currently unresolved before the Board. But wait, there's more...

OUR READERS WRITE: Jan Cortez has taken great offense to our observation that the backlog
is growing because the mediators won't do their jobs. She wrote an impassioned letter to the SW
list, apparently directed at us, noting "the people you noted above were the original mediators and
the very same ones that the grievances were assigned to *YESTERDAY* for the very FIRST
time in this term. Did I refuse to do the one I was assigned. NO, I did not, but rather sent notes to
those involved *YESTERDAY* the same day that it was assigned to me...One does not grab a
grievance as it comes in the door...It has to be assigned by powers much greater than
me...Innuendo is not good journalism and if you are going to report...report the facts!"

We'd certainly be happy to report facts whenever possible, but the administration of the
USGenWeb Project does not make that an easy thing to do. In fact, they actually appear to be
lately going out of their way to confuse and misdirect whenever possible. However, if you would
like some facts, here are a few:

On June 19, Betsy received the outstanding grievance list from Shari and assigned grievances to
four of the currently listed mediators. The mediators assigned were Jan, Denise, Bettie, and
Darilee. Two of the grievances assigned involve KYGenWeb and one of them is over 6 months
old [its been previously reported on in the DBS]. The other two grievances involve the DISCUSS
list. One of the defendants is an SC and was named as a party due to her actions as an SC, one is
an SC but is named as a party for actions stemming from her other duties within the project, and
all four of the plaintiffs are or were CCs. All four of the assigned mediators have severe conflicts
of interest with at least one of the defendants [one of them has recently expressed a great deal of
support and sympathy for her and was assigned to handle a grievance involving her]; most would
also probably have equally severe conflicts of interest with two of the plaintiffs.

In addition to this, Jan reports that she has been assigned only two grievances in the last year; one
she was assigned a year ago and withdrew from due to a conflict of interest [this is probably the
one where she then turned around and served as an advisor to one of the parties], and the one she
was assigned on June 19. Shari Handley reports that there are four unresolved grievances and all
four have been assigned to mediators, but refused to answer any further questions on the matter,
including why it has taken over six months to assign a moderator to the KYGW grievance. A
Board member who wishes to remain anonymous cautions us that Shari does not consider recent
grievances to be part of the backlog. This same person told us that one of the current defendants
is the reason why Betsy's proposal to the working group included a provision that "serial
grievance filers" could be denied the right to have their grievances heard at the discretion of the
proposed Grievance Committee.

We apologize for any errors in previous reports.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not amused since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 4 comments   
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Crazy Is As Crazy Does
It just keeps getting weirder...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Although there is an open motion on the floor for discussion, Board
members moved back to discussing the Grievance Committee issue. Angie Rayfield took issue
with Shari's abrupt call for volunteers for a new committee, noting "Betsy's idea would also
require a new motion. The original motion didn't just say "volunteers," it specified the members."
Don Kelly, however, disagreed: "Betsy is a member of the GC and...it seems entirely appropriate
to me...that she efficiently assign tasks to members and gather more volunteers to help meet the
caseload...This in my book doesn't appear to call for yet another motion. Can't we...just move this
process along? There is a big pile to move and sooner we start the sooner we finish."

[Oy. Here we go again. Number 1: we don't have a Grievance Committee for Betsy to be a
member of. The closest thing we have is the apparently defunct working group. Betsy is the
Grievance Coordinator. Number 2: Angie is/was the chair of the work group; why should Betsy's
ideas about committee formation take precedence over those of the Chair? Number 3: Any
volunteers garnered by this solicitation won't "help meet the caseload"; they'll be spending months
trying to come up with workable grievance procedures. If this were all that is going on the case
load will languish as it is doing now. But see below. Don is being very coy here.]

On a side note, we were summarily unsubbed from the working group list last night. Either we are
special once again, or the list is being closed. If its the latter, we note with regret that the NC has
not even bothered with the traditional and pro forma extension of thanks to the chair of the
working group. Regardless of what one thinks of the proposal Angie submitted to the Board, it
did take a lot of work and time.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR: In the biggest news to come down the pike in months,
Tina Vickery has resigned from list administrator of the DISCUSS list, effective immediately and
citing "the best interests of the USGenWeb Project." There was no traffic on DISCUSS after her
announcement, so its possible that the list was put on moderated status pending the appointment
of a new administrator. The celebration on the alternate CC list has, however, been downright
unseemly. We can't help but think that the festivities are a bit premature. Shari is not likely to
appoint anyone to run that list who will be any better than Tina. In fact, we think we are likely to
get someone a whole lot worse. We are also not convinced that Tina won't be back. She's
resigned before and been persuaded that it really is in the best interests of the USGenWeb Project
that she continue to manage the list in her own special way.

We are curious as to what prompted this. Tina has calmly weathered far worse storms in her
tenure as the Dominatrix of DISCUSS. About the only thing we can imagine encouraging her to
head for the door is if the Board itself questioned her management decisions. We now wonder if
those Board members that Keith Giddeon contacted might have done something with the
complaint other than round-filing it.

BEHIND THE SCENES: What Don is referring to above when he says that there is "a big pile to
move" is all the grievances that aren't getting done. As it turns out, the reason they aren't getting
done isn't because we don't have a grievance committee or grievance procedures to handle them
as keeps getting implied, its because the mediators refuse to do the work they volunteered for.
One of our feathered friends tells us that the five current mediators [Darilee, Jan, Bettie, Cyndie,
and Denise] "can't be bothered" with them and that Betsy has had to assign several others to
mediate grievances in their stead. This has apparently caused the backlog to grow to epic
proportions and we are given to understand that Betsy has pretty much had it up to here with the
whole thing. Now, we actually applaud Betsy's efforts to move things along; a couple of the
grievances are from KYGW and they have been on the backlog for months. But it does strike us
as a bit odd that 1) mediators who do not wish to or cannot perform functions for which they
volunteered don't step aside and let someone else volunteer; and 2) why our National Coordinator
doesn't fire them and request a new pool of volunteer mediators that may be more interested in
the job. It is also the case that USGenWeb has a set of policies and procedures for choosing and
assigning mediators, and nowhere in that document do we see anything that reads "Betsy shall
assign other mediators as she sees fit." We can certainly understand the Board's desire to save
face in this situation by pretending alternately that all is well or that all will be well when we have
a grievance committee in place. But we also wonder why, when we have a procedure in place, it
is not being followed and why the membership is not being told that grievances are stalled because
the mediators won't mediate. At the very least, the policy requires that mediator names be publicly
posted. We just checked the list and guess what? The same five Board members are the only
mediators listed. If the Board can live with publicly shaming members, it would seem it could live
with publicly shaming its own. After all, some of these people are running for office.

AND NOW BACK TO OHIO: Not to be outdone by the ongoing shenanigans in KYGW,
OHGW SC Sandra Quinn has made a bold move to take the lead in the Crazy SC Sweepstakes.
Yesterday she started unsubscribing people from the required state mailing list who have criticized
her recent actions. In a message to the list she told her CCs in no uncertain terms: "this is not a
discussion list, it is a place for me the state administrator to disseminate important OHGenWeb
and USGenWeb information to all of you...If you have something personal to say please do not
post it to this list but email me directly. CC's who fail to comply will be moderated from the list."
[Now, where have we heard that before?] In the same message, she also noted that she considers
"delinking" counties to be one of her "main responsibilities". Apparently she intends to fulfill that
mission with a passion.

BONUS QUOTE O' THE DAY: "Sturgis.....HELP." --Don Kelly, admitting defeat?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Differentially equated since 1998

posted by merope at 6:05 PM 2 comments   
Monday, June 20, 2005
Blame Canada
Monday comes too quick...its Your Daily Board Show!

THAT'S ENOUGH OF THAT: Shari Handley agreed with Betsy Mills that reforming the
Grievance Committee working group with new members "makes sense" and issued the following
call for volunteers:

"Seeking volunteers to serve on a committee tasked with developing and presenting a new set of
procedures and policies for the handling of grievances within the USGenWeb Project. 2 members
of the Advisory Board and 7 non-AB volunteers from the USGenWeb general membership will be
chosen. The procedures and policies for the handling of grievances will include the handling of
requests for mediation within the USGenWeb Project. Upon completion of a draft of the
procedures and policies, the committee will present their recommendation to the full Advisory
Board for a vote on their acceptance."

We presume this means that although she has not formally dismissed the working group, its
services are no longer required.

If you are interested in serving on this committee you need to send your name and email address,
positions and URLs within USGenWeb, and your reasons for being interested in serving on the
committee to the usual suspects.

There was little further discussion of Motion 05-11 [Candidate Eligibility Cut-off Date], except
that Linda Blum-Barton said discussion wasn't necessary and Jan Cortez noted that "the best way
to handle this situation, would be to add this to the procedures of the EC."

STFU: Following Keith Giddeon's suggestion that DISCUSS list members "discuss" the idea of
having the Project elect list administrators every one or two years, Tina "Take That" Vickery
immediately and summarily banned him from the list once again. The censorship did not however
produce the desired outcome of tamping down discussions of either the Board's violation of a
member's privacy or of letting the project have some control over its general lists; DISCUSS
members continued to discuss both vigorously and also began to discuss in general the need for
Sekrit lists and executive sessions. Tina has not thus far banned anyone but Keith for violating her
order to cease and desist.

For his part, we hear that Keith has contacted several Board members and asked them to
intervene and remove Tina as the administrator of the DISCUSS list. In a statement forwarded to
us, he said:

"[Tina's] dictatorial rule and on-going conflict of interest in her dual roles of EC Chair and
Discuss Admin must cease. She is now banning members for bringing up viable and germane
election issues. She forgets that the list exists for the membership not for dictatorial whim. I hope
that your readers will gather up their outrage and write to their AB members about this issue this
week. Let them know we will not tolerate such behavior and unethical behavior in our 'leaders'."

This will go nowhere. The Board does not decide who runs the DISCUSS list. Shari does. Shari
and Tina are thick as thieves and Shari has no problems whatsoever with how Tina runs the list.
Plus, we suspect that Tina really banned Keith because he treated her list rules with the derision
they so richly deserve, pointing out that the DISCUSS list actually allows no discussion of
anything but "puzzles, games, and endless cheerleading activities." [This is a bit of an
exaggeration. Tina permits discussion of most issues up to a point. The point at which she draws
the line often depends on the topic itself, in whose favor the discussion is going, and who are the
primary discussants. Its been noted by many participants that she usually cuts off discussion as
soon as it gets interesting or begins to reflect badly on anyone she's friends with. And she doesn't
much like it when people challenge her own list management style.] Anyways, the Board will buy
her explanation that she banned him for being snarky and not to shut down discussion of election
issues or her own fate, and that will be the end of it.

And for the DISCUSS member who always asks Tina why she feels the need to post her
moderations and banishments publicly and who never gets an answer, we will venture a guess.
She does it for two reasons, both to shame the person she's punishing and to have them serve as
an example and a warning to the rest of the list. And very possibly she does it because she gets a
great deal of personal enjoyment and satisfaction out of dropping the hammer.

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE OHIO: It looks like the OHGenWeb will be giving the KYGenWeb
a run for its money in the "craziest SC" sweepstakes. [It brings back fond memories of those
heady days when Tim Stowell and Derek Hartshorn were running neck and neck for the title.] As
promised a few weeks ago, on June 18 OHGW SC Sandra Quinn began mass delinkings of county
projects and then promptly went out of town for a week. As it turns out, a number of the
delinkings were a bit confusing, since some of the delinked coordinators had complied with all
conditions she had set forth, which were basically confined to responding to a roll call and putting
the date "2005" somewhere on the county home page. At one point, she even had her ASC
delinked, although according to one correspondent, Sandra stopped her little massacre when she
realized she'd have to delink Lorraine along with the rest of the herd. According to one reader,
more than ten counties were originally delinked so that researchers could not reach them, and
there are now nine counties up for adoption. Sandra has since claimed that some of her delinkings
were "mistakes" and she has relinked some counties, but it also became clear when she posted the
"new CC list" on Sunday that the rules had changed and the actual guidelines for remaining linked
are a bit more stringent than originally posted. Her CCs are understandably confused.

Several OHGW volunteers have pointedly noted that "Volunteers are not inspired by threats,
demands and punitive actions. Rather friendly suggestions, ideas and general rules to guide
them...Our goal here is provide free genealogy and research guidance for our respective counties.
There has to be a better approach to accomplishing this...I understand there is always room for
growth and improvement but there should not be deadlines and ultimatums given to volunteers,
who wants to volunteer in an organization run like that?" Several OHGW CCs have written to say
how much they miss former OHGW SC Allen Richmond, who apparently was well-liked and
respected at least in part because he did not conduct global vendettas against the CCs and because
he did not feel the need to post about it to the list when he needed to remove someone.

[And yes, the irony of Sandy delinking people for broken links is not lost on us. In her original
message to the OHGW list noting that delinkings had begun, the link she posted to the new CC
list was, you guessed it, broken.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Running with the big dogs since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 AM 4 comments   
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Shiny Things
Nothing up my sleeve...its Your Daily Board Show!

KEEPING BUSY: The Board continues to amuse itself with the non-issue of the cut-off date for
candidate eligibility. Cyndi Enfinger moved to "clarify the cut-off date to be used in determining
length-of-service eligibility, as spelled out in Bylaws Article VI Section 9, for USGenWeb
Advisory Board candidates. Candidates must have been seated in their qualifying role on or before
June 30th of the previous year." Betsy seconded and Shari numbered the motion [05-11] and
opened it for discussion.

Meanwhile, in some apparently non-sequiterish response to Angie's suggestion of opening the
Grievance Committee working group's mailing list to all subscribers, Betsy claimed that Angie's
request would require a motion, and then suggested "we issue a call for volunteers and select 2
Advisory Board members and 7 non-Advisory Board members from the responses and allow them
to select their own chair." [Reformulating the committee with members who might actually take
part in the proceeedings is not a bad idea, although we hold no real optimism that it will end up
containing anyone who would even consider any radical approaches to the handling of
grievances.]

[BTW, has anyone but me noticed that now that her seat is up for grabs, Miss Betsy has suddenly
come out of her lair? Not only is she all over the lists, she's actually put on her "nice" hat and is
conducting civil discussion with people she to whom she normally wouldn't give the time of day.
Usually she's conspicuous mostly in her absence. Believe me, there is no way Betsy "The Color of
Jerk" Mills can out-nice Mike St. Clair, but its amusing to see her try.]

FIRE IN THE HOLE: Apparently all hell is breaking loose in KYGenWeb these days. We hear
rumors of numerous threats, resignations, and firings; apparently the SC of that fair state is
incapable of managing without intimidation and censorship. Several people have already been
shown the door, and others have been put on notice, a couple of them specifically for speaking
outside of KYGW about the problems the state organization is facing. We hear that several Board
members, who neither want the situation to get any further out of hand nor to have another
embarrassing trial on their hands, are trying desperately to find some way to slow down the
rampage and muzzle the SC. The SC, BTW, is currently a candidate for National Coordinator.
While she has little or no chance of winning [she's an unknown in a field of very much known
people], having a reputation as a loose cannon cannot possibly help her candidacy. Perhaps she
should borrow Betsy's "nice" hat for the remainder of the election period.

GIVING THE DEVIL HIS DUE: Over on the DISCUSS list, Keith Giddeon has formally and
publicly filed a "rhetorical" grievance "against David Morgan and the entire AB for discussing
"personnel matters" on the public list." He noted that "In the past this has not been done...Every
CC in the project should be outraged that such discussions took place in public...isn't it AB policy
to discuss "personnel matters" in private EVEN when the personnel being discussed asks for a
public discussion?" David Morgan responded, "If you file a grievance against me only, you would
have a much better chance of success. I am the one that questioned your eligibility...If I had
gotten a clear response either in private e-mail or board-exec, I would not have gone to
BOARD-L with it. I was told that I had only 48 hours to make a protest. And I was advised to
take my concerns to BOARD-L if I wanted it to be a formal protest." As soon as Keith requested
the name of the Board member[s] that told David to take his protest public, Tina terminated the
topic and threatened them both with moderation. [Yes, more of that fierce protection of privacy
you hear so much about among the Board and its cronies.]

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS: Keith Giddeon, apparently frustrated by the observation that every
discussion that looks like its heading into interesting territory gets shut down hard by the list
administrator, and finally getting a gander at the actual rules Tina uses to control speech, asked
for comment on a proposal to adopt a rule "to require the AB to elect a new admin for each
national list every year or two years. No admin could serve consecutive terms." This is an
interesting idea, but it will go nowhere unless a much different set of people sit on the Board. The
current leadership is very, very happy with how Tina runs the DISCUSS list for them. And this
proposal is most surely aimed directly at putting Tina on the curb [as opposed to having someone
other than the NC run SC-L, or USGENWEB-ALL, or the Board list, for example.]

[If you are interested, Tina's list rule are here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/USGENWEB-DISCUSS/2005-06/1119142855
The fourth paragraph down contains what we like to call "the DBS rule." Tina instituted it after
Tim's trial when someone inadvertently left the DBS url in their signature block and posted it to
Tina's list as part of some discussion topic. So not only can you not discuss "personnel" items in
Tina's little kingdom, Tina will do her damnedest to keep people from knowing that such
discussion is going on in some other kingdom. You will also note that the penalty for promoting
free speech on Tina's list is much harsher and much more immediate than for any other offense.
We find this quite amusing. Apparently we are really, really scary.]


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Apparently very dangerous since 1998

posted by merope at 7:17 AM 2 comments   
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Carry a Big Stick
Treading water...its Your Daily Board Show!

FROM BAD TO WORSE: The discussion of Keith Giddeon's eligibility to run for a SEMA CC
seat continued. Bettie Wood said she "always been told" that the cutoff date for eligibility was
May 31, but that "It looks like it can be construed in at least 2 different ways." She also asked if
they "need a motion on this." Scott Burow opined that "The interpretation can be done two or
three different ways if one thinks of different ways to apply it...The legal view would interpret
'nomination period' plus 'voting period' equals 'election', and unless specifically stated within the
by-laws, 'election' and 'voting period' would not be interchangeable...If...the intent is that the
person must have 12 months in service at the time the nominations close (or alternatively, when
the voting begins, or at the time of nomination) then perhaps the By-Laws Revision Committee
could address this...A simple wording change...would suffice to make sure this issue does not
return in the future." Shari then cc'd the group on an email that she sent to EC Chair Tina
Vickery, asking "it is my understanding that the EC has historically interpreted our Bylaws Article
Section...as meaning that the cutoff date for eliibility of prospective CC Rep candidates is counted
from 1 June each year...so, that anyone running this year would have needed to be in their
qualifying position as of May 31, 2004. Is my understanding correct?" In short order, however,
she reversed course and asked for a motion to "...confirm that the cut-off date to be used in
determining length-of-service eligibility (as spelled out in Bylaws Article VI Section 9) for
USGenWeb Advisory Board candidates is July 1st." So far, there has been no response from the
Election Committee, and no motion made [although if one is made, it should probably specify July
1st of the preceding year. You know how literal USGenWeb members can be.]

And last, but not least, David Morgan apologized "to Keith Giddeon and to anyone else that may
be upset by my questioning of his eligibility to run." [He also chose to take the wise course, stay
under his rock, and watch out for Rattlesnake Lizzie. Bwahahaha...]

GIVING VOICE: A couple of Board members wrote to support Angie Rayfield's suggestion that
the Grievance Committee working group's mailing be opened for participation by all members.
Working group member Denise Woodside noted "that is a good idea, since the board members
have not been active in the conversation," and Bettie Wood observed that most of her
constituents "wanted to see more of the membership involved, & having an "open" list would be a
good way to get going again."

OUR READERS WRITE: For those of you who wrote wondering why its ok for us to question
Ellen Pack's eligibility and not ok for the Board to question Keith's eligibility, here's the deal. We
have no objection to anyone questioning anyone else's eligibility. Obviously the EC cannot keep
up with the thousands of project members we have, and just as obviously they took Ellen's or
someone's word for it that she was qualified as a local coordinator representative based on her
role as a coordinator for an actual county. That turned out not to be true, so they then found
some other way to qualify her, which may or may not be kosher based on the bylaws. There is
indeed a tradition to broadly interpret "local coordinator" for the purposes of voting in elections,
but its not clear that tradition can legally be extended to candidates, who according to the bylaws
must hold a position as a coordinator of a component of "whatever divisional structure is
appropriate for that state." In Mississippi, the divisional structure is the county, and Ellen has not
been a county coordinator long enough to qualify.

We just find it interesting how very sacred the Board holds the idea of conducting personnel
issues in confidential manner until they want to attack someone. Then it rises to the level of a
public issue and some poor hapless volunteer gets to be hauled around publicly for a bit while the
Board chews the matter over. At least one Board member who decided to attack Keith in public
did so because they believed that Keith is the person who questioned Ellen's eligibility, and getting
him publicly booted from the race seemed an appropriate comeuppance for his impertinence. [Or
so says a little bird.]

In any case, while there is a real question of Ellen's eligibility, there is no question of Keith's,
whatever some Board members' '"misunderstandings" might have led them to claim. Keith's
eligibility was questioned, and very, very publicly, for purposes unrelated to actually determining
his eligibility. It was a sideshow designed both to punish him and to distract attention from the
question of Ellen's eligibility. And apparently it worked. The Board is now more concerned about
setting eligibility dates in stone than it is about yet another possible impropriety by our so-called
"impartial" Election Committee, or about its own members attacking volunteers in its business
meeting. So it goes.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Asleep at the wheel since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 AM 0 comments   
Friday, June 17, 2005
Slow As Dirt
Finally getting around to it...its Your Daily Board Show!

OY: Sorry for the delay in the DBS today. First off, it turned out to be an excellent day to get
caught up on yardwork we put off while it was 90-plus-by-god degrees outside this week, and
secondly, for some reason my high speed internet connection has been intermittently doing its best
to emulate a 2400 baud dial-up all freakin' day. Now, on with the show...

NIBBLED BY DUCKS: Following yesterday's story about the questionable eligibility of Ellen
Pack to run for a local coordinator rep seat in the SEMA region, the Board decided to question
the eligibility of Keith Giddeon, one of her opponents in the race. [Well, it certainly is a novel way
of narrowing down the field on her behalf. Its also a nifty way of directing attention away from
the very real question of Ellen's eligibility to run for the seat.] David Morgan started the festivities
by questioning Mr. Giddeon's eligibility, noting "If you have to be a CC by May 31, 2004, then
Keith is not eligible. He became the CC of Wilkes County, Georgia sometime in June." David's
erroneous assumption of May 31 as a cut-off date for eligibility spurred a number of more-or-less
uninformed comments by other Board members. Denise Woodside stated "the cut off date has
historically been May 31st of the prior year. We have lost other good candidates in the past
because of this cut off date. The guidelines are defined as: "at least one year (the twelve months
immediately preceding an election)" - and the "election process" has been deemed to begin on
June 1 when the nomination period begins." [Say what? It has? When?]

Board n00b Scott Burow had this to say, "...there must be a cut-off point established for the
purposes of verification of eligibility. Within the Standing Election Procedures, a cut-off is
established for other items, which is May 31...registrations are...closed 30 days prior to the
election, which again, would be June 1. It is at this point that the 'election process' begins...In my
opinion, and as a matter of consistency, the cut-off date for this should be June 1 as well. This
would require the May 31 starting date of the prior year to establish verification of eligibility as
you indicated." Denise then wondered "what does it take to move on in this situation, a
motion?...a decision is all that is needed, a motion sounds too "serious". I agree that the cutoff
date for service eligibility for running for an office in the 2005 requires that the candidate must
have been in service in the appropriate capacity continually since May 31, 2004. All agree?" [Its
nice to see that at least some Board members are all fired up about changing election policy after
the nominations period closed.] For once, Don Kelly was right on the money, if not completely
coherent. He noted "Clear wording might be, "An eligible candidate on July 1, (day election
starts) must have been a member of USGenWeb in good standing for one full year."

Don's interpretation of the bylaws in this situation came from candidate Ellen Pack, who noted
"...the Bylaws would be correctly interpreted as 1 July being the appropriate cut off date for
eligibility...the election itself does not begin until 1 July. The 1 June cut off required by the EC is
only for administrative purposes so they may have time to properly prepare a voter list...I feel that
Keith meets the necessary eligibility qualifications, and should be allowed to remain on the ballot."
[Big of her.] Former EC Chair Linda Haas Davenport also noted that "...the cut off date for
eligibility is either June 30th or July 1st depending on whether you want to count the day the
election begins or the day before. The by-laws state "12 months immediately preceding an
election" and that equates to June 30th." Linda also said that "The cut off date has historically
been either Jun 30th or Jul 1st and there have been NO candidates disqualified by the EC, to the
best of my knowledge, since the EC came into existence."

Ah, what a load of righeous verbiage could have been avoided if some one of them had trotted off
and took a gander at the bylaws. To whit: "Nominees...shall have the following qualifications: at
least one year (the twelve months immediately preceding an election) of continuous service and
current activity as a member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb
Project." Note, there is no mention of eligibility starting 12 months before the "election process"
begins, and elsewhere in the bylaws it is noted that the election period starts July 1. And one
could argue that since it ends July 31, a potential candidate could have picked up their qualifying
position anytime in July of the previous year. The bylaws say nothing specific about using the
beginning of the election period to set the eligibility period. So all the careful and convoluted
reasoning behind using May 31 as a cut-off date in order to deny Mr. Giddeon the right to run for
a seat was just the silly blather of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Anyways, for what its worth, according to the Wayback Machine and Root$web mailing list
archives, Keith Giddeon was safely ensconced in his qualifying county by June 8 of last year,
easily within the 12 months eligibility timeframe set by the bylaws. Now perhaps David, Denise,
and Scott can go find something useful to do. Perhaps they could begin by apologizing to Mr.
Giddeon.

[And yes, in case you were wondering, it apparently is perfectly OK to discuss some personnel
issues in public on BOARD-L. It just depends on whose personnel issues they are.]

Also in Board business, but not as yet recognized, Grievance Committee working group chair
Angie Rayfield requested a change in the group's working procedures. She wants to open the
mailing list so that all interested parties may participate in the discussion. We are pleasantly
surprised to see she's willing to continue the work in the face of so much apathy and hostility.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Victim of the internet since 1998

posted by merope at 5:50 PM 2 comments   
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Same Stuff Different Day
All together now...its Your Daily Board Show!

AND THAT'S THE END OF THAT: Shari Handley announced that with 8 votes against, and 4
votes for, Motion 05-10 has failed [She did not include votes from two Board members who
voted late. Both were NO votes.] Shari also posted a notice about "Family History Month", which
is in October, and solicited volunteers for a "grass roots committee" that would "come up with
and implement ideas and plans for Family History Month...brainstorm and facilitate activities
and/or materials for USGenWeb nationally, and that State Coordinators and County Coordinators
could tap into." If you are interested in volunteering for or chairing such a committee, contact any
of the usual suspects.

FRIENDS WITH PRIVILEGES: Meanwhile, over in Election Land, we hear that there is yet
another scandal a-brewin'. A not entirely disinterested little bird sent in this report:

"Wednesday, Ellen Pack appeared as a candidate for SEMA CC Rep. A last minute nominee on
Tuesday evening. The position for which she supposedly qualified was Jackson County, MS.
Well, one problem with that. She only took that county five months ago. (Amazingly, her first MS
county, despite being SC for so long.) When her tenure at Jackson County was pointed out to the
EC "Jackson County, MS" miraculously (within 15 mins -- the EC must have a hotline [IRC] to
the SC of MS lol) disappeared and was replaced with the name of some state special project. So,
what we have is a candidate whose position wasn't eligible since her tenure was 5 months, AND a
candidate who has pull at the EC to get a new position listed AFTER nominations are closed."

Astute readers will recall that Ellen Pack is the immediate past Chair of the Election Committee
and that she is also a great and good friend of the current EC Chair, Tina "You Get My Back, I'll
Get Yours" Vickery. Ellen is also a very vocal supporter of the EC as one of the few parts of
USGenWeb that actually works. Well, it certainly seems to be working for her.

This does bring up an interesting "conflict of interest" question. Since the EC has to rely on SCs
to verify that candidates are qualified for the representative seats, how do they independently
verify that an SC is qualified for a position, especially if the SC is willing to lie to them about their
tenure? Its also the case, that per the bylaws, being the coordinator of a special project within a
state does not qualify one to be a Local Coordinator representative. Ellen's qualifying position is
now listed as "Early SW MS Territory." This is not listed as among the counties, [or as the bylaws
put it, "whatever divisional structure is appropriate for that state"] but as a "Special MSGenWeb
site." So strictly speaking and per the bylaws, she's not a Local Coordinator. This important
distinction is apparently not relevant to the EC, but it might be of some importance to the other
candidates, who now get to face a candidate that the EC already fudged the rules for in their
election.

In slightly better news, the Candidates Forum has officially opened and invitations have gone out
to most USGenWeb members. Many of you have already seen it on your state lists and perhaps
regional lists, and its been on the alternate CC list, but sadly an announcement has not been
forthcoming on any of the "official" national level lists [not DISCUSS, not STATE-COORD, not
USGENWEB-ALL, and certainly not BOARD-L]. You would think that such a forum would be a
welcome and common part of every election process and that participation would be encouraged,
but since it wasn't established and isn't being run by "The Right Kind of People" its getting
maligned on several fronts.

Anyways, go check it out for yourself:

http://election.temp-site.us/ [To view the forums]
http://election.temp-site.us/profile.php?mode=register [to register and participate in the forums]

[For those of you interested in these things, there was some interesting back-and-forth in the
Letters to the Editor section yesterday regarding the sponsorship and management of the forums.
We won't reprint it all up here, but we urge you to take a look at it. It may answer your questions
about impartiality, management, etc.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not holding out much hope since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 5 comments   
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Back To Square One
Making hay while the sun shines...its Your Daily Board Show!

OVER AND DONE WITH: With the current vote standing at 4 YES votes to 8 NO votes,
Motion 05-10 has been defeated. While we apparently will still have a Grievance Committee
working group, the Board will be [mis]handling grievances as it has always done.

WHITHER WYOMING: It has come to us through the grapevine that the SC of WYGenWeb has
left the position and the state now has an acting SC. These things happen, but we find it
interesting that WY was the last state project on David Morgan's list of "states to be dealt with."
IIRC, those states were GA [Tim Stowell...gone], OH [Allen Richmond...gone], AK [Pat
Smith...gone], and WY [Carol Haagensen...gone]. All of those SCs [who had been around since
dirt was new] left within the span of a few months and both Tim and Allen were replaced by
incumbents more friendly to the Powers That Be [the new AK SC is a quiet one, and WY hasn't
replaced its SC officially yet]. We are sure this just another one of those "coincidences," but its
certainly an interesting one.

TALK IS CHEAP: The hot topic for these hot summer days appears to be "If I Were King," with
a number of candidates prattling on about what they will do if they get to be elected in their
chosen races. For most of them you can sum their positions up in a single sentence [all
paraphrased]:

Jeffrey Scism: I will suspend the bylaws and replace them with something that works
Fred Smoot: I will stomp all over the Archies [Archives, for those of you not familiar with Fred's
oratory style] at every opportunity
Paulette Carpenter: I will continue to be a nice person and I don't know what I will do until it
comes up
Mike St. Clair: I will also continue to be a nice person, do as little as possible, consult with
everyone under the sun several times over before I do anything
Sharon Tabor: I will rant more or less incoherently about things I know nothing about, but my
heart is in the right place
Don Kelly: I will keep this project "rocketing upward".
Bill Oliver: "Roar"

BTW, Tina Vickery notified Tim Stowell yesterday that he's not allowed to play in the sandbox
this year because he's been a bad boy. We are stunned that he even got nominated, but there's no
accounting for taste. If you want to play in the sandbox, you need to get your nomination in by
sometime today [We still aren't sure what time Tina means to close the nomination period down.]

BLAST FROM THE PAST: Keith Giddeon posted an address to an article about a hacker who
downloaded genealogical records from an internet site, stole some personal information from
computers at the University of Texas, and planned to combined the two into a single database for
fun and profit. Ironically enough, the genealogical data he downloaded were from the Texas state
archives that caused such a dither here in USGenWeb a few months ago. You can read the article
here: http://genealogyblog.com/?p=3871

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Something for everyone since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 9 comments   
Monday, June 13, 2005
Green Eggs and Ham
Then again...its Your Daily Board Show!

NIBBLED BY MICE: Late last night [or early this morning, depending on how you look at these
things], Shari opened the vote on Motion 05-10. Thus far there are two NO votes.

ELECTION-RELATED STUFF: The nomination period will close tomorrow [Tuesday] at 11:59
pm CST [or should that be CDT? We get confused. Maybe Tina is in that part of the midwest that
doesn't recognize Daylight Savings Time. We can't be sure, but we think "11:59 pm CST" would
translate to 11:59 pm EDT, 10:59 pm CDT, and 8:59 am Wednesday PDT. Or...just get your
nominations in early. Its not outside the realm of possibility that our EC Chair would use
confusion over time zone and what DST schedule the country is on to invalidate nominations she
doesn't like.]

A group of candidates for various offices have bonded together and created a candidates' forum.
Once the nomination period is closed, all candidates for all offices will be invited to answer
questions submitted by project members. Its rather a nice set-up. Its still in test phase now, but
should go live in a couple of days. The URL to view the forums is http://election.temp-site.us/ and
the URL to register to participate is http://election.temp-site.us/profile.php?mode=register

The current candidate list hasn't changed much in the last few days. There have been a couple of
withdrawals, and some position-switching, but otherwise the list is similar to the last time we took
a look at it. Whatever time the voting period closes tomorrow, traditionally the last few minutes
of the nomination period are the time for nominating stealth candidates and for those people
waiting to see who they might have to run against before deciding whether they are in or out. So
Wednesday or Thursday might see some profound changes to the list. Or maybe not.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Giving up since 1998

posted by merope at 6:11 AM 4 comments   
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Not Your Average Bear
Going over the same old ground...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACK AND FORTH: Discussion of Motion 05-10 continued in a minor key. Angie Rayfield
posted a longish defense of her motion, the salient points of which are excerpted below:

"AB members have complained repeatedly that grievances take up too much Board time, which
keeps other business from being done. This procedure would largely take the AB out of the
grievance business, but..there will still be a board presence and oversite, while not requiring the
board itself to handle every complaint that comes down the road...Members have complained
regularly that the current process is too political, that the AB picks & chooses what complaints it
will deal with based on their personal preferences, and that most complaints are swept under the
rug and ignored. The proposed procedure would remove the AB politics from the equation
entirely...And the proposed procedure provides for transparency -- there will be announcements
of grievances received and disposed of...Members have also complained regularly that the AB has
too much power in handling grievances, and there have been concerns raised about whether CCs
are really protected by the process...this proposal removes the AB from the grievance process.
Mediation and arbitration would be the responsibility of the project members themselves...And as
for the idea that it's somehow unfair that the new committee would have to work within the given
guidelines and have a time limit...Committees are routinely given instructions to follow, and
people join committees every day and work within restrictions that are already in place...it's not
unreasonable that the Grievance Committee could be ready to go to work by August 1st.
Assuming, of course, that we don't spend the next month arguing about it."

Betsy Mills, who could barely rouse herself while serving the working group, noted that she's
against the motion, and said "I...did try to have input into the procedures and [was] rebuffed. I
can't imagine how this can be presented as the work of the committee." [It wasn't, but we guess
that's beside the point.] David Morgan noted that "Always before, the committee has finished their
discussion and then had a vote, before passing it on to a new committee...It does not seem like
this committee is finished with its work, and there has been no vote." [Given that the working
group chair could not reliably get a single committee member to respond to any of her
suggestions or comments or outright requests for comment, holding a vote would have been a
waste of time.]

We'll note again, although we doubt that it will do any good, that this motion was not presented
to the Board as the final report of the Grievance Committee working group or as the product of
that body's "work." Its a motion, made by a single Board member, that the Board is now free to
accept or reject. Individual Board members are also free to like it or not like it, but claiming that it
should be rejected solely because a bunch of indolent lay-abouts weren't offered a chance to vote
on something they showed absolutely no interest in is more than a little disingenuous.

We have noticed over the years an interesting phenomenon in USGenWeb volunteer participation.
A friend of ours calls this "helium hand" and you will observe it most often when someone calls
for volunteers to participate in some committee or other and hands magically rise into the air as if
lifted by helium. Many people volunteer to sit on committees, but then appear less than fully
engaged in the actual hard work of the committee. Although effective committees are not unheard
of in USGenWeb, this is not one of those examples. The Grievance Committee working group
was formed three months ago from a group of people who actually volunteered to be the
Grievance Committee itself. It may have come as a shock to them when their charge was changed
from handling actual grievances to devising a workable, fair procedure for the future handling of
grievances, but if they had doubts about it, months ago would have been the time to withdraw.
They all stuck it grimly out and most of them did nothing but warm their chair. Betsy bailed out as
Chair in a snit when the group was a couple of days old, and didn't manage another meaningful
contribution until months later, when she submitted an entirely new and different proposal and
then fell silent again. One committe member claims to have resigned early on. One complains that
her comments weren't met with worshipful respect. One blathers on about bylaws amendments
and the right mindset. One member, near as we can tell, never made a single public comment. As
Angie noted previously the only people who contributed to the work of the working group on a
regular and reliable basis were Project members who, it may be noted, have a bigger stake in this
than the Board.

STEPPING IN IT: The fiasco in OHGenWeb has now officially ascended to the level of high
farce. A couple of days ago, SC Sandra Quinn posted an email in which she claimed to have
attached a list of project members' email addresses along with a threat to delink anyone who didn't
contact her by June 18. Although she didn't state it outright, the implication was that the list
contained non-responders who would be subject to termination. However, the list was stripped by
Root$web's system and a couple of days of confusion ensued over who was going to be delinked
and who wasn't. Yesterday Sandra finally got the list out and it turns out to have everyone's name
on it, more or less, although the county list is less than complete. So basically the question of the
day was "Is this the good guy list or the bad guy list"? Apparently its both and apparently it
includes a lot of 1) people who are active on the state list; 2) people who have responded to
several roll calls since April; 3) people who have regularly updated their county sites; 4) people
who voted in the last SC election and who obviously have working addresses; and 5) people who
are wondering why their SC and ASC can't handle this more circumspectly and without blatant
threats. The list caused even more confusion, since no one is now actually sure who is on the
block and who is not. Sandra has attempted damage control, and now claims that she doesn't have
a "delinking list" and that removal will be limited to those who haven't responded to solicitations
since April, but no one seems too convinced by that. To top it off, Sandra posted the complete list
of subscribers to the state list [and spammers everywhere thank her]. We are sure it will all work
out in the end, but as more than one person has noted, OHGW used to be such a quiet, peaceful
place...

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Practicing ennui as a lifestyle choice since 1998

posted by merope at 7:50 AM 5 comments   
Friday, June 10, 2005
All For Show
Rustlers in the night...its Your Daily Board Show!

ARS POETICA: Yesterday the Board continued to discuss Motion 05-10. Don Kelly noted "I
find no fault with this concept, but I am concerned about the timing. Members are waiting for a
backlog of grievance cases to be adjudicated. There also is the bylaws issue to be resolved with
time to perform growing very short. There is a way to continue both processes in parallel. This is
hard, but if we adopt the mindset, we can do this." [yes, a day without Don's poetry is like a day
without sunshine.] Denise Woodside responded that "...I certainly do not think that by passing
this motion we are required to hold all grievances until August...we should continue handling
grievances as we have been..." And Angie Rayfield noted that "The grievance procedures
committee was never tasked with hearing grievances, it was tasked with coming up with a new
procedure...moving forward and getting a permanent committee in place and finishing the details
of the procedures will make it possible to get that backlog of grievances handled...the grievance
committee would have absolutely nothing to do with the bylaws issue."

SOUR GRAPES: As usual, the real discussion of the motion is occurring elsewhere. And based
on what we see on DISCUSS and the SW/SC list, the prognosis is not good. People seem to have
a few main complaints about the proposed rules for the permanent Grievance Committee: 1) they
appear to be the work of one person and were not based on any sort of consensus, poll, or vote of
the working group [Although this is not for lack of trying on Angie's part, it is basically true that
she wrote them, she promoted them, and she is currently defending them. It's worth noting that
she did not explicitly put them before the Board as the product of the working group. The motion
is, to all purposes, solely her own.]; 2) they unfairly hold the GC to a rigid schedule and a very
short time frame for devising the remainder of its operating procedures and set it up for initial
failure [its also worth noting that the working group itself was in business for months and
accomplished very little that Angie didn't do herself; we imagine that a short schedule is intended
to focus members' attention on the task at hand]; and 3) the procedures themselves are too
"convoluted," complicated, unfair, hastily derived, etc. [Most of these complaints are a
round-about way of saying "I would do it differently and of course much, much better" and there
have been numerous suggestions, both picayune and expansive, for alternative approaches.] And,
of course, there are the usual cries to do the whole process over, only this time in private with a
hand-picked group of Board members, and the membership can be told about the outcome when
its all over.

We do note that no member thus far has disagreed with the first part of the motion. Apparently,
the Grievance Committee working group won't be missed.

SCRUBBING FLOORS: We hear the natives are restless over in OHGenWeb. The new SC and
ASC there have apparently decided to clean house. They've posted a wide-ranging threat to
eliminate anyone who doesn't respond to a roll-call email by June 18th. Sandy claims that there
are just scads of unreachable members and this is required in order to "make OHGenWeb a great
place for researchers to visit." This would be all well and good, but we hear through the grapevine
that only a short time ago the OHGW election team was able to find good working email
addresses for all but two of OHGW's coordinators. We also hear that when the election team
offered Sandy that list of good working email addresses, she told them not to bother; she'd prefer
to use the list compiled by her ASC, Lorraine Newsome. The state has already lost one CC to the
threat, who noted on his way out the door, "It seems every time we get a new state coordinator,
visions of power go through their head."

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Any port in a storm since 1998

posted by merope at 6:11 AM 2 comments   
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Goat Rodeo
Getting back up to speed...its Your Daily Board Show!

DUE PROCESS: Denise Woodside seconds the motion disbanding the Grievance Committee
working group and establishing a formal Grievance Committee, Shari numbers it [05-10] and
opens it for discussion. In the course of discussion on the motion, the following occurred:

Denise thanked Angie for her efforts as Chair of the working group and noted "Angie has covered
a lot of detail here and I think that this is a sufficient starting point for a permanent grievance
committe. I especially appreciate the agressive timeline in this motion...I have full faith that
project members selected for this committee are fully capable of finalizing the grievance
procedures as they will be accountable to following those procedures."

David Morgan suggested that the motion be split into two, one disbanding the working group and
one establishing the permanent committee. When Angie explained that she didn't want the Board
to disband the working group "without specifying what would take its place," David decided to
pout since he couldn't have his way. He noted "I don't see the need to dictate to the proposed new
committee how to conduct its business, plus a 30 day time limit, so I will vote no." [This is not an
unheard of occurrence on the Board. Someone can't have something exactly as they please, so
they pick up their marbles and go home. And having just spent several days in the company of a 6
year old and a 3 year old, this behavior seems remarkably familiar.]

Darilee Bednar said she appreciated both Angie's reasoning in this matter and "the fact we won't
be dragging a vote on this over two voting periods." She then notified the Board that she'd be out
of town for several days and that she'd already sent Shari her vote. [I guess she is not intending
for any discussion to sway her mind on this one.]

DEMOCRACY MARCHES ON: We've heard recently there is an election ongoing in
NCGenWeb for a new State Coordinator. While normally we don't care much what goes on at the
state level, this one is notable because rather than use the Election Committee they've instituted a
different system that involves independent vote counters in four separate state projects, each of
whom individually counts all the ballots. Although they are not using the same system as was used
in the recent OHGW election, apparently that state's experience with holding their election "off
the grid" was encouraging. [Recent state elections held by the EC have been, shall we say, a bit
irregular.] NCGW adopted its SC election procedures a few years ago and the entire process is
quite open. Voting opened Monday, and there are three candidates for the office: Denise
Woodside, Katy Hestand, and Bobbie Cutter. Current SC Angie Rayfield is not running, perhaps
in preparation for a run for a national level office.

OUR READERS WRITE: One of our anonymous correspondents contacted us yesterday and
asked us to remove a post they'd made that contained a number of errors regarding current
candidates for the NC office. The errors were due to a misreading of the information posted on
the admittedly cluttered nominations page. We will be removing the comment itself but not the
responses, so we apologize for any confusion this may cause among future visitors to the "Letters
to the Editor" section of the DBS.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Hanging ten since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Gone But Not Forgotten
Tanned, rested, and ready...its Your Daily Board Show!

DID YA MISS ME? We do apologize for the lack of a DBS over the last several days. We were
vacationing in the wilds of somewhere and discovered upon arriving that it was more off the
beaten path than we thought [read: it had no reliable internet access]. So, we all got a break. But
we are back now, and join our story already in progress...

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE: When we left, Bettie Wood had just moved that the Board
follow through with the provisions of Motions 04-13C and 04-13D. This motion did not receive a
second and when Shari asked for one, Bettie told her she had withdrawn the motion and
encouraged the Board "get busy doing what should've already been done with the special
election." There has been no apparent effort on the Board's part to do anything further with the
Bylaws Revision Committee's proposed amendments.

Shari also welcomed Scott Burow to the Board, as the replacement for the deposed Richard
Howland. According to Shari, he was the only qualified candidate. Scott has been the ILGenWeb
SC for some time now.

Since the nominations period is in full swing, there has been the usual perennial question of "what
the heck are the qualifications to be RAL, anyways?" The bylaws themselves are silent in this
area, other than establishing the RAL position. Shari decided on her lonesome that "precedent and
common sense" and the bylaws "clearly mandate" that the RAL should have the same
qualifications as the National Coordinator, and instructed Elections Committee Chair Tina
Vickery to post that rule prominently on the EC webpage.

Shari requested and Angie Rayfield posted the June report for the Grievance Committee working
group. Angie noted that participation by the general membership has been extensive, but, alas, the
members of the working group themselves have been somewhat less than diligent in discharging
their responsibility. She noted, "I do not believe it is in the best interests of the Project for this
committee to continue in its work, and that it would be better for the permanent Grievance
Committee to be appointed." Angie then moved "that the Grievance Procedures Committee be
disbanded, and that a permanent Grievance Committee be established according to the guidelines
set out below. I further move that the Grievance Committee's first task should be to complete the
committee's working procedures, in accordance with the guidelines set out below, with additional
guidelines including, but not limited to, procedures for handling conflicts of interest and appeals
to the Advisory Board, and that these procedures be submitted to the Advisory Board for review
and approval within 30 days of the formation of the committee. The Grievance Committee should
be prepared to begin hearing grievances by no later than August 1, 2005." To this motion, she
appended the basic working document that she prepared from member comments. [Although
there are a few changes, it is basically the same as Proposal 1 from our side-by-side comparison of
a few weeks ago.]

As might be expected, working group members who have tended to be silent on the actual
working group mailing list, suddenly found a bit to say. Don Kelly suggested "...encouraging the
present committee to complete their current slate before a permanent (semi-permanent)
committee is solicited for participation and the new committee. If we change now we loose not
only the time expended, but also input by and exchanges between committee and witnesses,
needed to arrive at a fair and
balanced conclusion...the NC should ask the committee for a report on their progress before
contemplating on switching teams." [We may be mistaken, but we think that Shari just did that,
and Angie just provided the answer.] Jan Cortez noted "...I tried to make comments and was
basically told by both you and the NC, that my thinking was not correct, so I just gave up. I... felt
that both of you were making the decisions and didn't need my comments." Bettie recalled that
she had resigned from the committee and wondered who is still on it.

During the course of this discussion, Angie posted some interesting statistics on her experience
with the working grouup: "Out of 95 messages, 52...were on the list as opposed to private emails
sent to me. Of those 52 list mails, 30 were posts by me. Of those 30, 15 were member emails that
I forwarded to the list commenting on the procedures. From 3/19/05 through 4/20/05, no one else
on the committee posted anything...the next time anyone else on the committee posted was on
5/15. On 5/21 I specifically requested that ALL committee members comment on the proposals.
One person responded." She noted "The membership of the project has expressed much more
interest than the AB members on the committee. It seems useless to keep trying to flog the
current committee into activity...We cannot move forward towards getting a workable procedure
in place continuing on the same path we're on now."

There has been no second to Angie's motion at this writing, nor has Shari solicited for a second,
even though the motion is now two days old. We suspect that this motion will die for lack of
interest and that the Board will continue with the status quo as far as handling grievances for the
forseeable future.

[We will admit to some distress that this attempt to do something outside the usual has failed.
While we are not entirely sure that the proposed system could have succeeded or been sustained
over the long haul, it would have been an interesting experiment and perhaps a workable model
for other issues. We aren't sure if the working group's failure was due to apathy, inertia, or just
disinterest in crafting a process that would take power from the Board instead of expanding or
cementing it. Perhaps it is all three. Angie's frustration with her fellow working group members is
palpable and their clumsy attempts to explain themselves now that their lassitude is a matter of
public record are comical. In any case, it looks like members of the Project with grievances will
still be subject to the whims of whichever Board members serve as mediators, whoever is NC, and
whatever personal prejudices those members bring to the table with them. There is nothing new
under the sun.]

MAY SCORECARD: Since the Board is now well into June, let's take a look at how they did on
the May agenda.

1. Call to Order [done May 1]
2. Vote on Motion 05-07 [done; vote opened May 1 and the motion was defeated; the privacy
issue does not appear on the June agenda]
3. Conclusion of Grievance Mediation (private) [hey, who knows?]
4. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes [not done]
5. Grievance Procedures Committee Report - Angie Rayfield [done May 11]
6. Old Business
a. County Sites vs. Archives as Repository of Collected Data [Shari tried to re-open this item for
discussion on May 14, but got no takers. It does not appear on the June agenda]
7. New Business [There were a couple of items not on the agenda that were abruptly placed on
the floor: Shari decided to fire Richard Howland and have the Board handpick his replacement;
Shari allowed David Morgan back on the Board list; there were motions dealing with the BRC's
proposed changes to the bylaws, which mostly involved a great deal of argument over whether
they were "amendments" or "revisions"]
a. Evaluation of Special Projects [not done; moved to June agenda]
b. EC Procedure Change? - Eligibility Verification [not done; moved to June agenda]
8. Announcements [In May there were the usual various EC announcements and also a call for
papers for the 2006 FGS conference, about which the project has received no further information]
9. Adjournment [done May 27]

So they got a bit done this month, but the big issues [privacy, data repository, grievances] are still
out there twisting in the wind. The Board seems to be abandoning the privacy and data repository
issues and we guess they will abandon the grievances issue as well. Apparently the BRC's odious
amendments will be buried someplace where no one will ever see them again; this is almost
entirely due to Shari's lethargy. Had she managed to get them before the Board two months ago
when she first received them from the BRC they might have stood a fighting chance in a special
election. As it is, it appears that the only amendments on the ballot this time around will be
Betsy's. They aren't all that great either, but at least they will be posted and voted on per the
bylaws. Shari did manage to get rid of a recalcitrant Board member and ensconce a more
amenable replacement, with relatively little blather. We don't really know anything further about
the FGS thing. Since Shari hasn't crowed about the fabulous proposals the committee received or
thanked all the submitters or actually even mentioned it again, we'll guess that they received either
very few proposals or that the proposals they did receive were of such low quality that it was
actually embarrassing. Or both.

PUNISHMENT GLUTTONS: The current list of candidates for the various open offices are
posted on the EC website:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/national-2005/nominee-index.html
They are indeed a motly crew. Many of the races have a rather large field, and in many cases it is
as interesting to see who has declined as to see who has accepted. In the good news arena, neither
Shari Handley nor Dick Harrison will be running for NC this time around; the bad news is that
Linda "Holier Than Thou" Davenport will. We can only hope that the Project keeps a clear head
and votes for Don Kelly. After all, better a fool than a knave.


-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Casting pearls before swine since 1998

posted by merope at 8:50 AM 6 comments   
Friday, June 03, 2005
Manifest Destiny
Swarmed by hungry cats...its Your Daily Board Show!

ABOUT FACE: At long last, and after repeated requests, Shari Handly finally responds to the
several questions she has been asked regarding the propriety of the motion before the Board. And
its a surprising answer too: "...since time constraints dictate that it would not be valid if passed, I
declare the motion out of order." She notes though that "The AB may discuss and entertain
another motion in regards to either the BRC's Bylaws Revisions...or the BRC's Bylaws
Amendments." [Yes, allowing the Board to consider the BRC's first report, which a previous
Board soundly rejected, does open an interesting can o' worms.] Shortly after this ruling, Bettie
Wood moved that "I move we follow through with previous motions 04-13C & 04-13-D...&
since there is not 60 days left before the 2005 national elections, add these to the upcoming
ballot." This motion as of this writing has not received a second, although several Board members
have commented on it. David Morgan noted both that it was too late to get amendments on the
ballot for this election, and that "The only way to present amendments is for 5 states to
sponsor...As for revisions, it is too late to get them on the ballot, which was supposed to be by
special election BEFORE the national election." Bettie and Linda Barton both noted that another
motion shouldn't be necessary at this point, and Linda suggested that the Board "...determine the
best way to follow through with these motions passed last year." There was a bit more chitter
chatter back and forth about whether or not the Board should follow the 04-13x motions of last
summer, but nothing was resolved. Don Kelly noted, again, that "If we insist on calling them
amendments then we'll have to comply with the bylaws and go the long way around. I don't know
of another way to get these revisions voted on by the membership."

Shari also posted notice that all the minutes are finally up to date, asked for any objections, and
thanked Ellen Pack for stepping in and doing the Board Secretary's job. After a Board member
asked about it, Shari noted that "Mike ran into some circumstances that delayed him from
completing the minutes...Mike assures that the minutes for the remaining months will be complete
by the 10th of the following month."

[We find this a little alarming. We like Mike and all and he does seem like a kindly guy, but he's
been nominated for the NC position. Writing and posting minutes is the *only* thing a Board
Secretary has to do, and he's apparently not capable of doing it. How likely will it be that he can
handle the multitudinous tasks of coordinating a project with thousands of people in it? Or will
Ellen "Ready, Willing, Able" Pack step in and help him out with that too?]

ROGUE'S GALLERY: Speaking of the elections, those nominated so far for various positions in
USGenWeb are a motley crew indeed. This is going to be a very big field this year. We'll let you
go over to the EC's website yourself and check 'em out, but we'll just note at the outset that Don
"Silly Party" Kelly already has our vote for NC. The entertainment value alone makes him the
obvious choice.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Finding humor in it all since 1998

posted by merope at 6:45 AM 7 comments   
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Back In Black
Moving right along...its Your Daily Board Show!

RESTLESS TROOPS: Yesterday, Shari convened the June meeting of the USGenWeb Advisory
Board. After posting the agenda for the month, she opened the vote on Motion 05-09. This is the
motion that would place the Bylaws Revision Committee's proposed amendments on the July
ballot. Thus far, one Board member has voted YES and four have voted NO. Two members,
Bettie Wood and Cyndi Enfinger, are withholding their votes pending a ruling by Roger Swafford
as to whether or not the motion itself is in order. Bettie, who has tried repeatedly and
unsuccessfully for weeks now to even get an acknowledgement from Shari and Roger on this
issue, pointed out that the motion itself is out of order given past rulings by the Board requiring a
special election. Shari, however, noted that the motion was not declared not out of order and that
voting on it has commenced. After that, Bettie made an oblique attempt at a point of order, which
thus far both Shari and Roger "Silent Cal" Swafford have pointedly ignored.

BLIND AMBITION: This is the June agenda:

1. Call to Order
2. Vote on Motion 05-09
3. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes
4. Grievance Procedures Committee Report - Angie Rayfield
5. Appointment of NE/NC SC Rep Replacement
6. New Business
a. Evaluation of Special Projects
b. State web sites checkup
c. EC Procedure Change? - Eligibility Verification
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment

We note that several items appear to be missing from the list, particularly the data repository and
privacy topics. Apparently Shari has given up on those in the face of the Board's overwhelming
lack of interest in pursuing them. We do note one piece of eternally recurring business. The
"reading, correction, approval, or disposition of minutes" continues to appear each month on the
agenda, despite an apparent incapability of the Board Secretary to actually produce any. We are
pleased to report, though, that a quick check of the national website shows all minutes up to and
including the May session have been posted at last. We also note that the Board has a new
"Acting Recording Secretary," Ellen Pack. Apparently, Mike St. Clair has left the position,
although we do not recall any sort of announcement to that effect. Perhaps Ellen is just "helping"
him do his only job, or perhaps this is another back door appointment. We do note that an
appointment of a new Board Secretary does not appear on the minutes for the June meeting.

HIGH HORSE: Yes, its time for USGenWeb's annual power grab...er...we mean, its annual stab
at democracy. The nominations period for the upcoming election has opened and will remain open
until June 14. A list of open positions and the nomination form are available at the Election
Committee Website. Knock yourselves out.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Folded, spindled, and mutilated since 1998