MAY 2005 DBS

Saturday, May 28, 2005
Rest and Relaxation
Lazier than an old hound dog...its Your Daily Board Show!

CLOSING SHOP: After declaring the motion to amend Motion 05-09 failed with 7 NO votes and
5 YES votes, Shari adjourned the May meeting. The June meeting will convene on June 1 and she
claims the first item of business will be the un-amended version of 05-09.

This pretty much kills any hope of either holding a special election in time, or of getting the five
state sponsors necessary to submit the amendments under the usual amendments provisions of the
bylaws. The best the Board could do now is declare them emergency amendments, which would
be ludicrous. Its an interesting situation. Last summer the Board passed a series of motions
requiring certain things. One of them was that the amendments would be presented to the
electorate in a special election no less than 60 days prior to the regular 2005 election. Its too late
for that and Shari has apparently chosen to ignore that particular requirement. Another motion
determined that state sponsorship may not be required for the amendments. This, as quite a few
members have pointed out, violates the bylaws, should never have been allowed to pass, and if
upheld will create a precedent that allows the Board an easier path to amending the bylaws than is
available to any other part of the Project. The Board has declined to work word magic on the
changes and will continue to call them amendments. Our bylaws, unfortunately, provide exactly
two ways to handle amendments and Motion 05-09 circumvents them both. It will be interesting
to see what the Board's choice in this matter will be. I imagine right about now more than a few
Board members are wondering just exactly why our NC sat on the BRC's report for two months
before deciding to do something to get its proposals before the voters.

A FINE EXAMPLE: Our favorite motto here at the DBS is "If the Board's not working, neither
are we." With that, we are off to enjoy the long weekend. Not to worry though. We'll leave some
young and enthusiastic [gullible] intern in the newsbunker to check the wires and if anything
worth getting up out of the hammock occurs we'll carefully set down our drink and get right on it.

QUOTE O' THE DAY: "...seven members are telling me I said something in the motion I did not
say, or...implied something in the motion I did not imply. Seven votes do not change what I said.
It's in the record and in the archives that I never used the word amendments." Don Kelly,
BOARD-L

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Using rose-colored glasses since 1998

posted by merope at 7:30 AM 1 comments   
Friday, May 27, 2005
Photo Finish
Sweating the small stuff...its Your Daily Board Show!

DOWN TO THE WIRE: It is now 8:05 am EDT, and the vote on the motion to amend 05-09
currently stands at 5 YES votes and 7 NO votes. Unless Shari Handley is sitting on some votes,
the motion has failed and the proposed changes to the bylaws will continue to be called
"amendments." [This will please many people, but Don Kelly's head may explode.]

There has still been no sign of Roger Swafford, or any attempt by anyone to address the special
election requirement that a former Board put into place to handle these amendments.

In an interesting aside, Board member David Morgan has been unmoderated on the Board's public
list. After ascertaining that he could in fact post to the list himself, his next post was "Free at last,
free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last!" [We wait to see if he will be moderated again...]

IN OTHER NEWS: Project member Jeffrey Scism has attempted to address a Point of Order to
the NC: "What the BRC submitted, as directed, was a set of AMENDMENTS. These suggestions
are designed to change PORTIONS and leave the rest alone. To process these amendments as if
they were a revision VIOLATES the accepted parliamentary authority, and changes the required
level of approval from a super majority to a simple majority. I call for an immediate ruling, under
the Parliamentary procedure, as a POINT OF ORDER." [Yes, Jeff is apparently given to shouting
to get his points across.] He insists that as a general member, he has a right to raise a point of
order on the floor, and that the Chair must respect that and cease business until it is addressed.
Shari has thus far ignored the point of order. We imagine she was waiting for the outcome of the
vote on the motion to amend, and now that it has failed, she may declare the point of order moot
if she chooses to address it at all.

UNCEASING WONDER: We have received our bona fides from the Election Committee.
Apparently after trying a few times, it went through and we are now an honest-to-god registered
voter. Of course, as a project member since 1996 we should have been registered as a matter of
course when the registration system was adopted in 2004, but by now we are used to falling
through the cracks whenever someone thinks they can find a way to make our life difficult. It
remains to be seen if we will actually receive a password when election time comes around, but
we will practice optimism for now.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME: Over on the DISCUSS list, one of Don "No Brainer" Kelly's
main points in support of calling the amendments "revisions" is that the name of the committee
that developed them is the Bylaws Revision Committee. While this is rather a specious argument,
he seems wedded to the idea that the name is more important than the thing. Anyways, someone
on DISCUSS asked when the "Bylaws Review Committee" became known as the "Bylaws
Revision Committee." We had to admit, that stumped us. So we looked into it [this turned out to
be surprisingly harder than one might suspect]. What we found is that, way back in November
2001, then-NC Holly Timm convened three "formation" committees, one of which was tasked
with examining the bylaws, deciding what needed to amended, and determining how best to
establish a committee to produce the needed amendments or a full revision. In December 2001 the
final report of the Bylaws Formation Committee recommended establishing a committee called the
"Bylaws Revision Committee." However, when the committee was formally established on March
10, 2002 it was simply called the "Bylaws Committee." The original chair of the BC, Phyllis
Rippee, lasted about two weeks and was replaced on March 29 by Ginger Hayes. By April 8,
Ginger was referring to the committee as the "Bylaws Revision Committee" in communications
with the Board. Ginger lasted until June as Chair and then resigned. Apparently Jimmy Epperson
served as acting Chair until Roger Swafford was elected by fellow committee members in October
2002. He remained the Chair of the committee until its final report in March 2005 and as best as
we can tell, he never referred to it as anything other than the BRC or the Bylaws Revision
Committee.

Interestingly enough, we can find only three references to the "Bylaws Review Committee" [other
than very old ones to the 1998 version that ended up creating our current bylaws]. One of them is
in an old nominee description page from the 2003 election, one is in an email to the DISCUSS list
in April 2004, and one is a message to BOARD-L from just a few days ago. All of them belong to
Don "I'd Like To Buy a Clue, Pat" Kelly and in all of them he refers to the BRC as the "Bylaws
Review Committee." [In the DISCUSS message he also refers to one of the BRC's proposed
changes to the bylaws as an amendment, but that's just too much icing on the cake]. So it appears
possible that the only person who has ever referred to the BRC as the "Bylaws Review
Committee" is Don Kelly himself. See for yourself:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/USGENWEB-DISCUSS/2004-04/1082382911

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/2003nwplcandidates.htm#don

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BOARD/2005-05/1116823056

BONUS QUOTE O' THE DAY: "In closing, the BRC is 100% withing their mandate by
recommending an ammendment to better balance representation on the board." --Don Kelly, April
2004

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Rocking the Casbah since 1998

posted by merope at 8:20 AM 6 comments   
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Race Is On
Oddly enough...its Your Daily Board Show!

APPLES VS ORANGES: In the day's Board business, Shari called the vote on the motion to
amend Motion 05-09 (Bylaws Revisions). Board members should note that this vote is another
one with an early morning deadline rather than an evening deadline. Thus far, the vote stands at 3
YES votes and 4 NO votes. [David Morgan has cast an additional NO vote on the DISCUSS list,
but it has not yet made its way to Board-L.] Still no word from either Roger or Shari on the
propriety of this approach to amending the bylaws, or on the special election required by the
Board's previous actions on this matter.

Meanwhile, over on DISCUSS, the topic du jour has been what kind of majority the amendment
and the motion itself will need to pass. After much foo-fah back and forth, Shari popped in to let
everyone know that "The motion to amend requires a majority vote. The main motion...will
require 2/3." Sturgis is pretty clear on this, but Dick Harrison argued it anyways, proposing that it
should be called an "issue" [and thus require a 2/3 majority] just because its been a topic of hot
interest to Board members and the general public. When that approach failed, Dick noted,
"...what the motion proposes is improper. You cannot change an amendment into a revision by
calling it a revision when it is clearly an amendment. If the motion suceeds, the AB will be
involved in an action which does nothing to help the project or help the reputation of the AB
within the project." [Well, he's right on that, but we have a hard time recalling the last time the
Board did something to improve either the Project's image or its own.]

So there you have it. Requiring only a simply majority to pass the amendment could make this an
interesting horse race right up to the finish line. The voting on the motion to amend 05-09 is
currently pretty much neck and neck. We believe that at least one possible NO vote has left town
for the holiday already and Shari has removed one other likely NO vote from the Board entirely
[even though she wouldn't likely have let his vote through anyways]. The handful who have
weighed in on this issue publicly have already voted, and which way the six remaining Board
members will swing is a mystery.

BONUS QUOTE: "It was my motion and I did not mention amendment. Someone else added that
in. I just want it corrected. This isn't rocket science. If a person makes a motion, the words should
not be changed." --Don "No Brainer" Kelly

[This was tough today, because Don was on a roll and gave us many good quotes to choose from.
We settled on this one because 1) it wasn't originally Don's motion; he just agreed to Shari's
wording; 2) the wording of the motion hasn't been changed since it was made, so no one has
"added" anything; and 3) Don's cluelessness seems truly to know no bounds. We can only hope
for his sake that this motion was previously discussed in the Sekrit Sandbox and that Shari did
indeed change the wording when she proposed it publicly. Otherwise, we are not entirely sure he
lives in the same reality as everyone else.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Ready, willing, and able since 1998

posted by merope at 6:13 AM 1 comments   
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Getting Out Of Dodge
Don't let the door hit you on your way out...its Your Daily Board Show!

ALREADY THE WEEKEND: Moving right along to the more important business, several Board
members [Bettie, Gail, Denise] indicated that they will be out of town over the long Memorial
Day weekend. Don sent them off with these stirring words: "You kids have some fun, but come
back tough. We have a couple of very hard votes to pass...we have some SC oppositions to
both...a few CC's too. We need to keep thinking, 'MAJORITY.'" [Some SCs? A "few" CCs? We
wish we had some of whatever it is he is smoking; it seems to make the world a very different
place.]

There was no other discussion on Motion 05-09, amended or not, no vote on the motion to
amend, and no sign of either Shari Handley or Roger Swafford.

Tina Vickery posted an announcement to the Board regarding the opening of the nominations
period for the upcoming election and a reminder that members must be registered by May 31 if
they intend to vote.

CATCHING UP: We are pleased to report, that after a decent interval, Gail Meyer Kilgore has
finally and formally been elected to the State Coordinator position in AZGenWeb.

BONUS QUOTE: "...every single proposal for change that I saw(read improvement) came from
the membership...including the proposed amendment to re-adjust the rep and AB structure...I
suspect there are a few around who don't want the members to vote on the full package, so will
try to bury the works so deep they will never see the light of day...I suspect 100% of members
will disagree with one or more of the proposed revisions. I sure do. And here is another fact that
bothers me, two or three bylaws (and the supporting revisions) are linked together. If one goes
down the tubes, they all must go...that is the ugly downside to voting separately on every single
dot and tittle...if the membership wants to vote on the full proposal, then the membership needs to
be proactive (and vocal) in what they want...otherwise there may not be come July anything to
vote on, in whole or in part. The anti-bylaws group would just love that wouldn't they. So what
will we do? Time is running out." --Don Kelly [waxing poetic, making no sense, and calling
revisions amendments. Again.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Shaken but not stirred since 1998

posted by merope at 5:47 AM 4 comments   
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
When At First You Don't Succeed
Going over it one more time...its Your Daily Board Show!

SILENT TREATMENT: In Board business yesterday, Bettie Wood tried one more time to get a
ruling from Roger Swafford as to whether the BRC's proposed changes to the bylaws are a
revision of the bylaws or amendments to them, and also pointed out again that "if we are not
going against our own ruling, we need to get busy with that special election!" Shari continued to
ignore her. David Morgan called the question on the motion to amend Motion 09-04 to call the
changes revisions and Shari asked if there were any objections to closing debate on the motion
and proceeding to a vote. There was no further action on the motion after that point.

On a related topic, Betsy posted notice of her own bylaws amendments, which obtained the
required five state co-sponsors some time ago. She noted "I am cc'ing the USGenWeb-Discuss list
and the Board list in hopes that the message will be forwarded to the USGenWeb-All list as is
required." [We checked. It has, along with the messages about state co-sponsorship, which are
very interesting. Apparently the requirements for "state sponsorship" are rather loose, or perhaps
nonexistent. One state had a grand total of 8 votes, and one had a total of 5.]

Last but not least, Tina Vickery posted a final reminder that the period for registering for the
upcoming general election is May 31st. [We have tried again to register, with no apparent luck.
We shall try again.]

PEANUT GALLERY: The discussion of Motion 05-09 continues unabated on the DISCUSS list,
although its pretty much gotten to the point where nothing new is being discussed. A couple of
participants did point out something very interesting though. If the Board does choose to place
the BRC's amendments on the ballot this time around, one of them conflicts with Betsy's proposed
amendments. The project could end up with a situation in which two incompatible amendments to
the bylaws pass in the same election. This hasn't been discussed publicly by the Board, but its a
serious issue. The Board has a possibly irresistable opportunity to play favorites here by requiring
Betsy's amendments to go through all the hoops [five state co-sponsors, required 2/3 majority,
etc.], while allowing the BRC's amendments to slide through as revisions [no sponsors required,
only 50%+ majority needed to pass]. As Ellen Pack noted, "That...would set a terrible precedence
that effectively bypasses the states and the membership, and places tons of power in the hands of
the AB...It should *never* be easier for the AB to push Bylaws changes on the ballot than it is for
the membership and the states, yet that would most certainly be the effect...the BRC was not a
grass roots committee. It was a duly authorized committee of the AB. All of this is AB
instigated...The AB has a responsibility to make sure that under no circumstances would it be
possible for the membership to ever vote simultaneously on amendments that would work in
contradiction or opposition to one another in the event both were passed...at this point, the need
for proper, responsible, educated, and much-considered actions by the AB is crucial." [Good luck
with that...]

OUR READERS WRITE: Recently removed Board member Richard Howland wrote yesterday
to tell us the following: "As to being able to vote, at least three times I tried that and they never
posted to the list. My guess is that "yes" and "no" are both consider offensive to some AB
members. All tolled there are some 11 messages that I sent to Board-L and were bounced back to
me with Subject: {not a subscriber}."

We cannot recall seeing a single message from Richard Howland after the end of Tim's trial. If he
tried to post discussion items to Board-L and was prevented from contributing to debate on
business or even worse, if he was prevented from even voting on Project business, then Shari has
personally deprived his constituents of their duly elected representation on the Board for almost
10 months. Now, with but three months left in his term, she is determined to dispense with him
entirely and go against both tradition and precendent to have her Board choose a more palatable
representative to sit at her side. There must be something important coming up; something on
which every vote will count.

Note to our other reader: Yes, well, no one ever said USGenWeb was consistent.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Going gently into that good night since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 5 comments   
Monday, May 23, 2005
The Emporer Has No Clothes
Casting the first stone...its Your Daily Board Show!

FLURRY OF ACTIVITY: Discussion continued on Motion 05-09 (Bylaws Revision). [The
Board clearly likes this topic better than the old-news data repository discussion.] Bettie Wood
says she'd like to second Don's proposed amendment to Motion 05-09, but noted that "The BRC
web site would need to be changed also--to say revisions, & everywhere else where they're
referred to as amendments needs to be changed...maybe our members would be more comfortable
if we got the BRC Chair to say for certain that these were revisions, or amendments?" She later
asked whether the amendments would require a simple majority to pass or a 2/3 majority and Don
Kelly said he believes it will follow the previous bylaws vote and require "50% + 1 vote." David
Morgan objected to the motion to amend, reminding the group that former NC Dick Harrison
himself called them amendments. Darilee Bednar, who seconded Don's original motion on the
amendments, said she had no objection to the proposed change, and although she did go so far as
to actually second the motion to amend, Shari opened the motion for discussion. Both Bettie
Wood and Teri Brown noted that the Board needs to hold a special election, and Teri
recommended that "...this motion should be amended again to reflect the special election, as
opposed to the upcoming election. Otherwise, it seems like the Board is contradicting its own
ruling." Don Kelly continued to defend his assertion that the proposed amendments constitute a
revision, and responded to David Morgan's observation by noting "...you have to admit that the
committee name is Bylaws Review Committee...not Bylaws Amendment Committee...So how do
you...generate an amendment from a revision?...The BRC did not generate Amendments, they
generated revisions. We never thought otherwise, so add intent to the mix...if someone incorrectly
spoke, what difference does that make? They are by any name still revisions." [Hmmm..if we
called him a fruitloop, would that make him one?]

We do find it interesting that Shari addressed none of the concerns expressed by Bettie, Teri or
David, and that the one person who can answer the question of the BRC's interpretation of the
numerous charges given it, whether or not the proposed changes are revisions or amendments,
what majority will be required to pass them, and whether a motion to put them on the regular
election ballot is out of order given the Board's previous decision to hold a special election, has
been silent. That person is Roger Swafford, Board parliamentarian and lately the Chair of the
Bylaws Revision Committee. We would say he's probably in a real pickle now, what with the
conflict of interest and all, but this is Roger Swafford we are talking about and he Always Knows
What is Right. We imagine a number of rulings will be made in the next day or so and we are very
curious to see what Rog comes up with. He no doubt wants these on a ballot soon, and with as
much chance as possible of passage, which would mean they'd be revisions. But then he'd have to
explain why our parliamentarian, who shouldn't be making that kind of mistake, has persisted in
calling them amendments ever since the BRC had its first report handed back to it with the charge
to devise amendments that members could vote on individually. We don't see how anyone can
square 6 proposed changes to the bylaws as being a revision of the entire set [regardless of what
the committee was called], or how they can weasel out of the Board-mandated requirement to
hold a special election, but if anyone can do it, Roger can. It just takes a little time to twist
yourself into that kind of pretzel.

MEANWHILE: Over on the DISCUSS list, Board member Don Kelly is still trying frantically to
convince others that when he says "tomahto," dammit, its "tomahto," and there's no possibility of
its being anything else. Its gotten so bad that he's 1) accusing everyone but himself who ever
referred to the proposed changes as amendments instead of revisions of making a mistake, and 2)
denying his own prior votes on the matter, even in the face of sourced evidence. He doesn't
appear to be actually convincing anyone, but he certainly is persistent. In his defense, it does
indeed seem that from the inception of the BRC, members of the committee, the Board, and in
some cases the general membership have been careless with the words "amendment" and
"revision." They have been used more or less interchangeably and its only now that what word we
use actually makes a difference in how they are handled that people are vying over what is the
correct word to use. Its got to the point where one member of the BRC is publicly urging the
Board to violate the bylaws "one last time" in order to put the proposals on the ballot as revisions,
and a former Board member has urged any five state coordinators currently on the Board to come
forward and offer their states as sponsors so the proposals can be posted as amendments.

BONUS QUOTE O' THE DAY: "Of course it was a correction, because amendment was not
what I made the motion on. Why would I make a motion on an amendment? I made the motion to
present what the Bylaws Revision Committee does, which is to generate revisions for further
review by the AB...Revisions was our charge and our mandate and that was what we did. So it
was in fact a correction. If I say it is a correction, it is a correction." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Quacking like a duck since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 AM 1 comments   
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Whatchamacallit
A confederacy of dunces...its Your Daily Board Show!

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WORD MAKES: NC Shari Handly finally made an appearance on
the Board list long enough to recognize the Bylaws "Revisions" motion and give it a number. She
also asked for discussion; the only comment so far has been a motion from Don Kelly "to change
the words amendment in Motion 05-09 to revisions." He explained that "We need to be accurate
because the BRC proposed nothing called amendments...my motion did not support referring to
what we did, revisions, to be called amendment...I believe absolute accuracy is critical here."

Well, lets see about accuracy, shall we? Don's declaration notwithstanding, the Bylaws Revision
Committee itself called them amendments when it submitted its final report. The BRC continues
to refer to them as amendments on its website. The Board referred to them as amendments in
Motion 04-13D; in fact, in that motion the Board returned the "proposed revisions" and instructed
the BRC to rework them "in such a way that they can be presented to the general membership as
separate amendments, in order that the general membership may vote to accept, or reject, each
individual amendment." Under Sturgis, they are amendments. Under popular sentiment, they are
amendments. Shari's own suggested wording for Motion 05-09 called them amendments, and Don
himself used this wording without comment until all the ruckus on DISCUSS about following the
bylaws. But, as it turns out, if they are called "revisions" they can be put on the ballot without
requiring state sponsorship or a 2/3 majority to pass; if they are called "amendments", they have
to go through the same bylaws-mandated "kiss of death" process as any other proposed
amendment does. Thus Don's appeal to "accuracy" in calling the proposed amendments revisions
instead; perhaps if he can get everyone to call them "revision" it will actually be true. So far,
there's been no second to his motion to call an apple an orange, but even if the Board collectively
decided to change the wording of the motion, it wouldn't change the basic reality on the ground.
And it won't fool anyone either.

Another interesting thing to note is that the convoluted process that resulted in the return of the
revisions to the BRC and their emergence nearly a year later as amendments also produced an
interesting set of instructions for the BRC, the Board and the EC to follow. After much motioning
and amending, the final version of the new instructions to the BRC were as follows: "The AB, by
passing Motion 04-13, has agreed that the proposed bylaws revisions should be returned to
committee, by failing to pass Motion 04-13B, has recognized that a complete revision of the
bylaws not requiring co-sponsorship by the states is a legitimate option for the committee to
consider, and by passing Motion 04-13-C, has determined the revisions will be presented for a
vote of the members by special election, no less than 60 days before 2005 election cycle." In
addition, Motion 14-D stated "that the proposed revisions be reworked in such a way that they
can be presented to the general membership as separate amendments, in order that the general
membership may vote to accept, or reject, each individual amendment."

Read that carefully. The Board determined back then that 1) the revisions should be returned to
the committee; 2) a complete revision that did not require state sponsorship was an option [not a
requirement, and it does not say that whatever the committee came up would be considered a
"revision"]; 3) whatever the BRC produced would be presented to the membership in a special
election no less than 60 days before the start of the regular election cycle. Presumably that was
proposed so that any changes to the make-up of the Board would be in place before the election
cycle started. So, what happened to the special election? We are well within the 60 day window
and the Board has had the BRC's final report on its desk for two months. They've already violated
their own procedure. It might be amusing at this point to ask Roger Swafford to put on his
parliamentarian hat and make a number of rulings on whether the proposed changes to the bylaws
are revisions or amendments, whether the current motion to put them on the ballot without state
sponsorship is out of order, whether it violates the bylaws and/or the Board's own voted-on
procedure, and what the repercussions are of appointing someone as chair of a committee who
will later be in the position of advising the Board on the nature of the committee's work and the
acceptability of motions before the Board involving the committee's work.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD: In a maybe not so surprising twist, Shari Handly has declared that
Richard Howland's NE/NC seat is now vacant and has called for volunteers to fill out the
remainder of his term, which ends Aug 31, 2005. In a departure from tradition, she has also
indicated that the Board will personally choose his replacement from among any volunteers. In
response to an inquiry on the State Coordinator List, Shari noted that Richard hasn't been an SC
in the region for a long time, and that she is not aware that he currently holds any counties at all in
USGenWeb. He did not resign his SC rep position, but has been removed.

Shari failed to note, however, that the reason that the NE/NC region has been deprived
representation all these months is that she has prevented Richard from participating in any Board
business. Because she believed that he leaked the transcripts from Tim's trial, she cut him off from
all Board lists, secret and public, and apparently has not allowed him to vote or comment on any
business before the Board. The last time Richard was allowed to carry out his duties on behalf of
his constituents was August 2004. Yet, for some reason, the Board did not take the steps of
declaring him a member not in good standing, or of publicly voting on the sanctions, or of
explaining to his constitutents why he would no longer be allowed to represent them. There was
no trial, no chance for Richard to defend or explain himself, or to appeal the outcome. Shari just
"disappeared" him. Now, for some reason, just before an election that would have determined his
successor anyways, the Board will itself be choosing a placeholder to serve for the next three
months. You don't suppose Shari wants to secure another friendly vote for some crucial upcoming
business, do you?

FISH OR CUT BAIT: Over on the Grievance Committee working group mailing list, group Chair
Angie Rayfield finally and pointedly asked the other committee members to speak up and
contribute to the discussion. After pointing out that that the group has two distinctly different
proposals before it, she noted "Before we can really go any further, we will have to go back to the
question of the make-up and structure of the committee...At this point, I would like all committee
members to comment on which of these proposals they favor, and why." There has been no
comment from the other committee members.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Heading for higher ground since 1998

posted by merope at 9:20 AM 5 comments   
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sometimes A Great Notion
A DAILY BOARD SHOW SPECIAL REPORT!

Someone asked us the other day what we really thought of the two proposals currently before the
Grievance Committee working group. We considered a bit, decided we had a lot to say, and thus
you have this Daily Board Show Special Report. We apologize in advance for the wind-bagginess,
but we had an extra cup of tea this morning and thus worked up a good head of steam for our
rant.

====

APPLES AND ORANGES: In the following comparison of the two proposals currently before
the Grievance Committee working group, we will use the following convention to refer to the
proposals:

Proposal 1 (Angie's): http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt
Proposal 2 (Betsy's): http://www.argenweb.net/temp/gcproc.htm

The general format is a "compare and contrast" of the main sections of each proposal. We have
edited and rearranged some text a bit in order to extract the meat of each proposal and for the
sake of clarity and various complicated procedural details that did not affect the gist of the
proposal were also left out; for the complete original text please visit the URLs listed above. Our
comments are in [brackets] throughout. Please note that although we refer to "Angie's" and
"Betsy's" proposals, we do not mean to imply that either proposal was the sole work of a single
individual. Although Angie apparently composed Proposal 1 herself, it is obviously based at least
in part on comments she has received from members and which she has since forwarded to the
working group. Betsy's proposal reads like it was written by herself, Dick Harrison, and Roger
Swafford after too many late nights watching John Wayne movies and swilling some sort
plain-label whiskey. In some sense, both proposals are collaborative efforts; the only real
difference is that Angie has been relatively forthcoming about her sources while Betsy has not.

That said, let's get on with it, shall we?

Purpose of the committee:

Proposal 1: Not stated

Proposal 2: "The purpose of the Grievance Committee shall be to receive, prioritize, and make a
final determination on all grievances submitted to the Advisory Board, in an expeditious and fair
manner, in accordance with the USGenWeb Bylaws, and Policy enacted by the Advisory Board
through a Board vote."

Composition of the committee:

Proposal 1: Grievance Coordinator; 5 permanent committee members; rotating pool of mediators
and arbitrators

Proposal 2: Grievance Committee Coordinator (Board member); 1 additional Advisory Board
Representative; 5 At Large volunteers chosen from the general membership; 5 alternate At Large
members chosen from the membership; 1 ex-officio member (the National Coordinator)

[Main differences: Proposal 1 does not require or encourage the participation of any Board
members on the committee; no provision is made for an ex-officio position for the NC, although
Sturgis will probably require it. Proposal 2, however, requires 2 Board members on the committee
and explicity puts the NC on the committee but denies him/her a vote. Per Sturgis, however,
ex-officio members cannot be denied the rights and responsibilities of full committee membership.
We imagine this "mistake" will be discovered in time to ensure that the NC actually does get a
vote on the Grievance Committee.]

Formation of the committee:

Proposal 1: Initial appointments to the Grievance Committee made by vote of the Board; future
vacancies will be chosen by the committee from the general membership and presented to the
Board for approval

Proposal 2: At Large members confirmed as a slate by the Board; Board members will be
appointed by a majority vote of the Board

Grievance Coordinator:

Proposal 1: Board appoints the first Grievance Coordinator; future vacancies filled by vote of the
Committee members

Proposal 2: First Coordinator appointed by the Board; future Coordinators elected by the at large
members from between the two Board representatives

[Both proposals will involve the Board to some extent in the formation and maintenance of the
Grievance Committee. There is no real way around that, both because the bylaws require it and
because the basic realities of USGenWeb make it unlikely that the Board would ever approve a
committee they could not keep a finger in. However, Proposal 1 limits Board involvement
substantially once the GC is formed. The Board will approve the committee members, both
initially and when vacancies occur, but will not appoint future Coordinators or have anything
whatsoever to do with the mediators and abritrators. Additionally, as we will note below, those
committee members that the Board does approve will not be able to influence the outcomes of
any particular grievance, thus limiting the impact of the Board in this area. Proposal 2, on the
other hand, retains Board control over every level of the process. The Board appoints all
committee members and those committee members decide the outcomes of grievances. Although
the committee members will be permitted to elect their own Coordinator, it is worth noting that
the GC members will always be required to choose a Coordinator from among the two Board
members provided to them by the Board. In other words, the GC will have no ability to determine
which two Board members it is choosing between as the Coordinator. In Proposal 1, once the
Board appoints the first Coordinator and committee, it is entirely out of the business of
determining who leads the Grievance Committee or how individual grievances are addressed.]

Qualifications:

Proposal 1: one year's continuous service as a Member in Good Standing of either a State Project
or a recognized Special Project of the USGenWeb Project; must agree to abide by confidentiality
requirements

Proposal 2: members in good standing, must agree to abide by confidentiality requirements

Terms of service:

Proposal 1: Grievance Coordinator: 2 years; permanent committee members: not clear from the
proposal, possibly 2 years

Proposal 2: Advisory Board Representatives: 1 year; At Large committee members: 2 years

Duties of the Grievance Coordinator:

Proposal 1: receives and numbers complaints, assigns complaints to a Grievance Committee
member to administer; maintains the list of volunteer mediators and arbitrators; assigns mediators
and arbitrators to complaints; reports regularly to the Board on complaints received and resolved;
provides other information to the Board as needed

Proposal 2: Recognizes and adheres to the confidentiality requirement; administers the
Committee's mailing lists; receives and catalogs each grievance; notifies the Committee of the
receipt of each grievance; acknowledges to the submitter that the grievance has been received;
notifies the party named in the grievance and the Board that a grievance has been received; leads
the Committee in determining whether both parties have accepted Mediation, whether the
committee will hear the grievance, and the priority of the grievance, and the hearing and final
outcome; notifies the parties and the Board of the final disposition of each grievance; recuses
themself in the event of bias or prejudice or when they are a named party to a grievance; maintains
decorum on all committee lists and moderates unruly subscriber; votes in the case of a tie; notifies
national webmaster of changes or revisions to committee procedures membership.

[There is a wide disparity in the duties of the Grievance Coordinator between the two proposals.
In Proposal 1, the Coordinator is mainly an organizer and reporter. They are responsible primarily
for administrative duties and keeping the business of the committee running smoothly. Proposal 2,
however, proposes something much more pro-active, involved, and controlling. Do not forget
that in Proposal 2, it is a Board member that is doing all these things. The person who wrote this
proposal has a very clear understanding of the power inherent in the Chair and fully intends for
that power to reside with the Board.]

Duties of Grievance Committee members:

Proposal 1: act as administrators and/or advisors to volunteer mediators and arbitrators, following
complaints assigned to them throughout the grievance process; responsible for acting as Chair
when a complaint progresses to an arbitration hearing; do not take direct part in mediations under
their guidance; do not have a vote in hearings they may chair; track the progress of complaints
until resolved; make status reports to the Coordinator and/or Committee as may be; prepare final
status report upon resolution of the complaint

Proposal 2: Recognize and adhere to the confidentiality requirement; be familiar with and make
decisions based on the USGenWeb bylaws and policies enacted by the Board; promptly notify the
Coordinator in the event of absence or inability to continue on the Committee; devote the time
necessary to grant each grievance a full, fair, and proper hearing; recuse themselves in the event of
bias or prejudice and when they are a party to a grievance.

[The differences here are profound. In Proposal 1, the GC members themselves serve only in an
advisory role to the work performed by the mediators and arbitrators; the proposal specifically
denies them even a vote in the arbitration hearing. In Proposal 2, however, the committee itself
determines the outcome of each hearing it conducts. While the committee is made of five at large
members and one voting Board member, it is notable that the group of people actually hearing
and deciding the complaint does not change for each grievance, as it would in Proposal 1,and they
are all appointed by the Board. Since the Board forms the committee, chooses the alternates,
approves all slates, and determines which of its members will serve as representatives to the
committee, its not hard to guess that eventually a certain bias on the GC will be perceived among
the general membership. It has happened with the Election Committee and it will happen here as
well. Speaking of bias, we also note that Proposal 1 does not have any provision for recusal due
to bias, conflict of interest, or the like. This may because, since neither the Coordinator or the
mediators have any way to affect the outcome of mediations or hearings, any bias they might have
is irrelevant. Although Proposal 2 does require both the Coordinator and the members to recuse
themselves in the event of bias, we note that we have not to date been impressed with the ability
of any member of the Board or any committee members to actually recognize when they are
biased, prejudiced, or in the midst of a glaringly obvious conflict of interest. In fact, they tend to
go out of their way to deny that they could ever not consider issues fairly, regardless of the
circumstances.]

Mediators and Arbitrators:

Proposal 1: Grievance Coordinator issues a call for CCs to volunteer to serve as either mediators
or on arbitration committees. Members may volunteer for either or both functions. All volunteer
mediators and arbitrators must agree to uphold the confidentiality of any proceedings in which
they may be involved. Volunteers are assigned consecutive numbers based on the order in which
they responded to the call for volunteers. As complaints are received, mediators/arbitrators are
assigned from the list in numerical order.

Proposal 2: Not applicable

[The use of a changing list of volunteer mediators and arbitrators drawn from the general
membership, as suggested in Proposal 1, may serve to lessen the impression of bias in the
proceedings, particularly since it will not be easy or perhaps even possible to determine which
person will be assigned to which grievance. However, we do note two things: 1) Proposal 1 as
currently written excludes SCs and Special Project members who are not also CCs from serving
as mediators/arbitrators; and 2) Proposal 1 has no provision for recusal, either by the
mediator/arbitrator or by the parties to the grievance. This is the place in Proposal 1 where
statements about bias and conflict of interest should be made. The mediators and arbitrators will
determine the outcome of grievances and it should be possible for mediators, arbitrators, and
parties to grievances to indicate a conflict where it occurs and have another person assigned to the
complaints.]

Procedures: Complaint Process

Proposal 1: Complaints may be made by members of the USGenWeb Project filing on his/her own
behalf within 45 days of the incident or discovery of the incident; former USGenWeb members
within 14 days of termination of membership either with the Project or within a specific State or
Special Project; transcribers and accepted contributing researchers within 45 days of incident, or
discovery of incident; in the case of two or more individuals forming one party, the group will
select one spokesperson to act on behalf of the others. Complaints will be submitted to the
Grievance Coordinator and will include the following: names and affiliations of the member
bringing the complaint and the member(s) the complaint is against; the exact nature of the
complaint, including the date that the incident occurred; steps or actions the member has taken to
this point to resolve the situation outside of the grievance process; actions or reparations that the
project member desires as result of their grievance.

Proposal 2: Submitter must contact the appropriate representative with the following information:
submitter's project participation; summarized specifics of the grievance including action(s), date,
name(s), etc; explanation of how the submitter was damaged by the action; requested outcome of
mediation and/or hearing; statement of agreement to abide by the confidentiality requirement;
statement of agreement to engage in mediation if recommended by the committee. Submitters are
required to: read and understand the committee procedures; accept mediation as a first step in
reconciling the issue; maintain decorum and self-control in all communication with the
Committee, the second party, and the Mediator; adhere to the confidentiality rule.

[Except for Proposal 2's merciless flogging of gag orders, there are not huge differences between
the two proposals.]

Procedures: Denial of grievances

Proposal 1: third-party complaints will not be considered; time constraints on when grievances
can be filed

Proposal 2: The Committee may refuse to hear grievances for the following reasons: submitted in
excess of 45 days of incident or knowledge of incident; multiple or chronic submissions by the
same member; issue duplicates one previously handled and resolved by the committee; the
submitter is not a member in good standing; third party submission; submitting party arbitrarily
refuses mediation; submitting party refuses to abide by the confidentiality rule.

[OK, so basically under Proposal 1, your grievance will be heard so long as it makes it to the
committee before the deadline expires. In Proposal 2, however, your grievance won't be heard if
the committee thinks you have submitted too many grievances, regardless of the merits of any of
them or whether you are in fact actually being picked on repeatedly; if the committee thinks its
already addressed your issue; if you refuse mediation; if you prefer to retain the option of
consulting on your grievance with trusted advisors outside the committee's enchanted circle; or if
you are a member not in good standing, a not-so-very elite club these days and one that is not
likely to get any smaller. We also noticed above that the committee gets to determine the priority
of your grievance, so if they don't like you they can just decide your grievance is not a high
enough priority to deal with and round file it until you give up and go away. Under Proposal 1 it
appears that grievances will be handled in the order in which they are received.]

Procedures: Mailing lists

Proposal 1: "Two e-mail lists will be established for Grievance Committee business.
The first list will be archived, and will be available for all interested project volunteers to subscribe
on a read-only basis. The list will be used to announce committee vacancies/appointments, to
request volunteers for open positions, and for discussions of policy and/or procedures. This list
will also be used for Billet Announcements. No discussion of specific grievances will be held on
the public list.
The second list will not be archived, and is considered strictly confidential. Only Committee
members will be subscribed to this list. Any questions or concerns related to specific grievances
will be raised ONLY on the confidential list. The confidential list may NOT be used for public
business, or in an effort to avoid public disclosure."

Proposal 2: "The Grievance Committee will operate two mailing lists. All Committee members,
including the ex-officio will be subbed at all times. Both lists shall be private and unarchived. 1.
The Grievance Committee Business List, where all private discussions and voting by committee
members will be accomplished. 2. A Hearing List where in all parties to a particular grievance will
be subbed, and have opportunity to freely discuss the issues."

[Big differences here. Proposal 1 suggests a public list where the general membership may
actually keep up to date with Grievance Committee procedures, vacancies, and business, including
progress through its workload. It is intended to both protect the privacy of the parties to the
grievance, while allowing the project membership some confidence that grievances are actually
being addressed. Proposal 2, on the other hand, appears designed to maintain the current status
quo, which some like to call the Black Hole Approach to managing grievances. You know, the
one where you submit a grievance, hear nothing about it for months, get told you are a jerk when
you write to enquire about it, and then either never hear about it again or summarily lose when the
NC steps in and tells your mediators that she's already decided the outcome. This is the same
system wherein the NC appoints a Grievance Coordinator who openly wears her biases tattooed
on every available inch of her ample self, and who can be safely presumed to do absolutely
nothing but grump about how much hard work it all is.]

Procedures: Mediation

Proposal 1: Mediator meets with each party separately, discusses issues raised, prompts
suggestions for an acceptable solution; copies all correspondence to the permanent committee
member responsible for overseeing the mediation; brings both parties close to resolution and then
brings the parties together to finalize the compromise solution; terminates the process when it is
determined that a mediated resolution will be unlikely; makes final recommendations to the
Grievance Coordinator as to whether the matter should proceed to arbitration or whether the
matter should be considered closed. Failure of either party to proceed with mediation in good
faith may be considered grounds for terminating the process. The mediation process is considered
confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless all parties agree
to the contrary.

Proposal 2: preferred approach, attempted in all cases; in the event of failed mediation, the
Committee may decide not to hear the grievance; parties will be informed that if grievance fails in
mediation and goes to committee, the decision of the committee is final.

[Proposal 2 provides very little information on the mediation process, and presumably will
continue to use the current mediation standing procedures. As we know, that process employs
five Board members as mediators, and cannot really be described as a success.]

Procedures: Arbritration

Proposal 1: If the grievant wishes to continue, the Grievance Coordinator selects the next 3 names
from the list of volunteer arbitrators. The arbitrators and the overseeing permanent committee
member will conduct the arbitration hearing on a confidential email list, with the permanent
committee member acting as a non-voting chair. Both parties to the grievance will be subscribed
to the list and given the opportunity to present statements or evidence. Arbitrators may request
additional information and may ask further questions of the parties. The parties to the grievance
will be then be unsubscribed and the arbitrators will discuss the material presented. The arbitrators
may find for either party or reach a decision that is a compromise between the two positions, and
will make a recommendation as to what action should be taken. The Chair will present the
findings and recommendation to the parties and the Grievance Coordinator. This process is
considered confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless all
parties agree to the contrary.

Proposal 2: Not applicable.

[This portion of Proposal 1 is most comparable to the "hearings" described in Proposal 2, except
of course for the notable lack of any Board involvement. Proposal 2 does not provide details of
how its hearings will be conducted, other than that they will take place on a private mailing list,
and that committee members will be restricted to certain authorities when rendering their
decisions. So the general membership is would be taking its usual shot in the dark under this
proposal, and the committee would be free to use any procedures it chooses and to change them
at will.]

[In general, although there are similarities between the two proposals, they are very different in
the level of Board oversight and control they propose. Proposal 1 is by far the more radical of the
two in its departure from the traditional committee structure; Proposal 2 basically dresses the
same wolf in some poor dead sheep and calls it a newborn lamb. Neither really reduces the
complexity of the process or reduces the time involved, although at least with Proposal 1 the
project membership can get some idea of how long that process takes and how effective and
efficient it is. Proposal 2 will just create another official roundelay, in which favorites will get
preferential treatment and the less popular can be safely ignored. In a rather surprising departure
from tradition, neither proposal makes any provision for an appeal to the Board in the case of an
unsatisfactory outcome in a hearing or arbritration. This is unusual; the Board is widely
considered the "court of first resort" in USGenWeb and leaving a full court press out of the mix
was unexpected. In another departure from business-as-usual, neither proposal makes any
provision for "representatives" who assist the parties to a grievance. Although almost entirely
pointless, personal representatives have been a long-standing tradition in the USGenWeb
grievance process. It appears though that the interests of maintaining confidentiality have
outweighed any benefits that advisory roles may provide to either party. In parting, we will note
at last the differing tone of the two proposals. Proposal 2 is festooned with something like 10
separate references to confidentiality and several additional references to discipline, punishment,
or other unpleasant consequences for participants who violate confidentiality or behave in a
fashion not pleasing to the Committee. It provides several reasons why the Committee may just
reject grievances out of hand and allows the exclusion of an entire class of members from the
process, although we note that while members not in good standing may not file grievances, there
is nothing that prevents them from being named in grievances. Its just, you know, mean, which is
in general keeping with a trend lately observed in some members of the Board and the Project in
general. In contrast, although Proposal 1 also mentions confidentiality several times, it manages to
make its point about the consequences in a single sentence. More importantly, it assumes that all
grievances have meaning and importance to those that file them and declines to limit the process
to those complaints and persons deemed acceptable. Proposal 1, on its face, appears designed to
treat all grievances and all the parties involved in them with something approaching respect. While
we are encouraged by the attempt, we fear its probably doomed. The very abrupt last-minute
appearance of Proposal 2, if it doesn't out and out supplant Proposal 1, will at the very least most
likely force a comprise between two very different visions. We imagine that a great deal will be
lost in the process.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
With a rebel yell since 1998

posted by merope at 12:30 PM 1 comments   
L'Etat, C'est Moi
Raining on the parade...its Your Daily Board Show!

CHEAP SEATS: Although there has been no further activity on the public Board list since the
Bylaws amendment motion was made and seconded, discussion on other project lists is ongoing.
Several people have noted that the Board does not have the authority to declare a half-hearted set
of amendments to be a "full revision" and bypass the bylaws. Its also been noted that the BRC
Chair referred to the final products as "amendments" in his last report to the Board and that when
the Board rejected the BRC's first attempt [which was a full bore revision] it explicitly directed
the BRC to rework "the proposed revisions...in such a way that they can be presented to the
general membership as separate amendments, in order that the general membership may vote to
accept, or reject, each individual amendment." The chattering class is out in full regalia on this
topic, and here are just a few selected comments:

"This motion is not the correct way to amend the bylaws...and I will vote against it. The NC that
created this committee specifically said that the committee was not to make any strutural change
in the project. This committee has gone beyond that with its revisions...If the amendments were
worth voting on, they would have 5 states sponsoring." --David Morgan [this is probably a cc of a
post to Board-L that has not been forwarded to that list]

"There is no provision in our bylaws that would authorize the AB to arbitrarily place proposed
amendments on the national ballot without the required sponsoring states for each amendment.
The AB may authorize an emergency amendment only...I believe the motion should be declared
out of order, and removed from the table unless or until the required sponsors can be obtained for
each amendment." --Ellen Pack

"I agree that to allow it/them to go to a vote will be establishing a precedent that definitely has the
potential to damage the Project in the future." --Phyllis Rippee

"Something as important as our bylaws shouldn't be left to chance. If the proposals do meet the
needs and expectations of the membership it should be no problem to find five states to sponsor
the amendments. If five states can't be induced to sponsor, then it would be obvious they must be
viewed as failing to meet the requirements of the project...the membership should be allowed to
vote on the proposals, but as
amendments sponsored by the required number of states...It appears more and more that the AB
is diverging from their responsibilities spelled out in the bylaws and are becoming an oligarchy.
Why do we need the few to tell the large number of members what is best for us. Why not follow
the bylaws?" --Don Tharp

"We can use amendment when we mean amendment and revision when we mean revision. The
BRC revised seemingly forever while responded to membership opinions, and made midstream
adjustments several times, and finally turned the package over to the AB...The package is no
longer in the hands of the BRC, AND at no time did we contemplate a five state approval of what
we were doing...It IMHO un unhelpful to talk about what the BRC could have done." --Don
Kelly [former BRC member]

"I do not oppose amendments but I do oppose this motion both because it is out of order and
because it violates the bylaws...If we are going to vote to amend the bylaws the committee should
be required to present them the same way that other amendments that will appear on the ballot are
done." --Trey Holt

"It is obvious that the current bylaws are so seriously flawed that nothing constructive can be
accomplished in USGenWeb in the way of change...I now ask for the courage from those who
really run this project to sponsor and actively promote..the complete dismissal of the current
bylaws...THEN maybe we can get a set of SIMPLE bylaws with secondary operating documents
put in place that are actually CLEAR, concise, and don't take over one or two US federal duties."
--Keith Giddeon

The discussion has begun to trend away from the problems with the process of getting the
amendments on the ballot to problems with the amendments themselves, how they were arrived
at, and global dissatisfaction with the current bylaws. It is true that the current bylaws are less
than ideal and that the proposed amendments do not improve them. Rather than simplifying the
language and reducing the potential for even worse misunderstandings and even more self-serving
interpretations, they have instead increased their complexity and expanded exponentially the
opportunity for misinterpretation and abuse. Plus, they've introduced an element of downright
meanness that is absent from our current bylaws and will basically permit the Board to spend all
its time in trials of both its own members and the general membership. However, this is not the
point of the current discussion. While we absolutely loathe the proposed amendments we are not
happy to see that procedural arguments are being recommended as a way to keep them off the
ballot. We also are not happy to see an attempt to make an end run around the bylaws in order to
get them on the ballot. What a dilemna. Ideally, the Board would have put the amendments up for
state sponsorship when it received the BRC's final report a couple of months ago and let that
process determine their suitability for the ballot, instead of waiting until the eleventh hour and
then trying to call them a "full revision" and get them on the ballot that way. But its too late for
that now, most likely, and since we are not seeing anyone but former BRC members rushing to
the defense of the amendments, its not likely that any one of them would have achieved the
necessary five state sponsors. Since there hasn't been any Board discussion on this motion [except
for David's posts to DISCUSS] its hard to ascertain which way they will go with it, but the
general membership seems unhappy with the idea of bypassing the bylaws to get them on the
ballot [well, the same 10 general members that always comment on anything.] Whether the Board
will follow this lead or go after some agenda of which we are not aware is still up in the air.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Lacking social skills since 1998

posted by merope at 7:10 AM 1 comments   
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Unfinished Business
The lesser of two evils...its Your Daily Board Show!

SAUCE FOR THE GANDER: On Wednesday, Shari noted that, in the interests of timeliness, the
Board could work on other things while it considers the data repository issue. She asked for
someone to make a motion "to post the amendments recommended by the Bylaws Revision
Committee to the national website and to request that the EC create a ballot for voting on the
BRC amendments during the upcoming election cycle." Don Kelly complied, and Darilee Bednar
seconded the motion. Angie Rayfield asked if the Bylaws Revision Committee had submitted its
final report yet, and Betsy Mills wondered aloud if this approach followed "the prescribed method
provided in the bylaws for revising" bylaws. She noted, "It would appear to me that the AB would
either have to declare them emergency amendments or they would each need 5 states to sponsor
them." Shari responded that "...this proposal is a complete revision and...does not require the
states sponsorship. They are to be presented in such a way that the membership can vote to adopt
or reject each individual section. They are to be presented to the membership for vote on adoption
by special referendum authorized by the Advisory Board. This...is the authorization of the special
referendum to be done during the regular election cycle, which is prudent use of time and
resources."

The motion has not yet been numbered, and there has been no further discussion of the data
repository issue.

BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY: Funny thing that Shari is now claiming that the handful
of proposed amendments to the bylaws that ended up coming out of committee are now
considered a wholescale revision. For one thing, the Board explicitly rejected the complete
revision that the BRC provided initially and sent them back to the drawing board for individual
amendments to individual sections that the membership could vote on. Calling what they came up
with a "full revision" is laughable, since they managed to amend only 5 of 16 articles. Secondly,
Sturgis is pretty clear on how amendments are handled vs. revisions. While amendments can be
handled as the bylaws determine, revisions require that they be presented, considered, and voted
on in the same way that the original bylaws were handled. Thirdly, the BRC itself considers them
to be amendments, not revisions [http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/amendments.htm] So why are
they revisions instead of amendments? Because by calling the current amendments a revision, the
rigorous amendment provisions of our bylaws can be neatly avoided and the "revision" has a much
better chance of passage since only a simple majority vote is required. We don't recall, however,
that the original bylaws were voted on piece by piece; this would seem to violate the letter and
spirit of Sturgis.
We doubt that an appeal to the parliamentarian would be fruitful in this matter. He was also the
chair of the BRC and this is probably his last best chance to mold the policy of USGenWeb to his
liking.

TAKIN' IT TO THE STREETS: Angie Rayfield, chair of the Grievance Committee working
group, is soliciting comment and critique from the membership on the two proposals for handling
grievances. Both proposals are posted [see below] and comments may be sent to any member of
the working group.

Proposal 1:http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt
Proposal 2: http://www.argenweb.net/temp/gcproc.htm

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Sleepwalking in Sarajevo since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 1 comments   
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Foot In Mouth
Plop, fizz, fizz...its Your Daily Board Show!

SLUMBER PARTY: There has been no more public discussion on the Data Repository issue. Its
beginning to look like a non-starter this time around.

We will note that comment has been occurring over on the SW/SC list, and a couple of Board
members have been involved. David Morgan in particular has been vocal in seeing no reason to
waste time pursuing this issue further. Other members who have commented seem to like Shari's
most current proposal, but W. David Samuelsen continues to flog the original "Eleven
Commandments" proposal from back in March. However, since he's clearly not all that familiar
with it, it's hard to take him very seriously.

DIFFERENT STROKES: Grievance Committee working group Chair Angie Rayfield has been
busy posting the several comments she has received from members on the various versions of the
proposed grievance policy. They are lengthy and we won't repost them here just yet, but it is
possible to see where different ideas have come from in Angie's proposal. Despite previously
expressing interest in seeing the comments, Betsy "Can't Be Bothered" Mills seems to have gone
back into hibernation. Wethinks she was just interested in knowing who Angie is talking to so she
can decide what she thinks of the proposal.

ALL BETTER NOW: The improperly displayed official USGenWeb logo on the renegade Giles
county page was removed sometime yesterday morning, after the issue heated up on the alternate
CC list. Since Vicki apparently presents herself on mailing lists as "the" Giles county CC and thus
the person to whom data submissions should be forwarded, the correct TNGenWeb CC for that
county has decided to open another mailing list for the county site.

OUR BAD: As several people have reminded us [some graciously, some perhaps not so
graciously], we mixed up our Vicki's in our report yesterday on the renegade Giles county, TN
page. Vicki Shaffer is the Vicki who was, until late yesterday morning, improperly displaying the
official USGenWeb logo. Vicki Lindsay Thauvin is the Vicki who sends out Root$web
nasty-grams to people who improperly display the official USGenWeb logo. Our apologies to
both Vickis, Root$web, and anyone else who was confused, amused, or abused by the error.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Boarrd Show
Putting the cart before the horse since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 0 comments   
Monday, May 16, 2005
Dog In The Manger
Here there be dragons...its Your Daily Board Show!

PIDDLY STUFF: Yesterday's Board business included a reminder from Shari that the deadline
for submitting proposals for the 2006 FGS conference is rapidly approaching. Submissions should
be sent to Josh Taylor no later than May 18, 2005. Tina Vickery posted a reminder that if you
want to vote in the upcoming election, you need to register by May 31. There was no further
public discussion of the "Data Repository" issue.

ELEVENTH HOUR: Apparently Angie's recent aside to the Board that she expected the
Grievance Committee working group to finish its work soon has lit a fire under someone's hinder.
All of a sudden Betsy Mills is very, very concerned that none of the comments supposedly
received by Angie and used by her in development of the current proposal have been posted to the
Committee list. In fact, she noted "it would be nice if all of us were able to see those comments
and who is saying them." [Note that last bit.] Then Betsy claimed her own "correspondent" and
posted a competing proposal for the group to consider. You can see it here:
http://www.argenweb.net/temp/gcproc.htm While we are glad to see that the current Grievance
Coordinator has managed to rouse herself to some semblance of interest in the process, we find it
amusing that it comes so late in the day. Someone must have finally realized that if the proposal
worked up by Angie gets through the approval process, they'd be out of a job and the
[mis]management of grievances would be left entirely to someone else. [Although we've heard
through a tenuous grapevine that Betsy finds the whole Grievance Coordinator thing very
tiresome and has threatened to resign due to the overwhelming workload. We suppose that setting
your autoresponder to tell petitioners that you aren't accepting their mail could take a lot out of a
person.] Betsy's proposal [actually, its probably more Shari's proposal, but we'll let that go for
now] would leave control of grievances, including determination of their "priority", entirely in the
hands of the Board. It also denies access to the grievance process to a growing class of project
members, those the Board has decided are "not in good standing." And of course, since its Betsy's
baby, it flogs secrecy at every opportunity. While Angie's proposal both provides for the
confidentiality of actual grievance proceedings, it also provides for public accounting of the
receipt, status, and disposition of grievances received by the committee. And although it would
keep members not in good standing off the committee itself, it does not deny them access to the
grievance process. We also note, that although Betsy made a point of asking to know who has
submitted comments to Angie, she herself was not forthcoming with the identity of the
"submitter" of the proposal she received. We wonder why.

DOUBLE YOUR PLEASURE: The alternate CC list is abuzz this morning with news of a fake
TNGenWeb county site maintained by Vicki Shaffer. Taking a page from Linda Lewis, Vicki
seems to claiming legitimacy for her Giles county site by posting its lineal descendancy from the
initial CC [who took the site independent of TNGenWeb some time ago]. This would not be of
much concern since anyone can run a site for any county they choose, but this one is flying a
USGenWeb logo although it is not a USGenWeb site. Now, IIRC, Vicki is an employee of
Root$web, and we seem to recall that she has herself personally sent emails to people demanding
that they remove improperly displayed logos from pages held at Root$web addresses or else lose
the webspace. TNGW already has a fine official site for Giles county and we are curious as to
how Vicki can justify her continued display of the USGenWeb logo on a non-project site, and also
fail to link in any way that we can find to the current and official TNGenWeb Giles county site.
We are also curious as to why Root$web allows its employees to violate its own rules, but
perhaps that does not surprise us so much as it should.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Tiptoeing through the tulips since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 4 comments   
Sunday, May 15, 2005
A Fine Kettle of Fish
Better than a sharp stick...its Your Daily Board Show!

IT'S ALIVE!: Following a long and apparently restful sleep, the Board is back in action. Sort of.
Yesterday evening, late-ish, Shari resurrected the "Data Repository" agenda item that they last
chewed over a couple of months ago. She noted that, "Over the years, we've seen several
instances in which individuals have stated their opinions that either a) all collected data should
reside on the county site, b) all collected data should be placed in the USGenWeb Archives, c)
some types of data should be on the county site and other types in the Archives, or d) all data
should reside in both places...In order to clear this up and allow our coordinators to choose
whenever possible, I'd like to have the AB implement a policy on the matter." She asked for a
motion on the matter that would allow choice by either or both the submitter or the person to
whom data were submitted. Thus far the only Board member to rise to the bait was Don Kelly,
who said, "Before a motion, this scanerio in better words might work even better...Data submitted
to a county is posted to the county. The same data in txt format, with submitter approval can also
be posted to the archives END...Since researchers visit the county first, it makes sense to make
the data available to them at the county level."

HORNET'S NEST: Following our report yesterday on the recent non-election for a State
Coordinator in AZGenWeb, two things happened. First, Board member David Morgan publicly
questioned the propriety of handing over a state to a new SC without the benefit of an election,
and second, former AZGW SC Mike Jarvis rescinded the notice of Gail Meyer Kilgore's
succession to the throne with the following announcement to State-Coord-L: "Gail Meyer Kilgore
will be serving as Acting State Coordinator until AZGenWeb elections are held...I have submitted
my resignation to Gail and she will be assuming my responsibilities. You will be updated when the
election has taken place." We hear through the grapevine that Gail has received several
nominations for the position and has already appointed her Assistant State Coordinator. Looks
like the EC will be getting out its rubber stamp again.

IT MUST BE SPRING: For those of you who follow these things, there is also life over on the
Grievance Committee working group's mail list. Its been nearly a month since anyone but Angie
Rayfield had anything to say, but late last night Betsy "Wake Me When Its Over" Mills asked if
the project membership could be allowed to comment on the list. She noted "Since we are going
to include members in the new procedure, it would be nice if they had some input," and also
expressed the concern that the process was becoming too complicated. Angie replied that she has
in fact received comments from readers and has incorporated them into the current proposed
procedure. She noted "...many (if not most) of the ideas that have been incorporated so far have
come from project members. In fact, pretty much the only input I've received has been from
project members outside of the AB & grievance procedures committee."

We have been following the working group with interest, since it is departing -so far- from the
usual way of doing things. If the proposed ideas can get out of committee and past the Board, we
will have another committee along the lines of the EC, which in theory has little or no interference
from the Board and few Board members. It was designed expressly to be above politics and
influence; although we are aware of how that actually turned out, its not an entirely bad model to
follow. We do note, however, that it is difficult to avoid the impression that the outcome of the
process will essentially be the work of one person. Angie may have in fact received many good
suggestions from the membership, and she may have in fact have incorporated them into the
policy document. We have no reason to doubt this, but she is essentially acting as a filter. The
comments are not posted to the list for discussion, and her method of picking and choosing
among them is not transparent. There is no way for anyone to know how much of the proposal
came from others and how much constitutes Angie's own personal philosophy. Nor is it possible
to know how many comments have been rejected or why. There is also the possibility that other
Board members have also received comments but not shared them with the working group.

It also may be that there really hasn't been that much interest. The working group itself appears
apathetic to the point of stupor, and it is our impression that most people don't give a fig about
grievances and how they are handled until they are personally affected. Then its a big deal and
Something Must Be Done, but at the moment its just more effort people don't have time for. Its
too bad, because when it comes down to it, USGenWeb generally only handles important issues
when its in crisis mode and it nearly always makes the absolutely wrong choice in those
circumstances. Even though its a little late in the day, we would, in the interests of perhaps
stimulating more discussion and input, encourage Angie and the other working group members to
post reader comments to the list and to actually engage in a public discussion of the pros and cons
of those suggestions. It may not poke the working group awake, but we do know that
USGenWeb likes nothing better than a good debate and every once in a while something
interesting actually comes out of that.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Breaking rocks in the hot sun since 1998

posted by merope at 8:00 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Drive By
Just passing through...its Your Daily Board Show!

THIS AND THAT: In the absence of any activity by the Board in recent days [other than Angie's
update on the Grievance Committee working group, which was apparently ignored], we have only
a few items to report. First off is a really lovely history of state coordinator elections in
OHGenWeb. Its posted at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb/elections.html and gives a nice
synopsos of the project's State Coordinators, and how they were elected. We here in the
newsbunker find the idea of "instant runoff" voting very intriguing. We doubt it will even
considered at a national level [we are beholden to the kindness of Larry Stevens for running our
elections, so its really up to him], but it is very efficient, if a little complicated at the outset.

Speaking of elections, we heard through the grapevine that AZGenWeb has a new State
Coordinator. Board member Gail Meyer Kilgore has recently taken over the reins in that project,
although near as we can tell she did it without benefit of a bylaws-mandated election. We suppose
some of us are too good for bylaws and all, but wouldn't be nice if those elected to national level
office at least paid lip service to the rules that govern this project and which they at least in theory
are elected to uphold? We do recall an extraordinary amount of nitpicking on bylaws violations by
Board members when Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys were on trial; apparently though its just
peachy-fine when one of their own actually assumes the leadership of an entire state organization
without first actually winning an election. They could at least have made the effort to fake one,
like Betsy "What? Someone is running against me?" Mills did in ARGenWeb.

Ah well, that's just business as usual in USGenWeb. Its lovely here though, and I lucked into
some free hostas yesterday, so I'm going outside. Someone really ought to poke the Board with a
stick to see if its still alive.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pushing the limits of a green thumb since 1998

posted by merope at 8:45 AM 1 comments   
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Welcome Back
Break's over...its Your Daily Board Show!

A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING: After nearly a week of silence on the public Board list, Shari
Handley asked Grievance Committee working group Chair Angie Rayfield to provide a progress
report to the Board. Angie replied that "the Grievance Procedure Committee is wrapping up, and
[I] should be able to present a final report and recommendations within the next few days." She
also thanks "all the project members that have volunteered ideas and commented upon our
progress."

ONE MAN BAND: The latest version of the proposed policy for handling grievances is posted
here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/grievance/grievance.txt The text has changed
dramatically since last we saw it, and has gone way beyond what Angie has posted to the working
group mailing list or anything that has been discussed publicly. Indeed, as far as we can tell the
entirety of the proposal is Angie's; certainly the other members of the working group have shown
little interest in the process or the particulars, there has been little debate on any of the various
sections of the proposed policy, and no votes on any of it. We were surprised to find that Angie
considers the process to be near an end, given that the remainder of the working group has only
barely participated and when it has participated it has been to express serious reservations about
Angie's proposals. Unless extensive behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing has been going on,
we are not sure that Angie will be able to obtain this working group's approval to move this out of
commitee. We suppose a few more days will tell us whether Angie presents the outcome as a
working group proposal or just her own ideas [and those of anonymous correspondents].

SMOKE AND MIRRORS: Yesterday, in the midst of a flurry of discussion on several lists of the
ongoing "privacy" discussion, the GAGenWeb overwhelmingly approved the wishy-washy privacy
policy devised and endorsed by its Privacy Committee. As far as we know, other than the
Archives, GAGW is the only component of the USGenWeb to adopt such a policy. If the policy
actually had some spine, we might consider this a test case for the wider project, but as it is, its
little more than a "feel good" measure that will, if properly applied make no difference at all.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Watching the watchers since 1998

posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Bad Company
Chock full o' nuts...its Your Daily Board Show!

PULLING TEETH: On Thursday, after seeing Shari's fabulous announcement about USGenWeb
participation in the upcoming FGS 2006 conference, we wrote to the individual Board members
asking who was on the "USGenWeb at FGS 2006 Program Committee." We were surprised to
hear back from several Board members and even more surprised when nearly all of them said they
had no idea who was on the UAF2P and had heard nothing about this prior to Shari's
announcement. A number of them included dark mutterings about Shari's unilateral management
style, which a couple likened to a "Board of One." After Bettie Wood finally asked Shari publicly
who was on the committee [and after Betsy "Mistress of the Dark" Mills implored Shari to keep
the names secret], Shari posted the following announcement:

"The USGenWeb track at FGS was the idea of D. Joshua Taylor...thanks to his efforts and his
reputation and his contacts, it was approved by FGS. He presented it to me yesterday, and I gave
him the go-ahead. USGenWeb has been represented at several genealogy conferences over the
years, and it has never required AB intervention. This was approved by me under my duties as NC
for day-to-day administration of USGenWeb...He has asked me, Ellen Pack, and Tina Vickery to
help him sort through any lecture proposals our members may submit."

Shari, Ellen and Tina. [Lions, and tigers, and bears. Oh my!] No wonder Betsy wanted to keep
this under wraps. While we have no doubt that D. Joshua Taylor [who turns out to be on the
Election Committee with Tina Vickery] is every bit as "remarkable" as Shari claims, what we have
here is basically the usual suspects secretly banding together under the name of USGenWeb to
conduct project business, with the usual lack of candor, collegiality, or oversight. Only one of
them is actually an elected representative, but she couldn't be bothered to send a courtesy notice
to her colleagues on the Board. In fact, Shari's belated information on the membership of the
UAF2PC effectively blows the Board off. That "day to day duties" clause sure comes in handy
sometimes.

SOUTHERN FRIED CHICKEN: Recently, ARGenWeb held an election for a new State
Coordinator, or at least they appeared to. But a couple of little birds tell us that things may not be
what they seem down there in the Natural State. In fact, they sing a song that sounds suspiciously
like election fraud. We knew a little of this previously because someone on the election committee
inadvertently directed some mail intended for the candidates to my inbox, but now we have
received some actual documentation and its quite interesting.

Betsy has pretty much been SC of ARGW since dirt was new. She got the state when its founding
SC Bill Couch was hounded out of USGenWeb early on for his iconoclastic approach to the ideas
of the national leadership. From the perspective of that same national leadership, Betsy has been a
sterling asset to the project since then, reliably providing support to the status quo, publicly
stroking anyone associated with Root$web, promoting secrecy at all costs, brutalizing the
opposition at every opportunity, and happily calling her constituents jerks when the need arises.
She is, in other words, a textbook example of what happens when bone-deep nasty people get a
little bit of power. ARGW members are of two minds about her tenure as SC. Some think she is
fabulous, others...well, let's just say that getting on the wrong side of Betsy Mills is not pleasant.
Speaking up is dangerous, but a handful of members have pointed out to us that Betsy is actually
a pretty sucky SC. She doesn't monitor pages and there are large numbers of ARGW county sites
that are in sad shape, some with hundreds of broken links, out of date or incorrect information,
and apparently no one at the helm. Her own state pages are full of broken links and apparently
aren't regularly updated to reflect such basics as which counties are up for adoption. She does,
however, have a lot of spare time to spend chatting with the Cabal on the USGenWeb chat group
in IRC. If she weren't so tight with the ilk she would probably have been gone long ago, and its
not a stretch to imagine that ARGenWeb might wish to put her out to pasture.

On April 7, Betsy's great and good friend Linda Haas-Davenport sent out the following
announcement on ARGEN:

"This is a call for nominations or volunteers for the position of State Coordinator for the State of
Arkansas of the USGenWeb Project. The nomination period will be for 5 days - from today,
Thursday April 7, 2005 8:30 am CST through 8:30 a.m.CST Tuesday April 12, 2005. To be
eligible for this position the nominee must be a current member in good standing of the Arkansas
USGenWeb Project currently holding the position of County Coordinator or Assistant County
Coordinator and must have served in that position for a minimum of 12 months."

At this time Linda was serving as the "AR SC Election Co-ordinator." When the nominations
period closed on April 12, Linda sent a notice to the Election Committee that ARGW had
nominated two candidates for the membership to chose between: Betsy Mills and Katy Hestand.
And then apparently someone pointed out that Betsy was not actually qualified to run for the
office under the terms set forth on April 7. According to a complaint filed with the EC, she didn't
meet the requirement of being a CC or ACC for 12 months [which is so plain in the original
announcement its not even debatable], and was allegedly added as a co-CC to a couple of
counties sometime in the recent past [perhaps as recently as a week prior to the election].
According to one source, prior to a couple of months ago Betsy hadn't held a county in her own
state for a couple of years. There's nothing wrong with that, but it did disqualify her from running
for the SC office.

So what did Betsy's great and good friend Linda Haas-Davenport do? She changed the
requirements, a full seven days after the nominations announcement went out, two days after the
nominations period had closed, and after the EC had been notified of the candidates' names. In her
April 14 announcement to the ARGEN list of this abrupt change in the rules, Linda said:

"...someone on the AR list wrote to the EC with the request that Betsy be disqualified from
running for SC because she has not been a county co-ordinator for a period of 12 months prior to
the election and, it is my understanding, that my "Call for nominations" e-mail of Apr 7, 2005 was
used to "back up" the request for disqualification...I cannot fault the person who questioned the
EC about Betsy's eligibility based on my e-mail but I do wish the person had questioned me rather
than feeling it was necessary to go to the EC. My statement...is incorrect on the last line - it
should have read 'must have served in the AR Project for a minimum of 12 months, prior to the
election.'...I have a feeling that since someone felt it necessary to approach the EC they are
already feeling that because I am a supporter of Betsy that I'm biased and perhaps biased to the
point that I would "help" Betsy by changing the rules in mid-stream. That is not the case. The
requirement to vote as a member of Arkansas has always been "a member of the AR USGenWeb
Project for a period of 12 months prior to an election"...I'm sorry for the mistake and I wish
someone had questioned me about it before now."

Thus did Linda ensure that her great and good friend Betsy Mills remained qualified as a
candidate in the ARGW SC race. What is particularly amusing about her "I am not biased"
disclaimer is that just hours before, when Linda passed off her "AR SC Election Co-ordinator hat"
to Nola Duffy and Joshua Taylor [there's that name again], she had within minutes posted the
following glowing recommendation of Betsy:

"My choice for SC is Betsy....I simply feel that Betsy has done an outstanding job as SC over the
years and I believe she will continue to do so. I've never been one to advocate change for change
sake and I have no reason to wish to change SCs. I don't know how many of you have been
helped by Betsy but I have been, many times, over the years I've been a CC & Co-CC of AR...So,
I'm asking that when the times comes to cast your vote you will cast it for Betsy."

Although the race was on, the outcome was probably never in doubt and Betsy won handily. But
our little birds tell us that the election itself was perhaps not free of some improprieties. It
appears, for instance, that some people who wanted to vote were unable to get passwords even
after requesting them from the EC numerous times. It is also alleged that an unusually and
suspiciously high percentage of ARGW members voted, yet no one but Linda and Katy publicly
congratulated Betsy upon her win. While the outcome may have been no different if the election
had been conducted without bias or partiality, we do note that there is absolutely nothing like
having friends in high places, especially when they are apparently willing to change the rules and
fix an election for you, and can't even be bothered to hide their conflict of interest.

We imagine the find folk in OHGW are congratulating themselves on their good fortune in having
managed to avoid using the services of the "impartial" and "nonpartisan" Election Committee in
their recent election of a new State Coordinator, but we can't help but wondering how different
the outcome might have been if they had.

RAMPANT CAPITALISM: We hear from another feathered friend that Ancestry.con is not so
concerned as USGenWeb pretends to be with the niceties of privacy when it comes to publishing
data on living people. Our correspondents writes that in the past few weeks Ancestry has
re-posted or added new birth indexes to their offerings, including the California Birth Index
(1905-1995), the Kentucky Birth Index (1911-1999), and the Minnesota Birth Index
(1935-2002). According to them, all of these list the birth date, birth county, and mother's maiden
name, while Kentucky adds the mother's full name and Minnesota adds the father's name.

CORRECTION: A reader has written to correct our statement that the voting period on Motion
05-07A closed in the evening. Funny thing is, we did check the original, and we could happily
swear that when we checked it, it did say "9:00 p.m. EDT"; however, it now clearly says "9:00
a.m. EDT." Must be a combination of old eyes, early morning, and not enough caffeine. We
apologize for any confusion.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Walking a fine line since 1998

posted by merope at 6:45 AM 6 comments   
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Tequila!
Ay caramba...its Your Daily Board Show!

LAS CUCARACHAS: The Board has been fairly placid for the last couple of days. On Tuesday,
Shari announced that Motion 05-07A had failed, with 7 NO votes and 5 YES votes. Linda
Blum-Barton apologized to the Board and her constituents for missing the vote, claiming she
didn't realize the deadline was in the morning [it wasn't, but Shari closed the voting early]. And
this morning Shari announced that USGenWeb will be sponsoring a track at the 2006 Federation
of Genealogical Societies Conference in Boston, MA, August 30-September 2, 2006. Shari has
issued a call for proposals; the full announcement follows:

"Please pass this very exciting and important announcement on to your state/regional lists!

USGenWeb at FGS 2006

Call for Speakers

The USGenWeb Project is proud to announce that in celebration of our 10th Anniversary,
USGenWeb will sponsor a track at the 2006 Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS)
Conference. The conference will be held in Boston , Massachusetts , home to the oldest
genealogical society in the United States and the local host for the 2006 conference - the New
England Historic Genealogical Society, August 30-September 2, 2006.

We are currently seeking proposals for lectures from members of the USGenWeb Project relating
to the subject(s) of Technology and Genealogy, Using Specific Projects or Aspects of
USGenWeb, and Internet Publishing for Genealogy (i.e. website development, website publicity,
website building, strategies for converting data, etc.)

Lecture sessions will be 50 minutes, plus 10 minutes for questions. Two-part sessions are also
welcome (i.e. two lecture periods). USGenWeb will sponsor a total of 20 lecture sessions during
the four day conference. While USGenWeb cannot offer compensation for travel, meals, or
speaking time, we can offer speakers the chance to participate on the program of a national
genealogical conference, and share their methods and ideas to hundreds of genealogists. In
addition, selected speakers will receive a complimentary free registration to the 2006 FGS
Conference.

Speakers may submit any number of proposals, and may be able to present multiple lectures at the
conference. Speakers are not required to have spoken at a regional or national conference before,
but are encouraged to have some experience teaching their topics. An example of a submission
may be found at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~kylewis/callexample.htm. If you have any questions at all, please
direct them to Josh@DJoshuaTaylor.com.

Speakers will be required to submit syllabus information for their lecture by January 1, 2006.
More detailed information on the syllabus will be sent to those speakers who are chosen.
Notification of acceptance will be sent no later than June 1, 2005. Please send your submissions in
PDF, Word, or WordPerfect format to Josh@DJoshuaTaylor.com no later than MAY 18, 2005.
Submissions should include:

-Class Title
-Your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address
-Designation of audience level (beginning, intermediate, advanced)
-Length of presentation
-Class Description (1-2 sentences)
-Brief Class Outline
-Speaker Bio (2-3 sentences)
-Audio-Visual Needs
-List of Recent Lecture Experiences
-List of USGenWeb Involvement

Thank you for your interest, and we look forward to receiving your proposals!

USGenWeb at FGS 2006 Program Committee"

[Now don't you just wonder who that mysterious "USGenWeb at FGS 2006 Program
Committee" is, since they will probably be grading your papers?]

This is a great opportunity for USGenWeb to strut its stuff, such as it is, in front of real,
honest-to-god genealogists, but its a very tight deadline for proposals. So all you wanna be
lecturers out there should get cracking on your submissions! [We recommend at least one track
on the very important topic of protecting the privacy of living individuals and what USGenWeb
has done to address this critical issue.]

Anyways, you all have a fun and festive Cinco de Mayo!

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Using margaritas for medicinal purposes since 1998

posted by merope at 6:13 AM 1 comments   
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Leave Your Baggage At The Door
Casting pearls before swine...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE WAGES OF COMPROMISE: The vote on motion 05-07A [Living Persons] continued.
Thus far 5 members have voted YES and seven have voted NO. Unless votes are changed
between now and tonight, this motion has been defeated and USGenWeb is still without any sort
of statement or policy regarding privacy and data involving living persons. [Not surprising. The
NO vote is divided between those who see no need for any policy or statement and those who
would prefer something more structured, complicated, and/or rigid, with the usual small
contingent of the obtuse. The attempt to mollify Don Kelly failed; although the motion was
amended on his request to include a provision he felt necessary for his support, he was still moved
to vote NO on the motion. Twice.]

BEHIND THE TIMES: Don Kelly has become suddenly aware of the "orphan works" issue under
examination by the U.S. Copyright Office [reported on here some months ago] and posted the
URL for public comment to the Board list.

GUEST WORKERS: Despite having a new slate of volunteers just recently approved, the EC has
put out a call for temporary election workers for the upcoming national election. If interested
contact EC Chair Tina Vickery directly at tsvickery@adelphia.net. [Tina still appears able to post
directly to BOARD-L; shortly after she posted her message, Shari reposted it for some reason.]

IN OTHER NEWS: The GAGenWeb Project has begun to vote on its version of a privacy policy.
GAGW SC Vivian Saffold will be personally counting the votes.

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

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, May 01, 2005
An Example For Us All
May Day! May Day!...its Your Daily Board Show!

OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW: Shari's first order of business on this fine first day
of May was to adjourn the April meeting. Shortly thereafter, she called the May meeting to order
and posted an agenda for the upcoming month [see below]. Then she called the vote on the
amended version of Motion 05-07 [Living Persons]. No takers on that so far.

LEAN PLATE CLUB: The May agenda is as follows:

"1. Call to Order
2. Vote on Motion 05-07
3. Conclusion of Grievance Mediation (private)
4. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes
5. Grievance Procedures Committee Report - Angie Rayfield
6. Old Business
a. County Sites vs. Archives as Repository of Collected Data
7. New Business
a. Evaluation of Special Projects
b. EC Procedure Change? - Eligibility Verification
8. Announcements
9. Adjournment"

There is not a whole lot on the plate this month. Shari seems optimistic that some minutes will be
posted, although the last posted minutes were for January. The Grievance Committee working
group report will be bare; not much has happened since the last time Angie presented a progress
report from that group. The same new and old business items are carried over from last month's
agenda, but if Motion 05-07 does not pass, its possible the Board will spend much of May doing
the same thing it did for much of April, trying to hack out some sort of privacy policy that if it
doesn't exactly please everyone, at least does not leave the Board in a worse pickle than it is now
on this issue.

APRIL SCORECARD: We note that the May agenda differs only slightly from the April agenda.
Here's the April agenda and an update on how they did:

1. Call to Order [done April 3]
2. NC Report [done April 3; we note that an NC Report is conspicuously absent from the May
agenda]
3. Reading, Correction, Approval, or Disposition of Minutes [not done for the February or March
minutes; probably won't be done for April either]
4. Grievance Procedures Committee Report - Angie Rayfield [done April 9]
5. Mediation of Grievance (private) [who knows?]
6. New Business [new slate of EC replacement members approved on April 29]
a. General Policy Statement: Living Persons [discussion began April 11; is ongoing]
b. Evaluation of Special Projects [not done; item carried over to the May agenda]
c. EC Procedure Change - Eligibility Verification [not done; item carried over to the May agenda]
7. Old Business
a. County Sites vs. Archives as Repository of Collected Data [not done; item carried over to the
May agenda]
6. Announcements [Shari posted the final report of the Bylaws Revision Committee on April 3
and dismissed the committee]
7. Adjournment [done May 1]

The discussion of a privacy policy for data involving living persons consumed most of the month,
and is tantalizingly close to an end, if not exactly a resolution. Although we don't believe that
Motion 05-07 has a chance of passing, its likely that Shari will set the issue aside in the interest of
moving on to other, less emotionally involved things that may be more amenable to decisive
action. Several of the items on the May agenda have been carried all the way from January,
without being resolved or, in some cases, even discussed. Since one of them involves the EC,
which usually gets anything it requests rubber-stamped, and there is an election approaching, we
can imagine that Shari would like that item at least over and done with.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Leaving a trail of bread crumbs since 1998