From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 19:39:40 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:39:36 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/22/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: If you knew what I knew...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 22 October 2001: Jana Black reminds Holly Timm that Motion 01-33 (mediation panel) was made and seconded on the 17th and requests that she call the vote. --- In Executive Session: --Busy busy busy. Over 40 comments since the last DBS, from Ron Eason, Holly Timm, Jana Black, Richard Harrison, Phyllis Rippee, Nate Zipfel, Betsy Mills, Tim Stowell, and myself [via private email]. Bylaws "starter" committee: --still discussin committee numbers Guidelines "starter" committee: --size of committee and scope of duties is discussed. === "As witnesses not of our intentions but of our conduct, we can be true or false, and the hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil, but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." ---Hannah Arendt This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 23 12:18:11 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:18:10 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/23/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Going to hell in a handbasket...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 22 October 2001: Holly Timm calls for a vote on Motion 01-33 (mediation panel). Thus far 12 Board members have voted yes and one has voted no [and this motion has passed. Let the popularity contest begin.] Tim Stowell belatedly responds to some issues from a couple of days ago. On the topic of mediation and grievances he notes that it would be helpful "to have some indication on the national web site of who/where folks could address their concerns/disagreements to else it will end up on every AB members' doorstep at the same time." In response to the EC's latest report, he asks if the AB has oversight over the EC's work to change its Guidelines and institute new procedures, or "are they free to devise and implement whatever procedures they wish?" Nate Zipfel is of the opinion that the Board should exercise oversight of the EC, and "If the EC wants to make some changes, they need to propose them to the AB first so that we can review and approve/disapprove." Richard Harrison agrees. Tim asks Holly for clarification on a point she made earlier about the Bylaws and Guidelines committees needing to cede authority to the Board on the substance of some proposed changes to either document. He asks "Are you saying that the collective wisdom of a Bylaws committee and/or input from Project members is less than the Advisory Board? Are you saying that only the AB would be able to address the issues surrounding the SPs or anything of substance?" Holly forwards the following statement from Linda Haas Davenport in response to Tim: "I'm sorry that you misunderstood the EC's latest report. I don't believe I see anywhere in the report that says the EC be "implementing" anything. What I do see is two statements saying the EC is "working on" these items. When the revisions are completed they will be forwarded to the AB for discussion and approval. As for oversight of the EC. The discussions are taking place on the EC list and both Holly & Teresa (the AB's representatives) are present and both of them are certainly free to make any comments or suggestions they wish. Did you perhaps mean "control" rather than oversight?" [Watch this issue, folks. Its bound to get interesting.] In response to Nate's comment, Holly notes further that "Linda's language was not clear enough on that point in her report." and that the EC is discussing submitting revisions to the Board for approval [tsk tsk Holly, discussing EC business in public. You ought to know by now that that can get you into trouble.] Holly notes that she does "not see it as the duty of the ByLaws Committee to make substantive changes to the Project." [Well, of course, they can't, unless five states will sponsor them and a majority of voters approve them. Even though there will be Board members on the Bylaws Committee, apparently that is not enough "oversight".] --- In Executive Session: --15 or so more comments, from Holly Timm, Tim Stowell, Ron Eason, Nate Zipfel, Jana Black, Pam Reid, and Kathy Heidel. [The natives, btw, are getting restless] Bylaws "starter" committee: --scope and committee membership is discussed Guidelines "starter" committee: --chitchat about who is on the committee, some discussion of committee size === "The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards." ---Alexander Jablokov This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------ Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 23 12:34:51 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:34:50 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: BOARD-L cc: Daily Board Show , USGenWeb list Subject: What you've been waiting for Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: This has gone on long enough. I wasn't elected to hide serious issues from my constituents. Both Keith and I expected this to be handled publicly, several Board members have requested repeatedly that this be moved to the public sphere and no one has dissented. I have also repeatedly asked Holly for permission to discuss this issue in full, since the request is lacking in several important details. Holly is apparently content to stall and Linda apparently would prefer that this be handled without providing the Board or the project with full details of the incident. The following request was received on October 18; the Board has been discussing it secretly since then. The incident that prompted this request was not, as you may think, a violation of EC confidentiality. That I have never done [until now]. It was prompted by Keith Giddeon who threatened to resign on October 19 if I were not removed from the EC. He did in fact resign on October 20, but rescinded the resignation when he was told that the Board was discussing the issue. I know for a fact that at least one Board member threatened to resign if Keith did; I have been told that 2 or 3 others did as well. For all I know, the decision to resign in solidarity is unanimous. This is certainly information the Board has every right to know when it makes its decision on this request, yet it has not been forthcoming from either the EC Chair or the NC. Anyways, to accede to this request would be to allow one person to dictate who may sit on the EC. What happens the next time Keith decides he "can't work with" someone? To alter the EC guidelines as some have suggested to make my removal "legit", would be allowing one person to determine policy for this project. This mail may be forwarded anywhere. I have already forwarded it to the Board, the DBS and the ALL list. I will of course be happy to answer your questions on this matter. -Teresa merope@radix.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:31:49 -0400 From: Holly Timm Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:31:35 -0600 >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: "Holly" >Subject: Request to the AB >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:49:44 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >X-postini-filters: (C:0.0928020 S:0.0885934 ) > >Please forward to the AB >********************** > >To: The Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. >From: The USGenWeb Project Election Committee > >Teresa Lindquist recently attacked one of the members of the EC, one of the >replacement volunteers for the EC and the EC as a whole on her Daily Board >Show. This is not the first time that Teresa has posted inappropriate or >unprofessional remarks about the Election Committee or its members. She is >the Advisory Board member who has been elected to represent all volunteers >of this Project and her attacks on the volunteers she is suppose to >represent is, in the unanimous opinion of the members of the EC, >inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. > >The Election Committee of the USGenWeb Project is committed to protecting >the privacy of the volunteers of this Project - not only the privacy of the >volunteer's vote but the privacy of any communications between the EC and >the volunteer. The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be >guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member >of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her >Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private. > >The EC members have worked extremely hard this past 9 months to prove to the >membership of this Project that the EC can be trusted. It is our unanimous >opinion that our hard won Trust will be eroded if Teresa is allowed to >continue as an EC member. > >Therefore, in Accordance with Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study >Committee Guidelines: > >If a member of the EC is not performing his/her duties on the EC or is >disruptive of the EC's business, the EC may petition the Advisory Board via >the National Coordinator and/or the Representative-at-Large for replacement >of that member by a new volunteer. EC members [can] be removed only for >cause, which shall include but not be limited to failing to respond promptly >and considerately to members of the EC, or continually disrupting the >business of the EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior. > >The members of the Election Committee hereby unanimously requests the >replacement of Teresa Lindquist with another Advisory Board member. > > >Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >Linda Haas Davenport, Keith Giddeon, Barbara Dore From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 24 05:10:06 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:10:05 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: USGenWeb list , Daily Board Show Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] What you've been waiting for (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:09:10 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] What you've been waiting for On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, merope wrote: [snip] > was told that the Board was discussing the issue. I know for a fact that > at least one Board member threatened to resign if Keith did; I have been > told that 2 or 3 others did as well. For all I know, the decision to Sorry, typo here... this should read "one EC member threatened to resign". -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 24 05:49:27 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:49:26 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: USGenWeb list , Daily Board Show , BOARD-L Subject: Tar and feathers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: For those of you that have asked, here is the recent series of events preceeding and following the request by the EC to have me removed from the committee: On October 8, I published an article in the DBS that disparaged one of the EC's recently appointed replacement members, that included some incorrect information about access to voting records. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailyboardshow/message/54 On October 9, Linda Haas Davenport forwarded the DBS article to the Election Committee. Also on October 9, Keith Giddeon said he would resign from the EC if I were not removed from the EC by October 19. On October 9, I published a correction and apology for the incorrect information presented in the DBS. This apology was never forwarded to the EC by its Chair. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailyboardshow/message/55 On October 10, Linda solicited private comment on Keith's ultimatum. On October 15, Linda called for a vote on a request for my removal to be sent to Holly. The original vote was not uninamous; the two who abstained later changed their votes "I [sic] order to present a united front." On October 18, Linda forwarded the request to Holly. The request makes no mention of Keith's threat to resign and that information is not presented to the Board in any form by either Holly [who is also on the EC] or Linda. The Board discussed the issue privately between Oct 18 and Oct 23. The discussion included several requests for permission to present full details of the request and several requests to move the discussion to Board-L. On October 20, Keith resigned from the EC. When he was informed that the Board was discussing this issue, he later rescinded his resignation pending the Board's decision. On October 23, Teresa Lindquist posted the EC's request to the public Board-L, along with the information about Keith's threat to resign. -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 24 19:07:33 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:07:32 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/24/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: A hot time in the old town tonight...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! [very very busy couple of days folks, bear with me please] Tuesday 23 October 2001: Noting that she wasn't elected to hide things from the project membership, Teresa Lindquist forwards a request from the Election Committee that she be removed from the committee [it has already been forwarded to this list and won't be repeated here]. Richard Harrison moves that "the Board agree to the Election Committee's unanimous request and appoint another Board member to replace the current Representative-at-Large on the Election Committee." This motion is seconded by Phyllis Rippee and Kathy Heidel. Holly Timm notes that "no substantial discussion of moving this to Board-L occurred until today while was at work and rather than allow me to respond beforehand it is a fait accompli". She notes that "This incident was not prompted by Keith although he was first to step out and speak his mind on it. The request was passed unanimously by the EC so I find it rather odd that you think this is Keith's issue and not an EC problem with trusting you...Can you not see that the EC has some cause to trust the confidentiality of the EC's management of voting with your presence? Frankly, I do not agree with this request of theirs but I am also well aware that there needs to be some mediation or discussion of the situation and an attempt at resolution... not a win/lose proposition but a solution in which it is the project that wins, not you Teresa, not the EC but the project." Tim Stowell notes "Since the motion forming the EC committee requires that the At Large Rep be a member there, even if only ex-officio, it would seem that that issue would have to be dealt with prior to any replacement of an EC member." He also suggest subbing Linda Haas Davenport to the Board list for the duration of the discussion so that the Board can question her directly. Nate Zipfel thinks that Richard's motion is both inappropriate and out of order and that "If this motion is permitted to go through, it will violate the EC Guidelines as approved by the AB." He notes "Regardless of what people may think of Teresa, she was elected by the majority of the USGenWeb Project to serve as the Representative at Large. The EC Guidelines were written to include the RAL as an ex-officio member. The members of the EC are saying that they don't want the RAL to fulfill her responsibilities...I am concerned that the Advisory Board is not being given the whole story with this request...I feel that this a personal issue and not a matter of "trust" as I have heard said. If it's a matter of "trust", then there are members of this advisory board and members of the EC who are violating the trust of their respective positions by discussing issues that should remain within the respective body." Kathy Heidel suggest getting rid of Board-Exec entirely, noting "I understand why the whole hullabaloo went to Board EX in the first place it was thought to be a Personnel problem and instead it turned out to be a witch hunt and a Personal problem DeLuxe." She asks Holly to post the preceeding Board-Exec discussion, and agrees with the suggestion to subscribe Linda to the Board list. Richard withdraws his motion and moves that "the Board amend Section 1.A of its Standing Election Procedures to remove the sentence "The National Coordinator and the Representative-at-Large to the Advisory Board shall both serve as ex-officio members of the EC." and replace it with "The National Coordinator and one other Advisory Board member shall both serve as ex-officio members of the EC."" [This is rich. The guidelines make something we want to do illegal? Ok, then, we'll just rewrite 'em, and then apply the new ones retroactively. Clever. Also embarassingly obvious and painfully low rent, but what's a little abuse of power among friends?] Ron Eason tells Richard that his motion in any form is out of order until there has been sufficient discussion on the issue. He notes "this issue if based on what it appears to be, is totally not an issue that would or should require the removal of a duly elected Representative. It is based on personal feelings that have no place in the writing or re-writing of committee guidelines...But bringing this issue before the whole EC and asking them to choose sides is not, in my opinion, in the best interest of anyone. Removing the RAL or any member because someone doesn't like them or doesn't trust them, should not be sufficient for us to be taking up an issue to re-write the guidelines...Having someone say they will resign if the other person isn't removed, is in effect, telling the committee chair, the members, as well as the Board, and the USGW Membership, that the EC will perform and react, per that individuals requirements and pleasures or else...Any motion at this time is premature and without merit...I'm sorry, I would prefer that the NC sub, the EC Chair and let us spend a few days, if necessary, getting the whole picture and letting the whole Project know why we want to change the guidelines of the EC because we can't get a member or the members of the EC to accept the fact that they don't all think a like." Nate agrees with Ron: "It wouldn't [sic] be wrong to change the guidelines so that one person can be excluded. We all have been elected to serve the entire project. The EC members have been appointed by us to serve the project. If there is a member who is threatening to leave the EC unless we remove Teresa, I would say go ahead and resign...Some are telling me it's a "trust" issue, yet there has been no definition of trust provided. Some that are telling me it's a trust issue have themselves operated in a manner that might be considered trustworthy. Sidestepping the issue by saying we'll just change the guidelines DOES NOT resolve this. If Teresa or I or anyone else on this board cannot fulfill their responsibilities to a sub-committee because they "can't be trusted" then they should be removed from the Advisory Board. If the majority of the USGW membership elected an individual to represent them then they need to be able to perform their duties...I would STRONGLY urge those on the EC who are driving this issue to put aside this pettiness! This will serve no purpose to build the project. The EC has done an outstanding job with the past elections. A petty issue should not spoil the success that it enjoyed. The actions that occur on the EC should not be bound by a "gag" rule from the AB. The members of the AB who are ex-officio to the EC should be free to discuss with the AB the happenings there, after all, that is their function." [Nate later changes his typo in the first line to read "would".] Richard disagrees with Ron: "I think the motion defines what the discussion should be. The classic formula of motions, seconds, debates, amendments and votes is a effective way to deal with solving problems in the most time-efficient manner...If this were simply a personal" issue rather than a "personnel" issue I don't believe we would have the committee unanimously requesting an alternate representative from the Board. We have invested a good deal in creating an EC that is able to operate as independently as possible...The WHOLE committee does not trust one member, and if they don't trust that member she cannot do her job properly and represent the Board, and through them the membership, effectively. If she were a gentlewoman she would have asked to be replaced in light of the vote of no-confidence and saved us all a lot of trouble...if it is the unanimous opinion of the Election Committee that a member is too disruptive for the EC to be able to function--I don't see that the Board has any reasonable alternative but to support the EC. To fail to do so would be to impugn the judgment of the entire EC." Richard believes that the secret list is "essential to the functioning of the project." It is OK with him if Linda "is allowed to make comments when invited to or to respond to comments when invited to (and ONLY when invited to) directly to Board-L while we are discussing EC related matters. Unless this is handled carefully it could quickly get too merry. [Goodness! Mustn't be merry on Board-L!] On another topic entirely...Tim Stowell notes that the Bylaws Committee "won't be making any changes to the Project. What they would do is propose Bylaws changes which would then be either approved or rejected by the members of the Project." On yet another topic, Tim notes that "As the EC supposedly is working within the mandated motion creating it any action proposed by the EC outside that construct should be approved by appropriate Board action." Wednesday 24 October 2001: Teresa publishes a chronological series of events [also already posted here]. Holly says she didn't think that Keith's threat was "a pertinent part of the actual issue." She believes the issue "is and was the actions and words of an ex officio member of the EC and the EC's resulting difficulties with trust and confidence in that individual. I saw no cause to color the issue and the board's response to it with a pressure tactic." [Heh, at least she admits that Keith's ultimatum was a pressure tactic.] She notes that no one mentioned moving the discussion to Board-L and harps on Teresa for not using the Exec list. [Apparently Holly approaches her private mail the same way former NC Tim Stowell does.] She notes "I see any and all threats of resignation as a pressure tactic that is not germane to the issue. If the AB does not approve the EC's request and any or all of the committee resign, so be it. What I would far prefer to have seen was a request from the EC to assist them in resolving the situation and the difficulties with their trust of confidentiality resulting from Teresa's presence on the committee and from Teresa some acknowledgement of her part in the situation and a willingness to resolve it. What we have instead is a tug of war over who wins, Teresa or the EC, not a solution." [Interesting point. Holly's part in the discussion thus far has pretty much been limited to chatting with Linda Davenport nearly every day and stalling on requests to obtain permission to present full information to the Board. Nothing about solutions at all.] Phyllis withdraws her second to Richard's first motion and then seconds his second motion. [Jana Black posts a long message that, frankly, I stopped reading after the first couple of lines. Something about how she likes me but not what I do. There's also probably some helpful suggestions in there as to how I may improve myself.] Phyllis reminds the Board that they have recently passed a motion regarding the Mediation Panel and suggests that the panel be established. Jana Black notes that Holly has not yet declared the motion passed. Tim suggests finding out who will be willing to serve on the panel before votes are taken. Tim, Phyllis, Pam Reid, Betsy Mills, both indicate that they are not willing to serve as mediators. Kathy Heidel, Diane Parsons, Richard Harrison, Jana Black, Ron Eason and Tina Vickery are willing to serve. Holly asks each Board member to indicate whether or not they are willing to serve. Holly then declares Motion 01-33 (mediation panel) passed with 12 yes votes and one no vote. She later amends this to include an additional yes vote. Teresa notes that Richard's latest motion won't work and reminds him that the last Board member the EC wanted to remove was the National Coordinator. She also points out that she could be NC herself some day and then they'd have to revise the guidelines again. [hey, it could happen.] Phyllis notes "Whether the current motion suits the R-A-L or not, it is properly worded and in compliance with the USGW P bylaws. Should the current R-A-L ever be elected NC, then the bylaws will be adhered to." Teresa indicates that she is willing to have the issue mediated, but she believes that Mr. Giddeon precluded that option in his resignation letters. In Executive Session: --8 comments by Kathy Heidel, Jana Black, Nate Zipfel, Holly Timm and Tim Stowell Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion of SP representation Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Getting Slack Corner: Sorry, folks. Although this is a truly rant-worthy topic, I just don't have it in me tonight. This crap speaks for itself. Plus, I'm on my way out the door for a sushi dinner. See you tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel. === "Count not the authorities, but weigh their truth." ---St. Thomas Aquinas This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu Oct 25 06:39:31 2001 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/25/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Reaping the whirlwind...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 24 October 2001: Vicki Shaffer apologizes for missing the call to vote on Motion 01-33 (mediation panel) Tim Stowell asks Holly Timm to list those willing to serve as mediators before asking for nominations. Tim rephrases his comment from the other day to read: "As the EC supposedly is working within the mandated motion creating it any action proposed by the EC outside that construct should be approved or disapproved by Board action." Nate Zipfel again notes that the motion to change the EC Guidelines to make it legal to remove Teresa Lindquist is out of order. He notes "I challenge my fellow board members who agree with this motion step up to the plate and hear out the real issue...I dare you all to try to address the real issue. Changing the EC Guidelines to solve this issue DOES NOT solve the problem. It is time to for this advisory board to move away from the Personal issues that continually bog this board down...We weren't elected to do nothing but fight amongst ourselves. As a member of the original Election Study Committee, I am personally offended that the huge amount of work that we did over a number of weeks is so willingly brushed aside by a few to keep from dealing with the real issues...I've heard from another former member of the ESC and they feel the same...If people are committed to the common goal of the USGenWeb, they will be willing to put aside personal differences and work together...When people put their own opinions and their own agendas as the top of the list the projects fail. If an individual cannot or will not do that then they shouldn't be serving in the position that the AB appointed them to serve in. This is not about trusting the RAL, this is about Teresa. If we swapped the name of Teresa and replaced it with Tim (who I tend to disagree with alot) I would here typing the same messages and defending the position and the guidelines." He urges Richard to withdraw the motion "for the good of the project". Richard Harrison disagrees and notes "The Board created the Standing Procedures and the Board can change them." He asks Nate to explain why the motion is out of order. Ron Eason responds: "A motion to change the guidelines, SO the RAL can be removed, is changing the rules so as to just make a problem go away...You do not set about to change rules in order to deal with a problem. You figure out what the problem is, find a mutual compromise with the parties and you make a decision that they must all live with. Changing the guidelines is not part of that process...We are getting the same email as the previous Boards got, because we have these types of decisions being pushed that do nothing to address the problem, nor fix it in any way. The very next time the EC has a problem with someone we will be re-writing the guidelines to accomodate them. Or another committee or Project. This is a personal conflict of personalities. It needs to be treated as such." Tina Vickery responds to Nate: "The ESC did an outstanding job. Teresa was a valuable member of that group...I personally, have been struggling with what is the issue.. Is it a personality issue, this one or that one can't work with Teresa?...It is an issue of working together, and respect in the process of doing that...The question is can the group(s) working with her, trust that the work that they do, the interaction they have with her, the thoughts that they put into issues along the way, not be jumped upon, taken out of context, and therefore dismissed out of hand, by whatever whim, or conscience thought she deems appropriate to present to the project at any particular moment in time. There has been much talk about responsibility, but IMHO, the responsibility to the project is all of us working together, and that includes Teresa, I am sure she is capable." Vicki Shaffer and Mary Ann Hetrick decline to serve as mediators. Thursday 25 October 2001: Sundee Maynez asks Board members to please put their votes at the top of the message so that it is easier for her to tally them. Richard says he will withdraw his motion if "someone comes up with a solution that I think will work better". He notes that "So far the only alternative that has been suggested is to require the EC to accept Teresa Lindquist as a Board representative," and he does not agree with that. He asks for alternatives and states "There is nothing cowardly about changing a rule when it is clearly not working. The EC made a reasonable request in a reasonable manner. Teresa's track record gives weight to their concerns which cannot be dismissed as a "conflict of personalities." There is no logical imperative that the RAL serve on the EC--only a rule that we created and that we can change." Holly forwards a response from the EC to the Board [it will follow this post in full] --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --continued discussion of committee size and composition Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Our Turn Next? Corner: According to today's New Zoo Review, FreeBMD has been more or less absorbed into Ancestry.com. FreeBMD provides free access to the civil birth, death, and marriage records for England and Wales. It will continue to exist on its former site [http://freeBMD.rootsweb.com/] but is now also part of Ancestry's "free access" area. One has to wonder how long it will be before our Archives start showing up there as well...after all, Ancestry not only puts food on their coordinator's table, it owns us body, soul, and domains. Since we go to them, hat in hand, whenever we need anything [from a new mailing list to a $2500 extortion fee], giving them our archives would be the least we could do. === "Board Report Card: Doesn't play well with others Counseling suggested." ---Patricia Scott, USGenWeb member This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Thu Oct 25 06:39:46 2001 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Response from the EC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: "Holly" >Subject: Response from the EC >Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:39:51 -0500 > >Holly please forward to the AB: > >To the Advisory Board: > >Since Teresa's post yesterday it seems as if many people, both ALL and AB >members believe that the EC's request to remove Teresa was made because of >and in support of Keith's message on the EC about Teresa. Those of you who >believe that are certainly doing a disservice to the intelligence and >integrity of the members of the EC. > >The EC had been discussing Teresa long before Keith's message and before >Teresa's Oct 8th DBS attack on Keith Giddeon and Barbara Dore. > >The main motivation of the ESC was to establish an Election >Committee that would be outside of the politics of this Project. The ESC >charged the EC to gain the trust of the volunteers of this Project and to >hold nominations and elections that were safe, secure, and private. > > From the day the EC was seated each member has worked long and hard to >establish the EC as a Committee that represents and serves the Volunteers of >this Project, the volunteers as a whole, not any given group, not any >individual person, not the AB or any individual AB member. Every decision >the EC has been made only after discussions of how that decision would >effect/affect the Project as a whole. > >The EC does not believe there is a single person in this Project that >can step up and say that the past nominations and election were not honest, >secure and private. The EC communicated at all times with the members of the >Project and in every way possible made it clear that the EC was representing >all members of this Project. > >It is necessary to state the above so that you will understand why the EC >was discussing Teresa well before Keith's post. > >Teresa has the reputation of posting confidential and private information on >her DBS, often attributed to "a little birdie". She also has the reputation >of featuring in the DBS anyone or anything that incurs her displeasure. The >members of the EC knew this and were worried that the average volunteer >would have trouble continuing to trust the EC with Teresa involved. This >problem was discussed on several occasions. > >On Sep 5th Teresa posted a message on BOARD-L during a discussion about the >SW Rep's replacement that referenced a discussion the EC was having at the >time. The Chair wrote to Teresa and explained that "leaks" of the EC's >discussions were not appreciated. Especially since the EC's discussion was >far from over. > >The EC appeared the next day in the DBS, or rather Linda Davenport did. >Teresa mentioned that "Linda snarked" at her because of her post on BOARD-L >the day before. > >The EC requested volunteers to replace lost members. A few people responded >to the EC's request. Individual e-mails were sent to several people asking >them to volunteer. All of those individuals turned the EC down and one of >the reasons cited in some of the e-mails was the presence of Teresa on the >committee. Other's cited the politics and wanted no part of the EC. > >When it came time to discuss the merits of the individual volunteers the EC >looked over the list and discovered there were a few people that Teresa did >not like. The EC was concerned about protecting the privacy of those >volunteers. The EC decided not to risk the possibility of Teresa posting any >comments made by the EC about particular volunteers at some later date. The >decision was made to unsub Teresa from the EC list during the week the >volunteers were discussed and chosen. In an effort to not single out Teresa >as the problem Holly was also unsubed. > >The unsubbing resulted in the EC once again appearing in the DBS. This post >confirmed to the EC that Teresa would not hesitate to publish the EC's >business when something did not suit her. The volunteers were discussed, >selected, and the list was sent to the AB for approval. The result of that >was the Oct 8th attack of Keith and Barbara on the DBS. Both of these people >are people that Teresa, as Rep-At-Large, is suppose to represent and one of >those people was a fellow committee member and the other a proposed member. > >The Chair posted a message on the ALL list correcting Teresa's incorrect >information about the EC having access to voter's records. Teresa did post >an apology and correction for the misinformation but she did not apologize >to Keith, Barbara or the EC. > >After the DBS appeared the EC discussed what it should/could do about >Teresa. The outcome of those discussions was - that the EC could not fulfill >its goals as long as Teresa was privy to the discussions of the EC. > >The suggestion to request Teresa's removal and replacement was made, and it >was not made by Keith Giddon. The how, when and what the possibility was of >the AB granting the request were discussed. Keith became upset with the >delay and the lengthy discussions and posted his notice of intent to resign >on the EC list. Teresa, of course, saw that post. > >The first reaction of some of the members was to jump out and say "me to". >However, the Chair posted a message on the EC list (which Teresa also saw) >and reminded everyone that Keith's decision was Keith's choice. That every >member would have to decide on their own, without being influenced by >Keith's decision, they would have to decide for themselves whether or not >they personally felt they could fulfill their duties and achieve the goals >as set forth for the EC if Teresa continued as a member of the EC. The EC >discussed the issue at length. Teresa's post appeared on Oct 8th the EC sent >it's request on Oct 18th. Those 10 days was filled with a lot of discussion. >The request was not made lightly nor was it made as a show of support for >Keith. It was made because each and every member of the EC felt that the EC >could not guarantee to the volunteers of this Project that any >communications with the EC would be confidential. None of the EC >members trusted Teresa to not post what she wished whenever she wished >regardless of whether she harmed the committee's reputation or not. The EC >had no confidence that Teresa would not disregard the confidentiality rules >of the EC list. > >Yesterday Teresa proved that the EC was right to be concerned. Although the >rules of Board-Exec are that all discussion is confidential, Teresa took the >EC's request public. > >Therefore the EC once again requests that the AB remove Teresa from the EC >and replace her with another AB member. > >Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >Linda Haas Davenport, Keith Giddeon, Barbara Dore From merope@Radix.Net Fri Oct 26 09:21:46 2001 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:21:45 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/26/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Ad astra per aspera...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Thursday 25 October 2001: Phyllis Rippee asks if Teresa Lindquist will be voting yes on the current motion. Robert Bremer forwards the following message from former Board member Bill Oliver: "Tradition in our society has always been that if an ELECTED official was not fulfilling the responsibility, or acted in bad faith, there was the RECALL provision. There has never been a way to change the rules and oust an elected person on retroactive charges. I am not privy to any inside information dealing with the charges and events. And, however much I believe things should be in the open, with rules for and under strict adherence there to, using "executive session" only in the actual discussion of personnel, that is not the issue here. The knowledge that an issue is being discussed and the purpose for executive session should also be part and parcel of the "open" sessions. Had the EC rules to deal on an open list and gone into executive session as described above, there might not be the issue before the USGWProject. The EC and the AB may think that this is only their issue, but it is not -- it reflects on the entire Project. In addition, even if the issue did, under the above conditions, still push forward, the solution offered is totally out of order with any our established understandings in our society." Teresa asks if there is any solution the EC will accept that does not require rewriting the EC guidelines and will allow her to continue doing what she was elected to do. Kathy Heidel suggests the following: "If perhaps the EC were to have an open Mail List with Exec privileges perhaps this would eliminate the problems they are facing at this time. When they go into Exec Meetings the NC and the RAL will not be privy to that part in other words delinked from that discussion. I would also suggest that the Voter information be kept private and if the information is submitted to one or two people that should not be a problem either. This should be a workable compromise for the EC and the AB." Kathy notes that there is currently very little reason for the EC to have a secret list and asks for discussion to proceed if no one is opposed. Kathy moves "that the Board accept "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" by Alice Sturgis as our guide for the Board. It is a simplified version of RRoO and is very easy to follow and use." Teresa seconds this motion and asks Kathy to post references for the suggested guide. Kathy posts several URLs for the resource and Ron posts information on where to buy the book. Jana Black asks if there is anything Teresa can do to make it right with the EC. She thinks "A mediated solution would be great", but then she suggests that "Perhaps there is more we need to pay attention to in Bill Oliver's reminder that relief regarding an elected official who does not do his/her job properly takes the form of recall." [Bummer. No recall provision in the bylaws. Better luck next time.] Teresa responds to the EC's message. She notes that she has seen no evidence of concern about her presence in the two months she has been on the committee and has also "seen no evidence that anyone on the committee is at all shy about saying what they think about the Board, their fellow project members, or any topic under discussion." She asks if any voters, other than EC members, have expressed concern about the situation and notes "in the absence of widespread voter concern, I am at a loss to see why the EC should be concerned if it is occasionally criticized by one of its members." She also explains the single breach of confidentiality that occurred prior to this: "that was before I knew that my duties on the EC did not include actually informing the Board what the EC was doing. Since the EC was down three people and at least four and possibly five of the remaining seven had indicated they were opposed to doing a poll I made a professional determination that the Board needed to know that before it invested any more time in preparing for one." She points out that the EC Chair had no right to deny her and Holly Timm their right to participate in committee discussions and reminds the EC that sometimes the needs of the Board to know something will "outweigh the need of the EC to keep it secret." She notes that the EC has apparently been conducting secret discussions without involving all members and asks if the NC was present for these discussions. Holly indicates she was not present for these discussions. Sundee lists the various members willing and unwilling to serve on the medation panel. Jana adds a few members to Sundee's list that Sundee missed. Ron Eason notes: "I do not see anything in any of these "feelings" that states that she has ever printed confidential EC information any where or leaked confidential information of EC activities. The fact that they unsubbed her and Holly from the EC list, is not a matter of confidentiality and not a concern of any kind. The fact that she said something about a new and current member does not in any way create a situation where she has or will leak or print anything confidential from the EC. The fact that she took the matter public, is because it was never private or confidential in Teresa's opinion, as well as the opinion of other Board Members and she was asked by more than one member to take it to Board-L since she was the intended private party...It seems to me, they just ran a flawless campaign in which they were highly praised for their work. Now that they have the business of voting down to a science, they can't do it ever again because someone they don't like is a non-voting member of the committee?...Unless they are discussing things they shouldn't be I don't see how her being on the list is a burden...even in today's response there is no mention of mediation, or talks concerning finding out if there could be a negotiated truce...We have Teresa asking for some sort of mediation and we have the EC ignoring that request. As far as I know, there has been no discussion between the EC and Teresa and the Board. Just a request for removal, and a request for mediation. I weigh them in my hand and I can't help but wonder, why there is no hope of mediation. Except that there has to be two sides willing to agree upon a solution. And actually have a solution...If the EC is not willing to discuss the matter then we will be left with making a decision. Unfortunately that solution will be either Yes or No to their request." Holly suggests that Linda and Teresa meet with her in private chat to try and work out a solution. Ron and Kathy thank Holly for her offer. Teresa asks if she may have another Board member of her choosing attend as well to serve as an advocate. Holly asks who she has in mind. Phyllis reminds Holly that a motion has been made and seconded and asks her to "either declaring it out of order, or asking that it be withdrawn, or giving it a number?" Teresa forwards the following from Roger Swafford: "The rephrased motion is an abuse of parliamentary form in order to attain an objective not otherwise premitted and thus also out of order. The EC did not request a change in the guidelines so the motion is not directly applicable to the request. The EC reported intent to revise guidelines...I think the intent of the ESC and subsequently the AB, was to establish the EC "with authority" to take actions necessary to accomplish its charge. That "authority" was not fully expressed nor implemented in the guidelines developed by the ESC and adopted by the AB. In this situation the AB can not grant the EC Request without violating previously adopted guidelines. I do not believe it the duty to the AB to attempt to please everyone in every situation, nor do I believe that matters such as this can be swept under the rug. There is another course of action, however, I seriously doubt the will of the AB to use it. Section 61 of Roberts. That said, we can't apply those rules, there is no affirmation of the AB or NC that they *are* our rules of parliamentary law." Pam Reid agrees with Ron's earlier comments. She notes "There seems to be a lot of assumptions in the EC's perceived problems with Teresa. From where I sit, Teresa hasn't done anything wrong YET, but they fully expect here to. I also think that the EC's private meetings are a bit ironic considering the general dislike of the Board's use of a private list for meetings. If the NC and the RAL are members of the committee, it does not seem to me that they should be excluded from any discussions concerning the committee." --- In Executive Session: --11 messages, by Ron Eason, Kathy Heidel, Jana Black, Pam Reid, and Mary Ann Hetrick [not to worry, its just chit chat] Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion of committee size continues Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." ---John Stuart Mill This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved From merope@Radix.Net Sat Oct 27 08:54:46 2001 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:54:46 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/27/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: I should be raking leaves...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Friday 26 October 2001: Phyllis notes she already has a copy of RRoO and if the current motion passes she will need to buy another book in order to fulfill her duties as a Board member. In a seperate message, she also notes that project members who wish to follow Board business will need to purchase the book. Diane Parsons says she's already ordered the book. Jana Black is concerned that the Sturgis book is "not complete enough for our purposes" because "Sturgis does not seem to address discipline within a Board at all." She has written to an outside authority and notes "If we choose to use a specific set of Procedures, we need to be sure they will address anything and everything we may need to face as a Board." Kathy Heidel assures Jana that "Alice Sturgis's Standard Code is based on RRoR and has been revised by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. It is used by many organizations such as The American Bar Association, The Ford Foundations, AMA, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce to name a few. Many School Boards use this also." She also notes that its format and language are easier to follow and it includes information on internet meetings. In a separate message, she points out that it does in fact address disciplining members. In response to a request from Jana, Kathy posts procedures from Sturgis for disciplining members. She notes "I do not believe that this can be used against anyone now. Because the USGW does not recognize any PP at this time and you can't enact any form of PP and have it be retroactive...Also one of the examples given of conduct that is not considered a valid grounds for removal from office is: A tendency to create friction and disagreement and that was one of the complaints against Teresa. Aside from that I hope that Teresa, Holly and Linda will be able to work out the problems in an equitable manner." Phyllis tells Kathy that the bylaws do allow for "accepted parliamentary procedure" and that the Board has traditionally used RRoO. She notes "Whether it's in Sir Robert or not, a committee has the right to discipline any member. This means that a disruptive member can be removed from the "chamber" for the duration of a meeting, or until such time as the member is deemed to be sober enough to return....(or is it "somber")." [hey! I'm always sober at Board meetings. *hic*] Jana says she just wanted to compare the two books "as an example of what we would have to use in a given situation, were we to adopt either set of procedures." She then quotes the RRoO passage on holding trials. [Yes, the same one Babs Dore is so fond of.] Betsy Mills reminds the Board that it has had an accepted parliamentary authority since 1998, when Nancy Trice established RRoO as the authority the Board would use. She is "tired of hearing that the previous AB(s) had failed to adopt one." Kathy says she'll withdraw the motion if people wish and that RRoO is fine with her. She was under the impression that the Board "was in error and didn't have the proper tools." She asks for a general consensus: "RRoR or Sturgis or nothing?" and says it makes no difference to her. Holly gives motion regarding the EC's request number 01-34 and the parliamentary procedure motion number 01-35. With regard to the former, she notes "Discussion has been continuing on this motion and a mediation effort is also underway. Although discussion may certainly continue, no vote wioll be called for until the mediation has been attempted." Holly apologizes for the delay in numbering the motions; she has been suffering through severe thunderstorms. Tim Stowell doubts the Board will be able to come up with procedures that will "address anything and everything we might face." He points to the example of the bylaws and notes "What we can come up with, it would seem, is some every day working procedures. I don't think AB member discipline needs to be addressed in the Board's working procedures but that it along with other ideas would be included in any Bylaws revisions." Saturday 27 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist points out that Holly amended Nancy Trice's original selection of RRoO a few weeks ago "when she noted we would be using RRoO and some combination of "common sense" and "individual experience"." Teresa prefers that the Board either ratify Holly's choice with a vote or select a different method or authority. She would also like "some understanding of what "common sense" and "individual experience" are, when they will used over the accepted published authority, and how consistent we will be when applying one vs the other." --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion of committee composition continues Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === "...this is precisely the purpose of censorship - not only to block unwanted views, but to keep people who are unhappy from knowing how many millions of others share their unhappiness; to keep the dormant opposition from awakening to its own developing strength." ---Hedrick Smith This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 29 07:07:52 2001 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:07:51 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/29/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: You don't know what you have til its gone...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 27 October 2001: Betsy Mills suggests that "if a person possesses common sense and individual experience, they wouldn't have to debate" the use of parliamentary procedure vs common sense and individual experience. Teresa Lindquist says that her common sense and individual experience tell her "that what's been done in the past hasn't worked so well, and maybe its time to try something new." Nate Zipfel is willing to serve as a mediator if necessary. Sunday 28 October 2001: Sundee Maynez posts the full list so far of those who have responded to the request for mediators. Those who are wiling to serve are: Tina Vickery, Diane Parsons, Richard Harrison, Jana Black, Ron Eason, Kathy Heidel, and Nate Zipfel. Those unwilling are: Phyllis Rippee, Pam Reid, Betsy Mills, Vicki Shaffer, Mary Ann Hetrick, and Tim Stowell. --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --no activity Guideines "starter" committee: --no activity === Give It A Go Corner: A mediation will be attempted tonight [Monday] at 9:00pm EST between Linda Haas Davenport and myself regarding the recent request by the EC to remove me from the committee. National Coordinator Holly Timm will serve as mediator; Robert Bremer [for me] and Jana Black [for Linda] will serve as advocates. The session will closed to the public. === "Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking. Attaquez!" ---Ferdinand Foch This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 30 18:20:01 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:20:00 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/30/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: The better part of valor...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 29 October 2001: Jana Black asks if it is OK to begin submitting the lists of five nominees for the mediation panel. Phyllis notes that one of the people she wishes to include has not said yes or no yet. Vicki Shaffer asks if the nominations are for the Bylaws Committee and Jana clarifies for her that it is for the mediation panel. Ron thinks the list of volunteers is large enough that nominees can be submitted any time. He is ready to send in his list and asks "Am I correct that one list will be created from the lists that are sent in and that the Panel will be created out of the top five on the list?" It is Jana's understanding that each Board member submits five choices and "the five who get the most "requests to serve, who are also willing" become the Mediation Panel." Ron Eason notes that several people have not yet been heard from on the Parliamentary Procedure motion. He feels that the Board should be working from one designated authority and notes "If others have a problem with the current suggested reference I think we need to get it all on the table. If not, I assume that everyone is in agreement and this can be ready for a vote and will soon be behind us." Nate Zipfel has no preference. Richard Harrison agrees with Holly Timm's previous statement that "As various procedural needs come up I and I hope other members of this board will consult various sources, consider our format and use common sense to do what is workable." He notes "If the Board determines that we need to adhere to a specific parliamentary authority, I believe it should be one that is already posted on the Internet to allow access to the greatest number of our members." Betsy Mills is in agreement with this. Kathy Heidel says she will gladly amend her motion "to adhere to RRoR [sic]"; she only picked the Sturgis book because she is familiar with it. Holly Timm informs the Board that "The discussion this evening on irc chat was hopefully productive. The EC will be discussing their options." [And a big thanks to Holly, who mediated, and to Robert Bremer and Jana Black, who served as advocates.] Tuesday 30 October 2001: Teresa Lindquist asks Nate to share the WorldGenWeb's experience with using or not using parliamentary procedure and a specific parliamentary authority. She also asks if anyone on the USGW Board has any experience with the routine use of parliamentary procedure. Teresa and Robert Bremer note that they are willing to serve on the mediation panel. Phyllis Rippee [without benefit of actually informing the Bylaws "starter" committee that she was going to do this] forwards a proposal to establish a Bylaws committee. This action was apparently spurred by Holly's comment on the -ALL list that the committee was "futzing" over numbers. Phyllis notes that "This proposed committee make-up was determined by members who suggested the numbers, which were then "crunched" by Tim Stowell. While 7 members responded with numbers, when a vote on accepting these was called....only 5have responded. 4-Yes and 1-No. The "No" vote coming from a member who wanted "potential special projects" to be represented. A dissenting opinion could very well be forthcoming when the official report is sent." She also explains a "stipulation" on the nubmers: "Board members cannot qualify as anything other than AB members. For example: If I am not selected as an AB rep. on the committee, I cannot quality as a CC. HOWEVER, the designation of 2 SP members can vary. For example: If Pam Reid were to be selected as an AB rep. on the committee, that would free up one of the SP slots to add to the number of CCs. IF an SC, ASC or CC is chosen who is closely associated with an SP, then that would also free up a slot for another CC." [If we ever discussed this, I missed it. Regardless, this committee makeup is little more than a way to make sure that no census project reps are on the committee. Interesting, given that one big impetus for redoing the bylaws is to get rid of the Census Project.] Jana Black says she has "many years of experience serving on numerous Boards where parliamentary procedure...is/was routinely used." She notes that in her experience small informal committees do not use RRoO. She asks Teresa "What is your point here and what are you driving at???" She also asks Tersea for her own experience on committees using parliamentary procedure. Jana asks for information on the protocol for submitting names for the mediation panel. Diane Parsons would also like to proceed in naming the panel. Phyllis notes "the motion was made according to Holly's wording in order expedite the situation... if you'll read what it says, you'll find that it says we'll name the panel." Jana clarifies that she is asking "what precedent or protocol exists telling us how/when to go about it. Do we need to wait for someone (Holly or Sundee) to tell us to begin submitting our lists, or do we just send them in on our own?" Richard Harrison notes that the Board has only done this onece before but he recalls that the votes were sent to Board-Exec and a motion was then sent to Board-l. [He's wrong. Votes were sent to Board-L and there was no motion.] Sundee Maynez is also unclear on how to proceed. Phyllis notes "if all votes are to be out in the open.....isn't it safe to assume that the infamous "List of Fives" or "Lists of Five" would be placed here for all the world to see?" Kathy Heidel forwards an informal report for the Publication and Promotion Study Committee. The gist of it is: " The Scope of the Publication and Promotions Study Committee: To promote and publicize the USGW Project for members and visitors alike. To inform and communicate Genealogical Events and Information among members. Procedure of the Publication and Promotion Committee would be to take suggestions from the general membership. To keep the Advisory Board informed of progress, so that the general membership will be informed. To present all opinions so everyone is aware of all ideas and thoughts. I would also suggest dividing the main group be divided into 3 subcommittees, Website, Newsletter & Promotion." She also makes some suggestions for subcommittee sizes and membership. Tim Stowell moves: "that a Bylaws Committee be set up with the following provisions: Scope: To study the bylaws; leave alone those portions that can stand as are; delete those which are not needed; revise those portions that need clarification or strengthening; add what may be determined to be lacking. Procedure: To take suggestions from the general membership. To post work in progress, so that the general membership is kept informed. To present both majority and minority opinions where there is lack of compromised agreement. To post a "final copy" for review of the general membership and to have the complete set of bylaws ready in time to go through the process of being placed on the ballot in July 2002. Committee: 4-AB members 2-SP 4-SC/ASC 12-CC" Phyllis Rippee seconds this motion. [Its interesting to see these two teaming up; Tim got "official" approval from Phyllis to make the motion even. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.] Phyllis asks that, since the EC is weighing its options following last night's mediation session, "does that mean that we cannot proceed with voting on motions 01-34, or 01-35?" Holly Timm calls for the submission of names for the mediation panel. Kathy Heidel asks who the names are to be submitted to and Holly indicates that lists should be posted to Board-L. Jana Black forwards an email from Richard Howland clarifying some points about the mediation panel, specifically regarding those members who have decided they will not serve. Jana seems unclear as to whether or not she actually reprsents Richard [although what difference it makes, I don't know], but Betsy points out that Richard does indeed have a county in Jana's regions, so all is well. --- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" committee: --discussion of committee size continues, a proposal and motion are posted to Board-L Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity === Nothing to See Here Folks Corner: As Holly noted above, the mediation session between Linda Haas Davenport and myself was generally positive. We discussed most of the issues you might have thought we would and I think we came to an understanding on at least some of them. No immediate resolution was achieved, however, since the Election Committee wished some time to discuss the matter further. They will be forwarding their decision to Holly and I will defer further comment on this issue until that time. I do want to thank the many of you that sent me "good luck!" messages; your support and good counsel were both very welcome. so...thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you... [sorry, old Steve Martin joke] === "We must protect the right of our opponents to speak because we must hear what they have to say." ---Walter Lippman This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 31 17:19:16 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:19:15 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show, 10/31/2001 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Something that goes bump in the night...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 30 October 2001: Board members begin submitting their lists of five nominees for the mediation panel slots. Nate Zipfel describes how WGW conducts its Board meetings. It does not use parliamentary procedure, but instead reaches consensus on issues, vote, and move on. They also make use of formal agendas and asks that "Holly prepare an agenda of the current items so that we can proceed through them in an orderly manner." In a separate message, Nate also explains how the WGW uses a discussion message board to discuss and vote on agenda items. Jana Black agrees that "a slate of issues put forth in an orderly way would help a great deal." She would like to see " a "clump" of one week's worth at a time." and believes this would help reduce frustration. She also suggests that Board members post their personal schedules to the secret list "so the rest of us could know we will get answers within a given time frame from various AB members." Kathy Heidel withdraws her motion regarding parliamentary procedure. She concedes to "Commonsense and Experience." Jana forwards input from a CC on the mediation process: "I would recommend that the mediation committee NOT mediate anything, but instead would pick a new panel from a group of UNINVOLVED CCs to render judgment or each new grievance. I say uninvolved because--they would all be hearing the information new and fresh--not after it had been worn out or trashed on a local list..."The grievance committee would have the job of selecting the group of CCs to hear a new grievance --a new group for each and every grievance depending on what region it came from." [This posting causes Kathy and Sundee to point out that a motion has already been passed.] Wednesday 31 October 2001: Mary Ann Hetrick asks when and where the discussion occurred on the proposed Bylaws committee. She says she was never subscribed to the list and would have liked to participate in the discussion. She asks if there was a reason she was dropped from the committee. Phyllis doesn't know why Mary Ann was not included on the list, but notes that she had assumed that Mary Ann chose not to participate further. Mary Ann replies: "I did want to participate in the discussion. I enjoyed working on the Election Study Committee. I felt like this would be another important step for the USGW. It was one of the issues I feel is very needed for this Board to tackle. That was why it is the only one I volunteered my very limited time for." Phyllis notes that the second to Kathy's parliamentary procedure motion has not consented that it be withdrawn. She notes "According to proper parliamentary procedure, unless the second also agrees with the withdrawal of the motion, the assembly (which is the AB in this case) HAS to give approval of it being withdrawn." Kathy responds to a comment by Roger Swafford on the -ALL list, noting "The majority of the Board, who offered any discussion of the motion stated that a PA was not necessary. A few said that PA was common knowledge, didn't apply in our cyberworld and so I felt in order to expedite the motion's already on the agenda, I would withdraw my "frivolous" motion and allow for more important issues to be settled. I see no purpose in forcing something on a Board when they don't want to change." Phyllis asks Kathy and Alice Gayley to show the Board an example of their ideas for a newsletter. She notes "This in no way means that they would/would not be members selected in a final choice, if it comes to that." Diane Parsons would also like to see a sample newsletter. Regarding a newsletter, Robert Bremer notes "We really need a newsletter targeted to the outside world rather than just the CCs. Talking to ourselves does get the word out about what it is that the project has to offer nor does it help to recruit new volunteers. The need for a project identity apart from the server where many of our pages reside has also come up as an issue again and again. I think these objectives would be fulfilled by an external newsletter which could still contain the kind of useful information of specific interest to CCs, e.g., HTML tips, useful links, etc...Since future CCs come from outside the project, a CC section in an external newsletter would help to let the public better understand what CCs do and that there is interest in the project in providing CC support...I'm not certain we could successfully launch and maintain two newsletters...A single newsletter will require more than a couple dedicated volunteers over many months or years." Kathy Heidel notes that Mary Ann's dilemna with the Bylaws "starter" committee points out a problem: "No scheduling, calendar, or order." She echos the request for a publllllished agenda With 12 Board members responding thus far, the list of nominees so far for the mediation panel is: Robert 2 votes Tersea 3 Nate 7 Diane 8 Tina 8 Kathy 7 Jana 7 Richard 10 Ron 3 ---- In Executive Session --one message, from Tim Stowell Bylaws "starter" committee: --no activity [apparently its work is done] Guidelines "starter" committee: --no activity. === "The superstition in which we grew up, Though we may recognize it, does not lose Its power over us--Not all are free Who make mock of their chains." ---Gotthold Ephraim Lessing This has been Your Daily Board Show. Happy Halloween! -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.