OCTOBER DBS 2005

Sunday, October 30, 2005
Closely Guarded
Crossing the great divide...its Your Daily Board Show!

KEEPING IT REAL: NC Linda announced the results of the "resignation procedure straw poll"
at 7 against and 4 four. [Actually, using her consideration that Jeff Scism didn't clearly state an
opinion one way or another and that Karen De Groote-Johnson changed her yes vote to a no
vote, the final count would be 8 to 4, but the outcome is the same.] Linda then ordered the topic
dropped but a couple of Board members continued it. Mike St. Clair asked if the parliamentarian
could "research and describe for us his opinion on proper way to handle resignations based on
Sturgis and precedents as his time permits," in order to help the Board "handle the next one
correctly and in a less time consuming fashion." Jeff Scism suggested using whatever the
parliamentarian comes up with as a "guideline" rather than a standard operating procedure.

Meanwhile, the vote was called on Motion 05-23, even in the midst of impassioned, if mostly
misinformed, debate on the alternate CC list. At press time, eight Board members had voted YES,
and none had voted NO.

BONUS QUOTE: "I will just toddle back to my crib, before I throw another 'immature tantrum.'"
--Jeff Scism

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Flying under the radar since 1998

posted by merope at 7:00 AM 1 comments   
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Breaking The Camel's Back
Glossing over the rough spots...its Your Daily Board Show!

ALL THUMBS: On the formal list, some Board members asked Angie and Jan to provide more
information on why they chose the people they chose, what the initial application pool looked
like, and what Josh Taylor's role on the committee would be. After it was established that Josh
would be serving as an advisor and not a voting member, that somewhere between 13-16
members applied, and that the slate was chosen to provide a "good cross section of the project,
along with experience in mediation/arbitration," Motion 05-22 was withdrawn. Bettie Wood then
moved to "approve the following slate of volunteers for the Grievance Procedures Committee:
Sharyl Ferrall, Donna Allen, Scott Burow, Katy Hestand, Bill Utterback." Linda Barton seconded
this motion, and NC Linda shortly opened Motion 05-23 for discussion. Thus far, several Board
members have indicated no desire to discuss the motion further. [We expect that the slate will be
confirmed in short order. If the upcoming GPC has any sense, it will elect Scott Burow as its
Chair.]

Over on the informal chat list, NC Linda conducted a straw poll asking "- Do we need a
resignation procedure or not." [Rather an open-ended question...] By press time, six Board
members had indicated "YES" and seven had indicated "NO." At this point, the best the straw poll
can achieve is a tie. Several Board members who indicated "YES" noted that they wanted public
resignations and a 48 hour period before resignations become effective; some on the other side of
the fence noted that our bylaws and Sturgis effectively cover resignations and it is a waste of time
to pursue the issue further. [In any case, as the straw poll indicates, the Board may have difficulty
achieving either a simple or super majority regardless of what policy it comes up with if it decides
to pursue this.]

BEHIND THE SCENES: Although the qualifications of the proposed GPC slate members were
posted by Jan Cortez the other day, some other information about some of these folks was not
included:

Sharyl Ferrall - Allamakee, Clayton & Winnebago co. IAGenWeb CC; co-coordinator Iowa Old
Press [also formerly an SC of IAGW, and a very generous contributer to the Archives in both
Iowa and New York]

Donna Allen - County Coordinator: Giles Co., TNGenWeb, Amelia Co., VAGenWeb, Richmond
Co., VAGenWeb, Culpeper Co., VAGenWeb, Rappahannock Co., VAGenWeb, Moore Co.,
TXGenWeb, Kleberg Co., TXGenWeb, Jim Hogg Co., TXGenWeb, Texas Postcards Project,
Getting Started in Genealogy, TNGenWeb [The GPC actually seems to have been fairly inclusive
in listing Donna's qualifications; she is also apparently involved in an outside genealogy project,
but we could find nothing else about her that is not listed above.]

Scott Burow - SC - Illinois - CC in several counties in MO and IL [also formerly a Board
member]

Katy Hestand - CC in North Carolina, Obituary Project Coordinator [its interesting that the GPC
glossed over Katy's many other achievements: she is also a CC in ARGenWeb, KYGenWeb,
VAGenWeb, OHGenWeb, and INGenWeb, and possibly other state projects as well; she is
heavily involved in the Archives as the state archivist or assistant archivist in several states,
including Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky; she is involved with the Tombstone
Project, and several subprojects of the Archives, such as Marriages and Obits; she participates in
at least one non-USGenWeb online genealogy project; she is described by one correspondent as
having nearly as many counties as Captain Alias and she is apparently extraordinarily difficult to
get along with.]

Bill Utterback - ASC - KYGenWeb, CC: Calloway & Graves Cos., KY, 25 years experience in
the mediation/arbitration field [Bill participated in the recent Daniels/Hall grievance, where
despite 25 years of experience in mediation and arbritration, he failed to distinguish himself; he
apparently maintains the worst sites in KYGenWeb, despite being a "certified genealogist."]

The committee in particular seems a little heavy on SCs; both Angie and Jan are also SCs or
former SCs, Angie is currently an ASC, and at least three of the five proposed candidates are
themselves SCs, ASCs, or former SCs. Given that the most common complaint about the
grievance process is that it is extraordinarily friendly to State Coordinators, it seems a wee bit odd
that 5 of the 7 members are or have been state coordinators.

CATCHING UP WITH THE NEWS: Readers may recall that a few short days ago the hot topics
were Captain Alias, fake CCs, a rogue EC, and a perhaps too-complaisant Board. Jeff's pretend
resignation drove that stuff out of the headlines for a while, but that doesn't mean the pot hasn't
been cooking. We've had some visits from some little birds in the interim and so can provide a
little bit more information on some of this, although much is still murky. Why the Board [or the
EC, for that matter] doesn't think the Project can handle this is just one of many mysteries.

Anyhoo...As we know, a couple of state coordinators turned in a CC to the EC. They suspected
her of having counties under one or more fake names. [And we are told here that we owe Bettie
Wood an apology. Although one informant named her as one of the SCs, apparently she was not
one of the SCs that turned in Captain Alias. Our informant would not provide the name of the
other SC.] The EC proceeded to investigate this issue, using IP addresses and other "irregularities
and contradictions." According to sources, there was more evidence against CA than just IP
addresses, and CA's explanation of the situation [published here previously] does not explain that
evidence. [Although we would note that CA's explanation of the IP addresses came after we told
her that's how the EC nailed her, we might also note that it is hard to address evidence when you
don't know what it is. It is still apparent that neither the Board nor the EC talked to CA at all.]
After they satisfied themselves that CA had been registering under several names, the EC
allegedly sent all the aliases they could identify notice that they were being removed from the
voter rolls. [We say "allegedly" because apparently the EC refused to provide evidence of this to
the Board.] Also according to the EC, none of the aliases protested their removal. Captain Alias
herself was not removed from the rolls. The EC then presented this whole shebang to the Board
as a done deal. The Board declined to investigate the matter further, and specifically decided not
to investigate Captain Alias, apparently because she did not actually commit any crimes under
current USGenWeb policy. There are currently no rules against using multiple names to adopt
counties, nor is there any policy against registering multiple aliases. So, the former Board's basic
take on this was that Captain Alias had done nothing wrong [or at least nothing they could
convict her on], and the crack investigative team of the EC had prevented any pollution of the
election, and they signed off on it. Apparently the former Board accepted the EC's evidence more
or less uncritically; the current Board is described as spending more time on it, but essentially
reaching the same conclusion.

One thing that niggles at us in all this, is that no person we have discussed this with considers
Captain Alias to be innocent, yet none of them has provided any sort of motive for maintaining so
many aliases and so many project sites [perhaps because no attempt was made by anyone to talk
her about it]. The person accused of doing this is not someone known to us here in the DBS
newsbunker prior to this incident and queries of other old-timers turned up nothing but comments
like "she sure maintains a lot of websites." She apparently has no political history in USGenWeb,
on either side of the divide, and it is hard to ascribe a political motive to all this. Yet, she stands
convicted in the eyes of the EC and two Boards, without benefit of any hearing or any
opportunity to confront evidence, and it is not known to us how this may have affected her status
as a volunteer in the states where she still has counties [we do understand that SCs have been
privately "warned" about her]. The Board seems content to fall back on the claim that "there was
nothing to investigate", but it seems to us that if there is no crime to investigate, there is no crime
to punish, and it does appear that Captain Alias is being punished and will continue to be punished
over this.

[Oh, and for what its worth, more than one correspondent noted how utterly snotty Tina "Ethical"
Vickery was to the Board throughout this process. Apparently she feels that it is not the Board's
place to question the EC on anything it does, even when that involves protecting members' right
to vote.]

GAMES THE EC PLAYS: In other EC-related news, a Board member commented the other day
on an instance in which the EC apparently itself determined the eligibility of a voter, although the
SC told them they were no longer in the Project. It took some time to track this down, but here is
apparently what happened. In a state with published guidelines voted into place by the CCs, a
co-CC in one county refused to participate personally in a mandated roll call. After some
back-and-forth tiffing over it, [co-CC called it a "stupid rule"; SC said "stupid or not, its a rule the
CCs wanted"], the SC elected to remove the co-CC from the state project and ordered the CC to
remove them from the website. The CC refused and while they diddled over this for a week or
more, the co-CC tried to register to vote. Since their name wasn't on the list provided by the SC
to the EC, the EC contacted the SC and was told that the co-CC was no longer a member of that
state project. After checking with the CC and looking at the county website, the EC told the SC
that as far as they were concerned the co-CC was still a member. Although the SC reminded the
EC that their own guidelines do not permit them to determine eligibility in this matter, the EC
essentially told the SC to shove off. They then registered the co-CC and issued them a password.
The co-CC was shortly thereafter removed from the website in question and the CC found a new
assistant.

So what is missing in this scenario? That would be the Board. Here is the relevant EC Guideline:
"Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC.
The Project Coordinator or XXGenWeb State Coordinator shall address the challenge in a timely
fashion so as to allow the person to vote in the current election. If they do not, the person shall be
given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote. If a Local Coordinator continues to challenge
the decision of the State Coordinator, then the matter shall be referred to the regional Advisory
Board rep. If the Local Coordinator continues to challenge the decision made by the Regional
Advisory Board Representative, then the matter shall be referred to the entire AB. The decision of
the entire Advisory Board shall be final. However, should the matter fail to be decided before the
end of any election or voting issue, the person shall be given the right to vote by default."

It does not appear that the matter was "referred to the regional Advisory Board rep" or to "the
entire AB." Instead the EC itself decided that because the co-CCs name still appeared on a
webpage, that was sufficient evidence of their eligibility, even though the SC denied the co-CC's
eligibility. At this point, the regional rep should have been paid a courtesy call, but they were not.
It might have been that there was no time to resolve this issue prior to the end of the election, but
it doesn't appear that the EC really felt it needed any resolution other than the one they came to.
Their reasoning behind this was that, apparently because former GAGW SC Tim Stowell used to
remove valid names from his state voter list, the EC now considers a name on a website sufficient
evidence of project membership, regardless of what the SC says.

So, we have the sorta funny contretemps of the EC on one hand removing registered voters from
the rolls when it should have consulted the Board first, and on the other adding them when it
should have consulted the Board first. We are certainly glad we have such a diligent EC looking
out for the integrity of our election process.

And still there are no quarterly reports out of Miss Tina.

BONUS QUOTE: "The Revolution is just T-shirt away." --Billy Bragg

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Waiting for the great leap forward since 1998

posted by merope at 9:21 AM 0 comments   
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Broad Side Of The Barn
Take a walk on the wild side...its Your Daily Board Show!

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: Yesterday NC Linda announced
that Root$web had finally provided the list the Grievance Procedures Committee requested long
ago. Shortly thereafter, Jan Cortez proposed the following slate of committee members:

Sharyl Ferrall
Donna Allen
Scott Burow
Katy Hestand
Bill Utterback

When this slate made it to motion status, it included current committee members Jan and Angie
and Parliamentarian Josh Taylor. The motion to approve the slate of eight "candidates" [of which
only five are actually candidates] was made by Cyndie, and seconded by Bettie, Mike, and
George. Linda numbered it Motion 05-22 and opened the floor for discussion. Thus far, there
hasn't been much, other than a question about including Jan and Angie on the slate.

OLD BUSINESS: The Board continued to discuss the issue of resignations. Bettie posted some
more comments from her region, most of which questioned the need for secrecy, the need for a
48-hour cooling off period, and the overall need to change the way the Board has handled
resignations in the past. Cyndie wondered if the proposed 48 hour cooling off period violates
common law in some way, since common law gives members the right to resign at any time. Jeff
blathered on about common vs. written law, but didn't address her question of whether or not the
Board could institue a policy requiring what is basically 48 hours notice before resigning.

SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION: After some prompting, NC Linda allowed as to how
Board-Exec is indeed in session, although she has declined to say why it is in session. Apparently
after a scant two months the bold new policy of only convening the Sekrit Sandbox when its
needed and informing the Project when the Board is going into executive session and what they
will be discussing has been abandoned without so much as a fond farewell and it's back to
business as usual.

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

posted by merope at 5:45 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Throwing Tantrums
Crossing the void...its Your Daily Board Show!

RULES FOR RULES' SAKE: Now that Board toddler Jeff Scism has his lollipop back, the Board
turned once again to discussing NC Linda's proposed policy for handling resignations in the
future. She has now proposed this version:

"Resignations tendered by any member of the USGenWeb Project's Advisory Board must be sent
to the National Coordinator (NC) with a cc to Board-Exec. In the event the person resigning is
the NC the resignation shall be sent by private e-mail to all Advisory Board members with a cc to
Board-Exec. The NC shall acknowledge the receipt of the resignation by a board member as soon
as possible. In the event of the NC resigning the Representative At Large will handle the NC's
resignation per these procedures. Resignations shall not become effective for 48 hours from the
date stamp of the e-mail unless the resignation contains an effective date, in which case the
effective date will be used. Resignations shall be null and void if the member resigning notifies the
NC, with a cc to Exec, of his/her wish to withdraw the resignation prior to the effective date. If
the member resigning does not withdraw his/her resignation by the effective date the NC will post
the resignation to Board-L at which time, under parliamentary procedure, the resignation is final."

[Never let it be said that the Board cannot take something very simple and make it ever more
complicated and wordy.]

Not surprisingly, the only Board member other than NC Linda that has come out in favor of this
proposal is Jeff Scism, who noted, "...the rules being suggested are a cooling off period...even if
the person has no intention to renege, the Board has to also adjust to the shock...This is an
attempt to allow the resignee time to to consider before making the final act...extending a 48 hour
cooling off period is well within the powers granted in Sturgis...Setting up the rules to allow
reconsideration, and a process to tender the resignation is courteous both to the resignee and to
the Board." He later suggested that forcing resignations to the Sekrit Sandbox would allow the
potentially resigning member to seek "counseling" from fellow Board members prior to making it
official [which of course they could do without going to the formal effort of a resignation].

George, Bettie, and David would have none of this, however. All three noted in some form or
other that the resignations should stay public. George recommended using the Sekrit Sandbox as
little as possible and using Board-L instead. David agreed with him, and Bettie noted "Most of the
messages I've received from SWSC region on this prefer resignations be public." NC Linda then
tried to defend the proposal and noted that "...once a resignation is posted to Board-L...it is final
unless there are resignation procedures in place to override PP." She stressed that requiring
resignations be done in secret "is not some sinister plot to keep secrets from the project
members," rather it is to allow Board members time to "cool off" and change their minds
[something, again, they should do before they submit a resignation]. She also suggested that the
proposed procedure would spare the Board the "time consuming steps that we just went through
with Jeff." [But has someone else pointed out before we had a chance, the Board, in its
desperation to wish Jeff's resignation away, has only itself to blame for the amount of time his
tantrum cost them.] She then suggested that if a Board member did not follow the rules, the NC
would just not accept the resignation. George Waller pointed out how silly this last suggestion
was.

TAKE YOUR MEDICINE: Linda's newest proposal to unduly complicate the lives of Board
members and keep resignations from the public as long as possible is not flying out in the
hinterland either. The SW regional list has been hopping with discussion, and thus far only Don
Kelly [who does not appear to have a good grasp of the particulars of the proposal] is in favor of
it. Other members have pointed out that 1) the old procedures have worked rather well over the
last seven years; 2) it is only when the Board found itself constricted by the rules that it decided
that it needed to change the rules; 3) no one sees any need for the process to be done in secret,
although most who have commented have specifically noted that reasons for resigning can be as
public or private as the resignee wishes them to be; 4) instituting a 48-hour "cooling off" period
actually rewards serial resigners and "rash action" and if perhaps members knew there were no
do-overs they'd think about what they were doing before they actually submit a resignation; and
5) people tend to resign in anger and people in a heightened emotional state don't always concern
themselves with the rules,

For her part, NC Linda attempted to defend the procedure by citing occasions where Board
members resigned in "fits of anger" but who later "worked it out" and were "allowed to withdraw
their resignation." However, when pressed for details and provided with every resignation on
record in the Board's minutes to make it easier for her, Linda just noted that "A couple or maybe
three that I know about aren't on the lists because their resignation were withdraw." When
pressed for more information about these "couple or maybe three", Linda did not respond. Based
on her own prior comments, these resignations and withdrawals were accompanied by a lot of
Project dialogue, so they must be public knowledge, and we cannot see any reason for being coy
about their identities or the circumstances surrounding their resignations. [We think they are
convenient fictions, but are willing to be proven incorrect.]

There have been 27 "official" resignations since the elected Board started operations in September
1998. Other than George Waller and Jeff Scism, none of these Board members attempted to
withdraw their resignations. There were also a few "unofficial" resignations. Beth Wills resigned
at least three times during the 1998/1999 session and withdrew her resignation each time. Pam
Reid resigned in January of 1999 and then withdrew her resignation three months later in April
1999 when the Board refused to seat Linda Lewis as the new Tombstone representative. Since the
Board had never officially accepted her resignation, they apparently felt they had to let her get
away with this. Beth's and Pam's resignations don't appear in the official minutes, but all were
done publicly. All of the other resignations were also done in public and went fairly smoothly
without three paragraphs of rules to guide them.

KEEPING UP WITH THE NEWS: In some pending news items:

Wednesday, October 26th has come and gone apparently without further notice from Root$web
regarding the list for the Grievance Procedures Committee.

The teapot tempest in NMGenWeb has apparently blown over. The major complainant in the
issue has indicated to the Board that he will not pursue the matter further. In our discussions with
NMGW members, however, we did learn that there are indeed two state mailing lists, one of
which is public and used sporadically for USGenWeb business [Board and EC announcements,
discussion of national issues, roll calls, etc.], and another which is privately maintained by the SC
and which is also used for Project business, apparently including all announcements for the recent
election. Some members of NMGW claim not to be subscribed to the private list and not to have
had any notice of an election prior to the various congratulations to the winner that appeared
suddenly on the public list. One member noted that he visits the state page "weekly at least" and
that he never noticed any link to anything having to do with an election prior to the complaint
filed with the Board. He did note, however, that the sole candidate's web page was posted very
early on [which she confirmed] and announced on the private list. We have heard that the
outgoing SC has agreed to hold a straw vote of some sort to "verify" the election results and
satisfy the letter of the NMGW guidelines, but now that the complainant has withdrawn, we doubt
this will occur.

BONUS QUOTE: "One would also think that the people we elect would not post private board
material to lists and/or web sites, but we have witnessed over the years that not to be the case.
Ironic you are waving the ethical flag now." --Tina Vickery, who understands neither irony nor
ethics

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Waving the ethical flag since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Second Chances
Does she or doesn't she?...its Your Daily Board Show!

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: As predicted in this spot a couple of days ago, Motion 05-21
passed easily and Jeff Scism was welcomed back into the bosom of the Board with open arms.
NC Linda announced the results as 10 YES votes, and 2 members not voting [which fails to
account for one Board member]; the actual final count was 11 YES votes and 2 members not
voting.

The Board conducted no other business since we went to press yesterday, although there is a
rumor that Board-Exec is secretly back in session.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
The breakfast of champions since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Muddy Waters
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance...its Your Daily Board Show!

YOU OWE YOUR SOUL TO THE COMPANY STORE: In the wake of Jeff Scism's hasty and
repented resignation from the Board and the subsequent foofaraw on how to undo it, NC Linda
and Boy Parliamentarian Josh Taylor whipped up the following proposed procedure for
resignations and posted it to the informal chat list for discussion:

"Registrations [sic] tendered by any member of the USGenWeb Project's Advisory Board must be
sent by private e-mail to the National Coordinator. While resignations may become effective
immediately, due to the cyber environment of USGenWeb all resignations will become effective
48 hours from the date stamp of the e-mail, unless a specific time is stated in the resignation."

After some little discussion that established that Linda meant "resignation" when she wrote
"registration," the Board moved on to discussing the meat of the proposal. A few Board members
objected to the requirement to send resignations "privately" to the NC, and suggested instead
sending them to Board-L and/or Board-Exec so that, as one Board member put it, "Everyone
would know at the same time." Mike St. Clair suggested a couple of wordier versions of the
proposal that added provisions requiring that the NC notify the rest of the Board immediately
upon receipt of a resignation or that resignations be posted both to the NC and to Board-L. NC
Linda noted that, per Sturgis, once a resignation is received on Board-L it is immediately effective
and not rescindable and suggested instead sending resignations to the secret list. [This we don't
get. If the Board creates a policy that provides 48 hour take-back period, would that not take
precedence over Sturgis? Why the secrecy?]

Then the Board delved into the minutiae of what to do if the Board lists are down, or the NC is
out of town, or the reasons for the resignation are personal or not, and how all this would affect
where resignations are posted and their legality.

No further discussion of Motion 05-21 had occurred by press time.

GILDING THE LILY: For the past seven years Board members have publicly resigned on
Board-L and it has seemed to work out pretty well. They resign, the Board may or may not take a
vote accepting the resignation and wishing them well, and everyone moves on. Now we have
before us an awkwardly worded proposal that seems to state that resignations will be both
effective immediately and effective 48 hours after they were tendered and that requires that they
be secretly tendered to the NC. Apparently this latter notion is to prevent them from becoming
effective immediately, but according to the wording of the proposal they may become effective
immediately anyways. [We think the secrecy clause is more to deny the Project another
entertaining spectacle like the recent flap over Jeff Scism's resignation.] The proposal as currently
worded also pretty much requires the NC to privately email herself should she be the one wishing
to resign.

We don't see much reason to change the policy or the practice much from what it has always
been. Members should resign on Board-L, as they have always done, so there is no doubt when
the resignation was tendered and who received it. If the Board wants to build in some time frame
for the member to think things over [although it would be better if they did that before they
resigned], that's fine. Members may or may not post the reason(s) for their resignation, and if
those reasons are private and they wish to post them privately, that's fine too. But the resignation
itself should be public. If nothing else, perhaps the requirement to keep these things public will
limit the number of pretend resignations the NC and the Board has to address. It may also prevent
the special treatment the Board likes to lavish on its friends and enemies alike. Once a resignation
is effective, the Board should move with due haste to fill the vacancy using whatever method will
satisfy the bylaws. Which is pretty much the way they've always done it.

COMPLICATIONS: The topic of the NMGenWeb maybe-election is becoming more convoluted.
Precedent does exist [the most recent is AZGenWeb in May 2005] for appointing sole candidates
to the state coordinator office. However, that usually occurs after a proper call for candidates and
a decent interval in which people are allowed to submit nominees [and AZGW was forced to do
this after the SC tried to just appoint his successor]. At issue in NMGW, it appears, is whether or
not that notification actually happened or if it happened equally to all members of the project. The
SC claims that she posted information on the nomination period twice to the state list, but neither
we nor others can find them in the archives. The first mentions on that list of an upcoming
election are the congratulations to the new SC. There's not even an announcement by the current
SC of the appointment of her successor. The SC has also declined to provide information on when
the links to the election information pages were added to the state page. There are rumors that the
SC maintains a private mailing list for CCs who don't want to subscribe [as required] to the state
list, and concern that the election announcements went only to this list and not to the public list.
In any case, there are a handful of CCs in NM who claim to have been entirely unaware of an
election, and at least one of them says he would have submitted his own name as a candidate had
he known an election was pending.

BONUS QUOTE: "Anyone who is rash enough to QUIT without thinking things through...
perhaps should remain QUIT." --Darilee Bednar

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

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 0 comments   
Monday, October 24, 2005
Taking The Long Way Home
When in doubt...its Your Daily Board Show!

PICKING UP THE PIECES: Yesterday, the Board continued to discuss the burning issue of how
best to get Jeff Scism back on the team. Eventually, 10 of them indicated a preference for a direct
appointment, one preferred a preference poll of the region, and one abstained. So NC Linda
finally recognized and numbered Bettie's motion [05-21] and opened the floor for discussion.
Thus far, six of them have indicated they see no need to discuss the motion and are ready to vote.
We expect the vote will be called early today and be over by this time tomorrow.

While we are happy to see Jeff back on the Board, we do hope this little exercise in time-wasting
will serve as an example for the next hyper-sensitive member who decides to over-react and walk
off the Board over some trifle.

In other Board news, Jan Cortez has decided not to go on walk-about after all.

YOU'RE GONNA GET IT: Over on the SW/SC regional list, NC Linda has recently informed the
membership that she and Parliamentarian Josh Taylor are "working on a suggested procedure" to
cover resignations and it will be posted on the informal list for the Board to chew on when they
are done with it. [We are just absolutely gonna hurt ourselves laughing if all these procedures the
Board has spent so much time on are allowed to die on the vine when the next Board takes
office.]

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES: Lately, we've heard some rumors of some "irregularities" in the
recent state coordinator election in New Mexico. Actually, it appears there may not have actually
been an election, per se. Yesterday, outgoing SC Susan Bellomo notified the state that Karen
Mitchell had been appointed as the new SC. She said "Karen Mitchell has declared her candidacy
for the State Coordinator position for NMGenWeb. Karen is the sole candidate, and...will take
office...for the term of January 1, 2006-December 31, 2007." A NM member has complained to
the Board about this, and noted that the entire election appears to have been run more or less in
secret. It is true that there doesn't actually appear to have been a call for candidates issued or any
opportunity for others who might be interested in the position to run for the office, or any update
of the status of the candidates made on the state's mailing list. The results weren't even announced
there. However, there is an election page prominently listed on the state's home page that goes to
a call for volunteers, the election rules, the election committee, the sole candidate's campaign
page, and the announcement of the outcome. So, members who don't religiously check the state's
home page might not have seen this announcement. [Or it may have been slapped together after
the complaint was made to the Board. The pages do seem a little hastily designed, and the
neatness with which they address every one of the complainant's concerns is a bit puzzling, but
who knows?] But, provided these pages were online before the election [and they probably
were...we have our doubts about Susan Bellomo, but not about Karen], there's no rule that says
the SC has to use the state lists for announcements. Anyways, this situation was brought to the
Board's attention yesterday and at least one of them is recommending that NM be forced to hold a
proper election, as AZGenWeb was recently forced to do when its outgoing SC tried to do an
end-run around the bylaws and appoint a sole candidate to the position. NM does have a rule that
it will run all its elections in-house, so it ought to be a simple matter for the SC to have the CCs
rubber-stamp Karen's succession to the throne.

[There is also apparently a very strange anomaly in NMGW in that the ASC has been reported to
have been granted the position for life. While this is unusual, we fail how to see how that could
ever be enforced, so its something of a non-issue. Eventually there will be a State Coordinator
who will have none of that, and the current ASC will be history.]

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

posted by merope at 7:10 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Store In A Cool Dry Place
Mucking about...its Your Daily Board Show!

ACT IN HASTE: In the continuing saga of off-again, on-again Board member Jeff Scism, the
following events have occurred since the last edition:

1. NC Linda declared Motion 05-20 "null and void."

2. NC Linda notified the Board that she was consulting with her Parliamentarian on the issue and
would not recognize Bettie's motion until "some things" had been "cleared away first."

3. NC Linda issued the following ruling on Jeff's resignation:

"Jeff's e-mail did not include a future effective date and there are no resignation procedures in
place therefore Jeff's resignation is effective as of his posting his resignation on Board-L. Due to
Jeff's resignation his seat is now vacant. Under our by-laws the AB is to appoint a replacement to
fill a vacant seat until the next regular election. In the past the AB has held preference polls and
also appointed a replacement without a preference poll. This AB needs to decide which it wants
to do and this must be decided before Bettie's motion to appoint Jeff to the vacant seat can be
recognized."

4. Linda asked the Board members whether they'd prefer using a direct appointment or a
preference poll to fill the vacancy. Thus far, six Board members have weighed in. Three are in
favor of a direct appointment, two recommend a preference poll, and one asked whether the poll
would be of the NE/NC region's members or of the Board members.

REPENT AT LEISURE: In other Board business:

1. Jan Cortez announced she was taking a leave of absence for an unknown amount of time.
Apparently she only needed a brief vacation, since she has continued posting.

2. NC Linda announced that she was finally in communication with someone from Root$web
regarding the Grievance Procedures Committee's list request and she expected to have an answer
by Wednesday, October 26.

3. NC Linda posted information regarding the special election to both Board lists. The election
will start on October 25 and conclude November 8. Passwords will be mailed October 24. You
are only allowed to vote in this one if you are a registered member of one of the approved Special
Projects. [So if you've been using the same IP address as your roommates, you may not get a
password.]

BONUS QUOTE: "Thirty seven is thirty seven times more trumpier than just one email." --Don
Kelly [no, we have no idea what he is going on about]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Taking 5 second leaves of absence since 1998

posted by merope at 6:05 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Under The Rug
And you wonder why they won't tell us anything...its Your Daily Board Show!

BOARD NEWS: Not much happened with the Board since the last edition. They are still trying to
find some way to undo Jeff Scism's emotional outburst and get him back on the Board, and to that
end, Bettie Wood moved "to appoint to Jeff Scism to fill the now vacant seat of NENC CC rep."
Linda Barton seconded and George and Karen both asked to withdraw Motion 05-20. NC Linda
hadn't recognized either the withdrawal [which may require the consent of the rest of the Board]
or the new motion by press time.

[Incidentally, under our bylaws, if the Board reappoints Jeff to his seat, it is only until the next
regular election. He will have to stand for reelection to complete the second year of his original
term in July. In the event he makes a habit of resigning every time he gets his knickers in a twist,
his constituents ought to know it by then.]

COURTESY CALL ON THE WHITE TELEPHONE: As most readers of DISCUSS know, Jeff's
post [which has been removed at his request from the DISCUSS list archives] outed Captain
Alias. A couple of little birds independently confirmed her identity to us and yesterday the crack
DBS newsteam was able to have a bit of a chat with our intrepid hero, something that apparently
the Election Committee and two Advisory Boards either were unable to do or never even
attempted to do. Although CA would not agree to an interview, she did provide this statement:

"I have a company computer that runs an mail server and several other people that are related to
me and work for me use this computer. There are probably 150 people that use it daily. Some of
them were or are involved in the USGenWeb project at my encouraging...When I tried to turn my
SD and TX pages over to someone else I was accused by TX and SC [sic] state coordinator of
trying to use an alias. At the time I was cutting back on my involvement because of my terminal ill
mother and I did not have time to argue with anyone. I just did not see how they could come to
this conclusion, why would I take counties that I manage and try to adopt them out to an alias,
just made no sense to me. The two people that wanted the counties got so upset with them that
they stopped working with the USGenWeb at all and they were good workers for years. I have
not heard anything about my being investigated."

We admit some surprise at this. We figured that CA would cop to having multiple aliases, but that
the reason would have nothing to do with the EC's grandiose suspicions of deliberate foul play.
As it turns out, CA is [or used to be] a very, very active member of USGenWeb, along with other
online genealogy projects, and we've now talked to several people who turned her down for
counties for the sole reason that she already had too many county sites. So we thought perhaps
that CA would admit to having aliases in order to adopt counties she wanted, but not necessarily
to vote or influence elections.

Now instead it appears that Captain Alias does indeed have a more or less reasonable explanation
of the "aliases". It certainly explains the multiple names with same IP addresses. Whether it is a
plausible explanation or not could have [and should have] been determined by a hearing, had the
Board chosen to conduct one. But it didn't and chose instead to accept at face value evidence
compiled by the EC. Thus it might have happened that the twelve people assumed by the EC and
the Board to be "fake" might be real people that were denied votes without getting to have their
day in court, and a possibly innocent person stands publicly convicted, in Jeff Scism's words, of
"attempting to defraud" the USGenWeb Project. The Board seems remarkably unconcerned by
this possibility, and instead is focusing on how best to punish the next poor sap who comes along
that the EC says is guilty of something.

Due to the Board's and the EC's deeply pathological need for secrecy, it is difficult to put a
timeline together, but some folks in the know have said that after the two SCs in question made
their suspicions known sometime around a year ago, the usual suspects [Tina Vickery, Ellen Pack,
Shari Handley, and Joy Fisher, big surprise] immediately started investigating Captain Alias.
Given that the two SCs were Joy Fisher and Bettie Wood, both of whom believe fully in the
maxim "verdict first, trial afterward," its not hard to imagine that the "investigation" started with a
presumption of guilt and proceeded to "prove" that which the EC already believed it knew.
Apparently no one on the EC considered it necessary to talk to Captain Alias or any of the
"aliases"; after all, why bother if they are fake? Its also apparently not a problem that one of
Captain Alias' accusers was permitted to investigate her. This is fine. It will come as no surprise to
anyone that our "nonpartisan" EC doesn't really exist to protect voters and their rights, and it's
clearly congratulating itself for thwarting some great threat to the integrity of the elections.

The Board, however, is a different story. At what point did the Board decide that talking to
Captain Alias and/or as many of the "aliases" as possible just wasn't necessary? Did they consider
interviewing them at all? Or did they just look at the EC's "evidence," decide it was good enough,
and decide not to bother with actually talking to the accused person? Even worse, when did they
decide to let this unproven "crime" [which is not actually against any of our rules] dictate a new
procedure for the entire Project? If Captain Alias was not in fact using aliases and all twelve of
those people are real, then there is no demonstrated need for any new procedures or rules,
especially the sorts of blunt instrument and easily abused "solutions" the Board members have
tossed out thus far. This has been going on for a year, and covers two different Boards. Now, we
know there are reasonable people on those Boards. And we know there are people on those
Board for whom the ends fully justify whatever means are necessary to "protect" the Project. But
would it have hurt to talk to Captain Alias? Sometimes we think the only things the Project really
needs "protection" from is the Board and the EC.

The Board is now apparently refusing to answer any questions put to it, publicly or privately, on
this matter. [We wrote all 14 of them; three responded, and one claimed to have no idea what we
were talking about.] The EC, busy with not running an election and not writing its quarterly
reports, is also noncommunicative. Now that Jeff and Ellen have outed Captain Alias, she'll
probably be punished wherever she still has counties in USGenWeb for their unproven suspicions,
because they have the formal public backing of the Advisory Board. Anyone out there who shares
a computer with housemates, roommates, spouses, and/or kids who also participate in
USGenWeb should start to be very, very afraid.

THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE: The editorial staff of the DBS is pleased to
announce that our report yesterday on the Special Election apparently prompted the EC to finally
post information on the election and the candidates. The DISCUSS list was also informed that the
Project will be informed of the time frame for the election sometime today. In the meantime, if
you wish to peruse the candidates' campaign pages, they are here:

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

BONUS QUOTE: "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." --Edwin Meese, III

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Taking' it to the streets since 1998

posted by merope at 8:40 AM 0 comments   
Friday, October 21, 2005
All The Popular Kids Are Doing It
Like a lamb to the slaughter...its Your Daily Board Show!

PLAYING FAVORITES: Since we went to press last night, all of the Board's conversation on the
formal list revolved around Jeff Scism's resignation. NC Linda just refused to accept it and noted,
"Jeff is equating his accidental posting of confidential information to Teresa Lindquist's posting of
confidential information in 2002. He feels that if he does not remove himself from the AB the AB
will be viewed as playing favorites. However, there is a large difference between what Jeff did and
what Teresa did...I will also point out that Teresa Lindquist completed her term as Representative
At Large even after her posting of confidential information and her deemed a
member-not-in-good-standing." George then moved that "that the Board also refuses to accept
Jeff's resignation," a motion that was immediately seconded by Karen and numbered and opened
for discussion by the NC [Motion 05-20].

Very soon in the discussion, Sturgis reared its ugly head, in the form of Bettie Wood. Bettie
pointed out this most relevant passage in Sturgis: "An officer or director who has resigned either
orally or in writing cannot simply resume office because of a change of mind. A person who has
resigned from office can be restored to that office only by reelection, if it is an elective office, or
by reappointment, if it was an appointive office." Several Board members tried desperately to find
some way to have this passage not apply, including claiming that the resignation needed to be
submitted to the NC, needed to be accepted, needed to be accepted by the NC, wasn't submitted
properly, and/or wasn't "formal" enough. Someone even tried to claim that the relevant Sturgis
passage doesn't cover officers.[!] Eventually, though, a couple of Board members finally admitted
that, yes, the Sturgis passage is indeed relevant. Bettie suggested withdrawing Motion 05-20 and
appointing Jeff back into his seat. George agreed with her, but did not immediately withdraw the
motion, and shortly thereafter NC Linda notified the Board that Jeff was taking his case to his
constitutents in the NE/NC region and asked everyone to give him time to determine their wishes.

[Note that Sturgis says that Jeff would have to stand for reelection to his seat, since it is an
elective office. However, our bylaws give the Board the duty to appoint replacement
representatives should a member not be able to complete their term. Since the bylaws take
precedence over Sturgis, an appointment would be the way to go. Although it is unfortunate that
Jeff's inconstancy has forced this non-issue to eat up some of the Board's precious time affirming
that they love him and want him to stay, forcing an election to re-seat him would eat up even
more time, and would end up involving the EC as well as the Board. Its hardly worth the effort,
especially since the EC seems to be having a spot of trouble running elections these days. See
below.]

On an interesting side note, during the discussion of Motion 05-20, Jan Cortez raised the issue of
precedent, and noted "I would hope that no matter which way the advisory board decides to apply
this situation, that you will have established a precedent and apply it equally to everyone." [We
would note that "precedent" in these matters has already been established by previous Boards. It
does not involve resignations, but even "accidental" release of sekrit material does not go
unpunished. Prior NCs just unsubbed the offenders from the Sekrit Sandbox, but somehow we
think the Board won't be interested in applying that precedent here. After all, Jeff is One of Them.
They want him in the Sandbox.] Jan also noted, perhaps with a touch of bitterness, that were she
the one resigning under these circumstances, the Board would have let her go quickly and without
regret.

HIS MASTER'S VOICE: Jeff's own words should make the reality of his resignation pretty clear.
Some of Jeff's recent quotes indicating that he has in fact resigned:

"I regret that the situation will force me to leave the Advisory Board..." --Board-L
"I am no longer on the Board." --DISCUSS
"I tendered my resignation because I don't relish being a MNIGS." --DBS, Letters to the Editor
"I subsequently tendered my resignation to the Board, because I felt that the issue brought
embarrassment to the Board..." --USGENWEB-NE

So, despite the valiant effort of the NC and some of the Board members to deny the obvious, Jeff
has indeed resigned from the Board and if they want him to stay they will need to appoint him
back to the position. We imagine the passage in Sturgis exists to limit organizations' having to
deal with the "act in haste, repent at leisure" syndrome when emotionally unstable officers resign
and unresign whenever they get the vapors over some trifle.

[And Jan is indeed correct. This courtesy would not be extended to every Board member equally
in the same circumstances. Some of them would have the door slammed behind them so fast
they'd get a bruise in the sitting place. Its also the case that Jeff's Freudian slip would have gotten
some of them kicked off of at least the sekrit lists without so much as a by-your-leave. Its
happened before, and "oh, it was an accident! wasn't an acceptable excuse.]

POWER BEHIND THE THRONE: There was only a little discussion of the alias registration
issue over on the informal list. Suzanne suggested that the EC could use voting passwords as a
means of identifying whether or not someone voted. Cyndi noted, "The EC needs to be able to
have a procedure that allows them to deal with a project-wide discrepancy...we probably all agree
that there should be a policy that specifically prohibits one person from having alias names and
email addresses. The toughest issue is probably what the penalty for such an offense would be. It
would seem appropriate to instruct the EC to permanently remove the individual and all aliases
from the voter list to protect the project against voter fraud...there may be a general consensus
that someone proven to have aliases should be removed from the projected totally, each state and
special project would need to agree to remove them from their state or special project." [Good
luck enforcing that.]

After that, the issue of aliases morphed into a discussion of the EC itself and its practices in
verifying members who register to vote. David suggested that, "the procedures should be changed
so that the EC will have to ask the SC if the prospective voter...is really a local coordinator in
their state...if the SC asks for an updated voter list from the EC to help update their list, the EC
should provide it." [These, as David point out, are the things the EC used to do but no longer
does.] Angie agreed with David and also wondered about the EC's proscription against
determining eligibility:

"...the EC says...that they only verify eligibility, but we've seen actions taken that contradict that
statement. Example: Someone registers to vote that is not on the membership list provided by the
SC. The EC contacts the SC to verify membership, and is told that the individual in question is no
longer with the project. The EC registers the person and issues a password anyway...by issuing a
voting password to someone the SC says is not a project member, hasn't the EC made an
independent decision and determined eligibility? They certainly haven't verified it -- in fact, they've
been told that person *isn't* eligible to vote. If the EC's function is to handle elections, and if
that's supposed to be their only function, why do they need SC's to provide membership lists
anyway? Their area of responsibility isn't "members", it's "voters"."

[Oh my, you don't suppose the EC is stacking the voter rolls, do you?]

ELECTILE DYSFUNCTION: A couple of members have contacted us about the special election
for the Special Project representative seat currently being warmed by Cyndi Enfinger. Since the
EC doesn't talk to us, we have to admit we have no idea what the hold-up is. Perhaps they are
busy checking the IP addresses of all the people who registered to vote in it. We can say this
though. The nominations period closed a month ago, on September 21. The schedule Tina posted
back in August suggested a 2 week period for registrations [done], a one week period for
nominations [done, Sept 14-21], and then a one-week period for "preparation/campaign for
nominees" [presumably Sept 22-29]. This would have had the Special Projects electing their new
rep starting the first week of October. So, here we are two weeks later, and not only has there
been no mention of the special election since the nominations period was opened, there's no
information about it whatsoever on the EC's website. There is no list of candidates. There are no
links to candidate webpages as required in the EC's guidelines [oops, we mean the EC's
suggestions]. One of the candidates was promised over a month ago that his acceptance would
"posted on the EC website within 24 hours," but there's no sign of it on the EC website. The
nominations page has been disabled, and the information on it just says the election will be held
"TBD." They must be sooo busy over there cross-checking everyone's IP addresses.

BONUS QUOTE: "With no disrespect intended, I'll hazard a guess that had it been me, it would
have been applied exactly as Sturgis states it be applied and I'd have been history hours ago."
--Jan Cortez

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
A bitter pill to swallow since 1998

posted by merope at 8:46 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Continuing Crisis
You're soaking in it...its Your Daily Board Show!

OOPS: The big news this evening is that Jeff Scism has apparently resigned his position on the
Board, following an "inadvertent" violation of the Sacred Oath of Sekretness [or is that the Sekrit
Oath of Sacredness?]. He accidently, or so he claims, forwarded a most interesting email to the
DISCUSS rabble, who immediately fell on it like rabid badgers [but more about this later]. Then
he promptly posted a message to the Board's formal list saying good-bye to everyone. At press
time, three Board members had more or less begged him to stay, so we'll see if he sticks to his
guns and resigns over this Really Silly Issue or if he waffles and stays. [Our money is that he'll
reconsider and stay. We pretty much figured Jeff would bail before the end of his term, but
leaving less than two months into his first year is a little extreme.]

YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE: Meanwhile, the rest of the gang continued to discuss how to keep
more Captain Aliases from sprouting up among the fine citizens of the USGenWeb Project. NC
Linda informed the Board that Tina's Terminators would be forwarding in short order their
suggestions for remediating the situation [we guess this is what they are doing instead of writing
up their last three quarterly reports] and several Board members have hinted that they'd prefer to
wait to see what oozes out of the EC before they continue the discussion. [Yes, let's let the EC
tell us what to do! After all, they elected us!] NC Linda noted that "...the EC cannot be in the
position of doing more than temporarily removing a suspected alias from the voter's list and
referring the suspected alias situation to the AB for resolution. The AB procedures should start
with the notification from the EC." [Actually, the EC should do nothing but forward its suspicions
to the Board for review. It should take no further action until the Board tells it to. Period.]

Mike St. Clair, who has been a bit quiet lately, spoke rationally about the issue: "I feel it would be
best for the EC to never remove anyone from any list, temporarily or permanently, except under
specific conditions that should be spelled out in their procedures...I do not believe that the EC
should ever remove someone from a list if a problem is "suspected" without consultation and
approval of the Advisory Board in advance." A few Board members attempted to discuss the
issue of what exactly happened: Did the person(s) vote? How would you know? Is just registering
enough evidence of "intent to defraud"? And some tried to figure out how the real government
registers voters [Oy. We have to go the DMV and show some picture IDs. And then give the guy
a chicken. Go figure.] One Board member suggested using an alias but giving your SC your "real"
name. Your SC will keep it private, but they'll send it to the EC, because they "need to know" this
information. She also suggested that "a person (LC/CC) that uses an alias should be up front
about the need to do so or else they can be found guilty of fraud." [Apparently someone is not
clear on the reasons why someone uses an alias. Its usually to keep people from knowing who you
are. Passing that info to your SC who will then share it with a committee of a dozen people, plus
an unknown number of seasonal guest workers, hardly accomplishes that goal.] Jeffry, late of the
Board, seems to feel that registering under more than one name is actually an "attempt to
defraud" the project, but since there's no actual rule against using as many names as you want, its
not a crime to sign up under more than one name. Its not even a crime to register under more than
one name. [We don't presume to know Captain Alias' intent, to defraud or otherwise, but unless
they voted, they didn't do anything wrong under our current bylaws.]

THE SHORT FORM: From what we can gather, from a few birds and other sources, this is the
scenario of this situation in a nutshell:

SCs go to EC and say "hey, we have some suspicion that these people are one person"
EC investigates [their methods are secret and involve IP addresses!]
EC satisfies itself that Treachery is Afoot
EC unilaterily removes voting privileges from "12 suspected clones...accounting for 46 positions
covering 10 states, all 4 regions and the special projects." [heh, this still cracks us up.]
EC takes the issue to the Board
Board discusses EC's action
Board decides "hey, good enough for us" and rubberstamps EC's actions
New Board reviews the issue and rubberstamps both the EC's and the former Board's actions, and
tries to distract the members with the alias issue
Its Miller Time

THE EVIL THAT MEN DO: We've spent the better part of the day trying to figure out what is
actually going on behind the scenes with this issue of aliases. Clearly, the Board wants to gloss
over the issue of the EC overstepping its bounds and removing registered voters before going to
the Board with its concerns, and move on to the problem of Project volunteers who use aliases
within the Project. So, at least so far, they haven't been all that forthcoming about the issue. We
have received a handful of responses, and it does seem clear that no one on the EC or two Boards
ever actually contacted the alleged perpetrator in the last year [yes, this has gone on for an entire
year]. One Board member did privately allow that, yes, the alleged perpetrator should be included
in any discussions the Board has on the issue of alleged aliases, but it appears this simple courtesy
was not extended to Captain Alias by the current Board, the former Board, or the EC. But most
Board members have not bothered to respond to our enquiries, nor has anyone on the EC [and no
doubt they'll complain bitterly that we don't get the "facts" before we publish].

This brings us to Jeff's misbegotten email to DISCUSS earlier today. Apparently, he was
intending to post information on how SCs verify volunteers, what IP addresses mean, and how to
interpret message header information to USGW-CONF2, the list the Board is using to secretly
discuss the Captain Alias issue. [And silly us, we thought the Board and its cronies were no longer
discussing this issue in sekrit once Linda moved it to the public list. Someday we'll learn.]
However, by some fabulous deus ex machina, his message went instead to the DISCUSS list,
where we learned:

1. The sekrit list is still being used to discuss this issue, despite NC Linda's public announcement
that this discussion was moving into the open.
2. At least one Board member doesn't feel up to addressing her constituents personally [she called
this "poking the bear"] and wishes non-Board members would do it for her
3. Another Board members think it is odd that Project members would like to see "demonstrated
proof" [i.e., evidence] before they will believe that registered voters are fake.
4. One of our former Poobahs of the EC thinks this teapot tempest rises to the level of a "serious
national problem," [what a hoot!] and doesn't seem particularly concerned about what gets
trampled in the rush to condemn the [still only alleged] perpetrators. She also seems very firmly
committed to giving the EC a role in determining voter eligibility, rather than leaving that to the
SCs and the Board.
5. The EC collects IP addresses when you register [its how they traced the aliases]
5. The real name of Captain Alias [or just perhaps another false front...]

All fascinating stuff. Sekrit lists are sooooo cool. Really though, we must thank Jeff for his fumble
fingers. There is nothing we love more than watching self-righteous ninnies like Ellen Pack tell us
how they'd run the world. We're just sorry he feels he has to resign over doing the Project a favor
like this.

BONUS QUOTE: "Other suggestions - When discussing the subject on AB Chat or any public
list, be very careful not to divulge the way the EC and/or the AB determines alias names. Rhonda,
for example, still hasn't figured out what an IP address is. I'm not about to tell her, and I sure hope
no one else does." -Ellen Pack, instructing the Board on how to handle legitimate questions from
constituents

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Bringing good things to light since 1998

posted by merope at 7:40 PM 4 comments   
A Man For All Seasons
More than meets the eye...its Your Daily Board Show!

OUR NEW HERO: Yesterday, fully one month after questions about the removal of registered
voters from the rolls were first asked, Linda Haas Davenport finally answered them. Sort of. On
the formal public Board list, she reported:

"Prior to the 2005 annual election two State Coordinators brought to the attention of their AB
reps and the EC an individual adopting counties under false pretenses. The EC...checked the
voter's list for possible aliases/clones for this individual. The result...turned up 12 suspected clones
for the individual (who had registered to vote) accounting for 46 positions covering 10 states, all
4 regions and the special projects...The EC temporarily removed those names from the voter's list
pending a final decision of the AB. The AB concurred with the removal of the names and left the
matter to the new board that was seated in Sep 2005." [You'll note that this last sentence could
have been shared with the Project weeks ago without violating anyone's confidentiality. It also
gives both the EC and the former Board a pass on removing registered voters from the rolls on a
mere suspicion.]

Linda also described the composition of the secret group that has been secretly discussing the
matter for the last "few days" [the secret list was reopened on September 22, somewhat more
than a "few days" ago]: "The AB members, the EC Chair, the two State Coordinators who first
brought this to the AB & EC's attention, the parliamentarian and NC." [Notably absent from this
list is Captain Alias. You'd think they'd at least pretend to want to interview him/her.]

NC Linda then moved the whole discussion to the informal chatty list so they could hash out
procedures "to address the situation of a person registering to vote under false pretenses." Thus
far only Suzanne has shared any wisdom pearls with the Board. She noted "If there is no rule
saying you can't use a fictitious name then how can you punish someone for doing it?...Perhaps it
should be changed to state that no name, other than the person's legal name (or nickname) can be
used...period!" [This is a fabulous idea. We recommend fingerprinting and iris-scanning all Project
volunteers and potential volunteers and requiring at least 2 forms of government-issued picture
IDs, and perhaps several personal references before letting anyone volunteer to provide genealogy
stuff to the masses. They can collect all this information while they are checking into volunteers'
criminal records.]

WILL THE REAL CAPTAIN ALIAS PLEASE STAND UP: "46 positions covering 10 states, all
4 regions and the special projects." This just cracks us up. What dedication this must have
required to carry off for however long they managed to get away with it! If, of course, this really
is one person. What is less amusing is that there apparently was no hearing held before a Project
volunteer was deprived of their right to vote. This was all just based on suspiscion. There is no
evidence presented that the person ever defrauded the project by actually voting [they were
prevented from doing so by the action of the EC], or even that they ever intended to vote wth all
of the aliases they registered. [Remember, even if they voted with more than one alias, provided
they didn't vote more than once in any race they still wouldn't have violated any rules.] Or for that
matter that the the evidence the EC accepted and the Board conceded is actually any good. As
Linda so aptly noted when she moved the discussion from the dark into the light, it is not a crime
in USGenWeb to use aliases. Its also not a crime to register to vote under different names. We're
not even sure its against any formal rule in USGenWeb to vote under different names. Anyways,
assuming Our Hero is indeed one person [and not, say a number of people living at the same IP
address], they have committed no actual crime at this point. Yet they have been deprived of their
voting rights in all four regions and all the Special Projects without benefit of a hearing or the
opportunity to challenge whatever evidence Tina's Terminators think they have against
them/him/her. Its the USGenWeb Way (tm)!

The thing to do, of course, would have been to let Captain Alias' various doppelgangers remain
registered throughout the election and see if they did indeed vote more often than would be
seemly. But that might have required cluing the Project into the possibility that the EC does
indeed know when and how you vote, and it was probably just easier to hack Captain Alias off the
voter rolls and be done with it. After all, he's only one person, or maybe two, or maybe 12, and
that's just chump change to an EC whose major charge these days is protecting the status quo.
[We imagine that if Captain Alias was a Board- and EC-friendly entity, they'd have given him a
medal for meritorious service.] The Board has already decided he's guilty and punished him [heh,
been there, got a tattoo], and moved on to figuring out how to prevent the next multi-faceted
superhero from making the EC and the Board look like buffoons. This discussion will, no doubt,
be very entertaining.

Anyways, Captain Alias, if you are out there and reading this, we'd love to interview you. And if
you feel deprived of your rights as a Project member, we might even have a spare voter
registration or two laying around we'd be happy to let you use in return.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Swooning with admiration since 1998

posted by merope at 6:30 AM 1 comments   
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Spilled Milk
Credit where credit is due...its Your Daily Board Show!

DONE DEAL: With the announcement of their passage yesterday by Linda Haas Davenport the
three proposed changes to the Board's operating procedures have been approved and the
webmaster has been instructed to post the changes to the national website.

PITCHING A FIT: As we predicted yesterday, Project wingnut Phyllis Rippee has once again
"left" the lists in high dudgeon after she was called out on her post regarding the availability of a
mysterious list for the not-yet-in-existence Grievance Committee. Before she left, however, she
saw fit to carry the issue to another list and to write us personally about the issue, both times
admitting that she does indeed have "personal knowledge of another list being available that
should meet whatever criteria is needed by an actual working g.c." Unsurprisingly, Angie
Rayfield, who is chair of the Grievance Procedures Committee, knows nothing of any such list
and has expressed interest in receiving more information, but we highly doubt any will be
forthcoming.

For those of you may be concerned about injury to Phyllis' delicate sensibilities, don't bother.
She's never been shy about sharing her snarky opinions on the official and alternate lists, she's just
always been more fond of dishing it out than she is of taking it. In the very post that she
mentioned the notorious and most likely apocryphal list, she also called a duly appointed Chair of
an official committee of the USGenWeb Project the "remnant in charge" and strongly implied that
Angie's sole motivation in delaying the Grievance Procedure Committee's business was to force
Root$web to "bow down and kiss ____." Phyllis also seems to think that the editorial staff of the
DBS wants her off the lists, but nothing could be farther from the truth. We find both Phyllis'
numerous left-field observations and her various dramatic comings and goings most amusing, and
we write about her secure in the knowledge that no many how times she stomps off, she'll come
back eventually. She always does. Besides, we are doing her a favor. She appears to crave
attention and the DBS is about the only place she gets it.

BONUS QUOTE: "We all live and learn. There was a time I enjoyed USGWP, now I am deeply
saddened & mightily ashamed for the USGWP." --Betty Brooks

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
This stuff writes itself since 1998

posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments   
Monday, October 17, 2005
Inside The Moral Kiosk
Not everyone's cup of tea...its Your Daily Board Show!

DUCKS IN A ROW: At press time, thirteen Board members had signaled their acceptance of one
or more of the proposed procedures. None has rejected any proposal, so all of these are now
SOPs [or perhaps Special Procedures or Standing Procedures]. In other Board business Angie
Rayfield reminded NC Linda that the Grievance Procedures Committee [who most people
expected to be deep into its deliberations by now] is continuing to explore another list option. She
noted both that the GPC would need more time to examine this option and put the committee list
together for the Board and that it was her understanding that the NC wanted to finish up the
procedures issue before moving on to other things.

CLEAR AS MUD: For those of our readers who do not read the alternate CC list, Linda Haas
Davenport yesterday attempted to clear up a "misunderstanding" of what Phyllis "Nutty As A
Fruitcake" Rippee was really saying when she claimed in that forum to have inside knowledge of a
list for the forthcoming Grievance Committee. Linda claims that Phyllis was referring to "the open
& archived list the AB already has." We rather think not, since its pretty clear from Phyllis' post
that she's referring to a list for a committee that will be handling grievances, which the GPC will
not do. Here's Phyllis' actual statement:

"...the problem is that the remnant-in-charge refuses to work until RW furnishes the Project with a
brand new list....even though a list meeting all the criteria called for by the AB that established the
"new" g.p.c. is available. And, my personal knowledge is that a list that meets the criteria of
privately handing grievances by the committee to come is available."

Note the last sentence. Phyllis has "personal knowledge" that a list for the "committee to come" is
available and will meet the criteria of "privately handling grievances." For one thing, the GPC is
not a "committee to come"; it exists right now, albeit with only two members. For another, it will
not be handling grievances. And for yet another thing, it will not be operating in private. After
some discussion of these apparent oddities, Linda opted to wait until Phyllis is back online to
explain herself.

Well, all we can say is, good luck getting any kind of straight answer out of Phyllis. She's done
exactly what she intended to do, which is basically to cast bait into the water and see what rises to
it. She was most likely talking out of some orifice not on her head and now that she's been called
on the carpet to explain herself, she'll either post something even more obfuscating, grandiose,
and noninformative, or she'll stomp off in a huff. If we're lucky, maybe it will be both. Although
she could surprise us. She might actually have an inside line to Root$web and know something
that neither the NC nor the Board knows. In any case, its bound to be entertaining.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Enjoying dramatic exits since 1998

posted by merope at 6:00 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Papa Was A Rolling Stone
On the rocks with a twist...its Your Daily Board Show!

GETTING ON WITH IT: After a couple more days of discussion of the SOP/Standing
Procedure/Temporary Procedure [or whatever they end up being called] proposals, this morning
Linda called for the Board members to indicate their acceptance or rejection of the following
proposals:

"Agenda/Order Of Business: The Order of Business shall be: Call to order; Reading, correction,
approval, or disposition of minutes; Reports of standing committees; Reports of special
committees; Unfinished business; New business; Announcements, "good and welfare";
Adjournment. This Order of Business will be flexible, depending on the priority and nature of the
business to be conducted at any given time during the meeting. The Chair will publish an agenda
for each meeting in advance of the meeting, however due to the length of our meetings the agenda
may be adapted to cope
with immediate needs. Board members should advise the Chair of items they want included.
QUORUM The existence of a quorum as stated in the Bylaws will be determined by the votes as
they are received on each item."

"Informal Discussion: This Board will make full use of the concept of "Informal Consideration" as
outlined by Sturgis, except that this "Informal Consideration," including all discussion on any
other official list EXCEPT Board-L will be considered to occur outside of the regular Board
meeting. Official votes may be conducted ONLY on the Board-L list, except for grievances or
other issues involving an individual where official voting will be done in Board-Exec. This frees
the participants to conduct straw votes on the other lists to determine the sense of the group.
Informal Consideration will allow the members to discuss issues and frame motions without
concern for the details of procedure that must be followed in the regular meeting."

"Permission to Speak: The requirement for recognition by the Chair before speaking is suspended.
However, the Chair may limit this blanket permission on a temporary basis
and for a period no longer than seven days when a member has demonstrated that he/she is
making posts so disruptive that the board is unable to perform its assigned duties. The authority
of the Chair to limit or moderate a Board Member is subject to appeal by the member so limited
or moderated. An appeal shall be made by the member via email to each member of the Board
including the Chair, and the Chair must post the appeal to Board-L. In the case of such an appeal,
a vote of the Board shall be immediately taken as to the continuation of the limitation or
moderation of the member."

The new and much expanded version of the "Permission to Speak" proposal was written by
former Board member Scott Burow and submitted to the Board by Jan Cortez. After 13 of 14
Board members said they could support Scott's version, and after being publicly challenged by
Angie on her insistence on unlimited power to moderate at will, Linda conceded the battle and
decided she could live with Scott's version after all. We expect that this [and both the other
proposed procedures] will pass easily. Since the version that Scott proposed does not specifically
mention any of the Board's business lists presumably it covers all of them currently in use. So it
ought to be interesting the first time NC Linda decides to moderate someone in the Sekrit
Sandbox and they take their appeal public.

At press time no Board members have voted on any of the proposals.

TURNING BLUE: NC Linda asked Angie one more time if she would accept the use of an
already existing list so that the Grievance Procedures Committee could begin its work. According
to comments from both NC Linda and Jeff Scism, Root$web is now giving USGenWeb the silent
treatment and will not even respond to emails seeking information on the status of the list request.
It's one thing if they are reluctant to go through the not-very-much-trouble of creating a
temporary list, but its quite another that they apparently can't be bothered to communicate that to
the Board. Project gadfly Phyllis Rippee claims to have some sort of "personal knowledge" that
Root$web has in fact already created a list for the permanent Grievance Committee to use and it
is ready to go. If this is true, it is interesting that Root$web can create a list for a committee that
does not exist and that meets criteria that have not yet been determined but can't actually manage
to create a list that was requested nearly two months ago with established criteria for a committee
that does exist. It rather smacks of them setting our priorities for us. Its even more interesting that
the NC and other Board members appear to know nothing about this, but a minor player in the
Project's backwater has inside info. But we doubt its true. From all appearances, Phyllis leads a
very rich fantasy life.

IN OTHER NEWS: EC Chair Tina Vickery is seeking volunteers to help her remove registered
voters from the rolls whenever some suspicion or other about their substantiveness comes her
way. If this sounds like the job for you, contact her directly at tsvickery@adelphia.net before the
end of the month.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Calling the shots since 1998

posted by merope at 7:40 AM 0 comments   
Friday, October 14, 2005
Need To Know
26 days and counting...its Your Daily Board Show!

REBELLION: Yesterday Angie reiterated her position that allowing the NC to moderate Board
members at will "...does not recognize the right of the moderated member to protest, the
requirement to bring it to a vote if so protested, and the right of the board to overrule the
Chair...It establishes a dictatorship where one person decides who will and will not speak...that is
a power just begging to be abused." In short order, six other Board members had publicly
supported her position, although a couple of them went out of their way to note that they didn't
feel the present NC would ever abuse her power. [Alas, this is not a majority, and as members of
DISCUSS were abruptly informed yesterday, these proposed procedural rules don't rise to the
level of motions and can be passed by the Board by a simple majority vote.] There was no other
discussion, formally or informally, on any of the proposed procedural motions.

BONUS QUOTE: "You don't have a 'need to know'." -Jeff Scism, explaining why we still do not
know who removed registered voters from the rolls and under whose authority that action was
taken.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Passing out pitchforks since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 0 comments   
Thursday, October 13, 2005
So It Goes
Where's the beef?...its Your Daily Board Show!

STALLED: On the formal list, the Board continued to discuss the proposed changes to the
Standing Procedures, most particularly the one which would give the NC the unilateral right to
moderate Board members at will and without giving the Board recourse to appeal. Not much new
was said on this topic. NC Linda reiterated her contention that "the NC should have the right to
moderate a member who posts e-mails that attack another member or are rude or sarcastic or of a
flaming nature and refuses to stop posting such e-mails when asked to do so by the NC." She
seemed particularly interested in being able to control posting on Board-Exec. [Heh, we've seen
how nasty it can get over there when they think no one is watching.] Other Board members
reiterated their contention that such an approach is all well and good, but that the rest of the
Board should retain its right to challenge and overturn any moderations by the NC. Angie, for
example, noted, "The chair does not enjoy an unlimited right to choose who will and will not be
allowed to speak. After some discussion, Linda published the following as the current wording of
the proposal:

"The requirement for recognition by the Chair before speaking is suspended. However, the Chair
may limit this blanket permission when a member has demonstrated that he/she is making posts so
disruptive that the board is unable to perform its assigned duties."

She asked for further discussion but there was none. [We are sure that the glaring lack of
reference in her last version to the Board's right of appeal is neither an accident nor lost on the
rest of the Board members.]

There was also a small bit of discussion about changing the quorum requirement in the standing
procedures to a firm "9" to a simple reference to whatever is in the bylaws at the time. Although
at least one Board member seemed to think the proposed change drops the quorum requirement
to 8 and didn't see a need to do that until the bylaws change, after some further careful
explanation, NC Linda also asked the group for further discussion and there was none.

The discussion of the use of informal discussion also stalled. Linda added a bit about conducting
formal votes on grievances and other personnel issues on Board-Exec and posted this more or less
final version:

"This Board will make full use of the concept of "Informal Consideration" as outlined by Sturgis,
except that this "Informal Consideration," including all discussion on any other official list
EXCEPT Board-L will be considered to occur outside of the regular Board meeting. Official
votes may be conducted ONLY on the Board-L list, except for grievances or other issues
involving an individual where official voting will be done in Board-Exec. This frees the
participants to conduct straw votes on the other lists to determine the sense of the group.
Informal Consideration will allow the members to discuss issues and frame motions without
concern for the details of procedure that must be followed in the regular meeting."

There was no further discussion of this either.

Over on the chatty list [no, we don't know why some of the procedures discussion is taking place
in formal session and some is taking place in informal session], the group discussed the proposed
procedure to remove SCs and ASCs from their jobs and also discussed a bit why they going
through all this hoohah to revise the SPs in the first place. [An effort, by the way, that we
applaud. Not only does it tighten up and clarify some standing procedures that have been honored
more in the breech than anything else, it may make it less necessary to do this sort of thing in the
future and it keeps them out of other trouble.]

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: After some prompting, NC Linda took the Board out of the
Sekrit Sandbox.

NO BIG SURPRISE: Citing the pending Special Election, the Election Committee has asked for
an extension on its own deadline for submitting its quarterly report. This is the same "quarterly"
report that is now nine months overdue. Apparently they can't walk and chew gum at the same
time over there.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
A thousand points of light since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 0 comments   
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
A Wing And A Prayer
Covering the same ground...its Your Daily Board Show!

SEA OF HOLES: On the formal list, the Board continues to discuss the various proposed
standing procedures. The "Agenda" item [which was formerly called "Order of Business, and
which we incorrectly mistook for a reposting of the October agenda yesterday] has met with no
objections as of yet, although Linda Barton did ask why it needed to be changed at all. [The
salient changes in this item are the removal of the requirement that a quorum be determined prior
to each vote, which we don't recall the Board ever doing, and a change in the wording regarding
the specific number required for a quorum. These are big changes. The former reflects the way the
Board actually conducts its business and prevents any more incidences like Shari Handley's
declaration that any online activity anywhere can indicate a Board member's "presence" for the
purposes of a quorum. The latter is desireable because there is a movement afoot to drop the
number of Board members that will constitute a quorum and it wouldn't do to have a standing
procedure that requires a higher quorum than the bylaws do.]

The proposed policy change regarding "informal discussion" has also received no objection.
Again, Linda Barton asked for clarification on wording of the proposal, and wondered if it applied
to "votes on grievances and other issues of a 'personnel nature'". [The motion reiterates that no
formal votes of the Board can take place anywhere but Board-L and that all discussion on other
lists, secret or not, will be considered informal and not binding. So its a valid question.]

The proposed standing procedure for removing SCs and ASCs from their position has not been
further discussed. [The Board implemented the current procedure in order to remove Tim Stowell
from his position as SC of GAGenWeb. When their only attempt to use it failed miserably, it was
abandoned in favor of a coup and secret after-the-fact trials of both Tim and his ASC Richard
Pettys.] This proposal is the one that provoked such a firestorm over the issue of felons possibly
serving on the Board or in state leadership positions.

The last proposed change to the Standing Procedures that the Board is currently considering
would permit the NC to prevent any Board member from speaking on any of the Board's lists if
she decides that "they are likely to make inappropriate posts" to any list the Board uses. Six
Board members [Darilee, Jeff, David, Sundee, Linda B., and Larry] are now on record as agreeing
with Angie's proposed change to require that a member only be gagged by the NC when "he/she
IS...making posts so disruptive that the board is unable to perform its assigned duties." [This is
enough to prevent the proposal from passing.] Linda Barton suggested further that "any such
decision by the chair is subject to protest by the AB and should be brought to a vote immediately
if protested."

As we have seen with Shari Handley, the Board's most recent poster-child for bad behavior, no
rule can prevent an NC without any sense of shame from doing whatever they please with the
Board's lists. However, making it plain that the NC does not have a free reign to exclude Board
members from the meetings or limit their ability to represent their constituents without the
consent of their colleagues may, with any luck, give pause to those who are perhaps not so firmly
in the "Ends Justify the Means" club as some of our previous NCs.

[Shari started early on in her ham-fisted management of the Board's public and secret lists. When
Richard Howland was suspected of leaking the transcripts of Tim's trial early in her tenure, he was
summarily dismissed from all the Board's lists. Neither he nor his constituents were notified of his
removal. Although the NC may have been justified in suspending his privileges to play in the
Sekrit Sandbox until the outcome of a hearing, no such hearing was apparently held. According to
Richard he sent upwards of 10 messages to the public Board list, including votes, before he gave
up. None were bounced and none were forwarded, so Shari was apparently intercepting them and
preventing Richard from doing the job he was elected to do. The proposed rule change won't
prevent a determined NC from doing this again, but it gives them no cover for their actions.]

BONUS QUOTE: "Moving forward on a wing and a prayer. And I might add, a lot of faith."
--Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Raining on the parade since 1998

posted by merope at 7:00 AM 0 comments   
Monday, October 10, 2005
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
No one saw me do it...its Your Daily Board Show!

CASTING THE FIRST STONE: Following Jeff's offhand inclusion of "conviction of a felony" in
a longish list of "valid" reasons for removing someone from office within USGenWeb, several
members of the Board and much of the chattering class somehow managed to expand that tiny
clause into a call by the Board for fingerprinting, background checks, disclosure requirements,
and other sorts of intrusions into peoples' personal lives. They also managed to change what had
been one of many proposed requirements for remaining in office [state level only in Jeff's original
proposal] into a requirement for volunteering in USGenWeb at any level. To their credit, every
Board member but Jeff that has spoken publicly on this issue has stated that is more or less
ridiculous, unworkable, and not beneficial to USGenWeb as a volunteer organization.

[We think the confusion stems from a misreading of Sturgis. The list of valid offenses for
removing an officer does include "conviction of a felony," as Jeff noted. From Jeff's posts, its clear
he thinks it means any felony at any time, but we think its more likely that it refers to someone
being convicted of a felony while serving on an organization's governing body. Such an event
would result in the officer going to prison and thus being unable to fulfill his official duties. In that
case, it would make sense to give the organization leeway to remove them from office and replace
them with someone that can perform the duties. In general, our law and our society is forgiving of
those who have done their time and become productive members of society, and Sturgis often
makes it clear that organizations should not overstep their bounds in controlling their members.
Although USGenWeb could choose to make having a spotless legal record a prerequisite for
volunteering or for serving in office, opening that can of worms would probably be a huge
mistake.]

HERDING CATS: By this morning NC Linda was trying valiantly to bring the Board back on
track with the discussion. On the formal list, she asked if there were any further discussion on the
proposed October agenda and on three of Jeff's proposed Standing Procedures [the right of the
NC to control who may speak on the Board lists, informal discussion, and removal of state level
personnel]. No one has thus far objected to the agenda [which we thought had already been
formally read into the record], but Angie Rayfield registered this concern regarding the NC's
ability to shut any Board member off the lists at their perogative:

"...this needs to be worded to point out that the Chair does not have an unending, no-contest right
to keep a member from speaking...Under parliamentary procedure, such a decision by the chair is
subject to a protest by the board and can be brought to a vote, something that previous NCs have
chosen to ignore completely...And moderating an elected representative should have a much
higher standard than "likely to make inappropriate posts."...inappropriate is entirely in the eye of
the beholder, something else we've seen demonstrated by seemingly random moderations in the
past...A better standard would be that the member has demonstrated that he/she IS...making posts
so disruptive that the board is unable to perform its assigned duties."

[Hear, hear.]

TIGER RUN AROUND THE TREE: We are now told by Board members that revealing who
removed registered voters from the rolls and who authorized the removals might compromise the
Board's investigation into the possible voter registration of multiple aliases. While we see these as
two entirely separate issues, the Board apparently will continue to hide behind the Captain Alias
issue as long as it can manage to do so. While we are very pleased to see the diligence with which
the Board will protect the confidentiality of people that do not exist, we might wish they could
respond in a timely fashion to the questions of those that do. Its now been 22 days.

BONUS QUOTE: "I'm laughing my buns off." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not a pretty picture since 1998

posted by merope at 9:30 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Groovin' On The Same Wavelength
They're so cute when they're mad...its Your Daily Board Show!

DIFFERENT STROKES: On the formal list, NC Linda kick-started the discussion of the
Grievance Procedures Committee mailing list by noting that the GPC will be active only for a very
short period of time and that establishing a permanent list for it may be overkill. She also noted
that although the intent is to pass the GPC mailing list over to the new Grievance Committee once
it is formed that committee won't be able to use it because they can't discuss grievances on an
open list. She suggested using USGW_WEB, which is currently free and has public archives.
[This is the list lately used for the public discussion of the work of the Bylaws Revision
Committee.] Angie took issue with Linda's apparent assumption that she intended the GC to
handle grievances publicly, but did point out that "the members of this project have made it pretty
clear that outside of individual, specific grievances, anything else done or
discussed by the grievance committee should be in public view...the GPC list will not "eventually
be used for something else." It will be turned over to the permanent committee for their use...if
Rootsweb is unable or unwilling to provide us with a timely response on something as simple as a
mailing list, our project has a little bigger problem to worry about than whether there's a delay in
getting the GPC off the ground." Linda responded, "What I am questioning is why a committee
that is established to come up with a set of procedures...should need a special list. The Grievance
Procedure Committee...is not a permanent standing committee as is the EC for example...Any
committee that is set up to formalize procedures must by its nature be a temporary committee.
Once procedures are formalized the committee's function is over and it is disbanded. So I do not
see how "It will be turned over to the permanent committee for their use."

At this time, according to Angie, the GPC has "more than enough" volunteers and the only
hold-up is the mailing list. They ought to just use USGW_WEB and get this show on the road.
Maybe in 60 days or however long it takes them to work up procedures for a new GC Root$web
will have its stuff together and they'll have a workable list for the new committee. There's no
particularly compelling reason to have continuity between the GPC list and the GC list, and the
GPC may end up deciding to provide the GC with a secret list rather than a public one.

MAKING IT UP AS WE GO ALONG: Over on the informal list, Darilee asked a serious of
apparently pointless questions about who hires and fires CCs and SCs and whether states use the
MNIGS label or not and Jeff answered them. Jeff did make one interesting statement: "Member
not in good standing is a requirement for running FOR national office on the Board. Because it is
rerquired as a Qualification to run, it is IMPLIED that it is rerquired to stay in office as well."
We'll just point out that if precedent is followed, members declared Not In Good Standing can
continue to serve in their elected positions. The Board did not attempt to remove us from our
Board seat when they declared us Not In Good Standing and we were MNIGS for over a year
during our term on the Board.

BONUS QUOTE: "I know that what I thought I knew about the AB and what I now understand
are two different things." --Darilee Bednar

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Out with the in crowd since 1998

posted by merope at 9:00 AM 0 comments   
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Digital Mayhem
Not as snarky as the other guy...its Your Daily Board Show!

MOVING ALONG: Now that the pesky semi-annual business of reaffirming our MNIGS status is
safely completed with no changes to either the status or the Project's policy in establishing it [yes,
they can continue to randomly decide which heinous crimes warrant MNIGS status and which
heinous crimes can be ignored], the Board has moved on to examining its Standing Procedures,
which are listed in somewhat willy-nilly fashion here:

http://www.usgenweb.com/volunteers/procedures.shtml

On the informal list, Jeff Scism posted no fewer than five suggested standing procedures [these
are in addition to the positions descriptions he previously posted for various appointed and
elected positions], covering mandated positions on the Board and their duties, the Order of
business, the right of the Chair to limit speech on the Board's various lists, the use of informal
discussion, and the removal of state level officers. Other than some minor chitchat about conflict
between state bylaws and the national level bylaws, these were all ignored.

LISTLESS: On the formal list, Linda reposted the entirety of Motion 05-13, which established the
Grievance Procedures Committee. The GPC still does not have its list, and from private
discussion with several Board members it appears they aren't likely to get one from Root$web.
No one really knows the cause of the delay and no one will go out on a limb and ask whether or
not Root$web is finally locking up the cookie jar. A few believe that Root$web is just hopelessly
swamped, but a former employee of the Dark Side told us privately that it takes a matter of
seconds to set up an email list and unless they've put a truly incompetent dweeb in charge of them
it shouldn't take more than a couple of days no matter how many lists requests they have in their
queue. [We are wondering if perhaps Root$web hasn't turned out to be quite the cash cow
MyFamily expected it to be and if they are moving away from spending any more resources on it
than they have to.] The idea of using a message board is gaining some traction, but it would
require some adjustments to Motion 05-13, which requires both an email list and permanent
accessible archives.

Other than a question from Suzanne Shephard about when the GPC would begin hearing
grievances [yes, another dull knife in the drawer], the issue was ignored by the rest of the Board.

NICE GESTURE: Yesterday Linda Davenport, on behalf of the Board, sent us the following:

"...although I'm sure you have been following the Advisory Board's discussions in regard to your
status of a Member Not In Good Standing the AB would like to notify you personally of the
results of its motion and discussion. Sep 26, 2005: Motion 05-19 made by David Morgan and
seconded by Karen DeGroote-Johnson stated: "I move that the Member Not in Good Standing
label be removed from Teresa Lindquist." With 8 YES votes, 6 NO votes, 0 ABSTENTIONS,
and 0 NOT VOTING, Motion 05-19 failed for lack of a 2/3 majority...The AB then entered into a
discussion of the possibility of rescinding motion 02-12...Due to a lack of a consensus of the
members, rescinding motion 02-12 was not undertaken. Therefore, motion 02-12 stands. I would
have notified you immediately after the results of Motion 05-19 were known but I was waiting to
see what the outcome of the discussion on motion 02-12 were."

Kind of silly and it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but it is very possibly the first
time that the Board has ever officially notified us of any of its actions in regard to us, so its also
kind of sweet.

ARMY OF ONE: The idea of amending the bylaws to change the 2/3 vote requirement on
"issues" to a simple majority is also gaining traction. We've received scattered reports of a few
states floating it by their CCs and yesterday Keith Giddeon posted the proposed amendments to
the DISCUSS list and encouraged members to run them past members in their states for potential
sponsorship. We are quite firmly on the fence for this one. We aren't generally thrilled when a tiny
handful of Board members can hold up Project business or prevent something the majority clearly
favors, and the 2/3 requirement pretty much ensures minority rule on any number of issues
[including the recent Motion 05-19 charade]. However, requiring only a simple majority vote
makes it that much easier for the Board to do bone-headed things just because a majority of them
can be easily swayed by the overloud barking of baboons on the various lists. [Though we have
noticed that when the Board does something truly lame, its usually unanimous.] We aren't too
happy about the thought of the NC [any NC, not necessarily the current one] having a meaningful
vote either.

So we are deeply undecided about this. For purely practically reasons, we'd support sponsoring
the amendments just for the chance to put this issue before the voters. It really ought to be their
call.

RUNAROUND UPDATE: This morning, 20 full days after Keith Giddeon first asked the
question about who removed registered voters from the rolls and who authorized it, Linda
Davenport again assured us all that "It will be talked about." Unfortunately, she couldn't tell us
when, other than that she hoped it would be in her lifetime.

OUR READERS WRITE: We don't make a habit of revealing our sources, and what makes you
think there is only one?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Tossing out the baby with the bathwater since 1998

posted by merope at 11:05 AM 0 comments   
Friday, October 07, 2005
Clear And Present Danger
Marking a clean slate...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE: With the abrupt demise of the 02-12 issue, Linda moved the Board
forward to the next agenda item, that of the Grievance Procedures Committee mailing list. She
noted "I have not received an answer from Rootsweb and I still do not know when or if we will
get a list. The option I was exploring didn't work out." She asked for alternate suggestions, and
Mike St. Clair suggested using the same message board system he uses for his RAL forum and
offered to set up a forum for the Board to review and to either admin it himself or teach Angie
and Jan how to admin it. Sundee Maynez also suggested a Yahoo mailing list.

Unfortunately, Motion 05-13 requires "that an email list be established for use of the committee,
and that the list discussions be archived and permanently open to all project members. That during
the discussion of grievance procedures, the list may be moderated during specific discussion by
the committee members, but shall be open for posting by all subscribers at all other times." Unless
a message board can be configured to function just like an email list, it doesn't work under the
requirements of the motion. We aren't sure a message board would be all that great an idea for
this sort of thing anyways. Since the one Mike uses doesn't appear to allow posting via email,
using it is unwieldy and requires extra effort on the part of participants, effort that will likely
discourage many participants [although that may be the point]. Witness, for example, the lack of
interest in Mike's own RAL forum, which has all of two semi-regular posters [myself and Mike], 9
posts in a month and a half, and only 18 registered users. It also appears that the message board
system can't be easily moderated part of the time and not moderated the rest of the time, as the
motion requires.

LIKE A TERRIER ON A RAT: Jeff Scism posted a proposed set of procedures for defining
Member Not In Good Standing status, applying the designation, and imposing penalties on those
so designated, up to and including expulsion from the Project [which he seems to think can be
enforced]. The only discussion this provoked was a debate on DISCUSS about the place of
convicted felons in USGenWeb. No other Board members paid the slightest bit of attention to it.

AT LEAST SOMEONE IS GETTING SOMETHING DONE: Over on the Board's chatty list,
David Morgan directed attention to Keith Giddeon's bylaws amendments page, where he has
posted a proposed amendment to the Project bylaws.

http://www.giddeon.com/bylaws/abvoting/

The GAGenWeb group has been discussing this proposal for several days now, and the general
tenor of the discussion appears to be opposed to the amendment for a variety of reasons. The
ongoing discussion includes two current Board members, both of whom also are apparently
opposed to the proposed changes. Bettie doesn't like it because she doesn't think the system is
broken as it is [although she usually claims to want to represent the majority, she apparently has
no problem with allowing a minority of Board members to dictate their whims to the rest of the
Project], and Linda Barton doesn't like it because it might give the NC a meaningful tie-breaking
vote and because it might allow a majority of Board members to pass something "harmful to the
Project." [We suspect their true objection is to Keith Giddeon, but that's how it goes.]

OUT IN THE BOONDOCKS: In response to a question from yet another Project member
regarding the issue of who removed registered voters from the rolls and who authorized their
removal, Board member Jeff Scism noted: "At this time, due to list confidentiality rules, I can not
answer, however it is coming up on the agenda, I leave it to Linda to decide when we can talk
publicly about what we are discussing in the committee/list."

Well, at least its an answer of sorts. They've progressed from "we don't know anything about
anything," to "we'll tell you when our nanny says we can." We'll be curious to see how they spin
this one.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Letting it all hang out since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 1 comments   
Thursday, October 06, 2005
A Labyrinth Of Paradox
Twiddling our thumbs...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACK WHERE WE STARTED: Following the publication of Parliamentarian Josh Taylor's
opinion on Motion 02-12, a flurry of activity occurred on both the formal Board list and on the
chatty list:

Three Board members [Mike, David, Jeff] indicated they would vote to rescind Motion 02-12;
one [Cyndi] indicated she did not necessarily agree with the Parliamentarian's opinion. No other
Board members responded to Linda's request that they publicly indicate how they would vote on
this issue. A few Board members [Mike, Cyndi, Darilee, Bettie] tried to change the discussion to
establishing guidelines for labeling someone a Member Not in Good Standing. This also went
nowhere, but its a lower item on the agenda, so perhaps they will get around to it someday.

In discussing how the Board initially came to vote against Motion 05-19, a Board member
revealed that "when we brought forth the statement about time limits, they actively (and at least
50% of them) stated they wanted [Teresa] banned from running for office forever." ["They" in
that sentence is project members who responded to Board members' request for comment.] Jeff
went on to note that "The response was such that if we put "banning" Teresa from the project up
for a vote, it would be hard to call." [They've discussed banning us from the Project on EXEC?!
That's certainly interesting news. One wonders how one can go from rescinding an incorrectly
made and passed motion to actually banning the person it attacked in the first place. But
apparently they are considering it. Whew.]

The Board expended some bandwidth trying to decide if Sturgis was in effect way back in
June/July 2002 when we were initially declared MNIGS. [It was.]

Several Board members noted, some repeatedly, that there is not a 2/3 majority in favor of
rescinding Motion 02-12, regardless of the Parliamentarian's opinion and recommendation. NC
Linda noted that she should have removed Josh's recommendations prior to publicizing his
opinion [which would have done her no good, since we would have published our version of his
recommendations in any case]. Eventually she ruled that, per Sturgis, "The original motion was
passed with a 2/3rd majority and it will take the same to rescind it."

The Board also expended some time discussing whether we were officially notified of our rights in
the matter and whether or not the notice sent to an unofficial Project list [DISCUSS] constituted
formal notification of those rights. Angie and Jeff both noted that the notice [which we have no
evidence of receiving in our personal inbox] does not include any provision for reinstatement or
any specific time frame for the punishment. [Although it does note that I can appeal the decision
to the exact same Board that just made it. Never think they don't have a sense of humor.]

Jeffry moved that "Motion 02-12 be rescinded and expunged. I further move that any subsequent
derivative motions also be rescinded by implication." After objections to this wording, primarily
from David and Darilee, he reworded the motion to read simply, "Motion 02-12 be rescinded."
After Linda threatened to declare the motion dead for lack of a second at noon on Thursday, Jeff
withdrew it, noting "I...will NOT make any further motions...all I have attempted in the past have
been asked to withdraw...or failed to be seconded...You guys figure out what you want to do. I
am tired of trying."

Darilee apparently accused the Parliamentarian of being in cahoots in some fashion with ourselves
and Keith Giddeon and both the Board list and the DISCUSS list spent a good deal of time
following trying to determine the difference between a verb and a noun, the meaning of the word
"conspiracy", and whether or not the NC was dissing Darilee when she enclosed a direct quote
from Darilee's message in quotation marks.

Darilee whined about moving the Motion 02-12 issue to the top of the agenda and about Jeff's
making a motion on Board-L despite the straw vote taken in the Sekrit Sandbox and without
discussing it to death on the chatty list first. Linda told her, "There was no old business left over
from last month. There were two items under "Unfinished business"...left over from the previous
AB...Formal announcement of the re-activation of the newsletter committee which I made...I
asked that discussion on the grievance list be postponed a couple of days pending an answer to an
inquire. That did bring us to new business - discussion of motion 02-12." Linda also informed her
that the number of Board members not in favor of rescinding Motion 02-12 were a minority of the
Board and that although the majority did not reach 2/3, the majority has a right to have its
position heard and debated.

So that's where that is. We'll probably be here for some time, since the Board appears to be
closing in on the burn-out phase of the discussion. From what we are told, pretty much no one
will budge from their votes on Motion 05-19, regardless of the Parliamentarian's opinion and
recommendations, and regardless of any valid procedural arguments. One of the Board members
did tell us that some Board members might change their votes if we 1) asked to be reinstated; or
2) agreed to restrictive conditions on our behavior, but as of yet we have not been contacted in
any official fashion by anyone on the Board and of course they have not discussed any formal
proposal for terms anywhere but the Sekrit Sandbox.

Anyways, we are still persona non grata and the Board has still not answered any questions
regarding who removed registered voters from the rolls and who authorized it.

IN OTHER BOARD NEWS: Linda amended the October agenda to remove reference to the
Representative At Large seat as an appointed position. Jeff Scism published a proposed position
description for the Board Secretary position.

COURT OF LAST RESORT: In a sad coda to the recent KYGenWeb grievance, an appeal to the
Board by plaintiff Brenda Daniels has been denied by National Coordinator Linda Haas
Davenport, who noted:

"The mediators did submit a report with the appropriate documentation to the Advisory Board
and the Advisory Board did review the grievance, the finding of the mediators and the supporting
documentation. After review and discussion the Advisory Board issued a final ruling in the
Hall-Daniels grievance. The Advisory Board is the final authority in all grievances and there is no
further appeal."

According to our elected representatives it is entirely OK with them if your SC decides to come
up special rules just for you and then fire you for failing to follow them. This is no surprise;
volunteer service at the CC level in USGenWeb has always been at the whim of the SC, and its
been the rare Board member who could admit outright that CCs have no rights whatsoever [at
least none that the Board will uphold]. It is also particularly not surprising, given that the
mediator in this case was Jan Cortez, who is herself guilty of having special rules for individual
CCs and then firing them for failure to comply. [For particulars, visit Pam Reitsch's pages when
you have a spare five minutes.] Nasty piece of work, that girl, but at least she's predictable.

BONUS QUOTE: "Talk to the hand Keith" --Darilee Bednar

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
An enigma wrapped in a mystery since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 1 comments   
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Everything Old Is New Again
One more for the road...its Your Daily Board Show!

BACK IN THE SADDLE: The October session of the USGenWeb Advisory Board was called to
order last night. Linda published the month's agenda, and has already cleared several items of
business from it [see below].

AGENDA ISSUES: This is the October agenda [Ed. note: saying something is "not done" below
is in no way intended to be perjorative, since the Board session is but one day old. We are just
incredibly lazy and more than likely will just post the agenda from one entry to another in order to
update it, and its easier to do all the formatting upfront]:

Call to order on Monday Oct 3, 2005 [done, Oct 3]

Reading, correction, approval, or disposition of minutes [done Oct 3; Linda gave the Board until
the evening of October 5 to file any objections]

Reports of standing committees [The EC has apparently deigned to produce a "quarterly" report
some 11 months after the last one was submitted, although at this point its pretty much an
"annual" report. According to Linda, they have agreed to provide a report no later than October
10, which is exceedingly accomodating of them.]

Unfinished business

Status of the Grievance committee's e-mail list, etc. [Linda postposed this one because, you
guessed it, Root$web still hasn't given the committee its requested list and apparently isn't
responding to her email either.]

Formal notice of the Newsletter Committee being reactivated [Linda announced that "The
newsletter committee under the direction of Sharon Rhodes, editor of the newsletter, has been
reactivated and a call for volunteers has gone out. Once Sharon can get organized she will send us
a report." We here in the newsbunker aren't aware of any operating procedures that were
established for this committee or any method of appointing its "Chair", which apparently is
synonymous with its editor. There also don't appear to be any established procedures for
populating the rest of the committee, including the usual required ex-officio status of the NC, so
we must assume that membership on this apparently standing committee is at the whim of the
editor. Interesting.]

Motion 02-12 [Linda published the opinion of Parliamentarian; see below]

Accepting/rejecting current Standing Operating Procedures [not done]

Discussion and review of information sent to the AB about the possibility of a member using
aliases to register to vote [not done and still no answer to the question of who removed duly
registered and confirmed voters from the rolls and who authorized their removal. Since all Board
communication on this matter focuses entirely on member malfeasance and not on any possible
wrong-doing by the Election Committee, it is beginning to appear that they are more interested in
punishing the general membership than on reining in a rogue Election Committee and/or its Chair.
This is astonishing to us. If individual Board members are to be believed, someone on the Election
Committee did something in this matter and no one on the Board knows what was done, who did
it, or why. But perhaps we are a bit optimistic and individual Board members should not be
believed. In that case, they are fully aware of what happened and not only are they not answering
members' questions, they aren't being fully candid with us on the matter.]

New business

Discussion of procedures for MNIGS [not done]

Formulating new standing operating procedures [not done]

"Job Descriptions" for appointed positions (Parliamentarian, Secretary and Web Master, RAL)
[not done; and apparently the RAL position is now by appointment only. Board member Jeff
Scism has posted proposed PDs for the Parliamentarian, Web Master and RAL to the Board's
chat list but they have gone unremarked.]

Announcements if there are any [not done]

Adjournment [not done]

COMING TO CONCLUSIONS: Parliamentarian Josh Taylor finally released his opinion on the
issue of Motions 02-12 and 05-19. We won't repeat the whole thing here because its archived on
Board-L and you can go read the entire thing at your leisure, but his summary reads:

"Because USGenWeb has no official policy and procedures in dealing with regulations declaring
members standings, we must conclude that any motion declaring a "member not in good standing"
by the USGenWeb Advisory Board must include a time frame. My recommendation, as
parliamentarian, is for the USGenWeb Advisory Board to set guidelines and other procedures in
relationship to "members not in good standing" for future use. In addition, I suggest the board
examine the possibility of rescinding motion 02-12, as it is in violation of parliamentary
procedure."

Following this, Linda moved the issue to the Board's chat list for informal discussion. She noted
that the Board "has been meeting privately to discuss Josh's opinion on motion 02-12 and has
been unable to reached a consensus," and urged the Board to "finish this piece of business and
move on." Then she asked the members to let their constituents know where they stand on the
issue of rescinding motion 02-12. By press time only Jeff Scism had taken her up on her offer. He
noted:

"My position on this issue is that despite personal feelings about the individual declared MNIGS,
the process was flawed beyond repair. Some others feel that the desires of their surveyed
members over-ride the broken process, and feel that they have to vote as their membership has
directed, overwhelmingly to continue MNIGS for Teresa Lindquist...the rule of Parliamentary
procedure should over-ride the wishes of the voters...It is several years since this MNIGS status
has ben applied, This is the second time it has been reviewed by the Board for removal...Both
times concurrence of opinion was not achieved, and the matter left as is...I am in agreement with
the parliamentarian that the best solution is to define a standard that indicates member not in good
stead...and deals with actions that lead to, and follow such a declaration...Current available
punishments for specific acts are limited by the Bylaws and by the Parliamentary Procedures, they
would be Temporary suspensions of membership and privileges, expulsion, public sanction (like
MNIGS), and in our case if it is a Website violation delinking of the website. The expulsion by the
National Board would be ineffective if the STATE where the person is a member continues to
allow them membership. There is no mandate in our bylaws to set the national Board above the
state in such issues. My position: Recession of Motion 02-12 and expunging of it from the
Record."

For the record, we would be absolutely opposed to expunging anything from the official record of
proceedings. Not only would it be a hugely unwieldy undertaking to remove all mention of it from
Board-L and other list archives [one which Root$web would probably refuse to do], but these
sorts of things really should be available to serve as both a warning to and lesson for posterity.

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

posted by merope at 10:45 AM 2 comments   
Saturday, October 01, 2005
A Day At The Races
Surely you jest...its Your Daily Board Show!

LOOKING FORWARD: In the informal Board session, Linda Haas Davenport published a
proposed agenda for October and asked for comment. Her agenda included such items as the
usual posting of the minutes, announcements, and new business, and also included new items such
as committee reports [The only one she mentioned is the Grievance Committee; the EC has not
submitted a single report in 2005, and to all appearances has no intention of doing so]; an
announcement that the Newsletter mailing list has been reopened; and these items of unfinished
business: Motion 02-12 and Motion 05-19, discussion of the possiblity that someone used aliases
to register to vote [but no mention of the issue of removing registered voters from the rolls--day
13 now], discussion of current standing procedures, discussion of procedures for declaring
someone MNIGS, and formulating new standard operating procedures. Jeff Scism suggested they
also needed to come up with formal job descriptions for the Parliamentarian, Webmasters, and
Representative At Large position. This will be a very full plate for the Board in October, but then
again October is a very long month.

FAMOUS IN SMALL CIRCLES: Another daily USGenWeb-focused blog began publishing a
few days ago, so now you have something else to read with your morning coffee and bagel. In its
introductory edition it promised, "Our point of view is to report the news as objectively as we
can. That's going to make everybody look stupid, some days. And it's going to make everyone
look bright, some days. But we're not out to target anybody." Its called Merope Unwarped and
you can read it here:

http://meropeunwarped.blogspot.com/

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