SEPTEMBER DBS 2005


Friday, September 30, 2005
Closing Up Shop
Rockin' thru the wilderness...its Your Daily Board Show!

GONE FISHING: Just before adjourning the September session of the Board, which for the first
time in recent memory addressed every item on its not-very-ambitious agenda, Linda announced
that all Board members agreed to the gag rule for the various sekrit Board lists and that she would
also abide by her own gag rule. Jeff Scism then moved to adjourn the September meeting [which
one we are not sure; see below], and several Board members indicated that they had no objection
to adjourning.

Shortly after adjourning one or some or all of the Board's meetings, Linda announced the opening
of the Board's informal meeting on the old USGENWEB-ALL list. The list is open to all members
for read-only subscription, similar to Board-L. Linda has also assured the Project members that
the old ALL archives will not be disturbed and will continue to be available for the reading
pleasure of our more masochistic members.

OPEN AND SHUT: We are really not clear on which meeting has been adjourned. Linda made
her announcement about the new Board chitty chatty list on BOARD-L after adjourning on
Board-L, and at the same time announced that Board-L would continue to be used for the formal
session. So the formal session must not have been the meeting she adjourned. Since she just
opened the informal session, that also must not be the meeting she adjourned. Shortly after that,
she publicly admitted that the Board was still in the Sekrit Sandbox and still discussing Motion
05-19, so apparently that meeting was also not adjourned. We've run out of all the meetings we
know about, so this is indeed a puzzle.

STALLING FOR TIME II: A couple of days ago new Parliamentarian Josh Taylor introduced
himself on DISCUSS and graciously made his services available to the membership at large. So
yesterday we asked him a pressing question about the parliamentary kosher-ness of Motion 02-12
[by which the Board in its Wisdom made us a perpetual MNIGS without letting us participate in
our own hanging] and whether the actions taken by the Board should have expired either at the
end of our term or at the end of some previous Board session. Now, we would think this is a
complicated and thorny issue and might take some time to consider, but apparently the Boy
Wonder has made a "ruling" already. He contacted us this morning to let us know, however, that
at the request of the National Coordinator he will withhold that ruling until October 1. [We'll
leave aside for a moment his own acknowledgement that parliamentarians can't make rulings or
enforce them].

According to some little birds a grievance or petition has been filed regarding Motion 05-19 and
that is what the Board is currently discussing in the Sekrit Sandbox. Linda indicated publicly that
the "validity of the motion has been called into question," and the Board is therefore continuing to
meet in secret session to chat about it. According to one of our flock, the petition/grievance was
submitted as soon as the vote on Motion 05-19 was completed and is based on the rights of
members to insist that the Board enforce the rules of the organization. The petitioner has asked
that Linda either act under her authority to promote "the good of the Project" and lift the MNIGS
status or that the Board comply with Sturgis and lift it. The petitioner has also apparently
demanded that the Board apologize to us.

Why this should warrant the continued use of the secret list is not clear, since it is no longer a
personnel issue but is now truly a policy issue. We imagine though that the NC's request that Josh
keep his "rulings" close to the vest for a few days has a lot to do with the Board's secret
discussion of this issue. They probably want to make sure all their ducks are in a row before any
of the team goes public with any sort of decision or ruling on this matter. It might end up a bit of
a sticky wicket if the Boy Wonder decided that Motion 02-12 was invalid at the same time they
were deciding in the Sekrit Sandbox that it was [or vice versa]. Or maybe they just want to enjoy
a few quiet days before all the howling starts on the lists again.

KEEP ON KEEPING ON: The question of who removed registered voters from the rolls and
who authorized their removals has still not been answered. Twelve days now.

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

posted by merope at 8:40 AM 5 comments   
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Puppet On A String
Still waiting for answers...its Your Daily Board Show!

DUCKS IN A ROW: Like good little children, the last three Board members agreed to the gag
order imposed by Linda Haas Davenport for both the Sekrit Sandbox, and any other list on which
she chooses to conduct secret Board meetings.

STALLING FOR TIME: In response to several and repeated requests for information regarding
the removal of registered voters from the rolls, NC Linda Davenport posted the following on the
DISCUSS list:

"There was a posting made by David Morgan as an Informal discussion item about some
unfinished business of an individual who was allegedly registering to vote using aliases. This was
posted just about the time that the AB began the discussion and motion about Teresa. That
monopolized the AB's time...and the issue of aliases had to be set aside. The AB is now gathering
information and beginning to work on this again but, at this time the AB does not have enough
information about what went on to have any idea of who did what, when or how. Until the AB
has answers there are no answers I can give you"

That is all well and good, but we are far less interested in the derring-do of Captain Alias than we
are in who authorized the removal of registered voters from the rolls. [Remember if they were on
the rolls in the first place, they not only registered with the EC, they were also confirmed by their
SC and verified by the EC.] We find it very hard to believe that no one on the Board knows who
authorized the removals of registered voters from the rolls. Of course, if no Board member
knows, then the only conclusion can be that the EC acted on it's own initiative, without involving
the Board and in total violation of its guidelines. This should be a very simple question to answer,
and the silence from the Board speaks volumes.

HOLY COW, BATMAN: D. Josh Taylor, our new not-approved-by-the-Board parliamentarian
has formally introduced himself on the DISCUSS list, and offered to answer questions from any
member "who may have questions regarding parliamentary procure and current board actions."
He assured the list that he "will give an accurate and detailed citation from Sturgis, in addition
to...comments and thoughts on the current issue." Nice kid, that.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND: People have always said we are spacy, and now we have the
proof:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050928_cubesats.html

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
In high altitude orbit since 1998

posted by merope at 5:20 AM 0 comments   
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Onward and Upward
Picking up the pieces...its Your Daily Board Show!

ICING THE CAKE: Last night after press time, Linda Haas Davenport posted the final vote tally
for Motion 05-19. Shortly thereafter she moved on to the last item on the September agenda and
asked all the Board members to agree "to honor the confidentiality of Board-Exec," and also to
agree "to honor the confidentiality of an additional list if one is required." At press time, eleven
Board members had, like good little boys and girls, promised to keep whatever secrets Mama
Linda asked them to, and the remainder had not yet dignified her gag rule with a response. [Not
to worry; we have little doubt that the inviolability of the Sekrit Sandbox and/or any other sekrit
lists Linda established will be broken just as soon as someone gets their little feelings hurt or
things don't go their way. After all, half the people who agreed to it don't have the spine it takes
to stand up in the morning without checking which way the wind is blowing first.]

PROLONGING THE AGONY: Over on the DISCUSS list, Keith Giddeon has requested a ruling
from the parliamentarian [who still has not been formally appointed by the Board] on both Motion
05-19 and Motion 02-12. He's also asked Linda to overturn both motion if he decides they are out
of order. This kicked off a brief discussion of the Boy Wonder's qualifications for the office, and
with W. David Samuelsen personally vouching for him can there be any doubt that he's the best
thing since the paperclip? Anyways, while we are certainly interested in his opinions of the matter,
and it what Linda decides to do if he says one or both motion are out of order [although we're
guessing she'll just ignore Keith's request in order to avoid any difficult decisions], we aren't sure
that using a shaky parliamentary argument to overturn the results of two votes is the way to go.
After all, if half a dozen of our less intellectually equipped Board members wish to let the
chattering of baboons influence their judgement and their votes, that's their prerogative as elected
representatives. Right and wrong is, after all, simply a matter of public opinion.

STILL NO ANSWER: No one on the Board or the Election Committee has of yet answered the
question, now a week and half old, of who removed registered voters from the rolls and who
authorized the removal. Apparently, they are all busily practicing keeping Sekrits.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Getting on with our lives since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 2 comments   
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Always A Bridesmaid
Better luck next time..its Your Daily Board Show!

SO CLOSE AND YET SO FAR: The voting on Motion 05-19 is over and the final tally stands at
8 YES votes and 6 NO votes. Falling short of a 2/3 majority the motion fails and we remain, now
and forever, a Member Not In Good Standing. [For those of you who pointed out that Linda said
only a majority was required for this motion, we think she misspoke. We can find nothing in
Sturgis that would over-ride the bylaws on this issue, and the bylaws require a 2/3 majority. Don't
take it too hard; we aren't.]

The DBS editorial staffs sends sincere thanks to those Board members who voted for the motion.
We imagine it was quite difficult for some of you and we have little doubt that your stance on this
issue will come back to bite you someday. For the rest of you, well, we'll see you in the funny
papers.

NOW BACK TO THE SHOW: Having completed that distasteful business, the Board moved on
to other items, none of which have previously been on its plate. The first concerns the Informal
mailing list, which Root$web is being most delinquent in providing. Because most of the Board
members are finding using Board-L for both the Formal and Informal meetings to be quite
confusing, and because it appears a list will not be assigned in this lifetime, Linda asked the group
how they wanted to operate. Several Board members suggested using a message board system
similar to the one used for the Candidates' Forum and the RAL's forum or using IRC chat. Linda
forwarded a suggestion from a member to use the old USGENWEB-ALL list [which we would
support, provided it does not involve erasing the old list archives] and a few Board members
indicated this would work for them. And then they started discussing what to call it; apparently
"ABChat" is the popular favorite, even though its lame. [Perhaps they could consider just calling
it "Informal", since the list will be used for the Board's informal session, and not some dippy chat
forum.]

COMING AND GOING: Linda also asked the Board members how they felt about adjourning
the meetings at the end of each month and then calling them to order at the start of the next
month [which we've always found unbelievably silly]. David prefers to continue opening and
closing the meeting each month, and Jeff noted that "The adjournment and calling of
meetings...gives a point of reference for actions...There are some things done in meetings that are
expired when the meeting ends, if we meet continuously, and ever use any of those, we would
have to set expirations."

AIMLESS MEANDERING: Linda then wanted to know if the Board felt it needed to continue
publishing agendas. Her preference is "a fluid agenda with issues assigned priority, one that can
have items added as people want an issue discussed or issues dropped if there's not enough
interest." Only one member, Jeff Scism, thinks an agenda continues to be necessary, but he wants
a more complicated one with two agendas, an "adapting agenda...which can have items added as
we go" and a "discussion agenda" where they "can register...'pending'...topics for discussion..."
[Heh. What would the Board do without a regular agenda? They barely have an idea of what they
are doing now.]

GOOD ENOUGH TO WRAP FISH: As the last item of business, Linda discussed the
sporadically published USGenWeb newsletter. The newsletter, as it turns out, is published via the
EC's mailing list and every time it is published the EC has to provide Larry Stephens with a clean,
updated version of the list before the newsletter can go out. The newsletter team [which appears
to be two people] could send the newsletter out monthly, provided the EC doesn't have to prepare
a new list each time [they must be too busy stripping registered voters from the rolls]. Also,
according to Linda, the newsletter editor wants to reactivate the newsletter mailing list [which the
Board has of late been using to abuse CCs] and send out a call for volunteers. All Board members
that have commented thus far have supported this idea, although one of them suggested that it
would be better if the newsletter went out on a mailing list separate from the EC. [Man, they do
like to make things complicated, don't they? We manage to get this rag out nearly every day with
two unpaid interns who hardly ever show up on time, and next to no budget. And they can't
manage to get theirs out on a monthly basis without some kind of complicated dance of mailing
lists involving an entire committee of people who's jobs do not actually involve mailing
newsletters.]

BONUS QUOTE: "I don't truly believe that this is a "legal" label any longer, but the majority I
heard from want me to vote no. Therefore...I vote No to remove the label." --Bettie Wood, for
whom doing the right thing is apparently based on the whims of public opinion

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Still the USGenWeb Project's only daily newsletter since 1998

posted by merope at 10:25 PM 0 comments   
Get Off My Cloud
Like watching paint dry...its Your Daily Board Show!

BRASS TACKS: Linda Haas Davenport finally called the vote on Motion 05-19. At press time, 8
Board members had voted YES, and 4 had voted NO. This one is a bit of a nail-biter for those out
there who care about these sorts of things. If there is one more NO vote, the motion fails. Still to
vote are Bettie Woods and Linda Blum Barton. One thing is crystal clear, however. A very clear
and very large majority of the Board wants the status lifted. We never thought we'd live to see the
day.

GET OVER IT: Shortly after opening the vote on Motion 05-19, Linda also asked that
conversation on the issue cease on the DISCUSS list. She noted, "The AB is voting on motion
05-19 and no matter which way the vote goes there will be unhappy people, but please let the
subject drop. Everything that can be said has been said...This has gone on for almost 2 weeks and
many people on this list are saying they are very very tired of it."

This is an excellent suggestion. Perhaps now the list can discuss the actually important issue of
who removed registered voters from the voting rolls and who authorized their removal.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Waiting with bated breath since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 0 comments   
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Everything Zen
This too shall pass...its Your Daily Board Show!

STUCK IN THE MIDDLE WITH YOU: Very little discussion has occurred on the Board's
public lists since the last edition of the DBS. The Board is still, theoretically at least, discussing
Motion 05-19, although the purpose and goal of Motion 05-19 is metamorphizing at an alarming
rate [see below]. Angie Rayfield pointed out that "If we are going to require Teresa to swear to
uphold the Board's confidentiality, then we would have to require every member of the project to
do the same. She is not a board member now, and has no obligation to keep AB information
confidential...since the only way she is going to have confidential information is if someone gives
it to her, it just seems somehow backward to punish her because someone else can't or won't
uphold their obligations." Although the vote has been suspended pending a discussion phase,
Cyndie Enfinger voted against the motion, citing a variety of reasons provided to her by various
vocal Project members, and Mike had to inform her that her vote would not be counted. That was
early Saturday morning, and there's been no public Board traffic since then.

HATCHET JOB: Once Mike decided to suspend the vote and open the motion to discussion, the
various Board members trotted off to their respective regions and asked their constituents what
they thought of the idea of lifting the MNIGS status from your humble reporter. As one might
have expected, this opened the flood-gates and several of the regional lists, the State
Coordinators' list, and DISCUSS have been buzzing ever since with debate, although we use that
term lightly, on the issue. As noted previously in this space, the usual suspects have been out in
force, vigorously displaying the very behavior they so abhor in others and posting all sorts of
innuendo, name-calling, and supposition with very little interference from any of the current list
admins. That's fine; if nothing else, its very amusing to see all the various conditions they'd like to
see imposed on me before they would sanction lifting the MNIGS status. Apparently I'm going to
have to pinky-swear never to do it again, and then maybe sign a blood oath or something. [We'd
bet any amount of money you'd like to wager that if the DBS was pro-Board and praised the usual
suspects to the sky while snarkily going after Fred Smoot, Tim Stowell and whoever else
displeases them, we wouldn't be in this situation. No, we'd be the best damn thing since sliced
bread.] We've also enjoyed watching all the people dishing dirt get huffy and stomp off when their
dirt gets dished back at them.

Also amusing are the various types of spin put on the motion by our wandering NC. The motion
itself is very simple, and merely proposes to remove the MNIGS label from a single Project
member. It does not mention anything about the process by which that label was applied or
anything about correcting a flawed application of Sturgis. Yet, after allowing Project members to
publicly trash a fellow volunteer for four days on several official Project lists, Linda shows up and
claims all of a sudden that the motion isn't about me, its about the process. Apparently she intends
for the Project to buy the idea that a motion that refers to one person only and mentions no
process issues whatsoever is actually not about that person at all, but about whether or not the
Board followed parliamentary procedure when the punishment was originally imposed. This is so
patently ridiculous that not even the usual suspects are buying it. After all, if its merely an issue of
parliamentary procedure that may need to be corrected, the Board has a Parliamentarian to
consult and wouldn't need to solicit the opinions of the chattering class. Then she tells me that the
Board hasn't bothered to discuss this with me because, well, its not about me. [No lie, I laughed
so hard I scared the cat when I read that one.] After a few more messages, Linda finally asked
everyone to shut up for the rest of the evening, take a break and cool off.

LOOK! OVER THERE!: Of course, while all this hoohah that is not about me continues on the
list, the Board, the EC, and anyone else involved has felt free to avoid and ignore the truly
important issue of who authorized the removal of an unknown number of registered voters from
the voter rolls. There is no shortage of vocally active members who should have the answer to this
question. For instance, there is the unlamented former NC Shari Handley, the current Princess of
the EC, Tina Vickery, the former EC Chair Ellen Pack, several current Board members [David
Morgan, Jan Cortez, Cyndi Enfinger, Darilee Bednar, etc.], several recently canned Board
members [including Don Kelly who has made quite a show of implying that he knows all about it
but isn't going to tell], and the EC's dancing poodle, W. David Samuelsen. Apparently no other
Project members are worthy of knowing exactly how registered voters were removed from the
rolls and who authorized the removals.

It has now been a week since Keith Giddeon first asked his questions about this, and there still has
been no answer from the Board or from the EC. We are beginning to be of the opinion that the
removals of confirmed, registered voters were done by the EC acting on its own initiative without
bothering to either get confirmation from the SCs or authorization from the Board. This would of
course be in complete violation of its guidelines and we would assume cause for removal of the
EC Chair that allowed it to happen. We suppose that the problem could be that the Board did
indeed authorize the removals based on the EC's word, and now finds itself embarrassed to be
discovered approving the removal of voters from the rolls without a proper investigation and
hearing. But we think its more likely, and far more scary a prospect, that this was pretty much all
the EC's doing.

We are also beginning to wonder if this recent little MNIGS dog and pony show that the Board
has orchestrated serves a larger purpose than just allowing the usual suspects to get their jollies
talking trash in public. It certainly has driven Captain Alias, vote fraud, and EC malfeasance out of
the spotlight. If that was an accident, what a fortunate one it proved to be.

PASSING THE BUCK: Linda Haas Davenport has decided to form a small committee of three
hand-picked list members to decide who stays and who goes on DISCUSS. The call for
volunteers went out on Saturday; if you are interested, here are the qualifications: "...members of
the "silent majority" - those who usually lurk on the list and seldom if ever post...the volunteers
need to include someone who is normally on line during the day and at least one night-owl." Send
mail to Linda privately if you want in on this party. We've no doubt it will be fun, and provide all
sorts of cover for the eventual bannings.

WHAT PLANET IS SHE ON?: Linda Haas Davenport, apparently finding lies, half-truths, and
innuendo to be the meat of "well written thoughtful e-mails" thanked the members of DISCUSS
for playing nice while she was away.

BONUS QUOTE: "It is hard to stick to issues...and while a member of the AB I was driven up
the wall by those who could not finish what they started before making a whole new (bonehead?)
motion...forever trying to ram their own agendas through rather than pulling in their horns and
working more as team players...Wanna put them in a group with acronym ASSES?" --Don Kelly

BONUS QUOTE II: "Being elected does not alone a good representative make." --Don Kelly,
who ought to know

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Kicking hinder and taking names since 1998

posted by merope at 11:00 PM 5 comments   
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Occam's Razor
Like a herd of elephants...its Your Daily Board Show!

DOWN AND OUT: After some complaints and further discussion of member absences and
constituent responses, acting Chair Mike St. Clair announced that he would extend the voting
time on Motion 05-19 by two days and that members who had already voted could change their
votes. Jeff Scism asked that all the voting be declared out of order until such as time as the Board
members have had time to get feedback from their constituents. In short order, Mike ended the
voting and opened the floor for additional discussion, which then pretty much stopped.

BIG SKY COUNTRY: Yesterday Mike made the following announcement in the informal Board
session:

"The current SC in Montana has expressed the need for a new state coordinator but doesn't
currently have any candidates...there are also a lot of vacant CC postions within the state at the
present time (16) which may mean the list of potential new SCs from within the state is
significantly paired down...it seems to me that if a situation arises like we are currently seeing in
Montana...the other SCs and ASCs within that region could help a lot by providing consulting,
advice, and even hands-on assistance to a new SC from within the state who may not feel
confident that they can do the job, but that could do wonderfully if they had a little help."

This looks like a job for Captain Alias! Or, just perhaps, he's already been there.

YADDA YADDA YADDA: Jeff made another proposed motion in the informal session. This one
calls for a special referendum to amend the bylaws to provide procedures under which the Board
can adopt and/or amend standing and special procedures. The biggest item in his proposal would
give the Board leave to amend the bylaws its own self without following the rules for amendment.
We doubt this will go anywhere. Our current bylaws do not allow for amendment by "special
referendum."

TAKING FLAK: Mike has been taking a lot of unnecessary guff from both sides of the aisle for
his decisions to call a vote on Motion 05-19, to extend the time frame allowed for voting, and
finally to end the voting in favor of an extended discussion period. Lighten up, people. Trying to
make everyone happy may be little more than a quixotic goal in USGenWeb, but at least he's
trying.

OUT OF THE WOODWORK: Motion 05-19 continues to draw comment from the peanut
gallery. There's been nothing too different from what has gone before, but yesterday, we got a
visit from an old friend: Linda Lewis, Queen of the Archives and the Project's resident loon. She
of course urged a vote against the motion and noted:

"Anyone who has been with this project long enough knows that Ms. Lindquist twists the truth,
mis-quotes, and has done more damage to the project than any good. The only ones that ever
agreed with her, were either innocently misinformed, or used her publications' for their own
benefit. I've been with this project since the beginning, in 1996, and much time was wasted for a
few years over her actions. Since she has been listed as "not in good standing", this project has
advanced and been able to accomplish more of what it was intended to do..."

Now, we don't know exactly how our being a MNIGS has helped the Project advance and
accomplish more, since from where we sit its been more or less a non-issue. And we also recall
that Linda herself was at the heart of all the storms that roiled this Project in its early years, and
has been a root cause of nearly every flame-out this project has ever had [The Dill Wars? Linda's
doing, because she couldn't bear that her good friends at Root$web might lose control of all that
valuable data. The Census Wars? Linda's doing, because Kay Mason wouldn't give her money.
The attempt to hijack the Project's name? That would be Linda again.] The Project has actually
spent rather a lot of its time dealing with Linda's little peccadillos, and with some little reflection,
we might consider that the phrase "twists the truth, mis-quotes, and has done more damage to the
project than any good" applies remarkably well to Linda herself. Come to think of it, if you get
right down to brass tacks, Linda is in a large way responsible for the DBS. If she hadn't stolen
from us, we very well might still be living a quiet, reflective, and secluded life. Anyways, she's
been quiet as a thief of late and its good to see that's she's still around and still off her medication.

BONUS QUOTE: "Without a choice it's as I say and that's that." --Don Kelly

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Taking the bull by the horns since 1998

posted by merope at 8:45 AM 44 comments   
Friday, September 23, 2005
Talkin' Trash
One big happy family...is Your Daily Board Show!

DRIVING THE TRAIN: Shortly after we went to press yesterday, RAL Mike St. Clair numbered
the MNIGS motion [05-19] and opened it for a vote. The vote currently stands at 4 YES votes
and 2 NO votes. Two Board members, Cyndi and Darilee, formally objected to the abruptness of
the vote, and requested more time to take the matter to their constituents, and Linda requested
that Mike extend the length of the voting period to accomodate them.

FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY: Motion 05-19, bless its little heart, has got the usual pack of
the usual suspects baying at the moon:

"I think the drage in the motion and the second is someone thinks we should do something that
we really can't do...insure confidentiality. That control is in the hands of one designated MNIGS
who can say anytime, enough, I want to be a member and I will follow the guidelines/rules...When
it's over it's over...and that is when it is really over." --Don "Drage?" Kelly

"Teresa continues to be a detriment to the USGenWeb Project. I very much urge a vote of No."
--Tina "I Get To Decide Who Votes And Don't You Forget It" Vickery

"...I object most strenuously to Teresa Lindquist being restored to Member in Good
Standing status....she has done much damage to The USGenWeb Project, holding it and many of
its members up to public ridicule and scorn....There is no indication that she has "mended her
ways", or that she intends to do anything other than continue this damaging behavior. I fail to see
any wisdom in restoring Good Standing status to someone whose actions continue to harm our
organization." --Shari "Pure As the Driven Snow" Handley

"I do not believe an AB member who intentionally and repeatedly violated members' rights to
confidentially, or a member who routinely posts demeaning and frequently false and/or misleading
statements about project activities, as well as about good and hard-working members of the
project, is someone who demonstrates the standards this project would like to present to the
genealogy community." --Ellen "Me Too" Pack

OUR READERS WRITE: All people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. The Board could not prove Richard guilty of the acts they accused him of
doing. In fact, they were so incapable of proving him guilty that they bailed entirely on the original
charges. Ergo, he is an innocent man. He might be guilty of many things, which is true of anyone,
but he did not do what the Board said he did and what they punished him for.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Stirring up strong opinions since 1998

posted by merope at 6:05 AM 14 comments   
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Better Late Than Never
Easy does it...its Your Daily Board Show!

SPINNING WHEELS: With Linda Davenport away from computer access for the remainder of
the week, the Board has apparently stalled until it has someone at the helm. Linda did drop in
briefly yesterday to let everyone know [as if we didn't already] that the Board had moved to the
Sekrit Sandbox to discuss Members Not In Good Standing, and popped back in for a bit today to
let us know that the Board is now operating on yet another secret list in order to address old
business from last session having to do with our furtive friend, Captain Alias. Linda noted "I
activated one of the unused lists assigned to the AB to use for this discussion. I did so because
non AB individuals will need to be subbed to the list. At this time only AB members are subbed
and they are reviewing the last AB's information." [We are now up to four meetings: formal,
informal, EXEC, and the new Sooper Sekrit Other Meeting. We are beginning to wonder how
they will keep this all straight.]

There was a tiny bit of discussion of the MNIGS issue. After the Board moved into EXEC to dish
about Project members in secret, Karen popped into the informal forum to note that "there are
others sporting this label that have specific punishments to carry out. Use of the term is part and
parcel with their punishment so I cannot support Jeff's version of this motion at this time." David
Morgan then dropped by the formal session and moved that "the Member Not in Good Standing
label be removed from Teresa Lindquist," and Karen seconded the motion. With Linda out of
town and Mike apparently not driving the train while she is gone, nothing further happened with
the motion. Some Project members have started to gripe about the glacial pace of business once a
motion has been made and seconded and some Board members are openly suggesting that Project
members send their opinions on the currently unnumbered and unrecognized motion to the Board.

[Jeff's version of the proposed MNIGS motion would have lifted the label from all members that
past Board's applied it to, but there is actually but one other member that the Board has formally
designated a MNIGS, Richard Pettys. One can argue that the application of the label to him was
in fact worse than when it was applied to me, since I actually did what they accused me of doing
and Richard is an innocent man. But apparently because they like being the Project's nannies, poor
Richard gets to stand in the corner until February 21, 2006. It takes big people to admit they were
wrong, and we don't have big people on the Board, generally speaking. Its also apparently the
case that they just can't bear to give up their big stick, so we'll be stuck for the foreseeable future
with an ill-defined MNIGS label the Board can hang on someone whenever it gets its knickers
bunched over something.]

WE COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP IF WE TRIED: USGenWeb's latest hero, The Man of A
Thousand Faces, turns out to have 46 suspected aliases at last count, and that's only if the ferrets
found them all. Its not actually a thousand, but its still pretty impressive. A couple of Board
members have assured us that they have no intention of going after this person, its the next person
down the line they want to go after with guns blazing and a good wet rope. We are beginning to
find this all just a tad surreal and are almost afraid to discover whatever new revelations
tomorrow will bring.

For those of our readers who have wondered why we are condoning lying, we aren't. We think its
generally a Bad Thing. At the very least, its counterproductive, since we don't see any way to do
genealogy meaningfully under a fake name. But we also recognize that there are many grey areas
around this issue, and that making a blanket assumption that anyone using aliases is out to defraud
the project is not productive either.

What we have a problem with is what the Board is considering to do about it. For one thing, they
cannot apparently decide what the crime really is here. If they want to make the use of aliases the
offense, then that is what they should do. If they don't care about the aliases but only about the
voting, then they should specifically make registering and/or voting under more than one name the
offense. From some reports, its not even clear they know what actually happened or is happening,
and more than one of them has expressed deep frustration with the prima donna who sits in the
Big Chair over on the EC. It appears to be unclear what actions the EC took and under what
authority they took them and what the Board knew and when it knew it. Of course we're glad
they're "looking into it", but we are kind of curious as to how the half of the Board that carried
over from last session and both EC reps can be unclear on the events.

At the bottom of it, our biggest problem with all this is just past history. When the Board gets a
hammer to use against the guilty, they sooner or later turn it against the innocent. We just have a
hard time seeing any set of rules or proscriptions ending up being anything but something else the
Board can use to silence inconvenient voices and separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
We've also seen from experience what laughable dreck they gladly accept as evidence against
someone and how easily they can turn fairly innocent behavior into crimes against the state if their
unfortunate victim is not on their buddy list.

So what if some creative member managed to fool three consecutive EC Chairs, half a dozen SCs,
and five or six Boards for however many years they managed to pull their parade of identities off?
It has not apparently affected the rest of USGenWeb one bit nor had any ill effects that have been
made apparent to us. Is it worth giving the Board another weapon against CCs, none of whom is
likely to ever approach Captain Alias' herculean list of identities? No harm, no foul, we like to say.
And we think whoever our multiple personalitied friend is, he should at least get some credit for
providing us with this fabulous and entertaining spectacle. This is just about as funny as it gets in
USGenWeb.

RUNAROUND SUE: At press time, Keith Giddeon was still waiting for an answer to his
questions about who authorized the removal of registered voters from the voter rolls. Apparently
the assurances of the EC Chair, Tina "Who's Your Daddy" Vickery aren't worth the paper they're
printed on. A couple of Board members have tried the run-around as well, claiming their hands
are tied because neither of the Board's representatives are currently able to speak to the EC. As
Mike St. Clair explained it, "...the board does not hold any cards nor have these answers, and our
communication with the EC at present is roadblocked. The procedure implemented by prior
boards is that all discussion between the board and the EC is to go through the two official
representatives: the NC as ex-officio member of the committee and the liason assigned by the NC,
which is presently Cyndie Enfinger. The NC...is now completely off line until Saturday. Cyndie is
a candidate in the special election that is currently underway, and there for she is temporarily
prohibited from communicating with the EC." Linda Davenport has told Keith and everyone else
to calm down "until the AB has had a chance to figure out what actually happened and who did
what when." Then they'll give us some story about it, and we'll all be happy.

David Samuelsen, always helpful in providing information on the EC's private business, informed
us that during his tenure on the committee, they discovered but two aliases. One was removed by
the SC; he has no idea what happened to the other one and claimed that the EC doesn't know
either. David also made an interesting statement: "The EC does not remove anyone arbitarily
without any authorization from the AB. Only the AB has the say. Any potential conflicts are
referred to the AB for disposal. The EC has no say in these conflicts." While we generally put
zero faith in anything David Samuelsen says, this would be interesting if true, because it would
mean that the Board authorized the removals of registered voters from the list and is now
claiming to know nothing about it. Our astute readers will recall that Board member David
Morgan also claimed that the EC removed aliases from the rolls prior to the last election. So what
happened here? Did the last Board authorize the removals and the EC just carry out their
directives? Or did the EC act on its own initiative and remove them without getting the Board's
approval? Will we ever know?

In any case, Keith has made a public announcement that he intends to file a formal grievance if he
does not get an answer to his questions by Friday. So far, that appears unlikely.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Biting the hand that feeds us since 1998

posted by merope at 6:55 PM 1 comments   
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Crunchy and Delicious
Now with flavor crystals...its Your Daily Board Show!

PLODDING ALONG: The Board continues to discuss all the things its been discussing, but its
about where it was a couple of days ago. There have been two more possible motions proposed,
one by Jeff Scism and one by David Morgan:

"I move that we accept the "temporary" Standing Procedures for this term, in place, corrected as
Special Procedures, acknowledging that the Grievance Procedures are under consideration by the
new committee, and will be reformed. I further move that the web masters be instructed to label
the Temporary Procedures as "Special Procedures"
(http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/procedures.shtml) as referenced The Standard Code of
Parliamentary Procedure, 4th edition, (Page 209) by Alice Sturgis, which is our accepted
Parliamentary Authority." [Jeff's]

"I move that the Member Not in Good Standing label be removed from Teresa Lindquist."
[David's]

This latter motion, which has received support from a few Board members, will circumvent the
difficult decision of whether or not to eliminate usage of the MNIGS label entirely. A couple of
board members have suggested expanding the motion to include anyone else designated a MNIGS
and others have pressed to continue the more policy-oriented discussion MNIGS status. In other
news, Linda Haas Davenport reported that Root$web needs just a little more time before they can
assign lists requested weeks ago, and there was a bit more discussion on the proposed motion
requiring Board approval before anyone joins us up to any more societies.

PLAYING GAMES: Keith Giddeon has been told by Tina "Play Nice" Vickery that the EC will
answer questions about its activities only if they are directed to the EC. So Keith, who has been
trying to find out for days now who authorized the removal of registered voters from the rolls, has
redirected his question to the Election Committee. Apparently Herself has scooted from the
DISCUSS list yet again. At least this time she spared the list another dramatic exit. Its also
apparent that the Board can't answer this question. We find that very interesting.

HATS OFF: The tortured tale of why exactly we need to have some way to punish people who
use aliases, or register aliases, or vote using aliases [whatever the Board ends up deciding is really
the crime here] has taken an interesting twist. According to a little bird, the alleged perp had
enough aliases in a small enough state to elect themselves State Coordinator. Or at least, the
Board is "pretty certain" this is what happened. Tweetie also said that the person is no longer an
SC, neither the Board nor the EC did anything when this was discovered other than disabling all
the suspected aliases' voting rights in the national elections, and at this time the Board is not
interested in punishing the Man of a Thousand Faces, just in finding some way to keep it from
happening again and to detect it when it does. This is, without a doubt, the funniest thing we have
heard in a long time. Whoever this multi-faceted individual is, we are deeply impressed.

BONUS QUOTE: "Are you familiar with the expression '[bleep] Off'?" --Board member David
Morgan showing some class to a constituent

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Having little claim to fame since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 15 comments   
Monday, September 19, 2005
Casting the First Stone
Where the punishment fits the crime...its Your Daily Board Show!

PRESUMED GUILTY: There hasn't been a lot of moment on the Board list in the last couple of
days. They continued to discuss the vote fraud issue, but without really moving forward on it.
They also discussed the proposed motion about requiring Board members to bring things to the
Board for their consideration, but little progress was made on this either. [With Linda still out of
town, they seem to be spinning their wheels a bit.] Mike St. Clair published the final vote count
for Motion 05-18. Angie Rayfield, Chair of the Grievance Procedures Committee, asked Mike to
check with Root$web on the status of their requested committee list, and suggested that if
Root$web was unable to provide a list soon, the committee would need to consider other options.
Jeff Scism proposed a new motion for the Board to discuss: ""That all those current members
who have been previously designated "Member Not in Good Standing" be returned to full
membership privileges without prejudice, and that the term be no longer used." David Morgan
and Karen de Groote-Johnson agreed in principle with the proposal, but there was little other
discussion of it.

Although the Board list itself has been fairly quiet, Board members have continued to discuss the
crime and punishment issues on other Project lists as well as on their formal/informal list. Some
interesting stuff has come out of this discussion and from some other sources. Apparently the
Board has been trying to get particulars about the incident(s) of immediate concern and Tina
Vickery, who chairs the Election Committee, has told them [specifically Mike St. Clair] that she
doesn't answer to the Board or the NC and will not provide them with any information she doesn't
want them to have. Apparently, she has become increasingly hostile in her communications with
the Board, and the Board is left with accepting Tina's word that the EC has both detected
someone using aliases and that this person is committing fraud against the project. According to
past and present EC members, however, even the EC cannot tell if someone has actually voted
using one or more aliases.

Its apparent from discussing this with several Board members and from the tone of the discussion
on DISCUSS and the SW regional lists that for many of the Board members [and apparently our
EC Chair as well] the true crime is the use of aliases. That is what they consider to be the
fraudulent behavior, although the proposed motion refers to improperly double-voting. In the
specific incident that is of current concern, someone has apparently gone to the effort to not only
use different names, they have actually created different personalities to go along with them and
have apparently been stringing the usual suspects along for quite some time. According to
sources, they "slipped up" in conversation and thus instigated an investigation into their identity.
[Sometimes, you really gotta love the priorities people in this project set for themselves.] While
we actually don't know one way or the other if this person is using one or two or four or a dozen
personalities, or if the EC just thinks they are and has the usual shabby evidence to "prove" it, one
thing is very clear. Absolutely no one has come forward, to us or apparently to the the Board,
with proof that the person ever used their alternate personas to double vote. [And in response to
the question of why else would anyone go to all that trouble and not vote, we'd note that jerking
Tina Vickery's chain might just be reward enough.]

We've known for some time that the use of aliases within the Project really frosts some people's
Cheerios [depending on who does it], but at this time there is nothing in our rules or in Sturgis
that disallows it. However, if using aliases is really what they wish to prevent, the proposed
motion should be reworded to reflect that and make it a punishable offense for volunteers to use
anything other than their "real" names. Then the EC can spend all its time investigating real and
imagined instances of fraud, and the Board can spend all its time conducting trials and giving the
EC leave to hack members from the voter rolls, and the rest of us can spend our time accusing
each other of being fake people. That ought to be some fun. On the other hand, if double-voting is
really what concerns them, the motion should be reworded to reflect that, rather than requiring
the EC and/or the Board to try and determine what someone's "intent" was when they decided to
use different names in different parts of the Project. Requiring a determination of intent will only
lead to more kangaroo trials, wherein we will be allowed to witness once again what happens
when the Board "knows" that someone is guilty and shames itself and USGenWeb pretending to
prove it.

Double-voting is indeed a serious offense, if its happening, and if the EC and the Board can prove
that it is happening, then once the Board can agree on a standard operating procedure for
conducting disciplinary hearings [as opposed to kangaroo trials], they should proceed to discipline
members who can be shown to have double-voted. If, however, the EC cannot show that
someone has double-voted, then it should be dropped. In any case, until this is resolved the EC
should be enjoined from dropping any more voters from the rolls based solely on their suspicion
that these people are fake and are voting improperly. The EC is not charged with determination
eligibility to vote, they are only charged with verifying eligibility, and removing eligible voters
from the rolls on a whim is not within their purview, Tina's holier-than-thou attitude
notwithstanding.

OUR READERS WRITE: Board member Sundee Maynez has written to correct an error in a
previous edition of the DBS. It appears she did not vote under two names but under two email
addresses. As she explains, she was using both her own email address and her husband's email
address, and the double-voting was just a harmless mistake. Since we are utterly unable to
determine her intent when she maintained two individual email addresses and voted using both of
them, we will forego assuming she intended to defraud the project in any way and will not go on
record as recommending that the Board punish her for the serious offense of double-voting.

FOR THE RECORD: For those of you wondering, apparently the Board has discussed this issue
in the Sekrit Sandbox, but not recently. The discussion occurring on the public lists deals with a
formal policy approach and not a specific personnel-related incident, and several of them tell me
they intend to pursue the discussion publicly as they determine a policy for disciplining members
in these instances. The specific incident itself will be addressed confidentially once they decide
both what the crime is and what the punishment should be.

NOW ABOUT ME: Also of momentous concern on several of the lists is the MNIGS issue. As
might be expected, some project members hotly protest any consideration of lifting the status
under any circumstances [these folks are very, very concerned that I might run for national office
and that a majority of the project members might grant me that office], some have graciously laid
out the terms under which they would consider letting me apply to have the status lifted, others
propose lifting the status immediately and without restriction, and the really creative ones are
arguing that the status has already been lifted since it became null and void as soon as I left the
Board. As always, opinons are dearly held and the discussion has been a bit lively. But we've been
here before, and we don't really expect this to go anywhere. [Heh, if it did, we'd have to get our
'MNIGS' tattoo removed. Ouch.]

BONUS QUOTE: "Forever until certain clear requirements have been completed. That is as
temporary as it can get, and compliance can be performed by one side (or one entity), not the
other. The ball is not in our court so no way can we hit it." --Don Kelly, or "DK2", as he has
taken to calling himself

BONUS QUOTE II: "You got it right though...it was the individual who hindered others who got
the blame and the punishment...the AB as an entity, hinders no one who has the shoe on the right
foot, who does not hinder others. Volunteers have the choice to accept or reject the consequences
of their actions, but the AB has no such liberty." --Don Kelly, not saying what he thinks he's
saying

BONUS QUOTE III: "I don't personally like *requirements* necessary or unnecessary, but if
members abuse in a group setting, the single requirement I suggest is register under a real name,
and make that requirement an amendment to the bylaw that defines *good standing*. I think we
do not need a verbose definition of MNIGS with 101 examples as everyone as members in good
standing already understands that, whereas the integral label MNIGS is the antithesis of good
standing." --Don Kelly

BONUS QUOTE IV: "Perhaps an overly simple solution which I tend to tender, but when I don't
want to use my real name, I use Admin or Webmaster instead. Better than Colonel Sanders isn't
it? And just as affective?" --You Know Who

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Not making this up since 1998

posted by merope at 8:20 AM 25 comments   
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Crime And Punishment
Some people never learn...its Your Daily Board Show!

CASTING THE FIRST STONE: Now that they've wrapped up doing something positive for the
Project, the Board has turned its attention once again to the issue of punishing the volunteers for
any crimes they might have committed, real or imagined. of all the proposed motions bandied
about over the last couple of days, the only one that has garnered any interest at all is the one
David Morgan proposed to deny members caught using aliases to vote in more than once in
elections the right to vote at all. In the brief but lively discussion that has ensued, the proposal has
gone from just denying these evil people the right to vote, to expelling them from the Project
outright, and back to just denying them the right to vote at the national level. Jeff Scism strongly
supports not only expelling the "guilty" party but also expelling any SCs [and by extension any
CCs that support them] who refuse to go along with the Board's interference in their internal
affairs. Sundee Maynez [who if we recall correctly once herself voted twice in an election because
she was subbed to the EC list under two different names] is all for this approach, but David and
Mike appear to be tending toward denying voting privileges rather than outright expulsion or
other unenforceable penalties. Mike has tried to steer the Board into discussing a broader
standard operating procedure for all issues involving member discipline and encouraging full
Board participation in the discussion. He's basing his approach on Sturgis, but it hasn't gotten a
lot of traction so far.

IN OTHER NEWS: Attempting to prevent the Board from derailing over the punishment motion,
Jan Cortez suggested that they focus on a proposed motion that would proscribe individual Board
members from acting on their own initiative to commit USGenWeb to membership in other
organizations. This proposal has also had several permutations, since a handful of Board and
Project members would like the proscription extended to any other actions involving the whole
Project that individual Board members might get overly enthusiastic about. At press time, and
after only a bit of discussion by a handful of Board members, the proposed motion read as
follows:

"No Advisory Board member shall have authority to independantly, without a quorum, commit
The USGenWeb Project to any financial or membership obligation without due consideration of
the Board, and its approval of such arrangements. All reasonable offers should be brought before
the Advisory Board for discussion and actions as deemed warranted."

There was no further discussion of this motion, but it seemed to please the few who commented
on it. Other than suggesting that "member" in the first line be changed to "member(s)" and
correcting the spelling in the word "independantly" [sic], we think its fine too.

SHE'S BAAAACK: We are pleased to report that Tina "I Was Just Kidding" Vickery's
self-imposed exile from the DISCUSS list has ended. Apparently she has no shame either. We
suspect her renewed interest in participating in a list "that is hell bent on
ridiculing the USGenWeb Project" has something to do with the Topic du Jour, which is
punishing someone she thinks is bad and righting some great but undefined evil being done to the
Project. Based on her abrupt reappearance, we will guess that the Bad Behavior is not being
committed by someone of which she approves, because if it were it would be perfectly
understandable and defensible. After her miraculous reappearance on the DISCUSS list a huge
chunk of the discussion was devoted to ourselves and our cursed MNIGS status, over which we
wail and gnash our teeth on a regular basis. [Heh.] That has to frost Tina's Lucky Charms to no
end, a service we are happy to perform.

BACK TO THE REAL NEWS: After some reading about in various sources, what appears to
have happened is that someone complained to the Election Committee, of which Tina is Chair,
about someone else apparently using "10 or 11" aliases in "several states" and who "has
apparently" used them to vote in elections for "several years." [since we've been assured by
several members that the Sekrit Sandbox is NOT being used for anything currently, we are sure
this discussion hasn't occurred there. We also have a bridge in New York we'd like to sell you.]
This all sounds rather speculative to us but David appears to believe that the Board or the EC or
whoever the complaint was made to can "prove" malfeasance. What he has cited so far as "proof"
[the EC denied the vote to members they "knew" were fake and no one complained about it] is, to
be kind, a bit shaky, but perhaps they have some incontrovertible evidence [perhaps a confession]
that will impress us more than what little they've bothered to hint at. In the absence of that, this
appears to be just another case of someone "knowing" someone else is guilty of something and
trying to get the Board to stamp it as officially true and drop the hammer. Been there, done that,
will probably have to do it all over again. Ad nauseum.

In among all the "off with their head" blather, there have been one or two astute comments made.
One is that the Board has no way to enforce expulsion from the Project if State Coordinators
refuse to go along [although at least Board member has supported invoking the "Georgia
Solution" if that happens], and that having more trials just engenders massive ill will toward the
Board, divides the Project into virtually armed camps, leaves no one happy, and usually does not
solve the problem. Several members have suggested that prior to proceeding with single issue
punishment proposals like this one, the Board use Sturgis' provisions for disciplining members to
devise a complete and fair process by which members can be tried, found guilty, and disciplined
for any infraction, and that the punishment be limited to those things that the Board can actually
enforce, such as preventing voting in national elections or holding national office. Another
member has pointed out that stomping on a flea with an elephant seems a bit like overkill in this
situation, particularly if this is a limited occurrence.

We cannot understand why the Board would want to tie itself into knots with more secret trials,
that of course won't stay secret, that will only embarrass themselves and the Project. They tried
one person using the flimsiest of evidence to support a foregone conclusion, tried another with no
evidence at all, and now are proposing to enact an official procedure so they can try even more
members. This sounds like just a capital idea. We are always looking for new materials for Radio
Free USGenWeb.

BONUS QUOTE: "Perish the thought, because that automatically make [Teresa] eligible to get
elected, and the end result is massive distrust by the CCs because of her unwilling to abide by the
rules. She hasn't to this day. You will get stabbed again and again by her." --David Samuelsen,
letting it all hang out on DISCUSS

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

posted by merope at 8:50 AM 41 comments   
Friday, September 16, 2005
Like A Rolling Stone
Jacking in from Timbuktu...its Your Daily Board Show!

JUNIOR DRIVES THE TRUCK: With NC Linda Haas Davenport on walk-about, RAL Mike St.
Clair moved the Board into formal session so that Jan Cortez could formally move "to accept the
generous donation of the membership/application in FGS for the coming year, with the advisory
board developing standard operating procedures for any further renewals." David Morgan
seconded the motion and Mike St. Clair numbered it 05-18. Voting opened immediately and at
press time the vote stood at 12 YES votes. As acting Chair, Mike did not vote. The motion has
therefore passed and USGenWeb is now [or soon will be] a happy member of FGS.

After he announced the preliminary vote counts, Mike moved the meeting back to informal
session and suggested the group wrap up discussion on the Board secretary issue. A couple of
suggested motions were thrown out:

"The Recording Secretary shall be the choice of the NC, with the approval of the AB." -David
Morgan

"I propose: That the positions of Recording Secretary, Webmaster, and Parliamentarian be made
from a pool of volunteers submitted to, and selected by the incoming National Coordinator, upon
that person's election, and that the choice of the National Coordinator for such positions be
approved by a majority vote of the Board within a week after the new term begins, each year after
September first." --Jeff Scism

At press time there had been no discussion of either of these.

There were also a few proposed motions on other topics:

"No individual member of the AB shall commit this organization to joining any other organization
without a full discussion and vote of the AB." --David Morgan

"The parliamentarian will be chosen by the National Coordinator, if one is needed." David
Morgan [This reminds us that the Board has not formally approved Josh Taylor's appointment.
They've seated George, approved the webmasters, and approved the Board secretary, but not the
parliamentarian.]

"Any person that has been found to have created one of more aliases for the purpose of voting
multiple times in a
state or national election shall lose the privilege of voting in this organization." --David Morgan

[Someone must have slipped something into David's Wheaties.]

Thus far there has been no discussion on any of these proposals either. They might just be tired
from all the activity. To date, halfway into September, there have been 402 messages to Board-L.
This puts them on track to blow by the infamous August session [430 messages] and gives them a
fighting chance at the busiest month in the threaded archives [September 2002, 467 messages].
Compared with past months, their posting rates have been phenomenal. Right now, they are
averaging 25 posts a day. This is way over the average for both August 2005 [14 per day] and
September 2002 [16 per day]. If they continue at the current rate, there will be 750 messages in
the archives by the end of the month.

So, they're talking alot, but are they saying anything? They've handled four fomal motions this
month and successfully weathered one crisis [which generated most of the voluminous traffic].
This is about 100 messages per motion. In August almost all of the verbiage was devoted to one
issue, and only two motions were passed the entire month for an average of a whopping 215
messages per motion. Back in Black September 2002, the Board addressed 5 motions for an
average of 93 messages per motion. So they are not quite up to the efficiency of the September
2002 Board, but if they keep up this messages-to-motions ratio, they'll have addressed 7 motions
by the end of the month. And that will probably be some kind of record.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Spiking our tea since 1998

posted by merope at 7:40 AM 22 comments   
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Thick As Thieves
Desperate for attention...its Your Daily Board Show!

HURRY UP AND WAIT: Since we went to press yesterday, very little has happened with the
Board. New Board Secretary Ellen Pack completed and posted the August minutes and since no
Board members objected they have been approved. Discussion continued on the FGS membership
issue, but with little progress. Mike explained one more time why he and Darilee expedited
membership on the Project's behalf [and the more he talks about it, the more it becomes apparent
there was no real rush, other than the checkbook was right there and the offer was just so
fabulous they were afraid to let it get away.] Cyndi asked for a bit more time to talk to her
constituents. Jan posted a new and more concise version of her proposed motion:

"[I would move] to accept the generous donation of the membership/application in FGS for the
coming year, with the advisory board developing standard operating procedures for any further
renewals."

Several members noted that they preferred this version, all questions appeared to be answered,
and it appeared that the Board might move into formal session to finalize it. But although Mike
suggested a formal motion could be made last night and Linda gave him leave to handle the voting
period, no formal motion was made, no further discussion ensued, and the Board remained in
informal session.

HOT OFF THE PRESSES: After a four month vacation, the newsletter team has finally published
a new issue of the USGenWeb Newsletter. Apparently publishing a newsletter doesn't warrant any
kind of project announcement, because we haven't seen it come over any of the various lists.
Other than the informative article on how to effectively use search engines its not too exciting, but
you can read it here:

http://usgenweb.org/newsletter/NL-09-2005.shtml

[And yes, we note that apparently Shari Handley has no shame.]

FONT OF WISDOM: D. Joshua Taylor has posted some more answers to questions about the
FGS membership. Again, we have no idea if they are the right answers, but since he seems both
lucid and to have some idea of what he is talking about, here's what he had to say about the
delegate and the free mags:

"...the NC is not the FGS Delegate...In every genealogical society that I know of...the President
has appointed the Delegate from the membership. The FGS Delegate should be familiar with the
workings of FGS, so that USGenWeb can maximize its membership...The FGS Delegate may or
may not be a member of the AB, but should be able to attend the FGS National Conferences...The
delegate and the NC will receive the two copies, the FORUM cannot be scanned as it is
copyrighted material, the Delegate Digest however can be forwarded...(along with the passwords
for the members-only section) to USGenWeb members at their own personal request."

[No wonder Tina Vickery and Shari Handley are so hot for this kid. He's dreamy!]

BEATING A DEAD HORSE: Brian "Cashbox" Leverich has lurched out of the tar pits yet again
to flog his Cyndi's List knock-off, commercial-entity promoting, "genealogy" link service. [And
we use that term lightly.] Since it appears to be more or less a non-starter out there in Genealogy
Land, he's once again fixing his sights on USGenWeb [hey, we built him up a nice company to sell
last time, didn't we?] As you might expect, several of the Usual Suspects are flogging this venture
on their Project lists. The Big New Fabulous Thing today is his Acceptable Use Policy, whereby
USGenWeb coordinators are graciously allowed to add "link collections" from his site to their
pages provided they provide him with a bit of free advertising. The thing about the links he has is
that huge proportions of them are to places like Ancestry.con, Root$web, and Halbert's-like sites
[what legitimate genealogical site links to House of Names?], and most of the rest of them go
back to USGenWeb sites. It appears that when one clicks on a link to one of the many
commercial links, one accesses the desired page via a click-through from an ad company. In other
words, all those links to Ancestry.con and other commercial sites are apparently money-makers
for Mr. Rock-Climber. I think we can probably all go find our own links and provide them
without the linkback to yet another commercial enterprise, thank you very much. [Boy, that
noncompete clause must really frost ole Brain. It must be making it much harder to pick the
pockets of the gullible. The sad thing is that he's once again managed to get USGenWeb members
to help him feather his nest.]

STICKS AND STONES: We've received a handful of complaints about the salty language in a
post submitted to the Letters to the Editor yesterday. We won't delete comments based on use of
gutter language, but if it gets out of hand, we will [bleep] them. So be warned. The only thing that
makes you look more like an uneducated twit than using a lot of profanity is having your posts
consist of nothing but [bleeps].

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
A velvet fist in an iron glove since 1998

posted by merope at 7:30 AM 7 comments   
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Keeping House
While the cat's away...its Your Daily Board Show!

OFF TO THE RACES: There was not much new from the Board in the last day. They continued
to discuss both the FGS membership and the Board secretary position. On the latter, there seems
to be the most interest in "business as usual" and a few of them have suggested just allowing the
NC to appoint members to those positions, which the Board would then approve or disapprove.
The confusion about what exactly happened with the FGS membership and what that membership
entails for the average USGenWeb volunteer is still entirely murky, but at the least the Board is
making noises about moving into formal session and voting on it. Several members have both said
they are ready to vote and that they prefer Jan Cortez's version of the motion. Here is the most
recent suggested wording for Jan's motion:

"[I would move] to accept the generous donation of the membership/application in FGS for the
coming year, with any further renewals approved by a general consensus of project members, or
any SOP's generated for that purpose."

You will note that the new version drops even the mild slap on the wrist directed at Mike and
Darilee. We'd also suggest that the part about getting "general consent" of the members be
reworded a bit. If general consent will be required to renew membership each year even one
objection from any member can derail it or force it to a lengthy discussion and vote. It might be
better to specify that the Board itself must vote to renew the membership. This is probably one of
the few things they can do that won't be all that controversial and requiring general consent from
the peanut gallery seems a bit unwieldy. We are sure that if the FGS membership turns out to be a
rotten deal we'll all get the opportunity to gripe about it.

NC Linda Davenport notified the Board that she'd only be available sporadically to attend to
Board business for the next few weeks and asked RAL Mike St. Clair to move the Board into
formal session if it becomes clear that all Board members are ready to vote.

SHE SAID, SHE SAID: We've received more information on the Daniels/Hall mediation,
including Sherri's responses to Brenda's defense [and wow, is it apparent that she didn't like David
Smith. Yikes!]. It is amazing to us that the Board could see these materials and decide on Sherri's
behalf, but that's what they did. Of mild interest is that apparently the Board used the moribund
USGenWeb newsletter's mailing list to conduct the mediation; no wonder they don't publish
anymore. We've also received a rebuttal of sorts from mediator Jan Cortez, who would like to go
on record as not being Sherri Hall's friend. She also noted that she personally sent all the materials
from the mediation to the Board for consideration, and that after the Board took over the matter,
both Sherri and Brenda were excluded from further proceedings. And last but not least, a Board
member claims that Jan actually advocated for the SC in this so-called mediation, which would
lead one to wonder about how exactly someone who is supposed to impartially act to lead parties
to a mutually satisfactory compromise can end up supporting one side over the other when push
comes to shove. We note that the "final decision" letter to the Board gives no indication of how
the vote actually went on this matter; it was just signed "USGenWeb Advisory Board". We'd be
curious to know what the pro-Hall vs. pro-Daniels split was.

ELECTION: The nominations period for the upcoming special election for a Special Projects
representative has opened and will close on September 21. More information is here:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/sp-election-2005/

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
In the zone since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 7 comments   
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Finally Getting Somewhere
Readers,

This is from D. Joshua Taylor. It may be no more factual that any other information we have been
given by anyone on this issue, but we thought we might as well throw it in the mix. It may or may
not clarify the situation.

The following is the opinion of its author; it is presented in full and unedited.

-----
Dear Fellow USGenWeb Members:

Please note that this message is written in my capacity as a member of USGenWeb, not as the
Parliamentarian for the Advisory Board.

There have been several misconceptions about the Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS),
since the announcement that USGenWeb had submitted its membership application to the society.
While I do not claim to be an "expert" on FGS, I do know quite a few of the board members on a
personal level, and as you know am involved with their 2006 National Conference in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The first misconception that needs to be corrected is that FGS *needs* us, this is completely
untrue. The Federation serves to connect the genealogical community (professional, volunteer,
etc.) through the thousands of genealogical societies in the United States. While attending the
FGS 2005 Conference, I (and other USGenWeb members) discussed with FGS Officers about
USGenWeb joining FGS, and we were told that FGS would be happy to welcome USGenWeb as
a member society. Because we were at the conference, the rate was discounted ($105.00 rather
than $115.00), and we could immediately begin the process of becoming a part of FGS.

A membership application was filled out, and contrary to what has earlier been said, that
application does not need to be "approved" by their board. The membership was a donation and a
gift to USGenWeb by one of its members in attempts to solidify the efforts of USGenWeb within
the nationwide genealogical community. FGS is an organization made up of volunteers (as are
most genealogical societies throughout the United States). Recently FGS created the Ruth C.
Bishop Family History Volunteer Hall of Honor, an award recognizing volunteers from FGS
member societies throughout the United States (more information is at
http://www.fgs.org/fgs-rbaward.htm). As an FGS member, USGenWeb will be able to nominate
its members for their generous contributions to the world of genealogy.

As a member of FGS, USGenWeb will receive the "Delegate Digest," which will be sent to the
FGS Delegate, and then the FGS Delegate (who does NOT become a member of the FGS Board)
disseminates the information to USGenWeb. We don't have to put their logo on our pages, or
submit a report to them. One of the many benefits is also the FGS Forum subscription, which is
sent to the FGS Delegate for USGenWeb, and most likely the President (in our case the National
Coordinator). The FGS Forum will provide information helping USGenWeb to grow as an
organization and become "bigger and better," enabling us to serve genealogists in a much easier
manner. The FGS Delegate is charged with sharing this information with USGenWeb members.

While some may not agree with the "process" by which USGenWeb joined FGS, the fact is that
becoming a member of FGS signifies to the genealogical community that USGenWeb wants to be
a part of the "genealogy world." Our efforts with the 2006 Boston Conference, the track we have
put together, and the various events we will be holding during the week will only further help to
enhance the reputation of USGenWeb as a resource for "free genealogy."

I plead with members of the USGenWeb Advisory Board to accept the donation of FGS
Membership (recognizing that the process of joining was not a process that should be repeated),
and give our membership in FGS a chance! Membership within the Federation is a good thing for
the future of USGenWeb. I invite any AB members, or my fellow project members who have
questions regarding FGS and USGenWeb's membership to e-mail me at
Josh@DJoshuaTaylor.com, I would be happy to do my best to give you an
answer.

Sincerely,

D. Joshua Taylor

------------

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

posted by merope at 9:30 PM 9 comments   
News Lite
Thinking the unthinkable...its Your Daily Board Show!

SPINNING WHEELS: The Board slowed down a bit since last night. There were some posts on
both the secretary issue and the FGS issue, but the Board has not progressed much on either
front.

COUNTING UP: We've been informed by Mike St. Clair that the "independent auditors" for the
FGS 2005 fund are himself and Annette Thompson [a UT CC], with some help from Darilee
"Bright Lights, Big City" Bednar. David Samuelsen received all the money and spent the money
when it needed to be spent, but was not involved in reconciling the accounts. Supposedly the
Paypal account and remaining funds have been or soon will be turned over to Linda Davenport
and we are promised a full and complete accounting once all the checks are cashed.

STACKING THE DECK: We've been sent a voluminous amount of information from some little
birds regarding the recently concluded Daniels/Hall mediation. Once we slog through it, we'll
report on it, but a quick pass seems to show a couple of interesting things. One is that the
mediator on this grievance, Jan Cortez, is herself an SC and allegedly friends with Sherri Hall. An
argument to overturn the decision may be based at least in part on that ground. Another
interesting thing is that Jan apparently decided to take this to the Board for resolution once she
felt the mediation had finally stalled out, and at that point Brenda was excluded from all further
proceedings. It is claimed that the Board never contacted Brenda during the time they deliberated
on this issue and it is unknown whether or not they reviewed her evidence. Brenda's request to at
least be copied on the continuing correspondence between Sherri and the Board was ignored. The
final interesting thing so far is that both of CCs who were given Brenda's page after she was fired
continued to link to sites that the SC had forbidden Brenda to link to, but in their case it was
without threat or sanction. They also allegedly reposted materials contributed by a member of the
local historical society, but without crediting him or the society.

STORMING OFF: Tina Vickery resigned from DISCUSS in a huff last night, noting more or less
that she wouldn't consort with the likes of the scum that Linda is now permitting on the list. We'll
just note that before she flipped her lid the list was chattering along nicely, and thanks to her little
toddler tantrum, its now not chattering nicely. In fact, what was an interesting and productive
discussion on the FGS issue was diverted into a hissy fit between Tina and a few list members
who seemed rather floored at her obvious emotional disarray. Ah well. We once actually believed
that Tina's rules really were intended to promote peace, goodwill, and harmonious discussion and
the error was in the execution. We are now more inclined to think that perhaps they were just the
convenient excuse to limit the playground to her fellow travelers.

BONUS QUOTE: "I will not be a member of a list that is hell bent on ridiculing the USGenWeb
Project. It is an embarrassing to me personally as a member and truly a detriment to the
USGenWeb Project." --Tina Vickery, saying sayonara to DISCUSS

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Showing the love since 1998

posted by merope at 6:25 AM 12 comments   
Monday, September 12, 2005
Clear As Mud
Too much is always better than not enough...its Your Daily Board Show!

TOO MUCH INFORMATION: Yes, you are getting another DBS today because, at the rate our
fearless leaders are posting, my inbox will fill to overflowing before morning and my fingers will
cramp up and fall off. [Not to worry though, we are learning to type with our toes.]

MARCHING ON: The biggest topic anywhere today was the FGS membership issue. We do not
have enough time in this life to excerpt it all, and since its very repetitive, that would be a waste of
time anyways. Here's our attempt to cram down a day's worth of discussion into the most concise
soundbite possible. Both Jeff and George consented to withdraw the active motion, and much
discussion ensued. Mike reported that our generous donor agreed to pay the renewal fees for the
membership each year. By evening, after many posts suggesting that several Board members were
inclined to withdraw our FGS membership, the tenor of the discussion started to swing toward
acceptance of the membership itself, while deploring the rogue actions of two Board members. At
press time, they had begun to discuss a motion that would both accept the generous invitation and
generous donation, and affirm that the Board does not condone the actions of two of its members
in getting us to this place We are optimistic that in relatively short order they will have something
worked out that will please 2/3 of them.

We are deeply pleased to report that this topic is being discussed on all four regional lists,
DISCUSS, and the alternate CC list [and don't forget the Letters to the Editor!]. Granted, most
people are making the same points over and over on different lists, but still, its been a long time
since all four regional lists have had representatives that would take issues to them and solicit
their input. We know some will point out that the discussion has gotten a bit heated in places, but
its also the case that permitting the Project members to discuss this openly with their
representatives has allowed them to work through whatever problems they had with how this was
done and get to a place where they can see the benefit to the Project rather than the slap in their
face. So now, when the Board votes to accept the FGS membership, to lightly chastise Mike and
Darilee, and to act to prevent this from happening in the future, we can all feel like we had a hand
in making that happen, rather than having it rammed down our throats. Win win, as far as we are
concerned.

Some highlights of this topic included Darilee's breathless "hick in the city" act on several lists
explaining why she and Mike decided to seize the day and accept the invitation to apply for
membership, a brief walk-on by Ancestry.con [who supports some database or other for FGS],
and Mike's numerous, voluminous, yet almost entirely devoid of content posts. Well, perhaps not
entirely devoid of content, but they are way too hard to slog through for the nuggets of actual
information. It took us several re-readings of most of his posts to finally figure what probably
happened. And even now we aren't sure. We think the urgency stemmed from the belief that the
FGS Board would be meeting immediately after the convention and would be considering our
application at that meeting. Failing to submit the application quickly would have pushed it to their
next meeting and might have lessened our chances for acceptance. However, since we weren't the
the only people who read both Mike and Darilee's posts on this matter to imply some sort of
pressure from FGS, they perhaps could have been a little clearer on this issue.

COFFEE OR TEA?: Linda made a valiant effort to jump-start the Board secretary discussion, and
there was a brief spasm of interest in it. We'll be damned though if we can tell where they are
going with this discussion. There have been a couple of suggestions that would have the NC-elect
and/or the Board-elect solicit volunteers before they are seated, and one that would have the
outgoing Board do that for them almost a year in advance. At some point, Jeff [we think]
informed the Board that not only could they not do anything prior to the new term to select the
Board secretary, the Board secretary has to be in place at the start of the term. We are having a
hard time getting our head around that one.

WHICH WAY DID HE GO?: The Board is definitely having trouble with the whole
formal/informal meeting thing. No one seems real certain what is considered formal and informal,
and attempts to make informal suggestions for the wording of motions are treated as formal
motions even by the NC. As at least one of them noted, no matter how careful you are with your
own posts, all it takes is responding to someone who is not so careful to get you out of the
groove. As Jan put it, "...I don't know what is offical and not official, informal or formal. Mike
wants to make another informal/formal motion for the official/not offical whatever we are
doing...let Mike make the motion to do what is needed and at the same time slap his own hands
for what he did wrong by fixing it in his own motion. Yep - I'm totally confused." We would
recommend that Linda consider suspending her experiment until such time as Root$web can get
around to giving them a list for the informal meeting. [Or she could use one of the several other
lists the NC has control over. USGWCONF springs to mind.] We think actually having the formal
and informal meetings on separate lists will make things much easier for everyone.

What they can all seem to agree on, and which several of them have claimed publicly on several
lists, is that Board-Exec is completely inactive. Here's the scoop from the horse's mouth:

"I can assure you there is NO discussion going on in Board-Exec about this or anything else for
that matter. When the AB is in Exec it will be announced on Board-L." --Linda Haas Davenport,
DISCUSS

We think this is fabulous news, for as long as it lasts, but we do wonder what we will find to gripe
about without the Sekrit Sandbox to fall back on.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST: We are back on the DISCUSS list; Linda subbed us tonight. And, oh
baby, can we feel the love! Particularly happy to see us is former DISCUSS Dominatrix Tina
Vickery, who turns out to be a surprisingly apt poster child for what happens when you take the
leash off of a particularly unruly mutt.

BONUS QUOTE: "Linda, thank you for adding a MNIGS to yet another project list. Way to go!
You should be very proud. NOT!" Tina Vickery, showing the love on DISCUSS

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Rubbing some folks the wrong way since 1998

posted by merope at 10:20 PM 2 comments   
Every Which Way
Ask and ye shall receive...its Your Daily Board Show!

TOO MANY EGGS IN THE BASKET: The Board's been a-hummin' in the last day. Here's what
they've been up to:

TAKE A MEMO: Motion 05-17 passed with 11 YES votes and 1 NO vote, and Ellen "I'll Get On
The Board One Way Or Another" Pack is now the Recording Secretary. The single negative vote
came from Jan Cortez, who noted that she disagreed with the motion because she felt that the
position should have been opened to volunteers from the Project who might like an opportunity to
serve. So, shortly after she declared the motion passed, Linda opened the "Board Secretary" issue
for informal discussion. She noted that the last motion ever passed by the Board on this issue was
in 2002 and established the position of "Board Secretary", who would be appointed by the
National Coordinator and whose duties would be determined by the National Coordinator, both
subject to approval by the Advisory Board. Jeff suggested that the position be either integrated
into the bylaws or made a Standing Procedure, and suggested the following wording:

"An incoming National Coordinator appoints a Recording Secretary, subject to the Advisory
Board's approval, the duties of the Recording Secretary are to take and prepare the minutes of
Board meetings. to serve a term concurrent with that of the National Coordinator. The appointed
position is seated with the term of the incoming National Coordinator, and performs the duties
immediately. If the appointee is disapproved, another candidate is chosen by the National
Coordinator. The Recording Secretary must be a member of the USGenWeb Project; must not be
a member of the Advisory Board; and must possess skills in writing reports."

Mike St. Clair suggested a more convoluted process that would begin once the general election
was completed and the new NC elected, and involve a solicitation for volunteers, an appointment
by the NC, and approval by the Board. Several Board members commented that this was a lot to
put on the NC's plate in what may be a very short amount of time after a runoff election. Jeff
favored "the NC choosing a candidate, who begins immediately when the term has its first
meeting, and stays until either confirmed or denied. by a 2/3rds vote of the Board."

Mike also suggested establishing a committee of Board members, the Parliamentarian, and the
Recording Secretary that would maintain a list of rules and procedures that the Board has passed.
This idea apparently has died.

MAKING THE BEST OF A BAD SITUATION: Once our membership in FGS hit the fan over
on the DISCUSS list [which we are still apparently not allowed to join], the Board has begun to
discuss it as well. Jeff moved "that we accept the Gift of Membership dues to the Federation of
Genealogy Societies, and look forward to a year ahead as a member of this respectable group."
[He thinks the Board can mandate how the membership feels about having this shoved down their
throats?] George Waller seconds the motion, and Darilee, of course, fully supports the Board
approving her behavior. Linda, however, asked George to withdraw his second in order that
discussion could proceed.

Mike St. Clair suggested that this topic be discussed informally before any action is taken. In his
opinion, the unilateral action taken by Darilee was "perfectly legal" since the matter was of some
urgency [although his reasons for believing this are not entirely convincing]. He noted that the
Board could decide not to accept that action and that he would reimburse the anonymous donor if
they wanted their money back. Mike also explained, in way more words, that the sole reason that
Darilee moved so quickly on accepting the membership on our behalf is because they felt the offer
would be rescinded if the Board took time to discuss it and vote on it. [That sort of offer always
makes us nervous.] He also explained in more detail the offer made by a group that has always
dismissed us in the past as not up to their standards, and the credibility that would apparently rub
off on us as a benefit of membership.

David Morgan was not obviously impressed by Mike's reasoning and explanation and asked about
the particulars of membership and noted "If any AB member can do this, then let's just disband the
AB...This reminds me of the folks that incorporated usgenweb.com a few years ago, on the theory
that they were protecting the project and did it for our own good. None of those folks were AB
members. Yet we have two AB members joining this society without input from the NC..."

Larry Flesher recommended that the Board move to ratify the membership, and noted "I believe
that the AB should now vote to ratify the decision made by two AB members who responded to
the need for immediate decision on behalf of the remainder of the AB who were not
present....Mike and Darilee considered the ramifications of not making an immediate decision, and
acted in the best interests of the USGenWeb Project. They...notified the AB of the decision being
made, and received no negative feedback. Mike has immediately and continuously provided
insight into the circumstances surrounding the decision and the need for immediate response...I
feel that Mike and Darilee took advantage of a "point in time" opportunity on behalf of myself and
others not present, and in doing so improved the national image of our organization." [As one that
can be bullied by a bigger dog, no doubt.]

GONE LIKE THE WIND: Jeff moved that "the August minutes be published and approved." At
press time, this motion had not been recognized by the Chair or received a second.

CHOCK FULL O' IDEAS: Jeff also suggested formal wording on a motion to establish Sturgis as
the Board's parliamentary authority. His proposed motion would require the Board to amend
policies and procedures in Sturgis as needed, make these amendments a permanent part of any
standing rules and procedures, and also require the Board to reapprove the use of Sturgis with
each new term. [With any luck, the Board will do nothing but spend its time making rules for its
own behavior.]

TOO MUCH TIME ON HIS HANDS: Jeff next suggested a proposed amendment to the bylaws
that would allow "items of a Administrative nature" to be referenced in the bylaws by a link to
"Standing Rules, Special Rules and Procedures, Policies, and Administrative amendments,"
approved by the Board.

ITS ALL GOOD: Linda reported that the outgoing Board members told her there were no
outstanding grievances.

JOIN OR DIE: There's been an interesting little bit of conversation over on the DISCUSS list
regarding the our fabulous new FGS membership. From little snippets dropped by David "Class
Clown" Samuelsen, its apparent that Darilee did have to act quickly on the FGS membership.
Apparently if we did not pony up the measly $105 membership, they were not only to going to
rescind their offer, they were going to terminate our participation in their 2006 conference as well.
If they are so desperate for money that they have to make that kind of threat against a teeny tiny
little volunteer project, mayhaps getting involved with them is not such a good idea.

We really do fail to see the urgency in any of this. If, as Mike has explained, the FGS has suddenly
come to see the value of USGenWeb and decided to extend us an offer of membership, we fail to
see how this could legitimately be rescinded just because our two Board representatives at the
conference expressed a desire to pass the idea past all the project's elected representatives. We
would actually expect, that as a federation of a large and varied number of organizations, the FGS
would support and approve that sort of thing and unless they need $105 so bad they can't wait a
couple of weeks to get a formal answer from the Project, there could be no harm in waiting for an
official response to their invitation.

We can easily see Darilee being blinded into submission by the glory of such a fabulous offer, but
we have a harder time seeing this from Mike. [We aren't actually sure Mike had anything to do
with this; we find it very interesting that yesterday this was all Darilee's doing and now suddenly
Mike has stepped up and shouldered part of the blame as well. Very chivalrous of him, but its
kind of curious.] So our tendency would be to give some credence to David's meandering
allusions to strong-arm tactics, and we are kind of curious as to whether FGS treats other
societies in this deplorable fashion. Perhaps other little genealogical societies roll over for this
kind of treatment in order to receive the dubious benefits of membership in FGS, but is it really
worth it? Supposedly this membership allows us a delegate on their Board; how do you suppose
the big dogs will treat that little puppy when push comes to shove?

Also on DISCUSS, David has done his best to divert discussion away from Darilee's rash
behavior and onto Keith Giddeon's little bylaws revisions working group, butwith remarkably little
success. In the process David has apparently become the very first person to violate Linda's new
list rules by casting aspersions on Keith's character rather than discussing the issues to hand. Keith
requested that Linda moderate David, but thus far she hasn't addressed his request one way or the
other [and we hope she doesn't, because its ridiculous].

PEANUT GALLERY: And last but not least, Keith Giddeon has submitted a proposal for better
money management to the Board for its consideration. You can read the proposal here:

http://www.giddeon.com/usgw/proposals/funds.html


Presumably the final provision was inspired by David Samuelsen who, during the course of his
fundraising for the FGS 2005 convention, was moved to publicly belittle certain project members
who would not spam lists on his behalf, who did not donate sufficient funds, or who chose not to
donate at all.

BONUS QUOTE: "I don't think it's a bad precedent since the AB can create the SOP thereafters."
--David Samuelsen, putting the cart before the horse

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

posted by merope at 7:10 AM 31 comments   
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Queen Bee
Where the lunatics run the asylum...its Your Daily Board Show!

TOO MANY COOKS: At the start of this reporting session, the Board was still in Formal
session. Voting proceeded on Motion 05-17 and at press time stood at 10 YES votes and 1 NO
vote.

Linda posted some operating procedures regarding the formal and informal meetings, mainly
involving asking the Board members to put the word "INFORMAL" at the head of posts meant
for the informal list. She also permanently opened the informal session, noting, "Parliamentary
Procedure does not allow for both a formal and informal meeting to be open at the same time...in
our world a person can be in several places at once and it is rare that all AB members are on-line
at the same time...unless someone objects or people start making motions in the formal session
before discussion is finished in the informal session I will leave the formal meeting open and we
can move between the two as we need to."

Next Linda published the new rules for the Sekrit Sandbox, and they are pretty much as expected:
"...there is a need for Board-Exec. Any time the AB has to discuss an issue that involves an
individual - grievances, appointments, or whatever, then the AB needs a place for private
discussion...I also strongly believe that each AB member should agree to keeping confidential any
discussion involving an individual that takes place on Board-Exec. If they choose not to agree to
do so then they should be prepared to give up their participation in the discussion. There also
needs to be some place that AB members can leave messages about being away from home, out of
town, ect...At the beginning of each term Board-Exec...should be used as a place where individual
members can introduce themselves and post private information so that the members can get to
know one another...I do believe that the use of Board-Exec as a place to discuss all other issues
should cease. In the final days of this past term the AB members voted to require the new
Grievance Procedures Committee to meet on an open public list where all of the committee
member's words, actions and deeds will be open for public scrutiny. I strongly believe that if we,
the AB, require this of our committee members then we need to require it of ourselves."
[Emphasis added]

So, the Board will once again be in simultaneous and permanent formal, informal, and executive
session. We were planning on maintaining a spreadsheet to help us keep track of when the Board
was in each of its sessions and what was done in those meetings, but since the Board has just
officially returned to Business As Usual, we'll not bother. [We guess Linda's grand experiment
wasn't working out so well after all.] Before anyone goes about proclaiming some brave new
world of openness, don't forget, every Board we've ever had has claimed that the sekrit list was
used for nothing but chitchat between the members, posting of out of town notices, and the
discussion of personnel and personal issues. And that is a crock o' manure.

Also on the Board list, Darilee Bednar, who since her experience at the convention has taken to
droppin' her Rs like some kind of faux cowboy, informed the Board that she'd gone ahead and
made USGenWeb a member of the Federation of Genealogical Societies. There was no real rush
to do so, and no reason not to wait until the Board had a chance to discuss it and run it past the
membership for comment, but apparently she felt the need to grab the bull by the short hairs and
run with it. At least it didn't cost the Project anything; the cost of a membership was gifted by an
anonymous beneficiary. And there's probably no harm done, except to the authority of the Board
and the National Coordinator. Here's Darilee's explanation of how she came to be Queen For A
Day:

"We did get some stuff done...and I'm goin' to bite the bullet and tell yah what we did...The
USGenWeb Project was invited to join the FGS...I announced this fact and asked for discussion
and received some online approval and several personal to me
messages. One of the to me messages was from a member who wished to "gift" the USGenWeb
Project with the membership fee. We were under the gun and in the middle of the vote. I accept
this member's offer and now the USGenWeb Project is a member of the FGS. The reason for my
acceptance without the approval of the complete AB...is in the pass the USGenWeb Project has
accepted "presents" from members that enhance the performance of the Project. This is an offer
that I thought was appropriate and for the good of the USGenWeb Project."

[Under the gun? Did FGS need our money that bad?]

Thank you Queen Darilee for this precedent. We're sure there's no shortage of mischief individual
Board members operating on their own "for the good of the USGenWeb Project" can do.

Since she was on a roll, Darilee also informed the Board of a discussion she had with a Root$web
representative who, while carefully explaining to her that he is flat out incompetent, also
impressed her right down to the soles of her combat boots by having an Australian accent and
referring to USGenWeb as "stake holders." [Them's fancy business-like words fer "customers",
yah know.] Root$web Dude also spent no shortage of words buttering Darilee and USGenWeb
up [instead of giving the Board its damn list, which would actually be useful] and then told her its
USGenWeb's responsibility to let Root$web know what fancy new gewgaws we'd like for our
webpages [which seems a wee bit pointless if they can't even manage to get new mailing lists
assigned]. To wrap up her post Darilee "appointed" herself and Mike St. Clair to collect all the
ideas from Project members, and noted, "that member could contact either one of us and we will
submit a report to the AB and to our friends at rootsweb.com what tools etc. we, the project,
need." [Our first brainstormed idea: that Darilee not be permitted to represent USGenWeb at any
more conventions.]

In Informal session, Mike St. Clair published another report on the FGS conference, in which he
slathered David Samuelsen with praise for his "hard work and leadership" and noted: "David took
care of the logistics, obtaining the funds, making sure we had excellent hand outs and displays,
obtaining volunteers to staff the booth, having a nice treat for our visitors...He did exactly what
was needed to ensure success. He coached and showed us how to be proactive in bringing folks
into the booth and ensuring that they left feeling glad that they had come. I'd like to recognize him
and thank him for his efforts and state unequivocably that he was the driving force behind how
well it all went." He also praised Darilee and thanked all the members who helped out at the
booth.

At press time, the Board had returned to its standard mode of operation and was in Formal,
Informal, and Executive sessions simultaneously.

QUEEN DAVID: There is a bit more information on the banner issue. Alternate logo #2, as it
turns out, could have easily been used for the banner. As Mike Jarvis noted, "For the record, our
Alternate Logo # 2, is a fully scalable vector file which the project has in its native Adobe
Illustrator format. It can be easily sized for something like this banner use without any loss of
image quality." Although alternate logo #2 is the nicest of the bunch, it apparently offended David
Samuelsen's personal sense of style [which is very, very funny], so he ignored it and designed
something more to his own personal taste. Were we in charge of this sort of thing, we'd pretty
much insist he pay for his personal decisions out of his own ample pockets, but since someone
foolishly trusted him alone with the donations for the convention, the Project will have absolutely
no recourse. We do, however, have a really spiff banner that cost $200 and doesn't have our logo
on it and David is already talking about designing the next banner for our 10th anniversary. [This
would maybe be a good time for someone to gently point out to him that his services are no
longer required.]

The infamous banner has us wondering something else though...who came up that silly slogan that
is now on our home page?

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Like a bull in a china shop since 1998

posted by merope at 7:45 AM 9 comments   
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Now We're Cookin'
Fiddling on the roof...its Your Daily Board Show!

AND SO ON AND SO FORTH: The Board began this reporting cycle still in Formal session,
were only a couple of comments made on Motion 05-17 and the issue of joining FGS. The only
comment of interest was made by Darilee in protest of Linda's decision not to subscribe the
Keeper of the Minutes or the Parliamentarian to the Sekrit list: "...the secretary was on exec.
list...to be able to do a general comment like...On exec. the AB worked on 1 grievance....the
parliamentarian was on the list...so when a question was asked he had an overview of what was
happening without tedious explanations. I can't remember a single post from Roger when he
served as Parliamentarian that was uninvited...The same for the Secretary who was used as a
go-between on a grievance or so."

[This is quite interesting. We don't recall any Board Secretaries ever reporting on what transpires
in the Sekrit Sandbox, and the last one that tried was flat out fired. And there was, IWRC, a
Board member who tried to do just that kind of simple, bland report of sekrit list traffic, and she
got banned from both the public and the sekrit lists for it. And being used as a go-between on
grievances? Is that in the Board Secretary's job description?]

Early this morning, Linda told Darilee that "these two positions will not be subbed to
Exec...because there should be no discussion in Exec that requires the services of either the
secretary or parliamentarian." She also noted that the proper use of Board-Exec will be an
upcoming topic for the informal session [wich should be interesting]. Then she opened the vote on
a reworded version of Motion 05-17: "I move that Ellen Pack be appointed the Recording
Secretary to serve through August 31, 2006."

At the end of the reporting cycle, the Board was still in Formal session. There have been no
announcements about any traffic on the sekrit list, although apparently the consensus to "reword"
the motion, rather than "amend" it, was reached on Board-Exec, because we sure didn't see any of
that on the public list.

CCs JUST CANNOT GET A BREAK: Direct from the Sekrit Sandbox, here's the final outcome
of the recent grievance the Board "mediated" [man, they just do not understand mediation, do
they?]:

"After much discussion and input from both parties and investigation by the
Advisory Board, the following conclusion has been reached...The problems...began in
approximately 2002 when [former CC]...chose to use the Knott County site as an informal
"harvesting area for his Historical Society. The CC was advised by the SC that...all pages needed
to be changed in regards to [former CC]'s disclaimer, etc. The SC...wanted to try and change the
image of the site so that contributors would feel comfortable...After checking the Wayback
Machine...the site still had [former CC]'s disclaimer on it as late as 6/24/2004, when the CC had
taken over the site in approximately 2003. The conclusion of this advisory board is that the CC
disregarded the SC's directive to change and update the site. When the SC issued her final
directive, the CC had already had the site for approximately a year or more...she had not complied
with the original conditions when she took over...We believe that an SC should have the right to
dismiss a CC if they feel that there is a direct violation to the rules given for the county site. The
SC has a duty to researchers, contributors and the CC's of their state to make sure that the county
web sites do not violate the stated rules. The SC was completely within her rights as elected SC
for the State of Kentucky when she terminated [CC] as CC of Knott Co., KY."

What of load of you-know-what. The "disclaimer" that the SC and now by extension the Board
insisted that CC should have removed was the former CC's copyright disclaimer on work he had
done for the site. The new CC did not have a year to comply with the SC's whims regarding her
site, she had less than 30 days. The SC gave her a deadline to fix the problems and then fired her
anyways before the deadline was up. If you read the Board's foregone conclusions on this matter,
you will note something interesting. The Board thinks it is entirely OK if an SC creates rules for a
single county and then fires a CC for failure to comply with them, regardless of whether or not the
CC is in compliance with the written policies of the state and national projects. In other words,
your SC can request anything they want of you as a condition of remaining a volunteer, and the
Board is fine with that and will support your termination if you can't or won't comply.

In the KYGW case, the SC made up and applied specific and unwritten rules to a CC who was
otherwise in compliance with all USGenWeb and KYGenWeb policies, and who was maintaining
a data-filled website. The special rules applied only to a specific county and to no others and
related to telling the CC who could help her with her pages, what materials she could display on
her pages, and whose name could be displayed as a contributor to the pages. Basically what it
boils down to is that the SC had a beef with the former CC, who she fired, and she carried it over
to the new CC, who she also fired when the new CC couldn't or wouldn't break ties with the old
CC. The two co-CCs who then took over the county proceeded to post all the old CC's data
without his permission and with someone else's name on it. But you know, that's all good. SCs, as
we all know, can do no wrong. And its all just fine with the Board if your SC singles you out for
special treatment and then fires you over a personal disagreement with someone else.

WHEN DO THEY DROP THE BALLOONS?: Both Darilee and Mike have posted updates from
the FGS Convention, and both sound happy as kids at the beach and report an active and popular
booth. According to Mike:

"We...had a distinguished visitor from the Swedish Federation of Genealogical Societies, Ted
Rosvall. He was very impressed with what we are doing and is going to do a feature article in
their next journal about USGenWeb - which is sent to over 10,000 members of their society...A
not yet announced new publication...approached me at the conference for an article about
USGenWeb in the inaugural edition early next year...We had a visitor from Los Angeles, an
officer of the Southern California Genealogical Society, who was originally from Louisiana and
told us about the serious loss of materials in the New Orleans Library...This dear lady insisted on
giving me a big hug for the whole organization - she said we were a great boon to her and her
society...A couple of more folks showed up who were big fans of USGenWeb, but had never
contributed anything. We think a couple of lucky counties will end up as beneficiaries of some
data these folks had indexed for their own research...An officer of the Fairfax Genealogical
Society in the Washington DC area...said they would really love to have us come with a similar
exhibit to their fall seminar later this year. I'll bring it to the board and see if there is time to find
project members in that area who would be willing to do this."

Apparently they are handing out some very yummy taffy. Or they were, until Darilee "dropped" it
and had to "take it home" since it had been on the ground.

BANNER DAY: We did some asking around about the FGS banner that does not display any of
our four official logos. W. David Samuelsen gave us an extremely convoluted explanation that
essentially boiled down to "None of the graphics for our official logos were good enough quality
to scale large enough for a banner, so me and the guy from Banners 'R Us sat down for a couple
of hours and made one up. Not to worry though. It only cost us $200 because the guy from BRU
comped us an hour on the design time." This is all well and good, and we'd consider that David in
his klutzy way made the best of a bad situation, except that we didn't need a banner. We already
have a banner. In fact, back when David was harassing Project members for money, he said we'd
only be getting a new banner if the official logo changed and we needed one. The official logo
didn't change, but we got a new banner anyways, with some made-up logo on it. But you know,
what the heck? It wasn't his money he spent on a banner with an incorrect logo which will now
have to replaced at further cost to the Project's volunteers. It was yours.

We also asked David about the $1000+ worth of donated money that is apparently sitting in his
Paypal account, but he got uncharacteristically quiet after that. He hasn't bothered to update his
"accounting" of the donated funds for nearly a month, so who knows what, if anything, he's been
doing with other peoples' money.

SOAPBOX ALERT: These sorts of thing are the reasons the Project needs a permanent
Publicity/Promotions/Convention committee of some sort. Now that we have been invited to sit at
the grownup table with the real genealogical societies, and now that several societies have invited
us to participate in their meetings, its likely we'll be doing more of this conventioneering. It would
be to our advantage to have a quality banner [with an accurate logo], nice promotional materials,
good internet hookups, and backup taffy [and maybe even a Booth Babe!], but our current
method of obtaining and managing funds for these things is a little iffy. We mean, really, blindly
putting money into the Paypal account of one of USGenWeb's flakier members? Especially one
who apparently lost interest in accounting for it once he got ahold of a thousand dollars? That's a
lot of money collected in the Project's name, and while its great to see the generosity, its also kind
of worrisome that basically one or two people were permitted to personally make decisions on
how it was spent. We are not generally in favor of committees [because, after all, none of us is as
dumb as all of us], but if "the Project" is going to solicit its members for funds for Project-related
purposes, and then expend those funds, it might behoove the Project to empower a qualified
group of people with specific standing procedures and an established accounting method do that
on our behalf.

CHEERLEADING AT THE APOCALYPSE: In the midst of all the outpouring of food, water,
medicine, treasure, crash space, military personnel, doctors, rescuers, equipment, ingenuity, and
common garden variety care for one's neighbor we've seen for the Katrina victims in the last
week, we've come across this little gem from the Archives' Pam Reid:

http://rootsweb.com/~cemetery/article/savingrecords.html

This is a advance copy of an article written for the ephemeral "next issue" of the moribund
USGenWeb newsletter, and its general message appears to more or less be: "Look! There's a
horrible humanitarian crisis in the South, with untold numbers of dead, injured, and missing
people. Here's how you can do your part to help MyFamily.com benefit from this horror and
become even more profitable!"

Oy.

BONUS QUOTE (by popular demand): "Even though "we" aren't paid, all of us using the
Rootsweb Server, don't have to buy our own server space and domain names so in a way we are
on the payroll too. MY Family.com employs about 6000 persons according to their website." [But
they only pay 4 of them.--Ed.] from Sandra Quinn, shilling for MyFamily on STATE-COORD-L

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Roadman for the lords of karma since 1998

posted by merope at 8:20 PM 5 comments   
Friday, September 09, 2005
A Rose By Any Other Name
Glossing over the boring parts...its Your Daily Board Show!

BOGGED DOWN: At the start of this reporting session, the Board was in Formal session. After
some prompting, Karen de Groote-Johnson seconded the Keeper of the Minutes motion. Linda
numbered it [05-17] and opened the floor for discussion, which promptly bogged down over what
to call the person who keeps the minutes. Jeff Scism suggested they use the term "reporter" and
several other Board members noted that "Recording Secretary" has worked fine in the past and
works fine for them now. [As explained on the SW list, the problem with continuing to use
"recording secretary" is that the title, as described in Sturgis, does not really correspond with
what our Board Secretary generally does, which is take minutes, write them up for the website,
and officially record the votes on motions. But, as was also pointed out on the SW list, there isn't
really any reason to look to Sturgis for this; we can write our own job description and call it
whatever goofy thing we want.] At press time, no vote had been called on this motion, but the
consensus among those that have spoken up seems to be that "Recording Secretary"

FISH ON A BICYCLE: In the midst of the discussion, Suzanne Shephard asked whether the
Parliamentarian or the Board secretary will be subscribed to the Sekrit list. Linda indicated that
neither one would be, but a couple of Board members suggested that it might be a good thing if
the Parliamentarian were subbed to the list. Mike St. Clair, for example, noted "I think you will
get more useful advice from the Parliamentarian if he is privy to what goes on there."

Now, Linda and a couple of other Board members have gone to great pains to note that the only
discussion occurring in the Sekrit Sandbox will involve personal chitchat among the Board
members and the occasional personnel issue requiring confidentiality, and that the sekrit list will
more or less be an informal discussion space where parliamentary procedure is not an issue. If
that's the case, why would the Parliamentarian's presence there be required or even useful? Unless
the Board intends to conduct formal meetings using Sturgis there, there isn't any need for a
parliamentarian. In fact, unless the Parliamentarian has duties other than advising the NC and the
Board on matters involving the correct use of parliamentary procedure, the only place the
Parliamentarian's expertise is needed is the formal meeting on Board-L.

This could evolve into another discussion about the need for job descriptions for these appointed
positions, so that the Board members and the Project know what these people will be expected to
do before they rubberstamp the NC's choices, but we'll save that for another day.

USGENWEB HITS THE BIG TIME: Darilee reported from the FGS conference that she was
contacted by a representative for FGS who invited USGenWeb to join the Society. She noted "If
we join NOW we could have delegate next year and become active in decisions." Although she
requested a quick 24 hour discussion period, thus far the only member that has commented on it is
George Waller and he supports it. [As do we. This sounds like a great idea, but we do hope the
Board considers this carefully. Something tells us that joining FGS is not exactly free.] Darilee
also wondered if perhaps this decision might fall under the sole authority of the NC, but we doubt
that it would, unless the NC also wanted to be personally responsible for whatever it costs to join
FGS.

At the end of this reporting session, the Board remained in Formal session.

EXPENSE ACCOUNT: Also from the convention, DBS Senior Convention Correspondent Mike
St. Clair noted that a general good time was being had by all, although David Samuelsen
apparently is chaining people to the booth. Mike reported "...it seems about half of the people
coming by hadn't ever used USGenWeb. The other half said they used it all the time and
expressed their great appreciation for what you all are doing. We've heard from several people
that our project has been mentioned very positively in several of the lectures, including one of the
luncheons...Quite a few project members have stopped by to say hello too. We've had many
society officers, librarians, Family History Center directors, Family History Missionaries from the
adjacent Family History Library, etc." [This is a switch from just a couple of years ago, when the
most common response from genealogists at conventions was "USGenWho? Aren't you guys part
of Root$web?"]

Mike posted some pictures of convention-goers here:

http://usgenwebatfgs.on-theweb.com/

They are nice pix, and everyone looks to be having a good time. It's a curious thing though. You'll
notice a very large, very nice banner in nearly all the pictures. This very prominently displayed
banner very prominently displays a very large logo that is...not one of our four official logos.
What is the point of having official logos if we don't display them at the kinds of places where
people will see them as the "image of USGenWeb"? How can you have four official logos to pick
from and not pick a correct one? We sure hope David didn't spend Project members' hard-earned
money on an incorrect banner.

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: Denizens of the Comments section yesterday saw
a message from Keith Giddeon regarding rumors that were being spread about him throughout
the Project. We think his concern is a little misplaced; we had to do some major digging to find
out anything about this at all, so it appears to be safely under the radar. In any case, here's the
scoop:

There is a smallish group of people working on an amendment regarding incorporating the Project
as a non-profit. There were originally three members. Keith Giddeon is one of them, one of them
is not known to us, and the other is someone we go way back with. Until recently, no Board
members were involved, but as of now two sitting Board members have signed on. We have no
idea who these might be, since our little birds got sudden cases of laryngitis when the question
was broached. Our first guesses would be Mike St. Clair, and our second would be Jeff Scism.
Jeff, however, denies that he is involved, although he does in principle support the effort. Jeff also
denies being the Board member who has been spreading rumors that Keith intends to incorporate
the Project secretly in his own name [Yes, just what we need. Another Dill Incident.] We have
heard that Betsy "Land of the Lost" Mills might be involved in the rumor-mongering; a couple of
people have also told us that she has gone on record with a promise to leave USGenWeb if it
incorporates [that would be one reason to vote for it right there.] Someone else suggested that the
IRC Ladies Guild [Shari, Ellen, Betsy, Tina, et. al] have been working themselves into a lather
over this for weeks now, but since two of them are useless has-beens, one of them was soundly
defeated in the last election, and the other appears to have retreated to the safety of her fiefdom
on the EC, we doubt that anyone is taking it all that seriously, except for Keith.

Here is an unedited statement Keith asked us to publish yesterday:

"An Open Response to Current Salacious Rumors. I was recently informed by someone "in the
know" and immediately late of the Advisory Board, that I have been the topic of certain rumors
being bandied about in certain circles of USGenWeb. These rumors have me incorporating the
project in my name without input from the membership. Let me please squash these rumors with
the following statement: I am not attempting to incorporate USGenWeb in my name, or anyone
else's. I am, however, helping to draft an amendment to the bylaws covering this topic. And I am,
in no way, hardly alone in this effort. To the person who started, and those who fueled these false
and malicious rumors: You are unabashed, unethical, pitiful, sorry examples of members of The
USGenWeb Project."

Keith also assures us that the proposed amendments will be presented to the membership for
comment before they are put up for state sponsorship, and of course, if they get enough state
sponsors they will appear on the ballot for a project-wide up or down vote.

So there you have it. A very tiny tempest in a toy tea cup.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Bring you useless trivia since 1998

posted by merope at 6:15 AM 17 comments   
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Your Number's Up
How hard can it be...its Your Daily Board Show!

GENERAL CONSENT: In Formal session, the Board proceeded to vote on Motion 05-16 [to
appoint Mike Jarvis and Julie McGrew Ayres as webmasters]. This motion passed unanimously
with 13 Board members voting YES.

Linda next opened discussion on her suggested parliamentarian, Josh Taylor, although she
reported that the Board has already reached consensus on his appointment on Board-Exec. She
posted his qualifications and noted, "Historically...the Parliamentarian has been an advisor to the
National Coordinator and it was necessary for an AB member to go through the NC to ask a
question of the parliamentarian. When I spoke with Josh I asked him if he would be willing to not
only be my advisor but also be willing to answer questions from other board members. Josh
assured me he would be. Although he will still primarily serve as an advisor to the NC he will be
available to all board members." In short order various Board members commenced to falling over
each other in their haste to say nice things about Josh.

And last, David Morgan moved "that Ellen Pack be appointed the Keeper of the Minutes, to serve
through August 31, 2006." [Keeper of the Minutes? What is wrong with calling her the Board
Secretary or Recording Secretary?] With any luck, this motion will only end up with one number,
05-17.

WISH YOU WERE HERE: Darilee checked in from Salt Lake City. She reports that the
USGenWeb Booth is up and functional and promises to send pictures.

At press time, the Board was still in Formal Session.

I'VE NEVER BEEN GOOD WITH NUMBERS EITHER: Numbering the motions properly has
proved to be of some difficultly for our new National Coordinator. She originally numbered the
George Waller Motion as 06-01 and 05-13, and the Webmaster motion as 05-14. It was a little
premature for the 06- number and both of the 05- numbers were already spoken for by previous
Board business. In case anyone has forgotten or is perhaps no longer seeing it even in their sleep,
Motion 05-13 was the marathon motion to establish a Grievance Procedures Committee. Motion
05-14 was the motion to appoint Cyndie Enfinger to the SP rep seat until the special election can
be held. Anyway, we think the confusion is cleared up and all the motions have their proper
numbers.

CLEAR AS MUD: We have been trying for some days now to get an answer to a simple
question: Is Board-Exec continually open and used for discussion regardless of the status of the
formal and informal public sessions. Apparently, there is some deep reason we cannot get a simple
answer to this question. Bettie Wood has resorted to the quirky little game playing she does when
she doesn't want to answer a question, and several other Board members have just ignored it.
Finally, yesterday, we got this from Linda Davenport:

"...in general it should work like this: Board-Exec will be used to discuss issues or items that
involve individuals - i.e. grievances, appointments, etc. It will be a place for the members to post
messages about being away from their computer, out of town, etc...I would guess that some chat
will take place...but nothing that isn't of a personal nature about AB members themselves. I will
announce when the AB is in Board-Exec and what they are discussing...When the discussion is
finished and a resolution reached that will also be announced on Board-L. Otherwise the board's
discussions should all be held openly in the informal meeting."

So, we're still not sure whether or not Board-Exec is open continuously, but according to what
she says here Linda apparently intends for all non-personnel-related issues to be discussed in
public. We'll be interested to see how long that lasts. We also aren't sure exactly what sort of
discussion is supposed to go in the formal and informal sessions. From previous descriptions it
sounded like the only thing they'd be doing in the formal session is going through the formality of
voting, but now it appears that discussion on items they've already reached consensus on [either
secretly or publicly] will also be held in formal session. So, we are not really sure of the point of at
least one of their three meetings.

BONUS QUOTE: "Have we dispensed with discussion entirely?" --David Morgan [We are
beginning to wonder if David is actually on Board-Exec, or if he has declined participation as in
the past.]

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Numbering the days since 1998

posted by merope at 5:30 AM 5 comments   
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
One Big Happy Family
Kumbaya...its Your Daily Board Show!

IF ITS WEDNESDAY, IT MUST BE FORMAL: Or wait, maybe its Informal. No, we kid. The
Board started out this reporting cycle still in Formal session. The motion to formally and finally
seat George Waller in the NE/NC seat [which has thus far been numbered 06-01 and 05-13, but
whose correct number is 05-15] has passed the Board unanimously, with 13 yes votes and one
abstention. [We personally plunked for 05-14, but that was only because in all the whoopdedoo
over 05-13 we completey forgot about the motion to appoint Cyndi Enfinger to the SP rep seat.]

After this business was concluded, Jeff Scism moved "that the positions of Webmaster(s) be
accepted by the Board as nominated by the NC." Bettie Wood seconded this motion.

While the Board was still technically in Formal session, several comments were made in Informal
session. Angie made a brief comment noting that the Board is free to write up standing
procedures that incorporate components of both Sturgis and RRoR, if it wishes, as long as they
don't conflict with the bylaws. She also strongly suggested that the Board not require members
with grievances to wait, and noted "It has never been part of the agenda to have grievances wait
until the GPC completes its work. If there's someone that would prefer to wait and see what the
GPC comes up with...that's entirely up to them..."

The Board ended this reporting period still in Formal session.

WILL THEY GET FUNNY HATS?: USGenWeb is going to a Convention this week, at the
Federation of Genealogical Societies in Salt Lake City. Mike St. Clair has sent letters around
reminding everyone to please send him links to especially useful, well-designed, and/or creative
Project sites that the booth team can use as examples when people stop by. You can send them to
him directly at RAL@On-TheWeb.com. Mike has also set up a temporary email address you can
use to contact people working the booth or other USGenWeb members who are attending the
conference; its USGenWebAtFGS@On-TheWeb.com. The booth will be up and running from
Thursday this week through Sunday, so if you are in the area be sure and stop by and give Mike a
hard time for the DBS editorial staff, which sadly has no travel budget whatsoever.

FIELD OF HONOR: So I got this really very nice [and very unexpected] letter from George
Waller yesterday, in which he apologized for being snarky, and in particular apologized for saying
he would vote to ban me from the DISCUSS list. Now normally in these circumstances I would
be very cynical, but as it happens a couple of days ago an old, old correspondent from way back
reminded me of something I had forgotten. Back In The Day, when we had no sliced bread,
George was the list admin for the -ALL list, and although he didn't like me personally and was
under a lot of pressure to boot my heinie, he kept me [and several others] on the list right up until
Brian "Skidmark" Leverich banned me by fiat [and over George's protests, IIRC]. I actually can't
remember that George ever banned anyone from that list, and you oldtimers will recall what a
challenging environment it could be. None of this pantywaist delicacy like Tina and Shari tried to
enforce on DISCUSS. Anyways, long story short...my "goon squad" comment of a few days ago
was uncalled for, in a big way, and I owe George a huge apology and I sent him one yesterday.
We've had our differences, and will probably have more, but jackbooted thuggery is probably not
his style. In any case, we kind of held our noses and shook hands and then we had a Coke and
taught the world to sing. Or something like that.

OUTSIDE THE BOX: Now that we are in a squishy kind of mood, we'd actually kind of consider
recommending that Linda to turn DISCUSS over to George. Before your heads explode, gentle
readers, consider this. That poor benighted list has in its long history had three of the worst
admins ever to manage an official project list. Their intentions may have been good, but in
execution they made a right mess of it, to the point that the sole Project-wide discussion list is
now widely derided as the one list in the Project where no real discussion is allowed. Backwaters
like the SW regional list are vibrant, active, challenging, and informative, because they have
moderators who care about that stuff, but DISCUSS is generally only safe for those who are pals
with the [now former]list admins who would do literally anything to preserve decorum, even at
the price of the list's reason for being.

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that communication in USGenWeb is a big problem.
The basic volunteer who has one county has the following options open to them: 1) they can
subscribe to their state list; 2) they can be a member of the EC's list [which can now be used by
the Board for non-election related matters]; 3) they can subscribe to Board-L; 4) they can
subscribe to their regional list; 5) they can subscribe to -ALL, which is occasionally used for
announcements; and 6) they can, if permitted, subscribe to DISCUSS. Members who are also part
of the special projects, who are SCs, and/or who have counties in more than one region have
other official options, and there are several alternate general and regional lists for those with more
adventuresome spirits. And of course, there is always the DBS. There is no shortage in this
project of ways to communicate important information to the members.

What we lack is a good general list where the members can talk to each other about any Project
business they care to discuss. This is one reason why we allow the Letters to the Editor section
such latitude, although it does appear that Mike, Keith, Jeff, and Anonymous hog most of the
conversation. People want to talk about things, and it's irritating when they can't because some
nanny overinterprets their comments and slams the hammer down on them for something
relatively minor. It's even more irritating when they see "friends of the list admins" get away with
the same behavior with at best a token wrist slap. It's beyond irritating when list admins actively
try to prevent discussion on a "discussion" list by not only labeling entire areas of the project
taboo but by actively trying to prevent their list members from knowing that discussion about
those topics is going on elsewhere. That is just absurd.

We'd very much like to see the Board decide which Project lists are "official" and then see them
define basic, consistent list rules that will apply to all of the Project's official lists, with perhaps
minor amendments to take into account the general purpose of individual lists. But even more,
we'd like to see them find list managers who will agree to and be capable of evenly and fairly
applying those rules regardless of personal feelings. Which is taking the long way to say that
despite George's having thrown in with the Dark Side long ago, we know from personal
experience that he'd probably be exactly the type of listowner they'd be looking for.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Occasionally wallowing in sentimentality since 1998

posted by merope at 5:55 AM 8 comments   
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Giddy As A Schoolgirl
Typing as fast as we can...its Your Daily Board Show!

MAN, THEY ARE A TALKATIVE BUNCH: The Board remained in Informal Session and
continued discussion on the following topics:

CURIOUS GEORGE: Linda asked the Board to propose a motion regarding George Waller's
seat, and Jan Cortez came up with this awkwardly worded, but serviceable first attempt:

"I move to seat George Waller as the legally qualified NE/NC SC Rep, after consistent agreement
by members of the AB, that his resignation was made prior to his taking office, along with the
noted wishes of the voters polled in his region."

A couple of Board members, apparently not clear on the concept, seconded the proposed
wording, and had to be reminded that in the informal session they are still just hacking out
acceptable wording. David was ready to push it to a vote, but Linda reminded him that technically
no motion had been made, and that only a few Board members had spoken and may not be in
agreement with the concept or the wording. David wondered how she could ignore a motion that
had been made and seconded, and suggested that if members didn't like the motion, they could
just vote no on the motion. [Someone is really not clear on the concept.]

REINVENTING THE WHEEL: Linda suggested that the Board should consider re-approving,
reworking, or recycling the standing procedures listed on the national page. Her suggestions
include:

1) changing the time that the meeting is called to order, from the "first working day of the month"
to opening only on an as-needed basis. David Morgan suggests that if they are going to continue
to adjourn at the end of the month, they should continue to come to order on the first of the
month as well.

2) using Sturgis for some aspects of the Board meeting and using Robert's Rules of Order for
others. David pointed out that a previous Board voted to use Sturgis and it would require a vote
of the Board to change it to something else. Mike's personal preference is to stick with Sturgis,
and he recommended that the Board vote quickly on this matter and settle it. Suzanne agreed with
him. David, however, pointed out that "Sturgis has been the official PP for 4 years, without the
intervening ABs doing anything...I see no reason to vote on it now." Last but not least, several
Board members noted they already have copies of Sturgis and would prefer not to have to buy
something else. [Hey, it's as good a reason as any to keep it.]

3) possibly forgoing appointing new mediators until the Grievance Procedures Committee has
finished its work. [This has to be a joke. Mediation is required for grievances. Without mediators
no grievances can be addressed. The GPC may not finish its work for two months or more,
assuming it gets going within the next couple of weeks.]

In more general discussion on SOPs Linda noted that she has a list of all the motions passed by
previous Boards and she hoped eventually to go through them and see what needs to be removed
or updated. She commented that Jeff had claimed that "SOPs made by one AB expire at the end
of a term and have to be reconfirmed or throw out." Angie noted that "...a group may adopt any
procedures that it wishes, whether or not they are in accordance with parliamentary procedure.
The Board may not adopt procedures that violate the Bylaws, but we may adopt procedures that
conflict with PP..All it takes to re-adopt the current "temporary" procedures on an official basis is
a vote to do so. It's also possible to continue to operate under those temporary
procedures without a vote. All that takes is asking if anyone on the board has an objection." And
Linda Barton said she "wasn't aware that we could just throw them
away and start over," and suggested "we need to get all of our procedures together in one place
and determine what is dispensable and what is not before we do anything else."

In informal session, the Board also discussed meeting times, when they are generally available,
and the informal session procedures itself.

Apparently allowing the sparring with David to goad her into action, Linda recessed the informal
session and opened the formal session. At the same time she noted that the Board members are
discussing, on the Sekrit list, the appointments she made the other day and that the parties in the
KYGenWeb grievance have been notified of the Board's decision. [Apparently we were mistaken
and the "executive session" will be remaining open indefinitely.]

In the formal session, Linda posted Jan's motion and inexplicably numbered it 06-01. [All this time
in the Project and she's never figured out how the motion numbering system works?]. After some
more wrangling with David over why the NC is making motions, David himself made the motion,
Linda accepted Suzanne Shephard's second from when she made the motion, and opened the floor
for a vote. She also noted that the floor would remain open "for the next 48 hours or until a
majority vote has been reached." [presumably she means a 2/3 majority]. Thus far the vote stands
at 10 YES votes and the motion has passed, so we will go out on a limb and congratulate George
Waller on his return to the Board.

During the voting, Bettie Wood commented on the unseemly haste to get this motion to a vote
and suggested next time discussion be opened long enough to allow her to get feedback from her
region. Jan Cortez also wondered how her motion became David's motion.

Although the informal session was closed, Jeff Scism continued to comment repeatedly on Sturgis
and the standing operating procedures.

PATTING OURSELF ON THE BACK: Apparently one of our freshman Board members is
pleased to note, that an entire five days into their new term, there haven't been any fights. It must
be some kinda miracle. [Although its beginning to look a little premature.]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Although there is no excuse for being on the internet
since dirt was young and not figuring out how annoying it is when you shout all the time, here is a
brief tutorial on How To Give Your Caps Lock Key A Rest. There are many ways to emphasize
plain text without shouting. One can _underline_ it, or use *asterisks* [always popular with
California alpaca farmers] or Initial Capitals. Some people use html tags or pseudo-html tags to
make their point. One could also tone down a bit on what needs to be emphasized; capitalizing
half the words in a post isn't emphasis, it's hectoring. Or one could just join the 21st century and
use a rich text or html capable mail program. They do exist, and many of them are free. Just stop
yelling. Its rude and pretty much makes us hit the delete key instantaneously. And then we miss all
the wisdom pearls that are no doubt being dropped amidst all the sound and fury.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Emphasizing with style since 1998

posted by merope at 6:20 AM 20 comments   
Monday, September 05, 2005
In One Ear And Out The Other
In the midst of pandemonium...its Your Daily Board Show!

LIST HOPPING: Although our new NC hasn't bothered to formally explain how her New &
Improved Board List System will actually work, one can work out the probable system by various
of her posts. As far as we can tell, this is how it goes:

a) If the formal Board meeting is in session, the informal session is closed
b) If the informal session is open, the formal meeting is closed.
c) If Board-Exec is in session, the formal meeting will be open.
d) If Board-Exec is in session, she is not sure what will happen with the informal session, but
since she slapped down Mike when he attempted to speak up, its safe to assume that the informal
session will be closed as well.
e) Linda will formally close each session and open the subsequent session

[This is kind of interesting. To our knowledge, Board-Exec has never been shut down since it was
first opened seven years ago, and it has often been claimed that the Board simply cannot function
without a private place to run wild. Our guess is that many Board members will vociferously
protest the closing of the Sekrit list for any length of time and the argument will be that the
members need the private space to hash out controversial issues before they take them public, to
either the formal or informal session. But we cannot predict how this will be received. While
Linda herself is one of the Project's largest supporters of the "secret is good" philosophy, she
appears to want the hashing out stuff to occur in the informal public session and to use the
executive session only for limited issues that merit confidentiality. This is commendable. Its also
the case that several Board members recently made a public, and also commendable, stance
against the over-application of unnecessary secrecy and that several of the new Board members
publicly supported their stance when they were still private citizens. So, for the first time ever, we
may actually see the Sekrit Sandbox used for legitimate purposes instead of just being the Board's
private playground.]

So, moving along, here's what happened yesterday in the Executive and Informal Board sessions:

BOARD-EXEC: The Board wrapped up its current playdate in the Sekrit Sandbox, and according
to Linda is now writing up "the message that will sent to the individuals concerned." [At least one
of the parties to the grievance has no idea what they are talking about or what decision they have
arrived at. A couple of people have wondered in passing whether Suzanne Shephard and Josh
Taylor have recused themselves from participation in this grievance, since they are both
KYGenWeb members and have prior experience with and knowledge of both sides of the issue.
Suzanne Shephard in particular is quite tight with Sherri Hall.]

CONSISTENCY FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE: In the informal session but while the Board
was still meeting in EXEC, Mike "I've Got a List" St. Clair tried to start a conversation about
developing some consistent list rules for all the Project's official mailing lists. [All Lists starting
with "BOARD", "USGW", and "USGENWEB" were all handed to the NC as USGenWeb's
official lists back when Dick Harrison became NC.] Linda told him that the formal and informal
meetings can't happen at the same time, but she wasn't sure about overlapping the informal session
and the Sekrit Sandbox, and suggested they all work it out in the informal session. The mailing
lists weren't discussed again on the Board list, formally or informally, but Mike has stirred up
some support over on DISCUSS. We think in principle this is a fabulous idea, although it would
require that the Project admit it has official lists with official rules, instead of falling back on its
usual "List X isn't an official list, and we won't get involved in list management issues" excuse
when someone complains about unfair treatment. [And before anyone accuses Mr. Clean of
stealing this idea from the DBS, we think we actually stole the idea from him.]

EMINENT DOMAIN: Linda announced she has renewed all three of the Project's domains.

LET YOUR HAIR DOWN: Linda officially recessed the EXEC meeting and opened the informal
session of the Board. As a first item of business, she also published guidelines for the informal
meeting; prominent among them is the notice that parliamentary procedural rules do not apply and
may not be invoked during discussion. All business items past this point occurred in the official
informal session.

GEORGE WALLER LOVE-FEST: Mike reminded the Board that there was a pending challenge
to George Waller's unresignation and asked the Board to "discuss this and make a decision." He
noted "...this would remove any cloud over the validity of his membership on the board. If he his
not to be seated it would expedite the process by which the SCs in the NE region would have
representation on the board." Thus far, all Board members who have weighed in have spoken in
favor of denying the challenge. Some comments:

"He was elected and he has already been seated." --David Morgan

"I...understand that the previous Parliamentarian expressed an opinion that the withdrawal should
be allowed and the previous NC ruled consistent with that opinion. However, since there has been
some disagreement with the process, I strongly feel that the Advisory Board should vote to clear
up the matter...I realize some members of the board feel we don't need to address this at all. I
think there will be a cloud unless we do and would rather eliminate that cloud." --Mike St. Clair

"...the timing of the resignation and the withdrawal seem to preclude it from being covered by the
referenced portions of Sturgis. I am in favor of supporting the will of the voters in the NE/NC
State Coordinator Representative election." --Linda Blum Barton

"For me it was Scott's position on this unusual circumstance that indicated what should be done in
the absence of any SPECIFIC rules...George has my support as he was elected to this seat and the
informal poll suggests the voters have not changed their minds." --Karen de Groote-Johnson

"Scott says let George do it and it works for me." --Darliee Bednar

"Fred's Challenge is without merit. His constituency is not effectively influenced by the NE/NC
SC rep election, which he is not a party to...The previous NC had already accepted (informally
without a vote) the reinstatement of George Waller as the elected person. The original Challenge
was not a board issue, not accepted, and the reissue comes from outside the view of the election,
hence there is NO VALID CHALLENGE PENDING." --Jeff Scism, who cannot make a point
without yelling

[Do you get the feeling that George Waller owes a great debt to Scott Burow for politely
deciding to step out of the issue? From what we hear, that seat was Scott's for the taking.]

PENDING CONFUSION: Suzanne Shephard suggests that Linda post meeting times for the
various Board sessions, as she is having difficulty "keeping up."

At the end of this reporting period, the Board remained in INFORMAL SESSION.

HOUSEKEEPING: The editorial staff of the DBS has compiled a history of the ill-fated
2004-2005 session of the USGenWeb Advisory Board. You can find it here:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/brdhist4.html

We've also updated the "Dramatis Personae" webpage to add in new Board members and update
some of the listings. It's here:

http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/dramhist.htm

OUR READERS WRITE: Apparently we had another "embarrassing" typo yesterday, to which
our own personal volunteer spell checker has graciously alerted us. We aren't going to bother
fixing it because we are lazy, but we would like you to know that those responsible for sacking
the people who were sacked yesterday have been sacked.

BONUS QUOTE: "...we are only going to be doing this for sixty days. Then we throw Linda out
the window." --David Morgan

-Tersea Lidnquist
Exitor & Pulisher, Drily Broad Slow
qwertyuiop sinCe 1998

posted by merope at 8:50 AM 17 comments   
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Stone Soup
Mixing it up...its Your Daily Board Show!

TAKIN' CARE OF BUSINESS: Yesterday the USGenWeb Advisory Board officially began its
2005-2006 term. First in the queu were some general administrative type chores:

1. Linda published a list of the Board members and what time zones they are in, which was mildly
interesting. They are spread out from one end of the country to the other.

2. Linda then counted up the number of Board members that had responded to the roll call;
eventually all but one [Sundee Maynez] were present and accounted for.

3. Since a majority were present and a quorum was reached, she formally opened the formal
Board meeting.

4. The agenda for the upcoming meeting was published [see below], and the informal meeting was
opened on Board-L, pending the receipt of a dedicated list from Root$web.

5. Linda thanked the departing members of the previous session: "...I want to say a personal thank
you for the time, effort and sheer hard work you gave to the AB during your term...there are a lot
of us out there in the Project who are thankful that good people take the time to serve in what at
times is a pretty thankless job. I wish each and every one of you the very best and I know that
other members will want to add their personal well wishes, especially those who worked with
you." [So far, absolutely no one has leapt at this opportunity. Perhaps the bruises are still a little
too fresh.]

6. Next she welcomed all the new members to the Board, but she wasn't so wordy on this one.

7. Noting that Mike hasn't sent her the August minutes, she dispensed with them for now with the
assurance she would come back to them later.

8. Linda appointed Mike Jarvis and Julie McGrew-Ayers to be the web team, Josh Taylor as the
new Parliamentarian, and, apparently dispensing entirely with the Board Secretary position, Ellen
Pack to do "minutes." [We knew they'd find a way to get her on the Board.] She didn't ask for
consent on this or for any vote to approve her appointments. Darilee asked if she would add the
editor of the USGenWeb Newsletter [which hasn't done squat since...oh, May or something like
that] to the list of appointments and Linda says she will do so as soon as she gets a chance to talk
to her.

9. The Board briefly discussed the status of grievances. [Apparently the outgoing administration
did not actually hand over all their records.] We aren't sure if this is the formal or informal
meeting, though. [It's all so confusing!] Mike led off by suggesting that "every board member
working on any grievance...report the status on Board-Exec, along with describing what remains
to be done...it would also be important for the NC to ask all departed board members if they have
been involved in working with any outstanding grievance. I'd just like to see us all get a handle on
the status of these, if any." Linda said she'd already asked Betsy and Shari and then asked Angie if
she knew of any. Jan noted, "I expressed to all of you, within three hours of this new AB taking
office the necessity of completing the grievance that I have been working on. The status was
given to you along with pertinent data. I would expect that a very timely decision be made on
your part as the parties have waited more than long enough." [We bet this got a very hearty laugh
out of "the parties." The pending grievance they are discussing is probably the one between
Brenda Daniels and Sherri Hall and it's now 9 months old. Sherri originally fired Brenda and
threatened half her local CC's in January 2005 when she got in a snit over Brenda's predecessor on
her county page. Nothing was done about this grievance until Jan was assigned to mediate it June
2005 by our useless ex-Grievance Coordinator Betsy Mills, and we've heard through the
grapevine recently that the mediation quickly stalled because "the mediator isn't mediating," and
because Sherri more or less stonewalled the discussion at every opportunity. Back in early August
Jan indicated to the parties she was turning the matter over to the Board and apparently Shari just
sat on it for the remainder of her term.] In the current session, in a message apparently intended
for secret list, Mike asked, "One thing I'm interested in is what will be said to each party if Jan's
recommended decision is approved. Sometimes it's almost as important how you say it, as the
decision itself, that satisfies the parties to an action like this. It would be very useful for the
reporting board member to propose draft responses when we are discussing/deciding."
[Apparently, Jan's recommended decision isn't going to make someone happy. And also
apparently, they still have no clue what "mediation" is actually all about.]

10. Linda orders the Board to the Sekrit Sandbox to discuss the grievance currently being
mediated by Jan Cortez. She also asks them all to check in when they get there [this is so freaking
silly...she's the one that subbed them. She knows whether or not they are "there."] Mike began his
discussion on the public list, and Linda had to remind him that they'd moved all their toys over to
the other list. Once the Board moved over to the Sekrit Sandbox, all traffic on the public list
ceased.

ORDER OF BUSINESS: Here's the agenda for the formal meeting of the Board; presumably the
informal version is agenda-less.

Call to Order
Dispense with Aug minutes
Best wishes to Departing Members
Welcome to New Members
Announcement of appointment of Parliamentarian, National Web keepers, Keeper of the minutes
Final Decision on a current Grievance - remove to Board-Exec
NC Question to each member re: Board-Exec
Adjourn

Linda hasn't addressed the penultimate item yet, but we'll bet it's the gag agreement they were all
so hot about a few months ago. Presumably we will all be able to witness each and every one of
them lined up on the carpet and forced to swear they will honor the secrecy orders, come hell or
high water. Its interesting she didn't do this before she moved them all over to the Sekrit Sandbox
to discuss the Daniels/Hall grievance, but perhaps she is making them sign in blood there instead
of in public. Its on the public agenda, though, so we're assuming it will be a public spectacle.

Not on the agenda is a call for new volunteer mediators. All five of the 2004-2005 mediators'
terms ended on August 31, and one of them is no longer even on the Board. Even though we will
have a new Grievance Procedures Committee in a couple of weeks and it will, theoretically at
least, finish its work in a couple of months, we are curious as to how grievances will be handled in
the interim with no mediators.

Also very conspicuously not on the agenda is Fred Smoot's formal challenge to the seating of
George Waller. Apparently they aren't all that interested in addressing that. This certainly bodes
well for CC concerns. Regardless of what you think of Fred or the challenge, it is a legitimate
challenge and he is a legitimate member, and it deserves a respectful response and reasoned
resolution. We would even go so far as to say that George deserves a formal public resolution of
this matter, if only to lay to rest any lingering doubts about his legitimacy. We guess with all the
haste to move out of the public eye, this item of business got tossed by the wayside.

AUGUST SCORECARD: Here's the August agenda, as it was posted on
August 3:

Call to Order
2. Election Results [done August 2; run-off results posted August 27]
3. Minutes [done August 10]
4. Grievance Procedures Committee Discussion [took up the entire month, finally completed
August 26]
6. New Business
a. Passage of Bylaws Amendment and its implications [discussed August 2-9, completed with the
appointment of Cyndi Enfinger as SP rep on August 9]
b. Family History Month Committee [not done]
c. Other new business [Cyndi Enfinger appointed interim SP representative; formal appointment
of W. David Samuelsen and Mike St. Clair as co-Chairs of the FGS 2005 committee; George
Waller resignation; George Waller unresignation; challenge to George Waller unresignation (on
the secret list); illegal adjournment]
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment"

August did not have a very ambitious agenda and that turned out to be a good thing, because
August was a disaster. The discussion of the grievance procedures committee consumed nearly
the entire month, with only a couple of side trips over to other important issues, and while it
intermittently proved to have a high entertainment factor, in the long run it ended up as just
embarrassing. The cursed month had a fitting ending, though, in the ludicrous gyrations of George
"Waffle" Waller, who one minute was off the Board because of ill health and the next was back on
it because of ill humor, and by the sad and graceless final performance of failed National
Coordinator Shari Handley.

OUR READERS WRITE: Thanks to the many of you that pointed out our embarrasing typo
yesterday. We've fixed it and fired our copy editor.

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

posted by merope at 9:25 AM 3 comments   
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Off The Map
The sound of one hand clapping...its Your Daily Board Show!

BRAVE NEW WORLD: The Board has at long last opened, and the team spent much of last
night taking a roll call and finding out if they are actually able to get and receive mail from the list.
There was no business of substance conducted [which makes sense, it is a holiday weekend].
Mike St. Clair asked how Linda intends to determine a quorum, and apparently she intends to do
it by holding roll calls whenever she opens a meeting. After a brief inaugural roll call, Linda
notified the Board that she would open the formal meeting in the morning if all the members had
checked in. The Sekrit Sandbox is apparently not open for play yet, but no doubt it soon will be.

NEW WORLD ORDER: We are pleased to report that we are subbed back to the Board list. You
may recall that Shari "Who?" Handley revoked our press pass way back in January when she got
in a snit over us publicizing her decision to Project mailing list passwords to a public webpage.
Apparently with the changing of the guard, the slate has been wiped clean. Elsewhere in the news,
our new National Nanny published the new list rules for DISCUSS. Although in substance not
overly different than the rules of former list handlers, at least they no longer stoop to restricting
what people may put in their signature files.

IF TWO IS GOOD, THREE MUST BE BETTER: With all the glad-handing, backslapping, and
general goodwill that generally floats around the opening of a new Board session, you might have
thought Linda would leap at the opportunity to try something truly different, like actually holding
an honest-to-god national level public meeting in which members could participate [she shot that
idea right down], or maybe even shutting down the Sekrit Sandbox [maybe when pigs fly], but
you'd be wrong. Her Bold New Idea for Board meetings is, [wait for it] a New and Improved
meeting list for the Board. This one will be an informal yap site for the Board members, where
they can let down their hair, so to speak, and get it on without having to worry about all that
pesky Sturgis stuff. From the horse's mouth:

"Many boards hold informal meetings - meetings where members are free to discuss issues...do
brainstorming, throw out ideas, decide something will or will not work, withdraw an idea, and
have some fun to relieve the stress...There are no requirements to be sure that every word, idea or
point of discussion is acceptable under parliamentary procedure. Many informal meetings use
something called consensus, which is nothing more than the people in an informal meeting arriving
at a decision on an issue that everyone can live with and feeling that the decision is the best
decision possible. Once an item has been agreed to...a formal meeting will be convened, where
parliamentary procedures can be followed. Motions, voting and formal announcements will take
place in a formal meeting and since an issue will have been thoroughly discussed and the wording
of a motion informally agreed on there should not be a lot of lengthy discussion in a formal
meeting."

Yup. This is the best idea since sliced bread. Ah well, its her party. She floated this past
DISCUSS and all four regional lists, but hasn't actually floated it past the Board yet, at least not
publicly. Public reception to the idea has been tepid. From the tone of her message, its not
something the Board itself will have much say in anyways, although she may surprise us and put it
up for a vote. At least she's honest in stating at least one of its primary purposes: avoiding the
niceties imposed by accepted parliamentary procedure. Linda goes on to say:

"This is a very different approach than the advisory board meetings of the past and I've been told
by several people that this approach will not work...that the members of the AB will refuse to
participate in any such "unofficial" activity...that some of the more vocal members of this project
will be quick to ridicule and sneer at ideas that pop up in a brainstorming session so no one will
advance an idea..if the nay sayers are correct...then we can go back to the "usual" way. All that
I'm asking of everyone is to give my idea a try...Will everyone give this a 60 day trial?"

Sure, whatever. We'd be hard-pressed to come up with reasons why having three Board meeting
lists is any improvement over or even all that different from having two Board lists, but its not
likely to be an unmitigated disaster. The Board doesn't generally discuss much until there's a
motion on the table anyways.

Anyways, by our count, the Board will now have three lists that it can mud wrestle on for the
general amusement of the public. We are clearly going to have to hire more interns.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Reminding the world that the emperor has no clothes since 1998

posted by merope at 7:15 AM 12 comments   
Friday, September 02, 2005
Wait For It....
Twiddling our thumbs...its Your Daily Board Show!

DELAYED GRATIFICATION: The Board still is not in session. Yesterday, new NC Linda Haas
Davenport posted the following message to the DISCUSS and regional lists:

"...Board-L will not be opened today. Shari sent me all the passwords...and I am working on
trying to get everything up and running....I have one password that doesn't want to work and
couple of other slight problems. Hopefully I can get everything under control and have things up
and running by sometime tomorrow. The new list for the Grievance Procedure Guideline
Committee has been set up and I have sent the information to Angie so I'm guessing she'll make
an announcement later today...Thanks for everyone's understanding."

Hopefully we'll see some action later today. Linda is usually up and running pretty early in the
morning.

SANDBOX POLITICS: In the absence of an actual Board meeting, various members of the
Project discussed Fred Smoot's nascent challenge to George Waller's presence on the Board. A
few days ago new Board member Mike "Golly Gee Willickers" St. Clair ran an informal poll of
the couple dozen SCs and ASCs whom George will theoretically represent. He noted "I
decided...to ask this group what they would prefer. If I got enough answers, I would know how
the project members affected wished this matter to be decided. At the same time, such answers
might satisfy Jeff's most important concern. This was not intended to be a project poll and should
not be considered an election...But the answers did tell me what I needed to know in order to
vote their interests. It also sounds like Jeff's major concerns were satisfied...I got answers from
almost half of the members to be represented by George or another, I feel it's a pretty strong
endorsement - evidence that those particular constituents want George seated on the board at this
time." [We looked around a bit and could find no evidence of this poll, other than it being
mentioned in various places, so it must have been done via email.]

For his part, Fred explains his challenge thusly: "Sturgis has been forced on us almost to point of
being given higher priority than the bylaws and certainly above the intent of those folk who voted
for the original bylaws. So Sturgis seems to be a done deal and if that is so, then we should follow
it impartially OR give its correct and subservient position...I believe that Jeff's challenge was
intellectually worthy, even if he later cut a side deal and withdrew his challenge...The AB will no
doubt declare "the challenge to be without merit." This...will make my challenge a winner by
degrading the effectness of Sturgis. Sturgis should be used *only* to keep an orderly USGWP
house...It will also prove that the new and improved AB is really the same old song and dance,
but with new Mascara. Dismissing my challenge will even further prove that Sturgis is to be used
ONLY against folk who are not part of the Lewis/Fisher Archives Clique...I have issues with any
person who would attempt to take office ONLY for reasons stated by George Waller, and this
comes back to serious questions about his ethics, or rather, lack thereof. However his miraculous
recovery is so noted, may he serve the Archives well."

Newcomers to the show will need to know that, for Fred, everything comes back to the Archives.
They will also need to know, that fine sentiments about loosening poor Alice Sturgis' death grip
on the Project aside, all Fred really wants to do is stir stuff up. We've read the relevant parts of
Sturgis that Jeff and Fred have tossed about, and we think that a very good case can be made for
denying George's withdrawal of his resignation and forcing a new vote on the seat. However, not
only can we recognize the case for the other argument, we can also recognize that a majority of
the voters have already indicated their preference in this matter. Of course that preference could
be expressed differently if a new election were held and someone ran against George that seemed
like a better alternative [not very farfetched at all, almost anyone would qualify], but since the best
man has already dropped out of the race, it appears that the fine folk of the NE/NC region have
more or less accepted their fate. And that should be respected.

We also doubt that denying Fred's challenge will do the violence to Sturgis that he claims it will.
For one thing, his challenge can be denied on grounds other than its actual merit [he may not even
have standing to make it] that will leave Sturgis' authority entirely intact. For another thing, have
you ever known anyone in this Project to put down an effective weapon? We thought not.
Regardless of the outcome of Fred's challenge, people will still happily use Sturgis to bludgeon
each other about the head when the fancy strikes them and they will still ignore it when it's
convenient to do so. Because there are no penalties for abusing Sturgis, there are also no
incentives to use its provisions wisely, judiciously, or for reasons related solely to keeping order
and decorum. Its a blunt instrument and an occasionally very useful one. If it weren't for Sturgis
and a couple of Board members' bullheadedness in using it, we'd most likely be stuck with another
secret committee stacked with Shari "Unlamented" Handley's cronies and hangers-on. [She,
incidentally, did the real damage to Sturgis with her little temper tantrum at the end of her term by
pointedly demonstrating that even the mighty Sturgis is helpless in the face of a sore loser in
possession of the keys to the meeting room.]

Anyways, since George's stated reasons for rescinding his resignation didn't involve actually
serving his constituents but mostly seemed to involve spiting ourselves and Fred, we're at least
heartened to see that the Board will not be without its toddler set in the coming year. We do hope
the lessons on playing nice and respecting the property of others stick.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Going through the motions since 1998

posted by merope at 6:10 AM 14 comments   
Thursday, September 01, 2005
A New Day Dawns
We've heard that one before...its Your Daily Board Show!

THE PIN DROPS: Today the "new" Board starts its term. From the tone of the Letters to the
Editor, this will occasion much heart-felt relief among the peasant classes. But we wouldn't get
too overly happy about the situation. We've been here before and it rarely works out well.
Advisory Boards in this project tend to have very short honeymoons.

With that we note a few goings on about the Project:

1) The Board meeting itself is quiet. The September meeting has apparently not been called to
order and no agenda has been posted. IWRC, new NC Linda Davenport blathered on during her
campaign about having meetings every three months or something like that, so we'll be interested
to see her welcome message to the Board, whenever she gets around to it. [We think most people
would just like to see that Shari Handley actually did turn over the lists before she left instead of
continuing to make everything as difficult as possible by not facilitating a smooth and timely
transfer of power.]

2) Our hapless ex-National Coordinator has apparently limped off into the sunset and foregone
the traditional farewell message. Hopefully she remembered to leave the keys and didn't let the
door hit her heinie on the way out. While we understand the "hang 'em high" sentiments expressed
by several correspondents down in the Comments section, who would like an immediate move to
declare Shari "Gone And Already Forgotten" Handley a Member Not In Good Standing, and
while we might think there would be some measure of poetic justice in it, we think its better just
to forget it. She is, truly, yesterday's news.

2) The web team has shown great timeliness. The Advisory Board page on the national site has
already been updated to reflect the new Board composition. The astute reader will note that the
four appointed positions listed at the bottom are all vacant. We have no idea if Linda will be
asking for volunteers or just making appointments from her inner circle to fill the posts. We think
its highly likely that the web team and parliamentarian will return, but the Board Secretary
position may be up for grabs.

3) New Board member Jeffrey Scism made a great public show of withdrawing his challenge to
George Waller's taking of the NE/NC SC representative seat. Shortly thereafter, Fred Smoot
made a great public show of himself challenging George's seating, using the same basic argument
that Jeff originally did. So, we imagine that among the first items on the Board's agenda will be
declaring the challenge to be without merit and reaffirming George's place on the Board. We hope
they do that quickly and without too much hoo-hah. Even if the challenge is affirmed and George
has to stand for his seat again, he will still end up on the Board and the Project will be no better
off than it is now, except it will be months down the road with more important issues by the
wayside, tempers frayed, and collegiality irreparably damaged. All that will eventually happen
anyways, but its a hell of a way to start out a new term. If they don't come out of the gate
fighting, maybe they can get something done before they all hate each other.

-Teresa Lindquist
Editor & Publisher, Daily Board Show
Pulling no punches since 1998