From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 20:19:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25876 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18101 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f850Ijs02778; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:18:45 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:18:45 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Sep 4 18:18:45 2001 Message-ID: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:18:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1320 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have a few private questions to ask of you all, I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be in limbo. Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we are floundering or is it just me? I am sure there are other concerns but this is what came off the top from me, Kathy "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 20:56:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28895 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26022 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f850tt115628; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:55:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:55:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Tue Sep 4 18:55:55 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:21 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Resent-Message-ID: <7zuiUC.A.D0D.bgXl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1321 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't feel we are floundering, but I do agree that certain things need to laid out. Personally I feel that a Board Secretary is a good idea. One of my suggestions when we were coming up with duties the last time around was the the Secretary would keep the Motions and Voting Records pages up to date on the website. That didn't come to pass, but it is something that would help me. -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:19 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? I have a few private questions to ask of you all, I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be in limbo. Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we are floundering or is it just me? I am sure there are other concerns but this is what came off the top from me, Kathy "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 21:29:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01615 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02397 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:29:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f851SWb30006; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:28:32 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:28:32 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Tue Sep 4 19:28:31 2001 Message-ID: <019801c135a9$8d6a8cc0$e2a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:24:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <48fUY.A.uUH.A_Xl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1322 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Kathy, Not so much that we may be floundering, but whether all of the previous rules of engagement are to remain or can we set new rules. I guess what has been is okay, but if 48 hrs is not needed, do we still need it? And other things as well. Just so everyone is on the same page and knows now. I know that we have RR but I assume that is a guide and not a mandate. Just checking. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Kathy Heidel To: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:18 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > I have a few private questions to ask of you all, > I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? > Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so > Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be > in limbo. Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will > that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to > wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more > need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we > are floundering or is it just me? > I am sure there are other concerns but this is what came off the top from > me, > Kathy > "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > USGenWeb Project > County Coordinator for KS & MO > KS Civil War, KS Native American > NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 21:48:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA03088 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06188 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f851mNS14776; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:48:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:48:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Sep 4 19:48:22 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010904214714.03930470@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 22:00:59 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1323 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? yes, we do need to discuss some ground rules >Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so >Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be >in limbo. That's me being a coward, haven't thought of a nice way to tell her I'd rather not have her continue and been focused on our other business >Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will >that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to >wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more >need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we >are floundering or is it just me? I don't think we are floundering but I think we do need to discuss procedures. As to voting times (and discussion times), we need to maintain some flexibility. Some things are pretty cut and dried like accepting Ken's resignation, requiring no discussion, other things end up with lots of discussion. Votes during the week are fine at 48 hours... over a weekend and even more so over a holiday weekend, perhaps we need longer. From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 21:49:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA03135 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06329 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f851n2x15488; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:49:02 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:49:02 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Sep 4 19:49:02 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:04:57 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <019801c135a9$8d6a8cc0$e2a028d8@hppav> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1324 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I am too new to entirely understand what the old rules were let alone if they should stand or whether they should change. I do think the idea of getting ourselves onto the same page is terrific. Kathy thanks for raising it. My questions would be: 1) was there controversy regarding the issue of a secretary before? If so, do we "newbies" need to know what and why in order to be part of informed conversation? 2) regarding the length of time for a vote, my common sense says that in the "real world" if a Board member misses a meeting, so long as there was a quorum to vote and a majority established, the vote would hold. Are we different than that? 3) What about this idea of distinguishing between a poll and a special election and the issue of javascript and votes? 4) I do not know if I am getting questions because I am new, but I definitely do *not* know how the bylaws have been interpreted in the past. If there is anything Board newbies need to know, will clue us in? BTW, this is why I had hoped Tim would sub us to the Exec-L ahead of time so wee could hit the ground running :) Regarding the job descriptions and status of SCs, I have had a few of responses essentially saying each state figures it out for themselves. I suspect we should we have dialogue on Board-L regarding this, how it works, the place of the Board in it, etc. as an educational piece??? I know I would benefit :) That's it for now... so far, I think we are doing well (pat pat) Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:25 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? I agree with Kathy, Not so much that we may be floundering, but whether all of the previous rules of engagement are to remain or can we set new rules. I guess what has been is okay, but if 48 hrs is not needed, do we still need it? And other things as well. Just so everyone is on the same page and knows now. I know that we have RR but I assume that is a guide and not a mandate. Just checking. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Kathy Heidel To: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:18 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > I have a few private questions to ask of you all, > I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? > Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so > Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be > in limbo. Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will > that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to > wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more > need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we > are floundering or is it just me? > I am sure there are other concerns but this is what came off the top from > me, > Kathy > "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > USGenWeb Project > County Coordinator for KS & MO > KS Civil War, KS Native American > NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 4 22:50:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08124 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17846 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f852na916080; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:49:36 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:49:36 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Sep 4 20:49:36 2001 Message-ID: <02ac01c135b5$60fc8880$8af499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010904214714.03930470@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:49:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1325 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? : At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: : >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, : >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? : : yes, we do need to discuss some ground rules : : >Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so : >Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be : >in limbo. : : That's me being a coward, haven't thought of a nice way to tell her I'd : rather not have her continue and been focused on our other business KH - Holly, the perfect reason is due in March, just tell Sundee that knowing that a baby is coming and how much work is involved you would like to select someone else. : : >Are we going to still require the 48 hr limit for voting or will : >that change to say 24 - 30 hrs to move things along? Also are we going to : >wait for all votes to come in or a majority. I think these things and more : >need to be defined before too much longer. Are the any of you concerned we : >are floundering or is it just me? : : I don't think we are floundering but I think we do need to discuss : procedures. As to voting times (and discussion times), we need to maintain : some flexibility. Some things are pretty cut and dried like accepting Ken's : resignation, requiring no discussion, other things end up with lots of : discussion. Votes during the week are fine at 48 hours... over a weekend : and even more so over a holiday weekend, perhaps we need longer. KH - Floundering wasn't the correct term, I just need to know what is expected and how to procede. : : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 02:58:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA27693 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29055 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f856vcf09608; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:57:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:57:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Sep 5 00:57:38 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010905022600.022a85f0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:26:00 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010904214714.03930470@mail.bright.net> References: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1326 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:00 PM 9/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: >>I have a few private questions to ask of you all, >>I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? > >yes, we do need to discuss some ground rules > >>Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, if so >>Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be >>in limbo. > >That's me being a coward, haven't thought of a nice way to tell her I'd >rather not have her continue and been focused on our other business Holly, If I may make a suggestion to you regarding Sundee... Perhaps you could say something to the effect that as the new NC you would prefer to have a Secretary of your own choosing. Then thank her for her service as Board Secretary and ask her to stay on until such time as a new Secretary is selected by the AB. Just a thot. Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 02:58:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA27702 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29066 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f856vdE09681; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:57:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:57:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Sep 5 00:57:39 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010905023311.022a85f0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:33:11 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1327 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? What are the rules concerning this list going to be? Are we going to have ANY confidential matters here or is it OK with the rest of you that matters discussed here either directly or indirectly are aired by other members through various media? Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 07:17:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA15273 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08557 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85BHLI06735; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:17:21 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:17:21 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Sep 5 05:17:20 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905072903.03a5a210@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 07:29:53 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com, Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010905022600.022a85f0@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010904214714.03930470@mail.bright.net> <024f01c135a0$4ca05520$8af499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1328 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Actually I am not wholly against her either and I have initiated discussion with her. At 02:26 AM 9/5/01 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > >>Such as taking care of a Board Secretary position, will one be needed, > if so > >>Holly do you want Sundee or someone of your choosing? Sundee should not be > >>in limbo. > > > >That's me being a coward, haven't thought of a nice way to tell her I'd > >rather not have her continue and been focused on our other business > >Holly, > >If I may make a suggestion to you regarding Sundee... > >Perhaps you could say something to the effect that as the new NC you would >prefer to have a Secretary of your own choosing. Then thank her for her >service as Board Secretary and ask her to stay on until such time as a new >Secretary is selected by the AB. > >Just a thot. > >Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 10:20:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA01252 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20407 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:20:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85EKMH13826; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:20:22 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:20:22 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Wed Sep 5 08:20:22 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:19:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010905023311.022a85f0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Resent-Message-ID: <3UwAIC.A.5XD.mSjl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1329 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: It is NOT OK with me for the discussions that we have here to be aired throughout the Project. The whole purpose of this list is to have private discussions and we say things here that are not for publication. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:33 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? What are the rules concerning this list going to be? Are we going to have ANY confidential matters here or is it OK with the rest of you that matters discussed here either directly or indirectly are aired by other members through various media? Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 10:51:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04293 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28558 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85Ep1a03039; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:51:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:51:01 -0600 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Wed Sep 5 08:51:01 2001 Message-ID: <000f01c135f8$192e22a0$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:47:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: <9TtAJD.A.Vv.Vvjl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1330 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Pam,discussions on this list should not be made public. That would be defeating the purpose of this list. Diane Montgomery Parsons ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Reid" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > It is NOT OK with me for the discussions that we have here to be aired > throughout the Project. The whole purpose of this list is to have private > discussions and we say things here that are not for publication. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:33 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > > At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, > >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? > > What are the rules concerning this list going to be? > > Are we going to have ANY confidential matters here or is it OK with the > rest of you that matters discussed here either directly or indirectly > are aired by other members through various media? > > Tim > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 14:01:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA26962 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16712 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85I1FN20444; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:01:15 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:01:15 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Sep 5 12:01:15 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:47:43 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000f01c135f8$192e22a0$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1331 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I too agree. There are some things that we need to have a place to figure out without inciting chaos. Sometimes we hear things and need to clarify (my example last week about a buy out of RW/A is a good example). It does not mean we are making policy decisions to have a safe place to go to "get it right".... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Diane Parsons [mailto:ky.quest@gte.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:47 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? I agree with Pam,discussions on this list should not be made public. That would be defeating the purpose of this list. Diane Montgomery Parsons ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Reid" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > It is NOT OK with me for the discussions that we have here to be aired > throughout the Project. The whole purpose of this list is to have private > discussions and we say things here that are not for publication. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:33 AM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > > At 07:18 PM 9/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I have a few private questions to ask of you all, > >I am wondering if ground rules should not be laid down for us to follow? > > What are the rules concerning this list going to be? > > Are we going to have ANY confidential matters here or is it OK with the > rest of you that matters discussed here either directly or indirectly > are aired by other members through various media? > > Tim > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 17:23:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22167 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07613 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85LMxn27934; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:22:59 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:22:59 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Sep 5 15:22:59 2001 Message-ID: <007401c13650$67bb5b60$35a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:19:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <8xgd0B.A.V0G.zepl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1332 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Not to cause a rift but just to check the waters. So far, at least today, I haven't seen anything being printed that reflects dialogue or who said what on this list. Just very vague notation that a particular topic is being discussed and even then only as private if that is what it is. I guess I don't have a problem with that type of reporting. I haven't seen anything so far that has actually needed hiding from anyone. I wouldn't want actual conversations being repeated without that persons permission, no different than any other list, but saying we are discussing a certain topic or that we are discussing private matters shouldn't be a problem. It's either that or go back to secrecy completely which causes extreme problems with some others anyway. As has already been mentioned, we are not going to please everyone. But Holly is the one to make that call and I will do as others have and try my best to honor the rules of the list. But I must tell you now, I will not lie to hide anything. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 18:24:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28973 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24242 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85MMEu00354; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:22:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:22:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Sep 5 16:22:14 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905183101.00cf9ca0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:34:49 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com, Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: <007401c13650$67bb5b60$35a028d8@hppav> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1333 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:19 PM 9/5/01 -0400, Ron Eason wrote: >Not to cause a rift but just to check the waters. >So far, at least today, I haven't seen anything >being printed that reflects dialogue or who said >what on this list. Just very vague notation that >a particular topic is being discussed and even then >only as private if that is what it is. One thing I do not think should be mentioned off list in any way is when we mention we will be away for a day or two or other such personal life notes. >I guess I don't have a problem with that type of >reporting. I haven't seen anything so far that has >actually needed hiding from anyone. >I wouldn't want actual conversations being repeated >without that persons permission, no different than >any other list, but saying we are discussing a certain >topic or that we are discussing private matters shouldn't >be a problem. No problem here so far >It's either that or go back to secrecy completely which >causes extreme problems with some others anyway. >As has already been mentioned, we are not going to >please everyone. But Holly is the one to make that >call and I will do as others have and try my best to honor >the rules of the list. Thank you Ron. So far, I think we are doing fine and although we (any of us) might make a mis-step or two I think we will find our way to what is appropriate. >But I must tell you now, I will not lie to hide anything. Wouldn't expect you to Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 20:41:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10674 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:41:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22367 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f860fFw11564; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:41:15 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:41:15 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Sep 5 18:41:15 2001 Message-ID: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:41:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Resent-Message-ID: <3Pm_5.A.j0C.rYsl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1334 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Okay everyone, One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am trying. Kathy "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 20:48:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA11124 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23476 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f860lZU15570; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:47:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:47:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Sep 5 18:47:35 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905205717.02f7a100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 21:00:11 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems In-Reply-To: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1335 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: >Okay everyone, >One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his >browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and >said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out >ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution >if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am >trying. >Kathy Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. >"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" >Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net >South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP >USGenWeb Project >County Coordinator for KS & MO >KS Civil War, KS Native American >NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:03:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA12546 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26341 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f8612vJ13964; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:02:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:02:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Sep 5 19:02:57 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:50:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1336 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Kathy, I too have been involved in conversation with this same one person, I suspect, as Keith wrote me off list in reply to what this person posted on the SW/SC list. Keith's comment was that this person was indeed the only one in the Project to comment on javascript. He apparently filed a grievance the day after the election began to protest the use of javascript. He uses Lynx. What he wants is that the EC change all their code to accommodate browsers that do not accept javascript. Keith tried to accommodate him by creating a form (plain paper) for just him to use in the election and he opted not to vote at all. Now he says he may leave the Project altogether if the software is not made non java compliant. I suggested it might be asking a bit much to change the software to meet the needs of one person and told him I would hate to see him leave. I also suggested he conduct a survey to find out how many CCs need non java software. In his last reply, he says he is no longer proud to belong to the Project and this has been going on a long time.... Now, he is saying that I am making him to be what he is not and that there are lots of handicapped folks who use Lynx with their speech readers. I do not know his specific situation, but it got me wondering. I wrote back once more saying I had not known that and would be interested in more facts. He has not replied and he has unsubbed from the SW/SC list ... all the conversation was quite polite, but he is utterly determined not to change in any way. I told him I felt at a loss... Is there a way we can determine: 1) how much would be entailed to add non java language to the software? 2) how many people need/prefer it? I hate to alienate anyone, but practicality is an issue as well, it seems. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:41 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Okay everyone, One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am trying. Kathy "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:09:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13102 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27635 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f86193Y17793; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:09:03 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:09:03 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Wed Sep 5 19:09:02 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905195514.02c6e210@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:05:38 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905205717.02f7a100@mail.bright.net> References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1337 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. Betsy At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: >>Okay everyone, >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am >>trying. >>Kathy > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. > > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP >>USGenWeb Project >>County Coordinator for KS & MO >>KS Civil War, KS Native American >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:11:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13323 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28049 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f861BDn22033; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:11:13 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:11:13 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Wed Sep 5 19:11:13 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905200858.02c79c10@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:10:15 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems In-Reply-To: References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1338 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Okay, so strike the previous note. He can email his vote to someone to be added to the tally by hand. It doesn't have to be a "paper" ballot. Betsy At 07:50 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: >Hi Kathy, > >I too have been involved in conversation with this same one person, I >suspect, as Keith wrote me off list in reply to what this person posted on >the SW/SC list. > >Keith's comment was that this person was indeed the only one in the Project >to comment on javascript. He apparently filed a grievance the day after the >election began to protest the use of javascript. He uses Lynx. > >What he wants is that the EC change all their code to accommodate browsers >that do not accept javascript. Keith tried to accommodate him by creating a >form (plain paper) for just him to use in the election and he opted not to >vote at all. Now he says he may leave the Project altogether if the software >is not made non java compliant. > >I suggested it might be asking a bit much to change the software to meet the >needs of one person and told him I would hate to see him leave. I also >suggested he conduct a survey to find out how many CCs need non java >software. In his last reply, he says he is no longer proud to belong to the >Project and this has been going on a long time.... > >Now, he is saying that I am making him to be what he is not and that there >are lots of handicapped folks who use Lynx with their speech readers. I do >not know his specific situation, but it got me wondering. I wrote back once >more saying I had not known that and would be interested in more facts. He >has not replied and he has unsubbed from the SW/SC list ... all the >conversation was quite polite, but he is utterly determined not to change in >any way. I told him I felt at a loss... > >Is there a way we can determine: >1) how much would be entailed to add non java language to the software? >2) how many people need/prefer it? > >I hate to alienate anyone, but practicality is an issue as well, it seems. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:41 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Java Problems > > >Okay everyone, >One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his >browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and >said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out >ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution >if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am >trying. >Kathy > >"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" >Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net >South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP >USGenWeb Project >County Coordinator for KS & MO >KS Civil War, KS Native American >NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:25:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14359 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00700 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f861Odk01166; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:24:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:24:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Wed Sep 5 19:24:39 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905213210.032f6c40@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 21:37:14 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems In-Reply-To: References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1339 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: As I understand it, Keith spent a couple of hours building a special form for this person. Larry built a special html page. None of these things satisfied him. There were two other people who had a problem, one just needed to have it explained how to turn javascript on, the other was quite satisfied using a "paper ballot". At 05:50 PM 9/5/01 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >What he wants is that the EC change all their code to accommodate browsers >that do not accept javascript. Keith tried to accommodate him by creating a >form (plain paper) for just him to use in the election and he opted not to >vote at all. Now he says he may leave the Project altogether if the software >is not made non java compliant. > >I suggested it might be asking a bit much to change the software to meet the >needs of one person and told him I would hate to see him leave. I also >suggested he conduct a survey to find out how many CCs need non java >software. In his last reply, he says he is no longer proud to belong to the >Project and this has been going on a long time.... > >Now, he is saying that I am making him to be what he is not and that there >are lots of handicapped folks who use Lynx with their speech readers. I do >not know his specific situation, but it got me wondering. I wrote back once >more saying I had not known that and would be interested in more facts. He >has not replied and he has unsubbed from the SW/SC list ... all the >conversation was quite polite, but he is utterly determined not to change in >any way. I told him I felt at a loss... > >Is there a way we can determine: >1) how much would be entailed to add non java language to the software? >2) how many people need/prefer it? > >I hate to alienate anyone, but practicality is an issue as well, it seems. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:41 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Java Problems > > >Okay everyone, >One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his >browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and >said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out >ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution >if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am >trying. >Kathy > >"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" >Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net >South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP >USGenWeb Project >County Coordinator for KS & MO >KS Civil War, KS Native American >NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:38:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA15554 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03200 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f861c2S10343; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:38:02 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:38:02 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Sep 5 19:38:02 2001 Message-ID: <004c01c13674$8afb0f20$85f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> <4.3.2.7.2.20010905213210.032f6c40@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:37:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1340 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I did receive a private email from him yesterday and he said "Like I said in my grievance, before the election was over, that is not acceptable. I have always been able to vote just like everybody else, until this year, when Linda and Keith decided to use software that locks a minority of us out." I am at a loss as to what needs to be done. Does David Samuelson use the same type of Browser? I believe he also has some type of special equipment to aid him. Maybe he would have a suggestion that could be of help. The writer is correct in stating the Project will hurt from his loss, he is a hard working census person, and is constantly adding resource pages. My personal opinion is that since the EC has done what is possible, and has also followed the guidelines, the obstinate voter might be able to "give" a little bit. But my thoughts are also tempered with what if this were me? Kathy From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:48:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16374 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05234 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f861mN820885; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:48:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:48:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Wed Sep 5 19:48:23 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010905204434.02c768b0@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 20:47:27 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems In-Reply-To: <004c01c13674$8afb0f20$85f499cd@n3a8a0> References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> <4.3.2.7.2.20010905213210.032f6c40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0ZN91.A.MGF.nXtl7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1341 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I think this David is David Morgan. David Samuelson is deaf, not blind. Betsy At 08:37 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: > I did receive a private email from him yesterday and he said "Like I >said in my grievance, before the election was over, that is not acceptable. >I have always been able to vote just like everybody else, until this year, >when Linda and Keith decided to use software >that locks a minority of us out." > I am at a loss as to what needs to be done. Does David Samuelson use the >same type of Browser? I believe he also has some type of special equipment >to aid him. Maybe he would have a suggestion that could be of help. The >writer is correct in stating the Project will hurt from his loss, he is a >hard working census person, and is constantly adding resource pages. >My personal opinion is that since the EC has done what is possible, and has >also followed the guidelines, the obstinate voter might be able to "give" a >little bit. But my thoughts are also tempered with what if this were me? >Kathy From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 21:50:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16581 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05581 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f861nrw21774; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:49:53 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:49:53 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Sep 5 19:49:53 2001 Message-ID: <020901c13675$b04574e0$35a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> <4.3.2.7.2.20010905195514.02c6e210@mail.1starnet.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:45:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1342 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: It is unfortunate but I assume that we have all been to a website that in one way or another something on it was inaccessible to you. I know I have but I don't think that stopping the whole process is the answer. Keith is a valuable member of the Project and as such we want to do all we can to help. But there is a point where, as we do all we can, we must hope that he also will do something to help the situation as well. Do we scrap an entire system because of it? Can an entry page be made that will allow the user to choose between java and a non-java version? Just as a script can be inserted in a code to determine the type of browser you use and other things of interest about your computer, can a script be included to determine whether java is available, and then switch the user to a plain html
method of posting? Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to weigh these things. And why is it that he will not work with the system as much as he wants the system to work with him? Just a few questions. Any ideas? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Betsy Mills To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems > You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. > > Betsy > > At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: > >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: > >>Okay everyone, > >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his > >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and > >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out > >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution > >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am > >>trying. > >>Kathy > > > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the > >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. > > > > > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > >>USGenWeb Project > >>County Coordinator for KS & MO > >>KS Civil War, KS Native American > >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 23:14:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23451 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20548 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f863E7727875; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:14:07 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:14:07 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Wed Sep 5 21:14:06 2001 Message-ID: <006601c13681$f66cefa0$85f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <002601c1366c$9bdffc40$85f499cd@n3a8a0> <4.3.2.7.2.20010905213210.032f6c40@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010905204434.02c768b0@mail.1starnet.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:13:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1343 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes Betsy you have the right David's in the right place, but I thought David S. used a special system also and that he might have an idea. I know that Keith and Linda have tried, so I guess that is about all that can be done. David M is going to have to bend a bit or not vote. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy Mills" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 08:47 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : I think this David is David Morgan. David Samuelson is deaf, not blind. : : Betsy : : : At 08:37 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: : > I did receive a private email from him yesterday and he said "Like I : >said in my grievance, before the election was over, that is not acceptable. : >I have always been able to vote just like everybody else, until this year, : >when Linda and Keith decided to use software : >that locks a minority of us out." : > I am at a loss as to what needs to be done. Does David Samuelson use the : >same type of Browser? I believe he also has some type of special equipment : >to aid him. Maybe he would have a suggestion that could be of help. The : >writer is correct in stating the Project will hurt from his loss, he is a : >hard working census person, and is constantly adding resource pages. : >My personal opinion is that since the EC has done what is possible, and has : >also followed the guidelines, the obstinate voter might be able to "give" a : >little bit. But my thoughts are also tempered with what if this were me? : >Kathy : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Wed Sep 5 23:49:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25960 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26433 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f863mds20024; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:48:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:48:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Sep 5 21:48:39 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:36:11 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <020901c13675$b04574e0$35a028d8@hppav> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1344 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Ron, Essentially you are asking everything I asked him. It is not Keith, it is David Morgan as Betsy figured out. And David is a hard worker.... (as is Keith :) His suggestion is that the page be made in plain text (like the Archives, he said). During the election he wrote me to complain because I had used frames on my election page. I worked with him for about two days to learn how to make the page work so he could read it... He ended up essentially volunteering to take my script and rewrite it so it would work on his browser. I have a pretty decent handle on html, but I still got lost along the way (I "chickened out" and went to wysiwyg years ago, so my *code* is not completely brain current...). My guess is that it would be more than a little deal for Keith to do a rewrite. On the other hand, how we can be seen by those with special needs is an excellent point perhaps for future discussion??? Perhaps at some point we will need to think about what we do *for* our elderly research population under such circumstances??? If accessibility is important to us, it is worth thinking about. AS David said, "Even the federal government believes in accessibility for all...." Bleegh, this is a hard one. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:46 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems It is unfortunate but I assume that we have all been to a website that in one way or another something on it was inaccessible to you. I know I have but I don't think that stopping the whole process is the answer. Keith is a valuable member of the Project and as such we want to do all we can to help. But there is a point where, as we do all we can, we must hope that he also will do something to help the situation as well. Do we scrap an entire system because of it? Can an entry page be made that will allow the user to choose between java and a non-java version? Just as a script can be inserted in a code to determine the type of browser you use and other things of interest about your computer, can a script be included to determine whether java is available, and then switch the user to a plain html method of posting? Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to weigh these things. And why is it that he will not work with the system as much as he wants the system to work with him? Just a few questions. Any ideas? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Betsy Mills To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems > You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. > > Betsy > > At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: > >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: > >>Okay everyone, > >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his > >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and > >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out > >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution > >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am > >>trying. > >>Kathy > > > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the > >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. > > > > > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > >>USGenWeb Project > >>County Coordinator for KS & MO > >>KS Civil War, KS Native American > >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 00:12:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA27976 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00494 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f864CU721028; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:12:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:12:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Wed Sep 5 22:12:29 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:11:51 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1345 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have two rules of thumb when I am designing web pages. If the pages are for USGW or other organizations where it is important that everyone be able to access, I play to the lowest common denominator. If the pages I am designing are for my own site or for a company that wants high tech, I get as fancy as I like - Java Script, Java Applets, you name it. Now, with the Elections software, alternative measures that would work for David and others with accessibility problems were implemented. IMO, that is fair enough. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:36 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Hi Ron, Essentially you are asking everything I asked him. It is not Keith, it is David Morgan as Betsy figured out. And David is a hard worker.... (as is Keith :) His suggestion is that the page be made in plain text (like the Archives, he said). During the election he wrote me to complain because I had used frames on my election page. I worked with him for about two days to learn how to make the page work so he could read it... He ended up essentially volunteering to take my script and rewrite it so it would work on his browser. I have a pretty decent handle on html, but I still got lost along the way (I "chickened out" and went to wysiwyg years ago, so my *code* is not completely brain current...). My guess is that it would be more than a little deal for Keith to do a rewrite. On the other hand, how we can be seen by those with special needs is an excellent point perhaps for future discussion??? Perhaps at some point we will need to think about what we do *for* our elderly research population under such circumstances??? If accessibility is important to us, it is worth thinking about. AS David said, "Even the federal government believes in accessibility for all...." Bleegh, this is a hard one. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:46 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems It is unfortunate but I assume that we have all been to a website that in one way or another something on it was inaccessible to you. I know I have but I don't think that stopping the whole process is the answer. Keith is a valuable member of the Project and as such we want to do all we can to help. But there is a point where, as we do all we can, we must hope that he also will do something to help the situation as well. Do we scrap an entire system because of it? Can an entry page be made that will allow the user to choose between java and a non-java version? Just as a script can be inserted in a code to determine the type of browser you use and other things of interest about your computer, can a script be included to determine whether java is available, and then switch the user to a plain html method of posting? Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to weigh these things. And why is it that he will not work with the system as much as he wants the system to work with him? Just a few questions. Any ideas? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Betsy Mills To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems > You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. > > Betsy > > At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: > >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: > >>Okay everyone, > >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on his > >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back and > >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret out > >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a solution > >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am > >>trying. > >>Kathy > > > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the > >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. > > > > > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > >>USGenWeb Project > >>County Coordinator for KS & MO > >>KS Civil War, KS Native American > >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 00:38:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA29815 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04641 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f864Xpq05637; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:33:51 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:33:51 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Wed Sep 5 22:33:50 2001 Message-ID: <3B96FB97.10E9A46C@cs.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 21:29:11 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: JonesIowa@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1346 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Jana Black wrote: If accessibility is important to us, it is worth > thinking about. AS David said, "Even the federal government believes in > accessibility for all...." > > Bleegh, this is a hard one. > > Jana I beg to differ. This is an easy one. I corresponded with David early on in the election. He is not at all flexible. The EC attempted to make an accommodation for him and, I am sure, would have worked with him to develop a different alternative had he been willing. I live with a handicapped person. She cannot drive a regular car, but must have one equipped with hand controls. What he is asking the Project to do for him is akin to her insisting everyone must have a car with hand controls because she needs to have one. His request is just not reasonable, and not worth the time and effort being spent on it. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 11:52:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23644 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06980 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f86FplT30153; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:51:47 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:51:47 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Thu Sep 6 09:51:47 2001 Message-ID: <004501c136eb$ce16cde0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:51:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1347 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have thought about this quite a bit since last night and first I will state that I am visually impaired, I am also physically handicapped. I do not expect nor wish others to kowtow to me. As long as there are reasonable ways for me to function it is my responsibility to make use of those methods, I do not expect anyone to treat me exceptionally. So applying that same criteria to David M. our EC has gone out of their way to accommodate him. He has chosen to not avail himself of those opportunities. We have done our part and the rest is up to him. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Reid" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:11 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : I have two rules of thumb when I am designing web pages. If the pages are : for USGW or other organizations where it is important that everyone be able : to access, I play to the lowest common denominator. If the pages I am : designing are for my own site or for a company that wants high tech, I get : as fancy as I like - Java Script, Java Applets, you name it. Now, with the : Elections software, alternative measures that would work for David and : others with accessibility problems were implemented. IMO, that is fair : enough. : : Pam : : -----Original Message----- : From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:36 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : Hi Ron, : : Essentially you are asking everything I asked him. It is not Keith, it is : David Morgan as Betsy figured out. And David is a hard worker.... (as is : Keith :) : : His suggestion is that the page be made in plain text (like the Archives, he : said). During the election he wrote me to complain because I had used frames : on my election page. I worked with him for about two days to learn how to : make the page work so he could read it... He ended up essentially : volunteering to take my script and rewrite it so it would work on his : browser. I have a pretty decent handle on html, but I still got lost along : the way (I "chickened out" and went to wysiwyg years ago, so my *code* is : not completely brain current...). : : My guess is that it would be more than a little deal for Keith to do a : rewrite. On the other hand, how we can be seen by those with special needs : is an excellent point perhaps for future discussion??? Perhaps at some point : we will need to think about what we do *for* our elderly research population : under such circumstances??? If accessibility is important to us, it is worth : thinking about. AS David said, "Even the federal government believes in : accessibility for all...." : : Bleegh, this is a hard one. : : Jana : : : : -----Original Message----- : From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:46 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : It is unfortunate but I assume that we have all been : to a website that in one way or another something : on it was inaccessible to you. I know I have but : I don't think that stopping the whole process is the : answer. : Keith is a valuable member of the Project and as such : we want to do all we can to help. But there is a : point where, as we do all we can, we must hope that : he also will do something to help the situation as well. : Do we scrap an entire system because of it? : Can an entry page be made that will allow the user : to choose between java and a non-java version? : Just as a script can be inserted in a code to determine the : type of browser you use and other things of interest about : your computer, can a script be included to determine : whether java is available, and then switch the user to a : plain html method of posting? : Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, : we need to weigh these things. : And why is it that he will not work with the system : as much as he wants the system to work with him? : Just a few questions. Any ideas? : Ron : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: Betsy Mills : To: : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:05 PM : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : > You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. : > : > Betsy : > : > At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: : > >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: : > >>Okay everyone, : > >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on : his : > >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back : and : > >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret : out : > >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a : solution : > >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am : > >>trying. : > >>Kathy : > > : > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the : > >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. : : > > : > > : > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" : > >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net : > >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP : > >>USGenWeb Project : > >>County Coordinator for KS & MO : > >>KS Civil War, KS Native American : > >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP : > > : > > : > : > : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 12:49:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00091 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18693 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f86GmiS04353; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:48:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:48:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Thu Sep 6 10:48:43 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:36:03 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <004501c136eb$ce16cde0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <_seIzB.A.4DB.sj6l7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1348 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Good morning, Late start - had to pick up my son (on crutches from coming down the stairs too quickly at age 19 - go figure :) from his early job, and CA traffic SUCKS! Yeah, you can quote me :) I am replying here to Isaiah's comments and this post. Isaiah, what is hard for me is to have to be "somewhat hard" with a person I respect, who for his own reasons seems to me to be being unreasonable. Not that I won't do it, and FYI, what you stated is so close to what I wrote to David myself, it was uncanny. I am in complete agreement that the EC was very reasonable and we will all have to move on and leave David to his own consideration of the situation letting the chips fall where they may. My mom was deaf and while she was very practical about it ("stand on my left side where I hear better") I grew up fully aware of the sadness we all felt knowing there were certain things she just could not enjoy/do as a result of her handicap. Even the musicians for my wedding were chosen based upon which instruments Mom could hear over in a room full of people so she could talk with the guests, which we gladly did). Such awareness gives me an up-front-and-personal look at handicaps. Still, as Isaiah said, any handicapped person who expects the rest of the world to slow down to their pace will likely find they have a long row to how in life.... Kathy said it well: As long as there are reasonable ways for me to function it is my responsibility to make use of those methods, I do not expect anyone to treat me exceptionally. So applying that same criteria to David M. our EC has gone out of their way to accommodate him. He has chosen to not avail himself of those opportunities. We have done our part and the rest is up to him. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:52 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems I have thought about this quite a bit since last night and first I will state that I am visually impaired, I am also physically handicapped. I do not expect nor wish others to kowtow to me. As long as there are reasonable ways for me to function it is my responsibility to make use of those methods, I do not expect anyone to treat me exceptionally. So applying that same criteria to David M. our EC has gone out of their way to accommodate him. He has chosen to not avail himself of those opportunities. We have done our part and the rest is up to him. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam Reid" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:11 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : I have two rules of thumb when I am designing web pages. If the pages are : for USGW or other organizations where it is important that everyone be able : to access, I play to the lowest common denominator. If the pages I am : designing are for my own site or for a company that wants high tech, I get : as fancy as I like - Java Script, Java Applets, you name it. Now, with the : Elections software, alternative measures that would work for David and : others with accessibility problems were implemented. IMO, that is fair : enough. : : Pam : : -----Original Message----- : From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:36 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : Hi Ron, : : Essentially you are asking everything I asked him. It is not Keith, it is : David Morgan as Betsy figured out. And David is a hard worker.... (as is : Keith :) : : His suggestion is that the page be made in plain text (like the Archives, he : said). During the election he wrote me to complain because I had used frames : on my election page. I worked with him for about two days to learn how to : make the page work so he could read it... He ended up essentially : volunteering to take my script and rewrite it so it would work on his : browser. I have a pretty decent handle on html, but I still got lost along : the way (I "chickened out" and went to wysiwyg years ago, so my *code* is : not completely brain current...). : : My guess is that it would be more than a little deal for Keith to do a : rewrite. On the other hand, how we can be seen by those with special needs : is an excellent point perhaps for future discussion??? Perhaps at some point : we will need to think about what we do *for* our elderly research population : under such circumstances??? If accessibility is important to us, it is worth : thinking about. AS David said, "Even the federal government believes in : accessibility for all...." : : Bleegh, this is a hard one. : : Jana : : : : -----Original Message----- : From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:46 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : It is unfortunate but I assume that we have all been : to a website that in one way or another something : on it was inaccessible to you. I know I have but : I don't think that stopping the whole process is the : answer. : Keith is a valuable member of the Project and as such : we want to do all we can to help. But there is a : point where, as we do all we can, we must hope that : he also will do something to help the situation as well. : Do we scrap an entire system because of it? : Can an entry page be made that will allow the user : to choose between java and a non-java version? : Just as a script can be inserted in a code to determine the : type of browser you use and other things of interest about : your computer, can a script be included to determine : whether java is available, and then switch the user to a : plain html method of posting? : Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, : we need to weigh these things. : And why is it that he will not work with the system : as much as he wants the system to work with him? : Just a few questions. Any ideas? : Ron : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: Betsy Mills : To: : Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:05 PM : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Java Problems : : : > You might ask him what he suggests as a "fix" for the problem. : > : > Betsy : > : > At 09:00 PM 9/5/2001, you wrote: : > >At 07:41 PM 9/5/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: : > >>Okay everyone, : > >>One person emailed me and said that the Java Script would not work on : his : > >>browser. I suggested that a "paper ballot" could be used. He wrote back : and : > >>said that was not acceptable. I am not Techie enough to try to ferret : out : > >>ways to help but I know some of you are. So I am needing help and a : solution : > >>if possible. I am going to put this on list also so he will know I am : > >>trying. : > >>Kathy : > > : > >Kathy, this is the one and only person that reported any problem with the : > >voting procedure and he flatly refused to accept any alternative method. : : > > : > > : > >>"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" : > >>Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net : > >>South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP : > >>USGenWeb Project : > >>County Coordinator for KS & MO : > >>KS Civil War, KS Native American : > >>NW/PLAINS AB CC REP : > > : > > : > : > : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 15:42:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA19889 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01729 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f86JefT14153; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:40:41 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:40:41 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Thu Sep 6 13:40:41 2001 Message-ID: <01a301c1370b$c9037720$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010904214714.03930470@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:40:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: <8bFRxB.A.AdD.5E9l7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1349 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. Kathy --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually violating confidentiality or not. --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people so that they can vote. From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 20:48:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA20252 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11490 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f870li200401; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:47:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:47:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Thu Sep 6 18:47:44 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:35:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <01a301c1370b$c9037720$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <9LtptD.A.HG.wkBm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1350 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is going to be. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. Kathy --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually violating confidentiality or not. --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people so that they can vote. From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 22:03:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA27372 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26061 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f8723Ir27118; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:03:18 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:03:18 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Thu Sep 6 20:03:18 2001 Message-ID: <02a701c13741$3cef4440$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:03:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1351 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes, they are Jana. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? : Hi, : : I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at : the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? : : "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is going : to be. : : Jana : : -----Original Message----- : From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] : Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? : : : First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this : question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand : ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I : received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it : should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private : information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay : private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to : violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made : public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the : Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. : Kathy : : : --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders : seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about : half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually : violating confidentiality or not. : : --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the : voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use : text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses : javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The : Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people : so that they can vote. : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 22:17:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA28397 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28707 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f872BPS31903; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:11:25 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:11:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Thu Sep 6 20:11:25 2001 Message-ID: <036801c13741$dc4b2a40$52a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <02a701c13741$3cef4440$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:07:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Subject: [Board-Exec] Something up?? Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1352 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Has anyone seen or heard this? I received this from a long time friend and avid transcriber. ------snip------ FYI, A company called "Family Heritage", or something like that, is taking IL-CC files without permission. ------snip------ Maybe the Rep for them has heard something? Nate, Robert, Tina ? This is all I have received. They didn't offer anything more. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 22:18:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA28429 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28786 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f872Hj603862; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:17:45 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:17:45 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Thu Sep 6 20:17:44 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 19:04:56 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <02a701c13741$3cef4440$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1353 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how others on the Board view this. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Yes, they are Jana. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? : Hi, : : I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at : the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? : : "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is going : to be. : : Jana : : -----Original Message----- : From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] : Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? : : : First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this : question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand : ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I : received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it : should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private : information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay : private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to : violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made : public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the : Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. : Kathy : : : --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders : seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about : half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually : violating confidentiality or not. : : --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the : voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use : text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses : javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The : Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people : so that they can vote. : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 22:51:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA01447 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04885 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f872o3I05229; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:50:03 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:50:03 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Thu Sep 6 20:50:03 2001 X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.212] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:50:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2001 02:50:00.0891 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9ADF0B0:01C13747] Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1354 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes, we need a place to talk about subjects like this without fear of them being made public in anyway without permission. This dealt with a person who's confidence you were trying to protect Kathy. I see no reason for it to have been necessary to be reported. It is not even good idle gossip, as you were trying to address his request. We need to know we have the ability to protect the privacy of thoes who we are trying to help. Mary Ann >From: "Jana Black" >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 19:04:56 -0700 > >Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how >others on the Board view this. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >Yes, they are Jana. >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >: Hi, >: >: I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at >: the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? >: >: "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is >going >: to be. >: >: Jana >: >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM >: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >: >: >: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this >: question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand >: ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I >: received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it >: should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private >: information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay >: private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to >: violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made >: public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the >: Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. >: Kathy >: >: >: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders >: seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split >about >: half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is >actually >: violating confidentiality or not. >: >: --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the >: voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to >use >: text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses >: javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The >: Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people >: so that they can vote. >: >: >: > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 6 23:44:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA06167 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14437 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f873edU24938; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:40:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:40:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Thu Sep 6 21:40:39 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010906223911.04d81830@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:39:48 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Something up?? In-Reply-To: <036801c13741$dc4b2a40$52a028d8@hppav> References: <02a701c13741$3cef4440$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <_yFM-B.A.hFG.3GEm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1355 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Have you checked with Richard Howland - the ILGenWeb SC? Betsy At 09:07 PM 9/6/2001, you wrote: >Has anyone seen or heard this? > >I received this from a long time friend and avid transcriber. >------snip------ >FYI, A company called "Family Heritage", or something like that, is taking >IL-CC files without permission. >------snip------ > >Maybe the Rep for them has heard something? Nate, Robert, Tina ? >This is all I have received. >They didn't offer anything more. >Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 02:00:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA16925 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05810 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f875xbK08323; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:59:37 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:59:37 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Sep 6 23:59:37 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010907010816.01523a20@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 01:08:16 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? In-Reply-To: References: <02a701c13741$3cef4440$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1356 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: >From the 9/5 - DBS: in part: "Jana's "common sense" tells her that "if only 117 people from that region voted the first go around, we already know we will likely be operating without the *actual* will of the membership...We must shoulder the responsibility for making tough choices as best we can with whatever we get...We can only offer the opportunity for input then do the best we can as a Board. I'll betcha this Board will work really hard to figure out a way to handle it that has CCs at its heart." [yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...]" I find it interesting to say the least that a fellow member here would be saying such with a seeming smirk in their tone. "Tim Stowell informs the Board that Joe Zsedeny is the Chair of the Service Mark Committee and reiterates his refusal to tell the Board what was in the correspondence from the USPTO." Misleading and plain wrong. I said I could not / would not reveal the info being discussed by the committee without the committee's chair, Joe Zsedeny, approval. Of course this type of 'journalism' is nothing new for those of us accustomed to its tint. But back to Kathy and others concern, as well as mine as to the 'rules' on this list, I may have something I'd like to pass along - but will not do it unless I am assured that what is said here not only in words but topic as well stays here. On the other hand in seeking a palatable alternative, would you Teresa and others agree to the confidentially of a subject both by subject and words - IF - the Board voted in public to go into an Executive session versus the continual ebb and flow of this list? Then after said session, if agreed to by all parties involved perhaps some sort of statement could be released on Board-l? Tim At 07:04 PM 9/6/01 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how >others on the Board view this. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >Yes, they are Jana. >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >: Hi, >: >: I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at >: the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? >: >: "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is >going >: to be. >: >: Jana >: >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM >: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >: >: >: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this >: question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand >: ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I >: received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it >: should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private >: information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay >: private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to >: violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made >: public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the >: Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. >: Kathy >: >: >: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders >: seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about >: half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually >: violating confidentiality or not. >: >: --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the >: voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use >: text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses >: javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The >: Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people >: so that they can vote. >: >: >: > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 02:39:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA21112 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12719 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f876dKk03123; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:39:20 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:39:20 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Fri Sep 7 00:39:20 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:26:27 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010907010816.01523a20@mail.chattanooga.net> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1357 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Teresa, Not only have you quoted me without permission, you have distorted my words. Additionally, you have been selective in your presentation and incomplete. You know darned well that I have said over and over that what the Board does has nothing to do with caring or not caring, it has to do with the by-laws and finding acceptable means to get input from the regional CCs. You, Teresa, in fact are the person who suggested you would "vote your conscience" even if your conscience did not agree with what your "constituents" say because you say you believe you have to, at the last, live with yourself. Who were you supposedly referring to when you say "yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...", yourself or me? If you intended to represent me, you got it wrong, BIGTIME. And, it is not OK with me. Meanwhile, this makes it really easy for me. I won't use Board-Exec which includes Teresa. And tomorrow, I will address this distortion on ALL. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:08 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >From the 9/5 - DBS: in part: "Jana's "common sense" tells her that "if only 117 people from that region voted the first go around, we already know we will likely be operating without the *actual* will of the membership...We must shoulder the responsibility for making tough choices as best we can with whatever we get...We can only offer the opportunity for input then do the best we can as a Board. I'll betcha this Board will work really hard to figure out a way to handle it that has CCs at its heart." [yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...]" I find it interesting to say the least that a fellow member here would be saying such with a seeming smirk in their tone. "Tim Stowell informs the Board that Joe Zsedeny is the Chair of the Service Mark Committee and reiterates his refusal to tell the Board what was in the correspondence from the USPTO." Misleading and plain wrong. I said I could not / would not reveal the info being discussed by the committee without the committee's chair, Joe Zsedeny, approval. Of course this type of 'journalism' is nothing new for those of us accustomed to its tint. But back to Kathy and others concern, as well as mine as to the 'rules' on this list, I may have something I'd like to pass along - but will not do it unless I am assured that what is said here not only in words but topic as well stays here. On the other hand in seeking a palatable alternative, would you Teresa and others agree to the confidentially of a subject both by subject and words - IF - the Board voted in public to go into an Executive session versus the continual ebb and flow of this list? Then after said session, if agreed to by all parties involved perhaps some sort of statement could be released on Board-l? Tim At 07:04 PM 9/6/01 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how >others on the Board view this. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >Yes, they are Jana. >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >: Hi, >: >: I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at >: the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? >: >: "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is >going >: to be. >: >: Jana >: >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM >: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >: >: >: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this >: question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand >: ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I >: received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it >: should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private >: information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay >: private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to >: violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made >: public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the >: Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. >: Kathy >: >: >: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders >: seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about >: half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually >: violating confidentiality or not. >: >: --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the >: voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use >: text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses >: javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The >: Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people >: so that they can vote. >: >: >: > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 08:54:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA17474 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10485 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87CsP104653; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 06:54:25 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 06:54:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@verizon.net Fri Sep 7 06:54:24 2001 From: Nathan Zipfel Reply-To: nate@gte.net Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Re: [Board-Exec] Something up?? Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 7:54:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010907125414.HMHQ18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1358 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, I agree with Betsy - Richard should look into this. Nate > > From: Betsy Mills > Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:39:48 -0500 > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Something up?? > > Have you checked with Richard Howland - the ILGenWeb SC? > > Betsy > > > At 09:07 PM 9/6/2001, you wrote: > >Has anyone seen or heard this? > > > >I received this from a long time friend and avid transcriber. > >------snip------ > >FYI, A company called "Family Heritage", or something like that, is taking > >IL-CC files without permission. > >------snip------ > > > >Maybe the Rep for them has heard something? Nate, Robert, Tina ? > >This is all I have received. > >They didn't offer anything more. > >Ron > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 09:06:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA18390 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13525 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87D6au10550; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:06:36 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:06:36 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@verizon.net Fri Sep 7 07:06:36 2001 From: Nathan Zipfel Reply-To: nate@gte.net Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 8:06:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> Subject: [Board-Exec] confidentiality Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1359 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: My 2cents on the "Maybe we should talk" subject. Having served on the Board of a sister project for a number of years I have realized that there is a need to be able to discuss issues with my fellow board members in private and a confidential manner (some may say secret). My local school board has monthly meetings that are open to the public, but they also have a 1 hour closed door "executive" session. That "executive" session is "secret" in that it is closed to the public. The press is excluded from that session as well. They have the right to do that it it does not concern me. We as the Advisory Board need to have "executive" sessions, a means to discuss privately issues without the "public" being there. It's not that we are trying to hide issues from the members of the project, but there are certainly things that are best handled in a private confidential manner. I have no personal "agenda" for the USGenWeb. I just want to see it continue to grow and to ensure our CC's are successful. I would hope that all of us on this list would agree that what we discuss on this list remains here. If that cannot be agreed to, I will not utilize this list, I will have to resort to e-mail folks individually and privately. I appreciate the desire of Teresa to keep the project informed of the Boards actions, but the stuff discussed here should be kept here and not quoted elsewhere without the persons permission. I do not give my permission for my messages on the board-exec list to be forwarded or quoted on any other list or publication or forwarded to individuals who are not members of this list. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 10:54:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28529 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13537 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87Erxg25015; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:53:59 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:53:59 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Fri Sep 7 08:53:58 2001 Message-ID: <009301c137ac$e0806ce0$92f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:53:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Confidence Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1360 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I will not want to find myself in an Editorial in such a way that will hurt another person again. I was terribly embarrassed and hurt. To me the Board Ex should be used for Private, Personal, and Personnel subjects which are to be discussed with confidence that the information will not be conveyed to others outside of this group. I will only bring to this group, topic's which out of respect for another person, can not be discussed in the "open". I wouldn't say anything that I would not say to the person face to face, but I wouldn't want to air it in front of several hundred members either. I, will not give permission to print, report, or editorialize any thing I write or discuss within the Board Ex. If I can not be assured that I am able to confide with my fellow Reps on this list I will go underground. Kathy Heidel "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 13:04:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13390 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15924 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87H4ZA06397; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:04:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:04:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 11:04:35 2001 X-Originating-IP: [152.163.205.51] From: "Mary Ann Hetrick" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Confidence Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 13:04:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2001 17:04:26.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[2659DFF0:01C137BF] Resent-Message-ID: <8EKG6C.A.0jB.j4Pm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1361 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I think most of us agree. We will take our confidential discussions to private email, unless we can know that what we post her is confidential. I replied to Nat's letter, but didn't realize the reply to was back to him, and not the list. I am also stating that my permission is not being granted to use anything from this list, unless I specify it. Mary Ann >From: "Kathy Heidel" >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Confidence >Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:53:37 -0500 > >I will not want to find myself in an Editorial in such a way that will hurt >another person again. I was terribly embarrassed and hurt. To me the Board >Ex should be used for Private, Personal, and Personnel subjects which are >to >be discussed with confidence that the information will not be conveyed to >others outside of this group. I will only bring to this group, topic's >which >out of respect for another person, can not be discussed in the "open". I >wouldn't say anything that I would not say to the person face to face, but >I >wouldn't want to air it in front of several hundred members either. >I, will not give permission to print, report, or editorialize any thing I >write or discuss within the Board Ex. If I can not be assured that I am >able >to confide with my fellow Reps on this list I will go underground. >Kathy Heidel >"I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" >Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net >South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP >USGenWeb Project >County Coordinator for KS & MO >KS Civil War, KS Native American >NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 13:31:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16740 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:31:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22894 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87HUls07704; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:30:47 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:30:47 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Fri Sep 7 11:30:47 2001 Message-ID: <3B9903A5.25D9C82@cs.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:28:05 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: nate@gte.net Old-CC: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] confidentiality References: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1362 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nathan Zipfel wrote: > > My 2cents on the "Maybe we should talk" subject. Having served on the Board of a sister project for a number of years I have realized that there is a need to be able to discuss issues with my fellow board members in private and a confidential manner (some may say secret). My local school board has monthly meetings that are open to the public, but they also have a 1 hour closed door "executive" session. That "executive" session is "secret" in that it is closed to the public. The press is excluded from that session as well. They have the right to do that it it does not concern me. > > We as the Advisory Board need to have "executive" sessions, a means to discuss privately issues without the "public" being there. It's not that we are trying to hide issues from the members of the project, but there are certainly things that are best handled in a private confidential manner. I have no personal "agenda" for the USGenWeb. I just want to see it continue to grow and to ensure our CC's are successful. > > I would hope that all of us on this list would agree that what we discuss on this list remains here. If that cannot be agreed to, I will not utilize this list, I will have to resort to e-mail folks individually and privately. I appreciate the desire of Teresa to keep the project informed of the Boards actions, but the stuff discussed here should be kept here and not quoted elsewhere without the persons permission. I do not give my permission for my messages on the board-exec list to be forwarded or quoted on any other list or publication or forwarded to individuals who are not members of this list. > > Nate I agree with Nate and the others who have expressed support for maintaining privacy of the Exec list. It is certainly time for Holly, as listowner, to post a statement regarding what list rules she will support and enforce. And for the list members--especially Teresa Lindquist--to post their willingness to agree to them. -Isaiah From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 14:36:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24487 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09674 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87IZjD21223; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:35:45 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:35:45 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Fri Sep 7 12:35:45 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: , Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] confidentiality Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:34:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1363 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nate said it perfectly. I too have no personal agenda, but I do feel that the private and confidential list is necessary and appropriate. Some things are sensitive and come comments aren't meant for general reading. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:06 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] confidentiality My 2cents on the "Maybe we should talk" subject. Having served on the Board of a sister project for a number of years I have realized that there is a need to be able to discuss issues with my fellow board members in private and a confidential manner (some may say secret). My local school board has monthly meetings that are open to the public, but they also have a 1 hour closed door "executive" session. That "executive" session is "secret" in that it is closed to the public. The press is excluded from that session as well. They have the right to do that it it does not concern me. We as the Advisory Board need to have "executive" sessions, a means to discuss privately issues without the "public" being there. It's not that we are trying to hide issues from the members of the project, but there are certainly things that are best handled in a private confidential manner. I have no personal "agenda" for the USGenWeb. I just want to see it continue to grow and to ensure our CC's are successful. I would hope that all of us on this list would agree that what we discuss on this list remains here. If that cannot be agreed to, I will not utilize this list, I will have to resort to e-mail folks individually and privately. I appreciate the desire of Teresa to keep the project informed of the Boards actions, but the stuff discussed here should be kept here and not quoted elsewhere without the persons permission. I do not give my permission for my messages on the board-exec list to be forwarded or quoted on any other list or publication or forwarded to individuals who are not members of this list. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 14:53:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA26118 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13466 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87IqwW06368; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:52:58 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:52:58 -0600 X-Original-Sender: ky.quest@gte.net Fri Sep 7 12:52:57 2001 Message-ID: <000701c137ac$37aef500$0301a8c0@vz.dsl.genuity.net> From: "Diane Parsons" Old-To: Subject: Fw: [Board-Exec] confidentiality Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:48:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1364 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Nate & Pam. I also have nothing to hide, I would just like the freedom to say what's on my mind on this list without fear that it will be repeated and/or used against me.( even though I really seem to have nothing to say anyway *G*) What we discuss on this list should remain here. Diane Montgomery Parsons SNIP > Nate said it perfectly. I too have no personal agenda, but I do feel that > the private and confidential list is necessary and appropriate. Some things > are sensitive and come comments aren't meant for general reading. > > Pam > SNIP > We as the Advisory Board need to have "executive" sessions, a means to > discuss privately issues without the "public" being there. It's not that we > are trying to hide issues from the members of the project, but there are > certainly things that are best handled in a private confidential manner. I > have no personal "agenda" for the USGenWeb. I just want to see it continue > to grow and to ensure our CC's are successful. > > I would hope that all of us on this list would agree that what we discuss on > this list remains here. If that cannot be agreed to, I will not utilize > this list, I will have to resort to e-mail folks individually and privately. > I appreciate the desire of Teresa to keep the project informed of the Boards > actions, but the stuff discussed here should be kept here and not quoted > elsewhere without the persons permission. I do not give my permission for > my messages on the board-exec list to be forwarded or quoted on any other > list or publication or forwarded to individuals who are not members of this > list. > > Nate > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 18:44:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20243 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11102 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87MhhM24132; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:43:43 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:43:43 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Fri Sep 7 16:43:42 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010907010816.01523a20@mail.chattanooga.net> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1365 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim, I understand you are seeking "a palatable alternative" and I appreciate that. However, I think this kind of action will simply serve to extend and slow the AB's ability to accomplish anything down to a crawl. As I said before, either we agree to confidentiality or I, for one, will not use Board-Exec to get my questions answered. For me it is not about "secrecy" it is about *sensitivity*. If Teresa cannot see the difference, so be it. I would suggest that what has transpired on Exec so far has concentrated specifically on problems, and, as a result we are better able to serve our constituents. It is also about not getting buried in email and being able to be responsive in our individual positions. Only a few days into it, I can already see how the AB could otherwise be effectively paralyzed just answering email if there was not a way to "sieve" the conversation into a smaller arena. I really want to work as a group with this group. But if I must "watch my back" all the time, I will simply function to accomplish my needs using different techniques. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:08 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >From the 9/5 - DBS: in part: "Jana's "common sense" tells her that "if only 117 people from that region voted the first go around, we already know we will likely be operating without the *actual* will of the membership...We must shoulder the responsibility for making tough choices as best we can with whatever we get...We can only offer the opportunity for input then do the best we can as a Board. I'll betcha this Board will work really hard to figure out a way to handle it that has CCs at its heart." [yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...]" I find it interesting to say the least that a fellow member here would be saying such with a seeming smirk in their tone. "Tim Stowell informs the Board that Joe Zsedeny is the Chair of the Service Mark Committee and reiterates his refusal to tell the Board what was in the correspondence from the USPTO." Misleading and plain wrong. I said I could not / would not reveal the info being discussed by the committee without the committee's chair, Joe Zsedeny, approval. Of course this type of 'journalism' is nothing new for those of us accustomed to its tint. But back to Kathy and others concern, as well as mine as to the 'rules' on this list, I may have something I'd like to pass along - but will not do it unless I am assured that what is said here not only in words but topic as well stays here. On the other hand in seeking a palatable alternative, would you Teresa and others agree to the confidentially of a subject both by subject and words - IF - the Board voted in public to go into an Executive session versus the continual ebb and flow of this list? Then after said session, if agreed to by all parties involved perhaps some sort of statement could be released on Board-l? Tim At 07:04 PM 9/6/01 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how >others on the Board view this. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >Yes, they are Jana. >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >: Hi, >: >: I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at >: the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? >: >: "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is >going >: to be. >: >: Jana >: >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM >: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >: >: >: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this >: question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand >: ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I >: received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it >: should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private >: information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay >: private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to >: violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made >: public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the >: Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. >: Kathy >: >: >: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders >: seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about >: half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually >: violating confidentiality or not. >: >: --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the >: voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use >: text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses >: javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The >: Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people >: so that they can vote. >: >: >: > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 18:55:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21010 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13784 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87Mt0T00552; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:55:00 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:55:00 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Fri Sep 7 16:55:00 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010907190421.03d305b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:07:35 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] confidentiality In-Reply-To: <3B9903A5.25D9C82@cs.com> References: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1366 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:28 AM 9/7/01 -0700, Richard Harrison wrote: >It is certainly time for Holly, as listowner, to post a statement >regarding what list rules she will support and enforce. And for the list >members--especially Teresa Lindquist--to post their willingness to agree >to them. I am listening very closely to this discussion and would like to hear everyone's opinions before setting the rules. I have some thoughts and suggestions of my own but there are still some on this list who have yet to express their opinion on the issue. Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 18:58:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21246 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14579 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87MvvR05681; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Fri Sep 7 16:57:57 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:55:22 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <4tvVLD.A.oYB.1DVm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1367 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have to agree with Jana on this. The Exec list is our place to discuss sensitive issues and I don't think it should be necessary to announce we are going into Executive Session in order to be assured privacy. It all Board members cannot agree NOT to publicize what is said on Exec, then I for one will not use make use of that list. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 6:30 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Tim, I understand you are seeking "a palatable alternative" and I appreciate that. However, I think this kind of action will simply serve to extend and slow the AB's ability to accomplish anything down to a crawl. As I said before, either we agree to confidentiality or I, for one, will not use Board-Exec to get my questions answered. For me it is not about "secrecy" it is about *sensitivity*. If Teresa cannot see the difference, so be it. I would suggest that what has transpired on Exec so far has concentrated specifically on problems, and, as a result we are better able to serve our constituents. It is also about not getting buried in email and being able to be responsive in our individual positions. Only a few days into it, I can already see how the AB could otherwise be effectively paralyzed just answering email if there was not a way to "sieve" the conversation into a smaller arena. I really want to work as a group with this group. But if I must "watch my back" all the time, I will simply function to accomplish my needs using different techniques. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 10:08 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >From the 9/5 - DBS: in part: "Jana's "common sense" tells her that "if only 117 people from that region voted the first go around, we already know we will likely be operating without the *actual* will of the membership...We must shoulder the responsibility for making tough choices as best we can with whatever we get...We can only offer the opportunity for input then do the best we can as a Board. I'll betcha this Board will work really hard to figure out a way to handle it that has CCs at its heart." [yeah, and if we don't like what they tell us, we'll just do what we want anyways...]" I find it interesting to say the least that a fellow member here would be saying such with a seeming smirk in their tone. "Tim Stowell informs the Board that Joe Zsedeny is the Chair of the Service Mark Committee and reiterates his refusal to tell the Board what was in the correspondence from the USPTO." Misleading and plain wrong. I said I could not / would not reveal the info being discussed by the committee without the committee's chair, Joe Zsedeny, approval. Of course this type of 'journalism' is nothing new for those of us accustomed to its tint. But back to Kathy and others concern, as well as mine as to the 'rules' on this list, I may have something I'd like to pass along - but will not do it unless I am assured that what is said here not only in words but topic as well stays here. On the other hand in seeking a palatable alternative, would you Teresa and others agree to the confidentially of a subject both by subject and words - IF - the Board voted in public to go into an Executive session versus the continual ebb and flow of this list? Then after said session, if agreed to by all parties involved perhaps some sort of statement could be released on Board-l? Tim At 07:04 PM 9/6/01 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks Kathy. I guess I will temper my initial response and wait to see how >others on the Board view this. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:03 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >Yes, they are Jana. >Kathy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jana Black" >To: >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 07:35 PM >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? > > >: Hi, >: >: I need to be sure I am understanding this... Kathy, are the paragraphs at >: the bottom something that Teresa posted on the DBS? >: >: "Reports" on Board-Exec???? NOT OK. I too need to know which way it is >going >: to be. >: >: Jana >: >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] >: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:40 PM >: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? >: >: >: First and foremost Teresa I am not angry, but this is why I asked this >: question "Maybe we should talk?" in Exec session. So I would understand >: ground rules and how "personal and sensitive matters" would be handled. I >: received the email from David in private and that is the way I feel it >: should stay. Some people are uncomfortable in having their private >: information made public and that is their right, I trusted it would stay >: private when I shared the info. David deserved that I didn't intend to >: violate his trust. If a report of what is discussed is going to be made >: public, then we should not use Board Ex at all and take everything to the >: Board-L list. I need to know which way it will be. >: Kathy >: >: >: --the discussion of list secrecy continues. The majority of responders >: seems to be in favor of having a secret list, but the Board is split about >: half and half as to whether this bland and detail-less summary is actually >: violating confidentiality or not. >: >: --There is an _extensive_ discussion on issues involving access to the >: voting software by a subset of the USGenWeb volunteer base who need to use >: text-based browser software, such as Lynx. The voting software uses >: javascript, and the text-based browsers are not compatible with it. The >: Board is discussing basically how to accomodate the needs of these people >: so that they can vote. >: >: >: > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 19:08:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22063 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16870 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87N7qx03042; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:07:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:07:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: TVick65536@aol.com Fri Sep 7 17:07:52 2001 From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <33.1aa12ee1.28caad3d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:07:41 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10540 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1368 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/7/2001 6:44:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, janab@websweweave.net writes: > For me it is not about > "secrecy" it is about *sensitivity*. I agree Jana, and will add Whether is about a personal, personnel, or a general question, I truly believe that there should be a forum for us to 1. Get to know each other as a team. 2. Answer questions that we may have as a newbie or an "oldbie" (coined a new word).. 3. Be able to present issues and concerns that the project may, or more importantly, may "not face" in a constructive, thoughtful, respectful manner. Not that we have to proceed to Board-L and to the project "united," but the ability to get initial reactions from my peers is something that in the past has lacked. I look forward to that ability. echo Jana.. "For me it is not about "secrecy" it is about *sensitivity*. " Tina > > Jana > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 19:11:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA22346 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:11:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17611 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87NAuT04968; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:10:56 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:10:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Fri Sep 7 17:10:55 2001 Message-ID: <3B9953A5.EAA5CEE9@cs.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:09:25 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Maybe we should talk? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: <9bc1MC.A.fNB.AQVm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1369 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Jana Black wrote: > > Tim, > > I understand you are seeking "a palatable alternative" and I appreciate > that. However, I think this kind of action will simply serve to extend and > slow the AB's ability to accomplish anything down to a crawl. > Agree. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 19:27:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA23609 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21375 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f87NQtj19261; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:26:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:26:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Fri Sep 7 17:26:55 2001 Message-ID: <3B9956BB.7B29D244@cs.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:22:35 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] confidentiality References: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> <4.3.2.7.2.20010907190421.03d305b0@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: <2u4R7C.A.0sE._eVm7@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1370 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Holly Timm wrote: > > At 10:28 AM 9/7/01 -0700, Richard Harrison wrote: > >It is certainly time for Holly, as listowner, to post a statement > >regarding what list rules she will support and enforce. And for the list > >members--especially Teresa Lindquist--to post their willingness to agree > >to them. > > I am listening very closely to this discussion and would > like to hear everyone's opinions before setting the rules. > I have some thoughts and suggestions of my own but there > are still some on this list who have yet to express their opinion > on the issue. > > Holly Hi Holly- I'm glad you are listening and I appreciate your interest in hearing everyone's opinion, however we are both aware from our previous experience on this Board that not everyone voluntarily expresses their opinion on a particular issue--even on important procedural issues like this. You certainly have my permission to express your "thoughts and suggestions" without waiting for everyone on the list to possibly post to this issue. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 7 20:25:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28351 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01438 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f880PHb13442; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:25:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:25:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Fri Sep 7 18:25:16 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010907201315.00e02680@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 20:37:52 -0500 Old-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com, Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] confidentiality In-Reply-To: <3B9956BB.7B29D244@cs.com> References: <20010907130626.HROO18984.mp004.verizon.net@[192.168.129.173]> <4.3.2.7.2.20010907190421.03d305b0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1371 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:22 PM 9/7/01 -0700, Richard Harrison wrote: > > I am listening very closely to this discussion and would > > like to hear everyone's opinions before setting the rules. > > I have some thoughts and suggestions of my own but there > > are still some on this list who have yet to express their opinion > > on the issue. > > > > Holly > >Hi Holly- > >I'm glad you are listening and I appreciate your interest in hearing >everyone's opinion, however we are both aware from our previous >experience on this Board that not everyone voluntarily expresses their >opinion on a particular issue--even on important procedural issues like >this. Quite correct which is why I didn't say "everyone" but I do want to give the others a little more time >You certainly have my permission to express your "thoughts and >suggestions" without waiting for everyone on the list to possibly post >to this issue. I will as soon as I'm ready and no, we are not talking days here, but probably sometime tomorrow Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Sep 20 18:54:10 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02798 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01332 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f8KMrAl05430; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:53:10 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:53:10 -0600 X-Original-Sender: mo-bogart@att.net Thu Sep 20 16:53:10 2001 Message-ID: <002d01c14226$f1b75940$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:52:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] RE: [BOARD-L] Motion 01-30 Poll Extension Amended Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1372 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: No discussion Vicki Shaffer From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Sep 28 17:09:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29638 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24631 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f8SL8nG09565; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:08:49 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:08:49 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Fri Sep 28 15:08:49 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010928172056.00c9c100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:21:23 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Withdrawn Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1373 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:08:32 -0600 >X-From_: dmorgan@efn.org Thu Sep 27 15:08:32 2001 >X-Authentication-Warning: garcia.efn.org: dmorgan owned process doing -bs >Old-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:08:10 -1000 (HST) >From: "David W. Morgan" >To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com >cc: lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Subject: >X-Diagnostic: Unprocessed >X-Envelope-To: Board-Exec-L >X-postini-filters: (S:0.3476298 ) > >The voting software sent me to an alternate page where I was >able to cast my vote in the SW/SC preference poll. > >I am satisfied that I was able to use the voting software and >hope this will be the case in future elections. > >I withdraw my grievance. > >David > >dmorgan@efn.org David W. Morgan Honolulu Hawaii >http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ >http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 2 10:13:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA18131 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08986 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f92EDab16747; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:13:36 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:13:36 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 2 08:13:36 2001 Message-ID: <001101c14b4b$ec980260$cd967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:09:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] Test Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1374 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Checking in. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 7 09:28:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA21183 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06053 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f97DSUb11610; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 07:28:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 07:28:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Oct 7 07:28:29 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011007092719.04734430@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 09:28:29 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Did I miss something? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011006195021.0135cd60@mail.chattanooga.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1376 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:50 PM 10/6/01 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >Did I miss something? > >I believe we were told a few weeks back that later that day >or that weekend rules for this list would be posted. If they >have been, I've not seen them. You missed nothing, the *rules* got pushed to the edge of a crowded plate full. There was nothing pressing to discuss here so they are still in the wings so to speak. Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 7 11:22:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01711 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17336 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f97FKRk25143; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:20:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:20:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Oct 7 09:20:27 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011007103514.00c03f00@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 11:20:25 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Board-Exec Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1377 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: The following rules have been formulated for the Board-Exec list because some people seem to have no sense of discretion or even accuracy. To report that "A grievance is discussed" when a single message is forwarded withdrawing a grievance or that there was "minor discussion on amended motion 01-30" when a board member inadvertently sends the vote on the issue to the exec list is misleading and inaccurate. It is essential that the Advisory Board have a place to discuss sensitive or personal items, thus: Board-Exec Rules Except as noted below, no one is to repeat, quote, paraphrase or report what is said on the Board-Exec list. If you see an issue discussed here that you believe should be discussed on Board-L, request here that it should be moved and if it is possible to do so without dragging discussion of individuals or identification of individuals to Board-L or if there is general agreement that an issue should be brought before the project even if individuals are concerned, I will open the topic on Board-L. When we are discussing grievances etc, I will give the Board Secretary a general statement to include in the Board Report such as a "Grievance of a CC against an SC is being discussed on Board-Exec" or "An SC has requested advice on dealing with a problem". If you think I have missed adding something to the Board report that ought to be listed, you may say so here or privately to me. Often the best course may be to complete the discussion first and then report for example that "A grievance was addressed regarding a state election and it was found that the SC acted appropriately (or inappropriately as the case may be)". Personal posts such as "I'm going to be away and will have limited email access" are NOT to be reported in any way. If someone is going to be away or in the hospital for surgery or whatever they don't necessarily want the world to know and if they do, they should be the one to tell them. Minor infractions of the rules will result in a warning, major or repeated infractions will find the offender removed from the Board-Exec list. Holly Timm National Coordinator From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 13 02:51:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA05781 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05734 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9D6o7p16872; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:50:07 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:50:07 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Sat Oct 13 00:50:06 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011013023648.00817960@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:36:48 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] Out of the country Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1378 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm heading out later today for a delayed summer vacation. I'll be out of the country a number of days. I may/may not be in touch. I'm not sure when I'll be back - it all depends on how things develop. Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 17:27:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01488 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26106 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9ILQZu18073; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:26:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:26:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Thu Oct 18 15:26:34 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011018171700.00c26d10@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:26:49 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] THIS IS CONFIDENTIAL Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1379 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have been informed that Joe Sissom intends to incorporate USGenWeb in Texas and leverage that and Traci's possession of a large number of xxgenweb domains into a take-over. This should remain confidential at this point for several reasons. To start with, this is not 100% certain... secondly broadcasting discussion and possible plans to deal with it openly is probably not wise. Please respond with any additional information or knowledge you may have or your thoughts and suggestions. Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 17:36:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02628 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27511 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9ILVZ320410; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:31:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:31:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Thu Oct 18 15:31:35 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011018173012.00c259f0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:31:49 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Fwd: Request to the AB Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1380 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I was unsure as to whether this was more appropriately handled here as it deals with an individual or should go to Board-L. Please let me know which you think is appropriate >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: "Holly" >Subject: Request to the AB >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:49:44 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >X-postini-filters: (C:0.0928020 S:0.0885934 ) > >Please forward to the AB >********************** > >To: The Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. >From: The USGenWeb Project Election Committee > >Teresa Lindquist recently attacked one of the members of the EC, one of the >replacement volunteers for the EC and the EC as a whole on her Daily Board >Show. This is not the first time that Teresa has posted inappropriate or >unprofessional remarks about the Election Committee or its members. She is >the Advisory Board member who has been elected to represent all volunteers >of this Project and her attacks on the volunteers she is suppose to >represent is, in the unanimous opinion of the members of the EC, >inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. > >The Election Committee of the USGenWeb Project is committed to protecting >the privacy of the volunteers of this Project - not only the privacy of the >volunteer's vote but the privacy of any communications between the EC and >the volunteer. The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be >guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member >of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her >Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private. > >The EC members have worked extremely hard this past 9 months to prove to the >membership of this Project that the EC can be trusted. It is our unanimous >opinion that our hard won Trust will be eroded if Teresa is allowed to >continue as an EC member. > >Therefore, in Accordance with Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study >Committee Guidelines: > >If a member of the EC is not performing his/her duties on the EC or is >disruptive of the EC's business, the EC may petition the Advisory Board via >the National Coordinator and/or the Representative-at-Large for replacement >of that member by a new volunteer. EC members [can] be removed only for >cause, which shall include but not be limited to failing to respond promptly >and considerately to members of the EC, or continually disrupting the >business of the EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior. > >The members of the Election Committee hereby unanimously requests the >replacement of Teresa Lindquist with another Advisory Board member. > > >Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >Linda Haas Davenport, Keith Giddeon, Barbara Dore From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 18:07:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA05988 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02878 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IM4Um31071; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:04:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:04:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 18 16:04:29 2001 Message-ID: <000301c15820$48966c60$aa967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:00:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1381 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Section A. Sub-section 1. Of the guidelines/rules of the Sub-Committee known as the Election Committee, contains the following sentence "The National Coordinator and the Representative-At-Large shall both serve as ex-officio members." No other member of the Advisory Board is "the" R-A-L. The USGW P bylaws require the NC be an ex-officio member of any subcommittee. While the above quoted portion of the EC guidelines does not violate the bylaws, perhaps steps should be taken to either change this from "the Representative-At-Large" to "and one other AB representative to be selected by the Advisory Board", or to simply removing the extra ex-officio member. Therefore, IMHO, all we can do is to suspend Teresa from the EC for a period of time until the EC can propose and we can approve (or whoever has to approve) of the change in their rules. Or ask her to step aside pending the change. Phyllis Rippee From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 18:35:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA08802 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07132 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IMYQU22485; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:34:26 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:34:26 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Thu Oct 18 16:34:26 2001 Message-ID: <000a01c15824$7794ec40$aa967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:30:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1382 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe cannot take over the Project. He may be able to incorporate a group known as "USGenWeb", but even this is "iffy"....and with our prior service mark application already filed, I don't think he could ever "mark" the name. Let's assume the worst and say that he does incorporate an organization and they use Traci's domains for leverage. I do not see any way that the Project can be hurt....unless a tremendous number of CCs pull down their info and place it there....or unless SCs pull out whole states. Is he in a position of having the authority to incorporate the State of Texas and counties thereof that are part of the USGW P? Can he force us to quit using our name, if he does incorporate? No. I would strongly suggest that we register the USGW P in some state as an unincorporated non-profit association/organization, so that we have more legal footing than we have now. I do not think that this costs much. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 18:47:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA10072 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08937 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IMjuQ28770; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:45:56 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:45:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Thu Oct 18 16:45:56 2001 Message-ID: <00ef01c15826$7e0bf940$cda028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <000a01c15824$7794ec40$aa967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:44:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1383 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I can tell you that in many states, such as Michigan it can be done using forms on-line. In Michigan I think it was $60.00. Once incorporated, with branches, (states), in every state, our incorporation would be recognized by all states. This is a very sticky situation we find ourselves in. But if we can be registered as suggested by Phyllis, it may help. What would have helped more, would have been to have this bit of business taken care of years ago when the Project first started. Trying to fix everything after the fact is sort of closing the proverbial barn door after the horse is running. At least if we have to fight something we do have plenty of proof that we do have a right to the name. But now is not the best time for us. Geez..... Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:30 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL > Joe cannot take over the Project. He may be able to incorporate a group > known as "USGenWeb", but even this is "iffy"....and with our prior service > mark application already filed, I don't think he could ever "mark" the name. > > Let's assume the worst and say that he does incorporate an organization and > they use Traci's domains for leverage. I do not see any way that the > Project can be hurt....unless a tremendous number of CCs pull down their > info and place it there....or unless SCs pull out whole states. > > Is he in a position of having the authority to incorporate the State of > Texas and counties thereof that are part of the USGW P? > > Can he force us to quit using our name, if he does incorporate? No. > > I would strongly suggest that we register the USGW P in some state as an > unincorporated non-profit association/organization, so that we have more > legal footing than we have now. I do not think that this costs much. > > Phyllis > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 19:02:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11500 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11057 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9IN1Iv25060; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:01:18 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:01:18 -0600 X-Original-Sender: mo-bogart@att.net Thu Oct 18 17:01:17 2001 Message-ID: <009901c15828$bfc0bc20$745bfea9@vaio> Reply-To: "Vicki" From: "Vicki" Old-To: References: <000a01c15824$7794ec40$aa967a3f@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:00:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1384 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe has already been extremely offensive on the ALL list to the point he was banned. And from the response so far from the SC's, no one is particularly concerned about the domain purchases. Maybe he and Traci have an army of volunteers....................All I can say about that is GOOD LUCK! They apparently have deep pockets. I don't see what there is to fight............nothing wrong with competition. I'm right here in Austin so if anyone would like me to call and ask about anything, let me know. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:30 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL > Joe cannot take over the Project. He may be able to incorporate a group > known as "USGenWeb", but even this is "iffy"....and with our prior service > mark application already filed, I don't think he could ever "mark" the name. > > Let's assume the worst and say that he does incorporate an organization and > they use Traci's domains for leverage. I do not see any way that the > Project can be hurt....unless a tremendous number of CCs pull down their > info and place it there....or unless SCs pull out whole states. > > Is he in a position of having the authority to incorporate the State of > Texas and counties thereof that are part of the USGW P? > > Can he force us to quit using our name, if he does incorporate? No. > > I would strongly suggest that we register the USGW P in some state as an > unincorporated non-profit association/organization, so that we have more > legal footing than we have now. I do not think that this costs much. > > Phyllis > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 19:19:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12876 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13492 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9INIug03404; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:18:56 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:18:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Thu Oct 18 17:18:56 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:04:49 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: <00ef01c15826$7e0bf940$cda028d8@hppav> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1385 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I can add it is also a simple process in CA and in a non-related conversation this Spring, Richard Wilson said he would be willing to Incorporate CAGENWEB if the CCs wanted it... let me know if you want me to contact him... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 3:45 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL I can tell you that in many states, such as Michigan it can be done using forms on-line. In Michigan I think it was $60.00. Once incorporated, with branches, (states), in every state, our incorporation would be recognized by all states. This is a very sticky situation we find ourselves in. But if we can be registered as suggested by Phyllis, it may help. What would have helped more, would have been to have this bit of business taken care of years ago when the Project first started. Trying to fix everything after the fact is sort of closing the proverbial barn door after the horse is running. At least if we have to fight something we do have plenty of proof that we do have a right to the name. But now is not the best time for us. Geez..... Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:30 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL > Joe cannot take over the Project. He may be able to incorporate a group > known as "USGenWeb", but even this is "iffy"....and with our prior service > mark application already filed, I don't think he could ever "mark" the name. > > Let's assume the worst and say that he does incorporate an organization and > they use Traci's domains for leverage. I do not see any way that the > Project can be hurt....unless a tremendous number of CCs pull down their > info and place it there....or unless SCs pull out whole states. > > Is he in a position of having the authority to incorporate the State of > Texas and counties thereof that are part of the USGW P? > > Can he force us to quit using our name, if he does incorporate? No. > > I would strongly suggest that we register the USGW P in some state as an > unincorporated non-profit association/organization, so that we have more > legal footing than we have now. I do not think that this costs much. > > Phyllis > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 18 23:31:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA02859 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17130 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9J3VEe06284; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:31:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:31:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Thu Oct 18 21:31:14 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:27:52 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000a01c15824$7794ec40$aa967a3f@wchs> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1386 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: We could certainly speculate a lot here, but I don't believe we'd find a mass exodus of CC's or SC's rushing over to a new project if this were to occur. If it does happen, we'll need to put out a "letter" to all our volunteers informing them of what has occurred and they did so without the knowledge and consent of the project. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:30 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL Joe cannot take over the Project. He may be able to incorporate a group known as "USGenWeb", but even this is "iffy"....and with our prior service mark application already filed, I don't think he could ever "mark" the name. Let's assume the worst and say that he does incorporate an organization and they use Traci's domains for leverage. I do not see any way that the Project can be hurt....unless a tremendous number of CCs pull down their info and place it there....or unless SCs pull out whole states. Is he in a position of having the authority to incorporate the State of Texas and counties thereof that are part of the USGW P? Can he force us to quit using our name, if he does incorporate? No. I would strongly suggest that we register the USGW P in some state as an unincorporated non-profit association/organization, so that we have more legal footing than we have now. I do not think that this costs much. Phyllis From rkeason@tir.com Fri Oct 19 18:57:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15078 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from atlantic.mail.pas.earthlink.net (atlantic.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.179]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28432 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hppav (port160112.tnt1fnt.tir.com [216.40.160.112]) by atlantic.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA10070; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <075701c158f1$359b0900$70a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" To: "merope" , "Holly Timm" , "Vicki Shaffer" , , "Nate Zipfel" , , , "Mary Ann Hetrick" , , "Kathy Welch Heidel" , "Tim Stowell" , "Diane Parsons" , , "Phyllis Rippee" , References: Subject: Re: Joe Sissom Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:55:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: RO X-Status: Any suggestions? Not sure how you can stop something like that without doing it first. Unless exposing his goals maybe. There are plenty that have no desire to this done, especially by someone else. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: "Holly Timm" ; "Vicki Shaffer" ; ; "Nate Zipfel" ; ; ; "Mary Ann Hetrick" ; ; "Kathy Welch Heidel" ; "Tim Stowell" ; "Diane Parsons" ; "Ron Eason" ; ; "Phyllis Rippee" ; Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 6:28 AM Subject: Joe Sissom > > Think about Joe Sissom as a low-rent Ross Perot. He has enough money that > he's used to people listening to him and getting his way. He also has > enough money to lawyer us to death. He may be funding Traci's domain > spending spree. He's also slightly nutty on some topics and one of them > is online genealogy. > > He's easily antagonized and not above forwarding personal slander to > complete strangers when he gets riled up [I know more about the personal > life of a woman who is involved with GenTech than I care to, including > her divorce and stints in various psychiatric facilities.] He is actively > seeking "dirt" on Board members. > > He has managed to completely alienate the staff of NGS and GenTech with > his demands and personal attacks. He has reported GenTech to the IRS, > apparently out of spite [they are a 501c3 corporation and have refused to > open their books to him as required by law. These are now posted on their > web page but they didn't used to be]. GenTech actually used to have a > warning about him on their site, but it has been removed. > > What he is proposing to do is not simply incorporation. It is filing with > the IRS for tax-exempt status. > > -Teresa > merope@radix.net > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 19 10:02:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19043 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25714 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9JE1cv30513; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:01:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:01:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Fri Oct 19 08:01:38 2001 Message-ID: <000901c158a5$fbaaafc0$4328c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:57:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] Apology Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1387 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A I'm sorry that message went to Board-L. It was purely unintentional. It may set off a firestorm and if you want me to resign because of it, just let me know. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 19 20:28:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA22034 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09500 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K0S1H07282; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:28:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:28:01 -0600 X-Original-Sender: TVick65536@aol.com Fri Oct 19 18:28:01 2001 From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:28:01 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Resent-Message-ID: <6Uzz6D.A.pxB.RUM07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1388 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A This request is certainly unfortunate. IMHO, it is one that could have been avoided given proper respect and diligence to her role on the committee. Not to mention .. *especially*, in light of her participation in the Election Study Committee. I agree with Phyllis. Tina In a message dated 10/18/2001 6:07:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wchs@getgoin.net writes: > Therefore, IMHO, all we can do is to suspend Teresa from the EC for a period > of time until the EC can propose and we can approve (or whoever has to > approve) of the change in their rules. Or ask her to step aside pending the > change. > > Phyllis Rippee > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 19 20:51:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA23696 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12192 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K0obL23521; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:50:37 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:50:37 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Fri Oct 19 18:50:37 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:23:05 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000301c15820$48966c60$aa967a3f@wchs> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1389 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: What Phyllis has said makes sense to me. Jana From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 19 21:53:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28274 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19485 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K1qdA12476; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:52:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:52:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Fri Oct 19 19:52:39 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:49:14 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <000301c15820$48966c60$aa967a3f@wchs> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1390 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Phyllis, I guess I missed an e-mail or something. What is the issue here? Nate -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 6:00 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Section A. Sub-section 1. Of the guidelines/rules of the Sub-Committee known as the Election Committee, contains the following sentence "The National Coordinator and the Representative-At-Large shall both serve as ex-officio members." No other member of the Advisory Board is "the" R-A-L. The USGW P bylaws require the NC be an ex-officio member of any subcommittee. While the above quoted portion of the EC guidelines does not violate the bylaws, perhaps steps should be taken to either change this from "the Representative-At-Large" to "and one other AB representative to be selected by the Advisory Board", or to simply removing the extra ex-officio member. Therefore, IMHO, all we can do is to suspend Teresa from the EC for a period of time until the EC can propose and we can approve (or whoever has to approve) of the change in their rules. Or ask her to step aside pending the change. Phyllis Rippee From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Fri Oct 19 22:57:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA02572 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26529 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K2uZi14087; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:56:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:56:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 20:56:34 2001 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:55:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1391 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I guess one could argue that something makes sense. However, If the EC guidelines do not conflict with the USGW P By-laws, then what exactly is the argument about, exactly? Is it that they chose for those two positions to be ex-officio members? Is it that they By-laws don't call for this? The By-laws merely state that the NC shall be an ex-officio member of committees. And??? Do the By-laws prevent committees from being formed and thereafter adopting their own guidelines calling for another ex-officio? I guess I need a little more explanation as to what the argument is! Is there a conflict or not? Do we need to create one where there isn't? Or does someone just have a beef with it? I read what was said. Someone please, now explain to us who may be a little slower what the real problem is! Thanks, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request > What Phyllis has said makes sense to me. > Jana > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From rkeason@tir.com Fri Oct 19 23:16:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03708 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.182]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28465 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hppav (port16014.tnt1fnt.tir.com [216.40.160.14]) by sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA08683; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009601c15915$655a8160$0ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" To: "merope" , , "Phyllis Rippee" , "Tim Stowell" , "Holly Timm" , "Nate Zipfel" , "Diane Parsons" , , "Vicki Shaffer" , , "Mary Ann Hetrick" , , "Kathy Welch Heidel" , , References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:14:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Status: RO X-Status: I knew there had to be something we were missing Nate. ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: ; "Phyllis Rippee" ; "Tim Stowell" ; "Holly Timm" ; "Nate Zipfel" ; "Diane Parsons" ; "Ron Eason" ; ; "Vicki Shaffer" ; ; ; "Mary Ann Hetrick" ; ; "Kathy Welch Heidel" ; ; Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 TVick65536@aol.com wrote: > > > This request is certainly unfortunate. IMHO, it is one that could > > have been avoided given proper respect and diligence to her role on > > the committee. Not to mention .. *especially*, in light of her > > participation in the Election Study Committee. > > > > As Holly can attest, I have done nothing to disrupt the EC. I have not > spoken a single word on its list since the beginning of my term. I have > not violated, nor do I intend to violate the confidentiality of the EC's > mailing list. I apologized for the remarks made in the DBS immediately > and intend to be more circumspect in the future. > > Why Linda chose to make this a confidentiality issue is not clear to me. > As some of you already know, there is far more to this incident than Linda > chose to present. Since it is of a serious nature and may affect any vote > you make in this matter, I request that Holly obtain permission from the > EC to discuss the particulars in full prior to any further discussion or > voting on this issue. It is only fair that all Board members have the > same information. > > -Teresa > merope@radix.net > > From TVick65536@aol.com Fri Oct 19 23:45:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA05828 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:45:18 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01685 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id o.113.65c3aac (4462); Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <113.65c3aac.29024d45@aol.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:45:09 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request To: merope@radix.net, wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, hollyft@bright.net, nate@gte.net, ky.quest@gte.net, rkeason@tir.com, pamreid@home.com, tngibson@att.net, bremerr@oclc.org, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, IsaiahHarrison@cs.com, kheidel@tri.net, betsym@1starnet.com, janab@slip.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_113.65c3aac.29024d45_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Status: RO X-Status: A --part1_113.65c3aac.29024d45_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Teresa, Curious.. why this route of communication? Tina --part1_113.65c3aac.29024d45_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Teresa,

Curious.. why this route of communication?

Tina --part1_113.65c3aac.29024d45_boundary-- From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 00:19:52 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08508 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05393 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K4JNg08891; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:19:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:19:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Fri Oct 19 22:19:22 2001 Message-ID: <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:19:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1392 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron this is the reason for Phyllis's remarks, A. Standing Election subCommittee The Advisory Board shall appoint a standing Election subCommittee (EC). This subCommittee shall operate year round. Day-to-day operating procedures shall be determined by the members of the EC. 1. Composition of the subCommittee: The EC shall consist of 12 members total and shall include two members from each region, two members for the Special Projects, and two at-large EC members. From these members, the EC shall choose a Chair and a Publicist-Secretary, each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of their individual terms. The Chair of the EC shall vote only in the case of a tie. The National Coordinator and the Representative-at-Large to the Advisory Board shall both serve as ex-officio members of the EC. They shall not be eligible to be either the Chair of the EC nor its Publicist-Secretary. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:55 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request : I guess one could argue that something makes sense. : However, If the EC guidelines do not conflict with the : USGW P By-laws, then what exactly is the argument : about, exactly? : Is it that they chose for those two positions to be ex-officio members? : Is it that they By-laws don't call for this? : The By-laws merely state that the NC shall be an ex-officio : member of committees. And??? : Do the By-laws prevent committees from being formed : and thereafter adopting their own guidelines calling for another ex-officio? : I guess I need a little more explanation as to what the argument is! : Is there a conflict or not? : Do we need to create one where there isn't? : Or does someone just have a beef with it? : I read what was said. Someone please, now explain to us who : may be a little slower what the real problem is! : Thanks, : Ron : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: "Jana Black" : To: : Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:23 PM : Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request : : : > What Phyllis has said makes sense to me. : > Jana : > : : : _________________________________________________________ : Do You Yahoo!? : Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 00:38:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09632 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07212 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K4c3M17424; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:38:03 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:38:03 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Fri Oct 19 22:38:02 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:34:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1393 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm sorry..... what is the problem? It is something personal with Teresa or what? I feel like someone is trying to say something without coming out and saying it. I don't work that way... Nate -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:20 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Ron this is the reason for Phyllis's remarks, A. Standing Election subCommittee The Advisory Board shall appoint a standing Election subCommittee (EC). This subCommittee shall operate year round. Day-to-day operating procedures shall be determined by the members of the EC. 1. Composition of the subCommittee: The EC shall consist of 12 members total and shall include two members from each region, two members for the Special Projects, and two at-large EC members. From these members, the EC shall choose a Chair and a Publicist-Secretary, each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of their individual terms. The Chair of the EC shall vote only in the case of a tie. The National Coordinator and the Representative-at-Large to the Advisory Board shall both serve as ex-officio members of the EC. They shall not be eligible to be either the Chair of the EC nor its Publicist-Secretary. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:55 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request : I guess one could argue that something makes sense. : However, If the EC guidelines do not conflict with the : USGW P By-laws, then what exactly is the argument : about, exactly? : Is it that they chose for those two positions to be ex-officio members? : Is it that they By-laws don't call for this? : The By-laws merely state that the NC shall be an ex-officio : member of committees. And??? : Do the By-laws prevent committees from being formed : and thereafter adopting their own guidelines calling for another ex-officio? : I guess I need a little more explanation as to what the argument is! : Is there a conflict or not? : Do we need to create one where there isn't? : Or does someone just have a beef with it? : I read what was said. Someone please, now explain to us who : may be a little slower what the real problem is! : Thanks, : Ron : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: "Jana Black" : To: : Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:23 PM : Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request : : : > What Phyllis has said makes sense to me. : > Jana : > : : : _________________________________________________________ : Do You Yahoo!? : Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 01:22:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA12222 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11364 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K5Lb324824; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:37 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:37 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Fri Oct 19 23:21:37 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:07:14 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1394 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nate, You said you thought you must have missed a post. Here is the post response are referencing. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:32 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Fwd: Request to the AB I was unsure as to whether this was more appropriately handled here as it deals with an individual or should go to Board-L. Please let me know which you think is appropriate >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: "Holly" >Subject: Request to the AB >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:49:44 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 >X-postini-filters: (C:0.0928020 S:0.0885934 ) > >Please forward to the AB >********************** > >To: The Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. >From: The USGenWeb Project Election Committee > >Teresa Lindquist recently attacked one of the members of the EC, one of the >replacement volunteers for the EC and the EC as a whole on her Daily Board >Show. This is not the first time that Teresa has posted inappropriate or >unprofessional remarks about the Election Committee or its members. She is >the Advisory Board member who has been elected to represent all volunteers >of this Project and her attacks on the volunteers she is suppose to >represent is, in the unanimous opinion of the members of the EC, >inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. > >The Election Committee of the USGenWeb Project is committed to protecting >the privacy of the volunteers of this Project - not only the privacy of the >volunteer's vote but the privacy of any communications between the EC and >the volunteer. The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be >guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member >of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her >Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private. > >The EC members have worked extremely hard this past 9 months to prove to the >membership of this Project that the EC can be trusted. It is our unanimous >opinion that our hard won Trust will be eroded if Teresa is allowed to >continue as an EC member. > >Therefore, in Accordance with Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study >Committee Guidelines: > >If a member of the EC is not performing his/her duties on the EC or is >disruptive of the EC's business, the EC may petition the Advisory Board via >the National Coordinator and/or the Representative-at-Large for replacement >of that member by a new volunteer. EC members [can] be removed only for >cause, which shall include but not be limited to failing to respond promptly >and considerately to members of the EC, or continually disrupting the >business of the EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior. > >The members of the Election Committee hereby unanimously requests the >replacement of Teresa Lindquist with another Advisory Board member. > > >Sara Greer, Alice Miller, LaRae Halsey-Brooks, Kenneth Thomas, Terasa >Hodges, Bob Chada, Marti Graham, Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome, >Linda Haas Davenport, Keith Giddeon, Barbara Dore From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 01:28:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA12534 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11879 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9K5SA327094; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:28:10 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:28:10 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Fri Oct 19 23:28:09 2001 Message-ID: <001c01c15928$09b4eae0$8cf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:28:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1395 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: : I'm sorry..... what is the problem? It is something personal with Teresa or : what? I feel like someone is trying to say something without coming out and : saying it. I don't work that way... : : Nate : Nathan, Ron has asked "However, If the EC guidelines do not conflict with the USGW P By-laws, then what exactly is the argument about, exactly? Is it that they chose for those two positions to be ex-officio members? Is it that they By-laws don't call for this?: : : The EC Standing subCommittee States : "The National Coordinator and the Representative-at-Large to the Advisory Board shall both serve as ex-officio members of the EC. They shall not be eligible to be either the Chair of the EC nor its Publicist-Secretary." So in effect we can do nothing because their guidelines say that the Rep-at-Large must be on their committee, and Teresa is the Rep-at-Large. But aside from that, I believe that Teresa needs to give her side also. All we have is Linda's view. I do have another question, though and this is addressed to Teresa. Why are you not using the Board Ex? Has she been suspended from this or is it because of Holly's stipulations that you are not to report anything that is stated on this list? I won't use a round-robin. Kathy From janab@websweweave.net Mon Oct 22 02:11:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA09234 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.20]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16672 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c1804946a ([24.19.156.142]) by femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011022061148.SRHO10216.femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c1804946a> for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:11:48 -0700 From: "Jana Black" To: "merope \(by way of Tim Stowell \)" Subject: RE: [DBS] Daily Board Show, 10/11/2001 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:56:35 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011022000738.0141e800@mail.chattanooga.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Status: RO X-Status: Hi Tim, Welcome back.... I am glad you are here... and I empathize... I had 600 emails after 5 days of a downed ISP.... it took me a day... to plow thru the "big" stuff.... The big deal now are Holly's two emails on EXEC the 18th... the domain issue I am not clear on yet, but SCs don't seem too upset so far. The other issue is a letter form the EC asking to remove Teresa as ex-officio member for what she wrote in the DBS on the 8th, slandering Barbara Dore. She, of course claims it is all false, and seems to have some support from Nate, Ron and maybe Kathy. I have not gotten these, so I appreciate seeing them to make me feel sure I am on terra firma when I say what I want to say next :) Thanks... Jana -----Original Message----- From: merope (by way of Tim Stowell ) [mailto:merope@radix.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:08 PM To: Jana Black Subject: [DBS] Daily Board Show, 10/11/2001 Jana, If you've got these elsewhere while I've been gone - then toss these. Otherwise this one begins all those sent in my absense. I have 1500 emails on my return having had the opportunity only once and for about 5 minutes while away to delete any mail and send only one message to our dog sitter. I don't know what's going on, so will be spending tonight and tomorrow trying to catch up. It took me 2 hours to download the first 1/3 of my mail. I've got to wonder how long it's gonna take me to read it all....? Tim ---------------------- Its always darkest before the dawn...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 10 October 2001: Richard Harrison has no problem with the proposed slate of replacement EC members and doesn't think the majority of Board members does either. He notes " the procedures were set up to reduce the influence of the Board over who would serve on the EC in order to prevent the appearance of stacking. Obviously, there will be some candidates who are more appealing and some who are less appealing to any particular Board member." He suggests that if Board members are not happy with this interpretation of the guidelines they draft a motion to revise them. Tim Stowell notes that "Other parts of the EC report as accepted have been ignored by the EC or changed as THEY saw fit, without Board approval. The Board was, in some cases, informed after the fact - if at all." [I have no idea what he is referencing here. As far as I know the EC has followed the guidelines pretty closely.] He thinks that it is the Board's perogative to change the guidelines to suit its wishes. Richard supplies a link to the motion in which the EC's standing procedures were adopted. [I think what Tim was really getting after was Motion 01-05, in which the Board voted to approve the EC's choice to replace a resigned member. This was the first and only time the Board has done that, so far.] Pam Reid notes that she took the EC procedures down when the EC put up its own webpage, but that she probably shouldn't have done that. She hopes the page is still available. Pam later notes that the EC procedures are now back up on the national webpage. Richard thinks that "Someone else's error (real or imagined) is not justification for the Board to ignore whatever rules it has set up for the operation of the EC." He suggests that if a Board member thinks there was a problem in the past they "should address it directly and specifically to the Board so that steps can be taken to prevent its happening again." Holly Timm notifies the Board that she has received mailing lists for the publicity, guidelines, and bylaws commmittees and has subbed those Board members who expressed an interest in any of the committees. Tim says there are no "standing procedures" for this circumstance, since the Board never replaced anyone on the EC to his knowledge [he never did pay real good attention to his surroundings.] He then notes "Hmm, perhaps there was one but I believe that that was an alternate person that was put in place." Pam tells Holly that she forgot to sign up for the committees and asks Holly to sub her to whichever group that needs members. -- In Executive Session: --no activity Bylaws "starter" Committee --the group discusses committee size and regional representation Guidelines "starter" Committee --no activity === You Saw That Coming Corner: From today's New Zoo Review: "Ancestry.com and RootsWeb have combined their public family tree databases to create the largest family-tree offering available online...The combined database will include more than 150 million names once the integration is complete...Although the value of this database will continue to grow as more trees are added, Ancestry.com and RootsWeb are still committed to provide free access to this valuable collection...data submitted to WorldConnect will never be sold on CD-ROM...The combined offering will have all of the functionality RootsWeb users currently enjoy on WorldConnect, which includes a number of reports that have not been available in the past on Ancestry.com. The new database includes all active files in the Ancestry World Tree and WorldConnect." Heh. Look likes Ancestry/Root$web is the current winner of the "who has the most names online" game. Of course, since everyone I know who submitted their work to Root$web also submitted it to Ancestry, lots of them are duplicates. We are sure that all of you who once freely gave of your hard-earned GEDCOMs to Root$web will be pleased to learn that it is now, or soon will be, safely ensconced on Ancestry.com, where they are "still" committed to free access. We wonder how long that will last. === "I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean." ---G.K. Chesterton This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dailyboardshow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 14:48:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05345 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23934 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9KIlX606426; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:47:33 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:47:33 -0600 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 12:47:33 2001 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <00c101c15997$839999e0$b1a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:46:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1396 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, Kathy, it appears, according to Jana's post that a few of us missed something. Because her post indicates that it is because of a statement in the DBS, that Linda didn't like. I went looking for the copy of the DBS with the offending statement but was unable to find it. Since the email from the EC was on the 18th. I assumed it would be around that time. Can someone post the offending DBS (at least the offending portion)? If we are taking up an issue to remove someone it would seem we might really want to know "The rest of the story", to borrow a phrase. Thanks, Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 19:45:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26674 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21841 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9KNj8h29130; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:45:08 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:45:08 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sat Oct 20 17:45:08 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011020194444.0322f380@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:45:25 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <00c101c15997$839999e0$b1a028d8@hppav> References: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1397 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:46 PM 10/20/01 -0400, Ron Eason wrote: >Well, Kathy, it appears, according to Jana's post >that a few of us missed something. Because her >post indicates that it is because of a statement in >the DBS, that Linda didn't like. I went looking for >the copy of the DBS with the offending statement >but was unable to find it. Since the email from the >EC was on the 18th. I assumed it would be around >that time. Can someone post the offending DBS >(at least the offending portion)? October 8th DBS: Holly forwards a message from Linda Haas Davenport notifying us who the EC has chosen to fill the vacant EC volunteer slots. The winners are Joy Fisher, Lorraine Sonnenberg Newsome and Barbara Yancey-Dore. These names are submitted to the Board for approval. [Egads, no _wonder_ Linda didn't want Holly and I in on the discussions. Can you imagine Babs "Ferret" Dore having access to YOUR voting records? And she and Keith Giddeon are abnormally tight; those two together are reminiscent of a pack of pitbulls that has spotted an unattended child innocently playing on the sidewalk. Once those two have free reign in the EC, I foresee even more vacant slots opening up in the near future.] >If we are taking up an issue to remove someone >it would seem we might really want to know "The >rest of the story", to borrow a phrase. >Thanks, >Ron > > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 21:21:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA02933 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01371 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9L1KsW05673; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:20:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:20:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sat Oct 20 19:20:54 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:06:04 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: <04aa01c159cb$74098a60$9ea028d8@hppav> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1399 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Teresa, Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be missing or need to have here? Thank you, Jana From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 12:54:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15157 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22251 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LGrix11782; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:53:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:53:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 10:53:44 2001 Message-ID: <3BD2FBDB.4DE7902F@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:46:19 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <200110192200.f9JM0Aq24299@lists2.rootsweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: Wholemeself@cs.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1400 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Phyllis Rippee wrote: > Section A. Sub-section 1. Of the guidelines/rules of the Sub-Committee > known as the Election Committee, contains the following sentence "The > National Coordinator and the Representative-At-Large shall both serve as > ex-officio members." > > No other member of the Advisory Board is "the" R-A-L. The USGW P bylaws > require the NC be an ex-officio member of any subcommittee. While the above > quoted portion of the EC guidelines does not violate the bylaws, perhaps > steps should be taken to either change this from "the > Representative-At-Large" to "and one other AB representative to be selected > by the Advisory Board", or to simply removing the extra ex-officio member. > > Therefore, IMHO, all we can do is to suspend Teresa from the EC for a period > of time until the EC can propose and we can approve (or whoever has to > approve) of the change in their rules. Or ask her to step aside pending the > change. > > Phyllis Rippee We need to remember that the EC was created by and serves at the pleasure of the Board--not the other way around. If the Board chooses to to amend the Standing Proceedures that govern the EC it is its privilege to do so. Although the original guidelines were proposed by the Election Study Committee, there is no resaon why tindividual Board members cannot propose additions, subtractions or changes to the rules the Board chose to adopt as its Standing Procedures. However, the EC has not complained about the Standing Procedures. They have complained about the person currently serving as Representative-at-Large. If it turns out that, over a period of time, there is a consistent problem with the RAL serving as a member of the EC, we would probably want to amend that procedure. At the present time, I think we ought to deal directly with the EC's specific complaint. The EC unanimously believes they can not work effectively with the current RAL as an ex-officio member of the committee. If the Board agrees, it would be appropriate to introduce a motion to suspend the Standing Procedure designating the RAL as an ex-offico member of the EC for the duration of Teresa Lindquist's term and appoint an alternative Board member to serve on the committee. The work of the EC is very important to this project. Teresa Lindquist has been outspoken (to say the least!) in her criticism of some EC members. I think the request of the EC to have her replaced is reasonable. Sometimes, saying you're sorry is just not enough. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 12:55:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15195 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22292 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LGsc612095; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:54:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:54:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Oct 21 10:54:38 2001 Message-ID: <003b01c15a51$38ab8460$4a28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:55:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: <2lUob.A.28C.O3v07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1401 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Once you get to the bottom line of the EC request (I mean that "bottom line" literally), you will find that the AB is being asked to replace Teresa with another AB member. We are not being asked to okay her removal by the EC committee. That is something that they will have to find in their own guidelines, which apparently they feel they have cause to do when they quoted all the causes for removal of a member. While "replacing her with another AB member" would, in effect, okay her removal....or if we followed the same procedure with any other EC committee member, okay that person's removal.......the AB cannot replace the R-A-L with another AB member. It does not matter who that R-A-L is. The EC guidelines specifically state that the ex-officio members of the committee are the NC and the R-A-L. I do believe that a committee ought to be able to "police" itself and oust a member who is considered detrimental to the committee's work. Especially, when every member of that committee (except the one in question) is in agreement. Therefore, the EC might be able to delink Teresa, thus effectively removing her from participation. I know that this is lengthy....but let me repeat: We were specifically asked to replace the R-A-L with another AB member. Regardless of how we feel about Teresa, the individual members of the EC, the total EC......We, too, are limited as to what we CAN do by the EC guidelines themselves. And, I do not feel that this is the time to start pointing fingers at anybody on either "side." Let's follow the rules. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 13:32:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17542 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:32:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25844 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LHWBB24671; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:32:11 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:32:11 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Oct 21 11:32:10 2001 Message-ID: <009901c15a56$77548680$4a28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:32:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: <2GyWi.A.WBG.baw07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1402 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I do not think that the AB ought to step in and "suspend" a rule of any sub-committee for the specific purpose of removing and replacing a member of that committee. Since I believe that a committee ought to be able to police itself, I would probably vote to uphold the EC removing Teresa. But, I will not vote for suspending rules just to "get" a specific person. There's far too many possibilities and ramifications....."worms in the can"...to go that direction. And, until the grievance is filed (which would be a reasonable bet will happen), I really don't care who said what to whom. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 14:37:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21549 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02033 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LIaqq31716; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:36:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:36:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 12:36:51 2001 Message-ID: <3BD31579.74AB895F@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:35:37 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request References: <009901c15a56$77548680$4a28c141@wchs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1403 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Phyllis Rippee wrote: > > I do not think that the AB ought to step in and "suspend" a rule of any > sub-committee for the specific purpose of removing and replacing a member of > that committee. We are not talking about a "sub-committee rule" here. We are talking about a Standing Procedure of the Board. These Standing Procedures exist to enable the EC to function. When they get in the way of the committee's functioning instead of contributing to it, they certainly need to be temporarily or permanently changed. These procedures were not adopted as set-in-stone law, but as guidelines to be modified and changed as necessary to allow the committee to do its work. > Since I believe that a committee ought to be able to police itself, I would > probably vote to uphold the EC removing Teresa. But, I will not vote for > suspending rules just to "get" a specific person. There's far too many > possibilities and ramifications....."worms in the can"...to go that > direction. Yes, a committee "ought to be able to police itself," and the EC has properly done just that by appealing to the Board for relief in this situation. The EC doesn't have the power to refuse to seat members appointed by the Board. The Board does have the power to appoint committee members and the obligation to appoint committee members who will contribute to the effective functioning of the committee. When the Board-created rules get in the way of that obligation, they need to be examined and changed. It is the Board's responsibility to make the decisions it thinks best within the bylaws to assure the success of our project. We are in as much danger from the "worms" of anarchy as we are from the "worms" of micro-management. In this case the Board has the authority and the obligation to provide relief to the EC. > And, until the grievance is filed (which would be a reasonable bet will > happen), I really don't care who said what to whom. > > Phyllis What grievance? By whom? I do care "who said what to whom" so far as it is relevant to the problems the EC is experiencing and to finding a solution to them. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 14:58:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22845 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04107 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LIwR612216; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:58:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:58:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 12:58:27 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:54:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal Subject: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1404 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I was a part of the group that wrote the EC guidelines. We specifically wanted the RAL and the NC to both be on the committee. The RAL like the NC are in unique positions of representing the whole of the project while a SC or CC rep only is there for a specific region. Having seen Teresa in action for a long time I have learned that when she realizes that she has made a mistake that she will accept responsibility for that. She has done that in this case. I believe the committee needs to accept that and move forward. I feel that this is a "personal" issue with some members. Teresa was elected by the majority of the USGenWeb and she needs to function in that position that she was elected for. Granted there are people that we don't like or that rub us the wrong way, but we must work together. I do have a problem with what I understand the EC is doing with unsubbing Holly and Teresa when they're discussing "personal" issues. As ex-officio members of the EC they must have open access to all of the "meetings" of the EC. I cannot see any reason for them to be excluded. Nate From nate@pa-roots.com Sun Oct 21 15:03:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23245 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.sisna.com (mail.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04473 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nate [4.60.200.210] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.06) id ABC066D200EC; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:02:24 -0600 From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: "merope" , "Board" , , "Holly Timm" , , , "Kathy Welch Heidel" , "Diane Parsons" , , , , "Ron Eason" , "Vicki Shaffer" , "Tim Stowell" , , "Phyllis Rippee" Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:58:36 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Status: RO X-Status: I have some problems here with what Teresa has written.. 1 - the EC serves as a standing committee for the board and is responsible to us. The Board members who are on it should be able to discuss what is happening on the EC. 2 - I find it unacceptable that the EC would unsubscribe the NC and RAL so that "personal" discussions can be held. They are members of the committee. There is nothing happening on the committee that should exclude the NC and RAL. I do hope that we haven't created a "monster" with the committee that they believe they have a free hand to do as they please. Nate -----Original Message----- From: merope [mailto:merope@Radix.Net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 8:13 AM To: Board; bremerr@oclc.org; Holly Timm; isiahharrison@cs.com; janab@slip.net; Kathy Welch Heidel; Diane Parsons; nate@pa-roots.com; nw_plais_sc_rep@hotmail.com; pamreid@home.com; Ron Eason; Vicki Shaffer; Tim Stowell; Tvick65536@aol.com; Phyllis Rippee Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > Teresa, > > Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be missing > or need to have here? I am sorry, but permission has not been forthcoming to discuss the specifics with anyone not on the Election Committee. I have been told in very specific terms that what is on the EC list stays there, unless specific permission is given to share it elsewhere. That specifically includes here. And it is the case even though other involved parties also wish to discuss it publicly. I admit to being a bit confused as to what my and Holly's duties on the EC are to be. I know that Tim was a very active participant in the EC and that led to some issues with him and with the Board in general. Neither Holly nor I have posted to the list much [me never, Holly maybe once or twice since Sept 1]. Our duties are not clearly delimited in the EC guidelines, we do not vote, we do not have "committee duties [verifying voter lists, etc], and apparently we are not to share committee business with the Board given permission to do so. We are unsubbed from the EC if Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal". As I said previously, I'm participate as an observer at this point. I'll facilitate EC-Board interaction as needed, or act as a liaison if requested to do so. Otherwise, I'm quiet. I'm afraid if I speak up I'll get handed a voter list to verify. -Teresa merope@radix.net From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 15:49:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26206 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08777 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LJnDI00651; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:49:13 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:49:13 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Oct 21 13:49:13 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021154601.00caa5c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:49:27 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1405 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: The discussions were personnel, not personal, i.e., they were discussing their opinions etc of the volunteers to fill the open positions on the EC. Seeing as the AB had the ultimate approval/disapproval on the slate of replacements, I had no problem as NC being temporarily unsubbed for that discussion. These were personal opinions of who they thought would work well on the committee, work as a team etc, something I find acceptable to keep private. At 02:58 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Nathan Zipfel wrote: >I have some problems here with what Teresa has written.. > >1 - the EC serves as a standing committee for the board and is responsible >to us. The Board members who are on it should be able to discuss what is >happening on the EC. > >2 - I find it unacceptable that the EC would unsubscribe the NC and RAL so >that "personal" discussions can be held. They are members of the committee. >There is nothing happening on the committee that should exclude the NC and >RAL. > >I do hope that we haven't created a "monster" with the committee that they >believe they have a free hand to do as they please. > >Nate > >-----Original Message----- >From: merope [mailto:merope@Radix.Net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 8:13 AM >To: Board; bremerr@oclc.org; Holly Timm; isiahharrison@cs.com; >janab@slip.net; Kathy Welch Heidel; Diane Parsons; nate@pa-roots.com; >nw_plais_sc_rep@hotmail.com; pamreid@home.com; Ron Eason; Vicki Shaffer; >Tim Stowell; Tvick65536@aol.com; Phyllis Rippee >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request > > > >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > > > Teresa, > > > > Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be >missing > > or need to have here? > >I am sorry, but permission has not been forthcoming to discuss the >specifics with anyone not on the Election Committee. I have been told in >very specific terms that what is on the EC list stays there, unless >specific permission is given to share it elsewhere. That specifically >includes here. And it is the case even though other involved parties also >wish to discuss it publicly. > >I admit to being a bit confused as to what my and Holly's duties on the EC >are to be. I know that Tim was a very active participant in the EC and >that led to some issues with him and with the Board in general. Neither >Holly nor I have posted to the list much [me never, Holly maybe once or >twice since Sept 1]. Our duties are not clearly delimited in the EC >guidelines, we do not vote, we do not have "committee duties [verifying >voter lists, etc], and apparently we are not to share committee business >with the Board given permission to do so. We are unsubbed from the EC if >Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal". > >As I said previously, I'm participate as an observer at this point. I'll >facilitate EC-Board interaction as needed, or act as a liaison if >requested to do so. Otherwise, I'm quiet. I'm afraid if I speak up I'll >get handed a voter list to verify. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 15:56:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26778 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09486 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LJtv504440; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:55:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:55:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Sun Oct 21 13:55:57 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021155106.02391960@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:56:12 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <003b01c15a51$38ab8460$4a28c141@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1406 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Actually there is precedent for replacement with another board member, when I unsubbed upon accepting the nomination for NC, Shari replaced me as ex-officio on the EC. At 11:55 AM 10/21/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Once you get to the bottom line of the EC request (I mean that "bottom line" >literally), you will find that the AB is being asked to replace Teresa with >another AB member. > >We are not being asked to okay her removal by the EC committee. That is >something that they will have to find in their own guidelines, which >apparently they feel they have cause to do when they quoted all the causes >for removal of a member. > >While "replacing her with another AB member" would, in effect, okay her >removal....or if we followed the same procedure with any other EC committee >member, okay that person's removal.......the AB cannot replace the R-A-L >with another AB member. > >It does not matter who that R-A-L is. The EC guidelines specifically state >that the ex-officio members of the committee are the NC and the R-A-L. > >I do believe that a committee ought to be able to "police" itself and oust a >member who is considered detrimental to the committee's work. Especially, >when every member of that committee (except the one in question) is in >agreement. Therefore, the EC might be able to delink Teresa, thus >effectively removing her from participation. > >I know that this is lengthy....but let me repeat: We were specifically >asked to replace the R-A-L with another AB member. Regardless of how we >feel about Teresa, the individual members of the EC, the total EC......We, >too, are limited as to what we CAN do by the EC guidelines themselves. > >And, I do not feel that this is the time to start pointing fingers at >anybody on either "side." Let's follow the rules. > >Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 16:01:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27101 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09984 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LK0tp20107; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:00:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:00:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 14:00:55 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:46:57 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1407 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Teresa, I am confused here. I need to know if this answer to a question posted on BOARD-EXEC, now sent to each of us personally instead of on BOARD-EXEC constitutes in your mind participation in confidential conversation on Board-Exec? Without a specific answer to this question, I am not comfortable, responding to you. IMHO, you did not completely answer Kathy's and Tina's questions regarding the fact that you are clearly reading Board-Exec, but not responding on it. Unfortunately, with the DBS looming over us all, it occurs to me that anything I respond to off BOARD-EXEC could wind up aired elsewhere. I am not willing to put myself in that position. Please let us work with you and answer specifically. Jana -----Original Message----- From: merope [mailto:merope@Radix.Net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:13 AM To: Board; bremerr@oclc.org; Holly Timm; isiahharrison@cs.com; janab@slip.net; Kathy Welch Heidel; Diane Parsons; nate@pa-roots.com; nw_plais_sc_rep@hotmail.com; pamreid@home.com; Ron Eason; Vicki Shaffer; Tim Stowell; Tvick65536@aol.com; Phyllis Rippee Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > Teresa, > > Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be missing > or need to have here? I am sorry, but permission has not been forthcoming to discuss the specifics with anyone not on the Election Committee. I have been told in very specific terms that what is on the EC list stays there, unless specific permission is given to share it elsewhere. That specifically includes here. And it is the case even though other involved parties also wish to discuss it publicly. I admit to being a bit confused as to what my and Holly's duties on the EC are to be. I know that Tim was a very active participant in the EC and that led to some issues with him and with the Board in general. Neither Holly nor I have posted to the list much [me never, Holly maybe once or twice since Sept 1]. Our duties are not clearly delimited in the EC guidelines, we do not vote, we do not have "committee duties [verifying voter lists, etc], and apparently we are not to share committee business with the Board given permission to do so. We are unsubbed from the EC if Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal". As I said previously, I'm participate as an observer at this point. I'll facilitate EC-Board interaction as needed, or act as a liaison if requested to do so. Otherwise, I'm quiet. I'm afraid if I speak up I'll get handed a voter list to verify. -Teresa merope@radix.net From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 16:53:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00847 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15297 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LKqwv07356; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:52:58 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:52:58 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 14:52:57 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:49:02 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021154601.00caa5c0@mail.bright.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1408 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Holly, thanks for the clarification. I do feel that you and the RAL should be involved/in the know during these kinds of discussions. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:49 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request The discussions were personnel, not personal, i.e., they were discussing their opinions etc of the volunteers to fill the open positions on the EC. Seeing as the AB had the ultimate approval/disapproval on the slate of replacements, I had no problem as NC being temporarily unsubbed for that discussion. These were personal opinions of who they thought would work well on the committee, work as a team etc, something I find acceptable to keep private. At 02:58 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Nathan Zipfel wrote: >I have some problems here with what Teresa has written.. > >1 - the EC serves as a standing committee for the board and is responsible >to us. The Board members who are on it should be able to discuss what is >happening on the EC. > >2 - I find it unacceptable that the EC would unsubscribe the NC and RAL so >that "personal" discussions can be held. They are members of the committee. >There is nothing happening on the committee that should exclude the NC and >RAL. > >I do hope that we haven't created a "monster" with the committee that they >believe they have a free hand to do as they please. > >Nate > >-----Original Message----- >From: merope [mailto:merope@Radix.Net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 8:13 AM >To: Board; bremerr@oclc.org; Holly Timm; isiahharrison@cs.com; >janab@slip.net; Kathy Welch Heidel; Diane Parsons; nate@pa-roots.com; >nw_plais_sc_rep@hotmail.com; pamreid@home.com; Ron Eason; Vicki Shaffer; >Tim Stowell; Tvick65536@aol.com; Phyllis Rippee >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request > > > >On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > > > Teresa, > > > > Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be >missing > > or need to have here? > >I am sorry, but permission has not been forthcoming to discuss the >specifics with anyone not on the Election Committee. I have been told in >very specific terms that what is on the EC list stays there, unless >specific permission is given to share it elsewhere. That specifically >includes here. And it is the case even though other involved parties also >wish to discuss it publicly. > >I admit to being a bit confused as to what my and Holly's duties on the EC >are to be. I know that Tim was a very active participant in the EC and >that led to some issues with him and with the Board in general. Neither >Holly nor I have posted to the list much [me never, Holly maybe once or >twice since Sept 1]. Our duties are not clearly delimited in the EC >guidelines, we do not vote, we do not have "committee duties [verifying >voter lists, etc], and apparently we are not to share committee business >with the Board given permission to do so. We are unsubbed from the EC if >Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal". > >As I said previously, I'm participate as an observer at this point. I'll >facilitate EC-Board interaction as needed, or act as a liaison if >requested to do so. Otherwise, I'm quiet. I'm afraid if I speak up I'll >get handed a voter list to verify. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 16:54:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00871 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15347 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LKrYs07537; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:53:34 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:53:34 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 14:53:33 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:49:38 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021155106.02391960@mail.bright.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1409 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I have no problem at that point since it wouldn't be appropriate for someone running for office to be on the EC. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:56 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Actually there is precedent for replacement with another board member, when I unsubbed upon accepting the nomination for NC, Shari replaced me as ex-officio on the EC. At 11:55 AM 10/21/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Once you get to the bottom line of the EC request (I mean that "bottom line" >literally), you will find that the AB is being asked to replace Teresa with >another AB member. > >We are not being asked to okay her removal by the EC committee. That is >something that they will have to find in their own guidelines, which >apparently they feel they have cause to do when they quoted all the causes >for removal of a member. > >While "replacing her with another AB member" would, in effect, okay her >removal....or if we followed the same procedure with any other EC committee >member, okay that person's removal.......the AB cannot replace the R-A-L >with another AB member. > >It does not matter who that R-A-L is. The EC guidelines specifically state >that the ex-officio members of the committee are the NC and the R-A-L. > >I do believe that a committee ought to be able to "police" itself and oust a >member who is considered detrimental to the committee's work. Especially, >when every member of that committee (except the one in question) is in >agreement. Therefore, the EC might be able to delink Teresa, thus >effectively removing her from participation. > >I know that this is lengthy....but let me repeat: We were specifically >asked to replace the R-A-L with another AB member. Regardless of how we >feel about Teresa, the individual members of the EC, the total EC......We, >too, are limited as to what we CAN do by the EC guidelines themselves. > >And, I do not feel that this is the time to start pointing fingers at >anybody on either "side." Let's follow the rules. > >Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 16:59:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01267 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15888 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LKwXY09962; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:58:33 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:58:33 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 14:58:33 2001 Message-ID: <3BD3369D.A4613472@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:57:01 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1410 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nathan Zipfel wrote: > > I was a part of the group that wrote the EC guidelines. We specifically > wanted the RAL and the NC to both be on the committee. The RAL like the NC > are in unique positions of representing the whole of the project while a SC > or CC rep only is there for a specific region. > (snip) In general, I agree it is desireable to have both the NC and RAL on the EC. However, in cases where that is clearly not going to work out we don't have anything to gain by forcing the issue. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:03:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01641 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16304 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LL2Zl30543; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:02:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:02:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 15:02:35 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:58:40 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BD3369D.A4613472@cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1411 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm afraid that in this situation it may be a case of "we don't like you so we ain't gonna play in the sandbox with you". They haven't tried to work together so we can't say it's not going to work. I would much rather have them try than to just give up and change the policies or substitute someone. I think that all can put their differences aside and do this. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 4:57 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Nathan Zipfel wrote: > > I was a part of the group that wrote the EC guidelines. We specifically > wanted the RAL and the NC to both be on the committee. The RAL like the NC > are in unique positions of representing the whole of the project while a SC > or CC rep only is there for a specific region. > (snip) In general, I agree it is desireable to have both the NC and RAL on the EC. However, in cases where that is clearly not going to work out we don't have anything to gain by forcing the issue. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:20:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02874 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18105 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LLKID11259; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:20:18 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:20:18 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 15:20:18 2001 Message-ID: <3BD33B9E.66A49773@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:18:22 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: <3WdouC.A.yvC.Swz07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1412 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nathan Zipfel wrote: > > I'm afraid that in this situation it may be a case of "we don't like you so > we ain't gonna play in the sandbox with you". They haven't tried to work > together so we can't say it's not going to work. I would much rather have > them try than to just give up and change the policies or substitute someone. > I think that all can put their differences aside and do this. > > Nate > I would agree if the request of the EC was not unanimous or if it was based on general preconceptions regarding Teresa Lindquist. However, the ECs reluctance to want to work with her results from very specific and recent actions on her part directly related to the committee and its functioning. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:30:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03531 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19155 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LLTqt22526; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:29:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:29:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 15:29:52 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: "Timm, Holly" , Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:15:57 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <2FdyyC.A.sfF.Q5z07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1413 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Holly, Do you have a suggestion for the best way to proceed in this situation? I think the sensitive nature of the subject is appropriately discussed on EXEC for now, but at some point discussion and resolution needs to go to BOARD-L so we can respond to the EC request officially. Knowing that you were not originally sure whether it should be put on BOARD-L, my questions are procedural before we go to BOARD-L but confidential as I think the way we handle this is very important. Learning as I go, Richard's points regarding procedures as guidelines, Board authority to appoint and the Board's responsibility to respond to the unanimous position of EC members who desire relief makes sense to me. However, would precedent differ for replacement in a time of election vs in a personnel situation? I would also like clarification regarding Phyllis' point, "There's far too many possibilities and ramifications....."worms in the can"...to go that direction." Please, Phyllis or someone tell me, what are the "possible worms"? Most important of all to me is that we proceed in a way that best serves the Project in the long run. How do we best present the issue on BOARD-L? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:hollyft@bright.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:56 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Actually there is precedent for replacement with another board member, when I unsubbed upon accepting the nomination for NC, Shari replaced me as ex-officio on the EC. From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:35:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03901 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19695 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LLZ5728249; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:35:05 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:35:05 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 15:35:05 2001 Message-ID: <3BD33F3E.F4127B4E@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:33:50 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1414 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Jana Black wrote: > > Holly, > > Do you have a suggestion for the best way to proceed in this situation? I > think the sensitive nature of the subject is appropriately discussed on EXEC > for now, but at some point discussion and resolution needs to go to BOARD-L > so we can respond to the EC request officially. Knowing that you were not > originally sure whether it should be put on BOARD-L, my questions are > procedural before we go to BOARD-L but confidential as I think the way we > handle this is very important. > > Learning as I go, Richard's points regarding procedures as guidelines, Board > authority to appoint and the Board's responsibility to respond to the > unanimous position of EC members who desire relief makes sense to me. > However, would precedent differ for replacement in a time of election vs in > a personnel situation? > > I would also like clarification regarding Phyllis' point, "There's far too > many possibilities and ramifications....."worms in the can"...to go that > direction." Please, Phyllis or someone tell me, what are the "possible > worms"? > > Most important of all to me is that we proceed in a way that best serves the > Project in the long run. How do we best present the issue on BOARD-L? > > Jana > Perhaps we need to divide the issue into two questions. Question One: Should the Board appoint someone other than the current RAL as ex-officio member on the EC? Question Two: What mechanism do we use to do this? Unless 2/3 of the Board agrees to Question One, we don't need to worry about Question Two. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:39:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04248 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20143 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:39:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LLdJX01920; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:39:19 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:39:19 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 15:39:18 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:35:21 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BD33B9E.66A49773@cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1415 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: First of all, need to clarify.... I'm not Teresa's defender - she can certainly speak for herself. I certainly do not always approve of things that she has stated in the DBS and was upset about the comments made regarding the EC. I'm only speaking in regards to my personal feelings in this issue. I guess I come at this from a different perspective having served 20 years in the Air Force and now working in the Business world. We all have people that we don't like or don't like to work with. That is what I'm seeing here. What I believe I'm hearing is not that they "can't" work with her it is that they "won't" work with her. If we were the Board members of a cooperation and we had a subcommittee in charge of develop "widgets" that our CEO and CIO were ex-officio members of and the "widget" committee voted unanimously to request the exclusion of the CIO because the CIO made some "off the cuff" comments about a few members of the committee and later apologized for. We would inform the committee that the CIO is an ex-officio member of the committee and would not be replaced. Since becoming a member of the AB only 1 comment that I've seen has been posted about the EC and it was retracted, apologized for. Any one who has been on the -ALL list has seen in the past the banter back and forth between Teresa and some members of the EC. What happened prior to her election should not have any baring on this issue. Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their concerns. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:18 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Nathan Zipfel wrote: > > I'm afraid that in this situation it may be a case of "we don't like you so > we ain't gonna play in the sandbox with you". They haven't tried to work > together so we can't say it's not going to work. I would much rather have > them try than to just give up and change the policies or substitute someone. > I think that all can put their differences aside and do this. > > Nate > I would agree if the request of the EC was not unanimous or if it was based on general preconceptions regarding Teresa Lindquist. However, the ECs reluctance to want to work with her results from very specific and recent actions on her part directly related to the committee and its functioning. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 17:58:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05463 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22167 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LLwKv14300; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:58:20 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:58:20 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 15:58:20 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: , Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:44:26 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BD33F3E.F4127B4E@cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1416 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Makes sense *except* where do we address question one? I suspect it needs to go to BOARD-L for motion, discussion and vote. How do we best present it? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:34 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Perhaps we need to divide the issue into two questions. Question One: Should the Board appoint someone other than the current RAL as ex-officio member on the EC? Question Two: What mechanism do we use to do this? Unless 2/3 of the Board agrees to Question One, we don't need to worry about Question Two. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 18:05:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06203 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA23103 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LM4tp08387; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:04:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:04:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 16:04:55 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:51:01 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1417 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Nate, How would we "listen" to a unanimous EC request but not remove Teresa? There is already precedent and as Isaiah has pointed out, we are talking about Standing Procedure. Guidelines are just *guidelines* and are certainly subject to change. Obviously as newbie, I am not aware of what transpired on the EC committee before my time, but the unanimous request makes it clear that in the eyes of the EC members, this is not the first time for them, so I would suggest they have tried to work with Teresa. What do we have to gain by dismissing their unanimous opinion? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:35 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their concerns. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 19:00:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA10384 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29095 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LMxxR29213; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:59:59 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:59:59 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 16:59:59 2001 Message-ID: <3BD35262.7805987C@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:55:30 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1418 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Jana Black wrote: > > Makes sense *except* where do we address question one? I suspect it needs to > go to BOARD-L for motion, discussion and vote. How do we best present it? > > Jana When she first introduced this topic, Holly said "I was unsure as to whether this was more appropriately handled here as it deals with an individual or should go to Board-L. Please let me know which you think is appropriate." Since the "individual" in question prefers that all issues be handled openly, I'd support Question One being posed as a motion on Board-L as quickly as possible. If it fails the issue is over. If it succeeds we move on to Question Two. -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 19:10:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11011 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00178 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LN9rV22702; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:09:53 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:09:53 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 17:09:53 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:06:35 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1419 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Jana, the precedent was because Holly was running for office. This situation is entirely different. Teresa and a few members of the EC have had running battles on the -ALL list. That in my mind is what is behind this. They are telling us "we won't work with her". They have not even tried. No one is a winner in this situation. The board isn't because we've allowed the EC to tell us who they're going to work with. The EC isn't because they're allowing personalities dictate how the work. The project isn't because we give in to this. What are we to do if we get the By-Laws committee started and you or I end up on that as a AB rep and the committee decides that I shouldn't be there because I've been critical of one or more of the members on the -ALL list. My point is this opens the board up to dealing every time with personalities. If the person is qualified to do the job, then they must be permitted to fulfill that function. If they can not fulfill the obligations for which they were elected, they should resign or be removed. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:51 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Hi Nate, How would we "listen" to a unanimous EC request but not remove Teresa? There is already precedent and as Isaiah has pointed out, we are talking about Standing Procedure. Guidelines are just *guidelines* and are certainly subject to change. Obviously as newbie, I am not aware of what transpired on the EC committee before my time, but the unanimous request makes it clear that in the eyes of the EC members, this is not the first time for them, so I would suggest they have tried to work with Teresa. What do we have to gain by dismissing their unanimous opinion? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:35 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their concerns. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 19:22:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12016 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01575 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LNMTA02180; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:22:29 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:22:29 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Sun Oct 21 17:22:28 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021181811.04c1e3f0@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:20:57 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1420 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: And what do we do if the whole committee resigns? This is a possibility. We have an EC that works and is doing a good job. Do we really want to face this possibility? I have to believe if the request is unanimous that we should at least listen to them. I would rather allow them to remove a person that they feel needs to be removed and NOT replace them than for us as the AB to try to force someone on them. Betsy At 06:06 PM 10/21/2001, you wrote: >Jana, > >the precedent was because Holly was running for office. This situation is >entirely different. Teresa and a few members of the EC have had running >battles on the -ALL list. That in my mind is what is behind this. They are >telling us "we won't work with her". They have not even tried. > >No one is a winner in this situation. The board isn't because we've allowed >the EC to tell us who they're going to work with. The EC isn't because >they're allowing personalities dictate how the work. The project isn't >because we give in to this. > >What are we to do if we get the By-Laws committee started and you or I end >up on that as a AB rep and the committee decides that I shouldn't be there >because I've been critical of one or more of the members on the -ALL list. >My point is this opens the board up to dealing every time with >personalities. If the person is qualified to do the job, then they must be >permitted to fulfill that function. If they can not fulfill the obligations >for which they were elected, they should resign or be removed. > >Nate > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:51 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request > > >Hi Nate, > >How would we "listen" to a unanimous EC request but not remove Teresa? There >is already precedent and as Isaiah has pointed out, we are talking about >Standing Procedure. Guidelines are just *guidelines* and are certainly >subject to change. > >Obviously as newbie, I am not aware of what transpired on the EC committee >before my time, but the unanimous request makes it clear that in the eyes of >the EC members, this is not the first time for them, so I would suggest they >have tried to work with Teresa. What do we have to gain by dismissing their >unanimous opinion? > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:35 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request > > > > > >Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in >this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines >because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly >should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their >concerns. > >Nate > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 19:34:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12786 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02854 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:34:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LNYNn13549; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:34:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:34:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Sun Oct 21 17:34:22 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:31:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021181811.04c1e3f0@mail.1starnet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1421 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I cannot imagine that happening. If it were threatened it would lend to the idea that it is strictly a personality issue. I have no problem with listening to them - we have to. I just have a problem of people telling me that they can't work with someone when they have not even tried. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 7:21 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request And what do we do if the whole committee resigns? This is a possibility. We have an EC that works and is doing a good job. Do we really want to face this possibility? I have to believe if the request is unanimous that we should at least listen to them. I would rather allow them to remove a person that they feel needs to be removed and NOT replace them than for us as the AB to try to force someone on them. Betsy At 06:06 PM 10/21/2001, you wrote: >Jana, > >the precedent was because Holly was running for office. This situation is >entirely different. Teresa and a few members of the EC have had running >battles on the -ALL list. That in my mind is what is behind this. They are >telling us "we won't work with her". They have not even tried. > >No one is a winner in this situation. The board isn't because we've allowed >the EC to tell us who they're going to work with. The EC isn't because >they're allowing personalities dictate how the work. The project isn't >because we give in to this. > >What are we to do if we get the By-Laws committee started and you or I end >up on that as a AB rep and the committee decides that I shouldn't be there >because I've been critical of one or more of the members on the -ALL list. >My point is this opens the board up to dealing every time with >personalities. If the person is qualified to do the job, then they must be >permitted to fulfill that function. If they can not fulfill the obligations >for which they were elected, they should resign or be removed. > >Nate > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:51 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request > > >Hi Nate, > >How would we "listen" to a unanimous EC request but not remove Teresa? There >is already precedent and as Isaiah has pointed out, we are talking about >Standing Procedure. Guidelines are just *guidelines* and are certainly >subject to change. > >Obviously as newbie, I am not aware of what transpired on the EC committee >before my time, but the unanimous request makes it clear that in the eyes of >the EC members, this is not the first time for them, so I would suggest they >have tried to work with Teresa. What do we have to gain by dismissing their >unanimous opinion? > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:35 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request > > > > > >Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in >this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines >because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly >should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their >concerns. > >Nate > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 19:41:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13303 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03591 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LNfCV22947; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:41:12 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:41:12 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Sun Oct 21 17:41:12 2001 Message-ID: <3BD35CB1.7AFD672A@cs.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:39:29 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Organization: The Art Department X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: IowaGenealogy@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1422 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nathan Zipfel wrote: > (snip) > > I guess I come at this from a different perspective having served 20 years > in the Air Force and now working in the Business world. We all have people > that we don't like or don't like to work with. That is what I'm seeing > here. What I believe I'm hearing is not that they "can't" work with her it > is that they "won't" work with her. > (snip) > Nate We are neither a branch of the military or a business. In volunteer organizations members are generally given a bit more latitude over their working conditions. Perhaps we should deny their request and just raise their salaries. ;-} -Isaiah -- Richard Harrison/Encinitas, San Diego, California USGenWeb Northwest/Plains County Coordinator Rep Jones Co. IAGenWeb Coord.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iajones/index.htm Jones Co. List Owner: IAJONES-L@rootsweb.com IOWA-L List Owner: IOWA-L@rootsweb.com Richard's Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 21:54:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA22238 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19284 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9M1reH11636; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:53:40 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:53:40 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 19:53:40 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:39:40 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1423 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Nate, Yes, I asked the question about whether it is different in an election vs in a personnel issue. No reply so far. I agree we are all losers here.... that is kind of the point. As AB members we must put ourselves above personalities and look just at issues. The question is, do we think that in posting what she did, Teresa used inappropriate and unprofessional behavior? Could such action undermine EC hard won trust in the eyes of CCs? The bylaws are clear as to what comes next. My read of the request from the EC tells me the issue is that Teresa, as ex-officio member on the EC, has "continually disrupted the business of the EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior" which flies in the face of Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study Committee Guidelines. The EC says unanimously: "This is not the first time that Teresa has posted inappropriate or unprofessional remarks about the Election Committee or its members." This DBS post, the EC members contend, continues a pattern on Teresa's part of doing what they think will erode the "hard won Trust" that "EC members have worked extremely hard this past 9 months to prove to the membership of this Project" is appropriate. It is based upon these facts and the bylaws that they ask that Teresa be removed as ex officio member of the EC saying; "The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private." Respectfully, I do not think we are in a position to try to second guess personalities and IMHO battles on ALL-L are irrelevant. The AB must stick to the facts as presented by the EC related to the bylaws. I do not agree we are letting the EC tell us anything... we have not even gotten to the discussion of who we would supply to replace Teresa if she is removed, so how do you think the EC is telling us who they will work with? I agree, a person must show they are qualified to do the job, including functioning in ways that do not flaunt appropriate behavior as defined in the bylaws. Teresa herself has agreed her behavior was inappropriate. The EC statement tells us this is not the first time they have found themselves in this position with Teresa. As far as I am concerned, we *all* need to hold ourselves to higher standards as AB members and make sure we stick to the issues at all times. This in not an easy predicament and the whole AB will suffer some damaged as a result. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 4:07 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Jana, the precedent was because Holly was running for office. This situation is entirely different. Teresa and a few members of the EC have had running battles on the -ALL list. That in my mind is what is behind this. They are telling us "we won't work with her". They have not even tried. No one is a winner in this situation. The board isn't because we've allowed the EC to tell us who they're going to work with. The EC isn't because they're allowing personalities dictate how the work. The project isn't because we give in to this. What are we to do if we get the By-Laws committee started and you or I end up on that as a AB rep and the committee decides that I shouldn't be there because I've been critical of one or more of the members on the -ALL list. My point is this opens the board up to dealing every time with personalities. If the person is qualified to do the job, then they must be permitted to fulfill that function. If they can not fulfill the obligations for which they were elected, they should resign or be removed. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 22:29:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24915 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23459 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9M2TNd23957; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:29:23 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:29:23 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Sun Oct 21 20:29:22 2001 Message-ID: <031b01c15aa1$30d6c2e0$8da028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:28:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1424 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nate, My idea of this whole thing is in-line with yours. I remember well, when a previous Board voted to not confirm "me" as the legally voted representative of the CENSUS Project. There had already been a precident set with the Archives Project, BUT the Board voted because the majority did not want to have to work with me. (Okay that's my perspective) They did not try, they had a preconceived idea of who and how I am. Your thoughts as to what is happening at the EC, I dare say are right on target. Teresa has already stated that she has not even been posting on the EC list. I would venture to say that it has very much to do with the new member that was mentioned in the DBS. It is one thing to have a long history of bad faith and hard feelings of people not workign together, but if I recall, there were many good words spoken about Teresa and her involvement in the EC. Now all of a sudden we have a few new members and they can't stand to work with her? My understanding of Ex-Officio makes the RAL a member of the EC, simply by virtue of the office they hold. So in what ever case we find ourselves, will we also be deciding the same scenario should they decide that they don't like working with Holly? Will we be forced to do something in the same case? I think not. I really don't see how this can happen without first changing the Guidelines of the Committee that is suppose to be serving us, the AB, not themselves. This is not about kids in a sandbox trying to get rid of someone because they don't want to play with them any more. I realize that we don't want to loose them all, but maybe there needs to be a good precident set that says we may all disagree with each other, but we WILL work with each other and we will be diligent to the task. I guarantee you that there are those of you on this Board that do not like me or another, still. But quess what! We have a mandate to work together regardless of what we think or feel about each other. So should they. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 00:16:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA02246 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05292 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9M4GRi09511; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:16:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:16:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Sun Oct 21 22:16:27 2001 Message-ID: <01d801c15ab0$576eaee0$8ef499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:16:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: <-x1tb.A.eUC.b2507@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1425 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I am inclined to agree with you Nathan, and the guidelines don't leave us the option to remove Teresa anyway. She is the Rep-at-Large and was duly elected for that position. She has not disrupted the meetings according to her responses. What she has done is acted in an irresponsible manner. We are familiar with this behavior as it happens frequently, so this is not a total surprise. We have no control over the content of the DBS, and it very unfortunate that this has happened, Teresa apologized to the EC and it is time to move on. Frankly I perceive a larger threat coming in the form of the Domain buy-ups and we are spending more time on derogatory name calling, than an actual attempt of a takeover and that concerns me very much. Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 01:54 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request : I was a part of the group that wrote the EC guidelines. We specifically : wanted the RAL and the NC to both be on the committee. The RAL like the NC : are in unique positions of representing the whole of the project while a SC : or CC rep only is there for a specific region. : : Having seen Teresa in action for a long time I have learned that when she : realizes that she has made a mistake that she will accept responsibility for : that. She has done that in this case. I believe the committee needs to : accept that and move forward. I feel that this is a "personal" issue with : some members. Teresa was elected by the majority of the USGenWeb and she : needs to function in that position that she was elected for. Granted there : are people that we don't like or that rub us the wrong way, but we must work : together. : : I do have a problem with what I understand the EC is doing with unsubbing : Holly and Teresa when they're discussing "personal" issues. As ex-officio : members of the EC they must have open access to all of the "meetings" of the : EC. I cannot see any reason for them to be excluded. : : Nate : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 01:55:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA08362 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15121 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9M5rFg08704; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:53:15 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:53:15 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Sun Oct 21 23:53:15 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022014408.01398490@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:44:08 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] Back Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1426 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm back from my trek around North America and visiting London, Paris, Geneva among other places. Back to 1500 emails, 1/3 downloaded so far. Will be reading / responding Monday. Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 18:05:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06203 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA23103 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LM4tp08387; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:04:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:04:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Sun Oct 21 16:04:55 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:51:01 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1417 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Nate, How would we "listen" to a unanimous EC request but not remove Teresa? There is already precedent and as Isaiah has pointed out, we are talking about Standing Procedure. Guidelines are just *guidelines* and are certainly subject to change. Obviously as newbie, I am not aware of what transpired on the EC committee before my time, but the unanimous request makes it clear that in the eyes of the EC members, this is not the first time for them, so I would suggest they have tried to work with Teresa. What do we have to gain by dismissing their unanimous opinion? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:35 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Teresa was elected to serve as the RAL and she must be permitted to serve in this position. If we take action to change the established guidelines because of this situation we are setting a bad precedent. We certainly should listen to our committee members and allow them to voice their concerns. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 06:43:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA02209 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11778 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MAgq120086; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:42:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:42:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 04:42:51 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064045.00cf7a10@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:43:05 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021155106.02391960@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <7Ku7TB.A.n5E.sg_07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1427 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A The only thing of that sort I can recall is when Shari who was standing in during the election period was going to be gone for a week for a temporary stand-in while Shari was gone. At 05:57 AM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > > > Actually there is precedent for replacement with another board member, > when > > I unsubbed upon accepting the nomination for NC, Shari replaced me as > > ex-officio on the EC. > >There's also precedent for the EC requesting the removal of a Board member >from the committee and the Board declining to do so. > >Perhaps Holly or Tim can share the details of that with us newbies. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 06:46:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA02433 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:46:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12001 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MAkHd21491; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:46:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:46:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 04:46:16 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064332.00cf7d70@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:46:30 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: <01d801c15ab0$576eaee0$8ef499cd@n3a8a0> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1428 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:16 PM 10/21/01 -0500, Kathy Heidel wrote: >I am inclined to agree with you Nathan, and the guidelines don't leave us >the option to remove Teresa anyway. She is the Rep-at-Large and was duly >elected for that position. She has not disrupted the meetings according to >her responses. What she has done is acted in an irresponsible manner. We are >familiar with this behavior as it happens frequently, so this is not a total >surprise. We have no control over the content of the DBS, and it very >unfortunate that this has happened, Teresa apologized to the EC and it is >time to move on. She apologized only for the inaccuracy about access to voting records: "Clarification Corner: Many of you have seen Linda Haas Davenport's response to yesterday's DBS, in which I commented on the potential appointment of Babs Dore to the Election Committee. In that column, I said "Can you imagine Babs "Ferret" Dore having access to YOUR voting records?" This was an _extremely_ poor choice of words on my part, as it was mistakenly taken to mean that EC members have access to actual votes. Of course they do not, to my knowledge at least, have such access. My meaning, which was utterly unclear, was that Babs would have access to individual voter information: names, email, counties, special projects, that sort of thing. [Most of us have seen what she can do with a very little bit of personal information once she puts her mind to it]." >Frankly I perceive a larger threat coming in the form of the Domain buy-ups >and we are spending more time on derogatory name calling, than an actual >attempt of a takeover and that concerns me very much. I spoke at length on the phone yesterday afternoon with Traci Holder and am awaiting some sort of confirming email regarding the results of that discussion to pass on to the Board. Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 06:48:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA02474 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12225 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MAlqb22265; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:47:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:47:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 04:47:52 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064727.00c0be20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:48:06 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1429 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A I have asked for further specifics At 10:30 PM 10/21/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > >[snip] > > > My read of the request from the EC tells me the issue is that Teresa, as > > ex-officio member on the EC, has "continually disrupted the business of the > > EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior" which flies in the > face of > > Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study Committee Guidelines. The EC > >No. I have done _nothing_ to disrupt the business of the EC, certainly I >have not disrupted it "continuously". I read the list. I make no comments >on the list. I make every effort _not_ to be my controversial self for >the good of the committee. There is absolutely no reason for them to >think that I am doing anything to violate their trust or the >confidentiality of their list. Linda knows that I never violated the >confidentiality of the ESC list. She also knows that I am not violating >the EC's gag rule. > >I make a poorly worded post in the DBS. Linda forwards the DBS to the EC >list [as she does every negative comment _anyone_ makes about the EC.] No >one mentioned it or seemed concerned with it until she forwarded it to the >list. Then I apologize. Linda DOES NOT forward the apology to the list. >As far as I know, no one on the EC has ever seen it. I have in fact >published far more positive comments about the EC since it has been >established than negative ones, and Linda knows that. I and someone >else on this Board went out on a limb to take the heat off the EC during >the last election, and she knows that too. But those comments don't seem >to make it to the EC's mailing list with the quite the regularity as the >criticisms. > >Holly, have you requested permission from the EC to provide more details >to the Board? > >-Teresa From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 06:51:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA02653 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12438 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MApWX23717; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:51:32 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:51:32 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 04:51:32 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022065002.00cf75d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:51:46 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: <031b01c15aa1$30d6c2e0$8da028d8@hppav> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1430 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:28 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Ron Eason wrote: >Your thoughts as to what is happening at the EC, >I dare say are right on target. Teresa has already stated >that she has not even been posting on the EC list. >I would venture to say that it has very much to do with >the new member that was mentioned in the DBS. This was in motion before any of the new members were added to the EC or even decided upon. >It is one thing to have a long history of bad faith and >hard feelings of people not workign together, but if I >recall, there were many good words spoken about >Teresa and her involvement in the EC. Now all of a >sudden we have a few new members and they can't >stand to work with her? It is my understanding that the problem is primarily one of confidentiality and I have asked Linda Haas-Davenport for more specifics. >My understanding of Ex-Officio makes the RAL a >member of the EC, simply by virtue of the office they >hold. So in what ever case we find ourselves, will we >also be deciding the same scenario should they decide >that they don't like working with Holly? Will we be >forced to do something in the same case? I think not. > >I really don't see how this can happen without first >changing the Guidelines of the Committee that is suppose >to be serving us, the AB, not themselves. This is not >about kids in a sandbox trying to get rid of someone >because they don't want to play with them any more. > >I realize that we don't want to loose them all, but maybe >there needs to be a good precident set that says we >may all disagree with each other, but we WILL work >with each other and we will be diligent to the task. >I guarantee you that there are those of you on this >Board that do not like me or another, still. But quess >what! We have a mandate to work together regardless >of what we think or feel about each other. > >So should they. >Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 07:31:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07484 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16533 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MBUsi23639; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:30:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:30:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 05:30:54 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022070723.00c0e220@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:18:04 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064727.00c0be20@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1431 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 06:58 AM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > > > I have asked for further specifics > >Ummm...Holly? You are on the Election Committee list. You know as well >as I do what is going and the real impetus for this request from the EC. >You don't need to ask for "further specifics" you just need to ask Linda >for permission to present what we already know. My understanding of the impetus is that the EC members have serious concerns about confidentiality of the EC list with your track record of leaking information. I have asked Linda because there may have been additional discussion off the list of which I am unaware. >You are probably in IRC with her right now. Just ask. She arrived on irc in #usgenweb while I was downloading this message (and a few others). She was there a few minutes probably like many do, popping in while she downloads her email. Before I could read this and do as you suggested she was gone. >-Teresa From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 07:31:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07488 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16555 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MBV5u23765; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:31:05 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:31:05 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 05:31:05 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022071753.0339b610@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:31:19 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064045.00cf7a10@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <9F02dD.A.MzF.5NA17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1432 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Please do, I didn't remember anything going to the board about replacing so skimmed through board-exec and didn't see anything but the one about Shari. Got to run to work now... At 06:59 AM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > > > The only thing of that sort I can recall is when Shari who was standing in > > during the election period was going to be gone for a week for a temporary > > stand-in while Shari was gone. > >Would you like me to refresh your memory? It involved the violation of >confidentiality. > >-Teresa From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 08:05:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA09608 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20306 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MC43K13775; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:04:03 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:04:03 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Oct 22 06:04:02 2001 Message-ID: <004501c15af1$a9532060$89f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:04:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Response to Teresa Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1433 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Teresa, I debated answering this because your question was addressed to Holly. I was also on the EC from the beginning and I was taken off of list when I decided to run for this position. At no time was there discussion to remove anyone from the committee. One person chose to leave, Carol C-H. She left because she was not in favor of a closed list, we did not make her leave. And there is another statement made by you which is untrue and that is this. The members of the EC do not have access to all of the mailing lists. Each SP Team or Regional Team is responsible for their region and that region only. It is not an "open list" of voters. Barbara will only be working with the SE Region. As far as I know only 2-3 members would have access to that info and someone has to put that information into a database for the elections. Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 08:56:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA13608 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27025 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MCuI018551; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:56:18 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:56:18 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Oct 22 06:56:17 2001 Message-ID: <008101c15af8$f60e3500$89f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064727.00c0be20@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20011022070723.00c0e220@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:56:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1434 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Holly, I understand fully what Linda and the EC members are going though, having been there myself. Can the Gag Rule be applied to Teresa? Can the Guidelines be changed by the EC? Because my understanding is that the Guidelines specifically require the RAL to be a member of the EC. If the guidelines were changed to allow someone other than the RAL to be a member then I would support that. But as they are written at this time I don't believe Teresa can be removed from the committee. This is why I wrote what I did last night. If I am wrong I will stand corrected. I also feel that this should be taken to Board L. I see nothing "secret" or "sensitive" about any of this information. Teresa wouldn't mind I am certain. Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 06:18 AM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request : At 06:58 AM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: : : >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: : > : > > I have asked for further specifics : > : >Ummm...Holly? You are on the Election Committee list. You know as well : >as I do what is going and the real impetus for this request from the EC. : >You don't need to ask for "further specifics" you just need to ask Linda : >for permission to present what we already know. : : My understanding of the impetus is that the EC members have serious : concerns about confidentiality of the EC list with your track record of : leaking information. I have asked Linda because there may have been : additional discussion off the list of which I am unaware. : : >You are probably in IRC with her right now. Just ask. : : She arrived on irc in #usgenweb while I was downloading this message (and a : few others). She was there a few minutes probably like many do, popping in : while she downloads her email. Before I could read this and do as you : suggested she was gone. : : : >-Teresa : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 11:02:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27120 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17360 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MF1xd04432; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:01:59 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:01:59 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Mon Oct 22 09:01:58 2001 Message-ID: <000301c15b0a$a47f6ee0$d5967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:02:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1435 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A Looking at the previous AB actions in regard to the EC.....when the previous RAL declared her candidacy, she made the motion announcing her withdrawal from the EC and named her own replacement. AB approved. There is NO indication that the NC ever withdrew from the EC, or was ever replaced.....officially by the AB. So, we can't very well go back and establish precedence. And, I suppose that we can change procedural rules and ignore dear ol' grandfather. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 12:59:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10569 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07713 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:59:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MGvuI18588; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:57:56 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:57:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Mon Oct 22 10:57:53 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:37:47 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <031b01c15aa1$30d6c2e0$8da028d8@hppav> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Resent-Message-ID: <1ru7y.A.NhE.TAF17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1436 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Good morning, I have just caught upon the accumulated mail overnight. In what I read, I see some AB members think that because Teresa has not posted to the EC list, that means she has disrupted no EC business. Kathy offered that Teresa's actions were "irresponsible." We operate in a virtual world where a group of CCs are very interested in watching our every move. Let's not kid ourselves, what Teresa posted in her DBS has tremendous weight in such a world. Remember, many of us have never ever met face to face... the printed word is often all that we have to go on. Until this last election, no one ever before even posted photographs of themselves as they ran for office so folks could "glean whatever" from the mug shots. It is not that Teresa has not posted to the EC that is at issue. It is whether *what* she has posted in the DBS, which she admits "wasn't one of my better moments" constitutes "inappropriate or unprofessional behavior" that "is disruptive of the EC's business." I suggest that "irresponsible" behavior on the part of an AB member is "inappropriate or unprofessional behavior." Further, the way Teresa continues to post "red flag" clues in the DBS, I say IS "disruptive..." Case in point; DBS, Thursday 18 October 2001, Teresa writes: "Phyllis says "The reason I said that we should register according to what we are said to be in the bylaws is because this is currently acceptable to quite a few SCs and CCs who have told me that if we incorporate, they walk." She suggests that now is not the time to test whether or not something is "a threat or a promise". [If this seems a little non sequiter-ish, it is. It has to do with a Private Secret Something currently under discussion on Board-Exec.]" Great, so now all the hackles get raised in the minds of CCs who like to think EXEC is where we "hide" information. I consider this to be not only irresponsible behavior, but also inappropriate and unprofessional and disruptive behavior. Further it is yet another indication that Teresa chooses to use tactics that serve little purpose in my mind other than to get people going. THIS IS DISRUPTIVE! The ability to honor confidentiality in sensitive situations counts, not just on the lists, but also OFF list (as in the DBS). I understand why "The EC members do not believe that such privacy can be guaranteed to the volunteers of this Project as long as Teresa is a member of the committee since Teresa is well known for posting information on her Daily Board Show that is often confidential or private." Having said all that I add my voice to those who say it is time to move this to BOARD-L. Teresa, you said you were ready to do so, there is nothing stopping you. Perhaps under the circumstances, it is best that it is introduced by you. Jana From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 13:04:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11098 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08465 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9MH0Ak20505; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:00:10 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:00:10 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@verizon.net Mon Oct 22 11:00:09 2001 From: Nathan Zipfel Reply-To: nate@gte.net Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:00:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011022170007.UBHX19541.mp002.verizon.net@[192.168.129.171]> Subject: [Board-Exec] EC goings on Resent-Message-ID: <-FRBw.A.LAF.aCF17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1437 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, I am of the impression that we are not getting the full story in regards to the EC. As a sub-committee to the AB, we as board members have the right and the responsibility to know what is happening on the EC. We should be able to be subscribed to their mailing list to monitor what is happening. I want some straight answers - no one should be bound by a "gag" rule from the EC list to keep the AB informed. Holly I know you have some information which you should present - you don't need Linda's permission to report to the AB. Teresa, you don't need permission either. I feel we are only hearing what a few want us to hear. If the EC is operating in a secretive manner it must stop immediately. If I can't get the full picture here, I'll move the conversation to the Board-L list and seek a motion to suspend the EC until this is resolved. Nate From merope@Radix.Net Sun Oct 21 07:27:45 2001 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: TVick65536@aol.com cc: wchs@getgoin.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, hollyft@bright.net, nate@gte.net, ky.quest@gte.net, rkeason@tir.com, pamreid@home.com, tngibson@att.net, bremerr@oclc.org, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, IsaiahHarrison@cs.com, kheidel@tri.net, betsym@1starnet.com, janab@slip.net Subject: And furthermore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Here's my apology that was sent the next day: === "Clarification Corner: Many of you have seen Linda Haas Davenport's response to yesterday's DBS, in which I commented on the potential appointment of Babs Dore to the Election Committee. In that column, I said "Can you imagine Babs "Ferret" Dore having access to YOUR voting records?" This was an _extremely_ poor choice of words on my part, as it was mistakenly taken to mean that EC members have access to actual votes. Of course they do not, to my knowledge at least, have such access. My meaning, which was utterly unclear, was that Babs would have access to individual voter information: names, email, counties, special projects, that sort of thing. [Most of us have seen what she can do with a very little bit of personal information once she puts her mind to it]. Anyways, as Linda pointed out: "Any of you who read my posts before, during and after the election, know that NO member of the EC has access to ANY voting record. The only person who has access to how YOU voted is Larry Stephens and unless YOU asked him to specifically look at YOUR personal vote he probably hasn't seen it either. The voting software compiles a report of vote totals and this is the report that Larry sent to the EC who in turn sent it to the Project. What the members of the EC do have access to is your voter registration information: Your name, e-mail address, the job you do (CC, SC, whatever)and the county(s), state(s) you volunteer in. Hardly the same as "Access to YOUR voting record"." She is absolutely right, and I apologize for the misunderstanding." === -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Sun Oct 21 07:58:30 2001 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:58:27 -0400 (EDT) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <04aa01c159cb$74098a60$9ea028d8@hppav> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Actually, Ron, I _should_ be held to higher standards, since I am the elected representative. This wasn't one of my better moments. However, I did apologize for it and I do intend to do better in the future. As I said before I have not posted anything on the EC's list. I have not responded to the discussions on this topic there, even though they have contained numerous inaccuracies and omissions. I have not addressed it publicly, although it has been publicly discussed. I have not challenged the EC chair on her choice to present only a partial representation of the events, both to her committee and to this Board. I am aware that to some people _anything_ I say is "disruptive" so I have tried to remain as an observer and facilitator, rather than actively participating in the EC's daily business. Again, I am very confused as to why Linda doesn't want you to know the full story in this incident and again ask Holly to request permission from the EC to present you with full details. -Teresa merope@radix.net On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Ron Eason wrote: > Well. > No wonder I couldn't find it. > Okay, I get the picture. > > It's sort of a reversal of odds. > Some couldn't get enough punches in > when Teresa was running. > Now Teresa is held to a different standard > because she, What? > She isn't a regular Member right? > She is ex-officio, is this correct? > Some of the same Members of the EC > had some things to say on ALL and they > were not asked to be removed. Keith > does it all the time. They did it to her on > the ALL list, which is public and she did > something private on a subscribe only list. > > Are we going to use the same standard > that the others were measured by? > > Unless I am missing something here, > maybe someone can explain it better to me. > > I hardly see this as having anything to do with > what was said, but WHO said it. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Oct 21 08:13:19 2001 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:13:17 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, nw_plais_sc_rep@hotmail.com, pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: > Teresa, > > Would you please offer any relevant information you think we may be missing > or need to have here? I am sorry, but permission has not been forthcoming to discuss the specifics with anyone not on the Election Committee. I have been told in very specific terms that what is on the EC list stays there, unless specific permission is given to share it elsewhere. That specifically includes here. And it is the case even though other involved parties also wish to discuss it publicly. I admit to being a bit confused as to what my and Holly's duties on the EC are to be. I know that Tim was a very active participant in the EC and that led to some issues with him and with the Board in general. Neither Holly nor I have posted to the list much [me never, Holly maybe once or twice since Sept 1]. Our duties are not clearly delimited in the EC guidelines, we do not vote, we do not have "committee duties [verifying voter lists, etc], and apparently we are not to share committee business with the Board given permission to do so. We are unsubbed from the EC if Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal". As I said previously, I'm participate as an observer at this point. I'll facilitate EC-Board interaction as needed, or act as a liaison if requested to do so. Otherwise, I'm quiet. I'm afraid if I speak up I'll get handed a voter list to verify. -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Sun Oct 21 22:30:33 2001 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:30:27 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jana Black wrote: [snip] > My read of the request from the EC tells me the issue is that Teresa, as > ex-officio member on the EC, has "continually disrupted the business of the > EC with inappropriate or unprofessional behavior" which flies in the face of > Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the Election Study Committee Guidelines. The EC No. I have done _nothing_ to disrupt the business of the EC, certainly I have not disrupted it "continuously". I read the list. I make no comments on the list. I make every effort _not_ to be my controversial self for the good of the committee. There is absolutely no reason for them to think that I am doing anything to violate their trust or the confidentiality of their list. Linda knows that I never violated the confidentiality of the ESC list. She also knows that I am not violating the EC's gag rule. I make a poorly worded post in the DBS. Linda forwards the DBS to the EC list [as she does every negative comment _anyone_ makes about the EC.] No one mentioned it or seemed concerned with it until she forwarded it to the list. Then I apologize. Linda DOES NOT forward the apology to the list. As far as I know, no one on the EC has ever seen it. I have in fact published far more positive comments about the EC since it has been established than negative ones, and Linda knows that. I and someone else on this Board went out on a limb to take the heat off the EC during the last election, and she knows that too. But those comments don't seem to make it to the EC's mailing list with the quite the regularity as the criticisms. Holly, have you requested permission from the EC to provide more details to the Board? -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 05:57:15 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:57:13 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011021155106.02391960@mail.bright.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > Actually there is precedent for replacement with another board member, when > I unsubbed upon accepting the nomination for NC, Shari replaced me as > ex-officio on the EC. There's also precedent for the EC requesting the removal of a Board member from the committee and the Board declining to do so. Perhaps Holly or Tim can share the details of that with us newbies. -Teresa merope@radix.net From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 06:58:43 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064727.00c0be20@mail.bright.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > I have asked for further specifics Ummm...Holly? You are on the Election Committee list. You know as well as I do what is going and the real impetus for this request from the EC. You don't need to ask for "further specifics" you just need to ask Linda for permission to present what we already know. You are probably in IRC with her right now. Just ask. -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 06:59:51 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:59:50 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022064045.00cf7a10@mail.bright.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > The only thing of that sort I can recall is when Shari who was standing in > during the election period was going to be gone for a week for a temporary > stand-in while Shari was gone. Would you like me to refresh your memory? It involved the violation of confidentiality. -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 11:55:20 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:55:13 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Response to Teresa In-Reply-To: <004501c15af1$a9532060$89f499cd@n3a8a0> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Kathy Heidel wrote: > And there is another statement made by you which is untrue and that is this. > The members of the EC do not have access to all of the mailing lists. Each > SP Team or Regional Team is responsible for their region and that region > only. It is not an "open list" of voters. Barbara will only be working with > the SE Region. As far as I know only 2-3 members would have access to that > info and someone has to put that information into a database for the > elections. According to the EC Chair, all members of the EC have access to all voter records. Additionally, under the new registration system, _all_ information provided by persons who register is forwarded to the EC list where all EC members may see it. -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 11:56:01 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:55:59 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Response to Teresa In-Reply-To: <004501c15af1$a9532060$89f499cd@n3a8a0> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Kathy Heidel wrote: > Teresa, > I debated answering this because your question was addressed to Holly. I > was also on the EC from the beginning and I was taken off of list when I > decided to run for this position. At no time was there discussion to remove > anyone from the committee. One person chose to leave, Carol C-H. She left > because she was not in favor of a closed list, we did not make her leave. That is not what happened, according to the chair of the EC. -Teresa From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 22 11:57:11 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:57:09 -0400 (EDT) From: merope To: Board , bremerr@oclc.org, Holly Timm , isaiahharrison@cs.com, janab@slip.net, Kathy Welch Heidel , Diane Parsons , nate@pa-roots.com, Mary Ann Hetrick , pamreid@home.com, Ron Eason , Vicki Shaffer , Tim Stowell , Tvick65536@aol.com, Phyllis Rippee Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: <008101c15af8$f60e3500$89f499cd@n3a8a0> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Kathy Heidel wrote: > I also feel that this should be taken to Board L. I see nothing "secret" > or "sensitive" about any of this information. Teresa wouldn't mind I am > certain. I have absolutely no objection. If Holly had not pre-empted me, I would have taken it there immediately. -Teresa From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:09:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA26872 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18952 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N08q129448; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:08:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:08:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Mon Oct 22 18:08:51 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022195049.00d3ddd0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:09:09 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022071753.0339b610@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1438 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 07:22 PM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > > > Please do, I didn't remember anything going to the board about > replacing so > > skimmed through board-exec and didn't see anything but the one about > Shari. > > Got to run to work now... > >The following is a log of a chat that occurred on Aug 11. Linda HD is >Linda Haas Davenport, chair of the EC. Keith is Keith Giddeon. >BoardMember1 is a source and is currently still on the Board, so his/her >identity is protected. Member2 is a project member who involved in >this. The "Tim" that is referred to is former NC Tim Stowell. The log is >unedited except to replaceBoardMember1's name and to remove some >identifying IRC macros and one statemtn that would identify BM1. > >Read it carefully. It contains some very interesting statements by >Linda Haas Davenport. And, yes, you are seeing a Board member and two >members of the EC discussing confidential Board-Exec and EC business with >me, who was neither on the EC nor the Board at the time. > >I am sorry. Log posters are the lowest scum on the internet. But I am >having a _very_ hard time believing Holly is unaware of this incident. Unaware? No. It didn't come to mind this morning though but with a date, yes I could find it. This never appeared on board-l or the exec list which is why I found nothing in my quick search this morning. The issue here was that Linda thought something had been leaked by an EC member but when all was sorted out that was not so and the request was dropped without coming to a vote or anything of that sort. Holly From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:46:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00292 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24056 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:46:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0k4C00676; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:04 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:04 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 18:46:04 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022194829.02a4a7b0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:48:29 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] EC list Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1439 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:13:17 -0400 (EDT) From: merope "We are unsubbed from the EC if Linda determines that the topic under discussion is too "personal"." Unless the EC is discussing either the NC or the At Large rep personally I see no reason for either of them to be unsubbed from the EC list. Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:47:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00296 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24069 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0kMj01226; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:22 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:22 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 18:46:22 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022182917.01380560@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] CONFIDENTIAL In-Reply-To: <009901c15828$bfc0bc20$745bfea9@vaio> References: <000a01c15824$7794ec40$aa967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <00YXYC.A.BT.e3L17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1440 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:00 PM 10/18/01 -0500, Vicki wrote: >Joe has already been extremely offensive on the ALL list to the point he was >banned. > >And from the response so far from the SC's, no one is particularly concerned >about the domain purchases. > >Maybe he and Traci have an army of volunteers....................All I can >say about that is GOOD LUCK! They apparently have deep pockets. > >I don't see what there is to fight............nothing wrong with >competition. > >I'm right here in Austin so if anyone would like me to call and ask about >anything, let me know. > >Vicki Perhaps, as you are in Austin - a call could be placed to the appropriate authority in the state government asking if they would allow such incorporation of an already nationally recognized name without authorization of said group? Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:47:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00310 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24136 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0kTA01410; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:29 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:29 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 18:46:29 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022203951.02a49da0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:39:51 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request In-Reply-To: <000301c15b0a$a47f6ee0$d5967a3f@wchs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <_GpDiD.A.5V.l3L17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1442 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:02 AM 10/22/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >Looking at the previous AB actions in regard to the EC.....when the previous >RAL declared her candidacy, she made the motion announcing her withdrawal >from the EC and named her own replacement. AB approved. > >There is NO indication that the NC ever withdrew from the EC, or was ever >replaced.....officially by the AB. I was unsubbed from the EC list as soon as I declared my candidate status as running for an AB position. At that point the AB appointed someone else to take my place - who that was I don't remember. Tim >So, we can't very well go back and establish precedence. > >And, I suppose that we can change procedural rules and ignore dear ol' >grandfather. > >Phyllis > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:47:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00329 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24162 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0kPM01299; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:25 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 18:46:25 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022195557.013804e0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:55:57 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: EC Request In-Reply-To: <3BD2FBDB.4DE7902F@cs.com> References: <200110192200.f9JM0Aq24299@lists2.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1441 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:46 AM 10/21/01 -0700, Richard Harrison wrote: >We need to remember that the EC was created by and serves at the >pleasure of the Board--not the other way around. If the Board chooses to >to amend the Standing Proceedures that govern the EC it is its privilege >to do so. Although the original guidelines were proposed by the Election >Study Committee, there is no resaon why tindividual Board members cannot >propose additions, subtractions or changes to the rules the Board chose >to adopt as its Standing Procedures. > >However, the EC has not complained about the Standing Procedures. They >have complained about the person currently serving as >Representative-at-Large. If it turns out that, over a period of time, >there is a consistent problem with the RAL serving as a member of the >EC, we would probably want to amend that procedure. At the present time, >I think we ought to deal directly with the EC's specific complaint. > >The EC unanimously believes they can not work effectively with the >current RAL as an ex-officio member of the committee. If the Board >agrees, it would be appropriate to introduce a motion to suspend the >Standing Procedure designating the RAL as an ex-offico member of the EC >for the duration of Teresa Lindquist's term and appoint an alternative >Board member to serve on the committee. If the AB wishes to change who is currently ex-offico members of the EC then according to the 'rules' the AB would first have to modify the setup of the committee. I don't think we would want to go to the extreme by saying let's do it this way to get around a specific person serving on the committee but rather, if such a change is made, that the description of the ex-offico members is changed. This change should not be just for now but the future as well. >The work of the EC is very important to this project. Teresa Lindquist >has been outspoken (to say the least!) in her criticism of some EC >members. I think the request of the EC to have her replaced is >reasonable. > >Sometimes, saying you're sorry is just not enough. > >-Isaiah Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 20:49:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA00470 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24501 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N0kUO01483; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:46:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Oct 22 18:46:30 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022204129.02a4e2a0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:41:29 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re:EC Request In-Reply-To: References: <031b01c15aa1$30d6c2e0$8da028d8@hppav> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1443 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:37 AM 10/22/01 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >Having said all that I add my voice to those who say it is time to >move this to BOARD-L. Holly, Would you please post the original EC request note to Board-l? Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 21:11:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA02341 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27566 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N1AOO06811; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:10:24 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:10:24 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Mon Oct 22 19:10:23 2001 Message-ID: <020101c15b5f$51083e40$39a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022071753.0339b610@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20011022195049.00d3ddd0@mail.bright.net> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:09:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1444 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I can't speak for anyone but myself. But after reading that chat log I don't see a lot of problem with any relationship between Teresa and Linda, at least not during that period. Now, why all of a sudden there are problems are beyond me. But I would guess that it is no different than the shift in attitude from the ALL list, where Keith is going at Teresa, but yet can sit and talk with her in a chat with Linda and the mysterious Board guest, and not seem to be at all at odds with her. SO, my initial reaction to this matter has not changed. I still think that the EC needs to learn to work with others. And I don't think we should be changing guidelines and removing anyone just because someone gets a wild hair. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 21:15:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA02572 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28165 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N1EgZ11161; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:14:42 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:14:42 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Mon Oct 22 19:14:42 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:11:18 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <020101c15b5f$51083e40$39a028d8@hppav> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1445 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree.... Also, reading that chat log, why was a board member (who's style of writing sounds very familiar) discussing EXEC e-mails with Linda and Teresa who were not board members? Nate -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:09 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish I can't speak for anyone but myself. But after reading that chat log I don't see a lot of problem with any relationship between Teresa and Linda, at least not during that period. Now, why all of a sudden there are problems are beyond me. But I would guess that it is no different than the shift in attitude from the ALL list, where Keith is going at Teresa, but yet can sit and talk with her in a chat with Linda and the mysterious Board guest, and not seem to be at all at odds with her. SO, my initial reaction to this matter has not changed. I still think that the EC needs to learn to work with others. And I don't think we should be changing guidelines and removing anyone just because someone gets a wild hair. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 21:32:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04171 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00571 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N1W9N30597; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:32:09 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:32:09 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@home.com Mon Oct 22 19:32:08 2001 From: "Pam Reid" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:30:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1446 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Nate's comment echos just what I was thinking. A board member is dicussing Exec messages with people not on the Board. -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Zipfel [mailto:nate@gte.net] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:11 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish I agree.... Also, reading that chat log, why was a board member (who's style of writing sounds very familiar) discussing EXEC e-mails with Linda and Teresa who were not board members? Nate -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:09 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish I can't speak for anyone but myself. But after reading that chat log I don't see a lot of problem with any relationship between Teresa and Linda, at least not during that period. Now, why all of a sudden there are problems are beyond me. But I would guess that it is no different than the shift in attitude from the ALL list, where Keith is going at Teresa, but yet can sit and talk with her in a chat with Linda and the mysterious Board guest, and not seem to be at all at odds with her. SO, my initial reaction to this matter has not changed. I still think that the EC needs to learn to work with others. And I don't think we should be changing guidelines and removing anyone just because someone gets a wild hair. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 22:02:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06917 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05175 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N22K825180; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:02:20 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:02:20 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Oct 22 20:02:19 2001 Message-ID: <016201c15b66$c39ca7a0$a6f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:02:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Response Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1447 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Kathy Heidel wrote: > Teresa, > I debated answering this because your question was addressed to Holly. I > was also on the EC from the beginning and I was taken off of list when I > decided to run for this position. At no time was there discussion to remove > anyone from the committee. One person chose to leave, Carol C-H. She left > because she was not in favor of a closed list, we did not make her leave. That is not what happened, according to the chair of the EC. -Teresa And pray tell what did happen? Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Mon Oct 22 22:03:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06967 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05209 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9N22VM26056; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:02:31 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:02:31 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Mon Oct 22 20:02:30 2001 Message-ID: <016301c15b66$cbf66940$a6f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:02:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Subject: [Board-Exec] Voter Lists Resent-Message-ID: <6Axp0C.A.4WG.3-M17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1448 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Kathy Heidel wrote: > And there is another statement made by you which is untrue and that is this. > The members of the EC do not have access to all of the mailing lists. Each > SP Team or Regional Team is responsible for their region and that region > only. It is not an "open list" of voters. Barbara will only be working with > the SE Region. As far as I know only 2-3 members would have access to that > info and someone has to put that information into a database for the > elections. According to the EC Chair, all members of the EC have access to all voter records. Additionally, under the new registration system, _all_ information provided by persons who register is forwarded to the EC list where all EC members may see it. -Teresa Rules have changed since I left the EC because I did not have access to the Voter Lists with the exception of the NW/Plains Region. Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 07:02:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA16690 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03891 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NB1cq02318; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:01:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:01:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Oct 23 05:01:37 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023064730.0239e950@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:01:52 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022195049.00d3ddd0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <-3PitD.A.Ak.S4U17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1449 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:26 AM 10/23/01 -0400, merope wrote: >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > > > Unaware? No. It didn't come to mind this morning though but with a date, > > yes I could find it. This never appeared on board-l or the exec list which > > is why I found nothing in my quick search this morning. The issue here was > > that Linda thought something had been leaked by an EC member but when all > > was sorted out that was not so and the request was dropped without coming > > to a vote or anything of that sort. > >Let me get this straight. > >The Chair of the EC forwarded a request to the NC and you to remove the NC >from the EC for violating confidentiality, and you not only didn't forward >it to the Board, you _forgot_ about it? The Chair of the EC did not forward a request to the NC and myself, she sent an email directly to all board member email addresses so forwarding to the board didn't come into it. Your request previously was "There's also precedent for the EC requesting the removal of a Board member from the committee and the Board declining to do so". I didn't remember anything about the board declining such a request nor even discussion on such a matter. The event you refer to is not labeled in my mind 'removal of a board member' discussion but as the confusion over the origins of a message. When this was resolved the whole thing evaporated, no vote or anything approaching a vote was taken on the matter. >You are aware of how Linda presents this incident to the EC, aren't you? which "incident"? the one above or the present one? >It is not very fair to your colleagues on the Board to allow that to >continue uncorrected, is it? > >-Teresa From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 07:04:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA16774 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04036 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NB45114280; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:04:05 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:04:05 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Oct 23 05:04:05 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023070324.045332a0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:04:19 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish In-Reply-To: References: <020101c15b5f$51083e40$39a028d8@hppav> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1450 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:11 PM 10/22/01 -0400, Nathan Zipfel wrote: >I agree.... > >Also, reading that chat log, why was a board member (who's style of writing >sounds very familiar) discussing EXEC e-mails with Linda and Teresa who were >not board members? As it was a situation regarding the EC and a request of theirs and messages sent Teresa it is parties to the incident. >Nate > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] >Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:09 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish > > >I can't speak for anyone but myself. >But after reading that chat log I don't >see a lot of problem with any relationship >between Teresa and Linda, at least not >during that period. > >Now, why all of a sudden there are problems >are beyond me. But I would guess that it is >no different than the shift in attitude from the >ALL list, where Keith is going at Teresa, but >yet can sit and talk with her in a chat with Linda >and the mysterious Board guest, and not seem >to be at all at odds with her. > >SO, my initial reaction to this matter has not >changed. I still think that the EC needs to learn >to work with others. And I don't think we should >be changing guidelines and removing anyone >just because someone gets a wild hair. > >Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 10:27:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04653 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03006 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NENVR09105; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:23:31 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:23:31 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 23 08:23:31 2001 Message-ID: <001a01c15bce$6b4a3320$ca967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:24:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1451 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Tim, There is nothing in the official board records that are posted, that indicates anyone was chosen to replace you on the EC. I have been told that you were delinked, but I have also been told that since you ran unopposed there was no reason to delink you. There is also nothing to indicate that anyone was chosen to replace Kathy Heidel when she withdrew from the EC to run for office......until the slate of three was presented to us. Whatever action was taken in regard to you and Kathy, it is inconsistent with what the action was that was taken with Holly. And, it is that inconsistency that creates problems. Phyllis -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: 22 October, 2001 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request >At 10:02 AM 10/22/01 -0500, Phyllis Rippee wrote: >>Looking at the previous AB actions in regard to the EC.....when the previous >>RAL declared her candidacy, she made the motion announcing her withdrawal >>from the EC and named her own replacement. AB approved. >> >>There is NO indication that the NC ever withdrew from the EC, or was ever >>replaced.....officially by the AB. > >I was unsubbed from the EC list as soon as I declared my candidate status as >running for an AB position. At that point the AB appointed someone else >to take my place - who that was I don't remember. > >Tim > >>So, we can't very well go back and establish precedence. >> >>And, I suppose that we can change procedural rules and ignore dear ol' >>grandfather. >> >>Phyllis >> >> > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 11:42:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA12792 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:42:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16044 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NFeQ111226; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:40:26 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:40:26 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Tue Oct 23 09:40:26 2001 Message-ID: <00c001c15bd9$29f2e6a0$ca967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:41:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1452 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Can this be moved to Board-L where resolutions are achieved via motions and votes? Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 12:01:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14966 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19459 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NG0g124681; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:00:42 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:00:42 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Oct 23 10:00:42 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:46:33 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00c001c15bd9$29f2e6a0$ca967a3f@wchs> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1453 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I asked for this yesterday. Rereading the list rules, it is up to Holly to move the conversation, tho I suppose that Teresa, as the "other party involved" could also logically introduce it. If it is not yet time to move the conversation, then Holly, how about giving Sundee "a general statement to include in the Board Report." to reassure CCs after Teresa's DBS statement quoted yesterday. The innuendo is much worse than the facts. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:41 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Can this be moved to Board-L where resolutions are achieved via motions and votes? Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 12:25:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA17429 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23261 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NGOQx28860; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:24:26 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:24:26 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Oct 23 10:24:25 2001 Message-ID: <005901c15bdf$34567340$94f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:24:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <_t2t4D.A.zCH.6mZ17@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1454 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Phyllis and Jana, this needs to go to the Board-L Linda is at a disadvantage and so are the CC's. We are doing just what the former Boards did and we promised that we would not repeat those mistakes, imho. Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:46 AM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] EC Request : I asked for this yesterday. Rereading the list rules, it is up to Holly to : move the conversation, tho I suppose that Teresa, as the "other party : involved" could also logically introduce it. If it is not yet time to move : the conversation, then Holly, how about giving Sundee "a general statement : to include in the Board Report." to reassure CCs after Teresa's DBS : statement quoted yesterday. The innuendo is much worse than the facts. : : Jana : : -----Original Message----- : From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] : Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:41 AM : To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com : Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request : : : Can this be moved to Board-L where resolutions are achieved via motions and : votes? : : Phyllis : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 12:38:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19024 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25415 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NGULm00346; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:30:21 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:30:21 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Oct 23 10:30:21 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:16:10 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Subject: [Board-Exec] Teresa's threat Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1455 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ok, now I am feeling peeved. The "cat" has just called the "kettle" black. This is not about Holly! Teresa's threat is like my Grama complaining about the taste of her cup of tea and someone replying by saying "If you think that tastes bad, what about the tea people had to drink from the Boston Harbor after the Tea Party???" It is actually labeled "bafflegabbing" in the professional world. It is a form of emotional abuse involving so obfuscating an issue as to lose it altogether. This is not professional, nor is it acceptable behavior, IMHO. We are not kiddies. It ain't relevant folks. The issue here is the request from the EC based upon guidelines the AB approved and an official AB response to the EC. I am sure there may be more to it in the minds of many, but our job is to address with a whole AB opinion what has been put in front of us. If Teresa can produce facts relevant to the specific issue, not personalities, not innuendo, she will have the opportunity on BOARD-L. The facts will stand on their own. Obviously, she thinks she did nothing wrong. Others of us may disagree. It happens. We can handle it and move on and the world will still turn. Hopefully we will all have learned something in it and we will be a better AB as a result. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard or we are not representing our constituency. We will never please everyone, it goes with the territory. This Exec-L interaction is simply taking up time, dragging us into areas that do not need to be visited and raising CC hackles. We cannot change the past, we cannot predict the future... we CAN however deal with what is in front of us, right now. Let's move forward into productive action on BOARD-L, in the best interests of the Project as a whole. Jana From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 17:10:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20930 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13983 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NL8ls10362; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:08:47 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:08:47 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@verizon.net Tue Oct 23 15:08:47 2001 From: Nathan Zipfel Reply-To: nate@gte.net Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:21:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011023202131.WVWV16686.mp005.verizon.net@[192.168.129.174]> Subject: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1456 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Holly, this motion appears to be out of order as it would violate the EC Guidelines. Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 17:29:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23624 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17388 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NLT2c24539; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:29:02 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:29:02 -0600 X-Original-Sender: hollyft@bright.net Tue Oct 23 15:29:02 2001 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023172834.00bb8950@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:29:18 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request In-Reply-To: <20011023202131.WVWV16686.mp005.verizon.net@[192.168.129.17 4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1457 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:21 PM 10/23/01 -0500, Nathan Zipfel wrote: >Holly, > >this motion appears to be out of order as it would violate the EC Guidelines. Nate, I am looking into that and will post about it later, you note I have not numbered or accepted the motion? Holly >Nate From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 17:45:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25607 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:45:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20310 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NLikh04240; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:44:46 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:44:46 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Oct 23 15:44:46 2001 Message-ID: <005601c15c0b$f5f738a0$9cf499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: , References: <20011023202131.WVWV16686.mp005.verizon.net@[192.168.129.174]> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:44:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1458 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: May I please ask why this conversation is on Board Ex? It needs to go to Board L Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 03:21 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request : Holly, : : this motion appears to be out of order as it would violate the EC Guidelines. : : Nate : : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 18:21:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00457 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26603 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NMKfQ21384; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:20:41 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:20:41 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Oct 23 16:20:40 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011023025702.0082ce60@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:57:02 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011022071753.0339b610@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: As you wish Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1459 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:22 PM 10/22/01 -0400, merope wrote: > > >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Holly Timm wrote: > >> Please do, I didn't remember anything going to the board about replacing so >> skimmed through board-exec and didn't see anything but the one about Shari. >> Got to run to work now... > >The following is a log of a chat that occurred on Aug 11. Linda HD is >Linda Haas Davenport, chair of the EC. Keith is Keith Giddeon. >BoardMember1 is a source and is currently still on the Board, so his/her >identity is protected. Member2 is a project member who involved in >this. The "Tim" that is referred to is former NC Tim Stowell. The log is >unedited except to replaceBoardMember1's name and to remove some >identifying IRC macros and one statemtn that would identify BM1. > >Read it carefully. It contains some very interesting statements by >Linda Haas Davenport. And, yes, you are seeing a Board member and two >members of the EC discussing confidential Board-Exec and EC business with >me, who was neither on the EC nor the Board at the time. > >I am sorry. Log posters are the lowest scum on the internet. But I am >having a _very_ hard time believing Holly is unaware of this incident. > >-Teresa > >=== > >Session Start: Sat Aug 11 08:53:50 2001 >*** Now talking in #[deleted] >*** BoardMember1 sets mode: +o merope > morning > mroning dear > Good Morning Teresa. I need to ask you something and if you want >to I'll ask [BoardMember1] to step out for a minute. > depends on what it is > Linda, let me tell you something first > k > also, let me go get some caffeine :) > confidentail > k > the message fromboard exec did not come from the ec list, >it came from the exec list and it was me that sent it > k but what about the "packet of e-mails" Kelly says she got? > that I know nothing about > back > it may have been from the Archiver problem and Betsy can >check if EC archives were available > Well if Kelly received a "packet" of EC e-mails then someone on >the EC did send them as she says. I don't know that Kelly would know to go >check to see if the Archives was suddendly open. > someone else may have checked them and sent them > are you sure she emans from the EC list or does that >reference mean the exec list? > Well I've done two things because I of Teresa & Kelly's >messages: (1) I have requested the AB to allow me to remove Tim from the >list and (2) I have questioned each EC member as to whether they have >forwarded messages. > what I have seen from her is from the Exec list > She is replying to Teresa's e-mail quoting a private e-mail from >the EC. > a priavte email from the EC? I haven;t seen that emssage >yet > which one? > The e-mail that Teresa quoted from Tim about the CP people. I >questioned Tim about that and he said he had not posted it to Exec. So if >you, [BoardMember1], sent it to Teresa than Tim has lied again. > It has EXEC headers on it > yes he did post it to exec > and it wax technically an approve disapporve of a staement >not a *vote* > whatever :) > Well you didn't post the headers. I have been sick at my stomach >ever since I read your (Teresa) and Kelly's e-mail. > right, technically > posting headers is an iffy thing, Linda > the person who sent it preferred that I didn't post them > I don;t know what Kelly is talking about but the one teresa >posted was from exec > but I can post part of them > I know that but I wish you both had warned me before hand. I'm >pretty damned good at keeping secrets you know. > if I had a clue it would take this turn I would have > can I expect another demand from Keith that I turn over my inbox >to him? :) > probably :-) > I've had 3 personal e-mails from EC members asking if I was the >one who sent the message. It's the damnest mess. > just tell them no, it was a message form on the exec list > what is your email address Linda? > Oh Kieth is just Keith. He's actually a great guy. > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > that's a L not a 1 > only thing I've ever seen of him, he's a pompous ass > sorry :) > That might sufice for Teresa but not for Kelly. I've already >received at least 8 e-mails from outsiders (not EC) people wanting to know >what is going on. > Teresa I know that Keith can be a bit hard to take but then so >can I > all I have seen from Kelly is EXEC stuff...as always very >interesting :) > linda: exec message is on its way > exec stuff?someone sent her the thread discussing her? > Thanks Teresa > amazing what occurs on that list that never gets used, isn't it? > lol > brb, nature calls > Well let's see what the AB has to say about my request to unsub >Tim. > I'm sure it will be defeated > why is he still on the list anyways? > I'm not, Tim is nto popular on the board > Probably but I can always hope. > he is back on it because his race is over > the election is over and he is ex-officio > Because the ESC Guidelines say the NC & RAL are the ex-officio >members >...[statement deleted] > ah > have i expressed lately how very glad I am that he will no longer >be NC? > You and how many other people 8>)))) > actually since he was unopposed he probably would have been >correct if he requested resubbing > right after the election voting started > no one on the EC has access to the voting results until larry >releases them right? > correct > That's right. I asked Larry to keep the voting stats secret > good > you guys have done a great job > Even when Larry released the results he released exactly what >everyone saw in my e-mails - nothing more and nothing less. > Thanks but right now I feel pretty ragged out. > its too bad that someone feels the need to try and thwart you at >every opportunity > well, its over in three days > well, all over but the shouting :) > Teresa, did I catch that right, what you understand from >kelly is that the messages sent her are form Exec? not from EC? > She claims to have forwarded everything she's got and its all >from EXEC > Yes the run off is over in 3 days but then the EC has a long job >of deciding what we want the new AB to decide on > k > at least, what I have looked at so far > THAT was not me > I just a highly nasty note from Mr. Stowell in answer to my >request to unsub him > no surprise there >* BoardMember1 checks her inbox > the leak does not appera to be EC Linda, but Exec > why don;t you write kelly directly and ask her simply and >directly are the emails from the EC list or from exec > any good quotes? :) > Okay I'll let the EC members know and offer my apologies to >them. But I refuse to withdraw my request to the AB to unsub Tim > I already did and she has not yet answered me back. > you should stick to your guns on that one, imo...and I bet the EC >will support you once they know that Tim has lied to them > I don;t know how the board will fall on unsubbing Tim but I >am wiating for otehr responses at this time as some may do the opposite of >what I say > just because it was me that said it > just 20 some odd days until he is gone :) > but not form the board > no, but if the election goes well, it shouldn't be too hard to >neuter him > so to speak >* BoardMember1 is on pins and needles about Tuesday > you know, as often as you all talk about me on EXEC I ought to be >an honorary member :) > lol > Sorry I was sending Keith an e-mail in response to his message >to you on the ALL list. > np > am I going to have to go smack him around a bit again? >* merope hunts for her trout > [Member2] is on phone ... she is getting the 18,000 name >cemetery database! > woot! > No he is just overly protective of the EC. Not one person >outside of the EC list can possibly know how hard we have all worked and >how hard we have tried to do the best thing possible for all of the >volunteers. >* LindaHD sends [Member2] kudeos for her hard work > the database is from teh cemetery people themsleves >* merope reluctantly puts the trout down...for now > she is picking the file up Monday night > Thanks you can smack him later okay? > That's great news [BoardMember1]! > OMG! He actually says "I don't want to put words in your mouth" > sorry > sometimes I am just floored by Our Tim's chutzpah > where does he say that? > in a BE message regarding the statement sent to the EC > ahhh > did you get sent enough to know who the three were "not >approving" >*** Keith has joined #[BoardMember1] > yes >*** BoardMember1 sets mode: +o Keith > thx > think so > I know who approved, lets put it that way :) > morning keith > hi [BoardMember1], Linda, Teresa > heya > Kieth have you picked up your e-mail in the last few minutes? > yes > From me? Both? > yes > Elections-L has no archives > okay just so you know what's going on > Keith, I understand that unarchived lists got archived for >a while > we had the same problem though on the GA RCs list this week, but >this hasn't happened with the EC list > Well it's not suppose to but apparantly it does OR ... Teresa >got her's from the archvier for BOARD EXEc and Kelly is talking about the >EXEC stuff not the EC stuff > I just heard from Kelly and what she was talking about were >BOARD EXEC messages she did not receive any from the EC!!!! Thank GOD. But >I refuse to release that info on the Ec list until the AB decides about >Tim. I want him gone. > the BOard-exec thing is very convenient > I am not saying anything yet on that request Linda > why would Kelly lie? > brb > you know, there are ELECTIONS-L emails in BOARD-EXEC > the post on theEC was addressed to you, nobody else. > no keith, it went to Board-Exec > Keith, that post was on Exec also > possibly it was bcc'd > yes, because we have ex-officio members > we report to the AB > Keith, Tim posted that message he sent the EC on the Exec >list > ok > It still is a breach of trust, no matter where it came from. > brb, got to throw some clothes on > This project would so much more fun if there was no AB, no >elections, no -ALL list. > you aren't required to participate in any of those things > back > No, I'm not. And I may well not be for long. > I don't see why some wish for this project to become more >complicated than the human genome. > Keith, IMO, the disrespect etc emanating from the office of >NC for the past two years has a good part to do with it > I know... Tim's a manipulator, backstabber, >but it still doen't mean there has to be so many positions at the top of >the project. With the prospect of fighting over more new positions. > icnluding with this the attiutude that anyone who has >anything to do with any alternateproject in any way is some how bad, >corrupt, evil, etc > more new positions? > incorporation, possibly AB seat re-alignment, etc. > We need bylaws changes. Only changes that help the CC. Not create >more power bases. > don't borrow trouble, none of those things are gonan happen >in the very near future > That's it. > incorporation is a dead issue, it will never pass > yes,bylaws chnages, guidleines updating and promotion > especially not a 501c3 inc > if any realignment occurs, it should be to do away with SP seats >since that's the main cause of contention. > The Board shouild work for 12 months, not 7, 8, or 9. > If we MUST have a Board, they should work. > Unless, they work 7 months because they've taken care of all >issues affecting the project. LOL > Keith, give the new leadership and board a chance, okay > Oh, I will. But, I see all hell breaking loose with Tim and Ron on >there together. > we'll see > Sorry to be gone. Keith I just sent my apology to the EC members >pick up your e-mail will you please? > I did > I also thanked Kelly and answered Tim. I would just as soon that >the ALL list people continue to think that an EC memeber leaked until >after the AB makes a decision on Tim. > phone > oops...too late :( > Oh well that's okay. Let me see what you said > You did fine Teresa. Maybe the AB will still see it my way????? >* LindaHD rushing to cross everything that can be crossed > Folks my hubby and mother are standing here giving me fits for >not being ready to go out to breakfast. I have to leave and will be gone >for a couple of hours. See you when I get back. And THANKS for everything >* BoardMember1 gives LindaHD a huge squooshy hug > have a yummy breakfast... >* LindaHD blows [BoardMember1], Keith & Teresa kisses > and I truly hope the AB will see things your way :) >* BoardMember1 dances asbout to catch the kisses > and give me an exclusive if they do :) > lol > Did you catch it? Did you get it? Ah such great kisses!!! >* merope rubs lipstick off her cheek > this board is overall, regardless of their individual >positions tired, frustrated, disgusted by tim's behavior, etc > Teresa I'll let someone else Leak that if you dont' mind. > no prob, it'll get to me eventually ;) >* LindaHD being drug by scuff of neck away from comptuer. > see you guys > >=== > > > > From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 18:23:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00714 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:23:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26885 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NMMDS22177; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:22:13 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:22:13 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Oct 23 16:22:13 2001 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011023182129.008233a0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:21:29 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] oops Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1460 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Seems my email program/ISP has a mind of its own once again - sending out a message not intended to go anywhere. Sorry about that. Tim From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Tue Oct 23 18:53:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03360 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01414 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9NMqEF14677; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: nate@gte.net Tue Oct 23 16:52:14 2001 From: "Nathan Zipfel" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:49:05 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <005601c15c0b$f5f738a0$9cf499cd@n3a8a0> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1461 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: oops.... picked the wrong list... Nate -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:45 PM To: nate@gte.net; Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request May I please ask why this conversation is on Board Ex? It needs to go to Board L Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 03:21 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] re: EC Request : Holly, : : this motion appears to be out of order as it would violate the EC Guidelines. : : Nate : : : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 14:48:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05345 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23934 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9KIlX606426; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:47:33 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:47:33 -0600 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 12:47:33 2001 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <00c101c15997$839999e0$b1a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:46:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1396 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, Kathy, it appears, according to Jana's post that a few of us missed something. Because her post indicates that it is because of a statement in the DBS, that Linda didn't like. I went looking for the copy of the DBS with the offending statement but was unable to find it. Since the email from the EC was on the 18th. I assumed it would be around that time. Can someone post the offending DBS (at least the offending portion)? If we are taking up an issue to remove someone it would seem we might really want to know "The rest of the story", to borrow a phrase. Thanks, Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sat Oct 20 21:04:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01674 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29730 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9L0xM902078; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:59:22 -0600 Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:59:22 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Sat Oct 20 18:59:22 2001 Message-ID: <04aa01c159cb$74098a60$9ea028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <007201c15912$adde6080$0ea028d8@hppav> <017b01c1591e$6ac87ea0$8bf499cd@n3a8a0> <4.3.2.7.2.20011020194444.0322f380@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] EC Request Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:58:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <6ZDEUC.A.Vg.q3h07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1398 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Well. No wonder I couldn't find it. Okay, I get the picture. It's sort of a reversal of odds. Some couldn't get enough punches in when Teresa was running. Now Teresa is held to a different standard because she, What? She isn't a regular Member right? She is ex-officio, is this correct? Some of the same Members of the EC had some things to say on ALL and they were not asked to be removed. Keith does it all the time. They did it to her on the ALL list, which is public and she did something private on a subscribe only list. Are we going to use the same standard that the others were measured by? Unless I am missing something here, maybe someone can explain it better to me. I hardly see this as having anything to do with what was said, but WHO said it. ******************** 6/30/01 Keith Giddeon wrote: Esse, My apology is rescinded. You are the master harper in this project. I do not have a "required job to do" As a CC I can leave at any time. As a RC, ditto. As a member of the EC ditto. But I will not let a nagging soul like you drive me away. One good thing is: for every one of you, there's 500-600 others who are kind and courteous and receive the same. They do not lay blame when it lies elsewhere. --Keith (from somewhere around the Grassy Knoll) ******************** 9/8/01 Keith Giddeon wrote: I would like to know if Teresa EVER asks permission to quote people on ragsheet? I certainly was not asked for the latest edition of this self-indulgent crap. ****************** 9/10/01 Keith Giddeon wrote: What gives Teresa the right to quote anyone in the DBS in the first place? Now, sit back and think about that for a moment. You should stop blindly following Teresa and remember that she is now in a position where she should cease this stupidity called the DBS. I challenge everyone to start calling Teresa on these issues. She has had a free reign for as long as I can remember. It's time for fear of her blatant misuse if people's and committee's communications to end. I'll start by asking Teresa what gives her the right to quote people without their permission. Teresa??? Please don't use the excuse that your DBS is the press, or that you and your devisive lemmings have the right to sling mud. You have the right to neither. ********************* He spoke his mind on ALL, which to me is no different. Well, actually it is different because more people saw it that did not solicit it. I would like to see his removal as well. Everyone should get the same treatment. We should not be allowing ourselves, the EC or anyone else to play favorites. If the EC wants to make rules or try to use catch-all type guidelines to use arbitrarily to get rid of people, then they should be forced to exercise the standard on all of their members regardless of the circumstance. You can tell me I am off base, but I disagree. We need to be upholding one standard. Not favorites. This is what caused grief and problems before. Teresa should maybe be told to apologize and to refrain from that type of characterizing under certain circumstances, but if this is to be solely a removal question, then there needs to be a little more action and not just on her. Ron From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Sun Oct 21 12:55:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15195 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22292 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9LGsc612095; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:54:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:54:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Sun Oct 21 10:54:38 2001 Message-ID: <003b01c15a51$38ab8460$4a28c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:55:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec] EC Request Resent-Message-ID: <2lUob.A.28C.O3v07@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1401 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Once you get to the bottom line of the EC request (I mean that "bottom line" literally), you will find that the AB is being asked to replace Teresa with another AB member. We are not being asked to okay her removal by the EC committee. That is something that they will have to find in their own guidelines, which apparently they feel they have cause to do when they quoted all the causes for removal of a member. While "replacing her with another AB member" would, in effect, okay her removal....or if we followed the same procedure with any other EC committee member, okay that person's removal.......the AB cannot replace the R-A-L with another AB member. It does not matter who that R-A-L is. The EC guidelines specifically state that the ex-officio members of the committee are the NC and the R-A-L. I do believe that a committee ought to be able to "police" itself and oust a member who is considered detrimental to the committee's work. Especially, when every member of that committee (except the one in question) is in agreement. Therefore, the EC might be able to delink Teresa, thus effectively removing her from participation. I know that this is lengthy....but let me repeat: We were specifically asked to replace the R-A-L with another AB member. Regardless of how we feel about Teresa, the individual members of the EC, the total EC......We, too, are limited as to what we CAN do by the EC guidelines themselves. And, I do not feel that this is the time to start pointing fingers at anybody on either "side." Let's follow the rules. Phyllis From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 25 22:34:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05973 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26399 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9Q2Xvd11834; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:33:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:33:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 20:33:57 2001 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <02e201c15dc6$773d5320$77a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023172834.00bb8950@mail.bright.net> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:32:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Absent Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1462 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Holly, To let you know I will be away for a few days, begining tomorrow, Friday, thru possibly Tuesday. This Sunday is our Anniversary and we have this next week off. I may be able to check mail a few times in case anything comes up. Have a great week end, all. Ron _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 25 22:36:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06244 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26755 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9Q2aA413986; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:36:10 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:36:10 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Thu Oct 25 20:36:10 2001 Message-ID: <001901c15dc6$fdabff60$a2f499cd@n3a8a0> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023172834.00bb8950@mail.bright.net> <02e201c15dc6$773d5320$77a028d8@hppav> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Absent Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:36:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <2Tx0WD.A.TaD.awM27@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1463 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Enjoy the time off Ron, How many years? Kathy "May you always walk in Peace" "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP USGenWeb Project County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO KS Civil War, KS Native American NW/PLAINS AB CC REP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Eason" To: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 09:32 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Absent : Hi Holly, : : To let you know I will be away for a few days, : begining tomorrow, Friday, thru possibly Tuesday. : : This Sunday is our Anniversary and we have this : next week off. I may be able to check mail a few : times in case anything comes up. : : Have a great week end, all. : Ron : : : _________________________________________________________ : Do You Yahoo!? : Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com : : From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 25 22:47:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07290 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28106 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9Q2jRS21127; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:45:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:45:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: maplecreek_99@yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 20:45:27 2001 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <030201c15dc8$128f2d20$77a028d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023172834.00bb8950@mail.bright.net> <02e201c15dc6$773d5320$77a028d8@hppav> <001901c15dc6$fdabff60$a2f499cd@n3a8a0> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Absent Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:44:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1464 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks Kathy, This year makes 14. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Absent > Enjoy the time off Ron, > How many years? > Kathy > "May you always walk in Peace" > "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > USGenWeb Project > County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO > KS Civil War, KS Native American > NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Eason" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 09:32 PM > Subject: [Board-Exec] Absent > > > : Hi Holly, > : > : To let you know I will be away for a few days, > : begining tomorrow, Friday, thru possibly Tuesday. > : > : This Sunday is our Anniversary and we have this > : next week off. I may be able to check mail a few > : times in case anything comes up. > : > : Have a great week end, all. > : Ron > : > : > : _________________________________________________________ > : Do You Yahoo!? > : Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > : > : > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Thu Oct 25 23:06:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA08623 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00630 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9Q35cf18386; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:05:38 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:05:38 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Thu Oct 25 21:05:38 2001 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Absent Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:51:12 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: <030201c15dc8$128f2d20$77a028d8@hppav> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1465 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com Status: RO X-Status: Ooooooo, 2x the 7 year itch :) Have fun you guys! Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:maplecreek_99@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:44 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Absent Thanks Kathy, This year makes 14. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Heidel" To: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Absent > Enjoy the time off Ron, > How many years? > Kathy > "May you always walk in Peace" > "I was cut out to be rich.....but I was sewn up wrong!" > Kathy Welch Heidel - mailto:kheidel@tri.net > South Dakota, West ASC ~ USGWP > USGenWeb Project > County Coordinator for SD, KS & MO > KS Civil War, KS Native American > NW/PLAINS AB CC REP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Eason" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 09:32 PM > Subject: [Board-Exec] Absent > > > : Hi Holly, > : > : To let you know I will be away for a few days, > : begining tomorrow, Friday, thru possibly Tuesday. > : > : This