Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) by [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA21615 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:41:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00662; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990613004245.01a201c4@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: mishiawa@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:42:45 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Bonnie McVicar-Briggs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] [USGENWEB-ALL-L] What and Who is USGW 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/678 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 11b7714774a3e3dc5dcc3215682124d4 Forwarded with permission for those of you not on any of the cc lists. >Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:20:10 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: det@fn.net >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) >Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 10:17:39 -0500 >Old-To: USGW-CC-L@USGenNet.Org >From: Don Tharp >Old-Cc: USGENWEB-SW-L@rootsweb.com, ksgen-l@rootsquest.com, > usgenweb-all-l@rootsweb.com, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] What and Who is USGW >To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-From: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13895 >X-Loop: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com >Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-ALL-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Wasn't USGW founded on the concept of establishing a web site for every >county and placing genealogical information for that county at those web >sites. Specifically, query boards were to be at the web sites. Surname lists >were to be at the web sites. Volunteers for look ups were to be solicited, >raw material and data bases were not forbidden :o), in fact we were >encouraged to provide as much local information as possible. > >Had that concept been followed we would *not* be experiencing the problems >we are now experiencing. We would each be working on our county web sites >developing information that would be available for those researchers using >our county sites. We would not be sending the relevant information to >various places on the internet for the researchers to seek out. We would be >consolidating that information at the county level. > >Do we need special boards for our queries, for obits, for bios? Do we need >special projects for miscellaneous lists, for tombstone inscriptions, for >any raw data for that matter? Perhaps if we are hosting ten counties our >answer would be that it is convenient for us, not the researcher, but for >us. However, most of us don't host ten counties and none of us need to host >ten counties. There are others out there that would be more than willing to >lessen our burden. Instead of 2000 hosting 3000 sites why not have 3000 >hosting 3000 sites? > >Of course we do *NOT* need all the special boards or special projects, but >they do exist and because they exist the researcher no longer knows where to >find the information they seek. They can no longer can go to a county web >site and find all the information that has been compiled for that county. >They now need cluster boards to lead them by links to all the various places >where various bits of information *may* be found. > >If we had followed the original concept there would be only one point of >entry needed at any server to lead researchers to USGW. That one point of >entry would be a link to the home page of USGW. Our home page would then >send the researcher to the correct state and county. How simple that would be. > >There is a tremendous need for us to simplify. Our structure has become so >fragmented that the researchers no longer knows where to go and it may be >that 2/3 of the CCs don't know either. > >The location for county information has become so splintered that the >researchers have to be led by cluster boards linked to all the various sites >where that information *may* be found. However, if it isn't on rootsweb it >won't be found. Is that a benefit to the researcher? Can we as USGW say we >are doing all we can for the researcher? Can we as USGW say that we are >treating all county hosts equally in making their material available for the >researchers? > >Do we need all the bells and whistles to post our queries, bios, obits, >surnames? Why do we need an Archive Project, a Tombstone Project, or any >other project? All we need do is maintain our county web sites and put that >information on them. USGW should be attempting to consolidate locations >where information can be found instead of splintering where that information >is located. We need to simplify, to get back to the original basic concept. > >Do we need the archive projects. Not really. However, if there is concern >about *permanent* storage then the county information could be duplicated >and stored on any server or any number of servers.. Or if the special >projects feel threatened they could place information in their projects and >then share it with the counties so it could also be stored at the county >level to be found there by the researchers. > >Our information has become so fragmented that we are no longer a viable >organization or one that will remain useful to the researcher. Hopefully it >is not too late to return to the simpler format of putting all the >information on the county web sites. Let's do it. > >This can be done without becoming too dependant on any server. In fact it >can be done using thousands of servers. We don't need to have all are eggs >in one basket and we shouldn't. What we do need is a single entry point from >any and all servers to the USGW home page and from there we can lead the >researcher to the county of interest where *ALL* information we have >compiled for that county can be found. How simple it really is. > >We do *NOT* need anyone's permission to keep queries, surnames, census >records, tombstone records, and any other raw material on our web sites. Our >web sites are ours to structure as we desire, all we need do is use them as >they were intended to be used and they will again become valuable and >meaningful sites for research. Let's do it. > >We will no longer be looking for ulterior motives from others, we will no >longer concern ourselves about what server we are using or what that server >is doing. The best and easiest solution to any of our problems, past, >present or future is to build our web sites so strongly that researchers >will want to go to them, not elsewhere. Let's do it. And let's do it >starting right now. > >I know this message is too long for such a simple observation but I thank >you for reading it and hope you give some thought to its content. I would >really like for us to become USGW once again. > >Don >Chautauqua County, KS host >det@fn.net > Bonnie McVicar-Briggs mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer Shiawassee County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html Clinton County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm Wayne County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12174 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:09:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17306; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 05:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 05:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614075344.03e658b0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:53:44 -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-L] A correction (fwd) 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/699 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a57cd4e14bdcfc18dce95012d004a019 >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:09:33 -0400 (EDT) >From: merope >To: Tim Stowell >Cc: rrti@pacbell.com >Subject: A correction > > >Dear Tim, please forward the following to the Board: > >Dear Advisory Board, > >I have been forwarded a post from one of the USGW regional mailing lists >in which Betsy Mills, SC rep for the SW/SC region, indicates that Mr. >Brian Leverich has been contacted regarding my ability to participate in >Board activities and his answer has been shared with and discussed among >the Board members. Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion >as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I >am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he >may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board. > >Unfortunately, Mr. Leverich appears not to be the proper person to ask. >According to a recent issue of the Rootsweb Review, Mr. Robert Tillman is >the President and CEO of the RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative, and >Mr. Leverich currently holds the position of Co-founder and Co-Chairman. >This message is being forwarded as a courtesy to Mr. Tillman, as he may >not be aware of the current circumstances. His assesment of this situation >and his perspective as CEO of RW will be appreciated. > >Also, as a courtesy to Mr. Tillman, I am appending a list of the >questions asked of the Board on Saturday 5 June 1999, as I believe >that, with the exception of number three, they are more properly addressed >to him as CEO and President (I also ask Mr. Tillman's forgiveness for >using what is probably his work or personal email address; I am not able >to send email to rootsweb addresses.) It is my opinion that any official >opinion on these issues should come from the CEO of the RootsWeb >Genealogical Data Cooperative. > >In the interim, I have thought of another question: > >5) Should I run, and should Rootsweb staff be handling the voting software >as they have for previous elections, will my name be allowed to appear on >the ballot? > >Sincerely, > >-Teresa Lindquist >merope@radix.net > >========== >begin appended message: > >In view of the Board's position on my nomination, I have some questions I >would like adressed prior to June 15. The Board may need to ask the >management of RW for specific answers to these questions. The answers >will assist me in deciding whether to run or not. > >1) Will my candidate web page be linked to from the Nominations web page? >This page is on RW and is maintained, I believe, by a RW employee (Marce >Beem). > >2) Will information regarding my candidacy be allowed onto project lists, >if forwarded there by persons other than myself, without repercussion to >those persons? > >3) As I feel it is very unlikely that issues between myself and Mr. >Leverich will be resolved in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely >that his ban will be lifted prior to September. Should I win, and should >I not be allowed to sub to the Board lists, what does the Board plan to >do? How will they address the possibility that a duly elected >representative of the USGW Project may not be allowed to fulfill the >duties of the office to which she was elected? > >4) Is Rootsweb going to allow me to vote in this election? > > > > > > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA24926 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:27:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04026; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03a201bebb9d$f9596ec0$2c0b9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:24:35 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please? 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/790 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 830105f67ae097cf923dc59104031dfc If so, I've been asked to propose a motion that the logo with the eagle and the phrase "soaring into the next millenium" (I believe) be accepted as an official alternative logo. I know a number of sites are simply using it without formal permission. I know that the first step in that process would be to find out who created it and get formal permission for this move, and I'm asking around on the SC list to see if anybody knows who made it. Anybody happen to know? Any comments? My personal opinion is that this logo really kicks butt.... piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA14858 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:08:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28262; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:08:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <97aaba8b.248df0df@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:06:55 EDT Old-To: vedamen@idt.net Old-CC: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com, MEGEN-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census 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/607 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 942638d07260648810add8a93adb9a65 In a message dated 6/7/99 9:26:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vedamen@idt.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Fwd: [STATE-COORD-L] One or two Census Projects] Date: 6/7/99 9:26:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: vedamen@idt.net (Veda Mendoza) Reply-to: vedamen@idt.net To: Mainegen@aol.com Dear Veda Mendoza: It is great that you have a great interest in this project. No one can give any group or person the God given right to be the one and only project. It is not enough for the USGW Project to say we have elected ourselves to serve the public and the public will visit our web sites forever and ever. As the Hare in Alice in Wonderland said, We have to continue to run faster and faster just to say in the same place. Well, maybe we do not have to run faster, but we need to find more workers to get what is not done completed. If we want to be the Census Project you have to do the work. People after visiting a page that is never updated will soon look to another source for Census information. No vote of any board will tell people that they must visit your web page. You can be called the 1st or the last Census Project, but the reason that people will join or not join will not because of any vote of the board or even who's name is posted as hosting the page. People will ask themselves: 1) Was the information helpful? 2) Was the pages up dated? 3) Was it user friendly? 4) Did I find more information this time than the first time I visited it? 5) Would I tell a friend that this page was worth visiting? 6) Are there other pages that are more helpful? 7) When I e-mailed the webmaster with an idea or problem, did he/her reply in a thankful manner. You might ask yourself: 1) Do I need the help of others? 2) Can I help others? 3) Is there anything I can do to be more helpful? 4) What is there about my project that makes it better than the other Projects? 5) Do I offer to work with others that share common interest and are hosting other webpages on the same subjects as I am hosting? I wish you well. Idea are always welcome. If anyone wants to help with the Maine USGW Project please ask how you might serve. How can Maine serve you? Enjoy, David C. Young Northeast/North Central Region State Coordinator Representative State Coordinator of the Maine USGW Project County Coordinator of the Carroll Co., NH Project File Manager of the NH USGW Archives/Digital Library File Manager of the Maine USGW Archives/Digital Library Maine Author of Genealogical Reference books http://members.aol.com/itigapa/filecd.html ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Come clean - .eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Come clean - .eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA11649 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:56:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14161; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:14:39 -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-L] Come clean - Resent-Message-ID: <_n4h4B.A.FdD.rtlZ3@bl-11.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/755 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 65afc1f2f71a2c3aba655a3b96f22ca4 It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? Yesterday I posted this message to this list: -------------------------------------------------- At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >Dear Betsy & friends: > >Interesting questions. Is she running? >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. Tim -------------------------------------------------- Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also to tell me she's accepted the nomination. Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms Lindquist - and why? Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election Committee.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election Committee.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10796 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:37:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11056; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906161836.LAA33514@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:35:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee Resent-Message-ID: <2KMPtC.A.ksC.86-Z3@bl-11.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/776 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ddbf8b995a7c35d05b03773178d7d9be Folks, We definitely have a problem here, our National Elections Committee is down to *1* person. How long do you think this person is going to last without help? Something needs to be addressed here don't you think? Bridgett Smith SC Rep SE/Mid-Atlantic Region bascs@wizard.com *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* TNGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.tngenweb.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01BF7E37.6DCB3C00-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:53:08 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA04875 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:08 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13887 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01543; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <02d701bf7e69$cfc62b40$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:52:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA01348 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:14:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12756; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990625220135.00a24820@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:01:35 -0400 Old-To: Board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: jpowelljr (by way of Tim Stowell ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure 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/844 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: fb808364c60d68a123d5b281cd954574 Tim... Please pass this to the Exec list. We are still working on our game plan, but this is what we have so far. We will address anyone who thinks they should have gotten a ballot but did not, individually. If we believe that the don not get a ballot, we will send you a copy of the email citing the reason one is not to be issued. The Board can overturn our ruling. If the ballots go out on time ( We believe that they will), there will be an initial deadline of July 8th to report that a ballot was not received. We will try to have all of those added on the 9th. There will be an additional deadline on the 15th. We do not wish to post this until after the first deadline has passed. After that individual hardship cases should go through the Board. We are taking the position: 1 SC vote and 1 ASC vote per state in the SC Representative races. There are only two races. Of course this is not a written rule and if the Board would like to overturn that ruling on our part, you have until our deadline for adding ballots to do so. One other situation. The two CC reps for Southwest/South Central Region are lumped together (only three candidates) I would assume top vote getter would receive 2 year seat while second place would receive the 1 year seat. It would be hard to have 2 races at this point. ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election procedures.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election procedures.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA21003 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:14:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16019; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990612191803.0085e100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:18:03 -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-L] Election procedures Resent-Message-ID: <8QV9ZB.A.K6D.8muY3@bl-11.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/665 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 27f067726c825a93da365f31e920b9dc >From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion and call of said motion perhaps a resolution can be crafted to not only answer Ginger's question but also satisfy the Board. ------------------------------------- Resolved that: 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone from their region. C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. ------------------------------------ While this appears to be a rewording of Beth's Motion 99-16E - I feel that a resolution is different from a Motion. In other words, a Motion seems to me to be more like a rule whereas a resolution is just an agreement of how rules, bylaws are to be carried out. Now that this nomination process is essentially over - and since most nominees who might be disqualified under 2C part B would surely nominate themselves - maybe 2B is better left for next year as a guideline to next year's nomination/election committee. If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election question (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election question (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA27161 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:47:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16923; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:47:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <19f87825.24968bfc@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:46:52 EDT Old-To: betsym@1starnet.com Old-CC: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? 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/704 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b3702085e6c76b65054f3a7466912e27 Dear Betsy & friends: Interesting questions. Is she running? Time is running out. The deadline for nominations is the 15 of June but acceptance is 22 of June. I still plan on running for my office but after the last few weeks I can see why the turnover rate is so high. I had thought of running for the at Large Office but am not sure it that would be the best thing for the project. I understand that many people nominate themselves. Is that true? I have not done that yet. And I will not just nominate myself of anything. I would want to get more than one vote. Running for SC Rep of the NE/NC with 13 states that is 14 votes at most to win. Right? Will there be any election rules for the people running for office? Can we pass out buttons? Can we stand near the polls? How far from the polls can we put up our lawn signs, etc., Do we have to report what we spend on our election bid? Yes, I am kidding about all this. But if there are to be limits on what Candidates can and cannot do, I for one would like to set the rules how and not half way through the election. Enjoy, David C. Young (NE/NC) ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA02944 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29105; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:33:09 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell In-Reply-To: <010601beb69e$77105680$43dfdece@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 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/731 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 35288bd314e7bd9c65e1bfaba2fa998e At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one state >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. >In other words, let's pretend: >Colorado may have 3 ASCs >Nebraska has 1 >South Dakota has 1 > >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. > >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) > >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each state >be allowed to vote, therefore: >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - memory. As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with the most votes wins. A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs who/where to send their voting lists to? Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election Update.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election Update.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07876 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:13:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20698; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:11:42 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election Update 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/772 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: fbe5801048b381b0c2d7d1ae89fdef2e Folks, Tina Vickery has accepted a nomination and must now ethically withdraw from the Election Committee. The Election Committee is now a committee of one member....... Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Election volunteers.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Election volunteers.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA07747 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:46:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29446; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: <347ef776.2497dcc8@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:43:52 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election volunteers 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/763 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3d0ab332d958fa17a14cc229029c253d Folks, I have just received Lori Krei's resignation. (She was gathering the SE region lists.) She no longer wishes to continue and is forwarding those she has to me. This leaves the "Election Committee" as a committee of 2 people. So FYI, SE folks shouldn't bother sending their lists to Lori Krei kreibl@ncn.net I have several lists already to forward to whoever takes over. Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_02D4_01BF7E37.852BBB40-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:54:00 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA04910 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:59 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13977 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01935; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:49 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <02e201bf7e69$eb6fc5e0$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Fw [ILGEN-L] Voting Results..eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Fw [ILGEN-L] Voting Results..eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA12736 [xxxxxxx] Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:01:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15190; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01fc01beb936$b30563c0$5ddfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: "BOARD-L" , "Board-Exec-L" Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:00:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Fw: [ILGEN-L] Voting Results. Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/780 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 37606af40be79a70ef4851829f563150 Was asked to forward this to the board. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Ginger To: cestus3@inetnebr.com Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:55 PM Subject: Fw: [ILGEN-L] Voting Results. >Hi Lynne, >Thanks for passing these on. I'll look for them at the National >Website in a few days and then tell everyone they can go >admire them. >I'm including the rationales for each one, which were not part >of this original message I'm forwarding. > > >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: RichPump >To: ILGEN-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:05 AM >Subject: [ILGEN-L] Voting Results. > > >>The official totals for Amendments are as follows. >> >>************************************************************************** * >************ >> >>Amendment I >>Article IX, Sec. 3: >>In the interests of diversity, independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb >>Project, state and county coordinators are encouraged to utilize a variety >>of servers as hosts of their webpages. An attempt shall be made by the >>national Advisory Board to avoid utilizing any one server organization for >>hosting more than 40% of the total number of USGenWeb Project web pages. >> >>[ PASSED] > >Rationale for the above proposed amendment: > >The success and viability of the internet is in large measure a function of >the multiple pathways available to communicate between numerous different >sites. If one link goes down, others exist to take its place. So too is it >advisable to have a multitude of servers which hold The USGenWeb Project's >web pages. If most pages within The USGenWeb Project are based on only one >server site, should something happen to that site, be it a physical >disaster or a human one such as bankruptcy, The USGenWeb Project would be >severely compromised. On the other hand, if The USGenWeb Project >is based on a number of different server locales, one site going offline >would not have that drastic an effect on the whole project. The proposed >amendment strengthens the independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb >Project, helping to guarantee the project's longevity. > > > >> >>Amendment II >>Article IX, Sec. 4: >>While realizing that a variety of indexing and storage methods exist for >>queries, obituaries, wills, archival documents etc., The USGenWeb Project >>strongly recommends that county and state coordinators maintain control >>over >>these items after they are submitted to the USGenWeb Project or its >>subsidiary state and county pages. Therefore, links for submitting items >>to >>sites outside of The USGenWeb Project are strongly discouraged, unless the >>links themselves remain under the control of The USGenWeb Project >>coordinators. >> >>[ PASSED] > >Rationale for the proposed amendment: > >The current bylaws (Article XI, Sec. 3) requires the local website to >include an easily accessible area to researchers' queries. Article XI, Sec. >4 further states that "those sections of the website submitted or donated by >contributors other than the website coordinator, shall remain with the >website." Neither Sec. 3 nor Sec. 4 can be adhered to >unless those parts of the web page are under the control of the County and >State Coordinators, to be passed along to the next coordinator. The thrust >of this proposed amendment is also to strengthen the autonomy of The >USGenWeb Project and its constituent services such as query pages so that >the Project does not become engulfed and incorporated by any other internet >system of managing queries, wills, obituaries, surnames, etc. The queries, >obituaries, etc. belong to the submitter first and secondly to The USGenWeb >Project and no one else. Others may link to our pages - but our pages must >not become their pages. > > >> >> >>************************************************************************** * >******** >> > > ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Fw [STATE-COORD-L] Proposed Bylaw Amendments.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Fw [STATE-COORD-L] Proposed Bylaw Amendments.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA19055 [xxxxxxx] Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:24:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16266; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020e01beb939$d075ad40$5ddfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: "Board-Exec-L" , "BOARD-L" Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:22:30 -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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Fw: [STATE-COORD-L] Proposed Bylaw Amendments Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/781 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cafab1f0633547281c583ee068b01b8f Oops, forwarded the wrong one Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Ginger To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 10:13 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] Proposed Bylaw Amendments >The following two amendments to the USGW Bylaws were >proposed in ILGenWeb. The voters of ILGenWeb passed the >proposal by more than 2/3 of those voting. >The proposed amendments and accompanying rationales >have been sent to The Advisory Board, via a member of >that body, for posting at the National Website. >Please disseminate these to your state lists. ILGenWeb would >welcome your co-sponsorship. > >Thank you, >Ginger >gingerh@shawneelink.com >------------- >> >>Amendment I >>Article IX, Sec. 3: >>In the interests of diversity, independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb >>Project, state and county coordinators are encouraged to utilize a variety >>of servers as hosts of their webpages. An attempt shall be made by the >>national Advisory Board to avoid utilizing any one server organization for >>hosting more than 40% of the total number of USGenWeb Project web pages. >> >>[ PASSED] > >Rationale for the above proposed amendment: > >The success and viability of the internet is in large measure a function of >the multiple pathways available to communicate between numerous different >sites. If one link goes down, others exist to take its place. So too is it >advisable to have a multitude of servers which hold The USGenWeb Project's >web pages. If most pages within The USGenWeb Project are based on only one >server site, should something happen to that site, be it a physical >disaster or a human one such as bankruptcy, The USGenWeb Project would be >severely compromised. On the other hand, if The USGenWeb Project >is based on a number of different server locales, one site going offline >would not have that drastic an effect on the whole project. The proposed >amendment strengthens the independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb >Project, helping to guarantee the project's longevity. > > > >> >>Amendment II >>Article IX, Sec. 4: >>While realizing that a variety of indexing and storage methods exist for >>queries, obituaries, wills, archival documents etc., The USGenWeb Project >>strongly recommends that county and state coordinators maintain control >>over >>these items after they are submitted to the USGenWeb Project or its >>subsidiary state and county pages. Therefore, links for submitting items >>to >>sites outside of The USGenWeb Project are strongly discouraged, unless the >>links themselves remain under the control of The USGenWeb Project >>coordinators. >> >>[ PASSED] > >Rationale for the proposed amendment: > >The current bylaws (Article XI, Sec. 3) requires the local website to >include an easily accessible area to researchers' queries. Article XI, Sec. >4 further states that "those sections of the website submitted or donated by >contributors other than the website coordinator, shall remain with the >website." Neither Sec. 3 nor Sec. 4 can be adhered to >unless those parts of the web page are under the control of the County and >State Coordinators, to be passed along to the next coordinator. The thrust >of this proposed amendment is also to strengthen the autonomy of The >USGenWeb Project and its constituent services such as query pages so that >the Project does not become engulfed and incorporated by any other internet >system of managing queries, wills, obituaries, surnames, etc. The queries, >obituaries, etc. belong to the submitter first and secondly to The USGenWeb >Project and no one else. Others may link to our pages - but our pages must >not become their pages. > > ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Fwd [USGW-SW-L] Resignation..eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Fwd [USGW-SW-L] Resignation..eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA09870 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:59:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09662; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:58:43 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: <2b6db717.24986c0e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:55:10 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Old-Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_2b6db717.24986c0e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Fwd: [USGW-SW-L] Resignation. 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/774 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 18c5a1a4fb147dc4753ad9de80687546 --part1_2b6db717.24986c0e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_2b6db717.24986c0e_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v59.51) with SMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:54:13 -0400 Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id WAA23986; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04019; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <48c6997.24986a72@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:48:18 EDT Old-To: USGW-SW-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Subject: [USGW-SW-L] Resignation. Resent-Message-ID: <_Gn0I.A.n-.JHxZ3@bl-11.rootsweb.com> To: USGW-SW-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: USGW-SW-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: USGW-SW-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6 X-Loop: USGW-SW-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: USGW-SW-L-request@rootsweb.com Hi all, I have been nominated and have accepted the nomination for Northeast/North Central County Coordinator Representative. It is with regret that I submit my resignation from the Election committee. Sincerely, Tina S. Vickery --part1_2b6db717.24986c0e_boundary-- ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] FYI part 2.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] FYI part 2.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26136 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:55:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12235; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990616144809.00a75c20@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:48:09 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: [Board-Exec-L] FYI part 2 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/777 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cc76128a63500c46203d1515311c5ecb Jim unsubbed himself from this list this morning. Tim ------------- The synopsis of the note above appeared in the 2 PM DBS report for today..... ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] FYI.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] FYI.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA21973 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:11:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23569; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990616105840.03cd7100@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:58:40 -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-L] FYI Resent-Message-ID: <_fzj0.A.IwF.O67Z3@bl-11.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/775 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1da7e6549245f05cd886401b9c8dd55d Jim unsubbed himself from this list this morning. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA09746 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:12:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07862; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:05:40 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: "Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb Resent-Message-ID: <2DAJ0B.A.o6B.bEMc3@bl-11.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/816 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e0d86a5a30e67e04d760f8402c84bfeb Has anyone been following the INGenWeb going's on? From what I gather from the KY list, they moved from RW, which is their prerogative, but apparently, they are kicking out our USGenWeb members because they are using Rootsweb. I don't think that can be tolerated. This is a snip from a KYGenWeb listmember, her name xxx'ed out. At 08:36 PM 6/22/99 -0500, gwillick@seidata.com wrote: >So the opposition may come from feeling another priority to protect >something, unseen and unknown. You're absolutely right George, though I'm not sure what you or anyone else thinks it is that I'm trying to protect. No matter what anyone thinks or believes, what I'm trying to protect is YOU ... the KyGenWeb CC's .... from what I saw happening with my own eyes. My only claims all along have been: 1. That InGenWeb met on June 11 to discuss kicking out any CC who refused to remove their pages from RootsWeb. John denies this and suggests that I'm not telling the truth, Betty (the State Coordinator for Indiana) hasn't bothered to deny it. Here's some clips from that meeting .... you judge for yourself what they were discussing at that meeting (kyseeker=Betty Sellers; Dee=Dee Floyd-Pavey; Lori-ASC=Lori Hoffman; MaMaT=Holly Fee-Timm), and then maybe you'll understand why I was so concerned: ======================================================================= 1. Go along and play their game - send them the $$$$$$$ and smile like a happy sob 2. Then pull all accounts that are on Rootsweb - make your own copy and say to heck with them and leave a forwarding addy i don't have anywhere else to put my henry co pages though yes you do - Try usroots... RW really hates them. ======================================================================= 2. That the leaders in InGenWeb wanted to use their bylaws (John says there are no bylaws ... only guidelines ... I saw them called both) to FORCE the CC's to move their pages off of RootsWeb. ======================================================================= Listen up...Betty suggested that INGenWeb become its own GenWeb Project and let RW have the rest...spo who knows what is going to happen. Anyone who wants to be on RootsWeb, won't be a part of INGenWeb ... it's that simple Now Lori, that may seem a threat though I know it was not intended. You cannot force my county to live somewhere where I don't want it. Amy..excuse me...but you better go read those bylaws and guidelines. i will have to leave if it becomes mandatory to place material where INGENWEB dictates it wouldn't be where it dictates...only not Rootsweb...that's what was discussed Rudy, what if RW requires you to only put material on their server RW isn;t telling me where I can and can not have my pages you CCS voted the bylaws in...you must be prepared to deal with whatever else is voted on and passed. Wait....we're not saying you HAVE to go with server one....only that is has been discussed that we CAN'T go to server 2.... that is what I am trying to determine here, can INGenWeb vote to ban Rootsweb as a srever a CC can use? we don't care...it won't be an INGenWeb page if it's on RootsWeb have you went back to the Guidelines? so you didn't need to threaten me Lori I didn't threaten you... okay, if such a petition occurs, I will vote no and if it passes I will be booted out of INgenWeb, yes? that will be the procedures according to the guidelines Mama ======================================================================= 3. That Holly Fee-Timm was kicked out of InGenWeb because she voiced her opposition to what they were doing (this was not the issue ... it substantiated it): ======================================================================= I fell like we are getting shafted and not even getting kissed behind the ear. :) I don;t feel that way MaMaT...If it is petioned and voted that RW is boycotted, and you refused, you would considered the same way as a scab in a strike ok, well, I won;t have to be booted because IF INGenWeb did such a thing i would leave pronto and Dubois would be an unlinked site on Rootsweb MamaT...that's fine...it *WILL* pass, and Dubois County *WILL* be adopted by someone else I feel rather unwanted simply because I don;t agree Sometimes RW makes me feel that way MaMaT! ======================================================================= **** Note here: Holly had obviously rescinded any May 22 resignation she may have written. She was most obviously the accepted CC as of June 11 (the date of the meeting). Betty *was* using Holly's previous resignation letter to cloud the truth, which is that Holly was kicked out *after* her opposition, and *because* of that opposition (her bold refusal to take her pages off of RootsWeb). Remember, also, the documentation I've already provided, showing that Holly was the CC, and her page was the one linked to from the InGenWeb state page on June 11. And that on June 14, there was a new page with Dee as the CC. Additionally, this wasn't part of my claim, but as I focused attention on Holly (sorry Holly), which subjected her to flames, Holly stated that she was berated for not agreeing with them: ======================================================================= Okey...Is this only happening to Indiana or to others states as well..??? is whatonly happening? come on MMT. stop being obtuse...this aggravation over the way RW has done us. you are reading the text the same as I. You saw what he was asking about. excuse me Lori, are you is=nsisting there is something wrong becauyse i don't agree with you? no I am not than why do you say I am obtuse your question showed up as being obtuse. I do not feel *done* by RW good for you. MMT, do you have all your pages on RW, now? yes John, all genealogy pages Then the cluster pages link to your main county site, for some of us it does not! ======================================================================= *** they also told her "she'd be treated like a scab in a strike" As I've already said, I don't make unsubstantiated claims. And under the circumstances, I feel justified for having been so "personal" in my claims against them, because whether you'd decided to believe me or not, it was not RootsWeb I was defending, but the Ky CC's, and it's against Betty, John, Lori, Dee, and anyone else like them who would do what they've done in Indiana, and then try to do it in Kentucky, too. I don't want these people talking us into bylaws we don't need, and then using them to coerce us. Is this personal with me? Youuuuuuuu BETCHA! I hold them personally responsible for their words and actions. I *am* sorry, though, for subjecting the innocent to this horrible fight. I only hope that you'll know that I'm doing it for you. I HOPE this will put an end, once and for all, to any discussions of bylaws, and any involvement on the part of John G. West or Betty Sellers in attempting to talk us into bylaws, and then being the ones to draft them, or from even having any input whatsoever on the topic. That's all I want ... all I have ever wanted. And I really didn't want to have to get this dirty, but I make no apologies for my passion on this issue. Now you've seen part of what I've seen. I hope it's enough to end any discussion of bylaws, and enough to clear mine and Holly's names. I don't care what John or Betty do from this point - or where, as long as they keep their noses clean in Kentucky. XXX ------=_NextPart_000_02DF_01BF7E37.A0D555E0-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:54:42 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA04980 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:54:41 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14077 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02331; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:54:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <02ed01bf7e6a$05a07c20$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:53:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] It is not important. -).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] It is not important. -).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA11800 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:25:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10582; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <1a4b720f.24a6bb2f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:24:31 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] It is not important. :-) 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/855 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c8b05b13b162d3603dfdfc978ab118e2 In a message dated 6/26/99 4:58:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mspiglet@prodigy.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: 6/26/99 4:58:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: mspiglet@prodigy.net (Ms. Piglet) Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Sounds right... The way it was done before, if they only voted for one person, they only voted for one person (it wasn't counted as two votes for that person, but it was counted). >> Dear Megan: Okay, I understand what you are saying. What was trying is say, vote for one person only is "like" giving them two votes. Maybe not truly two votes. But if you truly want one person to be elected then you should only vote for one person. Reason being your man or women might be the running neck and neck in the number two or number three spot. when you vote of two your other vote might just be helping the 3rd place person close the margin or the 2nd place person gaining more of a lead. In other words if the 2nd place person can win by one vote and the 2nd and 3rd place people are tied for support then why would you want to vote of two? Your other vote is going to defeat the person you want to elect. Three way races are very interesting. It is not important that you understand it unless you are the person that is running in the three way race with to changes of winning. Enjoy, David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA15796 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:55:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13061; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990621024322.0179ab50@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:43:22 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Old-Cc: jpowelljr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair Resent-Message-ID: <53b8eC.A.3LD.XHeb3@bl-11.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/794 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f6927732dc8d2f8c50906a544ff497fe Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say ok or whatever procedure you'd like to use? Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] millenium logo.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] millenium logo.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28087 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:44:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15661; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03c201bebba0$61154d20$2c0b9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:41:48 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] millenium logo Resent-Message-ID: <0PYdb.A.g0D.1Mcb3@bl-11.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/792 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 77f7cbbb17f6b9c6a5ba8531402c40f1 http://www.rootsweb.com/~neboyd/logos.html Ginger, are you the one who made it? (since it's on your site) piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09687 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:08:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16780; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37650C71.D6ABCFF1@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:06:42 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: BOARD-EXEC-L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E 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/700 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4df5562bba656b8fac5dfc85a645d886 This is going to be very long. I beg your indulgence. This saga began on the ninth of June when Ginger asked for help. Motion made, seconded [twice], numbered, and discussed for a short period of time, during which time RW made revolutionary announcements. These events with date stamps C&P'd are simply factual without editorial comments. Comments are dispersed periodically. Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:56:31 -0400 The Question Called Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:08:11 EDT Ginger Voted Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:20:21 -0400 Bill Voted Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:34:41 -0400 Beth Voted Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:45:27 -0400 Tim interrupts the voting process with questions Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:31:19 -0500 Megan adds a comment Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:09:53 -0500 Lynn votes Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:00:01 -0500 Bonnie votes Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:15:59 -0500 Trey votes Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:33:44 -0400 Jim interrupts with a question of why motion is on Exec Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:37:07 -0700 Bridgett votes Aye Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:58:21 EDT David interrupts with discussion Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:02:31 -0400 Joe Abstains Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:08:28 -0400 Yvonne Abstains At this point the quorum was reached. This is time beyond the work day of either Tim or myself. Though fully aware of this at the time, the entire board had not yet responded nor had the customary 48 hours voting period elapsed. Tim was aware of the "call" for he commented on it at 9:45 a.m. [above]. He did not announce any variance to timing. Because we agreed not to vote on weekends, the voting period would not have been up until Tuesday morning. Tim made no comment to expedite the vote. Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:21:09 EDT David votes Nay Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:58:43 -0500 Betsy votes Nay Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:39:19 -0400 Pam makes suggestion There was no new voice heard from till the next post by Tim which was at: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:18:03 -0400 where he made his "resolution" motion. Which in effect was a motion made by the NC, because he did not invite a motion to this end but asked directly. Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:26:38 -0400 Jim supports Tim's resolution Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:29:50 -0400 Yvonne supports Tim's resolution Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:01:29 EDT David supports Tim's resolution Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:06:57 -0400 Joe supports Tim's resolution Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:44:36 -0400 Joe's explosive message Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:50:00 -0500 Betsy's support of Joe [It is best that a note about time stamps be made here. -0400 [EDT] and -0500 [CDT] in the last two entrees show them to be in reality 6 minutes apart and not an hour earlier as might be interpreted.] Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:11:13 -0400 Beth's response to Joe's post. Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:20:17 -0500 Lynn's appeal Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:32:57 EDT Ginger's post concerning resolutions and order [answers and/or comments by David, Ginger, Bonnie before the next item] Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:29:23 -0400 Tim declares the motion to call defeated. This announcement, made by the NC, before the 48 hour customary voting period ending opened discussion again and three members of the board not yet voting. I truly hope that this sets my reputation for observation and analysis to rest. Due to any more infighting or bringing procedure to the fore [once again] for timely resolution was "hopeless" I went no further than calling for question. An alert and astute leader would have recognized all the above points and assisted in bringing Ginger's questions to solution. As a simple example, he could have made his point about resolution early in the discussion and suggested or asked that person if they were willing to alter the motion accordingly. Beth has never shown unreasonableness. That would have shown support for the idea and those that so quickly post messages immediately following his announcements would have received their cues and we would have had resolution by Friday morning at the latest. It always seems that any attempt to call attention to orderliness is accepted other than being accurate and an attempt to speed things along rather than delay them. If it is wrong, correct it immediately and move on. This ends chapter one. This morning's "funnies", "The Family Circus", one of the children is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "... one nation, under guard, with liver, tea, and just this for all." Respectively submitted, Bill -- ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA03446 [xxxxxxx] Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29805; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3760EB5E.472C4A12@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:56:31 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: BOARD-EXEC-L@rootsweb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-16E 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/629 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 73dae91f0fcc2b23a18d5aee85882092 On Wed, June 9, 1999, Beth W moved that the USGenWeb Bylaws be clarified as such: 1) the "regions" remain as they are for another year. 2) An eligible voter in good standing is eligible to hold an advisory board position for the region for which they volunteer. 3) Nominations for regional advisory board seats must come from an eligible voter FROM THAT REGION. 4) In addition to the positions of National Coordinator and Member at Large, eligible voters will vote for their choice of nominees for the vacancies for the region in which they volunteer. Beth Wills ----------------------- Seconded by Ginger C and Bill O. ----------------------- On June 9, 1999, Numbered as Motion 99-16E and discussion called by the NC ----------------------- Since there has been no further discussion on Motion 99-16E, I call the question. Sincerely, Bill ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-17.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-17.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA27575 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:15:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10734; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376F1B3D.64986D0B@dc.jones.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:12:30 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> <376EA321.18CF526F@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Motion 99-17 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/808 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4a74d76138f818031b7188fa44014f22 At this risk of being out of order, has Motion 99-17 passed. It seems to me that it did, but I haven't seen an official posting and I don't want to add it to the web site until I get the official word. -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_02EA_01BF7E37.BB060C20-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:55:13 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA05022 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:55:12 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14138 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02788; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:55:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <02f801bf7e6a$19908cc0$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:54:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] New Business.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] New Business.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29288 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:08:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02794; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990615085352.008a48a0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:53:52 -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-L] New Business Resent-Message-ID: <_f0b8.A.er.tAlZ3@bl-11.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/754 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 18101088e60f34d5685c67a8cd04f74c There are two items that I believe the Board needs to consider - in no particular order: 1. accepting Trey's resignation before a new person is voted on to replace him 2. making a statement to the effect that a CC may, as long as their site meets the minumum requirement of both the Project and the State, place their site on any server that will host it. The reason this has come up - there are reports circulating that a CC's site has been delinked because the SC and/or other CCs demanded that the CCs not have their site on a particular server, the CC refused to move it, and was delinked. Thanks, Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Please folks.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Please folks.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28930 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:23:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13029; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906142023.NAA63460@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:21:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Please folks 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/729 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5a9a202d799a9286f5178de9219fe4c4 This list is not for campaigning for the National Coordinator position. Let's get back to business. It is my belief that the State XXGenWeb's have 2 votes only, one SC and one ASC. Only one vote per region if a SC is an ASC in another state or visa versa in the same region, only 1 vote. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Proposed By Laws Amendments.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Proposed By Laws Amendments.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA27792 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:16:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13285; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376F1B83.B47AD0BE@dc.jones.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:13:39 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> <376EA321.18CF526F@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Proposed By Laws Amendments 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/809 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6fd41aa05b27e9a6cffbb632ac1f99ad As stated in the By Laws, I have posted the IL proposed amendments to the web site. They can be found under Official Business. -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Question for Megen.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Question for Megen.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14355 [xxxxxxx] Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:27:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26191; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <4e0cc529.24a3c3ca@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:24:26 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Question for Megen 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/836 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b62a88a10724b3b4d9a09e61ba82c670 In a message dated 6/24/99 12:49:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FEATHER2s@aol.com writes: << To do that, we need one spot where we can discuss things and vent our frustrations without falling under public scrutiny for every syllable uttered. >> Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: This pictures that some of you paint with your words at times make me laugh. You are all very good writers. But please I cannot afford to laugh too loudly. It hurt too much. So I will just read them and remember to put on a Question for Megan: We should check with Jim to see if the election committee has written out how many votes each State & County/town page will be able to ballot in their elections. If it is ready it needs to be posted before the voting started. We are getting question for the SC's in the NE/NC Region. As I am running in that region and the ASC of IL is also running for the same office I find it a conflict of interest to make the statement that only two of the SC/ASC of IL can vote. They say they all voted last time. We need to get these rules posted before the voting starts. Do we need a motion on this? Did we vote on it last time? If we did, it should be records as Board Policy. Enjoy, David C Young (NE/NC SC Rep) ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Questions on Resources.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Questions on Resources.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA01496 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:55:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03596; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990612050023.01630e50@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 05:00:23 -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-L] Questions on Resources 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/649 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 16bcf30569565e94209caa9576990d18 >From one of the Georgia Regional Coordinators: "I'm thinking that USGenWeb should ask Rootsweb to allow the State Coordinators to adopt any boards not picked up by the CCs. I am thinking that it will be harder to recruit new cc's if they do not have any control over the current resources." This has been seconded by a couple of other RCs. ------------------------------------------------------ >From a ND CC in the form of a question: We CC's can: #1 link to the county page at resources page on Rootsweb #2 link to individual pages such as the Transcriptions for example #3 we can volunteer to do .....what? ------------------------------------------------------ I think on #1 and #2 above that it's the other way around? The CC can take the HTML from the Resources page and drop into his/her webpage? Please give me some feedback so I can/you can have some answers to give to our fellow CCs. Thanks, Tim ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Re [BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Re [BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06136 [xxxxxxx] Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:33:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09526; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:30:50 -0500 Old-To: BOARD-EXEC-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills In-Reply-To: <199906181615.JAA99369@jubjub.wizard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <199906181133.SM00152@betsy> Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Counting down 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/782 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: de8495766ab0d51918cf42e2edee6896 Someone please tell me that Tim Pierce has been contacted and has agreed to do this job! Betsy At 09:14 AM 06/18/1999 -0700, you wrote: >FWIW, I do believe that the state's voters lists are to be sent in >prior to June 24th (?) to Tim Pierce so those names can be keyed in >to the voting apparatus. Problem is there is really no person to send >them in to -- now what? > >We still have no chair for the Elections Committee, and I believe >this committee is down to one (1) person. How long do you think this >committee of one will turn into a committee of none? > >Seems to me, that if something isn't done and this board doesn't >start taking some action in regards to this, that come July 1 when >everyone is supposed to receive ballots -- a crucfixion may be called >for. > >Bridgett > >Bridgett Smith >SC Rep SE/Mid-Atlantic Region > >bascs@wizard.com > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > >TNGenWeb State Coordinator >http://www.tngenweb.org/ > ------=_NextPart_000_02F5_01BF7E37.CEF61CC0-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:57:12 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA05272 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:57:12 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14484 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:57:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA03757; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:56:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <030301bf7e6a$5bb9ce40$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:56:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Resource pages.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Resource pages.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA21345 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:31:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23932; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 05:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 05:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376252BE.D0F5668B@idt.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:29:50 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: "Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Resource pages 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/650 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6c5c225d0ef251507e96f5555b1ee52b I think this has been blown out of proportion. I can see a lot of work went into this, I for one think it is a positive thing! I don't believe for a minute that it was done to "outdo" our project! Brian wrote: Hi Bob - You don't even need to link to the Resource pages. Just copy the HTML for whichever tools you want onto your own pages and otherwise ignore the Resource pages. The point of the mechanically-generated Resource pages was just to make sure the resources were created and available to the CCs. It's fine with us if those resources are used on existing pages with no link at all to the robot pages. Cheers, B. -- Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 leverich@rootsweb.com ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Rootsweb Improvements.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Rootsweb Improvements.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02481 [xxxxxxx] Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:54:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03747; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Beth Wills" Old-To: , Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:56:39 -0400 Message-ID: <01beb362$35818480$471dacd1@beth> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Rootsweb "Improvements" 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/627 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 066ad2ebb9c665f944c0c63a209a2b61 Well, I don't know about the rest of you.... But, it appears that we are now "for sale". The newest addition of county clusters is a slap in the face to the current USGenWeb Project. I had a feeling this was coming. If you recall, I sent some information several months ago about my conflict with GenConnect. At that time, the GenConnect staff refused to allow me to do anything with the county genconnect boards except delete obvious inappropriate postings. I was told that the queries first of all belonged to the sumbitter and second of all, to GenConnect. It's too bad we as county coordinators were not informed of these things before we adopted the boards. I see the same thing happening with the new county clusters. There is a board up for my county, and if I do not choose to take on this new information, I am sure that it will be given to someone who will. At this particular time, mu inclination is to delete my whole county page on rootsweb and let someone else take the slaps. I am going to hold off long enough to really think about this. I have spent the better part of 3 years working on this project and am furious to think that someone else will step in and take over. Yes, I know that for the benefit of the researchers that the information should stay where it is. But....I feel like I have been used. I am also contemplating having EVERY file that I have submitted to the archives also removed from the system. What do you all think about the current situation? Beth Wills bethw@kvi.net Ionia County MIGenWeb Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~miionia Privileged and confidential communication. Pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Publ.L. 99-508), it is illegal to intercept, copy, alter or disseminate this message. If you are not the addressee, you may not read, copy, or distribute this email transmission. Thank you. ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] RW Improvements.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] RW Improvements.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA16352 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:31:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24319; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004c01beb49c$fd5a3d40$3edfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: "Board-Exec-L" Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:29:55 -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-L] RW Improvements Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/647 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2b845b8cdfdb885b18b580f7ff7c1b04 Folks, I hate to break this to you, but I really think the AB needs to address this RW Improvements situation. We have to let the CCs of the project know that we were broadsided with this announcement, and not a party to creating the situation. We are also going to have to decide just what we need and are going to do about it. Have had CCs contacting us to find out what the board is going to do about this, and I don't have the answers. Lynn ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Searchable archives for Board-Exec.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Searchable archives for Board-Exec.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA18660 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18585; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906151723.KAA30579@bw-10.rootsweb.com> Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Organization: RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative From: karen@rootsweb.com Content-Type: text Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Searchable archives for 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/765 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cb3feaa631420dbf2c0f99807271dabc I just double-checked the archiving (if any) that is being applied to this mailing list, having had the sudden sinking feeling that maybe it was accidentally being archived in the wake of Tim's actions a few weeks (or was it a month?) ago, when he turned on archiving for several unarchived lists. You're safe. This list is not being archived, and hasn't been archived for many months. (It was unfortunately archived for a period after it was created, as that was the default, and the then listowner didn't understand it had to be turned off. Those archives have long since been removed.) SmartList itself maintains an e-mail searchable archive of mailing list messages for a month to two months after the message is posted. This archive does exist (it's nearly impossible to get rid of), but can only be searched by addresses that are subscribed to the list. Outsiders can NOT get at that archive, even if they happen to know the magic formula. The most likely hypothesis is the one already advanced: that someone subscribed to this list is forwarding the material. The Board knows better than I do who should be here. I think in the list of Board-Exec subscribers below, I'm the only one who "doesn't belong in this picture". (And I'm willing to take a hike at any time, if you decide you'd prefer the privacy.) --Karen Subscribers to Board-Exec: bascs@aol.com bascs@snark.wizard.com bethw@kvi.net betsym@1starnet.com cestus3@inetnebr.com FEATHER2s@aol.com hen1@idt.net holt@txcyber.com jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net jzsed@slic.com karen@rootsweb.com kmfkm@ptw.com MSPIGLET@prodigy.net Mainegen@aol.com mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net mishiawa@yahoo.com pamreid@dc.jones.com tstowell@chattanooga.net also can access via tstowell@mccallie.org wnoliver@worldnet.att.net ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Statement.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Statement.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA01432 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:59:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08614; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:58:16 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:58:00 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Statement 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/676 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b21ca675825612565dc062c0328fb8c0 Lack of leadership by this Board has so crippled the membership's faith in the Board's ability to lead that a call for election volunteers yielded a mere handful of members willing to help with elections. A simple request for clarification requiring a prompt, timely response was ignored by the NC, who was apparently more interested in obtaining confidential nomination information and has been too busy in IRC chat rooms furthering his own reelection bid to tend the business at hand. My request was ignored or summarily dismissed as unnecessary by other board members, and Jim felt it necessary to ask his constituents what he should do before committing himself to having an opinion. After three days of delaying tactics, it is now a dead issue and the problem is past the necessity of any ruling as it is now beyond the point of correction. It has become increasingly obvious that while the Board was more than willing to appoint me to this chairmanship, they are unwilling to support the Committee and the Chair in a timely enough manner to allow it to function effectively and properly. My suggestion this evening that we follow Parliamentary Procedure as required by the Bylaws was met with profane and uncalled-for remarks by Joe Zsedeny. I refuse to submit to further verbal attacks and cannot function effectively under these conditions, therefore I tender my immediate resignation as Chairman of the Elections Committee. In other words, fellow Board members, you have created this situation so now you can figure out how to fix it. Ginger Cisewski ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Vance County NCGenWeb.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Vance County NCGenWeb.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA16558 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:29:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07613; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906231728.KAA03924@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:28:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990623130619.008153f0@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <199906231432.HAA96688@jubjub.wizard.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Vance County NCGenWeb 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/827 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 72c21990b2c38d9c7f452b4955574d90 On 23 Jun 99, at 13:06, Tim Stowell wrote: > If I'm not mistaken I believe this is the North Carolina County that was > taken over by either a Gen Soc or a History Soc. > > This site - appears to be a front for the AHLN network and does not meet > the minimum requirements for a page because I found no queries on the > site. > > Tim, Were you talking about the county that diane sent a message to every list available? I thought that was Wilson County. However, again, I could be out in left field. Sandy is being really, really technical here. She is providing a place where queries can be posted, isn't that the wording of the rules and regulations? Not that they do it themselves, but provide a place to post and view queries. BTW, speaking of queries. Would you call a county in compliance when the only place to send queries to is the county host, and you don't see submissions for 6 months? Sure you can view queries but the last update was in Dec. 1998. Which of the above 2 sites serves the researchers? Which is why we are on the internet to begin with. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_0300_01BF7E38.1117BD20-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:58:28 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA05355 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:58:28 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14714 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04353; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:58:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <030e01bf7e6a$8a8b95a0$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:57:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Volunteers.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Volunteers.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13230 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:25:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00194; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:25:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:24:02 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Volunteers? 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/695 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 20d960fb6659495446771391ff369301 In a message dated 99-06-13 18:57:11 EDT, you write: << Most CCs don't give a flip for the political side of the Project, nor do they pay any attention to the Board. Tim >> Dear Tim: Maybe we can get wrapped up in our over importants? Does it matter who ask someone to think about running for office? Would any of us ask a friend in another state to please think about running? I think I would not do it after this week. Now we are told that some people have done just that. We do not know how many, but people living in another region nominated some people. My understand our disagreement is what this is all about. Maybe activity is wrong. I am sure some people think so. We feel some people have over step their power but I ask us all to please not to over step our power. Let us be more open to people becoming part of this election. If any of the people that were nominated by "outsiders" are willing to serve and are found to be in good standing hosting as SC, ACC, CC and or TC pages in their region that we put them on the ballot. Does it truly matter who thought they would be a good person for the job? They can nominate themself, right? In the future we need to get our act together and make the rules before the game starts. Enjoy, David C. Young of Maine (NE/NC) ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 1 of 2.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 1 of 2.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA14956 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:10:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05796; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990620003253.00885a40@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:32:53 -0400 Old-To: Board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Old-Cc: jpowelljr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 1 of 2 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/788 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e693755b08e8a5c2b4979fc214cad11e This was sent to me by a North Carolina CC - diane k: >The by-laws state in Article VII, section 6 that all members of the USGW Project >are eligible to vote in an election. Does that include people >who work on the Archives but do not have a position in the >GenWeb? Basically, it is a question of WHO constitute the >membership of the Project. > >In N. C., we have a person who works in the Archives but is >not a CC. Elizabeth sent her name in on the list of voters in >N.C. > >Here is what Elizabeth said about the N.C. voters: > > >> Currently only one of the NC archives file managers, Cathy >> Cranford-Ailstock, is not also a CC for an NC county. Cathy is doing a >> terrific job managing the archives for quite a few counties, and is >> actively interacting with the CCs of the counties she manages and the >> county-specific lists regarding the archives placement. If there's any >> question of her eligibility to vote in any future NCGENWEB elections, then >> we should probably give her an official assignment of some kind elsewhere >> in the NCGenWeb project to confirm her status. >> >> I sent her name in, with her role clearly indicated, when I compiled the >> list of NCGenWeb participants for the forthcoming national election. It >> seems to me that it is up to the national committee to decide whether >> archives volunteers who are not also CCs are eligible to vote or not. I >> don't see that this is my decision to make. >> >> We also have one volunteer on the military page, Angie Rayfield, who is not >> a North Carolina CC, but she is a CC elsewhere in USGenWeb. >> >> >> Elizabeth Harris >> ncgen@mindspring.com >> >> state coordinator for NCGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ >> >I notice on the nomination page that we do not and cannot >participate in the election of the Archives representative. >It would therefore seem that they also cannot and should not >participate in our elections. > >Thank you for raising this question that needs clarification. > > >From a North carolina CC. (I have removed her name.) ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 2 of 2.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 2 of 2.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA14950 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:10:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05703; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990620003421.00885a40@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:34:21 -0400 Old-To: Board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Old-Cc: jpowelljr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Voter eligibility - 2 of 2 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/787 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 98edd47720556e73dfd645ee9602d49b This is a follow up note on the same subject: From:a friend of mine To: NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 8:35 PM Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L] Re: eligible voters and archives participants >Elizabeth, > >I am not so sure that it is up to the national election committee to decide whether > >archives volunteers who are not also CCs are eligible to vote. The by-laws say in >Article VII, section 6 that all members of the USGW Project are eligible to vote. >The question IS whether Archives people are members of the USGW Project. I notice >on the nomination page that we cannot vote for their representative to the Board. >Should they be voting for ours? Is there a mechanism in place to verify that >ballots only go to cc's? > >Would you please raise these questions to the Board through your representative on >our behalf. > name removed here.(signature) > >Elizabeth Harris wrote: > >> >The volunteers come from all over, not just from USGW yet we have extended >> >voting privileges to them in our NCGenWeb elections. I think we need to >> >re-visit this issue and soon, with an election just around the corner. Surely >> >we do not want non-USGW people participating in our elections, do we? Or >> >do we? >> >> It >> seems to me that it is up to the national committee to decide whether >> archives volunteers who are not also CCs are eligible to vote or not. I >> don't see that this is my decision to make. >> >> Elizabeth Harris >> ncgen@mindspring.com >> >> state coordinator for NCGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Voter's list for the NENC.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Voter's list for the NENC.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA19696 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:33:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18536; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:31:47 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Voter's list for the NE/NC? 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/735 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1f918aeaae52e1f2f7f98a59c694f2c3 Dear Board: I have sent my voter's list about a week ago. after getting the following message. Did I send it to the right person? >In a message dated 6/7/99 6:31:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >axtman@premier1.net writes: > ><< Subj: Voter Lists > Date: 6/7/99 6:31:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: axtman@premier1.net (Debbie) > To: mainegen@aol.com > > Hi, I am the NE/N Central Region Sub-Committee Chairman for USGW, and would > appreciate it if you could please send me your voting lists ASAP.....Please > send me the following ASAP: SC/ASC list and your CC list. > > Thanks so much for your help! > > Debbie Axtman > CC Tuscola, MI USGW > Co-CC Wayne, MI USGW > Enjoy, David C. Young In a message dated 6/14/99 5:06:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FEATHER2s@aol.com writes: << ubj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Date: 6/14/99 5:06:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com NW-Plains voters lists got to: Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu NE voters list go to: (no volunteer) SE voters lists go to: Lori Krei kreibl@ncn.net SW voters lists go to: Tina Vickery TVick655362@aol.com With the exception of the Nominations Subcommittee members, there are no others. There is also no Board liaison now and no chair, since I served in both capacities. The lists must be sent to Tim Pierce on June 24th. Ginger >> ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Where do we go from here.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Where do we go from here.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA24063 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:25:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06607; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:25:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:24:54 EDT Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Where do we go from here? Resent-Message-ID: <9pDRhD.A.3mB.Mk3Y3@bl-11.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/679 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a16af6c0c3e0eba93db6aa1b73cf6320 Dear USGW Board: As one of my friends at college would say. "David, how that everyone is totally confused and everything is a clear as mud, let's start from there." This would be followed by the other one liner. "Keep digging you are halfway to China." Is there any motion on the floor? If so what is it? I understand the old one is dead. I am sorry to have been one of the member to have found only time to stick his oar in and not offer much in the way of help. Well, at least that may have been the way it looked to some of the other board members. I only work 36 or 48 hours a week but I work 12 hours a day when I do work. Thanks to AOL the only E-mail address I was unable to use was this one so I lost one day. I went to she my daughter in a state wide sporting event on Sat so I lost another day. When I returned I learned that the motion that I did not support but later asked if I could change my vote had lost. I have read all your points of view and I can agree with many of them. Some of you even give me good reasons to change the way I view something. At least with all but one point and I am willing to talk about what I disagree about. I understand this is too much information and I do get wordy at times. Enjoy, David C Young (NE/NC) of Maine ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] Whew !!.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] Whew !!.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22474 [xxxxxxx] Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:55:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27851; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906181750.KAA02537@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:49:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199906181239.SM00152@betsy> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Whew !! 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/785 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c6ecc6cd9fdebab0d09885dc44794da5 Thanks Betsy, I thought my mind was really, really gone there for awhile B. On 18 Jun 99, at 12:36, Betsy Mills wrote: > >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:31:43 -0400 > >From: Tim Pierce > >To: Betsy Mills > >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Counting down > >X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i > >X-RCPT-TO: > > > >Yup, I did agree to do it. I haven't heard from anybody in a few > >weeks, and it seems like there have been a lot of shakeups :-) so I'm > >just biding my time until somebody gets back to me and tells me what > >needs to be voted on, etc. > > > >-- > >Regards, > >Tim Pierce > >RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative > >system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_030B_01BF7E38.3FF125A0-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 20:59:40 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 UAA05471 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:59:39 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14877 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04885; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:59:28 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <031c01bf7e6a$b53bede0$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:58:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Board-Exec-L] While Rome burns. . . .eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[Board-Exec-L] While Rome burns. . . .eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12584 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:00:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24857; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906131800.LAA23113@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:58:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [Board-Exec-L] While Rome burns. . . 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/686 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 087b1c1738f2b79030ad54d5732eeb95 I know Brian used this first, but it is appropriate now. While you folks are debating whether parlimentary procedure was used properly or not, while some board members have lowered themselves to attacking others with uncalled for language, do you folks realize that we now have NO CHAIR for the election committee? Or am I the only one that seems to feel that this problem needs to be taken care of ASAP? Parlimentary procedure, no matter which set we use, is a set of ground rules, it does not need to be adhered to to the letter, but I don't think if we relied on common sense to rule the manner in which we do business is a good alternative. What to me is common sense, seems insane to others, won't work folks. However, it is very improper in any parlimentary procedure rules I have run into whether RRoO or not -- to bring up any other type of business while a vote is going on, especially if it pertains to the subject that is being voted on. The vote for 16-E was not finished and/or called finished before Tim's resolutions came in. Tim had some good points in his resolution, just his timing was way off. IMNSPO, I believe the USGW project would be better without a board, the reasons why? None of the bickering, backstabbing, calling folks liars, waving dirty underwear, yada yada yada was happening before the concept of a board was established (or probably not to the high level of pitch that is happening now). HOWEVER, being the organization that we are we NEED a board, but this one in place now? Nope, and I don't think the organization will recover from the very first elected board. You can hardly get anyone to agree to run for a seat, and if they do (some not all) are among the very vocal folks where I don't know whether I would want to be a part of this organization if they are elected !!! (and may not be) No matter what route, decision or ruling any board that comes along (again IMNSPO), will always be subjected to ridicule from folks one side of the fencepost or the other. The board seated at this time has wonderful people on it with wonderful ideas on how to take care of problems, some I agree with some I don't but ANY idea is wonderful than the take no stance attitude that has been conveyed here on several items. I am as guilty as the next party. Right now our biggest problem with this board is the lack of respect shown to each other, until that starts happening we will get nowhere. It's a vicious cycle, you give no respect, you get no respect. It's a bit late folks as we only have 2 1/2 more months until the "next session" takes it's turn at the helm, but may be if each one of us gives respect to the others we might accomplish something. While Rome burns . . . . No one is taking over the reigns of the Election Committee While Rome burns . . . . the controversary over the cluster boards gets out of hand While Rome burns . . . we do too. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[BOARD-L] Call of Motion 99-16E.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[BOARD-L] Call of Motion 99-16E.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA18899 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:28:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21304; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990613042923.00e199b0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:29:23 -0400 Old-To: Board-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [BOARD-L] Call of Motion 99-16E Resent-Message-ID: To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2132 X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 561e122d2a3f88709d9a4ea2523d0f75 On Wed, June 9, 1999, Beth W moved that the USGenWeb Bylaws be clarified as such: 1) the "regions" remain as they are for another year. 2) An eligible voter in good standing is eligible to hold an advisory board position for the region for which they volunteer. 3) Nominations for regional advisory board seats must come from an eligible voter FROM THAT REGION. 4) In addition to the positions of National Coordinator and Member at Large, eligible voters will vote for their choice of nominees for the vacancies for the region in which they volunteer. Beth Wills ----------------------- Seconded by Ginger C and Bill O. ----------------------- On June 9, 1999, Numbered as Motion 99-16E and discussion called by the NC ----------------------- Since there has been no further discussion on Motion 99-16E, I call the question. Sincerely, Bill ------------------------------------------------- The Call of the Motion 99-16E results are: Yes - 7; 2 - No; 3 - abstain; 3 not voting. Since 2/3 of those voting did not approve the calling of this Motion - the Motion goes back to the discussion phase. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[BOARD-L] Can all the ASCs vote.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[BOARD-L] Can all the ASCs vote.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15565 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:24:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07539; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:23:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <33168ffe.24a271b0@aol.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:21:52 EDT Old-To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Old-CC: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [BOARD-L] Can all the ASCs vote? Resent-Message-ID: To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2199 X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1c3979131d98dee5924e07504df73abc In a message dated 6/23/99 1:03:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tort@starnetinc.com writes: << And as I said, the last election every SC/ASC was allowed to vote regardless of how many there are in a state. >> Dear Susan: So the question is if an SC appoints 300 ASCs can they all vote in this election? I asked for a ruling on this a few weeks ago. The AB has talked about it and I hope the rules of the elections will be ready to be written out some everyone will know that the are. Thanks you of being this question up. The Board needs to post how many votes each state can have. Thanks, David C Young ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[BOARD-L] Chair of the Election Committee.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[BOARD-L] Chair of the Election Committee.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07456 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:14:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22688; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <68c2b04f.24a012e3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:12:51 EDT Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Subject: [BOARD-L] Chair of the Election Committee Resent-Message-ID: To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2175 X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f93ad653c663159adf49a7ae5df6f924 Dear Board Members: I am on vacation until July 4th, but did check my E-mail. It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept Jim' Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to vote on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave today and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. Enjoy, David C Young (NE/NC) ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00905 [xxxxxxx] Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:18:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11716; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906181615.JAA99369@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:14:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Subject: [BOARD-L] Counting down Resent-Message-ID: <-xswfC.A.32C.5Cna3@bl-14.rootsweb.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2169 X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ce3ef8e6c63bb138a79ae2e93af96871 FWIW, I do believe that the state's voters lists are to be sent in prior to June 24th (?) to Tim Pierce so those names can be keyed in to the voting apparatus. Problem is there is really no person to send them in to -- now what? We still have no chair for the Elections Committee, and I believe this committee is down to one (1) person. How long do you think this committee of one will turn into a committee of none? Seems to me, that if something isn't done and this board doesn't start taking some action in regards to this, that come July 1 when everyone is supposed to receive ballots -- a crucfixion may be called for. Bridgett Bridgett Smith SC Rep SE/Mid-Atlantic Region bascs@wizard.com *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* TNGenWeb State Coordinator http://www.tngenweb.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[BOARD-L] Elections Committee (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="[BOARD-L] Elections Committee (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA03475 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:50:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15018; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614015402.00ef1cf0@mail.mccallie.org> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.mccallie.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 01:54:02 -0400 Old-To: Board-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [BOARD-L] Elections Committee Resent-Message-ID: <9H_XtD.A.hqD.VfJZ3@bl-14.rootsweb.com> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2136 X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b5f89b6c14270713b311b3cb6c5d4f39 Are there any volunteers for the Elections Committee - who are not running for office? Tim ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BF7E38.6AA17DE0-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 21:03:31 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 VAA05903 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:03:30 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15525 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06577; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:03:24 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <035001bf7e6b$41e83280$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:02:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="1st Casualty in Allen's War.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="1st Casualty in Allen's War.eml" Return-Path: <73777.25@compuserve.com> Received: from hil-img-5.compuserve.com (hil-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.177.135]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00861 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:48:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by hil-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.19) id MAA19050 for cestus3@inetnebr.com; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:45:42 -0400 From: Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman <73777.25@compuserve.com> Subject: 1st Casualty in Allen's War Sender: Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman <73777.25@compuserve.com> To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Message-ID: <199906191248_MC2-79F2-F04F@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-UIDL: ba656c7dd7fc7896c0a24d50be3a3dcd FYI, Feel free to send it to the board or whoever you want. Maggie ------------------------------------------------------------------ FORWARDED MESSAGE - Orig: 19-Jun-99 11:17 Subject: [OHGEN-L] To Allen and CCs ------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Norman E. Smith, Jr." I'm writing this to the list to avoid being misquoted. >From the moment of your election, Allen, you have used the OHGenWeb project and this list as a platform to wage your own personal war with Brian and Karen. You've been with this project longer than I, but I didn't just join it yesterday either. I've been around long enough to know that only half of what's being said is true and that half is, for the most part, being used out of context. I know there are a few other CC's that share your hatred and distrust of Brian and Karen, we have heard from them. I do not share your hatred and distrust, nor do I approve of the project being used as a platform for waging personal little wars. It's for genealogy! Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to your actions, I must assume that I am quite alone in my view of the matter. This really leaves me with only two choices; 1. Remain as your silent accomplice in this war of yours. 2. Leave the project as a matter of conscience. I will NOT be silent, therefore I am left with one choice. Therefore, I have made sure that ALL my pages are up to date as of this A.M. and you may consider this my official and immediate resignation as CC for the Defiance, Morgan, Union and Wyandot county OHGenWeb pages. For me, I consider the issue closed, and do not wish to discuss it further with anyone. Bye........ -- Norm Smith ==== OHGEN Mailing List ==== !^NavFont02F05A30007NGHHLA47358 ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Archives, etc.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Archives, etc.eml" Return-Path: Received: from Mail.Pagosa.Net ([208.213.220.7]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA19846 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:02:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from pagosasprings.net [208.213.222.185] by Mail.Pagosa.Net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.07) id A3A255C00FC; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:02:10 MST Message-ID: <36E698BA.BE36ABE8@pagosasprings.net> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:07:23 -0500 From: oldham X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "cestus3@inetnebr.com" Subject: Archives, etc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: b868e19f877f151cc6c39e52db6beb48 Lynn, something to think about regarding the proposed seperate directories for Archive Project, Census Project and Toombstone Project; with seperate directories will the Archives project search engine search all three projects, or will it require three (or more) search engines? If so, we will need to ask USGENWEB Project to make that clear for the people doing the searches. Just a thought. Leroy ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Fw [ILGEN-L] Voting Results..eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Fw [ILGEN-L] Voting Results..eml" Return-Path: Received: from smtp02.infoave.net (smtp02.infoave.net [165.166.0.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA10738 [xxxxxxx] Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:55:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gingerhayes ("port 1099"@[208.145.209.106]) by SMTP00.InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-12 #23426) with SMTP id <01JCIV6J9KOI8YB2I1@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net> for cestus3@inetnebr.com; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:54:31 EDT Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:53:11 -0500 From: Ginger Subject: Fw: [ILGEN-L] Voting Results. To: cestus3@inetnebr.com Message-id: <00b801beb935$c50384e0$53d191d0@gingerhayes> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: High X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Priority: 1 X-UIDL: 3c555264d8cf7876ffd7bcd8721320ec Hi Lynne, Thanks for passing these on. I'll look for them at the National Website in a few days and then tell everyone they can go admire them. I'm including the rationales for each one, which were not part of this original message I'm forwarding. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: RichPump To: ILGEN-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 9:05 AM Subject: [ILGEN-L] Voting Results. >The official totals for Amendments are as follows. > >*************************************************************************** ************ > >Amendment I >Article IX, Sec. 3: >In the interests of diversity, independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb >Project, state and county coordinators are encouraged to utilize a variety >of servers as hosts of their webpages. An attempt shall be made by the >national Advisory Board to avoid utilizing any one server organization for >hosting more than 40% of the total number of USGenWeb Project web pages. > >[ PASSED] Rationale for the above proposed amendment: The success and viability of the internet is in large measure a function of the multiple pathways available to communicate between numerous different sites. If one link goes down, others exist to take its place. So too is it advisable to have a multitude of servers which hold The USGenWeb Project's web pages. If most pages within The USGenWeb Project are based on only one server site, should something happen to that site, be it a physical disaster or a human one such as bankruptcy, The USGenWeb Project would be severely compromised. On the other hand, if The USGenWeb Project is based on a number of different server locales, one site going offline would not have that drastic an effect on the whole project. The proposed amendment strengthens the independence and autonomy of The USGenWeb Project, helping to guarantee the project's longevity. > >Amendment II >Article IX, Sec. 4: >While realizing that a variety of indexing and storage methods exist for >queries, obituaries, wills, archival documents etc., The USGenWeb Project >strongly recommends that county and state coordinators maintain control >over >these items after they are submitted to the USGenWeb Project or its >subsidiary state and county pages. Therefore, links for submitting items >to >sites outside of The USGenWeb Project are strongly discouraged, unless the >links themselves remain under the control of The USGenWeb Project >coordinators. > >[ PASSED] Rationale for the proposed amendment: The current bylaws (Article XI, Sec. 3) requires the local website to include an easily accessible area to researchers' queries. Article XI, Sec. 4 further states that "those sections of the website submitted or donated by contributors other than the website coordinator, shall remain with the website." Neither Sec. 3 nor Sec. 4 can be adhered to unless those parts of the web page are under the control of the County and State Coordinators, to be passed along to the next coordinator. The thrust of this proposed amendment is also to strengthen the autonomy of The USGenWeb Project and its constituent services such as query pages so that the Project does not become engulfed and incorporated by any other internet system of managing queries, wills, obituaries, surnames, etc. The queries, obituaries, etc. belong to the submitter first and secondly to The USGenWeb Project and no one else. Others may link to our pages - but our pages must not become their pages. > > >*************************************************************************** ******** > ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Fwd Re Fwd Re [Board-Exec-L] Re [BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Fwd Re Fwd Re [Board-Exec-L] Re [BOARD-L] Counting down.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10460 [xxxxxxx] Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:39:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02001; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:36:57 -0500 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Counting down Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <199906181239.SM00152@betsy> 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/784 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: de6a28ad7dc6ea36e0126b82090b6db0 >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:31:43 -0400 >From: Tim Pierce >To: Betsy Mills >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Re: [BOARD-L] Counting down >X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i >X-RCPT-TO: > >Yup, I did agree to do it. I haven't heard from anybody in a few >weeks, and it seems like there have been a lot of shakeups :-) so I'm >just biding my time until somebody gets back to me and tells me what >needs to be voted on, etc. > >-- >Regards, >Tim Pierce >RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative >system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades > ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Nomination of Linda Russel to Board.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Nomination of Linda Russel to Board.eml" Return-Path: Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09015 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:38:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from idt.net (ip85.austin18.tx.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.176.85]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id AAA17277; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <370C3002.1CF71B91@idt.net> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 23:26:42 -0500 From: Veda Mendoza Reply-To: vedamen@idt.net Organization: V1 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Beth Willis , Bill Oliver , Bonnie McVicar-Briggs , Bridgett Smith , "Celia G. Snyder" , Ginger Cisewski , Jan Craven , MS Piglet , Kay Mason , Kim Harris-Myers , Lynn Waterman , Tim Stowell , Trey Holt , Yvonne James-Henderson Subject: Nomination of Linda Russel to Board Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: 1ea4989b64b5a4abd20bd613e08c8eff I again want to express my opinion. I would hope that the board would not vote to have Linda Russell on the Board. I believe that she would cause division and more conflict. I have corresponded privately with Linda in an attempt to make sure that my concerns were addressed from a stand point of her personal answers to some of my questions. She did not answer any of my questions but gave responses that only furthered her opinion that Kay Mason did not understand the project. I did not mention Kay in my post with the exception that I stated that under Kay I had been satisfied with the progress and efficient manner in which the Census Project had and does operate. The USGenWeb project is too large to be controlled by or "owned" by any one person. I am very concerned that Linda will work only to further her on agenda and not be responsive to the needs of any project that she does not control. As I told Linda, I cannot be lead around by my nose. I have followed and read all postings that were available to me. I have read every posting of the board. I review all mostions and follow the progress, and my opinion is based on what I have seen not by what anyone else believes I should think. -- Veda Mendoza USGenWeb Census Project Coordinator for Alabama, Mississippi & Texas Census Look Ups: http://www.rootsweb.com/~uslookup/ Personal Genealogy: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/7203 ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03686 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:11:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19713; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614125733.00a09ce0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:57:33 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199906141047.AA1900816@mail.1starnet.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/705 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1d38b440426bdd8be99345d449c15da4 At 10:47 AM 6/14/99 CDT, you wrote: >Tim, I thought we had agreed that no more messages would be forwarded to the board from Ms. Lindquist?? Further comments follow. I thought we had agreed not to send any more unsigned messages to Board-Exec and no messages to Board-L. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_034D_01BF7E38.F74DC280-- [xxxxxxx] Wed Feb 23 21:04:32 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 VAA05936 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:04:31 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15630 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm2-030.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.104]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06971; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:04:19 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <035d01bf7e6b$62be43a0$68dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:03:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA04632 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:14:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21748; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376537F3.2E031E6B@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:20 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: betsym@1starnet.com Old-CC: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) References: <199906141047.AA1900816@mail.1starnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <1ksG_.A.rTF.bhTZ3@bl-11.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/708 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c2357367372a5028676722af1f1732ea Besty, Very good questions. Nice comments. Great you stick up for THE Board. I sure didn't know we had 'discussed' more than your offer and asking the NC to forward "our" statement. And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? And, very sorry I can shed no further light. By the sound of what I hear she is the only candidate for At-Large for you quoted her saying "Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board." Maybe removing it from context just gives me this impression. Thank you, Betsy. Bill -- ================================> Betsy Mills wrote: > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Tim Stowell > Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:53:44 -0400 > > >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:09:33 -0400 (EDT) > >From: merope > >To: Tim Stowell > >Cc: rrti@pacbell.com > >Subject: A correction > > > > > >Dear Tim, please forward the following to the Board: > > Tim, I thought we had agreed that no more messages would be forwarded to the board from Ms. Lindquist?? Further comments follow. > > >Dear Advisory Board, > > > >I have been forwarded a post from one of the USGW regional mailing lists > >in which Betsy Mills, SC rep for the SW/SC region, indicates that Mr. > >Brian Leverich has been contacted regarding my ability to participate in > >Board activities and his answer has been shared with and discussed among > >the Board members. Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion > >as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I > >am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he > >may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board. > > This is typical twisting of events to suit Ms. Lindquist's purposes. I did post an answer to a question on the SW regional list where I stated that Brian Leverich had been asked about Ms. Lindquist being allowed to use RootsWeb services if she was elected to the board and that that answer had been shared with the rest of the board. She is STILL trying to intimate that Brian is running this board by asking whether BRIAN will allow her to be seated on the board. Brian has nothing to do with that. Isn't it strange that Ms. Lindquist gets her hands on every scrap of information that goes on even on this list and even states that one of us is talking to her, yet did NOT report that I had offered to be the person to forward correspondence to and from the board list if she is elected??? Wonder why that piece of information wasn't shared with her?? > > >Unfortunately, Mr. Leverich appears not to be the proper person to ask. > >According to a recent issue of the Rootsweb Review, Mr. Robert Tillman is > >the President and CEO of the RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative, and > >Mr. Leverich currently holds the position of Co-founder and Co-Chairman. > > So, why is she trying to communicate with Mr. Tillman through the board?? > > >5) Should I run, and should Rootsweb staff be handling the voting software > >as they have for previous elections, will my name be allowed to appear on > >the ballot? > > Again, an insult to us as a board. WE make the decision (by way of the members) as to who will be placed on the ballot. She was allowed to vote in the last election even though she was banned, so why is she making up problems before they even come about?? > > I begin to question whether Ms. Lindquist is truly a member of the project "in good standing" as her posts to other lists and individuals continues to incite misunderstanding and discord. Maybe it is time for the board to take a stand against persons who are damaging the project AND may even be an indirect cause of some of the discord on this board. We have just lost yet another GOOD volunteer in NC as a result of the continued postings by diane (skunk). Why does this continue to happen??? > > Thanks for listening! > Betsy > > >Sincerely, > > > >-Teresa Lindquist > >merope@radix.net > > > >========== > >begin appended message: > > > >In view of the Board's position on my nomination, I have some questions I > > >would like adressed prior to June 15. The Board may need to ask the > > >management of RW for specific answers to these questions. The answers > > >will assist me in deciding whether to run or not. > > > > > >1) Will my candidate web page be linked to from the Nominations web page? > > >This page is on RW and is maintained, I believe, by a RW employee (Marce > > >Beem). > > > > > >2) Will information regarding my candidacy be allowed onto project lists, > > >if forwarded there by persons other than myself, without repercussion to > > >those persons? > > > > > >3) As I feel it is very unlikely that issues between myself and Mr. > > >Leverich will be resolved in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely > > >that his ban will be lifted prior to September. Should I win, and should > > >I not be allowed to sub to the Board lists, what does the Board plan to > > >do? How will they address the possibility that a duly elected > >representative of the USGW Project may not be allowed to fulfill the > > >duties of the office to which she was elected? > > > > > >4) Is Rootsweb going to allow me to vote in this election? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12989 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:42:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28808; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:41:53 CDT Message-Id: <199906141241.AA2883820@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Betsy Mills" Reply-To: Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/711 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c4719dbaec1503082fd89939195328be Hi Bill! Thank you! I really do try to stick up for the board in everything I do. (Just ask other RootsWeb staff members when I put on my board hat and jump all over them! ) I did report to the board that Brian would not be allowing Ms. Lindquist access to RootsWeb even if she was elected to the board. We then discussed what alternate methods she might be able to use to serve. (That is when I offered to be the go-between.) When I posted my answer to the SW list, I just did not mention HOW MUCH discussion we had about it. Apparently Ms. Lindquist has not accepted the nomination yet but is allowing Mr. Leverich to dictate her decision. ROTFL I hope she is not holding her breath waiting for Brian to reply. And to answer David's questions - I don't know. I am not an election authority, more like a Teresa Lindquist authority. I have met the enemy and she ain't mine! Betsy ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Bill Oliver Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:20 -0400 >Besty, Very good questions. Nice comments. Great you stick up for THE Board. I sure didn't know we had 'discussed' more than your offer and asking the NC to forward "our" statement. And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? And, very sorry I can shed no further light. By the sound of what I hear she is the only candidate for At-Large for you quoted her saying "Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board." Maybe removing it from context just gives me this impression. Thank you, Betsy. Bill -- ================================> ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14776 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:47:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07528; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37653FCA.BCFD68@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:45:48 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: betsym@1starnet.com Old-CC: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) References: <199906141241.AA2883820@mail.1starnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/714 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 59e6c4383bd090c1d64c18addfe90529 Betsy, am I allowed to fall off my chair laughing [your last paragraph]. Bill -- ======================> Betsy Mills wrote: > Hi Bill! > > Thank you! I really do try to stick up for the board in everything I do. (Just ask other RootsWeb staff members when I put on my board hat and jump all over them! ) > > I did report to the board that Brian would not be allowing Ms. Lindquist access to RootsWeb even if she was elected to the board. We then discussed what alternate methods she might be able to use to serve. (That is when I offered to be the go-between.) When I posted my answer to the SW list, I just did not mention HOW MUCH discussion we had about it. > > Apparently Ms. Lindquist has not accepted the nomination yet but is allowing Mr. Leverich to dictate her decision. ROTFL I hope she is not holding her breath waiting for Brian to reply. > > And to answer David's questions - I don't know. I am not an election authority, more like a Teresa Lindquist authority. I have met the enemy and she ain't mine! > > Betsy > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Bill Oliver > Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:20 -0400 > > >Besty, > > Very good questions. Nice comments. Great you stick up for THE Board. I sure didn't know we had 'discussed' more than your offer and asking the NC to forward "our" statement. And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? > > And, very sorry I can shed no further light. By the sound of what I hear she is the only candidate for At-Large for you quoted her saying "Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board." Maybe removing it from context just gives me this impression. > > Thank you, Betsy. > > Bill > -- > ================================> ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04009 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:55:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15723; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614145355.03dfbac0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:53:55 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) In-Reply-To: <376537F3.2E031E6B@worldnet.att.net> References: <199906141047.AA1900816@mail.1starnet.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/719 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: bb4f95ffb5a6f4d45fa5513efcc3be83 At 01:12 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >Besty, > > And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? Lest some get the impression that I'm sending Exec mail elsewhere, as others have done, I only quote myself on messages sent here - unless of course someone sends private mail of mine here and comments on it here. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24377 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:07:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15709; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37656094.CD9B7A6D@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:05:41 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) References: <199906141047.AA1900816@mail.1starnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19990614145355.03dfbac0@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/728 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 0f26c415d0cb418b4cc00ef786abce93 AARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRG! Bill -- ==================> Tim Stowell wrote: > At 01:12 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Besty, > > > > And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor > of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? > > Lest some get the impression that I'm sending Exec mail elsewhere, as > others have done, I only quote myself on messages sent here - unless of > course someone sends private mail of mine here and comments on it here. > > Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28018 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:51:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14348; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <071801beb6c0$496b56e0$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: , Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:47:36 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/737 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9e42742fca00de9b3113e9dbf0edc57a Well, IFFEN I'm not mistaken, if she doesn't accept the nomination right quick, it's going to be a moot point, isn't it? piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, 14 June, 1999 13:47 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) >Hi Bill! > >Thank you! I really do try to stick up for the board in everything I do. (Just ask other RootsWeb staff members when I put on my board hat and jump all over them! ) > >I did report to the board that Brian would not be allowing Ms. Lindquist access to RootsWeb even if she was elected to the board. We then discussed what alternate methods she might be able to use to serve. (That is when I offered to be the go-between.) When I posted my answer to the SW list, I just did not mention HOW MUCH discussion we had about it. > >Apparently Ms. Lindquist has not accepted the nomination yet but is allowing Mr. Leverich to dictate her decision. ROTFL I hope she is not holding her breath waiting for Brian to reply. > >And to answer David's questions - I don't know. I am not an election authority, more like a Teresa Lindquist authority. I have met the enemy and she ain't mine! > >Betsy > > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: Bill Oliver >Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:20 -0400 > >>Besty, > >Very good questions. Nice comments. Great you stick up for THE Board. I sure didn't know we had 'discussed' more than your offer and asking the NC to forward "our" statement. And, I've said, even to the NC long ago, isn't it strange that the editor of the DBS can nigh quote so many of us, especially on Board Exec? > >And, very sorry I can shed no further light. By the sound of what I hear she is the only candidate for At-Large for you quoted her saying "Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board." Maybe removing it from context just gives me this impression. > >Thank you, Betsy. > >Bill >-- >================================> > ------=_NextPart_000_035A_01BF7E39.1823D3A0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:40:20 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA15656 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:40:19 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25486 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA12914; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:40:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <003701bf7ef6$7b02d120$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:39:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit continuing with batch 4 :) ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (9).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) (9).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05903 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:22:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20665; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:21:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <86c615a2.2496f558@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:16:24 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/741 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1548a3721b2e5ef44ae0a1f405adbf99 In a message dated 6/14/99 7:51:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mspiglet@prodigy.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) Date: 6/14/99 7:51:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: mspiglet@prodigy.net (Ms. Piglet) Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Well, IFFEN I'm not mistaken, if she doesn't accept the nomination right quick, it's going to be a moot point, isn't it? >> Any person nominated 1 June 1999 to 15 June 1999 has until midnight on the 22 June 1999 to accept. That is what the web page says. David C Young ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09498 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:47:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22824; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:47:42 CDT Message-Id: <199906141047.AA1900816@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Betsy Mills" Reply-To: Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] A correction (fwd) X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/701 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4ff91ef29694f9a9b1de8fc5ca0c971a ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:53:44 -0400 >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:09:33 -0400 (EDT) >From: merope >To: Tim Stowell >Cc: rrti@pacbell.com >Subject: A correction > > >Dear Tim, please forward the following to the Board: Tim, I thought we had agreed that no more messages would be forwarded to the board from Ms. Lindquist?? Further comments follow. >Dear Advisory Board, > >I have been forwarded a post from one of the USGW regional mailing lists >in which Betsy Mills, SC rep for the SW/SC region, indicates that Mr. >Brian Leverich has been contacted regarding my ability to participate in >Board activities and his answer has been shared with and discussed among >the Board members. Obviously, I am interested in Mr. Leverich's opinion >as to whether or not I will be allowed to take my seat on the board, and I >am sure I will be eventually notified of his answer and any conditions he >may wish to propose in order for him to allow me to serve on the Board. This is typical twisting of events to suit Ms. Lindquist's purposes. I did post an answer to a question on the SW regional list where I stated that Brian Leverich had been asked about Ms. Lindquist being allowed to use RootsWeb services if she was elected to the board and that that answer had been shared with the rest of the board. She is STILL trying to intimate that Brian is running this board by asking whether BRIAN will allow her to be seated on the board. Brian has nothing to do with that. Isn't it strange that Ms. Lindquist gets her hands on every scrap of information that goes on even on this list and even states that one of us is talking to her, yet did NOT report that I had offered to be the person to forward correspondence to and from the board list if she is elected??? Wonder why that piece of information wasn't shared with her?? >Unfortunately, Mr. Leverich appears not to be the proper person to ask. >According to a recent issue of the Rootsweb Review, Mr. Robert Tillman is >the President and CEO of the RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative, and >Mr. Leverich currently holds the position of Co-founder and Co-Chairman. So, why is she trying to communicate with Mr. Tillman through the board?? >5) Should I run, and should Rootsweb staff be handling the voting software >as they have for previous elections, will my name be allowed to appear on >the ballot? Again, an insult to us as a board. WE make the decision (by way of the members) as to who will be placed on the ballot. She was allowed to vote in the last election even though she was banned, so why is she making up problems before they even come about?? I begin to question whether Ms. Lindquist is truly a member of the project "in good standing" as her posts to other lists and individuals continues to incite misunderstanding and discord. Maybe it is time for the board to take a stand against persons who are damaging the project AND may even be an indirect cause of some of the discord on this board. We have just lost yet another GOOD volunteer in NC as a result of the continued postings by diane (skunk). Why does this continue to happen??? Thanks for listening! Betsy >Sincerely, > >-Teresa Lindquist >merope@radix.net > >========== >begin appended message: > >In view of the Board's position on my nomination, I have some questions I >would like adressed prior to June 15. The Board may need to ask the >management of RW for specific answers to these questions. The answers >will assist me in deciding whether to run or not. > >1) Will my candidate web page be linked to from the Nominations web page? >This page is on RW and is maintained, I believe, by a RW employee (Marce >Beem). > >2) Will information regarding my candidacy be allowed onto project lists, >if forwarded there by persons other than myself, without repercussion to >those persons? > >3) As I feel it is very unlikely that issues between myself and Mr. >Leverich will be resolved in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely >that his ban will be lifted prior to September. Should I win, and should >I not be allowed to sub to the Board lists, what does the Board plan to >do? How will they address the possibility that a duly elected >representative of the USGW Project may not be allowed to fulfill the >duties of the office to which she was elected? > >4) Is Rootsweb going to allow me to vote in this election? > > > > > > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions yet.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions yet.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA07998 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:43:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19970; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009e01bebf96$56bd51c0$ca0c9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions yet? Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:40:01 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/846 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ae7495c8b0b3a30d400e325818df0db4 Well, since nobody's said we aren't, I'm going to go make the motion on board-L..... piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ms. Piglet To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Friday, 25 June, 1999 14:43 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions yet? >Still looking to move that we ask Ginger to change the "next" to "new" on >the eagle logo and accept it as an official alternative logo.... > >piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 >genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet >quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet >theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > > ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26997 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:38:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11443; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376DC11C.8530B0F2@dc.jones.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:35:40 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] are we between motions, please? References: <03a201bebb9d$f9596ec0$2c0b9cd1@william> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/791 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 239c3dbab8cd1460e980237b9d9eb484 My memory is going fast - guess I am not as young as I like to pretend! I remember when that logo was created and remember that we talked about it here on the Board lists. Didn't Don Spidell make it??? I remember all of our conversations about "soaring with the eagles" and just seem to remember that it was Don. "Ms. Piglet" wrote: > If so, I've been asked to propose a motion that the logo with the eagle and > the phrase "soaring into the next millenium" (I believe) be accepted as an > official alternative logo. I know a number of sites are simply using it > without formal permission. > > I know that the first step in that process would be to find out who created > it and get formal permission for this move, and I'm asking around on the SC > list to see if anybody knows who made it. > > Anybody happen to know? Any comments? My personal opinion is that this > logo really kicks butt.... > > piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 > genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet > quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet > theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA09181 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:20:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13036; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <375CFBF4.22DDDC87@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:18:13 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census References: <97aaba8b.248df0df@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/610 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d86072d09d2a77e8ff1aa5e97c51a5a3 Good Morning David, I hope you sent a copy of this to Veda herself. She is not on this list nor the STATE-COORD list that I know of. Bill -- ============================> Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/7/99 9:26:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vedamen@idt.net > writes: > > << Subj: Re: [Fwd: [STATE-COORD-L] One or two Census Projects] > Date: 6/7/99 9:26:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: vedamen@idt.net (Veda Mendoza) > Reply-to: vedamen@idt.net > To: Mainegen@aol.com > > > Dear Veda Mendoza: > > It is great that you have a great interest in this project. No one can give > any group or person the God given right to be the one and only project. It > is not enough for the USGW Project to say we have elected ourselves to serve > the public and the public will visit our web sites forever and ever. As the > Hare in Alice in Wonderland said, > We have to continue to run faster and faster just to say in the same place. > > Well, maybe we do not have to run faster, but we need to find more workers to > get what is not done completed. > > If we want to be the Census Project you have to do the work. People after > visiting a page that is never updated will soon look to another source for > Census information. No vote of any board will tell people that they must > visit your web page. You can be called the 1st or the last Census Project, > but the reason that people will join or not join will not because of any vote > of the board or even who's name is posted as hosting the page. > > People will ask themselves: > 1) Was the information helpful? > 2) Was the pages up dated? > 3) Was it user friendly? > 4) Did I find more information this time than the first time I visited it? > 5) Would I tell a friend that this page was worth visiting? > 6) Are there other pages that are more helpful? > 7) When I e-mailed the webmaster with an idea or problem, did he/her reply > in a thankful manner. > > You might ask yourself: > 1) Do I need the help of others? > 2) Can I help others? > 3) Is there anything I can do to be more helpful? > 4) What is there about my project that makes it better than the other > Projects? > 5) Do I offer to work with others that share common interest and are hosting > other webpages on the same subjects as I am hosting? > > I wish you well. Idea are always welcome. If anyone wants to help with the > Maine USGW Project please ask how you might serve. How can Maine serve you? > Enjoy, > > David C. Young > Northeast/North Central Region State Coordinator Representative > State Coordinator of the Maine USGW Project > > County Coordinator of the Carroll Co., NH Project > > File Manager of the NH USGW Archives/Digital Library > > File Manager of the Maine USGW Archives/Digital Library > > Maine Author of Genealogical Reference books > http://members.aol.com/itigapa/filecd.html ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA04944 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 8 Jun 1999 05:40:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21357; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: <9c5bbb6e.248e4cf6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:39:50 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Census, Census who has the Census Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 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/609 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 24afee9c6c4bf3eba69c1b173df5e841 David, I do appreciate your concerns, but can we please not overload our mailboxes?? Mine is already running over and then some! Veda Mendoza is not on the Board, so there is no purpose to sending your reply to her here. We are all subbed to so many lists, including the SC list and I really don't appreciate having to deal with 3 to 6 copies of the same post. Thanks for your consideration, Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF7EC4.30686120-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:41:19 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA15685 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:41:18 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25614 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13301; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:40:51 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004201bf7ef6$98ff8380$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:40:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (10).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (10).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA04152 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:59:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10155; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3766F681.49EB0D31@slic.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:57:37 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> <3766EF62.744D840@slic.com> <3766F2A0.94D95BB1@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/771 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: bce7ca964343d14c56a3388f4a16017e My Dear Bill, I have never shirked a responsibility in my life and don't recall making threats. As Jim pointed little of a productive nature occurs on this list including this inane discussion. Joe Bill Oliver wrote: > > Dear Joe, > > I stand behind my decision to forward Ginger's "statement". Had it been > summarized, it would have caused no less comment, but rather awakened the > curious. In this case I believe Jim is more correct. Better it was in the > open. It was posted to Board-L by Ginger, thus archived. This way it was out > to all before the DBS could "scoop" us. You are responsible for what you post > as well as the threats you make. > > Sincerely, > > Bill > -- > ==========================> > > "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > > > Following the Board Secretary's inappropiate post to the State List > > after my earthy comments, I Posted to the State List stating that I > > would provide a private thread of the matter to anyone requesting it. > > The only request was from MS Lindquist. I declined to answer her as I > > don't intend to become embroiled beyond my present calling . > > > > However, I tend to endorse Jim's comments. I don't post anything that I > > would want hidden from the volunteers. Maybe we would get more done if > > things were more open and perhaps be more trusted and trustworthy. Just > > MHO. > > > > Joe > > > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > > > It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > > > has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > > > confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > > > > > > Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > > > >Dear Betsy & friends: > > > > > > > >Interesting questions. Is she running? > > > > > > >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > > > rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her > > > DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > > > > > > Tim > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > > > entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > > > to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > > > > > > Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > > > Lindquist - and why? > > > > > > Tim > > > > -- > > email:jzsed@slic.com > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22936 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:03:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14970; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3766789A.D69F8236@dc.jones.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:00:26 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/757 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 41e5835c8022fd11a6b4e489018b9906 This kind of thing has been going on since last September. Teresa Lindquist has been privy to every word we write about on this list. The private list that Bill spoke of didn't really help, since all of us were on that distro as well, and it HAS to be one of us who is forwarding the messages to Teresa. But, I seriously doubt that the person doing the forwarding is going to step forward and admit it. This is VERY distressing to me personally and I am sure is distressing to the other Board members who are not a party to this practice. Tim Stowell wrote: > It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > > Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > -------------------------------------------------- > At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > >Dear Betsy & friends: > > > >Interesting questions. Is she running? > > >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her > DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > > Tim > -------------------------------------------------- > > Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > > Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > Lindquist - and why? > > Tim -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA23782 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:06:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16762; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01e701beb748$8c804f20$ab0d9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:03:00 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/758 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e21175a4a634ebb4d35435c484ab3aed Yes, but if someone's blithely forwarding every post, they can do it just as easily from that.... piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 9:04 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - >There still is the "old" fashioned way, we did it earlier. The "private" addy >list -- took a bit of programing but all sixteen of us were on such before we >went to Exec. > >Bill >-- >======================> > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it >> has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with >> confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? >> >> Yesterday I posted this message to this list: >> -------------------------------------------------- >> At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >> >Dear Betsy & friends: >> > >> >Interesting questions. Is she running? >> >> >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a >> rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her >> DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. >> >> Tim >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the >> entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also >> to tell me she's accepted the nomination. >> >> Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms >> Lindquist - and why? >> >> Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00479 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:24:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17855; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37667DB4.41B00617@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:22:12 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <01e701beb748$8c804f20$ab0d9cd1@william> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <2MS32.A.yWE.a4nZ3@bl-11.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/760 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 295f9015ee54958abd8e9ed9d7da1970 You and Pam are absolutely correct. My unclear point was that would prevent the searchability of our messages. Pam is also correct in that is was talked about when I entered the AB. Bill -- "Ms. Piglet" wrote: > Yes, but if someone's blithely forwarding every post, they can do it just as > easily from that.... > > piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 > genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet > quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet > theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Oliver > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 9:04 > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - > > >There still is the "old" fashioned way, we did it earlier. The "private" > addy > >list -- took a bit of programing but all sixteen of us were on such before > we > >went to Exec. > > > >Bill > >-- > >======================> > > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > > > >> It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > >> has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > >> confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > >> > >> Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > >> >Dear Betsy & friends: > >> > > >> >Interesting questions. Is she running? > >> > >> >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > >> rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on > her > >> DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > >> > >> Tim > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > >> entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > >> to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > >> > >> Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > >> Lindquist - and why? > >> > >> Tim > > ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06909 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:43:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28025; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02ae01beb74d$bca8daa0$ab0d9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:40:08 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/762 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6211d2f83e2df43d135bd3f80f9ae970 Bill, I believe that we are truly unsearchable (although Karen would be the ultimate authority on that.) That backs it into the corner of "somebody's forwarding", and I doubt that whoever it is will admit it; they obviously have real problems with being supportive of the board they belong to, and since this has been going on a long time, I doubt that they ever intended to be supportive. So then one of the things we've accomplished this year is to prove that yes, it's possible for someone to run and be elected with no agenda beyond disrupting the board and the project, and go undetected. Not an accomplishment I would be very proud of, were it me. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 11:27 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - >You and Pam are absolutely correct. My unclear point was that would prevent the >searchability of our messages. Pam is also correct in that is was talked about >when I entered the AB. > >Bill >-- > >"Ms. Piglet" wrote: > >> Yes, but if someone's blithely forwarding every post, they can do it just as >> easily from that.... >> >> piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 >> genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet >> quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet >> theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Oliver >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 9:04 >> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - >> >> >There still is the "old" fashioned way, we did it earlier. The "private" >> addy >> >list -- took a bit of programing but all sixteen of us were on such before >> we >> >went to Exec. >> > >> >Bill >> >-- >> >======================> >> > >> >Tim Stowell wrote: >> > >> >> It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it >> >> has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with >> >> confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? >> >> >> >> Yesterday I posted this message to this list: >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >> >> >Dear Betsy & friends: >> >> > >> >> >Interesting questions. Is she running? >> >> >> >> >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a >> >> rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on >> her >> >> DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the >> >> entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also >> >> to tell me she's accepted the nomination. >> >> >> >> Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms >> >> Lindquist - and why? >> >> >> >> Tim >> > > ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15769 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:12:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23671; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37668912.D0A8A54F@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:10:43 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <02ae01beb74d$bca8daa0$ab0d9cd1@william> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <42Gz9B.A.uxF.6loZ3@bl-11.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/764 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2a99a749091677caa09a4d7314b40cd3 Megan, I don't doubt that either [unsearchable] -- logic alone points the finger exactly back to us -- and, like you, I believe that no one will come forward. In this business of genealogical research where we place such high value on primary sources and authenticity, I am strictly against "handles" and unsigned requests. In the same light, every e-mail addy I have has my *name* attached, with the exception of a nickname on one chat/instant message program that I have carried from childhood. And, I use it in pure honor of my father who died last October. Bill -- ==========================> "Ms. Piglet" wrote: > Bill, I believe that we are truly unsearchable (although Karen would be the > ultimate authority on that.) That backs it into the corner of "somebody's > forwarding", and I doubt that whoever it is will admit it; they obviously > have real problems with being supportive of the board they belong to, and > since this has been going on a long time, I doubt that they ever intended to > be supportive. > > So then one of the things we've accomplished this year is to prove that yes, > it's possible for someone to run and be elected with no agenda beyond > disrupting the board and the project, and go undetected. Not an > accomplishment I would be very proud of, were it me. > > piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 > genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet > quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet > theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Oliver > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 11:27 > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - > > >You and Pam are absolutely correct. My unclear point was that would > prevent the > >searchability of our messages. Pam is also correct in that is was talked > about > >when I entered the AB. > > > >Bill > >-- > > > >"Ms. Piglet" wrote: > > > >> Yes, but if someone's blithely forwarding every post, they can do it just > as > >> easily from that.... > >> > >> piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 > >> genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet > >> quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet > >> theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bill Oliver > >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >> Date: Tuesday, 15 June, 1999 9:04 > >> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - > >> > >> >There still is the "old" fashioned way, we did it earlier. The > "private" > >> addy > >> >list -- took a bit of programing but all sixteen of us were on such > before > >> we > >> >went to Exec. > >> > > >> >Bill > >> >-- > >> >======================> > >> > > >> >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> > > >> >> It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks > it > >> >> has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it > with > >> >> confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > >> >> > >> >> Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > >> >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> >> At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > >> >> >Dear Betsy & friends: > >> >> > > >> >> >Interesting questions. Is she running? > >> >> > >> >> >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure > of a > >> >> rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on > >> her > >> >> DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > >> >> > >> >> Tim > >> >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > >> >> entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and > also > >> >> to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > >> >> > >> >> Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > >> >> Lindquist - and why? > >> >> > >> >> Tim > >> > > > ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BF7EC4.4E651380-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:42:12 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA15863 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:42:11 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25775 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:42:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13917; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:56 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004c01bf7ef6$bf6fe820$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14666 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:48:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29694; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3766E67F.B8627C00@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:49:19 -0400 From: jpowelljr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> <3766789A.D69F8236@dc.jones.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/767 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ec2f6911155ab72b41cbb2b163fe4da1 Fellow Board Members... Just so you will know, I don't like using this secret list one tiny little bit. I have only passed on one thing from this Board, ever, and that was one of my own posts from Board-L the time all of the list archives were down. And to tell you the truth I felt very guilty about that. I personally think we had gained some trust from Volunteers until we ran back here to hide again. My posts from now on will be made to Board-L, unless a grievance is concerned. I will not quote anyone's message, my posts will be stand alone posts. It is just not in me to be secretive. I said I would play by the rules and I have. So now it appears that everything is being leaked to certain individuals, whereas all of our Volunteers should be fully informed. This will be my last post to this list, unless like I said, a grievance is the topic. If you want to unsub me from this list, so be it. In fact please unsub me from this list until and if a grievance comes up. Come to think of I haven't seen anything productive on this list. If you have business that concerns me, I'll be on Board-L. Thanks for listening, Jim ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25943 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:29:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29469; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3766EF62.744D840@slic.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:27:14 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/769 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cd32891e3a4e8b784e120c2b5c20b247 Following the Board Secretary's inappropiate post to the State List after my earthy comments, I Posted to the State List stating that I would provide a private thread of the matter to anyone requesting it. The only request was from MS Lindquist. I declined to answer her as I don't intend to become embroiled beyond my present calling . However, I tend to endorse Jim's comments. I don't post anything that I would want hidden from the volunteers. Maybe we would get more done if things were more open and perhaps be more trusted and trustworthy. Just MHO. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > > Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > -------------------------------------------------- > At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > >Dear Betsy & friends: > > > >Interesting questions. Is she running? > > >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her > DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > > Tim > -------------------------------------------------- > > Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > > Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > Lindquist - and why? > > Tim -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (9).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - (9).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29608 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:43:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08291; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3766F2A0.94D95BB1@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:41:04 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: jzsed@slic.com Old-CC: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> <3766EF62.744D840@slic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/770 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e9805c3cb2361aad09befa1fff77e5ed Dear Joe, I stand behind my decision to forward Ginger's "statement". Had it been summarized, it would have caused no less comment, but rather awakened the curious. In this case I believe Jim is more correct. Better it was in the open. It was posted to Board-L by Ginger, thus archived. This way it was out to all before the DBS could "scoop" us. You are responsible for what you post as well as the threats you make. Sincerely, Bill -- ==========================> "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" wrote: > Following the Board Secretary's inappropiate post to the State List > after my earthy comments, I Posted to the State List stating that I > would provide a private thread of the matter to anyone requesting it. > The only request was from MS Lindquist. I declined to answer her as I > don't intend to become embroiled beyond my present calling . > > However, I tend to endorse Jim's comments. I don't post anything that I > would want hidden from the volunteers. Maybe we would get more done if > things were more open and perhaps be more trusted and trustworthy. Just > MHO. > > Joe > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > > has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > > confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > > > > Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > > -------------------------------------------------- > > At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > > >Dear Betsy & friends: > > > > > >Interesting questions. Is she running? > > > > >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > > rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her > > DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > > > > Tim > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > > entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > > to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > > > > Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > > Lindquist - and why? > > > > Tim > > -- > email:jzsed@slic.com > http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - .eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - .eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15257 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:50:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07694; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:47:52 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/768 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6a70b53fe85c2f7a63d11c5073a2b409 In a message dated 6/15/99 9:56:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@mccallie.org writes: << -------------------------------------------------- At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >Dear Betsy & friends: > >Interesting questions. Is she running? >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. Tim >> Dear Board: It seems that this list is not as private as one might have believed. But I have not said anything on this list that I would not say in an open meeting. Merope must have a lot of resources to get her information. Dr. Brian said she worked for the government. Would that be the FBI or the CIA? Since she is reading all this maybe she will tell us on Thursday. There are three people on the ALL-list that that have many question about the ownership of the Archives. I am sure that you have seen their postings. I made a visit one of the CCs who was question the ownership of the Archives. I wanted a better feeling of where the person was coming from and what their ideas might be. What would make a better USGW Project? I found the sites to be very interesting. I could see that the person has put a lot of work into their web sites. In a return e-mail I told they person that at that time I did not understand. In fact, I only understand they question the place of the Archives, they have never stated what in their opinion would be a better plan. I did point out that I found one broken link and I gave her the correction in public. Her first reply was to ask if I was the webpolice? Her 2nd reply was to ask me if I was on drugs? I understand that I will get many of these. I do not hold any hard feeling to these people. Merope has some good idea, I have read a few. I had given some thought of running for the at large seat. It would not matter to me you was running. But I will stick with the office that I am serving now. As far as getting something done I have been able to do more so far as Maine's SC then I have been able to as a member of this board. I should give in a little more time it has only been a few weeks. Sincerely< David C. Young PS Is there anyone on the board that feels that it is important that general public have information about this list? Any thing you say now can be read later by future office holders. Think about it. And many some of them can already read it. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean -.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Come clean -.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA13440 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:02:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19757; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37665C7A.773B1123@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:00:27 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Come clean - References: <3.0.5.32.19990615091439.009dec20@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/756 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d4bbf79373c8aee56e8cbff448b2e962 There still is the "old" fashioned way, we did it earlier. The "private" addy list -- took a bit of programing but all sixteen of us were on such before we went to Exec. Bill -- ======================> Tim Stowell wrote: > It appears that this list might as well be archived for all the leaks it > has apparently sprung. If the members of this list can't post to it with > confidence that it won't appear the world over - why have it? > > Yesterday I posted this message to this list: > -------------------------------------------------- > At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: > >Dear Betsy & friends: > > > >Interesting questions. Is she running? > > >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a > rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her > DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. > > Tim > -------------------------------------------------- > > Imagine my surprise when Ms Lindquist write's me this AM including the > entire post headers and all - asking me 'What's with this post?' and also > to tell me she's accepted the nomination. > > Will anyone admit to the rest of the Board - forwarding this to Ms > Lindquist - and why? > > Tim ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12174 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:23:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24202; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906161923.MAA34727@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:21:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990616145720.00a50a30@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <199906161836.LAA33514@jubjub.wizard.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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/779 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 1ce15550c05f9aea2d7844cf396646d6 On 16 Jun 99, at 14:57, Tim Stowell wrote: > I believe Jim offered to be on the Committee. I asked Celia of the > Nominations Committee if she'd be interested in doing it but she declined. > > Tim Jim's not running right? I see no problem. I think too many plates are too full, and too many folks don't want to be raked over the coals as was done last year. Can't blame them. A thankless job in this organization, IMHO. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF7EC4.74C4AF40-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:42:56 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA15930 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:42:56 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25899 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14219; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:42:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005701bf7ef6$d637d0e0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:41:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05342 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:10:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25044; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990616145720.00a50a30@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:57:20 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Committee In-Reply-To: <199906161836.LAA33514@jubjub.wizard.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/778 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: da7527500f442c6361d7c5ca4b262f24 I believe Jim offered to be on the Committee. I asked Celia of the Nominations Committee if she'd be interested in doing it but she declined. Tim At 11:35 AM 6/16/99 -0700, you wrote: >Folks, > >We definitely have a problem here, our National Elections Committee >is down to *1* person. How long do you think this person is going to >last without help? > >Something needs to be addressed here don't you think? > > >Bridgett Smith >SC Rep SE/Mid-Atlantic Region > >bascs@wizard.com > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > >TNGenWeb State Coordinator >http://www.tngenweb.org/ > > ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA19125 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 05:01:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18841; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:01:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <801c9e69.24a5feef@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 06:01:19 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Old-CC: jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net (jpowelljr) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bl-11.rootsweb.com id DAA18818 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/847 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b75e7d20f8c358586ae053af2ac19696 In a message dated 6/26/99 1:33:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mspiglet@prodigy.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: 6/26/99 1:33:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: mspiglet@prodigy.net (Ms. Piglet) Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com The way dual cc elections were handled the last time was that in regions (all of them, last year) that had two cc's to elect, voters were asked to vote for *two* candidates. >> Dear Megan: That is a good point. You are saying three people running for for two, Right? If you do not require people balloting in that election to vote for two and/or not allowing to make write-in votes then people will be able to do what is called "Bullet Voting" or making a "Bullet Ballot". "Bullet Voting" is went you direct your supports to vote just for you in a three way race with two seats open. The reason is the 2nd vote the person makes might be a vote against the first person the voter wants to elect. A "Bullet Vote" is like give a person two votes. The election committee needs to tell us which way they want to run it. I agree with the election committee that all three should run in the same race and the top two will be elected for a two year & one year term, but how much does the 2nd place finisher have to beat the 3rd place finisher by to rule out a run off election? If I lost anyone please ask a question. Enjoy, David C. Young Northeast/North Central Region State Coordinator Representative State Coordinator of the Maine USGW Project County Coordinator of the Carroll Co., NH Project File Manager of the NH USGW Archives/Digital Library File Manager of the Maine USGW Archives/Digital Library New England Old Newspaper Index Project of Maine® Maine Author of Genealogical Reference books http://members.aol.com/itigapa/filecd.html ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19966 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:12:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07853; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990626111240.0082cab0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:12:40 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure In-Reply-To: <801c9e69.24a5feef@aol.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/848 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4ba00fe34ce9d0ef6d0726fd295b7abd At 06:01 AM 6/26/99 EDT, you wrote: >Dear Megan: > >That is a good point. You are saying three people running for for two, Right? > If you do not require people balloting in that election to vote for two >and/or not allowing to make write-in votes then people will be able to do >what is called "Bullet Voting" or making a "Bullet Ballot". > >"Bullet Voting" is went you direct your supports to vote just for you in a >three way race with two seats open. The reason is the 2nd vote the person >makes might be a vote against the first person the voter wants to elect. >A "Bullet Vote" is like give a person two votes. The election committee >needs to tell us which way they want to run it. > >I agree with the election committee that all three should run in the same >race and the top two will be elected for a two year & one year term, but how >much does the 2nd place finisher have to beat the 3rd place finisher by to >rule out a run off election? > >If I lost anyone please ask a question. > >Enjoy, > > >David C. Young I didn't entirely follow the bullet vote thing but letting the top two candidates be the 2 year and 1 year appointees sounds ok. The second place person need only beat number 3 by one vote. Megan will you forward the consensus and/or comments of the rest of the Board to Jim today? Thanks, Tim ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11915 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:39:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23431; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d801bebff1$ed681f00$ca0c9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:35:37 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/849 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a62ea692ac6e5b576e814908679e1f36 Huh? piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 26 June, 1999 10:14 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure > > >At 06:01 AM 6/26/99 EDT, you wrote: >>Dear Megan: >> >>That is a good point. You are saying three people running for for two, >Right? >> If you do not require people balloting in that election to vote for two >>and/or not allowing to make write-in votes then people will be able to do >>what is called "Bullet Voting" or making a "Bullet Ballot". >> >>"Bullet Voting" is went you direct your supports to vote just for you in a >>three way race with two seats open. The reason is the 2nd vote the person >>makes might be a vote against the first person the voter wants to elect. >>A "Bullet Vote" is like give a person two votes. The election committee >>needs to tell us which way they want to run it. >> >>I agree with the election committee that all three should run in the same >>race and the top two will be elected for a two year & one year term, but how >>much does the 2nd place finisher have to beat the 3rd place finisher by to >>rule out a run off election? >> >>If I lost anyone please ask a question. >> >>Enjoy, >> >> >>David C. Young > > >I didn't entirely follow the bullet vote thing but letting the top two >candidates be the 2 year and 1 year appointees sounds ok. The second place >person need only beat number 3 by one vote. > >Megan will you forward the consensus and/or comments of the rest of the >Board to Jim today? Thanks, > > >Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA12241 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:40:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25052; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00db01bebff2$192e2d00$ca0c9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:36:51 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/850 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f8367d5097591b6c4cd90b232d64cef4 Another question: is it clearly planned (or do we know) that the top vote getter gets the 2 year term, and #2 gets the one year term? piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 26 June, 1999 10:14 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure > > >At 06:01 AM 6/26/99 EDT, you wrote: >>Dear Megan: >> >>That is a good point. You are saying three people running for for two, >Right? >> If you do not require people balloting in that election to vote for two >>and/or not allowing to make write-in votes then people will be able to do >>what is called "Bullet Voting" or making a "Bullet Ballot". >> >>"Bullet Voting" is went you direct your supports to vote just for you in a >>three way race with two seats open. The reason is the 2nd vote the person >>makes might be a vote against the first person the voter wants to elect. >>A "Bullet Vote" is like give a person two votes. The election committee >>needs to tell us which way they want to run it. >> >>I agree with the election committee that all three should run in the same >>race and the top two will be elected for a two year & one year term, but how >>much does the 2nd place finisher have to beat the 3rd place finisher by to >>rule out a run off election? >> >>If I lost anyone please ask a question. >> >>Enjoy, >> >> >>David C. Young > > >I didn't entirely follow the bullet vote thing but letting the top two >candidates be the 2 year and 1 year appointees sounds ok. The second place >person need only beat number 3 by one vote. > >Megan will you forward the consensus and/or comments of the rest of the >Board to Jim today? Thanks, > > >Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25387 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:32:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18102; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37750E0B.4FE1C5DA@slic.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:29:47 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.19990625220135.00a24820@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/851 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 75791f813f329f8c85a8990f849717b1 I have no problem with Jim's proposed procedures. Joe "jpowelljr (by way of Tim Stowell )" wrote: > > Tim... Please pass this to the Exec list. We are still > working on our game plan, but this is what we have so far. > > We will address anyone who thinks they should have gotten a > ballot but did not, individually. If we believe that the > don not get a ballot, we will send you a copy of the email > citing the reason one is not to be issued. The Board can > overturn our ruling. > > If the ballots go out on time ( We believe that they will), > there will be an initial deadline of July 8th to report that > a ballot was not received. We will try to have all of those > added on the 9th. There will be an additional deadline on > the 15th. We do not wish to post this until after the first > deadline has passed. After that individual hardship cases > should go through the Board. > > We are taking the position: 1 SC vote and 1 ASC vote per > state in the SC Representative races. There are only two > races. Of course this is not a written rule and if the > Board would like to overturn that ruling on our part, you > have until our deadline for adding ballots to do so. > > One other situation. The two CC reps for Southwest/South > Central Region are lumped together (only three candidates) I > would assume top vote getter would receive 2 year seat while > second place would receive the 1 year seat. It would be > hard to have 2 races at this point. -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF7EC4.8B95BFC0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:43:41 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16009 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:40 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26023 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14550; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:43:19 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <006201bf7ef6$f14be240$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:42:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03780 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:01:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00391; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:01:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <48166bed.24a66f0e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:59:42 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Old-CC: jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/852 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 65890632f0cc535ffe820c6c20ed204f In a message dated 6/26/99 12:40:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mspiglet@prodigy.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: 6/26/99 12:40:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: mspiglet@prodigy.net (Ms. Piglet) Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Another question: is it clearly planned (or do we know) that the top vote getter gets the 2 year term, and #2 gets the one year term? >> Dear Megan & Jim: The way I understand in the three way race for two seats that the top vote getter will be elected for two years and the 2nd place winner will get a term for one year. The 3rd place finisher get a thank you. He/she will have to wait until the next time to try again. That is what the election committee wants to do. If we do not agree with the election committee we need to speak now or forever hold our words. We could try to over ride the election committee it we do not like their plan. My only questions are: 1) Will we be accepting write in votes in any of the elections? Not to say that I have any idea that anyone wants to be in an office that has not been nominated. 2) Are we requiring that if people have to vote for two people in the three way race for two seats to have their ballot counted? Thanks, David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA22607 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:58:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19579; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020e01bec016$33957940$ca0c9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:55:17 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/853 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a7a3e6b67ecd76504175e00ae4cfd3cf Sounds right... The way it was done before, if they only voted for one person, they only voted for one person (it wasn't counted as two votes for that person, but it was counted). piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Mainegen@aol.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 26 June, 1999 13:03 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure >In a message dated 6/26/99 12:40:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mspiglet@prodigy.net writes: > ><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure > Date: 6/26/99 12:40:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: mspiglet@prodigy.net (Ms. Piglet) > Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Another question: is it clearly planned (or do we know) that the top vote > getter gets the 2 year term, and #2 gets the one year term? > >> >Dear Megan & Jim: > >The way I understand in the three way race for two seats that the top vote >getter will be elected for two years and the 2nd place winner will get a term >for one year. The 3rd place finisher get a thank you. He/she will have to >wait until the next time to try again. >That is what the election committee wants to do. If we do not agree with the >election committee we need to speak now or forever hold our words. We could >try to over ride the election committee it we do not like their plan. >My only questions are: >1) Will we be accepting write in votes in any of the elections? Not to say >that I have any idea that anyone wants to be in an office that has not been >nominated. >2) Are we requiring that if people have to vote for two people in the three >way race for two seats to have their ballot counted? > >Thanks, > >David C. Young > ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA05714 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:33:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15423; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001601bebf94$fcf60840$ca0c9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: , "Jim" Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:30:19 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <29CXh.A.2wD.iYGd3@bl-11.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/845 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: db0edadfc8413c141c890396495e7b6a The way dual cc elections were handled the last time was that in regions (all of them, last year) that had two cc's to elect, voters were asked to vote for *two* candidates. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: jpowelljr (by way of Tim Stowell ) To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 26 June, 1999 0:15 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election Procedure >Tim... Please pass this to the Exec list. We are still >working on our game plan, but this is what we have so far. > >We will address anyone who thinks they should have gotten a >ballot but did not, individually. If we believe that the >don not get a ballot, we will send you a copy of the email >citing the reason one is not to be issued. The Board can >overturn our ruling. > >If the ballots go out on time ( We believe that they will), >there will be an initial deadline of July 8th to report that >a ballot was not received. We will try to have all of those >added on the 9th. There will be an additional deadline on >the 15th. We do not wish to post this until after the first >deadline has passed. After that individual hardship cases >should go through the Board. > >We are taking the position: 1 SC vote and 1 ASC vote per >state in the SC Representative races. There are only two >races. Of course this is not a written rule and if the >Board would like to overturn that ruling on our part, you >have until our deadline for adding ballots to do so. > >One other situation. The two CC reps for Southwest/South >Central Region are lumped together (only three candidates) I >would assume top vote getter would receive 2 year seat while >second place would receive the 1 year seat. It would be >hard to have 2 races at this point. > > ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (10).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (10).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA24420 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:21:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04918; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01f801beb543$4843ed00$40dfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:20:17 -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 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/675 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: eb4f413d317b8c79a6317024b6d936a6 You know, from my perspective, as only having been on this board for approximately 6 months, I have seen a lot of stuff going on. Every year around election time, this board gets very abusive of each other. This election is just a repeat of the same old junk that was said at the first election. What is wrong with us? Why must we pick on each other? Why can't we discuss the issues without all the snide comments, and rude remarks? Why do some constantly bring up the personalities involved, instead of working on resolving the issues? To me this is a total waste of time and energy. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Beth Wills To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >I think that Joe's post was rude and uncalled for. If I wanted to be >subjected to this kind of stuff, I would still be subbed to the all list. >This board is never going to work together because we all spend too much >time trying to make sure we stay on the right side of the we vs. they fence. >I am tired of it. No matter what anyone says to try to get something >accomplished, someone else jumps in and says, "if I didn't think of it, or >if it isn't my wording, I don't like it". So much for a cohesive group that >works together and talks things over. Now we are into a "slam the other >side" kind of contest, and I DON'T WANT TO PLAY! > >Beth Wills >bethw@kvi.net >Ionia County MIGenWeb Coordinator >http://www.rootsweb.com/~miionia > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Betsy Mills >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:55 PM >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures > > >>I can't agree more, Joe. I took it that Tim was offering a solution. If >the >>board agreed, then someone would withdraw their motion, THEN this >resolution >>would be posted to the board-l list and we would vote on it. >> >>NOW who is delaying the support for Ginger?????? >> >>Betsy >> >> >>At 09:44 PM 06/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>>I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >>>until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >>>achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >>>As my father used to say Bullll S--t. >>> >>>Joe >>> >>>FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >>>> >>>> > Resolved that: >>>> > >>>> > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >>>> > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >>>> > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >>>> > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by >someone >>>> > from their region. >>>> > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >>>> > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >>>> > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >>>> > ------------------------------------ >>>> > >>>> >>>> Per Roberts' Rules of Order" >>>> >>>> "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the >floor, >>>> he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer >the >>>> following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is >>>> desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated >>in a >>>> preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with >>>> "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the >>resolution >>>> may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution >>the >>>> preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the >resolution. >>But >>>> when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the >preamble >>>> has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, >which >>>> is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain >a >>>> period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, >followed >>>> by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word >>>> "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods >where >>>> practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to >separate >>>> it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be >>>> numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; >>or it >>>> may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each >>>> beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by >placing >>>> "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." >>>> >>>> On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active >>>> motion already, it is also out of order. >>>> >>>> Ginger >>> >>>-- >>>email:jzsed@slic.com >>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >>> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (11).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (11).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA14055 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:01:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15051; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990613000355.019ba424@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: mishiawa@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:03:55 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Bonnie McVicar-Briggs Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <37630D04.17C54F86@slic.com> References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.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/677 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 90ccbcddc45b8daed3a4796a38314638 At 09:44 PM 6/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >As my father used to say Bullll S--t. > >Joe Are you suggesting we ignore PP, when the bylaws call for us to use it? What is wrong is that when this matter was first brought up and opened for discussion, no one had anything to say except Beth, who presented a proper motion and solution. Then voting starts and everyone starts discussing it. It isn't like you couldn't have been doing that for the two days it just sat here. The problem here is failure to act at all unless you don't like the direction things appear to be going in. Then you have to figure out all the reasons why it won't work or pick it to death until you come up with another answer. Why can't people just vote on the call or motion or whatever the heck we were doing? And another day is wasted on this insanity. What was resolved. Nothing at all. And now that Ginger has resigned, who is taking her place? Bonnie McVicar-Briggs mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer Shiawassee County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html Clinton County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm Wayne County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (12).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (12).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA28298 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:16:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12596; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000c01beb585$5888f100$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:13:09 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/680 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d22ced20f97a531f58a707acb69d0967 Tim, one question, or request for clarification: If I'm not mistaken, it's not whether the *nominees* host a site in the region---nobody seems to question that that's a requirement---it's whether the *nominators* host a site in the region that's been under discussion. Have I missed the boat or is that correct? piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 12 June, 1999 18:17 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >>From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion >and call of said motion perhaps a resolution can be crafted to not only >answer Ginger's question but also satisfy the Board. >------------------------------------- >Resolved that: > >1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >2. to clarify the nominations/election process: > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone >from their region. > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >------------------------------------ > >While this appears to be a rewording of Beth's Motion 99-16E - I feel that >a resolution is different from a Motion. In other words, a Motion seems to >me to be more like a rule whereas a resolution is just an agreement of how >rules, bylaws are to be carried out. > >Now that this nomination process is essentially over - and since most >nominees who might be disqualified under 2C part B would surely nominate >themselves - maybe 2B is better left for next year as a guideline to next >year's nomination/election committee. > >If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? >Tim > ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01BF7EC4.A6B17240-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:44:32 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16077 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:44:31 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26117 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14877; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <006d01bf7ef7$0b4a3de0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:43:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (13).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (13).eml" Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net (pimout4-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.58.198]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA28457 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from william (CHCGB102-24.splitrock.net [209.156.10.24]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA18730; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 06:18:25 -0400 Message-ID: <002701beb585$af9e0840$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" To: [xxxxxxx], Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:15:36 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-UIDL: ea90207f59b5adc3437290ad179b4acb Excuse me? "Every year"? This is the third election, and only the second *annual* election. I can't speak for what went on before the interim election, because I wasn't here. But there was no conflict on the board before the previous (first) annual election. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Lynn To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 12 June, 1999 21:23 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >You know, from my perspective, as only having been on this board for >approximately 6 months, I have seen a lot of stuff going on. >Every year around election time, this board gets very abusive of each other. >This election is just a repeat of the same old junk that was said at the >first election. >What is wrong with us? Why must we pick on each other? Why can't we discuss >the issues without all the snide comments, and rude remarks? Why do some >constantly bring up the personalities involved, instead of working on >resolving the issues? >To me this is a total waste of time and energy. >Lynn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Beth Wills >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:08 PM >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures > > >>I think that Joe's post was rude and uncalled for. If I wanted to be >>subjected to this kind of stuff, I would still be subbed to the all list. >>This board is never going to work together because we all spend too much >>time trying to make sure we stay on the right side of the we vs. they >fence. >>I am tired of it. No matter what anyone says to try to get something >>accomplished, someone else jumps in and says, "if I didn't think of it, or >>if it isn't my wording, I don't like it". So much for a cohesive group >that >>works together and talks things over. Now we are into a "slam the other >>side" kind of contest, and I DON'T WANT TO PLAY! >> >>Beth Wills >>bethw@kvi.net >>Ionia County MIGenWeb Coordinator >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~miionia >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Betsy Mills >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >> >> >>>I can't agree more, Joe. I took it that Tim was offering a solution. If >>the >>>board agreed, then someone would withdraw their motion, THEN this >>resolution >>>would be posted to the board-l list and we would vote on it. >>> >>>NOW who is delaying the support for Ginger?????? >>> >>>Betsy >>> >>> >>>At 09:44 PM 06/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>>>I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >>>>until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >>>>achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >>>>As my father used to say Bullll S--t. >>>> >>>>Joe >>>> >>>>FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>>> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >>>>> >>>>> > Resolved that: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >>>>> > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >>>>> > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >>>>> > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by >>someone >>>>> > from their region. >>>>> > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >>>>> > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >>>>> > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >>>>> > ------------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Per Roberts' Rules of Order" >>>>> >>>>> "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the >>floor, >>>>> he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer >>the >>>>> following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is >>>>> desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated >>>in a >>>>> preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with >>>>> "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the >>>resolution >>>>> may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a >resolution >>>the >>>>> preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the >>resolution. >>>But >>>>> when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the >>preamble >>>>> has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, >>which >>>>> is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain >>a >>>>> period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, >>followed >>>>> by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word >>>>> "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods >>where >>>>> practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to >>separate >>>>> it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be >>>>> numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; >>>or it >>>>> may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, >each >>>>> beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by >>placing >>>>> "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." >>>>> >>>>> On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an >active >>>>> motion already, it is also out of order. >>>>> >>>>> Ginger >>>> >>>>-- >>>>email:jzsed@slic.com >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >>>> >>> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (14).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (14).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA28478 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:18:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23540; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701beb585$af9e0840$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: [xxxxxxx], Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:15:36 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/681 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d7f892028247a26e82c6910efaa40853 Excuse me? "Every year"? This is the third election, and only the second *annual* election. I can't speak for what went on before the interim election, because I wasn't here. But there was no conflict on the board before the previous (first) annual election. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Lynn To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, 12 June, 1999 21:23 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >You know, from my perspective, as only having been on this board for >approximately 6 months, I have seen a lot of stuff going on. >Every year around election time, this board gets very abusive of each other. >This election is just a repeat of the same old junk that was said at the >first election. >What is wrong with us? Why must we pick on each other? Why can't we discuss >the issues without all the snide comments, and rude remarks? Why do some >constantly bring up the personalities involved, instead of working on >resolving the issues? >To me this is a total waste of time and energy. >Lynn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Beth Wills >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:08 PM >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures > > >>I think that Joe's post was rude and uncalled for. If I wanted to be >>subjected to this kind of stuff, I would still be subbed to the all list. >>This board is never going to work together because we all spend too much >>time trying to make sure we stay on the right side of the we vs. they >fence. >>I am tired of it. No matter what anyone says to try to get something >>accomplished, someone else jumps in and says, "if I didn't think of it, or >>if it isn't my wording, I don't like it". So much for a cohesive group >that >>works together and talks things over. Now we are into a "slam the other >>side" kind of contest, and I DON'T WANT TO PLAY! >> >>Beth Wills >>bethw@kvi.net >>Ionia County MIGenWeb Coordinator >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~miionia >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Betsy Mills >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >> >> >>>I can't agree more, Joe. I took it that Tim was offering a solution. If >>the >>>board agreed, then someone would withdraw their motion, THEN this >>resolution >>>would be posted to the board-l list and we would vote on it. >>> >>>NOW who is delaying the support for Ginger?????? >>> >>>Betsy >>> >>> >>>At 09:44 PM 06/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>>>I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >>>>until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >>>>achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >>>>As my father used to say Bullll S--t. >>>> >>>>Joe >>>> >>>>FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>>> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >>>>> >>>>> > Resolved that: >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >>>>> > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >>>>> > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >>>>> > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by >>someone >>>>> > from their region. >>>>> > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >>>>> > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >>>>> > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >>>>> > ------------------------------------ >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Per Roberts' Rules of Order" >>>>> >>>>> "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the >>floor, >>>>> he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer >>the >>>>> following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is >>>>> desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated >>>in a >>>>> preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with >>>>> "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the >>>resolution >>>>> may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a >resolution >>>the >>>>> preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the >>resolution. >>>But >>>>> when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the >>preamble >>>>> has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, >>which >>>>> is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain >>a >>>>> period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, >>followed >>>>> by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word >>>>> "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods >>where >>>>> practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to >>separate >>>>> it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be >>>>> numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; >>>or it >>>>> may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, >each >>>>> beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by >>placing >>>>> "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." >>>>> >>>>> On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an >active >>>>> motion already, it is also out of order. >>>>> >>>>> Ginger >>>> >>>>-- >>>>email:jzsed@slic.com >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >>>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >>>> >>> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (15).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (15).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA00926 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:46:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08822; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37638B6F.A919E82C@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 06:44:00 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <000c01beb585$5888f100$180a9cd1@william> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/682 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2ba6be4de49d2db00757d8916245e7f2 Good Morning, Well, it's morning anyway. Two points which I feel won't be considered but pointed out they shall be. Megan you're correct and it was the point that nominations from people not from the region they were making nominations. And, having failed, Motion 99-16E is failed; not remanded to discussion. Bill -- =====================================> "Ms. Piglet" wrote: > Tim, one question, or request for clarification: > > If I'm not mistaken, it's not whether the *nominees* host a site in the > region---nobody seems to question that that's a requirement---it's whether > the *nominators* host a site in the region that's been under discussion. > > Have I missed the boat or is that correct? > > piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 > genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet > quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet > theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Stowell > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Saturday, 12 June, 1999 18:17 > Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures > > >>From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion > >and call of said motion perhaps a resolution can be crafted to not only > >answer Ginger's question but also satisfy the Board. > >------------------------------------- > >Resolved that: > > > >1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. > >2. to clarify the nominations/election process: > > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent > > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone > >from their region. > > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in > >3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the > >at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. > >------------------------------------ > > > >While this appears to be a rewording of Beth's Motion 99-16E - I feel that > >a resolution is different from a Motion. In other words, a Motion seems to > >me to be more like a rule whereas a resolution is just an agreement of how > >rules, bylaws are to be carried out. > > > >Now that this nomination process is essentially over - and since most > >nominees who might be disqualified under 2C part B would surely nominate > >themselves - maybe 2B is better left for next year as a guideline to next > >year's nomination/election committee. > > > >If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? > >Tim > > ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (16).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (16).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA06647 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 06:47:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05266; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376399CB.EA029E1@slic.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:45:15 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> <3.0.3.32.19990613000355.019ba424@mail.tds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/683 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9492a7c0f009121ed13c6f6256c67f72 Tim suggested a solution, several of us supported it and than it was smothered in Roberts. Was it a solution or points desired? I have an active, busy and satisfying life outside this board. Some seem to thrive only to obstruct and make points. My level of frustration boileth over. Joe Bonnie McVicar-Briggs wrote: > > At 09:44 PM 6/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: > >I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function > >until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have > >achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. > >As my father used to say Bullll S--t. > > > >Joe > > Are you suggesting we ignore PP, when the bylaws call for us to use it? > What is wrong is that when this matter was first brought up and opened for > discussion, no one had anything to say except Beth, who presented a proper > motion and solution. Then voting starts and everyone starts discussing it. > It isn't like you couldn't have been doing that for the two days it just > sat here. > > The problem here is failure to act at all unless you don't like the > direction things appear to be going in. Then you have to figure out all the > reasons why it won't work or pick it to death until you come up with > another answer. > > Why can't people just vote on the call or motion or whatever the heck we > were doing? > > And another day is wasted on this insanity. What was resolved. Nothing at > all. And now that Ginger has resigned, who is taking her place? > Bonnie McVicar-Briggs > mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net > > USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer > Shiawassee County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html > Clinton County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm > Wayne County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (17).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (17).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05331 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:14:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23771; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990613111653.019b579c@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: mishiawa@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:16:53 -0500 Old-To: jzsed@slic.com From: Bonnie McVicar-Briggs Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Old-Cc: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <376399CB.EA029E1@slic.com> References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> <3.0.3.32.19990613000355.019ba424@mail.tds.net> 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/684 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 27d30ac9e801c506a752227a178e1553 At 07:45 AM 6/13/1999 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >Tim suggested a solution, several of us supported it and than it was >smothered in Roberts. Was it a solution or points desired? I have an >active, busy and satisfying life outside this board. Some seem to thrive >only to obstruct and make points. My level of frustration boileth over. > >Joe Joe, What is desired is that we follow the bylaws and do things correctly. I for one am sick of seeing this board shredded on every list because we don't follow the bylaws and can not act as a cohesive group. Everytime there is a post stating, "the board ignored the bylaws", it reflects badly on me personally, whether my name is used or not. I don't know about you but I don't like that very much. I care about what others think of me and when I am included in a blanket statement that reflects on my character, it makes me angry. Like it or not, Tim's resolution was out of order and did not follow PP and therefore does not follow the bylaws. The members of this board knew when they chose to run for office, there was a chance that the bylaws would be accepted by the members and we would be bound by them. Why are some of us, now not willing to abide by them in regards to how we conduct business? If we aren't we have no business being here. Now, since it seems that Beth's motion has failed and this matter still needs to be addressed to a certain degree, the only thing I see wrong with Tim's resoultion is that Special Project Reps, should be nominated by the members of the project they are to represent and not just anyone as the NC and At large rep is. Let's get on with it folks. Unless you have been living in a cave the past few days, we have a much more volatile situation brewing amoung the members and we do need to address it even if it wasn't in a timely manor. One question to the Tim. Why is it that sometimes this list is set to reply back to it and sometimes it is set to reply back to the sender? Bonnie McVicar-Briggs mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer Shiawassee County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html Clinton County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm Wayne County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (18).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (18).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19958 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:35:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06283; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3763DD67.6B2306E0@slic.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:33:44 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> <3.0.3.32.19990613000355.019ba424@mail.tds.net> <3.0.3.32.19990613111653.019b579c@mail.tds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/685 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f46c610987655524fbd74818917a23ec The next time the ByLaws are quoted citing Roberts Rules of Order, please read this first: ARTICLE XV. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project. Nowhere do I read Roberts Rules of Order. This Board has every right to use Roberts, modify Roberts or any other rules of order it, the Board, sees fit to choose or establish. Or was this done and I missed it? I miss a lot things anymore. The one rule of order than impresses me is common sense. I will even support a chairman if they err while using their best judgement and common sense. So please cite for me the ByLaw that Tim did not follow. He followed the rule of common sense to effect a solution quickly, stop the squabbling, the politicking and get on with it. That, my friends, is leadership. Joe Bonnie McVicar-Briggs wrote: > > At 07:45 AM 6/13/1999 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > >Tim suggested a solution, several of us supported it and than it was > >smothered in Roberts. Was it a solution or points desired? I have an > >active, busy and satisfying life outside this board. Some seem to thrive > >only to obstruct and make points. My level of frustration boileth over. > > > >Joe > > Joe, > > What is desired is that we follow the bylaws and do things correctly. I for > one am sick of seeing this board shredded on every list because we don't > follow the bylaws and can not act as a cohesive group. Everytime there is a > post stating, "the board ignored the bylaws", it reflects badly on me > personally, whether my name is used or not. I don't know about you but I > don't like that very much. I care about what others think of me and when I > am included in a blanket statement that reflects on my character, it makes > me angry. > > Like it or not, Tim's resolution was out of order and did not follow PP and > therefore does not follow the bylaws. The members of this board knew when > they chose to run for office, there was a chance that the bylaws would be > accepted by the members and we would be bound by them. Why are some of us, > now not willing to abide by them in regards to how we conduct business? If > we aren't we have no business being here. > > Now, since it seems that Beth's motion has failed and this matter still > needs to be addressed to a certain degree, the only thing I see wrong with > Tim's resoultion is that Special Project Reps, should be nominated by the > members of the project they are to represent and not just anyone as the NC > and At large rep is. > > Let's get on with it folks. Unless you have been living in a cave the past > few days, we have a much more volatile situation brewing amoung the members > and we do need to address it even if it wasn't in a timely manor. > > One question to the Tim. Why is it that sometimes this list is set to reply > back to it and sometimes it is set to reply back to the sender? > > > > Bonnie McVicar-Briggs > mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net > > USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer > Shiawassee County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html > Clinton County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm > Wayne County, MI > http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01BF7EC4.C0AFCDE0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:45:03 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16129 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:02 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26178 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA15258; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <007801bf7ef7$2781c0a0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (19).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (19).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06827 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:16:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19262; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990613161327.00ad9850@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:13:27 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990613111653.019b579c@mail.tds.net> References: <376399CB.EA029E1@slic.com> <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> <3.0.3.32.19990613000355.019ba424@mail.tds.net> 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/688 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c009b993b7b7bfac4ac2c1725ee27543 At 11:16 AM 6/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >One question to the Tim. Why is it that sometimes this list is set to reply >back to it and sometimes it is set to reply back to the sender? > I don't know. I've wondered that myself from time to time. I think it may have to do with how one's on email is setup but am not entirely sure. Betsy, do you know? Tim >Bonnie McVicar-Briggs >mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net > >USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer >Shiawassee County, MI >http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html >Clinton County, MI >http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm >Wayne County, MI >http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA24099 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:31:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21052; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3762ED6E.41896A40@idt.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:29:50 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19990612191803.0085e100@mail.mccallie.org> <3762ECAE.D67FABC4@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/667 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5b2561479ff6099bd5ae910051e09e8f I support this resolution that gives Ginger the use of this power, although I think it was redundant. Yvonne ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (20).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (20).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06829 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:16:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19418; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990613160705.00a75a00@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:07:05 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <000c01beb585$5888f100$180a9cd1@william> 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/689 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f0a98542421cd80fdcde9bbabf533db9 At 05:13 AM 6/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >Tim, one question, or request for clarification: > >If I'm not mistaken, it's not whether the *nominees* host a site in the >region---nobody seems to question that that's a requirement---it's whether >the *nominators* host a site in the region that's been under discussion. > >Have I missed the boat or is that correct? This was Beth's wording in 99-16E - 2) An eligible voter in good standing is eligible to hold an advisory board position for the region for which they volunteer. Tim >piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 >genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet >quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet >theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Stowell >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Saturday, 12 June, 1999 18:17 >Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures > > >>>From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion >>and call of said motion perhaps a resolution can be crafted to not only >>answer Ginger's question but also satisfy the Board. >>------------------------------------- >>Resolved that: >> >>1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >>2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >> A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >> B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone >>from their region. >> C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >>3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >>at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >>------------------------------------ >> >>While this appears to be a rewording of Beth's Motion 99-16E - I feel that >>a resolution is different from a Motion. In other words, a Motion seems to >>me to be more like a rule whereas a resolution is just an agreement of how >>rules, bylaws are to be carried out. >> >>Now that this nomination process is essentially over - and since most >>nominees who might be disqualified under 2C part B would surely nominate >>themselves - maybe 2B is better left for next year as a guideline to next >>year's nomination/election committee. >> >>If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? >>Tim >> > > ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (21).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (21).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21593 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:28:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28789; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <037501beb682$7c412380$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:25:13 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/702 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: fb0f9aabe7b106fbb816067914cfa659 The way this is configured at RootsWeb is this (and true for most other servers, I reckon): It's set to reply back to the list. HOWEVER, if someone has their address filled in in their mail program under "reply to", that will override the reply to list. In other words, if the only place you have your address in your mail program is in the "from", it will reply to list, and in other non-list situations, it will use the data in "from" for replies, but if you have your address in both "from" and "reply to", then answering posts from you will go directly to you unless the person hits "reply to all". Probably clear as mud, I'm short a cup of coffee yet. Sorry. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sunday, 13 June, 1999 15:17 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >At 11:16 AM 6/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >>One question to the Tim. Why is it that sometimes this list is set to reply >>back to it and sometimes it is set to reply back to the sender? >> >I don't know. I've wondered that myself from time to time. I think it may >have to do with how one's on email is setup but am not entirely sure. > >Betsy, do you know? > >Tim > > > >>Bonnie McVicar-Briggs >>mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net >> >>USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer >>Shiawassee County, MI >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html >>Clinton County, MI >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm >>Wayne County, MI >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm >> >> >> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (22).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (22).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03712 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:11:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19965; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614130139.03d42b40@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:01:39 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <037501beb682$7c412380$180a9cd1@william> 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/707 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3f7431c026d9da61d4d87d374b22e158 Thanks Megan. Tim At 11:25 AM 6/14/99 -0500, you wrote: >The way this is configured at RootsWeb is this (and true for most other >servers, I reckon): > >It's set to reply back to the list. HOWEVER, if someone has their address >filled in in their mail program under "reply to", that will override the >reply to list. > >In other words, if the only place you have your address in your mail program >is in the "from", it will reply to list, and in other non-list situations, >it will use the data in "from" for replies, but if you have your address in >both "from" and "reply to", then answering posts from you will go directly >to you unless the person hits "reply to all". > >Probably clear as mud, I'm short a cup of coffee yet. Sorry. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (23).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (23).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA20794 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:08:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03015; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990614140925.019ba800@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: mishiawa@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:09:25 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Bonnie McVicar-Briggs Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <037501beb682$7c412380$180a9cd1@william> 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/715 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f2e835fae20ae24ea4bda3503c70b039 At 11:25 AM 6/14/1999 -0500, you wrote: >The way this is configured at RootsWeb is this (and true for most other >servers, I reckon): > >It's set to reply back to the list. HOWEVER, if someone has their address >filled in in their mail program under "reply to", that will override the >reply to list. > >In other words, if the only place you have your address in your mail program >is in the "from", it will reply to list, and in other non-list situations, >it will use the data in "from" for replies, but if you have your address in >both "from" and "reply to", then answering posts from you will go directly >to you unless the person hits "reply to all". > >Probably clear as mud, I'm short a cup of coffee yet. Sorry. > >piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 >genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet >quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet >theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm Megan, Thanks. Your right, it's clear as mud. Probably more my fault than yours. I am technically as well as vertically challenged. Bonnie McVicar-Briggs mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer Shiawassee County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html Clinton County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm Wayne County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BF7EC4.DCE750A0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:45:49 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16192 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:49 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26395 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:45:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA15646; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:45:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <008301bf7ef7$45879ac0$47dfdece@default> From: [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:44:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29624 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:04:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05013; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:03:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:01:29 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Resent-Message-ID: <0bfDnC.A.3NB.iVvY3@bl-11.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/668 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ffcd8ee0c25b264a4fdb5697a691c928 In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@mccallie.org writes: << If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? Tim >> Dear Tim & Board members. AYE David C. Young (NE/NC) of Maine ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA10667 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:08:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06192; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37630431.7747BFB2@slic.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:06:57 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19990612191803.0085e100@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/669 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 961b6132fbab8c2c81954e37333d55cc I support the resolution. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > >From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA15125 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23928; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:33:15 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:32:57 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 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/670 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5ddd3edeb108446021586283d193ad98 In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > Resolved that: > > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone > from their region. > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. > ------------------------------------ > Per Roberts' Rules of Order" "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer the following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated in a preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the resolution may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution the preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the resolution. But when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the preamble has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, which is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain a period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, followed by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods where practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to separate it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; or it may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by placing "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active motion already, it is also out of order. Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17544 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:46:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05105; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37630D04.17C54F86@slic.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:44:36 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/671 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a4fb1dda52fb288f0ec72f2549d2791b I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. As my father used to say Bullll S--t. Joe FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > > > Resolved that: > > > > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. > > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: > > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent > > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone > > from their region. > > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in > > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the > > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Per Roberts' Rules of Order" > > "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, > he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer the > following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is > desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated in a > preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with > "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the resolution > may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution the > preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the resolution. But > when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the preamble > has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, which > is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain a > period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, followed > by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word > "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods where > practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to separate > it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be > numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; or it > may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each > beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by placing > "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." > > On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active > motion already, it is also out of order. > > Ginger -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA18933 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:52:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27038; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:52:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:50:00 -0500 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures In-Reply-To: <37630D04.17C54F86@slic.com> References: <3f6da47e.24946449@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <199906122052.SM00151@betsy> 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/672 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 566a5157eda5ed16a22717f3f3ce168e I can't agree more, Joe. I took it that Tim was offering a solution. If the board agreed, then someone would withdraw their motion, THEN this resolution would be posted to the board-l list and we would vote on it. NOW who is delaying the support for Ginger?????? Betsy At 09:44 PM 06/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >As my father used to say Bullll S--t. > >Joe > >FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >> >> > Resolved that: >> > >> > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >> > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >> > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >> > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone >> > from their region. >> > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >> > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >> > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >> > ------------------------------------ >> > >> >> Per Roberts' Rules of Order" >> >> "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, >> he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer the >> following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is >> desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated in a >> preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with >> "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the resolution >> may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution the >> preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the resolution. But >> when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the preamble >> has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, which >> is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain a >> period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, followed >> by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word >> "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods where >> practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to separate >> it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be >> numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; or it >> may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each >> beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by placing >> "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." >> >> On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active >> motion already, it is also out of order. >> >> Ginger > >-- >email:jzsed@slic.com >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22025 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:08:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09515; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:08:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Beth Wills" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:11:13 -0400 Message-ID: <01beb542$06d5daa0$5b1dacd1@beth> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 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/673 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9e9056d43a88099892891cdc50343340 I think that Joe's post was rude and uncalled for. If I wanted to be subjected to this kind of stuff, I would still be subbed to the all list. This board is never going to work together because we all spend too much time trying to make sure we stay on the right side of the we vs. they fence. I am tired of it. No matter what anyone says to try to get something accomplished, someone else jumps in and says, "if I didn't think of it, or if it isn't my wording, I don't like it". So much for a cohesive group that works together and talks things over. Now we are into a "slam the other side" kind of contest, and I DON'T WANT TO PLAY! Beth Wills bethw@kvi.net Ionia County MIGenWeb Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~miionia -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures >I can't agree more, Joe. I took it that Tim was offering a solution. If the >board agreed, then someone would withdraw their motion, THEN this resolution >would be posted to the board-l list and we would vote on it. > >NOW who is delaying the support for Ginger?????? > >Betsy > > >At 09:44 PM 06/12/1999 -0400, you wrote: >>I knew precisely what Tim meant. This damn board will never function >>until we start using some common sense and quit thinking we have >>achieved something by rubbing someone's nose in Roberts Rules of Order. >>As my father used to say Bullll S--t. >> >>Joe >> >>FEATHER2s@aol.com wrote: >>> >>> In a message dated 6/12/99 7:14:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >>> >>> > Resolved that: >>> > >>> > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. >>> > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: >>> > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent >>> > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone >>> > from their region. >>> > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in >>> > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the >>> > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. >>> > ------------------------------------ >>> > >>> >>> Per Roberts' Rules of Order" >>> >>> "When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, >>> he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer the >>> following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is >>> desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated >in a >>> preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with >>> "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the >resolution >>> may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution >the >>> preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the resolution. >But >>> when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the preamble >>> has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, which >>> is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain a >>> period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, followed >>> by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word >>> "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods where >>> practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to separate >>> it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be >>> numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; >or it >>> may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each >>> beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by placing >>> "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." >>> >>> On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active >>> motion already, it is also out of order. >>> >>> Ginger >> >>-- >>email:jzsed@slic.com >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >> > ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7EC4.FAED2AC0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:46:25 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16236 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:46:24 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26525 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA16000; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:46:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <008e01bf7ef7$5b3cdb00$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:45:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (9).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures (9).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22303 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:10:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10809; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:10:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <3678f1d2.24946ca5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:08:37 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Resent-Message-ID: <1-DaiB.A.roC.AMxY3@bl-11.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/674 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c02c2a3fd23a1ea6c7f1ce967770e11c In a message dated 6/12/99 9:33:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FEATHER2s@aol.com writes: << On this basis, Tim's resolution is not proper, and as there is an active motion already, it is also out of order. Ginger >> Dear Ginger: You are right on this statement. Let me know when the votes is done on the first motion that is on the floor. David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22970 [xxxxxxx] Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:25:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14344; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3762ECAE.D67FABC4@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:26:38 -0400 From: jpowelljr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election procedures References: <3.0.5.32.19990612191803.0085e100@mail.mccallie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/666 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5a236900b2a5fdd5b9a45bbcdeb65270 I support this resolution and the Tim's message in it's entirety. Jim Tim Stowell wrote: > > >From reading all the hoopla over Ginger's question the subsequent motion > and call of said motion perhaps a resolution can be crafted to not only > answer Ginger's question but also satisfy the Board. > ------------------------------------- > Resolved that: > > 1. the Regions for the Election of 1999 stay the same. > 2. to clarify the nominations/election process: > A. Nominees have to host a site in the Region they will represent > B. Nominees can either nominate themselves or be nominated by someone > from their region. > C. Voters can only vote in the region they host a site in > 3. National offices (National Coordinator, Special Projects and the > at-large Representative) would be exempt from who can nominate them. > ------------------------------------ > > While this appears to be a rewording of Beth's Motion 99-16E - I feel that > a resolution is different from a Motion. In other words, a Motion seems to > me to be more like a rule whereas a resolution is just an agreement of how > rules, bylaws are to be carried out. > > Now that this nomination process is essentially over - and since most > nominees who might be disqualified under 2C part B would surely nominate > themselves - maybe 2B is better left for next year as a guideline to next > year's nomination/election committee. > > If this agreeable with you, will you give Ginger the power to use this? > Tim ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (10).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (10).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05939 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:47:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12557; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614164456.03e1a9d0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:44:56 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? In-Reply-To: <35ece971.2496b047@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <50xa.A.4DD.lpWZ3@bl-11.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/733 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c9df1d786110be839a718b79b301a2b9 At 03:21 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 6/14/99 2:55:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > ><< > > Again, according to the two previous elections - voters only vote in the > Regions that they host in - SCs vote for SC Reps, CCs vote for CC Reps. > > Tim > >> >Dear Tim: > >So are you saying that every state will have only one vote for their SC Rep >of their region? With the ASC voting only if the SC chooses not to vote? No I'm not saying that. Each state has, has the potential of two votes in that region for the SC Rep. The ASC can run for the SC Rep, and since they get a ballot, they can vote for themselves. That is not the way I had remembered it. But I did not understand it very >well last year. THe ASC can run for SC Rep of their region only they cannot >vote of themselves, right? And now here is a case where you can nominate >yourself and cannot vote for yourself in the general election. > >I am still puzzled. Could we please see the rules in print? > >Thanks, > >David C. Young > > ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (11).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (11).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28861 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:55:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20094; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <072f01beb6c0$d464bb60$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:51:30 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/738 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 99ffecb87fe4c2e4521df2bebd842a5e Nope, I think it was left at a max two votes per state, but in any event ASC's can vote. I'm not sure if the max two ever got etched in stone, but it was considered, in order to keep SC's from being able (as they theoretically can do) to make every CC in the state an ASC and then say "well, they all get votes." Last I was in the discussion, the direction it was aimed was yes, if an SC wants 312 ASC's they can have them, but only one ASC gets a vote. (In addition to the SC's vote). piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Mainegen@aol.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, 14 June, 1999 15:02 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? >In a message dated 6/14/99 2:55:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > ><< > > Again, according to the two previous elections - voters only vote in the > Regions that they host in - SCs vote for SC Reps, CCs vote for CC Reps. > > Tim > >> >Dear Tim: > >So are you saying that every state will have only one vote for their SC Rep >of their region? With the ASC voting only if the SC chooses not to vote? > >That is not the way I had remembered it. But I did not understand it very >well last year. THe ASC can run for SC Rep of their region only they cannot >vote of themselves, right? And now here is a case where you can nominate >yourself and cannot vote for yourself in the general election. > >I am still puzzled. Could we please see the rules in print? > >Thanks, > >David C. Young > ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03685 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:11:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19742; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614130555.03d45b00@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:05:55 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? In-Reply-To: <19f87825.24968bfc@aol.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/706 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 668e75a469a68ab255f44cf95f5c30c8 At 12:46 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >Dear Betsy & friends: > >Interesting questions. Is she running? >From my understanding she is not. Her questions then would be pure of a rhetorical nature. In other words, something more to comment about on her DBS. At this point, no answer would probably be best. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06963 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:22:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13924; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376539C1.2DB40C89@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:20:02 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? References: <19f87825.24968bfc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/709 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c9444fe7c3e06923e2e8b3da15bfb19d Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number of folk who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I trust that there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. Bill -- ============================> Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > Dear Betsy & friends: > > Interesting questions. Is she running? Time is running out. The deadline > for nominations is the 15 of June but acceptance is 22 of June. I still plan > on running for my office but after the last few weeks I can see why the > turnover rate is so high. > I had thought of running for the at Large Office but am not sure it that > would be the best thing for the project. I understand that many people > nominate themselves. Is that true? I have not done that yet. And I will not > just nominate myself of anything. I would want to get more than one vote. > Running for SC Rep of the NE/NC with 13 states that is 14 votes at most to > win. Right? > > Will there be any election rules for the people running for office? Can we > pass out buttons? Can we stand near the polls? How far from the polls can > we put up our lawn signs, etc., Do we have to report what we spend on our > election bid? > Yes, I am kidding about all this. But if there are to be limits on what > Candidates can and cannot do, I for one would like to set the rules how and > not half way through the election. > > Enjoy, > > David C. Young (NE/NC) ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01BF7EC5.10A26B00-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:48:35 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16491 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:48:34 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26853 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA16802; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:47:57 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <009901bf7ef7$96d18a80$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:47:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04012 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:55:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15683; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614144951.03dfd360@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:49:51 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? In-Reply-To: <376539C1.2DB40C89@worldnet.att.net> References: <19f87825.24968bfc@aol.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/718 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 44c646d305d780923a842e1c56712f2f Again, according to the two previous elections - voters only vote in the Regions that they host in - SCs vote for SC Reps, CCs vote for CC Reps. Tim At 01:20 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number of folk >who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I trust that >there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. > >And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. > >Bill >-- >============================> > >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > >> Dear Betsy & friends: >> >> Interesting questions. Is she running? Time is running out. The deadline >> for nominations is the 15 of June but acceptance is 22 of June. I still plan >> on running for my office but after the last few weeks I can see why the >> turnover rate is so high. >> I had thought of running for the at Large Office but am not sure it that >> would be the best thing for the project. I understand that many people >> nominate themselves. Is that true? I have not done that yet. And I will not >> just nominate myself of anything. I would want to get more than one vote. >> Running for SC Rep of the NE/NC with 13 states that is 14 votes at most to >> win. Right? >> >> Will there be any election rules for the people running for office? Can we >> pass out buttons? Can we stand near the polls? How far from the polls can >> we put up our lawn signs, etc., Do we have to report what we spend on our >> election bid? >> Yes, I am kidding about all this. But if there are to be limits on what >> Candidates can and cannot do, I for one would like to set the rules how and >> not half way through the election. >> >> Enjoy, >> >> David C. Young (NE/NC) > > ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12157 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:24:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22656; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:24:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <35ece971.2496b047@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:21:43 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/722 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6b8fda814c8f05be34cc7ff8971e048a In a message dated 6/14/99 2:55:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@mccallie.org writes: << Again, according to the two previous elections - voters only vote in the Regions that they host in - SCs vote for SC Reps, CCs vote for CC Reps. Tim >> Dear Tim: So are you saying that every state will have only one vote for their SC Rep of their region? With the ASC voting only if the SC chooses not to vote? That is not the way I had remembered it. But I did not understand it very well last year. THe ASC can run for SC Rep of their region only they cannot vote of themselves, right? And now here is a case where you can nominate yourself and cannot vote for yourself in the general election. I am still puzzled. Could we please see the rules in print? Thanks, David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (9).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (9).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23525 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:04:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13756; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37655FEB.13F7E338@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:02:52 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? References: <19f87825.24968bfc@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.19990614144951.03dfd360@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <1_tX8D.A.RWD.TBWZ3@bl-11.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/727 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 0ac75bec9b21579d4d97ad2263f6e178 To whom are you addressing this??? The point was how many votes to be cast for SC Rep in NE.. Bill -- ======================> Tim Stowell wrote: > Again, according to the two previous elections - voters only vote in the > Regions that they host in - SCs vote for SC Reps, CCs vote for CC Reps. > > Tim > > At 01:20 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number > of folk > >who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I > trust that > >there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. > > > >And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. > > > >Bill > >-- > >============================> > > > >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > > > >> Dear Betsy & friends: > >> > >> Interesting questions. Is she running? Time is running out. The deadline > >> for nominations is the 15 of June but acceptance is 22 of June. I still > plan > >> on running for my office but after the last few weeks I can see why the > >> turnover rate is so high. > >> I had thought of running for the at Large Office but am not sure it that > >> would be the best thing for the project. I understand that many people > >> nominate themselves. Is that true? I have not done that yet. And I will > not > >> just nominate myself of anything. I would want to get more than one > vote. > >> Running for SC Rep of the NE/NC with 13 states that is 14 votes at most to > >> win. Right? > >> > >> Will there be any election rules for the people running for office? Can we > >> pass out buttons? Can we stand near the polls? How far from the polls can > >> we put up our lawn signs, etc., Do we have to report what we spend > on our > >> election bid? > >> Yes, I am kidding about all this. But if there are to be limits on what > >> Candidates can and cannot do, I for one would like to set the rules how and > >> not half way through the election. > >> > >> Enjoy, > >> > >> David C. Young (NE/NC) > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06465 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:05:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23240; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d701beb698$972c4e20$43dfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:03:28 -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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <23xNAC.A.7qF.PJVZ3@bl-11.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/721 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b8ebd02c7253837b5c9936c0e488788d I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by the SC. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Mainegen@aol.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) >In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: > ><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? > Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) > Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number of >folk > who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I trust >that > there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. > > And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. > > Bill > -- >> >Dear Bill: >The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done >last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One for >the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & MA >have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted is >two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person >need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 people >will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the >votes that will be from outside of New England. >That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. > >The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what >the ground rules we are to have any. > >Enjoy, > >David C. Young > ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08244 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:11:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Received: from Mainegen@aol.com (4462) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id zJEOa17475 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:10:21 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) To: cestus3@inetnebr.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 X-UIDL: e321f9386f8b9c1fd72797d1ee7c176b In a message dated 6/14/99 3:05:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cestus3@inetnebr.com writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) Date: 6/14/99 3:05:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: cestus3@inetnebr.com (Lynn) Reply-to: cestus3@inetnebr.com (Lynn) To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by the SC. Lynn >> Dear Lynn: In the last election the ASC were allowed to vote in the last election for NE/NC Rep. Or did I misunderstand? David C Young ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15290 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:35:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03474; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614153127.03e0d260@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:31:27 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) In-Reply-To: <00d701beb698$972c4e20$43dfdece@default> 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/723 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f5b4bf4c66ff3f163e47495de5e88961 ASC's are selected by the SC or in whatever manner individual states decide to use. In Georgia we are using a revolving ASC in for 3 to 4 months and then the next RC takes the position. I believe that Iowa has two ASCs. So while David is essentially correct - there may be more than two votes per state again depending on the way each state set up their organization. Tim At 02:03 PM 6/14/99 -0500, you wrote: >I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by >the SC. >Lynn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mainegen@aol.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:55 PM >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) > > >>In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: >> >><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? >> Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time >> From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number >of >>folk >> who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I >trust >>that >> there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. >> >> And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. >> >> Bill >> -- >> >>Dear Bill: >>The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done >>last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One >for >>the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & >MA >>have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted >is >>two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person >>need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 >people >>will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the >>votes that will be from outside of New England. >>That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. >> >>The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what >>the ground rules we are to have any. >> >>Enjoy, >> >>David C. Young >> > > ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BF7EC5.4C2651A0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:50:51 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16682 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:50:50 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27265 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18050; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:50:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00a401bf7ef7$f4f0b1e0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:50:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA18460 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:47:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14680; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010601beb69e$77105680$43dfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:45:28 -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 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 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/724 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 465348ef47b90d19fa49198382a145a4 Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one state could not over power the other states in the region with votes. In other words, let's pretend: Colorado may have 3 ASCs Nebraska has 1 South Dakota has 1 Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. (I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each state be allowed to vote, therefore: Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC Would this not be more fair? Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) > >ASC's are selected by the SC or in whatever manner individual states decide >to use. In Georgia we are using a revolving ASC in for 3 to 4 months and >then the next RC takes the position. I believe that Iowa has two ASCs. >So while David is essentially correct - there may be more than two votes >per state again depending on the way each state set up their organization. > >Tim > >At 02:03 PM 6/14/99 -0500, you wrote: >>I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by >>the SC. >>Lynn >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mainegen@aol.com >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) >> >> >>>In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: >>> >>><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? >>> Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time >>> From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) >>> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>> >>> Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number >>of >>>folk >>> who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I >>trust >>>that >>> there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. >>> >>> And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. >>> >>> Bill >>> -- >> >>>Dear Bill: >>>The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done >>>last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One >>for >>>the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & >>MA >>>have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted >>is >>>two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person >>>need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 >>people >>>will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the >>>votes that will be from outside of New England. >>>That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. >>> >>>The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what >>>the ground rules we are to have any. >>> >>>Enjoy, >>> >>>David C. Young >>> >> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19501 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:51:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28509; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:50:39 CDT Message-Id: <199906141450.AA11206952@mail.1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Betsy Mills" Reply-To: Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/725 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 490adeaa0f985e4923d2359bbb1460c2 Lynn, I agree with you. I believe this is how it has been done in the past. The SC votes and 1 ASC votes. Texas was in this situation the last election. Thanks! Betsy ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- [xxxxxxx] Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:45:28 -0500 >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one state could not over power the other states in the region with votes. In other words, let's pretend: Colorado may have 3 ASCs Nebraska has 1 South Dakota has 1 Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. (I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each state be allowed to vote, therefore: Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC Would this not be more fair? Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) > >ASC's are selected by the SC or in whatever manner individual states decide >to use. In Georgia we are using a revolving ASC in for 3 to 4 months and >then the next RC takes the position. I believe that Iowa has two ASCs. >So while David is essentially correct - there may be more than two votes >per state again depending on the way each state set up their organization. > >Tim > >At 02:03 PM 6/14/99 -0500, you wrote: >>I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by >>the SC. >>Lynn >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mainegen@aol.com >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) >> >> >>>In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: >>> >>><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? >>> Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time >>> From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) >>> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>> >>> Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number >>of >>>folk >>> who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I >>trust >>>that >>> there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. >>> >>> And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. >>> >>> Bill >>> -- >> >>>Dear Bill: >>>The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done >>>last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One >>for >>>the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & >>MA >>>have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted >>is >>>two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person >>>need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 >>people >>>will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the >>>votes that will be from outside of New England. >>>That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. >>> >>>The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what >>>the ground rules we are to have any. >>> >>>Enjoy, >>> >>>David C. Young >>> >> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from pimout4-int.prodigy.net (pimout4-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.58.198]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28986 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:55:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from william (CHCGB102-13.splitrock.net [209.156.10.13]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA09570 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:55:28 -0400 Message-ID: <073c01beb6c0$f15e0780$180a9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" To: [xxxxxxx] Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:52:19 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-UIDL: d4c76e3319ff360fd51c918baf0a640c ASC's are not voted into position, but do have a vote for SC rep. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Lynn To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, 14 June, 1999 14:08 Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) >I was not aware that the ASC was voted in by the 'public', but appointed by >the SC. >Lynn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mainegen@aol.com >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:55 PM >Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) > > >>In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: >> >><< Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? >> Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time >> From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number >of >>folk >> who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I >trust >>that >> there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. >> >> And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. >> >> Bill >> -- >> >>Dear Bill: >>The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done >>last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One >for >>the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & >MA >>have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted >is >>two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person >>need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 >people >>will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the >>votes that will be from outside of New England. >>That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. >> >>The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what >>the ground rules we are to have any. >> >>Enjoy, >> >>David C. Young >> > ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (10).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (10).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14954 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:57:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16982; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614210108.008529e0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:01:08 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 In-Reply-To: <2328b173.2496f77a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <5_SqJD.A.9IE.vTaZ3@bl-11.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/746 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 976f5f912b977e9f603a183a4b10c3cc Thanks, Ginger. One last question - besides the names you mentioned folks are to send email addresses to - is there anyone else on the Election Committee? Tim At 08:25 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >> Thanks Ginger. Would you please tell us who the Nominations Committee >> members are or were the last time you knew? > >Celia Snyder, Mary Ann Hettrick (who is now away on vacation), Marce Beem and >Marti Graham > >Ginger > > ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (11).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (11).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20482 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:17:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05149; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3765A910.3CCC326D@slic.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:14:56 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/747 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: aae14eb6b32c99c29fa7e33c8121db2c Okay by me. Joe Tim Stowell wrote: > > At 07:03 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > >"Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No > >member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." > > > >Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most > votes > >may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. > > Agreed - I was using a two person race. > > >May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the > STATE-COORD > >list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open > >positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day > for > >nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a > notice > >under our circumstances. > > Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > > >Bill > >-- > >=========================> > >Tim Stowell wrote: > > > >> At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: > >> >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that > >> >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? > >> >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs > >> >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one > state > >> >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. > >> >In other words, let's pretend: > >> >Colorado may have 3 ASCs > >> >Nebraska has 1 > >> >South Dakota has 1 > >> > > >> >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado > >> >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in > >> >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. > >> > > >> >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) > >> > > >> >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each > state > >> >be allowed to vote, therefore: > >> >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs > >> >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC > >> >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC > >> > >> As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect > >> me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - > >> memory. > >> > >> As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the > >> total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was > >> in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would > >> be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with > >> the most votes wins. > >> > >> A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a > >> Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the > >> SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can > >> then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those > >> positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs > >> who/where to send their voting lists to? > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> > > > > > -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (12).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (12).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01461 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:54:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12004; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:51:45 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Resent-Message-ID: <99x__D.A.M7C.XIbZ3@bl-11.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/748 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cecc486140468a61db2a412318651b19 In a message dated 6/14/99 8:57:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > One last question - besides the names you mentioned folks are to send email > addresses to - is there anyone else on the Election Committee? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Date: 6/14/99 4:59:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: FEATHER 2s To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com NW-Plains voters lists got to: Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu NE voters list go to: (no volunteer) SE voters lists go to: Lori Krei kreibl@ncn.net SW voters lists go to: Tina Vickery TVick655362@aol.com With the exception of the Nominations Subcommittee members, there are no others. ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BF7EC5.AA4EA0C0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:51:42 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16755 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:51:41 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27415 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18494; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:51:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00af01bf7ef8$0d549760$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:50:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (13).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (13).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA28776 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:23:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03429; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3765BC28.F79EA28F@dc.jones.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:36:24 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> <3765A0C7.7D77A6A2@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/749 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4c0b89b33342d1c0314cf234a3ad170b Sounds fine to me. Bill Oliver wrote: > I suggested it and thus support it. Let's all quickly give at least a yea or nay > to Tim so he can say the board does [or does not] support this last announcement > for nominations. > > Bill > -- > ====================> > > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > At 07:03 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > > >"Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No > > >member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." > > > > > >Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most > > votes > > >may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. > > > > Agreed - I was using a two person race. > > > > >May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the > > STATE-COORD > > >list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open > > >positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day > > for > > >nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a > > notice > > >under our circumstances. > > > > Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > > > > >Bill > > >-- > > >=========================> > > >Tim Stowell wrote: > > > > > >> At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: > > >> >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that > > >> >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? > > >> >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs > > >> >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one > > state > > >> >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. > > >> >In other words, let's pretend: > > >> >Colorado may have 3 ASCs > > >> >Nebraska has 1 > > >> >South Dakota has 1 > > >> > > > >> >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado > > >> >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in > > >> >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. > > >> > > > >> >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) > > >> > > > >> >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each > > state > > >> >be allowed to vote, therefore: > > >> >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs > > >> >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC > > >> >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC > > >> > > >> As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect > > >> me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - > > >> memory. > > >> > > >> As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the > > >> total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was > > >> in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would > > >> be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with > > >> the most votes wins. > > >> > > >> A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a > > >> Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the > > >> SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can > > >> then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those > > >> positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs > > >> who/where to send their voting lists to? > > >> > > >> Tim > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (14).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (14).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05568 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:45:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04324; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990614234804.00774e48@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: mishiawa@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:48:04 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Bonnie McVicar-Briggs Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <37658A2F.E7BC0C26@worldnet.att.net> <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> 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/750 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2646a21e15af59d415e2358d4c506fd4 At 08:25 PM 6/14/1999 -0400, you wrote: >Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > Okay with me. Bonnie McVicar-Briggs mishiawa@shiatel.tds.net USGENWEB PROJECT Volunteer Shiawassee County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~mishiawa/mishiawa.html Clinton County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miclinto/clintmn.htm Wayne County, MI http://www.rootsweb.com/~miwayne/wayne.htm ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (15).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (15).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA02743 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:54:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16613; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006201beb6f3$505e0640$59dfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:52:53 -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 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/751 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 5f827e4db89c33353651ad44d45a0285 Yes Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 >At 07:03 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >>"Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No >>member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." >> >>Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most >votes >>may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. > >Agreed - I was using a two person race. > > >>May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the >STATE-COORD >>list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open >>positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day >for >>nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a >notice >>under our circumstances. > >Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > > >>Bill >>-- >>=========================> >>Tim Stowell wrote: >> >>> At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: >>> >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that >>> >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? >>> >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs >>> >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one >state >>> >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. >>> >In other words, let's pretend: >>> >Colorado may have 3 ASCs >>> >Nebraska has 1 >>> >South Dakota has 1 >>> > >>> >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado >>> >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in >>> >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. >>> > >>> >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) >>> > >>> >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each >state >>> >be allowed to vote, therefore: >>> >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs >>> >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC >>> >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC >>> >>> As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect >>> me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - >>> memory. >>> >>> As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the >>> total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was >>> in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would >>> be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with >>> the most votes wins. >>> >>> A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a >>> Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the >>> SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can >>> then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those >>> positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs >>> who/where to send their voting lists to? >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> > >> >> > ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (16).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (16).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA02840 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:55:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16913; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006901beb6f3$6ef1c880$59dfdece@default> Reply-To: [xxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx] Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:53:44 -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 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/752 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2aa5c6fd48db000e240b15f08b961075 -----Original Message----- From: FEATHER2s@aol.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 >> Thanks Ginger. Would you please tell us who the Nominations Committee >> members are or were the last time you knew? > >Celia Snyder, Mary Ann Hettrick (who is now away on vacation), But is reachable! Marce Beem and >Marti Graham > >Ginger > ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (17).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (17).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26464 [xxxxxxx] Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:11:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04169; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:06:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:05:59 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/753 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e0c6695a733fb52ebf2f31304c0daa06 In a message dated 6/14/99 8:41:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: << I suggested it and thus support it. Let's all quickly give at least a yea or nay to Tim so he can say the board does [or does not] support this last announcement for nominations. Bill -- >> YEA on this last announcement for nomination David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA11464 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:06:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07578; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:59:29 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 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/734 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6227cffc166ff60d04c26471f8601a10 NW-Plains voters lists got to: Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu NE voters list go to: (no volunteer) SE voters lists go to: Lori Krei kreibl@ncn.net SW voters lists go to: Tina Vickery TVick655362@aol.com With the exception of the Nominations Subcommittee members, there are no others. There is also no Board liaison now and no chair, since I served in both capacities. The lists must be sent to Tim Pierce on June 24th. Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01BF7EC5.C2BA2760-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:52:47 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA16952 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:52:46 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27610 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:52:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18939; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:52:13 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00ba01bf7ef8$31ffcc60$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:51:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15657 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:05:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04338; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37658A2F.E7BC0C26@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:03:12 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/736 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 2b4a581eb53b9bfb2ed38de657bfcd6b "Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most votes may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the STATE-COORD list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day for nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a notice under our circumstances. Bill -- =========================> Tim Stowell wrote: > At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: > >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that > >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? > >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs > >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one state > >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. > >In other words, let's pretend: > >Colorado may have 3 ASCs > >Nebraska has 1 > >South Dakota has 1 > > > >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado > >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in > >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. > > > >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) > > > >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each state > >be allowed to vote, therefore: > >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs > >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC > >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC > > As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect > me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - > memory. > > As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the > total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was > in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would > be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with > the most votes wins. > > A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a > Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the > SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can > then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those > positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs > who/where to send their voting lists to? > > Tim > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05651 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:21:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18450; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614202209.00920100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:22:09 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <7gM8tB.A.wfE.YxZZ3@bl-11.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/739 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: a23fe0e7605f305374de4fcd1bbf0d37 Thanks Ginger. Would you please tell us who the Nominations Committee members are or were the last time you knew? Tim At 04:59 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote: >NW-Plains voters lists got to: Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu >NE voters list go to: (no volunteer) >SE voters lists go to: Lori Krei kreibl@ncn.net >SW voters lists go to: Tina Vickery TVick655362@aol.com > > >With the exception of the Nominations Subcommittee members, there are no >others. >There is also no Board liaison now and no chair, since I served in both >capacities. > >The lists must be sent to Tim Pierce on June 24th. > >Ginger > > ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05674 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:21:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18727; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:25:33 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 In-Reply-To: <37658A2F.E7BC0C26@worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> 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/740 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 0b48be5c41e7d74c9e3a7faf199d85f5 At 07:03 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: >"Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No >member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." > >Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most votes >may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. Agreed - I was using a two person race. >May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the STATE-COORD >list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open >positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day for >nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a notice >under our circumstances. Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim >Bill >-- >=========================> >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: >> >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that >> >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? >> >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs >> >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one state >> >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. >> >In other words, let's pretend: >> >Colorado may have 3 ASCs >> >Nebraska has 1 >> >South Dakota has 1 >> > >> >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado >> >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in >> >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. >> > >> >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) >> > >> >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each state >> >be allowed to vote, therefore: >> >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs >> >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC >> >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC >> >> As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect >> me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - >> memory. >> >> As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the >> total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was >> in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would >> be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with >> the most votes wins. >> >> A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a >> Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the >> SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can >> then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those >> positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs >> who/where to send their voting lists to? >> >> Tim >> >> > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA07397 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:28:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00508; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:27:39 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: <2328b173.2496f77a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:25:30 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 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/742 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 7ee761126ae879b89a5d9d6e3793f491 > Thanks Ginger. Would you please tell us who the Nominations Committee > members are or were the last time you knew? Celia Snyder, Mary Ann Hettrick (who is now away on vacation), Marce Beem and Marti Graham Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10962 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:41:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15452; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3765A0C7.7D77A6A2@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:39:36 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <26IGqB.A.OwD.sEaZ3@bl-11.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/743 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3fc82ed74d4b0403f9309e3458f8e610 I suggested it and thus support it. Let's all quickly give at least a yea or nay to Tim so he can say the board does [or does not] support this last announcement for nominations. Bill -- ====================> Tim Stowell wrote: > At 07:03 PM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote: > >"Article VII Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No > >member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time." > > > >Should there be three candidates Tim's statement of the one with the most > votes > >may not be correct. Majority means 51% of the total cast. > > Agreed - I was using a two person race. > > >May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the > STATE-COORD > >list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open > >positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day > for > >nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a > notice > >under our circumstances. > > Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > > >Bill > >-- > >=========================> > >Tim Stowell wrote: > > > >> At 02:45 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Lynn wrote: > >> >Ok, if the ASC votes for the SC election, then is it right for states that > >> >have more than one ASC to allow all of them to vote? > >> >I was under the impression that the (when there are more than one) ASCs > >> >decided amongst themselves which one would do the voting, so that one > state > >> >could not over power the other states in the region with votes. > >> >In other words, let's pretend: > >> >Colorado may have 3 ASCs > >> >Nebraska has 1 > >> >South Dakota has 1 > >> > > >> >Now if all are allowed to vote, and the candidate is someone that Colorado > >> >might want in, but the other two don't, by allowing all three ASCs in > >> >Colorado, they would have the majority of votes. > >> > > >> >(I know this is extremely simplistic, but think it gets the point across.) > >> > > >> >My understanding was that if the ASCs vote, only ONE of them for each > state > >> >be allowed to vote, therefore: > >> >Colorado would have 1 vote from the ASCs > >> >Nebraska would have 1 vote from the ASC > >> >South Dakota would have 1 vote from the ASC > >> > >> As the North Dakota only had an SC and ASC last year - this didn't effect > >> me, but you are I believe correct now that you bring it to my attention - > >> memory. > >> > >> As for the Northeast Region that David asked about - it would depend on the > >> total number of SCs plus the number of ASCs which I believe David said was > >> in the neighborhood of 22. Also in answer to David's question of who would > >> be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the person with > >> the most votes wins. > >> > >> A new question - if I may ask without being shot for asking - if there is a > >> Board member that is on the Elections committee - would you please give the > >> SCs an update on any positions that do not now have a nominee? The SCs can > >> then send out one last note to the CCs asking for volunteers for those > >> positions. Would the Election Committee also post a note to remind the SCs > >> who/where to send their voting lists to? > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12789 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:49:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29216; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906150048.RAA71187@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:47:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3765A0C7.7D77A6A2@worldnet.att.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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/744 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d50a9613590f4ecfef317bb7360c260e On 14 Jun 99, at 20:39, Bill Oliver wrote: > I suggested it and thus support it. Let's all quickly give at least a yea > or nay to Tim so he can say the board does [or does not] support this last > announcement for nominations. > > Bill Okay, by me. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_00B7_01BF7EC5.E7655C60-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:53:34 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA17077 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:53:34 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27727 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA19554; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:53:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00c501bf7ef8$5224dd00$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:52:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (9).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3 (9).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14079 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:54:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13917; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3765A467.9CDB0A26@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:55:03 -0400 From: jpowelljr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 References: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.19990614202533.0091dc10@mail.chattanooga.net> <3765A0C7.7D77A6A2@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/745 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b74acf5bf981e744408436d520afa7df Go for it, Tim > >May I suggest that the NC go ahead and make an announcement on the > STATE-COORD > >list to the effect "please check the nominations board and if there are open > >positions with no one nominate .... etc., etc." Tomorrow is the last day > for > >nominations [I believe], thus any one of us can designated to send such a > notice > >under our circumstances. > > Is this ok with the rest of the Board that I do this? - Tim > > >Bill ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two) and 3.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05246 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:45:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05360; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906142045.NAA64256@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:43:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two)/ and 3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990614163309.03fa95e0@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <010601beb69e$77105680$43dfdece@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) 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/732 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 3b03328564e59efdf08ed3628bfd903a On 14 Jun 99, at 16:33, Tim Stowell wrote: > Also in answer to David's question of who > would be the winner - provided there is more than one candidate - the > person with the most votes wins. Tim, are you sure about the above statement? If so, then why was there a run off in February for one of the seats? There may have been another reason for the run off, and I've forgotten. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Election question (part two).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03904 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:55:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15491; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Mainegen@aol.com Message-ID: <4790d7fa.2496a95d@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:52:13 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? (part two) Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 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/716 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: af6558a78a639c8250d0b67007af82f5 In a message dated 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wnoliver@worldnet.att.net writes: << Subj: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Election question? Date: 6/14/99 1:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: wnoliver@worldnet.att.net (Bill Oliver) Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Before you jump all out and over this statement, please check the number of folk who are eligible to vote for SC Rep. The rules are in the By-Laws. I trust that there will be more than 14 for NE Rep. And, I believe your question about campaign rules is very valid. Bill -- >> Dear Bill: The NE/NC has 13 states. If the election is run the same way as it was done last year then the each State USGW project will be given two votes. One for the SC & one for the ASC. As NH & RI I believe do not have an ASC and CT & MA have each other as their ASC, the number total votes that could be counted is two times 13 which is 26 less 4 = 22. Now in a two way race does a person need more than 50% plus one to win? If so I would say no more than 20 people will be voting in the election for SC Rep in the NE/NC region. Most of the votes that will be from outside of New England. That is not good news for my election bid, but those are the facts. The remaining rule for the election have not been set. We need to talk what the ground rules we are to have any. Enjoy, David C. Young ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA11157 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 6 Jun 1999 23:26:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13661; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 23:23:00 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page In-Reply-To: <375B4810.CFCFAA04@dc.jones.com> References: <375A9B4F.2A99759F@idt.net> <375AB5B3.5AE64B5D@dc.jones.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <199906062326.SM00165@betsy> Resent-Message-ID: <1tpBJD.A.RVD.Kn0W3@bl-11.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/595 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: f1fa9a2562f68d4b4e36360381632116 Trey's would be for a 1 year term. They would complete his unfinished one. Betsy At 12:18 AM 06/07/1999 -0400, you wrote: >I have uploaded an Elections page to the National Site. Please check it >out and let me know if you think anything needs to be added or changed. >I am still a bit confused on the durations of the positions being >elected. I know that NC is supposed to be a one year term, and the >others 2 year terms. But, what about Trey's position in his region. He >still has a year left on his term, so are we election a person to fill >out his term, or are we electing this position for 2 years? > >Thanks! > >Oh, the URL is http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html > >It is linked from the main page. I told Ginger I would upload it and >give you all a chance to look at it before it went public. But, I am so >late getting this up that I decided to go for broke! >-- >Pam Reid in Virginia > >mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com >LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) >Branches and Roots >http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid >Tombstone Transcription Project >http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery >Gloucester County VAGenWeb >http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html > ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA12111 [xxxxxxx] Sun, 6 Jun 1999 23:30:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15143; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002e01beb09e$1f49bc80$c30d9cd1@william> From: "Ms. Piglet" Old-To: Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 23:27:55 -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 4.72.3110.1 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/596 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 6248926862e965c2ac47da3342ffcf5b Trey's position would be for the remainder of the term, i.e., one year. The SW/SC position that I now fill (which I think has had the immediate universe hold it at one time or another this year) is for two years. To do otherwise would leave the SW/SC region without the staggering of terms. piglet (megan zurawicz) ICQ: 18429839 genealogy-- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~piglet quilting-- http://pages.prodigy.net/mspiglet theatre-- http://members.aol.com/tupacratz/poohpix.htm -----Original Message----- From: Pam Reid To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sunday, 06 June, 1999 23:23 Subject: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page >I have uploaded an Elections page to the National Site. Please check it >out and let me know if you think anything needs to be added or changed. >I am still a bit confused on the durations of the positions being >elected. I know that NC is supposed to be a one year term, and the >others 2 year terms. But, what about Trey's position in his region. He >still has a year left on his term, so are we election a person to fill >out his term, or are we electing this position for 2 years? > >Thanks! > >Oh, the URL is http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html > >It is linked from the main page. I told Ginger I would upload it and >give you all a chance to look at it before it went public. But, I am so >late getting this up that I decided to go for broke! >-- >Pam Reid in Virginia > >mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com >LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) >Branches and Roots >http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid >Tombstone Transcription Project >http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery >Gloucester County VAGenWeb >http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html > > ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA21855 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:44:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10799; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 03:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 03:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <375BA212.E2E2C33C@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:42:27 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page References: <375A9B4F.2A99759F@idt.net> <375AB5B3.5AE64B5D@dc.jones.com> <375B4810.CFCFAA04@dc.jones.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/599 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 831ba05e4ff2451ce7a254fdf55a386a Trey's position would be to fill the remainder of his term [thus, one year]. Indirectly, this was addressed in Motion 99-15E. Also, there was a suggestion that we place the date, such as "Term ending August 2000" or whenever, etc by each position. I think that would be handy and serve the purpose. Sincerely, Bill -- ============================> Pam Reid wrote: > I have uploaded an Elections page to the National Site. Please check it > out and let me know if you think anything needs to be added or changed. > I am still a bit confused on the durations of the positions being > elected. I know that NC is supposed to be a one year term, and the > others 2 year terms. But, what about Trey's position in his region. He > still has a year left on his term, so are we election a person to fill > out his term, or are we electing this position for 2 years? > > Thanks! > > Oh, the URL is http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html > > It is linked from the main page. I told Ginger I would upload it and > give you all a chance to look at it before it went public. But, I am so > late getting this up that I decided to go for broke! > -- > Pam Reid in Virginia > > mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com > LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) > Branches and Roots > http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid > Tombstone Transcription Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery > Gloucester County VAGenWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01BF7EC6.078A6D00-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:58:03 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA17498 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:03 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28605 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA21870; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:57:28 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00d001bf7ef8$eb092ee0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:56:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28811 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:08:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24662; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <375BEDCA.4DE8038A@dc.jones.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:05:30 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page References: <375A9B4F.2A99759F@idt.net> <375AB5B3.5AE64B5D@dc.jones.com> <375B4810.CFCFAA04@dc.jones.com> <375BA212.E2E2C33C@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/602 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 35354aa116703155966b4fe69eeb19e3 That was why I was asking. I was just a bit confused and wanted to make sure the Election Central has the correct info!!!!! Hopefully we can get through this without any additional egg dripping down our faces . Bill Oliver wrote: > Trey's position would be to fill the remainder of his term [thus, one > year]. Indirectly, this was addressed in Motion 99-15E. Also, there was a > suggestion that we place the date, such as "Term ending August 2000" or > whenever, etc by each position. I think that would be handy and serve the > purpose. > > Sincerely, > > Bill > -- > ============================> > > Pam Reid wrote: > > > I have uploaded an Elections page to the National Site. Please check it > > out and let me know if you think anything needs to be added or changed. > > I am still a bit confused on the durations of the positions being > > elected. I know that NC is supposed to be a one year term, and the > > others 2 year terms. But, what about Trey's position in his region. He > > still has a year left on his term, so are we election a person to fill > > out his term, or are we electing this position for 2 years? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Oh, the URL is http://www.usgenweb.org/elections/election-central.html > > > > It is linked from the main page. I told Ginger I would upload it and > > give you all a chance to look at it before it went public. But, I am so > > late getting this up that I decided to go for broke! > > -- > > Pam Reid in Virginia > > > > mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com > > LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) > > Branches and Roots > > http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid > > Tombstone Transcription Project > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery > > Gloucester County VAGenWeb > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06006 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:33:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06037; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:33:24 -0700 (PDT) From: FEATHER2s@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:28:08 EDT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Elections Page Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 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/605 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 051be93b2e71d43a295562fce1f7fc43 pamreid@dc.jones.com writes: > So, just to make sure I am clear, the NC position is one year, all of > the others are two, except for Southwest/South Central where one CC > position will be for one year to complete Trey's term???? Sounds right to me and the page looks fine, even on a bigger monitor... Ginger ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA03216 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:22:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07820; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770DE02.F56CDE27@idt.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:15:46 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb References: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> <3770DA6A.7A576654@dc.jones.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/818 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: cede61845ac2683e5fa09df739d665ef No, that was IL. Pam Reid wrote: > > The Indiana issue has been a bit confused. I thought that they were > proposing a By Laws amendment and looking for additional state support > so that it could be added to the ballot. Are they now saying that, > because IN passed this amendment, that it applies to IN? > > -- > Pam Reid in Virginia > > mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com > LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) > Branches and Roots > http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid > Tombstone Transcription Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery > Gloucester County VAGenWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15533 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:09:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21948; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990623094915.03e46100@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:49:15 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb Old-Cc: jpowelljr In-Reply-To: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> 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/820 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 45a8adbf7c1f44fbd21c3147873e05f4 At 07:05 AM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote: >Has anyone been following the INGenWeb going's on? From what I gather from the >KY list, they moved from RW, which is their prerogative, but apparently, they >are kicking out our USGenWeb members because they are using Rootsweb. I don't >think that can be tolerated. > Yvonne - the piece you sent was rather hard to follow - as to who was saying what except in chat. In a review of the INGenWeb page this AM reveals 53 counties on Rootsweb out of 92 total counties. IF, this is the new policy of INGenWeb as indicated from your post - that is over half the state! In talking with one IN volunteer Tom Agan aka TwoBees he indicated a few days ago that the Indiana project had backed down from requiring the CCs to move away from Rootsweb or be delinked. However, in the spirit of volunteerism, I think the Project should allow any volunteer the right to store their site wherever they wish. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22962 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19840; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906231432.HAA96688@jubjub.wizard.com> From: "Bridgett Smith" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:32:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Resent-Message-ID: <5uvl2C.A.y1E.w_Oc3@bl-11.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/821 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9640fd29cdbc0f160169d37edfdcafa0 On 23 Jun 99, at 7:05, Yvonne James-Henderson wrote: > Has anyone been following the INGenWeb going's on? From what I gather from > the KY list, they moved from RW, which is their prerogative, but > apparently, they are kicking out our USGenWeb members because they are > using Rootsweb. I don't think that can be tolerated. > I had heard about it and had gone to the State page (which is loaded with Java ::sigh::) and one of the TNGenWeb's cc's is also a host there. His site was still located on RW. This was sometime last week. I just went to INGenWeb and his page is still linked up through Rootsweb, and it isn't a redirect page like I've seen on others that have the RW addy. It's the actual page. I have not contacted this host regarding this, as I didn't want to cause a stir in someone else's State Project. If he doesn't know about the edict, then he can sit there fat, dumb and happy Sort of a left turn here. Has anyone been to the Vance Co NCGenWeb page lately? http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncvance/ At one time it carried the hosts names, there were two. Now it carries no names, If you scroll down a bit, you will find very political statements being made. I won't say what, lately my judgement isn't the best but this is my opinion, I'll let you decide. Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA23119 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:32:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20066; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770EE62.3C7FEFD1@idt.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:25:38 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb References: <3.0.5.32.19990623094915.03e46100@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <-tF5dD.A.U5E.SAPc3@bl-11.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/822 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 83cb08f7326a138ee25ee862776f8c18 Wonderful! I was just passing on what was sent to me. > In talking with one IN volunteer Tom Agan aka TwoBees he indicated a few> days ago that the Indiana project had backed down from requiring the CCs to> move away from Rootsweb or be delinked. > > However, in the spirit of volunteerism, I think the Project should allow> any volunteer the right to store their site wherever they wish. > > Tim ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BF7EC6.A06EBEE0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 13:58:46 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 NAA17549 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:45 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28734 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22434; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:58:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00db01bf7ef9$14ce8ae0$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:58:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24748 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:38:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24517; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770EF97.646AA773@idt.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:30:47 -0400 From: Yvonne James-Henderson Organization: Visit Daisy's Roots! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/1daisy.htm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb References: <199906231432.HAA96688@jubjub.wizard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/823 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 678df5540161a69e33b096330e112052 That used to be my page until Sandy adopted it. Bridgett Smith wrote: > > On 23 Jun 99, at 7:05, Yvonne James-Henderson wrote: > > > Has anyone been following the INGenWeb going's on? From what I gather from > > the KY list, they moved from RW, which is their prerogative, but > > apparently, they are kicking out our USGenWeb members because they are > > using Rootsweb. I don't think that can be tolerated. > > > > I had heard about it and had gone to the State page (which is loaded > with Java ::sigh::) and one of the TNGenWeb's cc's is also a host > there. His site was still located on RW. This was sometime last week. > > I just went to INGenWeb and his page is still linked up through > Rootsweb, and it isn't a redirect page like I've seen on others that > have the RW addy. It's the actual page. > > I have not contacted this host regarding this, as I didn't want to > cause a stir in someone else's State Project. If he doesn't know > about the edict, then he can sit there fat, dumb and happy > > Sort of a left turn here. Has anyone been to the Vance Co NCGenWeb > page lately? http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncvance/ > > At one time it carried the hosts names, there were two. Now it > carries no names, If you scroll down a bit, you will find very > political statements being made. I won't say what, lately my > judgement isn't the best but this is my opinion, I'll let you decide. > > Bridgett ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (7).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (7).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA06150 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:11:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03539; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770F79A.7445C4C3@dc.jones.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:04:58 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb References: <199906231432.HAA96688@jubjub.wizard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/825 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 65bf0cc2bf8369c4c4fa86f7ccb52872 SO, let me rephrase my question. Since IN passed the amendments, are they trying to say that this amendment now applies to INGenWeb? That is most certainly a blatant disregard for the By Laws, since the only support they currently have is the fact that they passed the amendment. The remainder of the process to amend the By Laws require that they get support from 5 other states for this amendment to go on the ballot. >From what I have read, it appears that they are trying to enforce this amendment now. Am I correct in this? -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (8).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb (8).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA11472 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:10:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01543; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990623130619.008153f0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:06:19 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb Old-Cc: jpowelljr In-Reply-To: <199906231432.HAA96688@jubjub.wizard.com> References: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <69JJiC.A.fX.pSRc3@bl-11.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/826 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: d102690ccb8be286def4092c1f2e5b3c At 07:32 AM 6/23/99 -0700, Bridgett wrote: >Sort of a left turn here. Has anyone been to the Vance Co NCGenWeb >page lately? http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncvance/ > >At one time it carried the hosts names, there were two. Now it >carries no names, If you scroll down a bit, you will find very >political statements being made. I won't say what, lately my >judgement isn't the best but this is my opinion, I'll let you decide. If I'm not mistaken I believe this is the North Carolina County that was taken over by either a Gen Soc or a History Soc. This site - appears to be a front for the AHLN network and does not meet the minimum requirements for a page because I found no queries on the site. Tim ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb.eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA28946 [xxxxxxx] Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:06:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12170; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3770DA6A.7A576654@dc.jones.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:00:26 -0400 From: Pam Reid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] INGenWeb References: <3770BF84.69DB92D9@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/817 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 4b91f0d5134144972be5d51b01d6122f The Indiana issue has been a bit confused. I thought that they were proposing a By Laws amendment and looking for additional state support so that it could be added to the ballot. Are they now saying that, because IN passed this amendment, that it applies to IN? -- Pam Reid in Virginia mailto:pamreid@dc.jones.com LISTOWNER: HEADEN & THORN(E) Branches and Roots http://www.geocities.com/~pamreid Tombstone Transcription Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~cemetery Gloucester County VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaglouce/glouces.html ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (2).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (2).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA11625 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:28:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07372; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 04:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 04:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376E2160.617AC3A5@slic.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:26:24 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/797 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 83c41fa2d8c264059e369894d3ae5aad I will second David's motion that Jim Powell be named Election Chair. Joe Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > > << Subj: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair > Date: 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time > From: tstowell@mccallie.org (Tim Stowell) > Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair > as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? > > If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say ok or > whatever procedure you'd like to use? > > Tim > >> > Dear Tim: > > It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept Jim' > Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to vote > on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave today > and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. > > Enjoy, > > David C Young (NE/NC) -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (3).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (3).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA18916 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:32:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23711; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:29:21 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair In-Reply-To: <376E2160.617AC3A5@slic.com> References: 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/798 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 281682201c96899cff6a4e53cd5d1fa4 Now that a motion has been made and seconded to make Jim Powell, Election Chair - is there any discussion? Bill what is the number of this Motion 99-18E? Tim At 07:26 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >I will second David's motion that Jim Powell be named Election Chair. > >Joe > >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >> >> << Subj: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair >> Date: 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time >> From: tstowell@mccallie.org (Tim Stowell) >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair >> as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? >> >> If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say ok or >> whatever procedure you'd like to use? >> >> Tim >> >> >> Dear Tim: >> >> It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept Jim' >> Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to vote >> on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave today >> and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. >> >> Enjoy, >> >> David C Young (NE/NC) > >-- >email:jzsed@slic.com >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > > ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_01BF7EC6.CA341AE0-- [xxxxxxx] Thu Feb 24 14:10:42 2000 [xxxxxxx] 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 OAA18658 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:10:42 -0500 (EST) [xxxxxxx] ([xxxxxxx]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00873 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (nei-pm1-027.inetnebr.com [206.222.223.71]) [xxxxxxx] (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28676; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:10:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00e601bf7efa$b1cd2a80$47dfdece@default> [xxxxxxx] To: "merope" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:09:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (4).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (4).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA22282 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:26:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27625; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990621172213.03f1ba60@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:22:13 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair Old-Cc: jpowelljr In-Reply-To: <376EA321.18CF526F@worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> 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/804 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 81d1a8ec02373fefe8172499711f0652 99-18 on Board-L is fine but would David still be available to make the motion on Board-L? If not, will someone else make the motion there, and second it? Thanks, Tim At 04:40 PM 6/21/99 -0400, you wrote: >Either you wish. 99-18 if on Bd-L where Jim can monitor it or 99-18E if on >Bd-Exec where he can't. My vote would be for 99-18. > >Bill >-- > >Tim Stowell wrote: > >> Now that a motion has been made and seconded to make Jim Powell, Election >> Chair - is there any discussion? >> >> Bill what is the number of this Motion 99-18E? >> >> Tim >> >> At 07:26 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: >> >I will second David's motion that Jim Powell be named Election Chair. >> > >> >Joe >> > >> >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> In a message dated 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >> >> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: >> >> >> >> << Subj: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair >> >> Date: 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time >> >> From: tstowell@mccallie.org (Tim Stowell) >> >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >> >> >> >> Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair >> >> as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? >> >> >> >> If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say >> ok or >> >> whatever procedure you'd like to use? >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> Dear Tim: >> >> >> >> It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept >> Jim' >> >> Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to >> vote >> >> on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave >> today >> >> and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. >> >> >> >> Enjoy, >> >> >> >> David C Young (NE/NC) >> > >> >-- >> >email:jzsed@slic.com >> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm >> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm >> >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm >> > >> > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (5).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (5).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11845 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:29:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16675; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376EBC60.BF6C3DA4@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:27:45 -0400 From: Bill Oliver Organization: NeGenWeb/USGenWeb Projects/OHGenWeb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair References: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/806 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c441584290a2ba934728abb86c5f66d6 If I announce it on Board-L as having been made and seconded, would that be OK with the group? Bill -- ==============================> Tim Stowell wrote: > Now that a motion has been made and seconded to make Jim Powell, Election > Chair - is there any discussion? > > Bill what is the number of this Motion 99-18E? > > Tim > > At 07:26 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > >I will second David's motion that Jim Powell be named Election Chair. > > > >Joe > > > >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > >> > >> In a message dated 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > >> > >> << Subj: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair > >> Date: 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time > >> From: tstowell@mccallie.org (Tim Stowell) > >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >> > >> Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair > >> as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? > >> > >> If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say > ok or > >> whatever procedure you'd like to use? > >> > >> Tim > >> >> > >> Dear Tim: > >> > >> It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept > Jim' > >> Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to > vote > >> on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave > today > >> and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. > >> > >> Enjoy, > >> > >> David C Young (NE/NC) > > > >-- > >email:jzsed@slic.com > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (6).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair (6).eml" Return-Path: Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) [xxxxxxx] (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA04552 [xxxxxxx] Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:54:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10073; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <376ED011.188880FE@slic.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:51:45 -0400 From: "Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny" Reply-To: jzsed@slic.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair References: <3.0.5.32.19990621102921.008a2cb0@mail.chattanooga.net> <376EBC60.BF6C3DA4@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/807 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e839bd5a1d7b7c18556ae9cdea1001a5 Okay with me! Joe Bill Oliver wrote: > > If I announce it on Board-L as having been made and seconded, would that be OK > with the group? > > Bill > -- > ==============================> > Tim Stowell wrote: > > > Now that a motion has been made and seconded to make Jim Powell, Election > > Chair - is there any discussion? > > > > Bill what is the number of this Motion 99-18E? > > > > Tim > > > > At 07:26 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Garnett J.(Joe) Zsedeny wrote: > > >I will second David's motion that Jim Powell be named Election Chair. > > > > > >Joe > > > > > >Mainegen@aol.com wrote: > > >> > > >> In a message dated 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > >> tstowell@mccallie.org writes: > > >> > > >> << Subj: [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair > > >> Date: 6/21/99 2:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time > > >> From: tstowell@mccallie.org (Tim Stowell) > > >> Reply-to: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >> > > >> Does anyone have any objection if Jim Powell takes over as Election Chair > > >> as he volunteered to be on the Committee several days ago? > > >> > > >> If not, would someone either make a motion to that effect or just say > > ok or > > >> whatever procedure you'd like to use? > > >> > > >> Tim > > >> >> > > >> Dear Tim: > > >> > > >> It is okay with me. If you need a motion I will so move that we accept > > Jim' > > >> Powell's offer to Chair the Election Committee. I might not get back to > > vote > > >> on this motion because I will be on vacation until July 4th. I leave > > today > > >> and I will try to get to a PC from time to time to check my E-mail. > > >> > > >> Enjoy, > > >> > > >> David C Young (NE/NC) > > > > > >-- > > >email:jzsed@slic.com > > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm > > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm > > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm > > > > > > -- email:jzsed@slic.com http://www.rootsweb.com/~jzed/home.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndpembin/pembina.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~ndramsey/ramsey.htm ------=_NextPart_000_00E3_01BF7EC8.6732BA80 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re [Board-Exec-L] Jim as Election Chair.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; fil