----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Bill of Rights Holly: Thanks for your comments and explanations. "A Bill of Rights" or "Member Rights and Responsibilities," should be included in the bylaws. Correct procedures must be taken, so in the final outcome, it will be acceptable and all rules for inclusion were followed correctly. Elva >At 07:59 AM 6/11/2002, Holly Timm wrote: > >And I have said more than you asked for and digressed, my apologies. >Actually, you explained a lot, and I thank you - you are one of the people >I respect the most in this Project, Holly, and your explanations are >relevant and meaningful. > >Carol > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ ==== USGW-BYLAWS Mailing List ==== http://www.rootsweb.com/~censlook/ByLaws/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Re: Bill of Rights At 11:38 AM 6/11/02 -0500, Roger Swafford wrote: >I agree that what is needed is "volunteer rights" or as I suggested "Member >Rights and Responsibilities". I prefer Volunteer Rights and Responsibilities as the word 'member' has gotten into much quibbling about who is or isn't a member and would also extend to the transcribers and lookup volunteers as well. >I disagree, the task is within the scope of our duties because such items >which normally could be included in bylaws but in order to keep bylaws >uncluttered are presented as "adopted rules" in conjunction with bylaws. >Adopted rules are "separate things" which depending on how we structure the >bylaws revision may be; amended, suspended by action of the AB. As you say, adopted rules are separate things, and so should a bill of rights be separate. First, it will need to take into consideration any requirements etc contained in both the Bylaws and the Guidelines. Second, this committee was asked to address the ByLaws, not expending that scope to whatever additional documents it wanted to include. Thirdly, producing such a Bill of Rights is far from a simple task and this committee has more than enough on its hands now. >Would you please elaborate your position? In addition to the comments above, the make up of this committee is insufficient to provide enough of a spectrum of opinion and thoughts on the matter of a volunteer bill of rights. Anyone on this committee would of course be free to volunteer for a bill of rights committee, membership here would not preclude being a part of it. Even should such a committee not come up with a document that passes, the very process of discussion of the issue would bring various thoughts forward and perhaps help many of us understand each other better and by that I refer as well to the project as a whole, not just particular people or positions. ==== USGW-BYLAWS Mailing List ==== http://www.rootsweb.com/~censlook/ByLaws/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Re: QUESTIONS At 12:40 PM 6/11/02 -0400, Kelly Courtney-Blizzard wrote: >I am only seeking the best and most effective way to accomplish this. I >don't mind who does it or where it is done but only want to see it >accomplished. I am game for including it into the by laws as long as >everyone else is. The problem as I see it by not getting AB approval is our >hard work being trashed later on with the claim we were out of bounds. It could very well undermine the Bylaws revisions themselves >Like I said above I asked for guidence from our NC to ensure that any work >we do on the subject will be recognized by the AB when it's completed. Unfortunately, I can not guarantee anything as far as this AB goes. It is not improbable that the Guidelines will be trashed by the AB simply because Teresa is Chair of that committee, certainly it would not surprise me. ==== USGW-BYLAWS Mailing List ==== http://www.rootsweb.com/~censlook/ByLaws/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] Bill of Rights At 11:10 AM 6/11/02 -0400, Kelly Courtney-Blizzard wrote: >Hi Holly, I understand how you feel but let me tell you that for as long as >I have been a member of USGW you are the only NC to have accomplished so >much IMO. Thank you Kelly, it remains to be seen if I have actually accomplished anything . >I see it's hitting the fan over on Board-L so I understand that you need to >redirect your attention for a bit but please consider placing another >committee for a volunteer bill of rights before you leave the NC post. >Would >it be easier or faster if I asked one of the AB members to make a motion? No, it would not be easier and certainly not faster. Even at its speediest, a motion has to be made, seconded, discussed and voted on and that is assuming there are no amendments to be made which would then have to be discussed and voted on as well. Only then could a call for volunteers be made and the committee actually begin to function. I will take a day or two to consider the matter and then proceed. Holly earlier ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Muncrief" To: Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] QUESTIONS I have sat here for months reading some of the most incredibly stupid stuff imaginable. I have just passed it on. There is no end to the bickering and petty garbage. That is MY OPINION and it is as valuable or credible as yours or anybody else's. I don't particularly care if you find in offensive or not. An opinion was asked for!!! Don't ask for it if you don't want it!!! Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Courtney-Blizzard" To: Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] QUESTIONS >Dennis, >I am happy to see your second email since April 8th and hope your >participation continues but I personally take offense to your email to Elva. >We are discussing a valid issue and your criticism and dislike for the BRC >and it's members is not needed. While I do value your opinion and I >understand it to be that you are not interested in writing a bill of rights >you could simply state that opinion without the name calling. > > > > I feel that we are here to discuss what was sent down to us in the >beginning > > of this mess. We cannot re-write the whole constitution, re-invent the > > wheel or re-create mankind or the world. > >We were handed the by laws and told to revise them. This would include the >entire by laws and any related adaptations needed in them. > > > We are here to discuss, propose changes passed down to us, and vote ONLY >on > > those proposed changes. > >We are not to vote on revisions, we are to revise and then the AB will vote >on those revisions. > > >We are not a kangaroo court that lashes out at > > everything that glistens in the sunlight. We have to be cognizant of a >mob > > mentality where the mob creates it own drive rather than the true purpose >of > > the group. > >If the BRC doesn't listen to valid complaints concerning unclear sections of >our by laws that affect the members then who will? I ask this as a serious >question. I would hope that if it were any of us in a situation with a SC >that we would have the by laws to protect us or at the very least offer us >some fair and unshakeable rules to live by. >As for mob mentality, I have only seen a few members comment on the subject, >I wouldn't consider this a mob mentality. I would like to see other members >comment on thier feelings concerning the subject and if it is a majority >opinion that we don't tackle this issue then so be it, we won't. > > > > This bylaws committee has gone off on so many tangents that a Orkin man > > should be called in to spray the whole damn thing. It is like cockroaches > > that scatter when the light is turned on. Maybe it will die a quick death > > for it has served no other purpose than self indulgence and self >promotion. > >Maybe you should consider that you are a part of this committee, the outcome >reflects on you as much as it does the rest of us. When you feel we are >scattering around then why don't you send a polite comment to the rest of us >in hopes of putting things back on course. As far as the BRC dying a quick >death, You have made yourself very clear since the get go on your dislike >for this committee and it's members. I feel that all of us here are trying >to help the project by revising these by laws, we have good intentions and I >hope those intentions will be rewarded by a final approval of the AB. If >your so unhappy here then why stay? > > > > As for me personally, I think that there should be a line of arbitration >for > > problems in any level. I know of many CC's in Oklahoma who have quit over > > tiffs with the SC's that have caused them to quit after years of devoted > > service. But, where is this covered in the initial covenants sent down to > > us? > >If you read the by laws you'll see that there are a few articles that do >pertain to problems such as these and unless they can be elaborated on and >expanded the lines will continue to be unclear. Before you ask me to list >them, I'll name a few. The discrimination section, The greivance section, >the duties of CC's, the AB and SC's sections. All of these sections can be >elaborated on and strengthened. > > > > We cannot keep using the old tripe used by the Supreme Court that elicits > > the phrase "to promote the common good". This very often means the good >of > > the special few. > >Until someone in this projects attempts to tackle major issues then it will >be the same ole mess and nothing will be accomplished. Holly did a great >deed as the NC when she appointed committees and before this there wasn't a >chance in the world to accomplish so much for this project. I don't know if >a bill of rights is within our boundries but I for one won't dismiss the >idea until the AB or NC says so. > >Kelly > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 5:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [USGW-ByLaws] QUESTIONS > > > > > > > Bylaws Committee: > > > > > > This subject is one that should have been addressed, changed and > > > documented long ago. I agree 100% with Carol and Kelly. Guidelines > > effecting > > > all c/c needs to be addressed and documented regardless of which >committee > > it > > > falls within. A bill of rights for the protection of volunteers, should >be > > > implemented within the bylaws. Abuse of power on any level should not be > > > tolerated. Do we, the bylaws committee have the jurisdiction to write >the > > > bill of rights? I don't know. If we do now is the time to discuss and > > vote > > > to protect the rights of every c/c within the organization. > > > > > > Elva