2003 (May through December) At 08:44 PM 5/2/03 -0700, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > At 09:57 PM 5/2/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> I would respectfully like to make a motion that a request for a ballot for the SEMA Rep made by Diane Kelly be honored, due to her being listed as a Co-CC on a NC site. >> >> Jan Cortez > > > It is not up to the AB to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. Eligibility to vote is based on voter lists that are submitted to the EC by the leadership of the State and Special Projects. > > -Isaiah Per the EC guidelines (http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/guidelines.htm, since you have apparently forgotten where they are): "Challenges to a member's eligibility to vote shall in no circumstances be addressed by the EC. The Project Coordinator or XXGenWeb State Coordinator shall address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote in the current election. If they do not, the person shall be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote. If a Local Coordinator continues to challenge the decision of the State Coordinator, then the matter shall be referred to the regional Advisory Board rep. If the Local Coordinator continues to challenge the decision made by the Regional Advisory Board Representative, then the matter shall be referred to the entire AB. The decision of the entire Advisory Board shall be final. However, should the matter fail to be decided before the end of any election or voting issue, the person shall be given the right to vote by default. " The "poll" runs for two more days. Diane should be issued a ballot NOW. You can decide later whether or not her vote should count. -Teresa merope@radix.net ========== Ummm...what "proposed hosting agreement"? -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net On Mon, 5 May 2003, Don Kelly wrote: > Discussion of 03-11.........It occurs to me that future structure of > USGW and the proposed hosting agreement now under discussion, are two > separate issues. > > Separate, but future structure may hang on the hosting agreement. > > So it follows that if the hosting agreement is signed, then need to > discuss the project structure goes away. > > Goes away unless continued as a separate issue, for reasons not > associated with the hosting agreement. > > So is this a separate issue that will end when the hosting agreement is > signed? > > Or will it continue for other motives? > > Don Kelly > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:32 AM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Amendment to Motion 03-11 > > > > It has been moved by Phyllis and seconded by Tim that Motion 03-11 be > > amended to read as follows: > > > > I move that the State Coordinators and AB members use the State > > Coordinator's list for the purpose of discussing the future of the > USGenWeb > > Project. > > > > The only item for discussion will be whether to continue the > organizational > > structure of the Project in its current form, a revised form, or to > disband > > the National level. > > > > The discussion is to be limited to a two-week period, unless the NC > calls > > for an extension of up to, but no longer than, an additional two > weeks. > > > > At the end of this discussion, the pros and cons for change or > maintaining > > the status quo will be presented to the general membership and the NC > shall > > instruct the Elections Committee to conduct a vote of the general > membership > > in regard to this issue. > > ------- > > The amendment is open for discussion. > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's > consent." > > Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) > > ========== What the hell prompted this? -Teresa > X-Sender: IsaiahH@pop.west.cox.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 01:10:28 -0700 > To: "Lindquist, Teresa" > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > Subject: Diane Kelly and Daryl Lytton > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.589152, version=0.10.2 > > The names of Diane Kelly and Daryl Lytton are not to be mentioned or referred to on Board-L. Any messages you send to be forwarded to Board-L that contain their names will not be posted. > > > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project ============ Hi guys, Yesterday, I sent the following message to Board-L. Our Esteemed National Coordinator has seen fit not to forward it to you all. Nor has Mr. Kelly chosen to respond to private inquiries. Since it is clear that King Richard only forwards mail to the Board list when it suits him, I am now taking the liberty of forwarding it to you individually. I ask for an answer. What "proposed hosting agreement"? -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net > X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3565136-276-1052165168-merope=radix.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com > X-eGroups-Return: merope@Radix.Net > X-Sender: merope@Radix.Net > X-Apparently-To: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com > To: Don Kelly > Cc: BOARD-L , > Daily Board Show > From: merope > X-Yahoo-Profile: merope3 > X-eGroups-Approved-By: merope3 via web; 05 May 2003 20:04:58 -0000 > Mailing-List: list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com; contact dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com > Delivered-To: mailing list dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com > List-Unsubscribe: > Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:03:54 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: [DBS] Re: [BOARD-L] Amendment to Motion 03-11 > Reply-To: dailyboardshow-owner@yahoogroups.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.597560, version=0.10.2 > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > > Ummm...what "proposed hosting agreement"? > > -Teresa Lindquist > merope@radix.net > > > On Mon, 5 May 2003, Don Kelly wrote: > > > Discussion of 03-11.........It occurs to me that future structure of > > USGW and the proposed hosting agreement now under discussion, are two > > separate issues. > > > > Separate, but future structure may hang on the hosting agreement. > > > > So it follows that if the hosting agreement is signed, then need to > > discuss the project structure goes away. > > > > Goes away unless continued as a separate issue, for reasons not > > associated with the hosting agreement. > > > > So is this a separate issue that will end when the hosting agreement is > > signed? > > > > Or will it continue for other motives? > > > > Don Kelly > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:32 AM > > Subject: [BOARD-L] Amendment to Motion 03-11 > > > > > > > It has been moved by Phyllis and seconded by Tim that Motion 03-11 be > > > amended to read as follows: > > > > > > I move that the State Coordinators and AB members use the State > > > Coordinator's list for the purpose of discussing the future of the > > USGenWeb > > > Project. > > > > > > The only item for discussion will be whether to continue the > > organizational > > > structure of the Project in its current form, a revised form, or to > > disband > > > the National level. > > > > > > The discussion is to be limited to a two-week period, unless the NC > > calls > > > for an extension of up to, but no longer than, an additional two > > weeks. > > > > > > At the end of this discussion, the pros and cons for change or > > maintaining > > > the status quo will be presented to the general membership and the NC > > shall > > > instruct the Elections Committee to conduct a vote of the general > > membership > > > in regard to this issue. > > > ------- > > > The amendment is open for discussion. > > > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > > > "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's > > consent." > > > Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) > > > ========== -----Original Message----- From: Derick S. Hartshorn [mailto:derickh@charter.net] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:40 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] Resignation Effective immediately, I am resigning my position as NCGenWeb State Coordinator. Please remove my name from appropriate state and national lists and any commitee assignments I may hold. I will remain CC for Catawba and Burke Co. NCGWP sites. Wishing you all well, Derick S. Hartshorn, III =========== You notice that the "terms of the agreement" are not provided to the project. I am sure they will be forthcoming in a follow-up email. And then pigs will fly. -Teresa merope@radix.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 11:23:12 -0700 From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" Reply-To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGW-Discuss] Re: Hosting Agreement Communication Resent-Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:23:20 -0600 Resent-From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com I am very happy to announce I have signed a Hosting Agreement with Rootsweb.com for our National website. Over the past few months, the Advisory Board and I have been working extensively with Tera Phomsopha, a RootsWeb.com Account Manager, to establish a legally binding agreement for the hosting of The USGenWeb Project national organization home page. The AB has endeavored to examine every aspect of the agreement, two attorneys volunteered their time to advise us, and RootsWeb.com has worked with the AB to formulate an agreement that is fair and beneficial to both parties. This confidential agreement was completed to make official, and lay out in writing, the verbal arrangements that had previously been made between the two organizations. The contract applies only to the National website, and will not affect any functionality of the website or organization. The contract does not apply to XXGenWeb sites, to Special Projects or to County pages. Recently, there has been some discussion among some USGenWeb members regarding these contract negotiations. While the sense that "something was going on" was correct, much of what has been said exists only in the imaginations of the authors. Please realize that I was unable to publicly inform you of the negotiations prior to now for legal purposes. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks to all those who made the effort to raise questions, massage language and explain fine points during this effort. I believe we can all look forward to a continuing positive relationship with RootsWeb.com. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project (Please forward to all appropriate lists.) ========== > Resent-Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:11:46 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: IsaiahH@cox.net Tue May 6 16:11:46 2003 > X-Sender: IsaiahH@pop.west.cox.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:11:43 -0700 > Old-To: USGenWeb-Discuss > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists2.rootsweb.com id h46MBkli027823 > Subject: [USGW-Discuss] The Hosting Agreement > To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1698 > X-Loop: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.607833, version=0.10.2 > > I have received a number of requests for additional information regarding the Hosting Agreement with RoosWeb.com: "When will it be posted for us to read?" "Does Rootsweb own our data now?" "Is it the same one the Archives signed?' "Which AB members voted for or against it?" > > The Hosting Agreement is confidential. It will not be publicly posted > > It's certainly not unusual for businesses to consider the details of contracts and > negotiations as proprietary information and part of what we agreed to was not to disclose. RootsWeb.com and MyFamily.com sign many different agreements with many different organizations for many different purposes. They figure it is in their best interest not to have people comparing apples and oranges. > > The Hosting Agreement affects only our use of the web space given to us by RootsWeb for our National website. > > It doesn't affect ownership of our trademark or our domain namesThe Project still owns them. It doesn't affect copyrightsubmitters still own their data. And I have no idea whether or not the Archives have signed the same or a different agreement. > > The AB did not vote on the Hosting Agreement. > > The AB read the agreement, discusses it, argued about it and suggested changes to it. Considering all their input and advice, I signed the Agreement as National Coordinator. > > I am happy to answer any other questions you may have, but I will not violate the confidentiality of the agreement. > > -Isaiah =========== This floated into my inbox today...it is eloquent and I imagine its the start of the flood. -Teresa > First Richard, my name is not Don, as you are well aware. If you are going to respond to me at least have the courtesy > to respond to me using my own name and not that of someone else. > > Second, let me make it quite plain that I am not a RootsWeb/Ancestry/MyFamily hater or basher. I have always been very > grateful to RootsWeb for the space they have given us, and the tools they provide us if we choose to use them. > > Having said that, I would like to know just who in the hell you and the board think you are taking it upon yourselves, > without telling the CCs, and without allowing discussion among the CCs, to make this kind of decision? You had > absolutely no right to do this without consulting us. And further to make it a hidden and confidential agreement? > Shame on you all... everyone of you!!! > > I hope that everyone... read this to mean every CC, ACC, State Coordinator, and Asst. State Coordinator... remembers > this when it comes time for the next election and boots every damn one of you out of office. If you have a year left on > your term I hope someone in your states/regions asks for a recall vote. This is absolutely disgraceful and I find it > shameful to think that we all put our trust in all of you and you all forgot who you were representing. You are NOT > USGenWeb... we are USGenWeb. Rest assured that when campaigning starts in a couple of months I will be sure to remind > everyone of your treachery. Am I mad? You're damn right I'm mad!!! ============ They have plans for us. -Teresa > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 1:56 AM > Subject: [Board-Exec] RootsWeb Hosting Agreement > > > I have been contacted by Tera Phomsopha, account manager for all > RootsWeb.com hosted sites, regarding a Hosting Agreement they would like to > enter into with The USGenWeb Project. This agreement will only effect the > National project and its pages and lists at RootsWeb. They will eventually > be contracting separately with the State and Special Project coordinators, > but before they do this, they first want to conclude the agreement with The > USGenWeb Project. > > I have had the agreement reviewed by an attorney and as a result of that > Sections 1.3 and 1.4 were rewritten to clarify ownership and Sections 5.2 > and 7.1 were rewritten to make them reciprocal. > > The attorney also raised questions regarding section 3.4 and I have > arranged for an insurance quote in case we want to pursue that possibility. > > Some of you may have questions regarding various aspects of the agreement > and if you will post them here, I will forward them to Tera. > > A copy of the agreement in Microsoft Word is being sent to you in a > separate email. I'll remind you that the agreement is confidential and it's > contents should not be shared outside this list. > > -Isaiah ========== Guys, It gets worse... There was no Board vote on this issue because the Board had no choice. It was either sign the agreement or take the National pages elsewhere. The same "deal" will be offered to the state organizations. I've been told something else too, but have no way to verify it... "When RW merged with Ancestry and allowed all of GenWeb to post data it was on a five year plan. At the end of the 5 years, Ancestry will take over all the data because they really do own the data for distribution purposes." How long has it been since RW and Ancestry merged? Three years? -Teresa merope@radix.net =========== At 07:07 PM 5/6/03 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > Evening Richard. I think you can answer a couple of > questions without breaking any type of confidentiality > agreement. > > 1 - Does the agreement to host the Main Page include a term > limit? It terminates in one year from its effective date. > 2 - And, if the membership at large votes to move the main > page from Rootsweb can that be done under this agreement? We can't do anything that will alter traffic to the site without MyFamily's prior permission. -Teresa merope@radix.net Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project ============ First I get this message... > Resent-Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:26:19 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Tue May 6 19:26:19 2003 > From: "Tina S Vickery" > Old-To: > Subject: Re: [USGW-Discuss] The Hosting Agreement > Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:22:00 -0400 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1710 > X-Loop: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.651692, version=0.10.2 > > If it continues, both Teresa and Kelly will be moderated for one week. > Period end of story. > > Tina > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:12 PM > Subject: Re: [USGW-Discuss] The Hosting Agreement > > > > Teresa, > > You wrote to me earlier and said you did not know the details. Is this new > to > > you and can you enlighten us some more? > > > > Kelly ========== And then within seconds I get this... Do you get the impression they REALLY don't want you knowing what is in that agreement? What do you suppose the consequences will be if the agreement is made public? Someone is running scared. -Teresa > Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:29:57 -0600 > To: merope@radix.net > Subject: Re: unsubscribe merope@radix.net > X-Loop: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.682403, version=0.10.2 > > 32760 merope@radix.net > merope@radix.net > > You have been removed from the list. > > If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself > unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic > purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). > > Transcript of unsubscription request follows: > -- > >From merope@radix.net > >From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Reply-To: merope@radix.net > >To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L-request@rootsweb.com > >Subject: unsubscribe merope@radix.net ========== Tina's reason for booting me from the list. She's a silly girl. -Teresa ------------- From: "Tina S Vickery" Subject: Re: [USGW-Discuss] The Hosting Agreement Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 22:16:10 -0400 References: <<35.3793be20.2be9b778@aol.com>> <<00da01c31437$1470cf00$eeca3718@agstme.adelphia.net>> <<01c701c3143c$5a332380$0300a8c0@3ComC>> I know I did this against my own rules set up for this list. I will not allow under any circumstances the terms of the agreement announced today to be broadcast here on this list. Richard has been very forthcoming in answers to your questions and that should suffice. You all can think of me what you wish. This agreement was entered into with much good faith, and as Richard stated, and I echo, "I believe we can all look forward to a continuing positive relationship with RootsWeb.com." Tina Vickery ========= ROOTSWEB GRANT AND HOSTING AGREEMENT This RootsWeb Grant and Hosting Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of ______________ (the "Effective Date"), by and between Myfamily.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation and parent company of RootsWeb.com, with headquarters at 360 W. 4800 N., Provo, UT 84604 (RootsWeb) and the following individual or organization (Grantee): Organization Name: Contact Name: Address: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: URL: Whereas, RootsWeb provides free hosting services for websites that contributes in meaningful ways to the success of family historians and genealogists. Whereas Grantee owns such a website, currently located at ____________________________. Whereas RootsWeb and Grantee desire to enter this Agreement in order for Grantee to continue its family history and genealogy efforts on the ________________________________ website (the Grantee Site) and to promote the sponsorship of the site by RootsWeb.com. Therefore, RootsWeb and Grantee agree as follows: 1. WEBSITE HOSTING AND MANAGEMENT 1.1 RootsWeb Obligations. RootsWeb is responsible for: · Grantee Site hosting, serving, maintenance, and backup · Performance monitoring and load balancing · Escalation reporting of problems 1.2 Grantee Obligations. Grantee is responsible for: · The design and content of the Grantee Site · Graphic or creative consultants hired by Grantee · Design and operation of the Grantee Site to ensure compatibility with RootsWeb.com · Operations and logistics of the Grantee Site · Direct interaction with end users of the Grantee Site 1.3 Grantee Site. Grantee will have final authority over the quality, character, content and other aspects of the Grantee Site. Grantee will also have final authority over the legal terms and conditions governing use of that site, transaction of business (if any) through the site, privacy policies, intellectual property notices (so long as the notices adequately protect the rights of both parties), and other legal features thereof. Grantee and RootsWeb will share all web traffic counting for the Grantee Site. 1.4 RootsWeb Site. RootsWeb will have sole authority over all aspects of the RootsWeb site, currently located at www.rootsweb.com. All web traffic for the RootsWeb Site will be credited to RootsWeb. 1.5 Account Management. Grantee and MyFamily each will designate one or more coordinators (each an "Account Manager", who may be changed from time to time by notice to the other party) who are sufficiently experienced to provide the information and support necessary to the other party for the implementation and performance of this Agreement. 1.6 Changes to the Website. Grantee may make changes and updates to the Grantee Site without written permission from RootsWeb, as long as such changes will not substantially alter the amount of traffic to the Grantee Site. If Grantee desires to make changes to the Grantee Site that, in Grantees reasonable opinion, will substantially alter the amount of traffic to the Grantee Site, Grantee must first provide a written change notice to RootsWeb and such notice must be signed by both Account Managers prior to the change. To be effective, the change notice must specify the changes to the Grantee Site, and the estimated traffic increase, if any, resulting from the change. 1.7 Promotion & Sponsorship. The Grantee Site home page, will prominently display the "Sponsored by RootsWeb" logo, including a link to the "Sponsored by RootsWeb" landing page (the Landing Page). The footer of each page on the Grantee Site will display a link stating This site hosted by RootsWeb or other similar wording as instructed by the RootsWeb Account Manager. RootsWeb.com will link to the Grantee Site from the RootsWeb.com main page as well as the Landing Page. 1.8 Support. Grantee will be responsible for providing support to end users of the Grantee Site as well as all other communications with end users. RootsWeb will provide 24/7 telephone support to Grantee via the MyFamily.com Network Operations Center. 1.9 Hosting. RootsWeb will be responsible for hosting the Grantee Site and will establish performance, maintenance, backup, security, and availability standards for the Website that are no less stringent than the standards RootsWeb has established for the operation of RootsWeb.com. RootsWeb reserves the right to take the Grantee Site offline at anytime in RootsWebs reasonable discretion. 1.10 Reporting. Grantee will provide access to the Grantee Site to allow RootsWeb to generate reports relating to the Grantee Site, including but not limited to page views, unique visitors, bandwidth used, etc. 2. OWNERSHIP & LICENSES 2.1 Ownership. Each party owns and will be deemed to own and retain all right, title and interest in any of its existing intellectual property, including all renewals and extensions thereof. 2.2 Non-Exclusive License. Each party grants the other a non-exclusive right and license, during the term of this Agreement, to use certain names, marks and logos of the other party. Specific names, marks and logos shall be mutually agreed upon between the Account Managers. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason each partys non-exclusive license shall terminate and the parties will have the mutual obligation of removing the names, marks and logos of the other party from their respective websites within sixty (60) days from the Termination Date. 3. INDEMNIFICATION 3.1. Grantee Warranty. Grantee warrants that the contents of the Grantee Site do not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. Grantee further warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder. 3.2 RootsWeb Warranty. RootsWeb warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder and that by doing so RootsWeb will not breach any obligations it has with a third party. 3.3. Warranty Limitation. THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE EXCLUSIVE AND THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 3.4. Indemnification. Each party (the Indemnitor) will, up to a maximum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), defend against all suits, claims, or other actions, and indemnify and hold harmless the other party (the Indemnitee) from any damages and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, payable to a third party by the Indemnitee resulting from a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or from a settlement approved by the Indemnitor, arising out of any claim by a third party relating to a breach of the warranties as provided above. The Indemnitee will give the Indemnitor prompt written notice of the claims and tender to the Indemnitor the defense and all related settlement negotiations. The Indemnitee may participate in all defense and settlement negotiations at its expense. The Indemnitee will cooperate in the defense of the claims in all reasonable respects. 4. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND NON-COMPETITION 4.1. Confidential Information. During the term of the Agreement (the Term), certain information that is considered proprietary or confidential may be disclosed by or exchanged between the parties. The term Confidential Information means all information disclosed by one party to the other in accordance with the following procedure: When disclosed in writing, Confidential Information must be labeled as being confidential; and when disclosed orally, Confidential Information must be identified as confidential at the time of disclosure, with subsequent confirmation to the other party in writing within thirty (30) days after disclosure, identifying the date and type of information disclosed. During the Term and for a period of two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement, each party will hold in confidence the other's Confidential Information and must not, without the prior written consent of the other party, disclose the information to any person except its own employees having a need to know. These obligations will not apply to any Confidential Information that (i) is generally available to the public before its disclosure under this Agreement, (ii) becomes generally available to the public without default by either party under this Agreement, (iii) is lawfully in the possession of one party in written or other recorded form before the time of disclosure by the other party, (iv) is lawfully acquired by one party from a source that is not under obligation to the other party regarding disclosure of the information; or (v) is disclosed by one party with permission of the other party to any third party on a non-confidential basis, or (vi) is disclosed under operation of law. 4.2. The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement are Confidential Information as defined above. 4.3. Non-competition. For the Term of this Agreement, Grantee will not receive sponsorship from or be affiliated with any MyFamily.com, Inc. competitor as set forth in Exhibit A. Such Exhibit may be updated by the RootsWeb Account Manager from time to time. Grantee may, however, include a text link to any competitor listed in Exhibit A. A violation of this section shall be deemed a material breach and RootsWeb will have the right to immediately terminate the Agreement. 5. TERMINATION 5.1 Term. The Term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Date and will end one (1) year after the Effective Date unless earlier terminated as provided below, or as provided elsewhere in this Agreement (the Termination Date). 5.2 Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for convenience by providing thirty (30) days written or email notice to the other party. In addition, either party may terminate this Agreement if the other party materially breaches its obligations hereunder and the breach remains substantially uncured for thirty (30) days following written notice to the breaching party of the breach. At RootsWebs discretion, the Grantee Site may be taken offline during the breach resolution period. 6. PUBLICITY AND ATTRIBUTION 6.1 Use of Marks in Marketing. Each party may use certain trademarks, logos and icons that are owned by the other party (the trademarks, logos and icons that may be used by the parties to promote the Grantee Site and the RootsWeb.com website will be described in a separate list to be agreed to by the parties, and will be collectively referred to as the "Marks"). The parties will not use the Marks in any way that might result in confusion as to Grantee and RootsWeb being separate and distinct legal entities. 6.2 Ownership of Marks. Each party acknowledges the other partys exclusive ownership of their respective Marks, whether or not the Marks are registered. No party will take any action inconsistent with the other parties ownership of the Marks. No party will adopt or use any trademark or product name that is likely to be confusingly similar to any other partys Marks. 6.3 Approval of Use of Marks. Any use by one party of another partys Marks will be subject to the prior, written approval of the party owning the Marks. 6.4 Marks Guidelines. Each partys use of another partys Marks will comply with the written guidelines provided by the other party from time to time. If at any time any party determines that another partys use of the Marks does not follow its guidelines, it will notify the other party and that party will promptly revise its use of the Marks to so conform with the written guidelines within a mutually agreed to time period. 6.5 Rights in Marks. Nothing in this Agreement will give any party any ownership interest in any Marks owned by another party. Each party agrees that it will not at any time during or after this Agreement assert or claim any interest in, or do anything which may adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Marks owned by another party. 6.6 Publicity. Neither party will issue any press release or make any public announcement concerning this Agreement or otherwise disclose the existence of this Agreement without the other party's prior written consent. 7. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Assignment. This Agreement and the rights and obligations hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by either party (the Assigning Party). In the event such assignment is to a competitor of the non-assigning party (Non-assigning Party), the Non-assigning Party may immediately terminate this Agreement by providing the Assigning Party with written notice. 7.2 Relationship of the Parties. Nothing stated in this Agreement will be deemed to create the relationship of partners, joint ventures, employer-employee, master-servant, or franchisor-franchisee between the parties hereto. 7.3 Force Majeure. Neither party will be responsible for delays or failure of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party. 7.4 Notices. Any notice hereunder will be deemed to have been given and received when personally delivered in writing, one (1) business day after being sent via overnight express courier, confirmed facsimile or to a valid email address, or three (3) business days after it has been deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage pre-paid. The named contact for each party is: For Grantee: __________________ __________________ __________________ For RootsWeb: __________________ __________________ __________________ 7.5 Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the state of Utah, without regard to the conflicts of law rules thereof or of any other State. Any action arising under this Agreement will be brought in a state or federal court situated within the state of Utah, and the parties hereby irrevocably submit themselves to the jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose. 7.6 Reformation. Should any provision or part of any provision of this Agreement be void or unenforceable, the provision or part thereof, will be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable, it being the intention of the parties that each and every term of this Agreement be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law. 7.7 Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DAMAGE. 7.8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the Exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all prior agreements. No provisions in either party's purchase orders, or in any other business forms employed by either party, will supersede the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and no supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement will be binding, unless executed in writing by both parties to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date and year first set forth above. MYFAMILY.COM, INC. GRANTEE Signature: ___________________________ Signature: _________________________ Printed Name: ________________________ Printed Name: ______________________ Title: _______________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: _______________________________ Date: _____________________________ Tax ID#: __________________________ Exhibit A MyFamily.com, Inc. Competitors Amazon.com ECircles.com Egroups.com Ememories.com Englishorigins.com Excite Family Familybeat.com FamilyChronicle.com Familypoint.com Familyshoebox.com FamilyTime.com familytreemaker.com Genealogical Publishing Company Genealogy.com Genealogylibrary.com Genforum.com HeritageBooks.com Homestead.com Irishorigins.com iVillage.com KindredKonnections.com Koz.com MyEvents.com Ofoto.com OneGreatFamily.com Opholio.com Photoloft.com Planetall.com ProQuest QinetiQ ScotsOrigins.com Sierra.com Sixdegrees.com SuperFamily.com Supergroups.com UnoDosTres.com Zing.com HeritageQuest ============== So lets talk about this agreement... There has been a great deal of rhetorical spittle flying the last couple of days on this issue. People are talking lawsuits (again), recall (again), leaving Rootsweb (again), the imminent death of USGenWeb or its sell-out to the Dark Side (again), yadda yadda yadda. The Board is not stupid. They know this will die down, like every other teacup storm in this project, especially if they just continue to ignore the membership. Apart from unsubbing people from lists in a concerted effort to prevent even more members from seeing the agreement, and stroking each other publicly over what a good job they have done, they have made little genuine effort to 1) explain the agreement; or 2) explain themselves. Had the agreement not been made public (and I will here thank the veritable flock of birds that sent me copies of it) we would have been simply required to accept that Our Esteemed National Coordinator knows What is Good For Us. Condescending and paternalistic? Sure. Blind to the consequences of their actions? No doubt. Criminal? Hardly. This is just the leadership of USGenWeb doing what it usually does: hiding its actions behind a veil of secrecy and then lying to the membership about it. They've been doing it for years, why stop now? Can we do anything about it? Probably not. From nearly the beginnings of this project (7 years ago now!), those who lead this project have just felt more comfortable operating in secret no matter what the issue is. They make brief promises to use the secret list only for personnel issues, and to conduct all business on Board-L, but darned if it doesn't turn out that ALL business they do requires secret conferences and negotiations. Most of this has to do with the fact that Board-Exec has become, among its other functions, a rag list where the project leadership can exchange cruel and witty banter about the many grievances they have before them. Its where they decide to ignore grievances from members they don't like and where they carry out their infighting. And now its where they discuss secret agreements with large for-profit monopolies. Just once I'd like to see someone run for NC on a platform of abolishing Board-Exec and then actually doing it. (And no, it won't be me. I will remain "not in good standing" forever to prevent just that occurence from happening. So sayeth Richard.) Removing the secret list, which has existed almost as long as the public one, would do wonders for improving the membership's confidence in their leaders. Anyways, got off topic there for a minute...back to the agreement. Most people's anger at it seems to stem mostly from the way it was agreed upon and presented to us, but some have taken particular offense at several of its clauses. I honestly don't think its all that horrible (surprise, surprise). I probably wouldn't have signed it in this form, and the Board may not have voted to sign it either had they been given that opportunity, but it has two things going for it: 1) its not valid for 30 days, which means it can be changed; and 2) its only good for a year, which means if it turns out to suck, we have a year to find another option or to renegotiate a different agreement. I do agree with those that have pointed out that we are not bound to Rootsweb and should not consider ourselves beholden to them should something more advantageous come along, but I do not agree that just switching hosts is a simple thing. It does take time, and it will take money, and wherever else we go, we will need to agree to somebody's terms. I have noticed in many hosting agreements a clause providing that the terms may change at any time without notice, but unless I missed it there is no such clause in this agreement. This means some stability in the terms, at least for a year. I am aware of free hosting services, but they tend to be, well, cheesy and possibly not reliable in the long term, and whatever else you can say about the money-grubbing, data hoarding, no-social-skills set over at MyFamily/Rootsweb/Ancestry, they have been constantly supportive of USGenWeb for a long time (quid pro quo or not). I think their threat of making us leave if we didn't sign an agreement was low rent, but big businesses do things differently than nice people and strong-arming cash-poor non-profit volunteer organizations probably makes them feel all business-like and professional and stuff. Most of the other clauses are pretty standard. Rootsweb agrees to give us space and host our domains, we agree to put legal content on the pages and to do a minimal amount of advertising for them. And it is minimal, although I agree that the language "sponsored by Rootsweb" has to go, if it hasn't been renegotiated away already. Rootsweb does not "sponsor" us, by any definition in my Webster's. They "host" us, which is a term that far more accurately represents our relationship to them and they have every right to ask that we acknowledge that fact. They don't require any grotesque flashing ads or any pop-ups or any other inaccurate or offensive language. And they aren't requiring us to pimp for Ancestry, which they could easily have done. More problematic is the permission that the agreement gives to use _our_ marks in Rootsweb's advertising (we can use theirs too, but who would want to?). Now those of you who have been around awhile probably remember some of the more embarrassing ads (gambling, women's underwear, prostitutes under flashing red lights) that Rootsweb has run in the past and would cringe to see our logo and name in such company. The agreement also notes however that they can't use our marks in any way without our prior written approval and that does give us some leeway and control over our image. And of course, if they embarrass and shame us, we can leave in a year and hopefully the damage won't be too profound. Not to mention that USGenWeb does a pretty spiffy job of embarrassing and shaming itself on a regular basis (cf, Derick Hartshorn) The various state XXGenwebs and the Special Projects might want to view that clause about copyrighted material carefully, since violations of copyright are rampant throughout the project (particularly in the Archives) and the agreement makes it pretty clear who will be held legally responsible for that if it comes to legal issues. By signing that agreement you will be basically agreeing that Rootsweb is in no way responsible for any violations of copyright that might be found on any hosted site, but the SC (as the signee) will be. This is also a standard sort of clause, but think on it carefully. It has implications. The non-competition clause is just stupid and should be removed entirely. We are a non-profit and should be able to get sponsorship from anywhere we choose. Rootsweb is not sponsoring us and has no right whatsoever to tell us who MAY sponsor us. Now we come to the $10,000 gorilla. Indemnification clauses are pretty standard in legal agreements of this kind and although its more than pocket change, in the grand scheme of things its not really that much money. An insurance policy protecting the Board for such a penny ante amount will not be that expensive and I am told that one is already in the works. I'm not sure why the Board would need it, since Richard signed the agreement personally and the Board had no realistic input or vote in the process, but since it was signed on "behalf" of the project (which is not a legal entity unless they've incorporated us behind our backs too), I'm guessing we'll be the ones asked to pony up the funds if it ever becomes an issue. I don't know who's paying for the insurance, but as long as its not me, I really don't care. A contact suggested it might come as another "donation" from Ancestry, but who knows? Yesterday, former Board member Ron Eason wrote a lengthy and excellent letter on some lists that exhorted us to be more constructive in our approach to problems in USGenWeb. In that spirit, here's some suggestions as to what went wrong in the current issue and how maybe to manage these situations better in the future: 1) Transparency I realize that Our Esteemed National Coordinator was probably told by the MyFamily consiglieres to keep it under wraps, but at that point it would behoove any leader of this project to explain to them our need and desire for openness throughout the process in order to fully engage both the Board and the general membership. We have a lot of smart people with good ideas and keen eyes and opening the process up to comment for a brief period may have resulted in a better, stronger, and more mutually agreeable document (admittedly after much wailing and gnashing of teeth). I do understand that from a business perspective keeping specific details secret will strengthen MyFamily's position in negotiations with other organizations (who may demand the same hypothetical sweetheart deal we were able to negotiate), but from our perspective secrecy is only harmful and has no benefit at all. It reduces the trust the membership has in the elected Board and ultimately only makes the Board's job more difficult. A compromise could and should have been reached on this issue and the process opened at least somewhat to the membership. The sky has not apparently fallen now that the agreement has been published and the involved parties have even retroactively agreed to make it available to members who wish to see it. So clearly there was not much of a need to keep it secret in the first place. It was probably just some SOP thing. (And all the frantic post-agreement censorship wasn't necessary either.) But in the future, if (-insert name of Big Business here-) cannot deal with any openness whatsoever and refuses to allow us to involve our volunteers, then perhaps we should rethink our relationship with them. On another note, some have noted that the Board keeps things secret in order to avoid the inevitable firestorm of criticism while they deliberate. However, since they will have to endure a firestorm of criticism once they make public whatever they have been brewing in secret, there's really no net gain for them and they might as well be up front from the beginning. 2) Let the elected representatives do their jobs Perhaps some of us do elect people so they can go off and handle things in secret so we don't have to think about them ourselves. However, I sincerely doubt that is the case for many members. We would like our representatives to be able to represent us. How do they do that? By voting on issues before the Board. In this particular issue, Richard did ask the Board members for their comments but several have told me that they had no idea if he considered their comments, if he presented them to Rootsweb, or even if he received them. The option of voting on the final negotiated agreement was not offered to them, and this is the real problem. Richard could just as easily have negotiated this agreement on his own without Board input at all and signed it on behalf of the project and the Board could not prevent or undo it. No NC should be allowed that control. The Bylaws Committee should consider a change to the bylaws such that the NC cannot sign agreements on behalf of the project without a majority of the Board's support (measured by an actual official vote) on the matter. Again, I realize that a Board vote may have delayed the agreement, since the Board is so fractured and truncated now (2 more resignations and the Board will have to close for lack of a quorum) that achieving the necessary 2/3 majority may have been difficult. Its even barely possible that Rootsweb requested no Board vote (they have as much experience with the Board as we do, heh) in the interests of time and lesser aggravation. Simply put though, the Board should have been allowed to vote on this. Period. 3) Even more transparency The agreement makes note of several things that should be explained more fully to the membership. Each party is supposed to choose an Account Manager. Who is the Account Manager for USGenWeb (Betsy Mills is most likely the one for Rootsweb)? The agreement also provides for a "named contact" person. Who is that person for USGenWeb (probably Richard Harrison) and what happens if that person leaves elected office or even the project prior to the expiration of the agreement? The agreement provides that each party will provide guidelines "from time to time" on the use of marks and names. The Board should be allowed substantive input (and a vote) on those guidelines and the membership should be informed of them _before_ the fact. And a serious plain-language explanation of the specific meaning of the indemnification clause and how it will be addressed by the Board should be immediately forthcoming (its all legal and many people have written to me asking what it means). If the agreement is being renegotiated as we speak (see the message above), that process should be public as well. And finally, Richard should offer to the membership a scanned copy of the signed agreement once it is finalized, not a word document with no dates, names or signatures. 4) Getting over ourselves. I have noticed a distinct tendency for people in the project to decide how they feel about something based on who it involves. For instance, depending on who you listen to, Rootsweb is either ALWAYS evil and can have nothing but for-profit servitude in store for us, or is ALWAYS a force for good and everything they do makes the world a better place. The Board is either ALWAYS connniving and sly and enjoys smacking around CCs just because they can, or it is ALWAYS acting selflessly and with the best interests of the Project as its goal. The screamers, whiners, dissidents and "noisy bastards" are either ALWAYS communists and fascists trying to destroy the project to benefit some other project, or they are ALWAYS brutally oppressed victims at the mercy of the powerful SCs and Board. (On a personal note, I am either ALWAYS right or I am ALWAYS wrong.) Of course, all of these extremes are ludicrous. For sure Rootsweb looks out for itself and it has never really shed the negative personality traits of its founder, but it is also the case that they have benefitted us, they continue to benefit us, and they are apparently willing to prolong the relationship indefinitely at no cost to us (and it doesn't matter if they do it to profit off us, the beneficial outcome for us is the same). They probably won't steal our data or our websites either. The Board is no doubt populated in part by pompous asses who have no trouble with hypocritical, contradictory, and dishonest actions as long as they can use their power to achieve their personal aims, but the Board also contains many people who are guilty of nothing more than trying to do a difficult job under very trying circumstances. All the members see is the outcome of secret discussions (if we are allowed to see even those) so its no wonder they tend to think of the Board as a unit operating as an anti-CC juggernaut. But it isn't true. And if we could see the discussions we could see that there have been and are several Board members who consistently put the CCs first in their deliberations and who are thoughtful and constructive. You can respect them even as you disagree with them. These people are not even a minority of the Board. The problem is that most issues the Board deals with are not only inflammatory, they have a lot of room for multiple opinions. There is often no right, wrong, black, white, good or evil position, so decisions are never easy. Sometimes the Board does good things and sometimes the Board messes up. It happens, and its probably not due to a conspiracy to sell out the CCs or turn everything over to the Archives. As for the so-called "dissidents", while I will be the first to admit that several of the loyal opposition are extraordinaly difficult to deal with and a few of them most probably do have ulterior motives, that does not negate the fact that some of them are sometimes very, very right in their observations and perceptions of the Project and its leadership. And most of them really do have the Project's best interests at heart as much as ANYONE else does, they simply see those interests differently. They are no more a "danger" to the project than Rootsweb is, or the Board is, or the National Coordinator is, or I am. Yet some of them have been seriously and egregiously harmed solely because of who they are and because they have been outspoken in their opinions and the Board has chosen to implicitly or explicitly support the actions taken against them (for which it has received both glowing praise and virulent censure, as is typical). It is very very hard not to see a vindictive streak in the Board when it acts this way. The loyal opposition for its part is too often intractable in its positions, too quick to find offense, too quick to leap to accusations (some of which are flatly silly), and too quick to assume that the Board hates them and will do nothing for them. The assumption again is that the Board is a unit that exists to hammer down noisy volunteers. Not true and people might realize that if they wouldn't go on the offensive and burn their and everyone else's bridges immediately. We are all guilty of this. We cannot get past identities to find the common good or a common goal and too often much of what we do is done solely to thwart someone we don't like rather than to determine a beneficial direction for the Project as a whole and act accordingly. Too often the operating rule seems to be "if HE doesn't like it, it must be a good thing" or "if SHE supports that, then I'm against it!" This is just a ridiculous way for adults to behave. While there is probably too much water under the bridge for us ever to sing Kum By Ya together around a campfire, it is very possibly not too late for a fresh start, and one way to begin that is by looking to the heart of matters and not their surfaces. It is not necessary to "save" the project from anyone. We are a team and we should act like one. I will leave it up to you to decide whether I am right or not. There ya have it. Forward wherever you like. -Teresa Lindquist Representative at Large Member Not in Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============= Here is a list of the somewhat minor discrepancies between the unsigned version of the agreement (previously posted here) and the signed one, which Richard is currently distributing to some people who request it. a. The first paragraph adds the date May 5 2003 as the effective date, the organization name (The USGenWeb Project), and the contact information for Richard Harrison, who is the named contact person. b. The next section adds "rootsweb.com" as the site for Grantee's (that's us) web page c. Next paragraph adds USGenWeb's name into the blank for the name of the Grantee as the "Grantee Site" Par 1.7 (Promotion and sponsorship). The paragraph now states that footer of each page on our site will display a link stating "This site hosted by RootsWeb" or similar wording mutually agreed upon between USGenWeb and the RootsWeb Account Manager. The former version of the agreement left the wording at the discretion of the Rootsweb Account Manager. Par 4.3 (Confidential Information and Non-Competition). The agreement now provides that any violation of this section will be deemed a material breach of the agreement and RootsWeb has the right to terminate the agreement upon 14 days notice. The original noted that Rootsweb could terminate the agreement immediately. Par 7.4 Notices. Richard Harrison's name and position as National Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project are added as the named contact for the Grantee. (Rootsweb's information is left blank) The signature and date blocks for both USGenWeb and MyFamily are entirely missing from the signed version. Exhibit A: (MyFamily.com Inc Competitors). familytreemaker.com, genealogy.com, and genforum.com (all recently acquired by MyFamily.com) have been removed from the list of competitors. I will also note that there are numerous typos in the signed version of the agreement that are not present in the original one. No big, some of them appear to be scanning errors. However, one interesting thing about the typos is that some of them are different in some of the versions I received. Now, I don't know how that can be unless Richard is trying to track the provenance of any versions that may end up publicly posted. So be careful...if you are going to share the agreement, fix the typos first. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ========== > > > I can tell you that almost every one of the Board members stated > that something needed to be done about one of the SC's. Did it do any > good? > No. Richard said he didn't think anything needed to be done so that was > the > end of the discussion. We were blocked every step of the way on that > one. > > > KG: Which SC? Derick or Tim? If Tim, please make public this email (if > it exists) from Richard. Exposing this corruption WILL lead to change. > Small change, but change nonetheless. Actually, it should not matter which SC was involved, since the principle in either case would be the same. How can it be that a majority of elected representatives, after duly reviewing the evidence they were presented and making a decision one way or the other, can then be stopped by proceeding further by the fiat of the NC, who is just a single person? This is certainly not the first time this had happened. When I was on the Board, we had a grievance wherein a CC wished to add a co-CC to their pages. The person chosen had been in the project a long time and was formerly a CC in the state in question. The SC however did not approve of the CC's choice and adamantly refused to add the co-CC to the project lists and to the voter rolls. The SC refused mediation, but instead offered to run a state vote on whether or not to allow the co-CC to remain with the state project. This was unprecedented in all of USGenWeb so far as we knew, not only in respect to requiring a vote of other CCs to allow someone to join the project, but in failing to respect the CC's choice of co-CC. The Board discussed this extensively (but not very professionally, sadly) and when it came down to a vote, we were given three options by the NC, basically 1) vote in favor of the SC, 2) vote in favor of the CC, 3) vote to do nothing. When the vote was taken, there was not a single vote in favor of the SC. Not one. In fact, a couple of Board members who initially voted in favor of the SC retracted those votes in favor of one of the other two options. The final outcome of the vote was that a majority of the Board was in favor of the CC. So what happened then? Well, since the vote did not reach a 2/3 majority, those in the minority immediately started a vocal campaign to prevent any sort of pro-CC communication from the Board. Those in the majority started a vocal campaign encouraging the NC to draft a letter in support of the CCs. The NC did nothing, some other storm started brewing, and the matter faded away. So far as I know the outcome of the deliberations and vote were never communicated to any parties and the grievance was never formally resolved. There are several things about how the Board handles grievances that have always puzzled me. First is why the Board routinely negates its own power to do anything about the situations that are brought before them. There is a common perception throughout the project that the Board has never supported a CC in anything, but this is not wholly true. We have seen several times now a Board that does in fact decide in favor of the CC. But then they do...nothing. And again and again I have seen them say, "well, there is nothing we can do. We have no power to force anyone to do anything." This is true, but the Board does have the same moral power of any elected body and it should use it. When it decides on a grievance, the Board should issue a public statement to the effect that it has reviewed the evidence and decided one way or another and then provide a recommended course of action. This would give the project the message that the Board does review evidence, it does make decisions, and it does recommend actions. This is far preferable to the current message it sends, which is more or less "Do whatever the hell you want. We can't and won't stop you." I realize that in a practical sense SCs are still free to ignore the Board, but the rest of the project will then see an SC that is in direct opposition to the decision of the elected representatives of the project. And if the NC tries to prevent the issuance of a such a decision? Well, there's nothing in the bylaws that says that all communication from the Board has to go through the NC and nothing to prevent the Board itself from issuing its decisions in grievances. It may even behoove the Board to issue such notices through the representatives of the region that is affected by the grievance via the regional and/or state lists. Think about it. For example in the most recent dust-up between a CC and an SC, the Board was nearly unanimous in its support of the CC. At that point, the Board could have issued a public decision in the matter and recommended that the SC reinstate the CC to full participation in the state project and whatever else it felt would redress the wrong. Note that I said "recommend". It does no good to insist on something you cannot enforce; it just makes you look impotent. However, if the SC then chose NOT to follow the Board's recommendations, the onus is on the SC for ignoring the decision of the elected representatives of the Project and not on the Board, which has done its job. A second puzzle is why the Board tries to "decide" grievances at all. The bylaws say that the Board is responsible for advising and mediating grievances and appeals, but it does not say that the Board itself can or should make any decisions about them at all. We provide a mediation process, but thus far no on has appeared to be even slightly interested in using it (even the people who created it won't use it), and the advice we have offered most often to CCs who come to us with grievances is "shut up and go away." Nearly all the grievances that the Board receives are between SCs and CCs (the remainder are mostly copyright complaints), and part of the problem is a balance of power heavily skewed toward the SCs. Because of the structure and organization of the project, the SCs hold an enormous amount of power, over both the CCs and the Board itself. They can remove CCs at will and without any need for due process (we have seen much evidence of this recently) and the CCs are essentially powerless to do anything about it. (Note that I do not mean to bash SCs here. Their powerful position in the project is merely a fact of life, and it works both ways. SCs who are willing to do so can thwart a Board or NC who wants to get rid of a CC, and most SCs are decent people working just as hard as any CC does. Also note that the Board has, on a couple of occasions, used grievances filed by CCs as a way to publicly slam and humiliate someone they as a group do not care for. Also a fact of life.) Because the criteria for removing an SC for cause are nearly impossible to meet and the Board is unlikely to delink an entire state project to get rid of a misbehaving SC, the Board is also powerless in the face of an SC who is unashamed to wield the naked power the bylaws grant them. SCs have no incentive to go into mediation and no incentive to abide by its decisions in any case. They've already won. By the time the grievance gets to the Board, the damage has already been done and the SC almost always claims local privilege, in essence telling the Board to mind its own business. So why don't we do just that? Given that the bylaws give us no basis for deciding the outcome of grievances and that we cut ourselves off at the knees by deciding at the outset that we can do nothing in any case, why do we continue to accept grievances and then ignore them, dither around on them, or go through the motions of deciding on them but then do nothing? It does not benefit anyone in the process when we essentially perform an elaborate charade with no substance behind it. So what should we as a Board and as a Project do about this? The bylaws give us leeway only to advise and mediate and we should limit ourselves to that. The current mediation process should be scrapped or rewritten to do the following: 1) The size and composition of the mediation panel can and should be discussed. Five seems a reasonable number, but the panel could consist or more or fewer members. It can be composed of just Board members, or can include some non-Board members as well (the bylaws say the Board can advise and mediate but does not preclude the inclusion of others in the process). It can be static, or can change with each grievance (in practice this might be unwieldy, but would mean that the regional reps could be part of each mediation affecting their region and it can mean that persons with conflicts of interest can be excluded as necessary). It can be elected, appointed, appointed for a specific term, have staggered rotating terms so that ALL Board members eventually serve, whatever. The important thing is that the mediation team operate independently of the Board's other business. Its not a committee so it need not have the NC as an ex officio member although he or she could participate as a regular voting member. There are advantages and disadvantages accruing to any composition of the panel and the Board should encourage member comment on this as it discusses the issue. 2) ALL grievances will be referred to the mediation panel, regardless of whether or not the parties involved agree to mediation. Since the Board itself will no longer handle grievances there will be no other option. No grievance will be ignored or denied by either the Board or the mediation panel for any reason. 3) Once it has received a grievance, the entire mediation panel will contact both parties and obtain statements, histories, evidence, whatever. If parties do not agree to mediation, then it will be handled the same as in civil court. If you don't show up, judgement defaults to the other party. 4) Upon viewing the statements, the panel can ask both parties to provide additional information, clarifications, etc. I would recommend that the panel NOT accept statements of support or nonsupport from persons not parties to the grievance unless they can provide specific evidence on the issue at hand; they just tend to muddy the picture and this process should not be a popularity contest. 5) Upon receiving the statements and evidence of the parties, the entire mediation panel will then discuss the issue and come to a decision in favor of one party or the other via a majority vote. Since this is a "mediation" panel, they can and should discuss possible solutions with both parties in an attempt to arrive at a mutually agreeable method of redress. The panel will then decide on a recommended course of action and compose a statement providing its final decision, any information it wishes to include describing how and why it made this decision, and the advised course of action (of course, as is my way, I recommend more information here rather than less). This statement will be issued through the regional representatives to the parties involved, to the Board, and to any affected state/regional/project lists. The decision should be final and NOT require a Board vote to confirm or the approval of the NC (As we have seen recently, sometimes that just ends up subverting the process, and besides, the Board should have faith in the panel and not reserve to itself the right of second guessing. If they do not have faith in the process, neither will anyone else). It will probably be necessary to impose a time-frame on each stage in the process. Parties to the grievance should perhaps be given a week initially to provide information to the panel and the panel could have up to two weeks to discuss the issue, ask questions, make a vote and issue its decision and recommendations. If the panel receives numerous grievances, they can maintain a calendar such that they can inform the parties exactly when they can expect their mediation to begin and request that they not receive any materials prior to that time. If a grievance is of an emergency nature as decided by a majority of the panel, they can move it up on the calendar. I don't think the panel should handle more than two grievances simultaneously, but that may depend on the nature of the grievances and the decision should be up to them. If it were in any way possible to keep all parties to the grievance anonymous to encourage impartiality I would recommend that as well, but I don't see how it could be managed. The advantages to this approach are several: 1) it provides for the timely mediation of grievances; 2) it looks and is decisive; 3) it encourages solid recommendations for redress based (hopefully) on evidence rather than on personalities; 4) it may function to promote compromise between the parties to a grievance in order to avoid a wholly negative public outcome; 5) it allows the Board to address other issues before it instead of bogging down in grievances and all the baggage they bring; 6) it improves the public perception of a proactive and effective Board; and 7) it squarely places the responsibility for final resolution on the parties involved and not on the Board. Would any of this make any practical difference? Perhaps not. Parties to mediation can refuse to participate and the losing side can refuse to follow the panel's recommendation, and on the surface we then end up with more or less the same situation as now. But the important point here is that the Board will have done its job to the best of its ability as defined in the bylaws. No member will have been ignored or lost in the shuffle. A standard method for addressing grievances will be used for all grievances regardless of who submits the grievance and what part of the project they involve. A member's failure to respect, abide by and implement the mediation panel's recommendations will reflect not on the Board but on the member. I think other members will recognize that, particularly if the mediation panel and the process itself are viewed as fair and unbiased. That is absolutely crucial. And it is up to the Board to ensure that it is perceived that way and in fact actually operates that way. As always, you are free to send this post wherever you like. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============ This came from the USGENWEB-DISCUSS list, and is purportedly from RootsWeb Account Manager Tera Phomsopha (it came via David Samuelsen though, so who knows?): "We had considered signing both the state and county organizations under the same agreement. However, after some consideration we have decided that this will not be necessary. The reason for this is that an agreement was put in place when users signed up for a free geographical hosting account on RootsWeb.com. This already existing agreement is sufficient for the RootsWeb hosted USGenWeb state and county websites." Heh, you gotta wonder if the potential of having to negotiate over a thousand different hosting agreements with the notoriously prickly USGenWeb members gave them some pause. Oh well, SCs and CCs won't be needing to worry about it anymore. -Teresa merope@radix.net ========= I move to amend Motion 12-03 to include the names of Richard Pettys and Kathleen Pettys as persons to be declared "not in good standing", per their request to the Board. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large USGenWeb Project Member Not In Good Standing =========== Evening all, The following is forwarded by request of its author and will explain the recent motion made first by me (which I am told has yet to be forwarded to the Board by the NC) and then by Phyllis Rippee (who reads the DBS and apparently isn't opposed to cribbing ideas from it; at least she has spared the NC the onerous task of having to forward a legally made motion to the public list). In other news, Tim Stowell has been moderated on all Board-controlled mailing lists, including Board-L, Board-Exec, State-Coord-L, and USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L. Apparently he will be allowed to participate in his own hanging only if the NC deems it acceptable. -Teresa merope@radix.net > From: "mannannan" > To: IsaiahH@cox.net;tngibson@att.net;merope@radix.net;tsvickery@adelphia.net;bremerr@oclc.org; cristian@netonecom.net;donkelly@grovenet.net;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > CC: heatherdegeorge@writeme.com;angie@angiesplace.behosting.com;lflesher@fidnet.com;wchs@ge tgoin.net;janab@websweweave.net;usgwboard@tyaskin.com;sagitta56@mchsi.com;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > Subject: The Current Motions > Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:36:49 -0500 > X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 > X-OriginatingIP: 168.28.162.86 (mannannan) > X-Confirm-Reading-To: mannannan@maclyr.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.613277, version=0.10.2 > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > This email is addressed to all members of the AB and the NC. This email is > written with respect to the current movement to have Tim Stowell, Brenda > Pierce, Chuck Pierce and Margie Daniels declared to be members of the project > not in good standing. > > First and foremost, as a member of this project, I am sick and tired of > seeing your constant harassment of Messers. Stowell and Pierce and Misses > Pierce and Daniels. I believes that this is indicative of a bias held by the > NC and supported by his "Dixie Chicks" - Jana, Tina and Phyllis. This must > stop and I fully intend to bring a petition to have the NC declared to be a > member not in good standing of this project. I am considering like motions > against Jana, Tina and Phyllis (for the three of you, I would consider not > bringing such an embarassing motion against you if you resigned from the AB > and agreed to not run for re-election thereto for five years. There is no > such offer available to the NC). > > Second, in this instance, I stand with my friends - Tim, Brenda, Chuck and > Margie. As such, if any of you intend to continue with this foolishness, > then I insist that my name be included in the motion along with the names of > my friends. I will be in very good company on that list. > > I support the actions of my friends. They have not created "phantom" CC's. > What they have done is to HELP other members of the project by translating > data and uploading data. If this is a crime or a violation of the by-laws, > then it is a crime and a violation of which I am both guilty and proud. As > such, please include my name on the movement to declare my friends to be > member of the project not in good standing. My wife, Kathleen Pettys > (brighid@maclyr.com) has asked me to advise you that she likewise stands with > our friends. As such, I fully and wholly expect to see our names added to > this movement instanter. > > I am authorized to state that we have nothing to hide and that we desire that > this matter be held publicly and even on a PUBLIC list. > > I am further authorized to state that, unless this course of conduct is > ceased without any delay whatsoever, Ms. Daniels intends to seek the > appropriate redress against you in the proper Tennessee court. You are all > on notice and should be governed accordingly. > > In closing, allow me to state that I will bring a petition of not good > standing against each and every member of the AB who continues to pursue and > forward these matters. I also reserve the right to bring litigation in > Georgia against any of you unless this conduct is discontinued immediately. > > Be governed accordingly, > Richard R. Pettys, Jr. ========= Please note that the following petition, although well-intentioned, will go exactly nowhere. The Board is having a right good laugh at it as we speak. -Teresa > From: "mannannan" > To: merope > Subject: Re: Motion 12-03 > Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:22:55 -0500 > X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 > X-OriginatingIP: 216.78.38.151 (mannannan) > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.577138, version=0.10.2 > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > I write today to submit a motion to have Richard "Isaiah" Harrison declared > to be a member of the USGenWeb Project Not In Good Standing. It is my > understanding that Heather, Angie and Tim are the AB Rep's from the SEMA > Region. As such, they are my reps. However, Tim's ability to post to the > Board-L and other lists may be impaired or otherwise moderated by the NC. As > such, I am presenting this motion to my AB Reps. I am likewise submitting it > to Jan Cortez, a friend who is a member of the AB, for submission in the > event that my AB Reps choose to ignore their duties to me to present this > Petition. > > I hereby petition the AB to have Richard "Isaiah" Harrison, NC, declared to > be a member NOT in good standing of the project, on the following grounds: > A. Mr. Harrison has abused his authority as NC by entertaining motions > designed to harm and inflict difficulties upon persons with whom he has had > issues or disagreements, namely Tim Stowell, AB Member and SC for the State > of Georgia. > B. Mr. Harrison has used the position of NC to conduct political witchhunts > against his political enemies and the allies of his political enemies, namely > Mr. Stowell, Brenda Pierce, Chuck Pierce and Margie Daniels. He has so done > in an effort to harm Ms. Stowell and those associated with him. This is > because of a long-standing dispute between them and because Mr. Stowell > declined to allow the NC to exercise complete and total power over the > USGenWeb Project. > C. Mr. Harrison has entered into a Hosting Agreement with Rootsweb on behalf > of the Project, the existence of which was not disclosed to the membership > prior to such entry. Said agreement could be detrimental to each and every > member of the project and has placed each and every member of the project in > a state of potential financial jeopardy. > D. Mr. Harrison has been underhanded and sneaky in his dealings. When > complaints of problems were filed in both Georgia and North Carolina, the NC > chose to pursue the issues in Georgia without authority, while allowing > issues of racism in North Carolina to fall through the cracks. > E. Mr. Harrison has used his position for his personal gain in a complete > and total attack against his enemies, and has changed or disregarded the > rules for the same when he deemed it necessary to rid himself of his > political enemies within the project. > F. Mr. Harrison has declined to respond to emails asking for information on > filing such a grievance or petition against him, despite having received the > same. > Because of the within and forgoing, I find it necessary, though regrettable, > to bring this petition. > > Sincerely, > Richard R. Pettys, Jr. > Second ASC, GAGenWeb =========== Big surprise, eh? -Teresa merope@radix.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:08:07 -0500 From: Marti To: merope@radix.net Cc: marti4@cox.net Subject: USGenWeb Nomination Dear Teresa, We have received notice from the National Coordinator advising you are not a member in good standing and not qualified to run for any office within the USGenWeb Project or USGenWeb Advisory Board. Marti Graham Member at Large USGenWeb Project Election Committee ========= Rich Howland filed the grievance, in case anyone is interested. He's basically upset because the Board's cheap-ass pettiness is depriving the membership of the USGenWeb Project of their right to vote for whomever they choose. But of course, that is the entire point of the Board's pettiness. This is just freakin' silly. They are too gutless to do this in public, although I certainly don't mind if they do. And like Tim, I won't be invited to my own hanging so I won't get the opportunity to correct their fantastical tales about me. Did you ever think that USGenWeb would come down to a handful of mostly appointed people judging the worthiness of their fellow volunteers behind closed doors? -Teresa merope@radix.net > Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:00:46 -0700 > Old-To: BOARD-L > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > Subject: [BOARD-L] Grievance > > The AB has received a grievance regarding the "Ineligible" status of Teresa Lindquist and will discuss and resolve the issue on Board-Exec. > > -Isaiah > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project ========== Since I haven't been allowed to see any of the "evidence" against the accused or participate in any discussion of the charges, and as I know well the repercussions of the Board attaching its label "not in good standing" to a volunteer, I must vote as follows: Tim Stowell--no Margie Daniels--no Brenda Pierce--no Chuck Pierce--no -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large USGenWeb Project > It has been moved by Jana Black and seconded by Vickie Shaffer that the USGenWeb Advisory Board declare Tim Stowell, Margie Daniels, Brenda Pierce, and Chuck Pierce be found members not in good standing within the USGenWeb Project for willfully and deliberately deceiving and knowingly participating in this deception of the members of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Projects by assuming the roles of "Phantom" County coordinators with the express intention of affecting the vote concerning the recall of Tim Stowell as State Coordinator of the GAGenWeb Project. > > ---------------------------------------- > > The AB will vote separately on each of the members named in the motion. If the charges are sustained against any of the members, the AB will discuss and vote separately on the length of time the not in good standing status will last and the conditions for removing the status. > > Members will have until approximately 3:00 PM MST, Tuesday, 10 June 2003, to vote. A 2/3 majority is required to sustain the charges. > > TIM STOWELL : (Vote "YES" to sustain the charges, "NO" to reject them) > MARGIE DANIELS : (Vote "YES" to sustain the charges, "NO" to reject them) > BRENDA PIERCE : (Vote "YES" to sustain the charges, "NO" to reject them) > CHUCK PIERCE : (Vote "YES" to sustain the charges, "NO" to reject them) > > -Isaiah > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > National Coordinator > The USGenWeb Project ========= First she bitches because I don't vote, then she tries to get my vote thrown out when it doesn't go her way. Egads. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:56:54 -0700 From: Jana Black Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [BOARD-L] Point of Order - VOTE Motion 03-12 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:58:53 -0600 Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com It has been brought to my attention that the vote of Teresa Lindquist on Motion 03-12 may be out of order in that it is a personnel matter, she is NIGS and was not privy to what was presented and discussed on EXEC, therefore could not have made an informed vote. May I have a ruling please? Jana ========= Forwarded at Alice's request. If y'all think this sounds like a good idea, please contact her for additional information. There's an url at the end. -Teresa merope@radix.net > Dear State Coordinator, > > We are writing to you because we need your help. > Who are we? What do we want? Please take the time > to read and consider the following message..... > > A group of concerned County Coordinators (CCs) are > organizing the USGenWeb Project Votes! as an effort to > educate and motivate the CCs of The USGenWeb Project to > become more involved in the business affairs of the > Project by fully participating in its national elections. > > USGenWeb Project Votes! will have no formal affiliation > with either the Advisory Board or the Election Committee. > We do not envision any conflict with the Election > Committee as their mandate is to conduct the USGenWeb > elections. Our goal is to encourage our fellow CCs to > get to the polls by providing them with information > about the candidates and issues so they WANT to vote and > can leave the voting booth knowing they have made an > informed decision regarding the future of The USGenWeb > Project. > > To achieve our goal we have a website which stresses why it is important for each CC to vote with links to the EC's pages. We plan to provide profiles of candidates' views on issues currently before the Advisory Board, issues of concern to the CCs, and (where applicable) add the voting records of those candidates who have previously served in a national office. We also plan to conduct opinion polls and will use message boards and other applications of electronic media to get our message out. > > Turning this effort into reality requires volunteers who are > like-minded, motivated, and willing to work to achieve our > goals. Not having access to official mailing lists, we > ask your assistance in getting our message out to the CCs > in your state. Will you please post this message, or a > similar one, on your State list to inform your CCs what > we are doing and our call for volunteers to help us achieve > our goal? > > Those interested may volunteer or join us at http://usgwp.org/ > > If you need more information or have questions, please > contact me. > > Thank you for your assistance. > > Alice J. Gayley > USGenWeb Project Votes! > Committee > > CC: > Richard Harrison, National Coordinator > Advisory Board members who are not on the State Coordinator Mailing List > Elections Committee Chair > Archives Project Coordinator > Tombstone Project Coordinator > Census Projects Coordinators > DISCUSS List > ALL List > > ========= Hoo boy...here's something that isn't news. -Teresa merope@radix.net > From: "Tina S Vickery" > To: "Harrison, Richard" , > "ILGenWeb State Coordinator" > Cc: "Ellen Pack" , > "Lindquist, Teresa" , > "Board-Exec-L" , > "BOARD-L" > Subject: Response to Grievance > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:16:04 -0400 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.587400, version=0.10.2 > > We, the undersigned members of the Advisory Board agree with Richard > Harrison's ruling of ineligibility of the individual named in this > grievance. > > The bylaws specify that candidates must be a "member in good > standing". The individual mentioned in the grievance was previously > declared a "member not in good standing" by the Advisory Board. The > absence of mention of the Representative at Large position in article > VI, section 9 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws does not mean that the > position is exempt from the "in good standing" requirement including > declarations of "member not in good standing" made by the USGenWeb > Project Advisory Board. A request for change of status must > originate from the effected party or via the representative of the > party as an item of routine business. > > (Signed) > > Tina Vickery, Temporary Chair of Executive Session > Darilee Bednar > Jana Black > Heather DeGeorge > Gail Meyer Kilgore > Angie Rayfield > Pam Reid > Phyllis Rippee > Vicki Shaffer > > > > cc: Board-L > Board-Exec > Teresa Lindquist, Representative at Large > Ellen Pack, Election Committee Chair ========== This is very eloquent. Thanks Robert. Imagine my surprise to find out that the Board has been discussing and voting on a motion to remove the MNIGS status from yours truly, without the courtesy of notifying me, allowing me to participate in the discussion, or soliciting my version of events. From the archives, we find that most members have voted "no" (big surprise), and some of them have included comments like the following: "In the absence of actual guidelines for MNIGS, the only thing *I* feel certain of is that this request should come from the affected with either and explanation of why they acted in that manner and/or that they will never act in that manner again. Seeing neither of these present in the current motion, I have to vote No." (This Board member didn't bother to contact me on this issue, and neither did any other Board member. Its hard not to assume that they really don't care what I might have to say on the topic because their minds have already been made up. I do know that the newer Board members have been given a somewhat fanciful version of events, and it speaks volumes of their willingness to fairly adjudge their fellow volunteers that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM questioned the information given them by those who have told me personally that they will take deep personal satisfication in preventing me from ever holding office in this project. Ah well, simple is as simple does.) "I do agree that something needs to be done regarding this MNIGS, but I can't in good conscience vote to have this removed without her assurance that she will abide by the rules regarding Board-Exec before her MNIGS is removed." (This one apparently lacks clarity on the sequence of events. I was not removed from Board-Exec because I became a MNIGS. I was declared a MNIGS _after_ I was removed from Board-Exec and Board-L by former NC Holly Fee Timm, without cause or explanation. My "status" and the secret list are two entirely unrelated issues. Richard has never been shy about controlling access to any list he rules and my access to Board-Exec would cease at any rate once I am no longer a Board member. However, as Robert notes below, MNIGS status is FOREVER. So clearly the issue is NOT their scummy little secret list, although they apparently managed to convince the sheep that it is. It is mostly about preventing me from running for office, although a substantial component is the deep and unseemly satisfaction the Board has always taken when it wields its power over members it finds distasteful. ) Anyways, thanks to Tim for keeping his word and thanks again to Robert, who usually manages to hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately, he's pretty much hitting a big stupid block of wood, so its not likely to make much difference. -Teresa Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project Member Not In Good Standing merope@radix.net > Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:01:23 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: bremerr@oclc.org Sat Jun 14 09:01:23 2003 > From: "Bremer,Robert" > Old-To: "'BOARD-L@rootsweb.com'" > Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] VOTE MOTION 03-13 > Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:01:26 -0400 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12203 > X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.579822, version=0.10.2 > > Yes. > > Robert Bremer > bremerr@oclc.org > > I support this measure because it should be the first step in eliminating > the unnecessary and increasing use and attempted use of declarations of > "member not in good standing" in this project. My comments which follow are > general in nature and not specific to the particular case referred to in > motion 03-13. > > Like our agonizingly slow board meetings conducted via email over a period > of months, declaring certain individuals as "members not in good standing" > is a aspect of parliamentary procedure that does not work well in our online > environment. That is not to say that there should not be repercussions for > inappropriate behavior, but such repercussions must coincide with the > severity of the offense and be limited to specified time periods. > > Open-ended declarations of "member not in good standing" are life sentences > and represent cruel and unusual punishment. It has been noted that > recipients of these declarations can and should be required to seek removal > of the declaration via apology and other measures. However, if the > recipient is not inclined to appease the conferring body or official, > whether that is the Advisory Board, an SC, or a state council, they are > presumably stuck with the "member not in good standing" label for life. An > individual may not want to apologize or make amends if they believe the > declaration was politically motivated or unfairly applied, or that the > activity that was the basis for the declaration was entirely justified. > > One would hope that our project is still here in another 10 or 20 years. If > an individual is declared a "member not in good standing" today and does not > seek to have the declaration removed, who is tracking their status? After > 10 or 15 years, all the individuals involved in conferring the "member not > in good standing" status may have left the project, but the declaration > would still stand even though the recipient may continue to participate in > the project. Obviously, this project now requires that a registry, or > rather a blacklist, be maintained and publicly posted for long-term > reference. The whole mechanism is reminiscent of the McCarthy era and does > nothing to heal the differences between individuals and groups within the > project. It only serves to provide a bad example of how those in control > can use their office to get even by handing out life sentences. > > These declarations cannot and will never be applied equally. Some offenses > will be overlooked and a "member not in good in standing" declaration will > not be applied while an official or some members of the board will go out of > their way to seek such declarations against particular individuals in other > essentially equal cases. What some members of this board consider an > offense deserving such a declaration has already differed from previous > boards. > > The board will be asked to make determinations time-and-time again relative > to eligibility of various individuals to run for office. That translates to > the board influencing the possible outcome of elections by removing choices > from the CCs who should determine the direction of the project. Article VI, > section 9 of the bylaws is problematic because it invites use of the "member > not in good standing" declaration as a political weapon by requiring that > candidates be considered members in good standing. That part of the bylaws > should be revised to remove mention of the "in good standing" text. > Eligibility should be nothing more than the routine length of service > requirements. Determination as to whether a candidate is worthy to actually > be seated in office should be made by the voters not by individuals in > control of various leadership positions in the project. Any candidate's > past project activities can be made an issue in the campaign, but ultimately > it should be up to the voters to decide. > > When someone has been declared a "member not in good standing" in one state > but not in another, or is declared such at the state level but not national, > or is declared such at the national level but not the state level, they > should presumably still be considered a "member not in good standing." Yet, > there have been attempts to make distinctions between "member not in good > standing" at state and national levels to interpret the bylaws in a manner > that had never been foreseen. The NC and board will continue to be asked to > pick and choose who is okay to run in an election and who is not. > > The whole negative atmosphere created by use of these declarations needs to > end. These declarations only serve to provide satisfaction to a those > conferring the designations and their supporters. These declarations > solidify differences and do nothing to improve the project in any way. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard (Isaiah) Harrison [mailto:IsaiahH@cox.net] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:07 AM > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BOARD-L] VOTE MOTION 03-13 > > > It has been moved by Tim and seconded by Robert that the status "Member Not > in Good Standing" be immediately removed from the present RAL, Teresa > Lindquist. > > Please vote YES if in favor, NO if opposed. Members will have until > approximately 8:00 AM MST, Sunday, June 15 to cast their votes. A 2/3 > majority is required to pass the motion. > > -Isaiah > ========= I am forwarding the attached grievance to the Board on Derek's behalf, since both his CC representative (Angie Rayfield) and the National Coordinator have apparently refused to do so. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net > From: "Derek Nichols" > To: angie@inmyattic.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com, all@usgenweb.us > Subject: [ALL] Election Candidates > Sender: All-admin@usgenweb.us > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:09:32 -0300 > > This is the filing with you and the AB of an official complaint/grievance > over the Candidacy of an ASC for the position of SC rep. > > The Bylaws do not allow such. I understand that in the past someone may > have accidentally, or even on purpose, violated the ByLaws on this issue. > Perhaps even to the point of it becoming 'acceptable'. > > However it is NOT acceptable and is in violation of the ByLaws voted on by > the entire membership. > > As this is a pressing matter, I need this issue addressed before the Voting > period starts. Preferably earlier, should I need to proceed with outside > sources to ensure that the duly voted on ByLaws are enforced. > > Respectfully, > Derek Nichols ======== I second. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:33:07 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [BOARD-L] Motion Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:35:14 -0600 Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com With there being no indication of a willingness to discuss the subject presented to this body and no other comments being made in regard to any other subject, I move to adourn the July session of the USGW P Advisory Board. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative ========== From the annals of the Secret List! BTW, the sooper sekrit stuff that Tim forwarded to me that included Tina's comments (and that got his hinder booted from the club) was from a discussion about her "stewardship" of the DISCUSS list, which as some have already noted, has become little more than a list where Jana, Phyllis, and Tina can publicly stroke each other. Oddly enough, a small handful of Board members think Tina's censorship has gotten a wee bit heavy-handed and dared to question her about it. You can see below where that gets you. -Teresa merope@radix.net > > On this list and on Board-L we very frequently discuss issues on which > > many of the members strongly disagree. It is essential that members > > speak with courtesy and respect for the Chair and for their fellow > > members. > > > > Comments such as "under the thumb of the current NC" and "hi-fives > > among the administration's cronies" are inappropriate and will not > > be allowed. It's not that these particular examples are so bad in > > themselves, but if they are allowed it leads to stronger statements > > and eventually to name-calling and further disintegration of > > communication. > > > > More seriously, when Tim Stowell forwarded his messages privately, he > > also forwarded them to Teresa Lindquist, who is not a member of this > > list. The forwarded messages included comments made by Tina Vickery > > that were posted to Board-Exec with the expectation of > > confidentiality. > > > > I should have taken more time when I sent the "out of order" responses > > to Tim and explained exactly what needed to be changed to make the > > messages acceptable. Nevertheless, the forwarding of those messages to > > Teresa Lindquist constitutes a serious breech of the confidentiality > > of this list. > > > > Tim Stowell has been removed from Board-Exec until the end of his term > > of office. > > > > -Isaiah ======== The secret list posting that got Tim banned! -Teresa > At 04:05 PM 7/21/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >At 07:55 AM 7/20/03 -0700, you wrote: > > >At 08:12 AM 7/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > >>Jan, I am very sorry you feel that way about -Discuss. > > >>Tina > > > > > >Tina- > > > > > >You can be confident that most people don't agree with Jan about -Discuss. > > > > > >-Isaiah > > > >I agree completely with Jan's assessment of the Discuss list as well as > >all the lists under the thumb of the current NC. > > > >Tim ========= More from Board-Exec...top part is Tina, bottom is Tim. -Teresa merope@radix.net > At 04:05 PM 7/21/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >At 05:18 PM 7/20/03 -0400, you wrote: > > >Robert, > > > > > >Is there anything else you wish to say to me? You might as well spit > > >it out. > > > > > >It occurs to me that this board should be very pleased that the > > >administration of -Discuss is being done. For the first time in a > > >long time this project does indeed have a place to ask questions, > > >respond to issues, to discuss, and to do so in a respectful way. > > > > > >I very much hoped that with the tone set and the issues presented, > > >that at the very least all of you as AB members, representatives of > > >the project, would welcome and appreciate. > > > > > >I am totally amazed personally that some can sit and delete -All list > > >postings when it gets wild, yet summarily unsubscribe from Discuss. > > >And/or others taking me to task for trying to have a viable list to > > >discuss USGenWeb Project issues. > > > >Yet - if the posters don't do it to the tone you like - they get > >warned, moderated, unsubbed - depending on who they are - not what > >they say. > > > >I believe that is the jist of Robert and Jan's point. > > > >Perhaps the reason folks join the -all@us list - is because they wish > >to speak to issues that concern them, without fear of being moderated > >because they don't toe the administration's line of thought. > > > >I'm not a member of that list - for Discuss provides enough email as it > >is - which I'll get around to reading some time after I update my web > >sites - which are much more important to me than watching folks get > >slammed for opposing opinions, or hi-fives among the administration's > >cronies. > > > >Tim =========== At 05:58 PM 7/23/03 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > What Jana (she who is entirely capable of speaking for herself, thank > you) is proposing is that the AB come up with a sample document similar > to what was developed in Iowa regarding CC responsibilities as a > condition for being accepted as a CC into USGW membership and that we > ask states to use this document for *discussion* in each state to > clarify exactly why we are all here. Well, lets see. You said you advocated the "development of a set of standards for volunteerism that include descriptions of necessary skills, expected time commitments, agreement that what is contributed to a county site will stay with the site even when a CC leaves and that sites may not be stripped. This paper needs be signed before a new CC is accepted into a state project and to be signed retroactively by existing CCs." Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "needs to be signed"? Or "expected time commitments."? I see nothing in your discussion that states or implies that this will be some sort of "working document" or set of "discussion points". It sounds to me and to a whole lot of other people like something you'd like to see forced on CCs. Why don't you toss in a loyalty oath while you're at it? > If we all have learned anything in the last 7 years, it is that there is > no free ride. It costs money to provide free webspace and the fair > exchange IMO, is that CCs leave the work on the site when they leave so > the next new CC does not have to re-invent the wheel. USGenWeb is not providing free webspace or anything else to CCs, so why should it get to keep a CC's work when they leave the project? USGenWeb in fact does little or nothing for CCs, except threaten, censor, and abuse them when it sees fit, and ignore them when it can't be bothered to rouse itself. SCs, CCs, project file managers, transcribers, and other volunteeers benefit USGenWeb, not the other way around. So, no, there is no free ride and maybe you should just accept that the price of being snarky to your volunteers is that sometimes they get tired of it and up and leave with their stuff. > The purpose of such a document is to ensure that no one thinks that > their work is *not_primarily* for the Project. IMO, so many folks have > misguided interpretations of what constitutes copyright combined with > illusions of grandeur regarding the actual commercial value of such work > that making it clear upfront that USGW is *not* a place you can expect > to make money in is more important than ever. My work is *primarily* for the genealogical community at large. Whether or not someone wants to make money off of USGenWeb is irrelevant, and given the extreme rarity of profiteering in this Project, its little more than a red herring here. What IS relevant is that a volunteer's work is their work. _Nothing_ on a volunteer's website belongs to USGenWeb and it never did. If a volunteer wants to take their work with them when they go, that is their right, their prerogative and their business, and none of your own. > "Force" is your word not mine. My hope would be that most CCs would > immediately understand the purpose and wisdom of such an agreement and > as Don said, "rally behind it." If it means we lose some CCs, I say do > it sooner than later. Why should we rally behind something that insults us and steals our work? Not to mention being completely unenforceable and thus another farce. Anyways, thanks for making my point. It is warming to know that my representative values her constituents so highly. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ========= At 08:28 PM 7/23/03 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > Why Teresa! > > This is more than you have said to me in over a year - nice to hear from > you! How kind of you to reply. > Note, I have taken the DBS off my reply as you do not have my > permission to post what I am saying there and I corrected the EXEC > address as the one you used was inaccurate. And I have put them both back. If you have anything to say to me you can say it to your constituents as well. I am sure they will benefit from your wisdom. I certainly have. > What you are misunderstanding is the *context* in which what I said was > offered - i.e., "[BOARD-L] DISCUSSION ITEM: CCS" Discussion means > discussion - it means nothing is fixed, we are just brainstorming ideas. Nice run-around. I still do not understand how it is possible to misunderstand the words "needs to sign", "time committment" and "advocate". I am entirely on the *context* in which you offered your musing but the point is not what the Board is "brainstorming" it is what YOU continue to support, or shall we say "advocate". > I do think that at this_time in the life of the Project, we are at a > very *different* point than we were at in 1996. I *do* think we have a > larger responsibility, therefore the responsibility to look at issues > using a broader POV now than we did when the Project began years ago. If > I know anything about your style it is that you will try to twist what > is said to equal disaster and deception. Nope, what I am saying is not > about disaster or deception, it is about the opposite. Putting the needs > for the Project's survival first and hoping to make clear what the > priorities are up front so there is no misunderstanding down the line in > a world where competition to force free access offline is reality is > what I am trying to be part of discussion about. Actually, your original proposal of trading our work for free webspace did smack of something that might have come from MyFamily's marketing department, but even I doubt they would attempt something so stupid. I suppose the simplest way to put this is that I see no accrued benefit to the "USGenWeb Project" which is not a legal entity and cannot "own" anything by forcing CCs to sign away the rights to determine how and where their work is displayed. At best, you will impose yet another unenforceable farce on the Project that will just be ignored. Unless you are also advocating that the Project sue members who sign the agreement and then strip their pages anyways? Or that the Project make its own copy of all submitted work to any county pages in order to prevent any sneaking away in the dead of night. Wouldn't be thinking of using the Archives for that, would you? At worst, you will have a lot of good, hardworking CCs refusing to sign it, leaving the project and taking their work with them. If you advocate extending more control over the CCs by gaining access to their work, I respectfully suggest you are going about it backwards. You should first change the structure of USGenWeb itself (perhaps by formally incorporating it as a non-profit) so the members may KNOW for certain ( and not have to rely on the kind words and good intentions of revolving-door Board members and self-serving SCs) that their work will belong to a legal entity that is enjoined by law from selling off its assets. I doubt there will be much of a rush to sign > If your work is "is *primarily* for the genealogical community at large" > then you do not need USGW and USGW does not need you! Well, I always kinda considered USGenWeb to BE the "genealogical community at large", since if genealogists are not actually members, they are all potential customers. But apparently your viewpoint is narrower than that. > Why did you sign > up in the first place under a collective Project umbrella if you do not > care about the Project? Can you admit how it does and has benefited you > to be under the USGW umbrella??? Other than provide an easy-to-find link to my pages, no. Can you please enumerate for me the ways that USGenWeb members benefit from their membership in USGenWeb? > I do not expect so. Why did you not do > what so many others have done - put up a separate independent website > and function alone? As I noted, the one thing USGenWeb does for me, it does very well. I have no dissatisfaction with the arrangement. > Sorry, your presented view is very narrow and > incomplete and just does not cover all the elements involved for USGW > today. I agree profit is a "red herring" but I would go further and work > to make sure that "red herring" is brought out of the closet up front so > there is no chance that any new CCs could come in deluding themselves to > think that otherwise is true. Heh, someone clearly doesn't know the meaning of "red herring". > If you are not doing this for the love of > it, you are in the wrong place. You know very well that only original > intellectual property including web design and format of data belongs to > any individual - the data is public domain, the point here being that > USGW did not set itself up to have the data put up and down all the time > because someone wants to get weird about design and format. This Project > needs CCs and SCs who are committed to the spirit of the Project, not > ones who have such a narrow view that they can see no further than to be > possessive about "their work." Another red herring. The idea that someone can volunteer to spend time transcribing original works and the Project will not support their moral (if not legal) right to control that work is utterly repugnant, regardless of its status as "public domain". USGenWeb was set up to do nothing but provide a single point of entry for each county in the United States. No more and no less. I joined the project because it seemed like a simple and efficient way to benefit the genealogical community. All I have ever asked from USGenWeb is that it link to my pages and at least in that respect I have been very happy with my relationship with the Project. But certainly not enough to sign over control of my work or anyone else's work to my State Coordinators (who would ultimately control it anyways), at least not without some reciprocal and legally binding assurances that the work will not be transferred to other entities, have my name removed, or appear anywhere other than on the county page for which it was originally intended. > The entire reason to advocate change in attitude is for the furtherance > of the Project. I hope that most folks will have more farsightedness > than apparently you have in seeing this Project as a permanent proud > entity that we will all feel excellent having our name associated with > 20-30 years from now. If that means some small minded people need to > take their toys and go home, so be it - better now than later! If > showcasing and giving you credit where credit is due for your > contributions to the USGW Project insults you, then perhaps you need to > go elsewhere. What my constituents have told me is that they want the > Project to survive and the sites to get better and better regardless of > who any CC happens to be during a period of time. How wonderful it would > be in 50 years to see on every page a listing of all the CC contributors > to the collection of information available 24/7/365 for researchers! I > think THAT is a way more important legacy for the genealogical community > at large, but you can disagree. What is basically comes down to after all the words is a simple equation. You value the "Project" over the volunteers that do the work, and I value the volunteers over the Project. > The point here is I want to foster a sense of cooperation within > community - I agree you did make your point and that cooperation in > community is not something you value. Next step is to see if you "value" > the confidentiality of this private email to you and EXEC. While I agree that confidentiality has its place, I value openness with my constituents and fellow Board members more than I do skulking around in dark corners. If you choose to reply to this mail, please be aware that it will be posted in full with any response I make. That is my version of promoting "cooperation within community." Thanks for playing. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============= From the files of the Secret List! -Teresa merope@radix.net > > Diane- > > > > The Advisory Board considers your disagreements with Derick Hartshorn to > be > > a personal matter and will not accept any grievances or complaints > > regarding them. > > If you believe he has committed "slander" against you, you need to pursue > > the matter through your attorney. > > > > -Isaiah > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > > National Coordinator > > The USGenWeb Project > > > > And the following Advisory Board Members: > > Jana Black > > Don Kelly > > Pam Reid > > Tina Vickery > > Vicki Shaffer > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > > Darilee Bednar > > Larry Flesher > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > At 03:41 PM 7/16/03 -0400, GenWeb wrote: > > Please share with the AB and ensure that they receive my grievance: > > This today (Wednesday)Someone has forced Derick to remove that slanderous > > webpage he had in his RW account. > > But if anyone wants to still view it, it can be seen from google i their > > cache machine. > > > http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:lCXNuwqA0nkJ:www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/burkedat.h tm+y8g3n2ws%40coastalnet.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 > > > > The damage he has done just goes on and on doesn't it...here, and in the > > archives of mail. > > Can anyone advise me that as a member of the usgenweb project who has > > suffered much at the hands of Derick, that he will be investigated by the > AB > > through a grievance brought to you by me (a member) and that he shall have > > to stand trial for being a detriment to the entire usgenweb project > (*proven > > by his broad actions of malice using RW & the Project as tools.) > > Andrew B from RW warned Derick that if he continued to use RW resources to > > conduct his vendetta against me/others, he would be permanently barred > from > > using those RW resources. I evidence was present to specific board members > > and RW that he did indeed intentionally continue to abuse the services of > RW > > and his association with usgenweb project. Laryn Brown had even spoken > with > > the Board concerning the ongoing problems. > > Thanks, > > diane k > > TNGENWEB > > ======== At 10:03 AM 7/24/03 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > LOL - Hello Teresa, > > If Isaiah will allow it, I will make this much easier. It was you who > originally sent your post supposedly to the wrong EXEC address, copying > all AB members individually instead of just sending the post to BOARD-L > where Isaiah would likely have forwarded it on.... Using your usual > end-run of proper channels. I use that address because it is the only way I can be sure that my email goes where I intend it to. Our Most Esteemed National Coordinator does not see fit to send much of my mail forward. I'm sure he'll allow you to speak your piece though. > I replied as I did as a "test" and you > proved my suspicions that you still cannot honor requests for > confidentiality over the chance to try for self-aggrandizement on the > DBS. I never expected you would not need to "leak" what I wrote and it > is not my constituents I was keeping anything from. Ah, you see the games we play. I let you star in the DBS for a day and mention the archives because I know it will push your buttons and you send me little "tests". You'd think we'd have better things to do with our time. I do note however that now that your emails are no longer secret you have left off referring to your constituents as "small minded." Decent of you. [snip] > What you are not understanding is that I, as one AB member, in a BOARD-L > discussion arena will put out my initial thoughts, then listen to > thoughts put forth from other AB members and fine-tune my opinions until > we collectively come to a workable agreement, make a motion and vote on > it. I *do* stand behind what I originally advocated in theory, however, > I do not pretend to have the details entirely worked out regarding *how* > it would work or *whether* it would work. Ah, good thing we have these little conversations then. Wouldn't want you chasing off after every stray thought that drifts through your head. > That is why I work in a > collective body where we can all act as a check and balance for each > other. I never expect my ideas to be accepted carte blanc, but I at > least had the courage to put my ideas out there to be tested. I am not > ashamed of that. Well, you should be if you don't have the attention span to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Thankfully, this won't go anwhere. I have noticed that the Board has already sensibly moved on to other things, things that might actually be do-able and which will benefit the project and CCs, like training and help pages and the like, instead of flitting off after poorly thought out schemes to extort CCs out of their work. (Although I will note pursuant to the "time committment" discussion, that if an SC and a CC have an arrangement where a CC's name is on the page and the SC does the technical work and that arrangement pleases both of them, then it is no one else's business.) > The AB was created to "advise" and you know as well as > I do that without some Bylaws changes, SCs in certain states will ignore > any and all AB advice. However, that does not mean that a document > intended to spell out clearly from the get go what a CC would be getting > themselves into by joining this Project is a bad idea for most states > and most CCs. The mail I get disagrees with your opinion and says that > there are LOTS of folks who believe in the goals and ideals of the > Project and who would love the opportunity to have their names attached > as contributors, even if it is just for a short duration. Yes, just as > in any other venture, there will be people who do not have the foresight > to see that in contributing they are creating a perpetual legacy for > themselves and who will value personal possession over contribution - > this is nothing new in the non-prof world and is one of the factors that > sets apart commercial from non-prof ventures. As you certainly recall, > MyFamily.com did make their view of the legal alternatives very clear to > USGW not too long ago. One of the strengths of this Project however is > that we are not caught up in the legalisms of an incorporated group > therefore we *can* function fostering cooperation, trust and espirit de > corps rather than being stuck in law! Do you have a thing for herring? I would take all your talk of strengthening the project and giving the CCs rules to guide them a lot more seriously if I did not know that there already was a committee that put a lot of work into devising new guidelines for the CCs and for the SCs. And what happened to that report, hmmm? It got ignored, didn't it? Just disappeared into some black hole or something. I know it was just baby steps compared to your grandiose visions of 50 year legacies, but really, its a lot easier to convince people to take baby steps, particulary when it appears that a giant step will take them right off a cliff. [snip] > And, you have answered your own questions regarding what benefit the > Project offers - you benefit by getting an easy link to your pages. IOW, > your work gets seen as part of this Project where as an individual, you > would have to work a whole lot harder to "help" folks! That you have no > objection to the arrangement demonstrates that at some level you do see > how you do benefit. I believe I acknowled that benefit, but I do recall that I asked you to specifically mention other benefits. Can't think of any then? Other than eventually getting your name up in lights or something for that "personal legacy" that suddenly seems so important to you? > I DO believe the Project is what we are working to improve, but that > does NOT mean it is a matter of *valuing* Project *over* people or visa > versa! I value each and every volunteer as a unique contributor to the > whole of the Project, but please keep in mind, that just as you did, > every volunteer has to JOIN the Project, so it is the Project we want to > endure even as, for whatever reasons, CCs come and go. Projects come and go as well. They usually go when their volunteers do. And for someone who claims to value CCs you are awfully cavalier about booting out the ones that don't agree with your plans. > Teresa, I do appreciate open-ness as well and I wish we had had the > benefit of your worthy contributions consistently along the way as part > of the AB. I wish you had been willing, as have the rest of us to stick > to the issues rather than to wage the kinds of disrespectful battles > that got you moderated on this list. I have said it before and will say > it again, I think you have valuable points to make. I wish you had > initially sent this post to BOARD-L where it would have been included in > the general discussion. I hope that you will reply using BOARD-L. Jana, if you weren't so enamored of the sound of your own keyboard, you might take some time to listen to the people around you. I have had the opportunity to read some of the responses you have sent to constituents who have written you with their concerns over this proposed CC agreement. To a one, you have dismissed and belittled their concerns, vaguely accused them of disloyalty and short-sideness, and implicitly offered to show them the door if they would not accept your vision of a brave new world. Might I suggest something? People that disagree with your conception of where this project should go are not "small minded" or wedded to the past or incapable of growth. They have serious issues they would like addressed before they sign on to something that so fundamentally changes their relationship to this Project. If you are serious in your hope that the membership will "rally behind" this bold new idea of yours, you probably should think up some answers to their concerns instead of just washing empty platitudes over them. Whitewashing is whitewashing, and it just ends up looking like two things: you want to get your hands on their work, and you want to give the SCs one more stick to beat them with. You talk repeatedly about wanting this project to be around for 20, 30, even 50 years. I'm worried about it being here tomorrow. Which it won't be if you persist in alienating the volunteers who do the work. Peace out, -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not in Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ========== I object. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net At 10:49 PM 7/27/03 -0700, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > Thank you to all the Advisory Board members who participated in the CC/SC discussion. Many good issues and a variety of opinions were raised, and feedback from the members was received. > > Discussion has ended and as this was a "Discussion Item" there is no action to be taken. > > If there is no objection, the July meeting of the Advisory Board is adjourned. We will reconvene on August 4, 2003. > > Items may be added to the agenda at any time by forwarding them to the Chair. Please indicate whether your item is a Discussion Item or an actual Motion. If it is a Motion, please include the full text. > > -Isaiah ========= On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, GenWeb wrote: > This is a new proposal created by the bylaws committee which was appointed > by the AB. > > How will they determine what is the "content" of the website--do they mean > whatever is IN the account?? It will mean whatever they choose it to mean at the time. The wording is so broad that it can mean your basic html coding (since you "submit" that to the site), your own data transcriptions, and _anything_ contributed by anyone else. And it can include items stored in a place other than your "usgenweb" account. So, for instance, if I dutifully kept all submissions in my Radix account's webspace rather than my Skyways account, they could take it anyways. It is unlikely that Rootsweb will give them access to your account, but its equally unlikely they will prevent them from stealing what is in it. Don't kid yourselves. The loose wording is deliberate. They have already discussed the possibility that concerned people will try to move their data in order to claim it is not part of USGenWeb and they wish to prevent this from happening and to give themselves a legal way to snatch the data anyways. This amendment is nothing less than a way to claim legal ownership of every webpage affiliated with the USGenWeb Project. Nifty trick, huh? About the only legal way you could protect yourself from this would be to put a giant "YOU ARE NOW LEAVING USGENWEB" notice up whenever someone clicks on a link to your data. Remove ALL USGenWeb and XXGenWeb copyright or submission notices if you have them on your transcriptions. Notify donors when they submit that the data are being donated to you and not to USGenWeb. And don't keep your data in the same account you keep your county pages. They'll take your stuff anyways, but at least you tried. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net > diane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Swafford" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:21 PM > Subject: [ALL-L] Bylaws Revision -- News > > > > (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) > > > > The Bylaws Revision Committee (BRC) has completed a first draft revision > of > > Section 4 of Article X. Local Projects. > > > > Section 4. If a Local Coordinator can no longer perform their > > duties for any reason, (including, but not limited to, abandonment of the > > site, resignation or dismissal for valid cause), content of the website > > submitted by contributors shall remain with the website, unless the > > contributor(s) otherwise request. > > > > All revision drafts may be viewed at http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ > > > > Members are encouraged to send comments or questions related to this or > > other revision drafts. > > > > Roger Swafford > > BRC - Chairman ========= Point of order. My copy of Sturgis does not mention anything about the chair refusing to recognize a valid objection to a call for general consent. General consent requires unanimous consent. I believe it is inappropriate and premature to adjourn the meeting at this time. Thus, you do not have unanimous consent and are required to call for a motion and a vote in order to adjourn the meeting. Please explain to the assembly exactly why you find these two words "dilatory and obstructionist", and upon what grounds you are denying this properly made objection. Oh, and while you're at it, get the title of my office correct. It is incumbent on the presiding officer to properly address the members. To do otherwise is demeaning and insulting, and inhibits collegiality in the meeting. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net At 08:17 AM 7/28/03 -0700, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > At 05:07 AM 7/28/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >> I object. >> >> -Teresa Lindquist >> Representative At Large >> Member Not In Good Standing >> USGenWeb Project >> merope@radix.net > > > The chair finds the objection dilatory and obstructionist and does not recognize the Member-at-Large. > > -Isaiah ============= Richard knows there was both a valid objection and a valid point of order raised, both of which he has chosen to ignore. I ask for a ruling from the parliamentarian. -Teresa Lindquist Representative at Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net > Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:37:11 -0600 > X-Original-Sender: IsaiahH@cox.net Mon Jul 28 23:37:10 2003 > X-Sender: IsaiahH@pop.west.cox.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:35:20 -0700 > Old-To: BoarD-L > From: "Richard (Isaiah) Harrison" > Subject: [BOARD-L] Adjournment > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12567 > X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.563841, version=0.10.2 > > There being no objections the July meeting is adjourned. > > -Isaiah ========== This was posted to Tina's personal list by the Chair of the Bylaws Revision Committee: === From: "Roger Swafford" Subject: [USGW-Discuss] RE: Bylaws Revision - News / Feedback Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:52:01 -0500 (**Please forward to all appropriate project lists**) First I wish to thank everyone who has sent comments and suggestions regarding the latest revision draft. I'm confident that some rewording and grammar changes will be made during final review. Our project consists of volunteers with a common purpose. To provide "free access" information. Project members are those who maintain a website as a component part of the project or a XXGenWeb project, and abides by the basic requirements for those websites, such as the display of the logo. It follows then that when the bylaws refer to websites it means those which are associated with The USGenWeb Project. It has been commonly accepted that whenever a change in CC's (Local Coordinators) occurs, material contributed to the website remains with the associated website (regardless of where hosted). The task of being a CC is to provide the means of "free access" to those materials on behalf of the project and to add to those materials whenever possible. Therefore, the CC (Local Coordinator) is also a contributor. It is reasonable to expect that all contributions to a project website remain part of the website regardless of who the coordinator is or where the site is hosted. The draft revision contains "shall remain with the website, unless the contributor(s) otherwise request." Very often contributors can't be contacted to obtain permission to continue use or to move to another host. Therefore all contributions should be considered as for permanent use by The USGenWeb Project as long as the material is available for "free access". The purpose of the project and the spirit of volunteerism in providing free access material is best served by XXGenWeb county websites which continue to grow and remain intact. Members who depart are entitled to keep copies of their own work and are expected to provide copies for continued use by the project. Roger === So it appears at this point that the most reasonable approach to protecting the integrity of your work and that of your contributors is to 1) remove the USGW logos from your webpages (which unless you have understanding SCs will result in your removal from the project; 2) remove all your data pages from your USGenWeb account, making it clear, either by a disclaimer on your pages or a pass-through page, that any following information is just data you link to and is in no way to be construed as part of your USGenWeb page; and/or 3) put a disclaimer on all your work and all submitted work similar to that found here: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/8473/ (although a less confrontive wording might be more appropriate). Since they are claiming "permanent use" of _all_ contributed material to _any_ site they deem to be part of the project, they can theoretically keep control of your links pages, your queries, your archives, your photo galleries, and _anything_ else you choose to put on your pages. So, the only thing to do at this point is not to put anything at all on your pages. Have a front page that is in compliance with the minimal guidelines in place (logo and link to a query site) and either move everything else somewhere else or take the project logos off it. Believe me, if you don't protect your work, USGenWeb surely will not. USGW talks a good game about honoring copyright, but that usually just means they have their hand in your pocket. (cf http://www.radix.net/~merope/history/chapter74a.htm) -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large Member Not In Good Standing USGenWeb Project merope@radix.net ============== > From: "Karen Mitchell" > To: > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:42:30 -0600 > Subject: [ALL] list > > A new list has been set up for the discussion of Project issues. Those that > are interested can contact me for the details. > Karen Mitchell > km1109@aculink.net ============ From Dick Eastman: > From: Dick Eastman > Subject: [Newsletter-standard] Genealogy Scam Artist Arrested! > Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:41:48 -0400 > > SPECIAL EDITION: Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter > > I have written a number of times about a genealogy-related scam that operates under a variety of names, including GenSeekers.com, GenealogyGiants.com and more. In the July 7 edition of the newsletter, I identified the owner/operator of this "business" as 21-year-old Elias Abodeely of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Since then, I have had conversations with several people in Iowa about this "business." > > I can now report that earlier today the Cedar Rapids police department arrested Elias Abodeely for his activities with GenSeekers.com and the other Web sites he operates. > > KWWL television in Iowa is now reporting that Cedar Rapids Police have made an arrest after a two year Internet crime investigation. The crimes involved genealogy websites. Today police arrested Elias Abodeely II of Cedar Rapids.. He faces four charges: 1st degree theft, identity theft, money laundering, and ongoing criminal conduct. Police say they expect to file charges against more suspects. > > Details are still developing. Keep an eye on the newsletter Discussion Board at http://www.eogn.com for updates. I will also be writing about this in the next newsletter. > > You can read my earlier article at http://www.eogn.com/archives/news0327.htm. > > - Dick Eastman ========== Looks like MyFamily's purge of the old Rootsweb staff is just about complete. I wonder what "liaison" they will stick us with this time. -Teresa merope@radix.net > X-Message: #2 > Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:21:34 -0500 > From: Betsy Mills > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030802092119.0308c460@mail.1starnet.com> > Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] News Flash > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > As some of you may have already heard, I'm no longer with RootsWeb. You can still contact me at my personal e-mail address - betsym@1starnet.com. I've had a great time at RootsWeb--working with all the wonderful online genealogists. I'm not leaving genealogy or USGenWeb, just regrouping. > > Anyone with ideas or job opportunities, please e-mail me. > > Will work for genealogy, er food, er . . . > > Betsy ========= > To all USGenWeb Members: > > Please forward to all USGenWeb Members and appropriate mail lists. > > This is an Announce-only mailing. Please do not reply. You are receiving this Announcement because you are a member of the USGenWeb Project. If you are no longer a Project member, please contact the USGenWeb Election Committee immediately via Marti Graham . > > Results of the National 2003 Election, July 1 - 31, 2003: > > National Coordinator > Total Votes: 499 > > Richard Harrison - 150 30.1% > Tim Stowell - 114 22.8% > Ron Eason - 89 17.8% > Jim Powell - 78 15.6% > Bill Oliver - 68 13.6% > > Run-off between Richard Harrison and Tim Stowell > --- > > Representative At Large > Total Votes: 425 > > Shari Handley - 141 33.2% > Angie Rayfield - 113 26.6% > Jason Mendenhall - 88 20.7% > Ellen Rohr - 83 19.5% > > Run-off between Shari Handley and Angie Rayfield > -- > > Archives Representative > Total Votes: 61 > > Cyndie Enfinger - 22 36.1% > Ken Johnson - 21 34.4% > Maggie Stewart-Zimmerman - 18 29.5% > > Runoff - Cyndie Enfinger and Ken Johnson > -- > > Tombstone Representative > > Pam Reid - 14 100% > > Unopposed - The Election Committee Hereby Declares Pam Reid Winner > -- > > NorthEast/North Central SC Representative > Total Votes: 8 > > Richard Howland - 5 62.5% > Marcia Kuehl - 3 37.5% > > The Election Committee Hereby Declares Richard Howland Winner. > -- > > NorthEast/North Central CC Rep > Total Votes: 116 > > Barbara Lavin - 41 35.3% > Teri Brown - 39 33.6% > Scott Burow - 36 31.0% > > Run-Off between Barbara Lavin and Teri Brown > -- > > NorthWest Plains SC Representative > > Don Kelly - 6 100% > > Unopposed - The Election Committee Hereby Declares Don Kelly Winner. > -- > > Northwest Plains CC Representative - Two Seats Available > Total Votes: 165 > > Gail Meyer Kilgore - 60 36.4% > Darilee Bednar - 55 33.3% > Sandra Newman Sanchez - 50 30.3% > > The Election Committee Hereby Declares: > Gail Meyer Kilgore Winner - Two year Term > Darilee Bednar Winner - One Year Term > -- > > SouthEast/Mid-Atlantic SC Representative > > Christine Goff - 12 100% > > Unopposed - The Election Committee Hereby Declares Christine Goff Winner > -- > > SouthEast/Mid-Atlantic CC Representative - Two Positions Available > Total Votes: 308 > > Denise Woodside - 83 26.9% > Linda Blum-Barton - 77 25.0% > Heather Jones DeGeorge - 72 23.4% > Tom Parker - 46 14.9% > Ron Dailey - 30 9.7% > > The Election Committee Hereby Declares: > Denise Woodside - Two Year Term > Linda Blum-Barton - One Year Term > -- > > Southwest/South Central CC Representative > Total Votes: 129 > > Bettie Wood - 53 41.1% > Roger Swafford - 35 27.1% > Bunny Freeman - 23 17.8% > Jeff Scism - 18 14.0% > > Run-Off - Bettie Wood and Roger Swafford. > > Information about the run-offs will be announced soon. > > The Election Committee would like to thank all who participated, and to extend a special thank you to Larry Stephens for his invaluable assistance in operating the voting software. > > Thank you, > > The USGenWeb Election Committee ============= It won't go anywhere, but Jeff makes some interesting points. -Teresa > Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:19:47 -0700 > From: Jeff Scism > Organization: Blacksheep Genealogy > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) > X-Accept-Language: en,ca,be,id,es-ES,zh > To: IsaiahH@cox.net, pamreid@comcast.net, merope@radix.net, > tsvickery@adelphia.net, bremerr@oclc.org, cristian@netonecom.net, > donkelly@grovenet.net, gkilgore@globalcrossing.net, > bookstorelady@prodigy.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, > heatherdegeorge@writeme.com, angie@angiesplace.behosting.com, > lflesher@fidnet.com, wchs@getgoin.net, janab@websweweave.net, > usgwboard@tyaskin.com, sagitta56@mchsi.com > Subject: [Fwd: Re: USGenWeb Elections challenged] > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.598952, version=0.10.2 > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: USGenWeb Elections challenged > Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:59:49 -0500 > From: Ellen Pack > To: Jeff Scism , LShockey@citynet.net > References: <200308051143.h75BhQd07870@pml.rootsweb.com> > > Hi, Jeff - > > I believe the Advisory Board would be the appropriate body to contact > regarding your concerns. > > The EC is a sub-committee of the AB. The EC feels it is acting > appropriately within the scope and charge of it's responsibility, and > as > authorized by the AB. > > Permission granted to forward to AB members. > > Thanks, > > Ellen Pack > Chair, Election Committee > > At 07:38 AM 8/5/2003 -0700, Jeff Scism wrote: > >Subject: USGenweb Election > >Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:32:16 -0700 > >From: Jeff Scism > >Organization: Blacksheep Genealogy > >To: Marti > >CC: fourls1223@aol.com, sagitta56@mchsi.com, > > nana321@earthlink.net, Scismgenie@adelphia.net > > > >I am challenging the validity of the election results as posted. > >(I am not challenging that I LOST the election, I am challenging the > >legality of Run-offs and other points as specified herein) > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >The following positions should be declared VACANT because no one > >individual recieved 50%+1 (Majority) of all votes cast, AND Run-off > >elections are not specified by USGenWeb Project Bylaws, and are > >prohibited because they would fall outside of the SPECIFIC VOTING > >PERIOD. > > > >Results of the National 2003 Election, July 1 - 31, 2003: > > > >National Coordinator- NO Individual recieved 50%+1 of the votes. > > > >Representative At Large- NO Individual recieved 50%+1 of the votes. > > > >Archives Representative- NO Individual recieved 50%+1 of the votes. > > > >NorthEast/North Central CC Rep- NO Individual recieved 50%+1 of the > >votes. > > > >Northwest Plains CC Representative - Two Seats Available- NO > >Individual recieved 50%+1 of the votes. > > > >SouthEast/Mid-Atlantic CC Representative - Two Positions Available- NO > >Individual recieved 50%+1 of the votes. > > > >Southwest/South Central CC Representative- NO Individual recieved > >50%+1 of the votes. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Re: Election results, a series of "Run-Off" elections have been > >declared for those where the leading vote getter did not get 50% or > >more of the votes cast. > > > >Such run-off elections are illegal under the USGenWeb Project Bylaws > >as in effect on 1 July 2003, when the election commenced. > > > >Specifically: > > > >Under ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > > > >"Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No member > >shall hold more than one voting office at any one time..." > > > >This section requires any "winning" candidate to have recieved at > >least 50%+1 of the cast votes for that race. (Says NOTHING about > >run-offs or ties, nor about how many positions are available to fill, > >each electee must have 50%+1 (majority) of cast votes to be a valid > >election). > >-- > > ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > > > >"Section 3. Nominations shall be received during the first two weeks > >of June. A list of candidates shall be posted to the national website > >on or before the voting period begins on July 1, with profiles/bios to > >be posted on July 1. The voting period shall be July 1 through July > >31." > > > >The bylaws do not stipulate a run-off, nor a specific timeframe or > >procedure for conducting one, any voting OUTSIDE of the specified > >voting period (The voting period shall be July 1 through July 31) is > >unlawful under the bylaws. > > > >The only SPECIFIC special election allowed by the BYLAWS is to seat a > >permanent NC if the post is held by an Advisory Board appointed > >Pro-Tem. > > > >NO allowance for voting OUTSIDE this period is authorized. (If the > >voting doesn't carry in the voting period, it is like the election > >didn't occur, the position becomes VACANT, NO-ONE was elected.) > > > >ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD states: > > > >"Section 8. In the event a board member is unable to complete his/her > >term, the Advisory Board will appoint a replacement to serve until the > >next scheduled election." > > > >If NO-ONE > >has been elected to fill the beginning terms, and the outgoing Member > >is fulfilling their term, then the ADVISORY BOARD cannot appoint a > >person to fill that vacancy, the BYLAWS conditions have NOT been met > >(The office is vacant). > > > >ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD > > > >"Section 1. The Advisory Board shall perform the duties prescribed by > >these Bylaws, and by accepted parliamentary procedures." > > > >UNLESS the "Accepted Parliamentary Procedures" are specified, they > >are non-existant. (People have said "Sturgis" and "Roberts" but they > >have to be NAMED in the Bylaws to be "Accepted". If they are not > >specically named in the bylaws they are not "accepted".(Because the > >Bylaws state they have to be accepted, a BYLAWS Amendment would be > >necessary to set the standard, or to change it.) NO set standards, > >then the BYLAWS are the default, as written, in other words NO > >Run-offs, the Offices are vacant, because no-one recieved 50%+1 of > >the cast votes, and no authority exists to either fill the > >vacancies, have "run-off" elections, or do anything else except wait > >for July 2004 to fill the vacancies...and hope for someone to get > >50%+1 of the cast votes, because NEW Amended Bylaws cannot be > >implemented until AFTER that election, by the existing bylaws.) > > > >((Starting from scratch with NEW Bylaws won't work either if the > >existing Board is elected under the current ones, the new ones would > >only be in effect after the existing Board is replaced, cancelling > >the Bylaws removes the Board's authority under law to do ANY business. > >A REVISION is equal to an Amendment, and that means after 2004.) > > > >~~~For reference: > > > >ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > > > > Section 1. A subcommittee to oversee > >elections shall be appointed by the Advisory Board. The Elections > >Subcommittee shall consist of Advisory Board members and volunteers > >from the members of The USGenWeb Project. > > > > Section 2. It shall be the responsibility of > >the Elections Subcommittee to announce those positions for which > >nominations are needed. > > > > Section 3. Nominations shall be received > >during the first two weeks of June. A list of candidates shall be > >posted to the national website on or before the voting period begins > >on July 1, with profiles/bios to be posted on July 1. The voting > >period shall be July 1 through July 31. Terms of office shall begin on > >September 1. In the event a member is nominated for more than one > >position, the nominee shall notify the Elections Subcommittee for > >which office they wish to declare their candidacy. > > > > Section 4. A majority of those members voting > >shall elect. No member shall hold more than one voting office at any > >one time. > > > > Section 5. All members of the Advisory Board, > >with the exception of the the National Coordinator, shall be elected > >to two-year terms. The National Coordinator shall be elected to a > >one-year term. > > > > Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb > >Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers,shall be > >eligible to vote. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Jeff Scism, > > ========= > From: "Sandra Newman Sanchez" > To: "All list" > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:20:03 -0500 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 > Subject: [ALL] run off candidates debate > X-BeenThere: All@usgenweb.us > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 > Reply-To: All@usgenweb.us > List-Id: > List-Help: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: , > > List-Archive: > List-Unsubscribe: , > > Sender: All-bounces@usgenweb.us > X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report > X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server708.rackmonster.com > X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - radix.net > X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] > X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usgenweb.us > X-Spam: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.603112, version=0.10.2 > > Candidates for National Coordinator and Representative at large are > participating in a debate. > > Questions were submitted by members of the USGenWeb Project in order to > ascertain the Candidates positions on various issues. > You can view the questions and the Candidates answers at: > http://usgwp.org/boards/ncral/ncral.pl > > > > Please remember to vote at > https://www.indiana.edu/~riskmgmt/NationalRunoff.html. > > > > > > Sandra Newman Sanchez > USGenWeb County Coordinator Linn Co. Iowa > http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ia/county/linn/usgenweblinn/index.html > USGenWeb County Coordinator Orange Co. Indiana > http://www.usgennet.org/usa/in/county/orange/ ==========