From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 21:45:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01171 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16103 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8CD5B3C137; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58543C12C for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.208]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916014506.ERLG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915214036.040382a0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:50:28 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] CC and SC members subbed In-Reply-To: <003c01c01f7b$166aa460$d32b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915204318.034d5570@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 08:11 PM 9/15/00 -0500, you wrote: >Holly, >A couple of questions: >1. Is this the complete committee listing? this is the complete listing of SC and CC members, also here are Board members: Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep., Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep.; Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep., Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep. and myself, Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair Our NC, Tim Stowell is to be an ex-officio member of all committees so I expect to sub him to this list after hearing back from him... just fell into my mailbox... he should be subbed when you read this Holly >2. Since I didn't really pay much attention to what was passed by the AB, >please forward it to this list. It is long ago deleted from my computer. >:o)) > >Carol > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Holly Timm" >To: >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 8:53 PM >Subject: [ESC] CC and SC members subbed > > > > The following have been subbed to this list: > > > > SC: Nathan Zipfel nate@gte.net NE PA > > Linda Mason msgenweb@netdoor.com SE MS > > Carol Haagensen wygenweb@ipa.net NW WY > > Patrick Hays ingen@migrations.org NE IN > > Mary Ann Hetrick MHet703234@aol.com NW CO > > > > CC: Robert Sullivan SCP_SULLI@sals.edu CC NE NY > > Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net NE IL > > Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu NW MN, SD > > John McCoy jhmccoy@efn.org NW NE > > Esther Frye esse_frye@hotmail.com NW IA > > Chip Brown Morom01@aol.com SE TN > > Carol Carwile-Head cch@netdoor.com SE GA > > Teresa Lindquist merope@Radix.Net SW KS > > Bob Chada bchada@flash.net SW OK > > Linda Hotchkiss ljdt@inreach.com SW CA > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 22:51:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA06185 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23222 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 181F23C18B; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA833C146 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.18]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916025124.FXUJ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:51:24 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915224947.00bd2b70@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:56:46 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda..ELEGIBILTY OF VOTING In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 09:39 PM 9/15/00 -0400, Esse Frye wrote: >First off, let me introduce myself to the ones who have no idea who I am. >I am the CC of Pocahontas and Poweshiek Co. IA. I live in Indiana, but I >have ancestors who came from IA. >I have been a county co-ordinator for several states, including Indiana, >Illinois, Ohio and now Iowa. I enjoy volunteering my time in posting >information for my viewers on my webpage and helping others finding their >roots. Hi Esse! >I would like to discuss elegibilty of voters, the requirements and the >cutoff date. >I feel that a elegible voter should be a CC in good standing, have a fair >knowledge of the county he/or she is hosting, can qualify as a voter in >hosting counties in different states; and having a vote for >all counties that they host, but excluding one county vote if it is in the >same state. A cut off date should be at the most three to six months. From list traffic beginning before the election, it looks like eligibility is our hottest topic, followed by the mechanics of voting. >Also, the SC should bear the responsibility of letting his constiuents >know of the election. I know in one state which I will not name, the CC's >were not informed of any elections. I hope this has changed. >Does anyone have any suggestions on this one? Here's one for section D - *other stuff* --- what might be called Election PR --- I think after a brief period of introducing ourselves and general comments including which topics are *nearest and dearest* to each of us, we should tackle one topic at a time. I've got to be away a good chunk of tomorrow so have at it with the commentary and introductions and we'll see what comes out on top to start with. Holly >>From: Holly Timm >>AS per the motion, here is our agenda: >> >>a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible >>positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; >>b. Standing Election Committee; >>c. Voting mechanism including location and method; >>d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or >>brought to their attention by others. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 00:08:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11290 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01571 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2BFE13C18D; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3963C157 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.77.162.217]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000916040843.UFJE4085.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:08:43 +0000 Message-ID: <00a301c01f93$7e20b460$0201500a@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:06:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi everyone, I'm Connie Bates, the CC of Henderson Co, IL. I've been an avid genealogist for over 15 years - and loved The USGenWeb Project from the moment I first laid eyes on it. I had a mail list brought over from maiser, and have been the CC for Henderson Co for a little over 2 years - too new to vote in the first election, had mechanical problems in voting in the second, but voted in this last one. I not only don't live there - I have only visited there twice, and the total amount of time that I have spent there is probably less than 60 hours, including the time I spent sleeping when everything was closed and it was too dark to see in the cemeteries! As some of you know :) I can be extremely vocal when I strongly agree or disagree with actions or points of view presented to me. On the other hand, I have found myself being called to mediate problems where I've worked (and since I've moved every 2 years for the past 30 years, I've had lots of workplaces) because I am able to see both sides in any dispute and can usually reach a compromise. (Oldest of 5 kids - learned early on ) I think the most pressing part of the agenda is eligibility, then voting mechanism, then the EC, and finally, all other issues. I am truly looking forward to being part of this committee. Connie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:24 PM Subject: [ESC] agenda > AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > > a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > b. Standing Election Committee; > c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or > brought to their attention by others. > > Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 00:08:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11285 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01567 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 484233C174; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from sallib.sals.edu (sallib.sals.edu [198.175.242.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4295E3C13F for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sallib.sals.edu for ESC@PAIRLIST.NET; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 0:03:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 0:03:48 -0400 From: Robert Sullivan To: ESC@pairlist.net Cc: SCP_SULLI@sals.edu Message-Id: <000916000348.e41d@sals.edu> Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I've been CC of Schenectady County, NY, since the inception of the project. I am not a genealogist, but a librarian who got into this through my interest in indexing old newspapers. I am also among other things a database programmer, and joined this group in hope that my experience would be of some value in the technical area. I have no preference for which topic we discuss first. Since I'm just coming out a long week with a death in the family, I will hold my thoughts until after I've had some sleep. :-) Bob Sullivan scp_sulli@sals.edu Schenectady County Public Library (NY) http://www.scpl.org _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 02:23:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA20374 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13507 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5A1983C191; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9658A3C186 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-147.efn.org (pm3-147.efn.org [206.163.180.147]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8G6NfA03682; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C3132C.16C7@efn.org> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:29:00 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Cc: jhmccoy@efn.org Subject: [ESC] Intro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi Everyone, My name is John McCoy, I live in Springfield, Oregon, and I am a volunteer with the (Nebraska) NEGenWeb Project. I am currently cc for Morrill County and the volunteer coordinator for our Nebraska Railroads web pages, which are part of the NEGenWeb Resource pages. I have been with the NEGenWeb Project since October of 1996, and served a stint as Assistant State Coordinator and State Coordinator when our project was still new. I have worked with other volunteer organizations as well, such as our local Habitat for Humanity (I was on the board of directors for four years). I am amazed at the fact that volunteer organizations accomplish all that they do. I believe it comes from having dedicated folks that may be idealists, but folks that have a desire to see an idea become a reality and are willing to work for that end. The USGenWeb Project falls right into that category. I am looking forward to working with all of you, and getting to know everyone better. I must thank Holly for all the hard work she has already out into getting us organized and an agenda set up. I am sure under her leadership, we will accomplish all the goals that have been set for us. John _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 20:37:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA26172 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:37:18 -0400 (EDT) From: esc-admin@pairlist.net Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08672 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2402A3C15A; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Welcome to the "Esc" mailing list To: merope@radix.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Message-Id: <20000916003658.2402A3C15A@pairlist.net> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Status: RO X-Status: Welcome to the Esc@pairlist.net mailing list! To post to this list, send your email to: esc@pairlist.net General information about the mailing list is at: http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/options/esc/merope@radix.net You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: Esc-request@pairlist.net with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You must know your password to change your options (including changing the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: cjrw If you forget your password, don't worry, you will receive a monthly reminder telling you what all your pairlist.net mailing list passwords are, and how to unsubscribe or change your options. There is also a button on your options page that will email your current password to you. You may also have your password mailed to you automatically off of the Web page noted above. From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 20:48:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA26839 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09746 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0BA6D3C15A; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBCB3C147 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.208]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916004758.DMQI425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:47:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915204318.034d5570@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:53:20 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] CC and SC members subbed Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: The following have been subbed to this list: SC: Nathan Zipfel nate@gte.net NE PA Linda Mason msgenweb@netdoor.com SE MS Carol Haagensen wygenweb@ipa.net NW WY Patrick Hays ingen@migrations.org NE IN Mary Ann Hetrick MHet703234@aol.com NW CO CC: Robert Sullivan SCP_SULLI@sals.edu CC NE NY Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net NE IL Jerimiah Moerke moer0020@tc.umn.edu NW MN, SD John McCoy jhmccoy@efn.org NW NE Esther Frye esse_frye@hotmail.com NW IA Chip Brown Morom01@aol.com SE TN Carol Carwile-Head cch@netdoor.com SE GA Teresa Lindquist merope@Radix.Net SW KS Bob Chada bchada@flash.net SW OK Linda Hotchkiss ljdt@inreach.com SW CA _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 21:14:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28808 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12749 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:14:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9C4AF3C13D; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A943C121 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.208]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916011429.ECHD425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:14:29 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915205806.034d1750@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:08:50 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] list/committee policy Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I didn't pretty this up in fancy language because this is a study committee not parliament You're free to comment on it but if you can't live with it for our purposes, especially the first paragraph, please withdraw from the committee. Please everybody, do introduce yourselves. 1) this list will be confidential, no posting, sharing, etc elsewhere, not to be secretive but so that we can be free to post our thoughts, ideas, suggestions, even devils advocate stuff without being examined under a microscope, quoted, etc.... everyone on the committee must agree to that or withdraw... our results will be public including minority opinions of substance but our studying doesn't need to be.... 2) we are here to discuss election issues not investigate past *misdeeds* or get into other topics no matter how important they are to USGenWeb, we've got plenty to talk about that is on our agenda we are here to talk issues... not personalties! no personal insults or attacks... this is especially important because we are to do our best to have a broad spectrum of opinions and perspectives and we will not agree on everything.... 3) there is no need for formal rules, procedures and language until we get to crafting our report... think of it like a bunch of people sitting around a table with coffee and doughnuts (or double chocolate fudge brownies) talking.... _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 21:19:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA29186 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13417 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 249FA3C13D; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492893C121 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.208]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916011931.EEVW425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:19:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:24:53 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] agenda Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A AS per the motion, here is our agenda: a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; b. Standing Election Committee; c. Voting mechanism including location and method; d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or brought to their attention by others. Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 21:39:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00576 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15474 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D9E1D3C172; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f166.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.166]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6063C13D for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:39:07 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.73 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:39:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.73] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda..ELEGIBILTY OF VOTING Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:39:06 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2000 01:39:07.0112 (UTC) FILETIME=[E72BC680:01C01F7E] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: First off, let me introduce myself to the ones who have no idea who I am. I am the CC of Pocahontas and Poweshiek Co. IA. I live in Indiana, but I have ancestors who came from IA. I have been a county co-ordinator for several states, including Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and now Iowa. I enjoy volunteering my time in posting information for my viewers on my webpage and helping others finding their roots. I would like to discuss elegibilty of voters, the requirements and the cutoff date. I feel that a elegible voter should be a CC in good standing, have a fair knowledge of the county he/or she is hosting, can qualify as a voter in hosting counties in different states; and having a vote for all counties that they host, but excluding one county vote if it is in the same state. A cut off date should be at the most three to six months. Also, the SC should bear the responsibility of letting his constiuents know of the election. I know in one state which I will not name, the CC's were not informed of any elections. I hope this has changed. Does anyone have any suggestions on this one? Sincerely, Esse >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] agenda >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:24:53 -0500 > >AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > >a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible >positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; >b. Standing Election Committee; >c. Voting mechanism including location and method; >d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or >brought to their attention by others. > >Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Sep 15 22:04:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA02895 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18271 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8C1E33C12C; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtppop1.gte.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A91F3C13C for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zip1 (A010-0218.MNAS.splitrock.net [209.156.76.218]) by smtppop1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id VAA519165 Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:00:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Subject: RE: [ESC] agenda Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:05:57 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4132.2800 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Importance: Normal Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi all and thanks Holly for getting this organized. I think that the first thing that should be discussed is eligibility for voting. As a SC I feel that I'm best qualified to determine who in my state is eligible to vote. I think that there should be some clear guidelines at the national level for the national elections. It should be left up to the states on how they conduct their internal elections. It probable makes sense to have a cut-off for eligibility, say 30 days, since if it's someone new to the USGenWeb they aren't going to know their head from a hole in the ground during that first 30 days anyways and would probable seek advise from me on who to vote for. "Good Standing" - I believe that should be the decision of the State Coordinator. Unless it involved a grievance or some issue that the Advisory Board needed to address in accordance with the by-laws, it is the SCs responsibility. "Eligible Positions" - This one is harder and I've struggle with it myself. In PA we don't have any positions other than the SC, ASC, CC and in some cases co-CC's. Should it be one county one vote or should each person get a vote for the county? I have two counties which have a trio of coordinators. In a couple of counties it is broken down to township coordinators, should they be given a vote as well? For this last election all three were listed as eligible to vote, but should it be limited? Should it be a max of two? Those are some of my initial thoughts. Nate Nathan Zipfel PaGenWeb Project State Coordinator http://www.pa-roots.com/pagenweb -----Original Message----- From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Holly Timm Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 PM To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] agenda AS per the motion, here is our agenda: a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; b. Standing Election Committee; c. Voting mechanism including location and method; d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or brought to their attention by others. Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 09:17:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA13496 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15265 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 93DC83C14E; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB2E3C136 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-2inio1r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.96.59]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA21016 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007801c01fe0$b5b44700$3b6079a5@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:19:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Intro and agenda Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Just to keep things simple, rather than post a whole introduction to the list, here was a page I put online for the INGenWeb SC election. Very little has changed (except now I am SC, I'll update it later): http://www.geocities.com/~gsdownr/Blackford/patrick.html. As far as the agenda is concerned, I would say that with all of the protests, agenda item 'a' should be at the top of the list. I would also suggest something for agenda item 'd': that a mechanism needs to be in place to prevent corruption in the voting process. Our elections have appeared poorly run and have appearance of being doctored, and that appearance can be very powerful and damaging (note: I did say "appeared" not "was", and I did not specify any individual election). This could in fact be related to each of the agenda items individually, but definitely needs to be addressed. > > a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > b. Standing Election Committee; > c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or > brought to their attention by others. > Patrick _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 09:45:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA14917 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17874 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C68A53C13A; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA953C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:45:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-116.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.116]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA27553 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:45:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002e01c01fe4$39298200$742b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Subject: [ESC] Intros Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:44:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi! I'm the SC for Wyoming. Every since I first discovered the USGW, I wanted to help. Not only was it a way to do something for the State and counties that I love so much, but it has been a way to pay back all the wonderful "cousins" who simply mailed me generations worth of their research. I think we all have had someone help us in that way at one time or another. Considering the comments from the last election, I think we might want to tackle "eligibility" first. If we all live through that, the rest should be a cake walk! Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 09:47:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15119 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18180 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 87C4E3C13A; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F8B3C136 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.e.25c9602 (4247) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:47:06 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Well, I see several members who know me or know of me already. I have been a County Coordinator since 98, and have been the Colorado, SC for the last year. I hope our endeavor is positive and constructive. Mary Ann Hetrick _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 09:50:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15216 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18358 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 381B63C150; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6173C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.61.72e9c3a (7401) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:49:57 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <61.72e9c3a.26f4d485@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:49:57 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Agenda item "a" in my opinion is by far the most critical. Many of the recommendations that we discuss with that agenda item, will enter into the process for discussing b, c, and d. Tina In a message dated 9/15/00 9:19:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: > AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > > a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > b. Standing Election Committee; > c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or > brought to their attention by others. > > Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 09:59:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA15745 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19261 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7CFC63C151; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CA73C13D for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.f3.2be157d (4247) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:16 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:59:16 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/15/00 6:19:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; >> I think that is the big one to tackel first. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 10:01:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA15889 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19452 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DD11E3C151; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F633C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.be.96577f4 (7401) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:32 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:01:32 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, For those of you who don't know me, I am Tina Vickery, NE/NC County Coordinator Rep. on the AB. But.. I also, am SC of WI, ASC of Maine, and CC for two counties in Maine, and other assorted duties. I very much want the committee to bring together good, sound recommendations to the USGenWeb Project regarding the election process. I am very pleased that we are all here to do just that! Holly, pass the brownies! Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 10:18:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17016 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21074 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 544D33C155; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887D23C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp113-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.129]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA18390 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:17:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002401c01fe8$0ccfe9c0$81b3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <61.72e9c3a.26f4d485@aol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:11:45 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi all, Though I'm here on this committee as "AB member", I'm also a CC for Somerset and Wicomico Counties in MD (since The Beginning) , and ASC for MDGenWeb. IRL, I have a husband, Mike, and 2 young daughters, ages 10 and 5. I recently "retired" as an RN, and am currently trying my hand at starting up my own small business. Mike and the girls and I enjoy our involvement with the church we attend, especially the music program. I'll add my vote to begin our task on item "a". Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda > Agenda item "a" in my opinion is by far the most critical. Many of the > recommendations that we discuss with that agenda item, will enter into the > process for discussing b, c, and d. > > Tina > > In a message dated 9/15/00 9:19:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > hollyft@bright.net writes: > > > AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > > > > a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > > positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > > b. Standing Election Committee; > > c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > > d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members > or > > brought to their attention by others. > > > > Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 11:14:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21304 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26885 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9790B3C130; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp.inreach.com (mail.inreach.com [209.142.2.34]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF0D3C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ljdt (208-25-62-12.stk.inreach.net [208.25.62.12]) by smtp.inreach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA14933 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006a01c01ff1$0321cca0$f43a19d0@ljdt> From: "Mrs. Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres" To: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:15:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] I am looking forward to working with all of you. Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: As a relatively new CC for Nevada Co., CA, I am not only surprised but honored to be a part of this committee. I hope that I can make a positive contribution or even a suggestion that might make a difference for the betterment of future elections. When it was announced that nominations were open this year, I was very interested in what was transpiring, but when I started seeing personal attacks and insults flying, I wasn't sure I even wanted to be apart of such an organization. I would like to see this whole process taken to a higher level. Perhaps someone can field questions from the voters, passing them on to the candidates to be answered, thus keeping focused on the issues. What I was seeing was totally unnecessary and belittling to our entire organization, definitely unkeeping with the attitudes of comradery that should be developing along with the furthering of our goals. I am anxious to hear of your concerns and suggestions for making this entire election process more in keeping with the degree of professionalism that should be exampled by all of us. I am also very eager to learn about the other items on the agenda as I defer to those with more experience about those issues. I have been an avid genealogist since 1972, an honored member of the Daughters of the Revolution, an organizing director of a stake family history center from 1989 to1995, held numerous offices on the PTC board and 4-H leadership positions as my children were growing up and served on a county grand jury, all in California. I look forward to working with all of you in any capacity I am needed. Unfortunately, Monday I start vacation and will be gone until the middle of the following week. Has this committee been established for the long haul or for just a couple of weeks? I will be very disappointed if I can't continue, but will understand if my absence interferes. Thank you, Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres (Holly, my maiden name was Hotchkiss 8-) Please visit my sites: Nevada Co., CA GenWeb: http://www.cagenweb.com/~nevada/ Personal Web Page: http://fly.to/ljdt GenConnect Sites for: Button, Cayton, Hickerson, Hotchkiss, Sterne _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 12:23:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26862 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04779 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4A77A3C15F; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (mhub1.tc.umn.edu [160.94.5.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8FE3C140 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.248.130] by mhub1.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:23:11 -0500 Message-Id: <004701c01ff9$99f71b00$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:17:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hello everyone, I am Jerimiah Moerke, the CC for Roberts County in SD, Grant County in MN, and for now, Hennepin County in MN. I've been with the project since at least the winter of 1997--I wish I remembered exactly when I started. I have also been a part of the Elections Committee for the last two years (along with a few others on this list), and hope that I can contribute based on that experience. I think agenda item "A" should be dealt with first. Jerimiah moer0020@tc.umn.edu _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 12:28:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27260 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05359 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2F84B3C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE673C146 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port428.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.128]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29761 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:28:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916102142.00ae4bc0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:09:13 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly and all, Am excited to be a part of this group, and appreciate the opportunity to participate. Am a new CC for Carroll County, GA, but have been around USGenWeb since it began in GA and AL, and know many of you. Am/have been a listowner, first at Maiser now at RootsWeb, as well as a lookup volunteer, data contributor, and list starter/manager for county lists I needed (until the CC was willing to take them) in 1996/97/98 (before clusters). Though I have watched USGenWeb grow, and have enjoyed all the fantastic data that has come online as a part of that growth, and though I realized that "politics" long ago invaded the project, with friends I respect and admire in different "camps", I had not realized until becoming a CC just how loosely structured the organization still is. That concerns me, because it presents such a huge threat to the Project - not only is the Project not autonomous, but it apparently does not have structure sufficient to prevent its being assimilated from within, much less from outside. This gives me pause, and I am eager to be a part of a committee that is dealing with an essential and critical first step to protecting what has become a monumental resource. Though it is not my nature to be an alarmist, my impression since coming into the Project as a CC is that we have no time to waste, if, in fact, it is not already too late. Carol http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 13:30:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01652 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12355 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 26CCC3C153; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B883C130 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port428.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.128]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20628 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:30:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916121521.00ad7c70@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:26:40 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: My vote would be for topic "b" and "c" first, and equally a priority - my reasoning being that without "b" and "c" being totally reliable, "a" will not matter. Carol At 08:21 AM 09/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >My vote is for topic "a". > >Topic "b" would be a close second. > >-Teresa > >On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Holly Timm wrote: > > > AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > > > > a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > > positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > > b. Standing Election Committee; > > c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > > d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee > members or > > brought to their attention by others. > > > > Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 15:15:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA09001 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22553 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5AB143C176; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:14:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAC63C137 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.224]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916191452.TFOT425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:14:52 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916080541.0312c690@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:20:15 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Intro Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I'm looking forward to getting to know those of you I don't know at all and getting to know the rest of you better than I do now as we work together on this study. For those of you who know only that I am the Representative At Large to the USGenWeb Board... I started in what became USGenWeb in the first couple of weeks when it was just Kentucky and maintained three counties there continuously until earlier this year when I passed them on to *fresh blood*... I've had a great many counties over these four years (can't resist orphans) and remain as co-cc on a few but Albany NY is my *main* county. From the beginning, one of the main things I have done is to help others get their feet under them with html as advisor, consultant, mentor ... whatever label that should be given and I am the ARGenWeb Site Mentor. I am also SC of New York. Holly Timm aka MaMaT on irc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 15:39:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10523 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24980 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:39:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B2AE53C145; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104043C12A for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.224]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916193921.TMWC425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:39:21 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916152645.02a07460@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:44:47 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] I am looking forward to working with all of you. In-Reply-To: <006a01c01ff1$0321cca0$f43a19d0@ljdt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Linda... we have six weeks all together to accomplish our task... my rough schedule is one week to form and get started, four weeks to discuss the various topics and one week to formulate the report. That clock started ticking on 9/12 at 1 AM so we're running a little ahead of schedule which is good, we will probably need any extra time we can squeeze out of it to prepare the report. I think that we can cover each topic arriving at some consensus but make any decisions until we actually prepare the report so you won't miss any of the deciding process. You can catch up on any discussion you miss when you get back. By the look of what has been said so far, we will begin with the eligibility items probably (subject to change as others check in ). One of the reasons for giving the committee some size and a reasonable length of time was in case of some absences. Holly At 08:15 AM 9/16/00 -0700, you wrote: >I am also very eager to learn about the other items on the agenda as I >defer to those with more experience about those issues. > >I look forward to working with all of you in any capacity I am needed. >Unfortunately, Monday I start vacation and will be gone until the >middle of the following week. Has this committee been established for >the long haul or for just a couple of weeks? I will be very >disappointed if I can't continue, but will understand if my absence >interferes. > >Thank you, >Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres (Holly, my maiden name was Hotchkiss >8-) > >Please visit my sites: >Nevada Co., CA GenWeb: http://www.cagenweb.com/~nevada/ >Personal Web Page: http://fly.to/ljdt >GenConnect Sites for: Button, Cayton, Hickerson, Hotchkiss, Sterne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Sat Sep 16 16:49:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA16477 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seeker.rootsquest.com (rootsquest.com [209.19.155.237]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01745 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by seeker.rootsquest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA28136 for usgw-cc-l-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:46:58 -0600 Received: from oak.usgennet.net (root@[209.19.155.240]) by seeker.rootsquest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28133 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:46:57 -0600 Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by oak.usgennet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8GKmR105119 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:48:30 -0600 Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.224]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916204822.UIYV425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:48:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916163707.038f3920@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:53:46 -0500 To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@usgennet.net, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com, State-Coord-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-SE-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-NE-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-NW-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-SW-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: USGW-CC-L: Election Study Committee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org Status: RO X-Status: First, I would like to thank everyone who volunteered to serve on the committee, it made the choosing difficult but it also gave us the ability to try to have a broad spectrum of opinion and perspective from across the project. Listed below are the Election Study Committee Members with their states and regions. The committee wants to hear from anyone with thoughts ideas and comments regarding the election process. At some points we may be asking specific questions about election issues but we welcome your comments at anytime. Please address these comments to: ESC@timmweb.pair.com Holly Timm, ESC Chair (Permission to forward this message appropriately is granted) SC Members: Nathan Zipfel PA NE Region Linda Mason MS SE Region Carol Haagensen WY NW Region Patrick Hays IN NE Region Mary Ann Hetrick CO NW Region CC Members: Robert Sullivan NY NE Region Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net IL NE Region Jerimiah Moerke MN, SD NW Region John McCoy NE NW Region Esther Frye IA NW Region Chip Brown TN SE Region Carol Carwile-Head GA SE Region Teresa Lindquist KS SW Region Bob Chada OK SW Region Linda Hotchkiss CA SW Region Board Members: Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair of the Committee Ex-Officio, National Coordinator Tim Stowell From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 17:12:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18252 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04197 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C8FEB3C135; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:12:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f324.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.199]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1923C126 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:12:52 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.150 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:12:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.150] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:12:52 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2000 21:12:52.0861 (UTC) FILETIME=[E03042D0:01C02022] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: To add on to Carol's message..Does this include members who have one way or another gone against the AB way of doing things? Members in question would be Carol Hammett and Fred Smoot to name two. Esse >From: Carol C-H >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:06:17 -0500 > >Please explain "good standing" - is that a separate election >classification, or is it totally independent of elections? > >Carol > >At 04:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >>feel free to add items..... >> >>a. Eligibility >> 1. eligible positions >> 2. good standing >> 3. cutoff dates >> 4. # per county >> 5. multi-region CC's >> >>b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation >> >>c. Voting mechanism including location and method >> >>d. Other election issues >> 1. *PR* >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Esc mailing list >>Esc@pairlist.net >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was >not a socialist. >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I >was not a trade unionist. >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a >Jew. >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 17:30:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19547 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05938 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4B5E43C135; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:30:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f264.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.139]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5828D3C126 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:30:33 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.150 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:30:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.150] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:30:33 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2000 21:30:33.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[5876E6C0:01C02025] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi Nathan; This is a reply to your message listed below. Please don't take me wrong as I respect your thoughts as to the elegibilty issue. 1. You wrote: As a SC I feel that I'm best qualified to determine who in my state is eligible to vote. >>Does that mean in that context that you would chose the CC instead of >>notifying them that there is a national election for the project? I would think that if they have been hosting a county longer then 30 days, they would be informed as to what was happening by reading the lists available to them, unless as a SC you did not notify them of the lists? Why I say that, is because I had no knowledge of any of these lists until I joined the Iowa genweb. I also never knew about the national elections until I joined IAGENWEB. I mostly agree in what you stated, except on this one aspect. Sincerely, Esse >From: "Nathan Zipfel" >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: >Subject: RE: [ESC] agenda >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:05:57 -0400 > >Hi all and thanks Holly for getting this organized. > >I think that the first thing that should be discussed is eligibility for >voting. > >I think that there should be some clear guidelines at the >national level for the national elections. It should be left up to the >states on how they conduct their internal elections. It probable makes >sense to have a cut-off for eligibility, say 30 days, since if it's someone >new to the USGenWeb they aren't going to know their head from a hole in the >ground during that first 30 days anyways and would probable seek advise >from >me on who to vote for. > >"Good Standing" - I believe that should be the decision of the State >Coordinator. Unless it involved a grievance or some issue that the >Advisory >Board needed to address in accordance with the by-laws, it is the SCs >responsibility. > >"Eligible Positions" - This one is harder and I've struggle with it myself. >In PA we don't have any positions other than the SC, ASC, CC and in some >cases co-CC's. Should it be one county one vote or should each person get >a >vote for the county? I have two counties which have a trio of >coordinators. >In a couple of counties it is broken down to township coordinators, should >they be given a vote as well? For this last election all three were listed >as eligible to vote, but should it be limited? Should it be a max of two? > >Those are some of my initial thoughts. > >Nate > >Nathan Zipfel >PaGenWeb Project State Coordinator >http://www.pa-roots.com/pagenweb > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of >Holly Timm >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 PM >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] agenda > > >AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > >a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible >positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; >b. Standing Election Committee; >c. Voting mechanism including location and method; >d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or >brought to their attention by others. > >Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 17:50:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20912 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08003 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C0A373C126; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6078E3C167 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.229]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000916215015.SDRA17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:50:15 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000916162527.00aed5a0@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:46:27 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Intro In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916154721.00c005e0@mail.bright.net> References: <004101c02015$83729320$b7d1aec7@phays> <4.3.2.7.2.20000916080541.0312c690@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Looks like I'm the only one who hasn't properly introduced myself. Many apologies. :-) I've been with USGW since August 1996. MS is my USGW home, but I have or have had counties in MA, TN, and LA. I am a newly elected CC Rep for the SE/MA Region. I was MS SC for about a year and a half, resigning due to babysitting duties - our first little gdau, Frannie, aka SP (Sweet Pea.) And there's another on the way! However, I'm only babysitting 3 days a week now and that might drop more after mommy quits work. I half hope it does, and half hope it doesn't. I was on the original By-Laws Committee, and the first three Election Committees, so I have a good idea of what it's like to verify IDs until you're blue in the face. My experiences have been terrific with all of the USGW committees! I am especially pleased and honored to have been made a part of this committee. We have a great group, and we're in good hands with Holly. (And she didn't pay me a dime to say that. gg) Ellen Pack _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:09:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02209 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21081 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F1C623C139; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160E93C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.bd.716e90a (4254) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:29 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:09:28 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Eligibility for voting: Eligible positions (SC, CC, Co-CC, TC (Town Coordinator), State Special Project Coordinators), are there more? Are there issues with cross-regional voting? Are there concerns about number of CC's, Co-CC's within a region? Definition of Good Standing: It has always been my fervent belief the USGenWeb Project was established and continues to grow because of our volunteer's belief in the mission and goals of the project. It is that ever-present, bottom-line enthusiasm of our volunteers that drives this project, and makes the USGenWeb Project a very real, and present source of free genealogical information on-line. I know, in my role as SC of WI, that all volunteers are welcome. As long as they adhere to the USGenWeb Project bylaws and our WI guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both personally, and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission that the project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and workable solution of this will assist in our definition of good standing. Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a perfect world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:30:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03843 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23104 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4B15D3C15A; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641913C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-13.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.13]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA01014 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:29:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <006701c0203e$272e97c0$0d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:28:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Well, it looks like we're going to jump into the deep water! So . . . I remind all of you that this is a closed list. Items discussed cannot be forwarded or discussed outside this committee. We had a situation in Wyoming that created some unusual State "bylaws." We had a CC for a county who had her hubby as a co-cc. In all of the USGW, that would mean two votes for that county, because in USGW elections, co-cc's are allowed a vote. However, the hubby-co-cc never contributed anything, never answered roll calls, never updated the websites, and (in short) was in no way part of the WYGenWeb except the name on the website. On a couple of issues that were voted on in the WYGenWeb, the vote swung the way this CC wanted, because she had two votes! The hubby-co-cc didn't even vote! The wife did it "for him." The other CC's reacted to this by passing a "rule" in Wyoming that co-cc's couldn't vote in Wyoming State elections. Of course, the co-cc could still vote in the USGW elections, but not in WyomingGenWeb issues. Naturally, fair play wasn't considered by this cc, only that her hubby's "rights" had been "violated." You know the song and dance. You all heard it during the last election. People being unfair complaining when they couldn't pull-off their plans of deceit. So, while we are saying who gets to vote (town cc's, cc's, co-cc's, etc.) I think we have to be very aware that we do need some safeguards to insure that hard-working volunteers are eligible to vote, but vote-padding is completely eliminated. Carol (the other one) ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:09 PM Subject: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > Eligibility for voting: Eligible positions (SC, CC, Co-CC, TC (Town > Coordinator), State Special Project Coordinators), are there more? Are > there issues with cross-regional voting? Are there concerns about > number of CC's, Co-CC's within a region? > > Definition of Good Standing: It has always been my fervent belief the > USGenWeb Project was established and continues to grow because of our > volunteer's belief in the mission and goals of the project. It is > that ever-present, bottom-line enthusiasm of our volunteers that > drives this project, and makes the USGenWeb Project a very real, and > present source of free genealogical information on-line. > > I know, in my role as SC of WI, that all volunteers are welcome. As > long as they adhere to the USGenWeb Project bylaws and our WI > guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both personally, > and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the > political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission that the > project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and workable > solution of this will assist in our definition of good standing. > > Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a perfect > world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. > > Tina > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:45:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05113 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24725 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 656953C160; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70FE3C159 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-2iniof0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.97.224]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA27151 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009801c02040$c75b0240$e06179a5@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <006701c0203e$272e97c0$0d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: However, if co-CC's could not vote, it would logically follow that they could also not run for office... and I would not be the current INGenWeb SC because I would not have been eligible. Since I was the only nominee after the incumbent SC dropped out of the race at the last minute for personal reasons, INGenWeb could have been without an SC, at least temporarily. Just like everything else, there are two sides to every story. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol" To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > Well, it looks like we're going to jump into the deep water! So . . . > > I remind all of you that this is a closed list. Items discussed cannot be > forwarded or discussed outside this committee. > > We had a situation in Wyoming that created some unusual State "bylaws." We > had a CC for a county who had her hubby as a co-cc. In all of the USGW, > that would mean two votes for that county, because in USGW elections, > co-cc's are allowed a vote. However, the hubby-co-cc never contributed > anything, never answered roll calls, never updated the websites, and (in > short) was in no way part of the WYGenWeb except the name on the website. > > On a couple of issues that were voted on in the WYGenWeb, the vote swung the > way this CC wanted, because she had two votes! The hubby-co-cc didn't even > vote! The wife did it "for him." > > The other CC's reacted to this by passing a "rule" in Wyoming that co-cc's > couldn't vote in Wyoming State elections. Of course, the co-cc could still > vote in the USGW elections, but not in WyomingGenWeb issues. > > Naturally, fair play wasn't considered by this cc, only that her hubby's > "rights" had been "violated." You know the song and dance. You all heard > it during the last election. People being unfair complaining when they > couldn't pull-off their plans of deceit. > > So, while we are saying who gets to vote (town cc's, cc's, co-cc's, etc.) I > think we have to be very aware that we do need some safeguards to insure > that hard-working volunteers are eligible to vote, but vote-padding is > completely eliminated. > > Carol (the other one) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:09 PM > Subject: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > Eligibility for voting: Eligible positions (SC, CC, Co-CC, TC (Town > > Coordinator), State Special Project Coordinators), are there more? Are > > there issues with cross-regional voting? Are there concerns about > > number of CC's, Co-CC's within a region? > > > > Definition of Good Standing: It has always been my fervent belief the > > USGenWeb Project was established and continues to grow because of our > > volunteer's belief in the mission and goals of the project. It is > > that ever-present, bottom-line enthusiasm of our volunteers that > > drives this project, and makes the USGenWeb Project a very real, and > > present source of free genealogical information on-line. > > > > I know, in my role as SC of WI, that all volunteers are welcome. As > > long as they adhere to the USGenWeb Project bylaws and our WI > > guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both personally, > > and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the > > political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission that the > > project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and workable > > solution of this will assist in our definition of good standing. > > > > Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a perfect > > world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. > > > > Tina > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:50:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05346 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25215 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 030693C177; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A56D3C159 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-13.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.13]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA01973 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:50:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <007901c02041$23aedf80$0d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <006701c0203e$272e97c0$0d2b95d0@youda> <009801c02040$c75b0240$e06179a5@phays> Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:49:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Oh, yes! I agree completely! Co-cc's certainly should be allowed a vote. But, we do have to figure out some ways to prevent vote-padding. Eliminating the vote of Co-cc's isn't the best way -- or a very desireable way -- to do that. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Hays" To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > However, if co-CC's could not vote, it would logically follow > that they could also not run for office... and I would not be the > current INGenWeb SC because I would not have been eligible. Since > I was the only nominee after the incumbent SC dropped out of the > race at the last minute for personal reasons, INGenWeb could have > been without an SC, at least temporarily. Just like everything > else, there are two sides to every story. > > Patrick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carol" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:28 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > Well, it looks like we're going to jump into the deep water! So > . . . > > > > I remind all of you that this is a closed list. Items discussed > cannot be > > forwarded or discussed outside this committee. > > > > We had a situation in Wyoming that created some unusual State > "bylaws." We > > had a CC for a county who had her hubby as a co-cc. In all of > the USGW, > > that would mean two votes for that county, because in USGW > elections, > > co-cc's are allowed a vote. However, the hubby-co-cc never > contributed > > anything, never answered roll calls, never updated the websites, > and (in > > short) was in no way part of the WYGenWeb except the name on the > website. > > > > On a couple of issues that were voted on in the WYGenWeb, the > vote swung the > > way this CC wanted, because she had two votes! The hubby-co-cc > didn't even > > vote! The wife did it "for him." > > > > The other CC's reacted to this by passing a "rule" in Wyoming > that co-cc's > > couldn't vote in Wyoming State elections. Of course, the co-cc > could still > > vote in the USGW elections, but not in WyomingGenWeb issues. > > > > Naturally, fair play wasn't considered by this cc, only that her > hubby's > > "rights" had been "violated." You know the song and dance. You > all heard > > it during the last election. People being unfair complaining > when they > > couldn't pull-off their plans of deceit. > > > > So, while we are saying who gets to vote (town cc's, cc's, > co-cc's, etc.) I > > think we have to be very aware that we do need some safeguards > to insure > > that hard-working volunteers are eligible to vote, but > vote-padding is > > completely eliminated. > > > > Carol (the other one) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:09 PM > > Subject: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > > > > Eligibility for voting: Eligible positions (SC, CC, Co-CC, TC > (Town > > > Coordinator), State Special Project Coordinators), are there > more? Are > > > there issues with cross-regional voting? Are there concerns > about > > > number of CC's, Co-CC's within a region? > > > > > > Definition of Good Standing: It has always been my fervent > belief the > > > USGenWeb Project was established and continues to grow because > of our > > > volunteer's belief in the mission and goals of the project. > It is > > > that ever-present, bottom-line enthusiasm of our volunteers > that > > > drives this project, and makes the USGenWeb Project a very > real, and > > > present source of free genealogical information on-line. > > > > > > I know, in my role as SC of WI, that all volunteers are > welcome. As > > > long as they adhere to the USGenWeb Project bylaws and our WI > > > guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both > personally, > > > and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the > > > political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission > that the > > > project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and > workable > > > solution of this will assist in our definition of good > standing. > > > > > > Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a > perfect > > > world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Esc mailing list > > > Esc@pairlist.net > > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:54:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05642 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25642 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CD55F3C159; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08583C13B for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1450.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.250]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12826 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:53:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:50:05 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 08:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Eligibility for voting: Eligible positions (SC, CC, Co-CC, TC (Town >Coordinator), State Special Project Coordinators), are there more? Are >there issues with cross-regional voting? Are there concerns about >number of CC's, Co-CC's within a region? Concerns for me are: IMHO, only one vote per person should be allowed in national elections, no matter how many counties/towns/areas/? the person represents, or how many e-addresses the person has. Some states have TCs, and some do not. Some states have more co-CCs than others. Politics seems to enter into this, though I am new enough to not be sure this is observation is accurate. While I am a "states rights" person from way back, it does seem that national guidelines should be established for voting, and that if TCs are not available to vote in every state, they should not vote in any, and if only one CC votes for counties in some states, only one CC per county should be allowed to vote in all states. Would there be any easy way to deal with this issue to make it more representative and fair? It does seem that the current guidelines invite takeover by any group whose members are willing to "help" CC a county in a state in which they have no interest in order to load an election. >Definition of Good Standing: It has always been my fervent belief the >USGenWeb Project was established and continues to grow because of our >volunteer's belief in the mission and goals of the project. It is >that ever-present, bottom-line enthusiasm of our volunteers that >drives this project, and makes the USGenWeb Project a very real, and >present source of free genealogical information on-line. > >I know, in my role as SC of WI, that all volunteers are welcome. As >long as they adhere to the USGenWeb Project bylaws and our WI >guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both personally, >and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the >political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission that the >project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and workable >solution of this will assist in our definition of good standing. A clear objective definition - and impartial enforcement - of what constitutes a breach of "good standing" would go a long way toward settling a lot of the current problems in the Project, IMHO. However, this is a job for a committee on revision of the bylaws, rather than this one, is it not? >Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a perfect >world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. Cutoff dates - am unclear as to what is being cut off - if this references the number of days a person should be a CC before being allowed to vote, I think that should be decided between the ex-CC and the current CC, but that one of them should vote in each election. Apparently nobody voted for the county for which I am CC in the recent election - the EC rep did not have a name or e-addy for the ex-CC, who had recently relinquished several GA counties, so apparently nobody voted for those counties - the other person who adopted at least one of them was as new as I was - I wonder how many other states had the same thing happen - we will never know, since there was no report on who voted, representing which counties, I guess. That is another thing I think should be addressed - IMHO, a list of who is eligible to vote, and representing what, should be published somewhere. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 20:57:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05776 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25985 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A87243C13B; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtppop2.gte.net (smtppop2pub.gte.net [206.46.170.21]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C463C177 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zip1 (A010-0229.MNAS.splitrock.net [209.156.76.229]) by smtppop2.gte.net with SMTP for ; id TAA25955971 Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:55:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Subject: RE: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:58:44 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4132.2800 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Esse, What I was trying to say is that it shouldn't be an outside group who would determine eligibility or "good standing". I work with the men and ladies daily, I know when they joined and such. I make every effort to forward "official" messages to my CC's so that everyone is aware of what is going on at the national level. Some could care less and some are very involved. The SC needs to be diligent in keeping their folks informed. Sometimes its hard in e-mail to convey thoughts exactly. Nate -----Original Message----- From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Esse Frye Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:31 PM To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE Hi Nathan; This is a reply to your message listed below. Please don't take me wrong as I respect your thoughts as to the elegibilty issue. 1. You wrote: As a SC I feel that I'm best qualified to determine who in my state is eligible to vote. >>Does that mean in that context that you would chose the CC instead of >>notifying them that there is a national election for the project? I would think that if they have been hosting a county longer then 30 days, they would be informed as to what was happening by reading the lists available to them, unless as a SC you did not notify them of the lists? Why I say that, is because I had no knowledge of any of these lists until I joined the Iowa genweb. I also never knew about the national elections until I joined IAGENWEB. I mostly agree in what you stated, except on this one aspect. Sincerely, Esse >From: "Nathan Zipfel" >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: >Subject: RE: [ESC] agenda >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:05:57 -0400 > >Hi all and thanks Holly for getting this organized. > >I think that the first thing that should be discussed is eligibility for >voting. > >I think that there should be some clear guidelines at the >national level for the national elections. It should be left up to the >states on how they conduct their internal elections. It probable makes >sense to have a cut-off for eligibility, say 30 days, since if it's someone >new to the USGenWeb they aren't going to know their head from a hole in the >ground during that first 30 days anyways and would probable seek advise >from >me on who to vote for. > >"Good Standing" - I believe that should be the decision of the State >Coordinator. Unless it involved a grievance or some issue that the >Advisory >Board needed to address in accordance with the by-laws, it is the SCs >responsibility. > >"Eligible Positions" - This one is harder and I've struggle with it myself. >In PA we don't have any positions other than the SC, ASC, CC and in some >cases co-CC's. Should it be one county one vote or should each person get >a >vote for the county? I have two counties which have a trio of >coordinators. >In a couple of counties it is broken down to township coordinators, should >they be given a vote as well? For this last election all three were listed >as eligible to vote, but should it be limited? Should it be a max of two? > >Those are some of my initial thoughts. > >Nate > >Nathan Zipfel >PaGenWeb Project State Coordinator >http://www.pa-roots.com/pagenweb > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of >Holly Timm >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 PM >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] agenda > > >AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > >a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible >positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; >b. Standing Election Committee; >c. Voting mechanism including location and method; >d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or >brought to their attention by others. > >Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:01:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06091 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26400 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7BFA43C177; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83E73C159 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.b5.a79839 (16937) for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:39 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:01:39 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/16/00 1:04:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << a. Eligibility 1. eligible positions *** My opinion as an SC - I think that the CC's and Co-CC's should be eligible for voting in the National Elections. Special Project Members should be eligible for voting on the Special Project issues. 2. good standing **** This is one of the real sticky issues, I think we will have to have a lot of discussion of this one. Who decides the "in good standing"? What kind of criteria has to be met to become "not in good standing"? Do we leave this in the hands of the SC's? do we allow each state to decide? Where do we draw the line? 3. cutoff dates *** I think this is one of the hot buttons as well. I feel it should be some time between 30 to 60 days, but there are CC's who are new to one state with in that time frame, but still have been part of the USGW for longer. So how do we decide things like that?? 4. # per county **** In the 98 elections, they only allowed one vote per County. If there were two CC's they had to decide who got to cast the vote. I can see allowing two people working on one county. I can't see three or four Co-CC's for most counties. Some of The East Cost Counties I know have divided up in to Town Coordinators, with a County Coordinator acting as the link between the Town and State levels. 5. multi-region CC's ***** I don't see that this should be penalized. There are lots of CC's who work hard in several regions. Some more than two. I personally live and host counties In Ohio. but also have lots of interest in Colorado. Why should we limit to one region per vote? For NC I can see this, for keeping CC's from voting for a regional seat, I don't. >> Just my thoughts on each of the items mentioned. Feel free to fire away. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:11:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06783 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:11:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27570 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2A1883C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FDC3C155 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-13.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.13]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA02908 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:11:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <008b01c02044$22f01c00$0d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:10:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > established for voting, and that if TCs are not available to vote in every > state, they should not vote in any, and if only one CC votes for counties > in some states, only one CC per county should be allowed to vote in all > states. I don't agree with this. In some heavily populated States (New York, for example), there is a real need for a co-cc or town-cc's. The sheer volume of visitors, questions, available document archives, etc., is almost overwhelming for one person to handle. On the other hand, Wyoming hardly even had a history before 1850! Co-cc's are almost superflourous. CC's in Wyoming can easily handle multiple county websites without being overburdened! The only time Wyoming has had co-cc's (other than the time I already mentioned) is when one cc does the HTML and the other does the research because he/she didn't know HTML. The point is that I wouldn't go to my cc's and tell them (after they voted about it) that they now *must* allow co-cc's a vote. Alternatively, I doubt that the New York cc's would greet the news with joy that their co-cc's couldn't vote! Let's preserve the States' rights to make the rules in their own state-run elections, and just concentrate on the general USGW elections that may or may not be identical to the States' bylaws for their elections. > more representative and fair? It does seem that the current guidelines > invite takeover by any group whose members are willing to "help" CC a > county in a state in which they have no interest in order to load an election. There was an email passed around during the last election that originated from the USGW-ALL list. The author said that everyone should go adopt orphans and become co-cc's of all the counties they could, so they could elect "their" AB members. I think our goal is to make elections smoother by eliminating the possibility of this. > >guidelines, I am a happy camper :-). What bothers me both personally, > >and as a USGenWeb volunteer, are the efforts that focus on the > >political presence, and not the inherent goals and mission that the > >project were built on. For me personally, a compromise and "Politics" seems to be here to stay. I have no problem with one viewpoint or another "winning." But, it has to be by a fair majority . . . not by vote padding. > >Cutoff Dates: Given all I have said above, and this being a perfect > >world ... cutoff date of 6O days, should be sufficient. I would agree to no less than 60 days. However, the election-fervor usually starts well before 60 days prior to an election. I'd be happier with 90 days. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:14:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07016 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27892 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2CC2C3C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C55E3C155 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-13.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.13]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA03102 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:15:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <009301c02044$944fda20$0d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:14:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Due to my work schedule, I'm online during only certain times. At other times, I'll be quiet as a dead phone line. I think I agree with Nate that, in general, "good standing" should be decided by the SC. Perhaps "good standing" for SCs should be determined by the AB, then? Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:58 PM Subject: RE: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE > Esse, > > What I was trying to say is that it shouldn't be an outside group who would > determine eligibility or "good standing". I work with the men and ladies > daily, I know when they joined and such. I make every effort to forward > "official" messages to my CC's so that everyone is aware of what is going on > at the national level. Some could care less and some are very involved. > The SC needs to be diligent in keeping their folks informed. > > Sometimes its hard in e-mail to convey thoughts exactly. > > Nate > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of > Esse Frye > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:31 PM > To: esc@pairlist.net > Subject: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE > > > Hi Nathan; > This is a reply to your message listed below. Please don't take me wrong as > I respect your thoughts as to the elegibilty issue. > 1. You wrote: As a SC I feel that I'm best qualified to determine who in my > state is eligible to vote. > >>Does that mean in that context that you would chose the CC instead of > >>notifying them that there is a national election for the project? > I would think that if they have been hosting a county longer then 30 days, > they would be informed as to what was happening by reading the lists > available to them, unless as a SC you did not notify them of the lists? Why > I say that, is because I had no knowledge of any of these lists until I > joined the Iowa genweb. I also never knew about the national elections until > I joined IAGENWEB. > I mostly agree in what you stated, except on this one aspect. > Sincerely, > Esse > > >From: "Nathan Zipfel" > >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net > >To: > >Subject: RE: [ESC] agenda > >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:05:57 -0400 > > > >Hi all and thanks Holly for getting this organized. > > > >I think that the first thing that should be discussed is eligibility for > >voting. > > > >I think that there should be some clear guidelines at the > >national level for the national elections. It should be left up to the > >states on how they conduct their internal elections. It probable makes > >sense to have a cut-off for eligibility, say 30 days, since if it's someone > >new to the USGenWeb they aren't going to know their head from a hole in the > >ground during that first 30 days anyways and would probable seek advise > >from > >me on who to vote for. > > > >"Good Standing" - I believe that should be the decision of the State > >Coordinator. Unless it involved a grievance or some issue that the > >Advisory > >Board needed to address in accordance with the by-laws, it is the SCs > >responsibility. > > > >"Eligible Positions" - This one is harder and I've struggle with it myself. > >In PA we don't have any positions other than the SC, ASC, CC and in some > >cases co-CC's. Should it be one county one vote or should each person get > >a > >vote for the county? I have two counties which have a trio of > >coordinators. > >In a couple of counties it is broken down to township coordinators, should > >they be given a vote as well? For this last election all three were listed > >as eligible to vote, but should it be limited? Should it be a max of two? > > > >Those are some of my initial thoughts. > > > >Nate > > > >Nathan Zipfel > >PaGenWeb Project State Coordinator > >http://www.pa-roots.com/pagenweb > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of > >Holly Timm > >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:25 PM > >To: esc@pairlist.net > >Subject: [ESC] agenda > > > > > >AS per the motion, here is our agenda: > > > >a. Eligibility for voting including, but not limited to, eligible > >positions, definition of good standing, cutoff dates; > >b. Standing Election Committee; > >c. Voting mechanism including location and method; > >d. Any and all other election issues brought up by the committee members or > >brought to their attention by others. > > > >Any suggestions or comments on which we should approach first? > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:19:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07347 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28402 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B3D0F3C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f49.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.49]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A673C155 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:19:42 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.151 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:19:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.151] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: RE: [ESC] RE: [ESC]ELEGIBILTY ISSUE Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:19:42 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 01:19:42.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B9A3940:01C02045] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Nate; So true. It is hard to convey any feelings whatsoever in e-mail. I just hope you didn't think I was attacking you. I wasn't. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. Secondly, back to Carol; I was under the impression that Carol Hammett and Fred Smoot were being blacklisted because they disagreed with the NC. (Tim, this is not attacking you either). I guess it being purely political in nature,Carol tried to prove the elections were illegal by publishing her voting ID to the list run by Don Tharp. I have also gathered that both of these persons have been unsubbed from other lists that I am on. It is just an observation. If they are CC's of counties, then they should be entitled to vote. Because they tend to disagree with the present leadership (no insult intended or implied), they should not be judged as not in "Good Standing". That is only human nature. People are not going to agree. Without conflict there is no change. Without change there is no growth. That is only what I am saying. I could be wrong. Well off my soap box...Next! Esse _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:21:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07440 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28645 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 43DDE3C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0063C155 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:21:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1450.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.250]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22646 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:21:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:17:26 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <008b01c02044$22f01c00$0d2b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 08:10 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, Carol wrote: > > established for voting, and that if TCs are not available to vote in every > > state, they should not vote in any, and if only one CC votes for counties > > in some states, only one CC per county should be allowed to vote in all > > states. > >I don't agree with this. In some heavily populated States (New York, for >example), there is a real need for a co-cc or town-cc's. The sheer volume >of visitors, questions, available document archives, etc., is almost >overwhelming for one person to handle. Then how would it be if it were done with electoral-type votes, with each state having national elections within the state, and a representative of the state - maybe the SC, maybe a different person - voting in the national election based on the outcome of the state vote? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 22:55:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA12876 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08302 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 060533C123; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC963C12F for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p76.amax17.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.76]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15016 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:55:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C42F9B.8E96DF53@flash.net> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:42:35 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Intro References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916080541.0312c690@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hello Holly and all. I think I am going to have to take the tail end charley intro honors away from Ellen. Been working with my wife in USGW for about a year now, but only "officially" for a few months. We are co-cc for Logan County, OK. This is my first go round with a national committee and I am honored to have been selected. I will definitely have the new kid on the block perspective and have been catching up on the messages so far to get my feet on the ground. A bit of background so you will all know where I come from. Retired from state government where I was a compliance type, retired Army (active and reserve) with time swapping bullets, nearly 28 years volunteer work with the Boy Scouts, and currently push a school bus around to keep me out of trouble. Looks to me like "a" should be the place to start since I see it as the foundation for "b" and "c". Looking forward to working with everyone, and it looks like we have a pretty good plate full to cover in 6 weeks. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 22:57:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13013 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08390 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 09E343C12F; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0443C123 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-2iniof0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.97.224]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA31459 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ef01c02053$129c9540$e06179a5@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:57:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I'm going to piggy back on what Mary Ann said a little bit: > a. Eligibility > 1. eligible positions > > *** My opinion as an SC - I think that the CC's and Co-CC's should be > eligible for voting in the National Elections. Special Project Members should > be eligible for voting on the Special Project issues. > OK, sounds good with a bit of clarification. If Special Projects are to be considered part of the project, they should also get a vote for National Coordinator and any bylaws amendments, because these are project wide issues. Their version of regional representatives are the special projects reps on the board, and thus should not be eligible to vote in regional elections where they are not already a CC. > 2. good standing > > **** This is one of the real sticky issues, I think we will have to have a > lot of discussion of this one. Who decides the "in good standing"? What kind > of criteria has to be met to become "not in good standing"? > Do we leave this in the hands of the SC's? do we allow each state to decide? > Where do we draw the line? I have always taken the view that if you are not in good standing, you are about to be removed from the project for a major violation of whatever your state rules may be anyway, so this would not be such a large block. If somebody doesn't answer their e-mail (or worse yet continually bounces, and if you are in INGenWeb right now, you know exactly what I am talking about!), then we need a new CC Why worry about good standing? It's too subjective. > > 3. cutoff dates > > *** I think this is one of the hot buttons as well. I feel it should be some > time between 30 to 60 days, but there are CC's who are new to one state with > in that time frame, but still have been part of the USGW for longer. So how > do we decide things like that?? I personally believe that anything more than 30 days is too much. Voter eligibility should be determined by the SC. To do anything more would be to step into a states rights area that we probably don't want to be involved in. > > 4. # per county > > **** In the 98 elections, they only allowed one vote per County. If there > were two CC's they had to decide who got to cast the vote. I can see allowing > two people working on one county. I can't see three or four Co-CC's for most > counties. Some of The East Cost Counties I know have divided up in to Town > Coordinators, with a County Coordinator acting as the link between the Town > and State levels. I have no problem with town-, co-, etc. coordinators voting. Some of the eastern states are very underrepresented, when you consider how many counties some other states have. I was going to pick on Texas and its 254 counties, but Kentucky works so much better here. Kentucky has one fifth of the population of New York. Kentucky has been around 120 years less than New York (unless you can document the natives). And Kentucky has twice as many counties as New York. Holly, I do not envy your CC's one bit. Talk about over-worked and underpaid! With the turnout that we typically get, the more people voting, the better. > > > 5. multi-region CC's > > ***** I don't see that this should be penalized. There are lots of CC's who > work hard in several regions. Some more than two. I personally live and host > counties In Ohio. but also have lots of interest in Colorado. Why should we > limit to one region per vote? For NC I can see this, for keeping CC's from > voting for a regional seat, I don't. I agree, but I am biased as well. Patrick > > Just my thoughts on each of the items mentioned. Feel free to fire away. > > Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 23:48:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15852 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13081 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B40F13C13D; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC77B3C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p76.amax17.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.76]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26049 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:48:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C43BF3.E2AB4A7C@flash.net> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:35:15 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: On the eligibility question, I agree that anyone who has volunteered to fill a position, and is "actively" working in the position should be eligible. Wife and I are a co-cc team, and we are just as likely to cancel each other out on votes as we are to agree and vote the same way. We can agree to disagree, and thats OK. My use of the work "actively" goes to the area of good standing. I think there was mention in another message that there was only a 38% voting turn out, and I wonder of these are the ones really working on their states/counties/projects, etc., and believe in why USGW is there. Or are they voting to help a friend and expect something in return? And why are 62% not voting? Do they not believe it is a fair and unbiased process, do they not care, or are they just a name in a position for whatever reason with no intention of moving forward. This might be a central issue that we all need to think about, and poll part of this non-voting majority to find out why they don't vote, if it has not already been done. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 23:55:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA16229 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13644 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 08A243C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018EC3C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1450.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.250]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16106 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:55:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:52:12 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <39C43BF3.E2AB4A7C@flash.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 10:35 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >And why are 62% not voting? Do they >not believe it is a fair and unbiased process, do they not >care, or are they just a name in a position for whatever >reason with no intention of moving forward. This might be a >central issue that we all need to think about, and poll part >of this non-voting majority to find out why they don't vote, >if it has not already been done. That is a fantastic idea, and I'd love to see it happen. I do not expect to, though, in that I do not expect to see a list of the people who were sent voter IDs, and their positions. Unless we are willing to insist on such, I think we are spinning our wheels, wasting our time, and accomplishing nothing. If the ECs and other elected leaders do not have to answer to us or anyone else, they basically have freedom to do whatever they want - what possible difference does it make what we think? Sorry for the downer, folks - but that is what is. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 00:20:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA17676 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15871 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 96A7C3C125; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f139.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.139]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B829E3C156 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:20:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:20:22 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.82 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 04:20:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.82] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:20:22 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 04:20:22.0797 (UTC) FILETIME=[98BDE3D0:01C0205E] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Ellen; point taken. Allowing only one vote per member for a rep, and one vote for NC. IOW, if a CC has counties in two regions, he selects the one region in which he chooses to vote. Why get rid of the regional reps? That would be a seperate issue wouldn't it? Esther _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 00:32:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18228 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16757 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C1CE23C177; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5CD53C174 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p76.amax17.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.82.76]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00701 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:32:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C44633.79D17CB6@flash.net> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:19:00 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Not Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. References: <006701c0203e$272e97c0$0d2b95d0@youda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol (the other one), that may be an all to true case, but I can see where it would penalize those co-cc's that both work hard. I know in our case, I do the trench work of collecting and assembling the information, which is my strong suit while wife does the coding and uploading, which is hers. Bottom line is that we are both actively involved. We also figure it is our own business who we vote for, and thats the way we do it. Maybe we are unique in that respect. I am not sure how you get to an answer on this, because one could be doing all of the work and making it look like both (or more) are doing it. I am begining to get the idea that a solution would be something along the line of one to two people-one vote; three to five people-two votes; six or more people-three votes, with a maximul of three votes per county, state, project, etc, and use a deligate approach at the lowest level where it applies. This could take away a lot of the "padding" questions, and yet everyone would have a voice. If the group agrees, then all of the votes could go one way, and if not, they can be split. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 02:54:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA26632 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27597 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 96D983C146; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7623C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-091.efn.org (pm3-091.efn.org [206.163.180.91]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8H6rwA09262 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C46BC5.448A@efn.org> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:59:17 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Thoughts 0n The Agenda Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Well, it looks like we are well into Agenda Item A, which is fine. I personally believe all the items are important, and all must be finished before we report, so starting at A and working our way down makes good sense to me. On item A, I have been reading the thoughts of everyone that have submitted so far, and can see good points all around. To my personal way of thinking, I believe we should leave as much as possible to the states. As far as who can vote, after reading the discussion so far, I am inclined to believe that there is not going to be a simple solution. I feel we should either let EVERY volunteer vote (one vote only, no matter how many hats they wear), or go the electoral route. (I see the electoral route being the easiest to manage on a national level). Without the electoral route, it will be very hard to give parity to states, if parity is even desired. Some states have hundreds of volunteers, others have fewer, giving them less clout. Somewhere along the line, we have to say that the vast majority of CC's and SC's are good folks, trying hard to do what is best, and to respect them by not trying to micro-manage their efforts. There are going to be a few bad apples...always, no matter what. On the other hand, there are also going to be some great volunteers that stand out as shining examples. I have enough faith in our project to trust the SC's and CC's, and don't want to get involved with how they operate. I am sure that no matter what we end up with, we will try to be fair, and that is very important. I can not say that one way is more fair than another. I suppose that on the surface, giving all volunteers one vote would seem to be the fairest way. That would create a lot of work preparing for and tabulating elections. That would also open the door to what would appear to be a "low turn-out" as many volunteers below the CC level may not be interested in anything beyond their personal projects. However, that is not our problem, as they will have been given the opportunity to vote. To sum up, I would like to see us settle on either an electoral process or allowing all volunteers ONE vote. John _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 16:04:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12789 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27432 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 78CAD3C143; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9C13C12A for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.224]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916200429.TUPG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:04:29 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:09:54 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] agenda update Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A feel free to add items..... a. Eligibility 1. eligible positions 2. good standing 3. cutoff dates 4. # per county 5. multi-region CC's b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation c. Voting mechanism including location and method d. Other election issues 1. *PR* _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 16:10:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13287 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27962 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CD73B3C191; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42093C12A for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port428.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.128]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12174 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:09:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916150423.00b3eea0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:06:17 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Please explain "good standing" - is that a separate election classification, or is it totally independent of elections? Carol At 04:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >feel free to add items..... > >a. Eligibility > 1. eligible positions > 2. good standing > 3. cutoff dates > 4. # per county > 5. multi-region CC's > >b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation > >c. Voting mechanism including location and method > >d. Other election issues > 1. *PR* > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 17:50:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20908 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07998 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D6B7B3C160; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF403C126 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.229]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000916215013.SDQX17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:50:13 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000916161945.00aea890@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:51 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: It has occurred to me that we might also want to establish/define the overall responsibilities, duties, and authority of the EC and Chair. :-) Ellen At 04:09 PM 9/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >feel free to add items..... > >a. Eligibility > 1. eligible positions > 2. good standing > 3. cutoff dates > 4. # per county > 5. multi-region CC's > >b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation > >c. Voting mechanism including location and method > >d. Other election issues > 1. *PR* > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 18:22:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA23266 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11281 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5AB493C147; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B009F3C146 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port428.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.128]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25475 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:22:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916171116.00bafb10@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:18:45 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I didn't realize Carole and Fred had been declared "not in good standing" - is there a list of who is and who is not? I didn't know anyone was on such a list, though I have of course seen mention that a couple of people (Barbara and Linda and maybe whoever else that was that signed that thing) should be, but I have not seen mention of anyone actually being on such a list. How does one get on it and off it (who decides, using what criteria)? What does it have to do with elections? Obviously there must be people on such a list, if it is an issue to be discussed - ????? Carol At 05:12 PM 09/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >To add on to Carol's message..Does this include members who have one way >or another gone against the AB way of doing things? Members in question >would be Carol Hammett and Fred Smoot to name two. >Esse > > >>From: Carol C-H >>Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >>To: esc@pairlist.net >>Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update >>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:06:17 -0500 >> >>Please explain "good standing" - is that a separate election >>classification, or is it totally independent of elections? >> >>Carol >> >>At 04:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >>>feel free to add items..... >>> >>>a. Eligibility >>> 1. eligible positions >>> 2. good standing >>> 3. cutoff dates >>> 4. # per county >>> 5. multi-region CC's >>> >>>b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation >>> >>>c. Voting mechanism including location and method >>> >>>d. Other election issues >>> 1. *PR* >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Esc mailing list >>>Esc@pairlist.net >>>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc >> >> >>Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >>First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was >>not a socialist. >>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I >>was not a trade unionist. >>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not >>a Jew. >>Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >>attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Esc mailing list >>Esc@pairlist.net >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 19:16:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27534 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16337 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CCA243C174; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDA33C167 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port428.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.128]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12641; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:16:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000916174839.00d135e0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:13:00 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update Cc: esc@pairlist.net In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000916171116.00bafb10@mail.netdoor.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Please forgive this reply to my own post. Until it landed in my mailbox, I had not realized how totally off-topic my last post sounded. What I was trying to ask was why the official "standing" - if such has even been determined by anyone (which is not clear to me yet and is not in the bylaws) - of a member would enter into their eligibility to vote. According to the bylaws I read, one apparently does not even have to be "in good standing" to serve on the AB, though the NC and several reps are supposed to be.. Also, I would assume that the AB would determine if a member is officially "not in good standing" - ??? - , and that would be so subjective that I would hate to see it disqualify a voter just because s/he disagreed with the AB - all of us would probably meet that disqualification at one point or another - Which brings us back to what you were asking, Esse....but I would still like answers to the other questions, if someone who knows doesn't mind, even if it is privately - Carol At 05:18 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >I didn't realize Carole and Fred had been declared "not in good standing" >- is there a list of who is and who is not? I didn't know anyone was on >such a list, though I have of course seen mention that a couple of people >(Barbara and Linda and maybe whoever else that was that signed that thing) >should be, but I have not seen mention of anyone actually being on such a >list. How does one get on it and off it (who decides, using what >criteria)? What does it have to do with elections? Obviously there >must be people on such a list, if it is an issue to be discussed - ????? > >Carol > >At 05:12 PM 09/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >>To add on to Carol's message..Does this include members who have one way >>or another gone against the AB way of doing things? Members in question >>would be Carol Hammett and Fred Smoot to name two. >>Esse >> >> >>>From: Carol C-H >>>Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >>>To: esc@pairlist.net >>>Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update >>>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:06:17 -0500 >>> >>>Please explain "good standing" - is that a separate election >>>classification, or is it totally independent of elections? >>> >>>Carol >>> >>>At 04:09 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >>>>feel free to add items..... >>>> >>>>a. Eligibility >>>> 1. eligible positions >>>> 2. good standing >>>> 3. cutoff dates >>>> 4. # per county >>>> 5. multi-region CC's >>>> >>>>b. Standing Election Committee and/or EC formation >>>> >>>>c. Voting mechanism including location and method >>>> >>>>d. Other election issues >>>> 1. *PR* >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Esc mailing list >>>>Esc@pairlist.net >>>>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc >>> >>> >>>Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >>>First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was >>>not a socialist. >>>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I >>>was not a trade unionist. >>>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not >>>a Jew. >>>Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >>>attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Esc mailing list >>>Esc@pairlist.net >>>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >> >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Esc mailing list >>Esc@pairlist.net >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I >was not a socialist. >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because >I was not a trade unionist. >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a >Jew. >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 21:31:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA08021 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29685 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6F8CF3C165; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022E43C155 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-13.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.13]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA03876 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:31:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00ad01c02046$e8033de0$0d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:30:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: That's a very interesting idea! I think I like that very much! That would certainly resolve the vote-padding. It would give each State equal representation! It would encourage more participation at the county/state level (what was it? Only 38% of the USGW voted this time?). Wow! Good idea! Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol C-H" To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > At 08:10 PM 09/16/2000 -0500, Carol wrote: > Then how would it be if it were done with electoral-type votes, with each > state having national elections within the state, and a representative of > the state - maybe the SC, maybe a different person - voting in the national > election based on the outcome of the state vote? > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 23:45:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15674 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12813 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D01B83C13D; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9816E3C125 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.77.162.195]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000917034531.VAWG17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 03:45:31 +0000 Message-ID: <006501c02059$63bb6ea0$0201500a@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <00ad01c02046$e8033de0$0d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:43:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > > Then how would it be if it were done with electoral-type votes, with each > > state having national elections within the state, and a representative of > > the state - maybe the SC, maybe a different person - voting in the > national > > election based on the outcome of the state vote? Actually, I disagree with this idea entirely - and for many reasons, but chiefly because it would not resolve the problems, but merely shift them to the state level, where they would be much more difficult to resolve - and would, I believe, cause new problems. Many people choose to live more than one place. Those folks must also choose where they are going to vote in the USA national elections. One citizen - one vote. One volunteer - one vote in the national USGenWeb elections. Folks are free to "live" as many places as they choose. It doesn't change how many times they are allowed to vote, just as it shouldn't change the number of votes a volunteer is entitled to, no matter how many sites they choose to host or co-host. So - the thorny issue of who *is* a volunteer entitled to vote. Well - per our bylaws: ::ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES ::Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, ::shall be eligible to vote. Hmmm. Connie _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Sep 16 22:47:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA12559 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07640 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1B9343C156; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8713C123 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.50]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917024748.UOUE17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:47:48 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:47:42 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <00ad01c02046$e8033de0$0d2b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 08:30 PM 9/16/2000 -0500, you wrote: >That's a very interesting idea! >I think I like that very much! >That would certainly resolve the vote-padding. Not necessarily, if a state were packed. Sorry to be a party pooper , but if a group of people really wanted to stack votes............ The only way I can see around it is to allow only one vote per member for a rep, and one vote for NC. IOW, if a CC has counties in two regions, he selects the one region in which he chooses to vote. And the only way around that would be to do away with regional representation altogether. Five vacant seats, the top five vote-getters win; one vote per member, as in the NC election. I don't think this would be a very good or fair path to take. Until/unless the current system is altered to embrace one of the above, I think the EC must depend upon the word of the SC as to who is eligible in his state, and who is not. I don't think it's a decision for the EC, and it's a decision for the AB under only the most unusual and/or obvious circumstances, or under clear evidence of wrong-doing. In fact, I think questionable members should have to first be found not in good standing, on a case by case basis, before they can be prohibited from voting. As to what constitutes "not in good standing,"....well, that's another one to chew on, and I don't think it's a decision to be made by the EC, which is comprised of mostly appointed members. Re cutoffs: Assuming the SCs should have their voter lists into the EC NLT 1 June, an almost necessary time for the EC to process the lists, then 1 May seems to be a reasonable cut off date. (Although at least one EC on which I served took them up to day of voting, trying to give as many members as possible a fair opportunity to vote.) Perhaps the May 1 date translates into the 60 days that Tina mentioned. I would consider the May 1 date as max, because the actual voting period adds up to an additional 30 days for members to become informed, if they are new and desiring of more time to make their decision(s). Another excellent point brought up earlier (sorry, I forgot who mentioned it), deals with blocks of CCs being totally uninformed about the election. I think that is something the EC can address, and possibly remedy, by sending out a notice to each member on the voter list, informing the voter of the election, the names of the nominees, and directing him to the USGW National Election and Campaign pages. The note should be totally impartial, of course. Just an informational thing. But it seems a reasonable thing to do - after all, the EC has the master list of voters right in it's hot little hands, so who is in a better position? I think I've been rambling. Hope I made some sense. Please feel free to point out the kinks in my thinking. :-) Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 08:50:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA14905 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21763 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C599F3C194; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0596C3C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.35]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917124956.EZNU425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:49:56 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917084758.00d314d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:55:18 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] agenda and discussion Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think perhaps we need to take the agenda topics one at a time, so let's stick to ELIGIBILITY items for now. I'd also appreciate it if we could stick to one agenda topic (a,b,c,d) per email so I can sort out the messages by topic for review, summarizing, and when we hammer out the report. (A curtsey to merope for doing that so thoroughly in her recent set of postings.) _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 09:17:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16680 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24563 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BBE3C3C195; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005543C130 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.35]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917131715.FIEE425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:15 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917085633.00b34590@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:22:39 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Eligibility Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: a very brief summary of my impressions of the eligibility discussion so far: 1. eligible positions - are we agreed here on SC, CC (not # of, that's #4) discussion needed on the special projects - state level, not national level 2. good standing - consensus seems to be that this is NOT for the EC to judge or decide and that the bylaws do not prohibit voting in regards to standing, just running for office 3. cutoff dates - various have been mentioned, the most common being 30 days which certainly is in line with the practice until this last election 4. # per county - this and #5 seem to be our hot topics 5. multi-region CC's My own opinions/comments follow separately _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:18:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA20807 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00421 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D201D3C16E; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B103C130 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-150.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.150]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA16420 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:21:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001501c020b2$0e6bfec0$962b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:17:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > such, I think we are spinning our wheels, wasting our time, and > accomplishing nothing. If the ECs and other elected leaders do not have to > answer to us or anyone else, they basically have freedom to do whatever > they want - what possible difference does it make what we think? > > Sorry for the downer, folks - but that is what is. > There is no way that this many people in the USGW working together (more or less) will ever agree on anything. This committee was formed, in my estimation, to appease those who were unhappy about the last election. So, we are here to come up with the magic rules that will satisfy everyone, make the world a better place, and all will be happy and well again in the USGW. That is the expectation, I believe, upon us. The reality is that we're just a bunch of people who ended up together who will bat around a few ideas. We won't come to any consensus. And, the AB won't necessarily adopt any of our ideas. And the likelihood that any of our ideas would cause a re-write of any of the bylaws is laughable. So, what are we doing here? We're trying. We're here in the hopes that in some small way we can make a difference. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:58:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23639 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04300 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DFA9C3C16E; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB27C3C130 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.35]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917145839.GMRB425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:39 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917104914.00c56710@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:04:00 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <001501c020b2$0e6bfec0$962b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 09:17 AM 9/17/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >There is no way that this many people in the USGW working together (more or >less) will ever agree on anything. This committee was formed, in my >estimation, to appease those who were unhappy about the last election. Appeasement did not enter into it at all. This committee was formed to actually address the problems with elections that resulted in that unhappiness and prepare a report recommending what we as a group think the process should be. If a majority of the board choose to toss out what this group (chosen to the best of our ability to be representative of a broad spectrum of the project) I foresee a great deal more unhappiness. I don't expect us to agree 100% on everything. I think on much of the issues we will come to some conclusions and compromise and on some issues there may be minority opinions to include in our report. I think every single person chosen to be here on this committee truly cares about the USGenWeb Project and the CC's who are the heart of it even when where we disagree on some issues. And, I think that because this group is as representatitive of the Project as we could make it, the CC's as a whole will support our report as a whole even where they disagree with some of the majority opinions. >So, we are here to come up with the magic rules that will satisfy >everyone, make >the world a better place, and all will be happy and well again in the USGW. >That is the expectation, I believe, upon us. Sure wish we could satisfy everyone but realistically, no we can't but I have strong hopes we can come up with elections that will be *acceptable* to all or at least most >The reality is that we're just a bunch of people who ended up together who >will bat around a few ideas. We won't come to any consensus. And, the AB >won't necessarily adopt any of our ideas. And the likelihood that any of >our ideas would cause a re-write of any of the bylaws is laughable. I think it possible that we could work out mechanisms and eligibility guidelines etc that would not require any ByLaws changes although certainly some of our recommendations might ought to be added to the ByLaws. For example, a Standing Election Committee... there is nothing in the ByLaws to prevent such a thing but for future security it should perhaps be added to the ByLaws at the next regular election. >So, what are we doing here? We're trying. We're here in the hopes that in >some small way we can make a difference. If this committee formed of a disparate group of SC's and CC's can discuss and come up with a report in spite of our differences, that alone will show that we do not all have to agree in order to work together and alone is a good thing! If we can actually accomplish getting needed changes made in the election procedure, we will be doing a great thing! I am already proud of how we are discussing and even disgreeing without insult or ugliness!!!! Thank you all.... and pass me the doughnuts Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:59:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA23682 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04357 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 62D243C17F; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E923C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-150.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.150]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA18358 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <006a01c020b7$d46b9c20$962b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917093016.00b8b5a0@mail.bright.net> Subject: [ESC] Eligibility Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:59:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Sticking strictly to eligibility , I would like to see *all* volunteers eligible to vote, no matter what their position or in whatever capacity. Anyone part of the USGW, I believe, should be able to have a voice. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 11:01:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23915 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04556 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AEE2F3C17F; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27D03C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.35]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917150107.GNMD425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:01:07 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:06:29 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <000701c020b0$98f1f2e0$962b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 09:07 AM 9/17/00 -0500, you wrote: >Yes, I think it *would* eliminate vote padding. If an entire State only had >one vote, they could pack in all the CC's they wanted, but there would still >be only one vote. > >Even if an entire State packed their websites with millions of >volunteers, the State would still only get one vote. No vote padding! ahhh but the padded counties would affect that vote so vote padding could still be there so now I 'm gonna harp on my *50 cents* how much actual difference is vote-padding going to do in the present set-up... both *sides* do it, cancel out or nearly Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 11:43:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26515 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08879 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0E5333C1AD; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC4C3C1A4 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26427 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:43:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917103155.00d3f100@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:36:09 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917104914.00c56710@mail.bright.net> References: <001501c020b2$0e6bfec0$962b95d0@youda> <4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 11:04 AM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >If this committee formed of a disparate group of SC's and CC's can discuss >and come up with a report in spite of our differences, that alone will >show that we do not all have to agree in order to work together and alone >is a good thing! If we can actually accomplish getting needed changes made >in the election procedure, we will be doing a great thing! Holly, Bob Chada came up with what could potentially be a fantastic tool, IMHO, that could give us a better idea of needed changes. I expressed doubts that we could have cooperation. Could you please comment? You know the folks involved and would know whether or not the idea would be workable - Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 11:46:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26606 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09067 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0850C3C180; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018283C12F for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.254.125] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:46:07 -0500 Message-Id: <002201c020bd$9663bb00$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917084758.00d314d0@mail.bright.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:40:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Eligibility Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think the problem we are having in the project with eligibility revolves around which is the center or heart of the project--the volunteer or the county. If it is the county, then it makes sense to me to limit the number of voter to one or two per county and not allow state special project people to vote in the CC rep elections. However, if the volunteer is the heart of the project, then I see no reason why there should be any limit at any level on the number of people voting in a CC rep election--if you volunteer, you can vote. This is what I favor, but leads to the problem of certain states potentially being over-represented. But--in this project, are there really any interests that are particular to any region of the country? I really don't think regions are that useful of a division of the project because there aren't regional interests (that I know of). I would favor one volunteer, one vote in every region eligible regardless of the number of CC's, co-cc's, special project coordinators, etc. as long as they are a volunteer for the project. To take things one step further and beyond the authority of this committee, I think the regional representation should be abolished. Everyone should vote for all open CC positions, and the top four (or whatever is appropriate) vote-getters should be the members. That way the board would be more represenative of the sentiments of the members rather than representative of a region. But, I know that's beyond the scope of this committee. Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 11:49:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26893 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09423 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 948F03C1AD; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1ECE3C1A8 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.254.125] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:49:52 -0500 Message-Id: <002801c020be$1ccf5a00$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916160728.00b344b0@mail.bright.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:44:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] A- Good Standing Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I am against the EC making any ruling on good standing. The EC needs to be as neutral as possible during the election. This year on the EC I did not feel comfortable judging for good standing and it puts the committee in a position they should not be in. I feel there should be no good standing requirement to vote, only to run for office--and only the AB can declare someone as not in good standing to run for office. Anyone the AB declares not in good standing should be specifically named in the motion--not like the black logo good standing motion that passed earlier--if it is to be enforced for the elections. Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:37:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22271 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02257 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E2AEB3C1AC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031723C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-150.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.150]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA17282 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:40:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <003801c020b4$a8a40ee0$962b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Topic A [Eligibility, etc.] Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:36:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: OK. So we have one person doing anything = one vote. Then, we are back to the problems of the last election, which is what everyone got upset about, which is why this committee was formed. For every "solution" there will be problems with it. If we put electoral elections to the states, many will be happy that the "power" is away from the NC and AB. But, it *would* cause the states to work together from within the states (which, in my experience, we do very well...it's just at the national level that this project falls apart with fighting). If we leave it for the AB, NC, and EC to organize elections, there will be the same complaints of election "fixing." I think we have to find a solution that is so streamlined, or simply, or at least every detail spelled out, that there will be no complaints of voter padding, election fixing, and unfairness. I don't know of any perfect solutions, Theresa. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:07 AM Subject: [ESC] Topic A [Eligibility, etc.] > > Hi Everyone, > > On Topic A: > > After reading everyone's suggestions, I see us starting to veer off into > discussions of complicated solutions to the problems we face. I suggest > we keep it simple, mainly because the future Standing Election > Subcommittee will thank us for it. > > Think about it... If we go with electoral votes, we will have 50 > individual state elections conducted under possibly 50 different sets of > circumstances to produce 50 unverifiable votes and the attendant flood of > grievances regarding the methodologies for the votes. What to do if SCs > decline to hold an in-state election? What to do when the SC just sends > the electoral vote of their choice? What to do when some large number of > CCs claim that their SC wouldn't let them vote for whatever reason? This > method also doesn't prevent vote padding, which is a primary concern. > > If we go with "one CC, one vote", the EC will have to spend enormous > amounts of time ensuring that CCs don't vote in more than one region, > determining which region they want to vote in, contacting them when they > inevitably vote in more than one region to find out which vote[s] to toss > out, etc. Mistakes will be made, and mistakes will probably be taken as > evidence of tampering. This may prevent vote padding, but at a cost. If > people truly believe regional representation has value, they will feel > cheated that they cannot participate in each region they belong to. > > If we go with trying to limit the number of co-CCs and ASCs who can vote, > then you once again start arbitrarily denying people what is possibly > their only real opportunity to participate in this project at a national > level. And it will get complicated. I am constantly amazed at who all > shows up where in this project. Every case will have to be judged > separately as to their claim to the vote, whether or not it is done at the > state or national level. It will not prevent vote-packing, since I [for > example] who have my counties in one region can merely find someone who is > willing to take me on as a ch-host in another to ensure me a vote in each > region. > > Here is what I suggest: > > ALL members vote. > ALL members vote in _every_ election [NC, rep-at large, regional reps, > amendments, special projects] > > Its a bit radical but it is not outside what the bylaws allow, and it does > not interfere with regional representation, since nominated reps will > still be from specific regions per the bylaws. > > But...it eliminates the need for someone somewhere to decide who is > eligible to vote. It eliminates any value to adopting or co-hosting > counties in as many regions as possible to get votes in as many regions > as possible. If people want to pad votes, they would actually have to > assume false identities in order to do it. I don't know how to prevent > that; if people want to cheat that bad, they will do that. It maintains > members' ability to vote in the regions in which they participate. It > would make the EC's job a lot simpler, although they would still have to > go to considerable effort to eliminate duplicate submissions [for instance > when the same person has more than one email address]. > > As for broad eligibility issues, I would suggest a June 1 cutoff date to > give the EC a month to do its work, which will hopefully be simpler this > time around. This also gives a 60 day window for newbies to get up to > speed, if they care to vote. This will not affect vote padding since > anyone who might consider doing that now knows not to wait until May 31 to > adopt their counties. > > I suggest we do not get into issues of "good standing". For one thing, > according to the bylaws, one's "standing" does not prevent one from > voting, although it does prevent one from running for office. If persons > are going to be declared "not in good standing" and be prevented from > running for office or voting, that declaration should not come from the > Election Committee, which will undoubtedly be an unelected body operating > in secret. > > The bylaws already have criteria for eligibility to run for office; I > recommend that this committee affirm them, indicate that any declaration > of standing must come from outside the EC, and leave it at that. > > -Teresa > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:35:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22188 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02034 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3502B3C130; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4388D3C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.35]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917143533.GFPT425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917093016.00b8b5a0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:40:56 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Thoughts on Eligibility Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: First, a general opinion regarding Vote *packing* or *stuffing* --- It's not preventable without going to extremes of rules, regulations, watchdogging etc and even then, there are going to be some that slip through or are at least perceived as such and certainly any major efforts at preventing it are going to eliminate some who are not *stuffees* unfairly just as the 90 day rule did, possibly eliminating more innocents than guilty. Keeping It Simple: This is a volunteer project and it has become clear to me over the life of the project so far, the more rules and regulations and complications we have, the more volunteers we lose, whether totally through departure or partially through lack of participation in anything outside their county. The more rules etc we have the more arguments we have over their interpretation and the more arguments we have, the more people who leave... good people. 1. eligible positions SC's and CC's of course... some states have their own military projects, native american projects, etc -- perhaps on SSP's (state special projects), one vote per SSP and a maximum (5?) per state --- determination of who qualifies to be made by the SC. In many states this is none or one or two In many instances, these SSP's are done by people who are also CC's in that same state so there is no vote gain regarding national elections. (States set their own rules for their internal elections) At worst we might have a spurious SSP or two, at best it would encourage states to have some good state level special projects ... some of what is said under # of CC's may apply to adding voters to the rolls via SSP's 2. good standing basically, none of the EC's business... in my opinion, not in good standing is sort of a temporary limbo and the person is either going to shape up or would get shipped out by their SC. 3. cutoff dates 30 days maximum as being reasonable preparation time I think this time would be partly affected by what gets worked out in the mechanics... if there is a standing election committee maintaining election rolls, less preparation time is needed and perhaps even less time could be set but I lean to staying with the 30 days that was used in all elections preceding this one. Most of my mail at the time of the 90 day issue found the 30 days acceptable. 4. # per county I'm a moderate on this I guess, I find one per county unfair to the many counties with several hard working co-CC's but an unlimited number an open invitation to abuse. I would prefer a maximum of three but would find two acceptable, determination of who votes if there are more than 3 (or 2) is a state matter, either decided by the SC or by the county involved. Many counties already have 2 or 3 co-cc's and while it is certainly going to happen that there will be a few co-CC's that are simply there to add to the vote I don't think the total numbers are going to make that much difference. It's a little like my husband who would drive around to find the cheapest gas, it quit that when I pointed out that saving 5 cents a gallon on a 10 gallon fill (he fills at the half tank mark) is only 50 cents and it is a bit silly to go to all that time and trouble for 50 cents. 5. multi-region CC's I do have a problem with one CC one vote nationally with regards to regional reps (it is already that way with the NC and At Large races of course). If the whole country votes for the regionals, then they aren't representative of the region. I don't think the present setup is broken, any cracks in it are more a matter of mechanism. A CC gets to vote regionally for a regional rep, if they happen to be in more than one region, they get one little vote on more than one rep, I think we're worrying about *50 cents* again. Holly Timm who reaches for the doughnuts and another cup of coffee _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:28:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21474 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01396 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 469443C183; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7F43C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-150.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.150]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA16899 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:31:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <003201c020b3$7083e220$962b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts 0n The Agenda Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:27:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Esse Frye" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts 0n The Agenda > John; > I would rather see everyone get one vote insead of going the electorate > route for the reason being that an electorate way is not fair and just. > Look at it now being run by our democratic way of life. The bigger > populated states have more clout then the smaller populated So who said we had to assign voting weight by population, by counties, or volunteers? I run a very small project in terms of volunteers. But, a very large State in terms of sheer acerage. I'll sit here and argue that Wyoming is entitled to as many votes as New York (Holly, don't throw a wet towel at me!). I'll say that simply because I want my State to have as much voting weight as any other State. Alternatively, Holly can argue that her State has more traffic, more of everything, in fact. And, so she should have more "votes" as an electorate. Well, you see what I mean? There are good arguments either way. Why not just make things very simple: one state = one vote. There is no need for additional votes for the AB, or NC. They are "covered" under whatever State(s) they have websites in. Sometimes the best solution is to just make things very, very simple. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:08:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19956 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29327 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A7FCA3C16E; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2781F3C130 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.197.248]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917140825.YUJU17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:08:25 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000916232910.00aed5a0@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:07:25 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 12:20 AM 9/17/2000 -0400, Esther wrote: >Ellen; >point taken. Allowing only one vote per member for a rep, and one vote >for NC. IOW, if a CC has counties in two regions, he selects the one >region in which he chooses to vote. Why get rid of the regional reps? That >would be a seperate issue wouldn't it? >Esther Hi, Esther - Yes, I think eliminating regional reps would be a separate and very complicated issue, and I doubt I could support it. I don't see how it could be fair to those CCs who concentrate their efforts in the less populated sections of the country. At this early point, I'm not suggesting any change - just thinking out loud, exploring, and responding to notes. I do feel quite strongly, however, that we must never again allow an entire group of members to be arbitrarily denied their right to vote. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 10:08:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19937 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29286 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 11C883C195; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice6.ipa.net (postoffice6.ipa.net [205.218.170.27]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064D73C16E for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-150.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.150]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA15909 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:11:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000701c020b0$98f1f2e0$962b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com><4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:07:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellen Pack" To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > >That would certainly resolve the vote-padding. > > Not necessarily, if a state were packed. > Yes, I think it *would* eliminate vote padding. If an entire State only had one vote, they could pack in all the CC's they wanted, but there would still be only one vote. Even if an entire State packed their websites with millions of volunteers, the State would still only get one vote. No vote padding! Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 11:58:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27444 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10293 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BB2FF3C1B2; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD343C1A8 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.254.125] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:58:17 -0500 Message-Id: <004301c020bf$49a3fc60$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <003201c020b3$7083e220$962b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Thoughts 0n The Agenda Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:52:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > Why not just make things very simple: one state = one vote.> I don't agree with this. It is simple, but gives much, much more power to smaller states and therefore to members in smaller states. I think Delaware only has three counties and Texas has 100-some counties--those members would be treated differently. I find the state divisions in this project useless and think an equally as simple proposal would be one volunteer = one vote. Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 12:07:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28163 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A34FB3C1C5; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C223C1C2 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.254.125] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:05:53 -0500 Message-Id: <005701c020c0$59994340$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <003801c020b4$a8a40ee0$962b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Topic A--electoral suggestion Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:00:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: The electoral suggestions may encounter problems in those states not organized to run elections. In MN we pretty much just go about our business, our SC forwards appropriate messages, I'm pretty sure most CCs are involved in any of the mailing lists. We don't really communicate with each other, we've never voted as a state on anything, and I don't know if anyone would volunteer to coordinate it. We get our pages done, but are very informal. We aren't set up to run an election. I'm sure several other states are the same way. Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 12:10:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28300 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11584 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8F8DF3C1CC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0AD3C1CA for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04512 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917110308.00d08640@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:05:28 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility In-Reply-To: References: <006a01c020b7$d46b9c20$962b95d0@youda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 11:46 AM 09/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol wrote: > > > Sticking strictly to eligibility , I would like > to see > > *all* volunteers eligible to vote, no matter what their position or in > > whatever capacity. Anyone part of the USGW, I believe, should be able to > > have a voice. > >Hear, hear. Agreed - from day one as a volunteer. But only -A- voice; not _many_ voices. Carol C-H >-Teresa > > > > > > > Carol > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 12:38:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00584 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14505 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1C1183C1B3; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (mhub1.tc.umn.edu [160.94.5.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F127F3C18F for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.252.129] by mhub1.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:38:03 -0500 Message-Id: <001301c020c4$d7b02ce0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:32:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: > Jeremiah and Ellen can probably speak to the difficulty of getting some of > the SCs to cooperate with something as simple as sendign in a list of > their CCs This is very true. It is also the reason for *some* of the last minute problems every year. The EC is stuck trying to piece together a roster on June 28 because a SC will not respond to any email from the EC or keep saying tomorrow. We then have to get ballots out (IDs this year) before Jul 1 to prevent people from crying foul immediately and then we have to listen to complaints about missing a few duplicates when we are dependent on the SCs. No offense to the SCs here--obviously you care and do your job--but not all do. I was lucky this year in the NW/Plains region. Every SC sent in their list--but not all regions were that lucky. I am generally against a top-down structure, but in the case of elections, we can't discount people's votes because there SC doesn't do his/her job--that would disenfranchise even more voters. I would prefer to keep the elections run by an election committee so they are conducted by a standard set of procedures across the nation. Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 12:56:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA02151 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16429 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DD82A3C18F; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD803C17F for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.24]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917165557.HWOG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:55:57 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:01:19 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Good Standing Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be regarding good standing and eligibility It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business yes or no? Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being practical and getting something off our discussion plate _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:27:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04169 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19441 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E1DA53C1C3; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A4E3C1B3 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28774 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:27:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917122126.00ba8bf0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:24:06 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Sent prematurely - Re: [ESC] Good Standing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: No, they are not part of the EC business - so that means my answer is Yes - ? Maybe True or False would be easier to understand - Carol C-H At 01:01 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we >seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be >regarding good standing and eligibility > >It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > >*Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? > >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:21:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03876 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18947 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 204113C1C0; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8E93C1B3 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27038 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:21:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917121744.00ca1120@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:18:24 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: No Carol C-H At 01:01 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we >seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be >regarding good standing and eligibility > >It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > >*Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? > >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:55:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06153 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22336 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0A32C3C1A4; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F923C138 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:55:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-021.efn.org (pm3-021.efn.org [206.163.180.21]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8HHssA11648 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C506AE.317D@efn.org> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:00:14 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Vote References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly Timm wrote: > > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business I vote yes (It is NOT part of the EC's business) John > ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we > seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be > regarding good standing and eligibility > > It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > > yes or no? > > Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being > practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:59:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA06273 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22613 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E80CB3C183; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069053C138 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthpb.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.199.43]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20950 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <011401c020d1$2be5ad60$2bc7aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:00:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I agree. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 11:01 AM Subject: [ESC] Good Standing > ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we > seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be > regarding good standing and eligibility > > It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > > yes or no? > > Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being > practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 14:06:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA06924 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23378 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 37BE23C183; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E43F3C127 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.9]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917180623.IRKJ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:23 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917140925.00b71b60@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:11:44 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: looks like I didn;t ask this clearly, my apologies >*Good Standing* judgements are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? yes means you agree, the EC does NOT judge good standing no means you disagree and the EC should judge good standing is that better? >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:19:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03802 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18773 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7FB753C1C0; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42663C1B3 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.196.13]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917171934.VIH17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:19:34 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000917112450.00aed5a0@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:02:21 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 11:54 AM 9/17/2000 -0400, merope wrote: >Holly is right, for every person who adopts a >county to vote for a certain person, there is probably someone else doing >the same to vote for the other person. It probably does balance out, and >its likely that anything we do to stop vote padding will actually tip that >balance. I'm assuming you're saying that if the EC, or some other entity, involves itself with excluding members from voting, that action in itself can or will tip a balance that is in place naturally. Did I interpret you correctly? Just asking. :-) >It cannot be to this project's benefit to attempt to arrange >complicated rules that will exclude members from voting. Indeed. In fact, we have to be very careful, because voter manipulation is voter manipulation, regardless of how it is implemented, or from where it originates. Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 13:19:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03805 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18776 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6AA873C1C4; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3293C1C3 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.196.13]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917171936.VIL17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:19:36 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:19:31 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A According to the By-Laws: ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES "Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or not a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a "right" to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, thereby paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up again in another election. Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? Ellen _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 14:26:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08251 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25237 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7B14D3C1B3; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.42]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121F93C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [134.84.252.82] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:26:25 -0500 Message-Id: <001101c020d3$face8280$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917140925.00b71b60@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:20:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes > yes means you agree, the EC does NOT judge good standing > no means you disagree and the EC should judge good standing > > is that better? > > > >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being > >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 12:16:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28750 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12135 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9598F3C1C6; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp.inreach.com (mail.inreach.com [209.142.2.34]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956C83C1C2 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ljdt (208-25-57-60.stk.inreach.net [208.25.57.60]) by smtp.inreach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08283 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008d01c020c2$e03b49a0$3c3919d0@ljdt> From: "Mrs. Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres" To: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:18:10 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Agenda: Item A Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Since I will be leaving tomorrow, I would like to get my two cents in since when I get back Item A may have already been decided. After reading all e-mails about everyones' concerns, I can definitely see where this organization has grown to the point where more responsibility needs to be placed at the state level. I suggest each state hold their own elections, including anyone they wish. If they want to limit it to CC's so be it; if they want to include TC's that's fine too; if they want CoCC's to each have a vote that's okay. But, the SC should not vote, unless they have a county and to break a tie, and should be the person to carry the vote of the majority expressed in their own elections and each state to have one vote. If problems arise as Teresa suggests, and a state does not hold an election, that state should not be allowed to vote at the National level until it comes into conformity. I see no problem with CC's voting in more than one county or in more than one region. If they are doing that much more work, they should be entitled to more input. I know this is not part of our agenda, but as a native Californian, I just have to ask it--since when did Oklahoma and Kansas become part of the Southwest? Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres Please visit my sites: Nevada Co., CA GenWeb: http://www.cagenweb.com/~nevada/ Personal Web Page: http://fly.to/ljdt GenConnect Sites for: Button, Cayton, Hickerson, Hotchkiss, Sterne _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 14:38:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08954 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26330 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8BD7D3C184; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:38:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp.inreach.com (mail.inreach.com [209.142.2.34]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA043C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ljdt (208-25-57-60.stk.inreach.net [208.25.57.60]) by smtp.inreach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA05820 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011501c020d6$b98400e0$3c3919d0@ljdt> From: "Mrs. Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917140925.00b71b60@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:40:16 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I have two questions regarding Good Standing: Whose business is it, if it is in the bylaws pertaining to the dutes and qualifications of the advisory board describing nominees in Section 9? And could it ever play a larger role of EC's business depending on how the elections are held? Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres Please visit my sites: Nevada Co., CA GenWeb: http://www.cagenweb.com/~nevada/ Personal Web Page: http://fly.to/ljdt GenConnect Sites for: Button, Cayton, Hickerson, Hotchkiss, Sterne _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 15:06:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11692 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28957 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 21A663C1CB; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from sallib.sals.edu (sallib.sals.edu [198.175.242.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AE3E3C1C4 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sallib.sals.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:01:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:01:30 -0400 From: Robert Sullivan To: esc@pairlist.net Cc: SCP_SULLI@sals.edu Message-Id: <000917150130.11b8e@sals.edu> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: >*Good Standing* judgements are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? yes Bob Sullivan scp_sulli@sals.edu Schenectady County Public Library (NY) http://www.scpl.org _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 15:24:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13302 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00757 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3B0E83C16B; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from sallib.sals.edu (sallib.sals.edu [198.175.242.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E7373C127 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sallib.sals.edu for ESC@PAIRLIST.NET; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:20:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:20:06 -0400 From: Robert Sullivan To: ESC@pairlist.net Cc: SCP_SULLI@sals.edu Message-Id: <000917152006.11b8e@sals.edu> Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Eligibility Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I've seen a lot of suggestions which sound pretty reasonable. I agree with a lot of what Holly said. Actually, I agree with all of what Jerimiah said - I never did see what good regional representation is when we're scattered all over the place - but that's not going to happen. I think the guiding principle should be to allow as many people as possible to vote, and to make it as easy as possible for them to vote. To me, that would mean no cutoff date and taking names up to the beginning of the election. I guess that's not going to happen either, although any properly designed voting system should allow that without causing extra work for the EC. Since there seems to be a collective determination that we have a cutoff, I'd say no more than 30 days. I think the idea of someone, if not a standing EC, maintaining a list of voters is good. No need to do it all at the last minute. It boggles my mind that some states didn't know there were elections - not a single member subscribed to USGW-CC-L? ;-) - or I would suggest that's really the SC's job. After pondering it it occurred to me that having such a list would allow direct communication with members, both occasional updates and periodic address probes to make sure addresses were still valid. Looks to me like this would solve a number of problems. I have some other ideas for how that would work, but Holly might prefer I wait until a later discussion. Radical in Schenectady, Bob Sullivan scp_sulli@sals.edu Schenectady County Public Library (NY) http://www.scpl.org _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 15:30:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA13601 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01240 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 048133C1D0; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtppop1.gte.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109203C127 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zip1 (A010-0236.MNAS.splitrock.net [209.156.76.236]) by smtppop1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id OAA976152 Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:25:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Subject: RE: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:31:29 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4132.2800 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Importance: Normal Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes.... -----Original Message----- From: esc-admin@pairlist.net [mailto:esc-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Holly Timm Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:01 PM To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Good Standing ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be regarding good standing and eligibility It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business yes or no? Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being practical and getting something off our discussion plate _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Sat Sep 16 16:49:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA16477 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seeker.rootsquest.com (rootsquest.com [209.19.155.237]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01745 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by seeker.rootsquest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA28136 for usgw-cc-l-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:46:58 -0600 Received: from oak.usgennet.net (root@[209.19.155.240]) by seeker.rootsquest.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28133 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:46:57 -0600 Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by oak.usgennet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8GKmR105119 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:48:30 -0600 Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.224]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000916204822.UIYV425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:48:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000916163707.038f3920@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:53:46 -0500 To: USGENWEB-ALL-L@usgennet.net, USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org, USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com, State-Coord-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-SE-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-NE-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-NW-L@rootsweb.com, usgenweb-SW-L@rootsweb.com, BOARD-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: USGW-CC-L: Election Study Committee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-usgw-cc-l@rootsquest.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: USGW-CC-L@usgennet.org Status: RO X-Status: First, I would like to thank everyone who volunteered to serve on the committee, it made the choosing difficult but it also gave us the ability to try to have a broad spectrum of opinion and perspective from across the project. Listed below are the Election Study Committee Members with their states and regions. The committee wants to hear from anyone with thoughts ideas and comments regarding the election process. At some points we may be asking specific questions about election issues but we welcome your comments at anytime. Please address these comments to: ESC@timmweb.pair.com Holly Timm, ESC Chair (Permission to forward this message appropriately is granted) SC Members: Nathan Zipfel PA NE Region Linda Mason MS SE Region Carol Haagensen WY NW Region Patrick Hays IN NE Region Mary Ann Hetrick CO NW Region CC Members: Robert Sullivan NY NE Region Connie Bates connie_bates@att.net IL NE Region Jerimiah Moerke MN, SD NW Region John McCoy NE NW Region Esther Frye IA NW Region Chip Brown TN SE Region Carol Carwile-Head GA SE Region Teresa Lindquist KS SW Region Bob Chada OK SW Region Linda Hotchkiss CA SW Region Board Members: Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid-Atlantic CC Rep Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep Holly Timm, Representative-At-Large and Chair of the Committee Ex-Officio, National Coordinator Tim Stowell From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 16:53:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19822 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09559 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8F0EE3C1D2; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F02C3C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.221.203]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917205339.CWJA17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:53:39 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000917122257.00b09f08@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:24:09 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 01:01 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >*Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business Yes I agree with the statement. Ellen >yes or no? > >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 16:53:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19883 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09567 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EE6F03C183; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6463C17F for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ellenpack ([12.75.221.203]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000917205347.CWJX17935.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@ellenpack> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:53:47 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> X-Sender: e.j.pack@postoffice.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:53:34 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Ellen Pack Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000917121939.00be2810@mail.netdoor.com> References: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and certainly no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be reached that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to process the IDs: Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. Can/should the EC over rule a SC? I would vote no. Ellen At 12:20 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Yep. > >Carol C-H > >At 12:19 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >>According to the By-Laws: >> >>ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES >> >>"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up >>Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." >> >>During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or not >>a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a "right" >>to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, thereby >>paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. >> >>It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up again >>in another election. >> >>Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? >> >>Ellen >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Esc mailing list >>Esc@pairlist.net >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I >was not a socialist. >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because >I was not a trade unionist. >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a >Jew. >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:13:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA21907 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11529 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7A30F3C1B5; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A306F3C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.77.163.5]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000917211324.VETF2687.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:13:24 +0000 Message-ID: <005001c020eb$c1c59a10$0201500a@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:10:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: *Good Standing* judgements are no part of the EC's business Yep! Connie _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:14:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA21959 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11561 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 839813C1B5; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698BB3C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-018.efn.org (pm3-018.efn.org [206.163.180.18]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8HLECA09391 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C53566.2B53@efn.org> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:19:34 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 References: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Ellen Pack wrote: > >...I believe the conclusion must be reached > that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. Amen >Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a Mechanical >thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to >to process the IDs: I agree whole heartedly > I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. Absolutely > Can/should the EC over rule a SC? > I would vote no. Again, I am in 100% agreement. John > Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and certainly > no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be reached > that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. > > Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical > thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to > process the IDs: > > Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? > I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. > > Can/should the EC over rule a SC? > I would vote no. > > Ellen > > At 12:20 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >Yep. > > > >Carol C-H > > > >At 12:19 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > >>According to the By-Laws: > >> > >>ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > >> > >>"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up > >>Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." > >> > >>During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or not > >>a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a "right" > >>to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, thereby > >>paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. > >> > >>It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up again > >>in another election. > >> > >>Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? > >> > >>Ellen > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Esc mailing list > >>Esc@pairlist.net > >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > >was not a socialist. > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because > >I was not a trade unionist. > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a > >Jew. > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:18:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22274 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11943 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:18:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EDDDC3C1E5; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98C03C183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17800 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:18:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917160328.00b1da10@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:14:23 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob Chada's idea is a good one, and do not understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members tell me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter IDs but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it not seem like a very good idea to anyone else? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:21:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22553 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12183 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0D9073C1D9; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f263.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.138]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A903C1D6 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:21:13 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.247 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:21:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.247] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:13 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 21:21:13.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[353B9890:01C020ED] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I agree,Carol. 1 vote for all members, whether they host one county in one area or several in another area of the country. This would go for the assistant CC's who represent the large states such as PA, and NY to name a few. (coffee's good, Holly) Esse >From: "Carol" >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: >Subject: [ESC] Eligibility >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:59:05 -0500 > >Sticking strictly to eligibility , I would like to >see >*all* volunteers eligible to vote, no matter what their position or in >whatever capacity. Anyone part of the USGW, I believe, should be able to >have a voice. > > >Carol > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:28:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23190 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12915 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A36163C1D6; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8113C1B5 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21329 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:27:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917161806.00b1dda0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:23:08 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> References: <4.3.1.2.20000917121939.00be2810@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 03:53 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and >certainly no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be >reached that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. I agree >Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical >thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to >process the IDs: I think over 30 days is unfair to the members and candidates. >Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? >I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. > >Can/should the EC over rule a SC? >I would vote no. I think these issues should not be determined by us, but should be addressed by a committee rewriting the bylaws. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:30:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23454 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13149 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0F38A3C1D9; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA083C1D6 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22349 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:30:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917162532.00d92a10@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:27:14 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917160328.00b1da10@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 05:25 PM 09/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: >I think running a poll of the members who did not vote would be >illustrative, but I also think it would need to be handled by the former >EC [which has disbanded] or by the AB. To release the info to us violates >the voters' trust. > >-Teresa How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, which is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:40:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24276 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14261 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F25703C1D6; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1203C184 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.77.163.5]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000917214046.VQMX2687.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:40:46 +0000 Message-ID: <010701c020ef$93e6e870$0201500a@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Survey of reasons Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:38:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think this problem could be alleviated by simply sending a message to all the state lists (if they would forward it to their members) asking folks to simply respond to us if they did not vote - why not? And give some likely reasons. At the same time, we could ask those who DID vote to respond with their main concern about the last election if they had one. And yes, I know - there is a possibility that we would be inundated with messages - but only a possibility. I think that the majority of those who did not vote would also not respond to the message. Connie ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > >-Teresa > > How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing > > that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, which > > is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? > > The fact that they didn't vote. > > -Teresa > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 17:45:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24683 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14762 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 163333C184; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043A43C1D6 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1092.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.192]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27654 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:45:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917163507.00bb72c0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:41:43 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917162532.00d92a10@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Teresa - If a survey is conducted of all names and e-addresses (the number is in Tim's - or Roger's - or somebody's - post) who were sent a Voter ID number and one of the questions is "did you vote" and another is "if not, why not", and all the info in the non-voters results is used to try to fix whatever the problem was, how is that violating a confidence??? They are giving the info and we are not asking age or income or anything - I do not understand - Carol At 05:32 PM 09/17/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > >-Teresa > > How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing > > that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, > which > > is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? > >The fact that they didn't vote. > >-Teresa > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:46:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01063 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21295 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 868D73C12C; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f14.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.14]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03EE3C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:46:29 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.138 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:46:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.138] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:29 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 22:46:29.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E96AAB0:01C020F9] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Holly, I agree. Yes! it is not a part of the EC's responsibility of "Good Standing". The responsibility lies with the SC. Esther >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] Good Standing >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:01:19 -0500 > >ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we >seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be >regarding good standing and eligibility > >It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > >*Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? > >Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being >practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:53:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01563 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22314 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B7A5B3C13C; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E293C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.14]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917225348.MNQA425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:53:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917185034.00b8ab20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:59:12 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility In-Reply-To: <002201c020bd$9663bb00$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917084758.00d314d0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 10:40 AM 9/17/00 -0500, Jerimiah Moerke wrote: >To take things one step further and beyond the authority of this committee, >I think the regional representation should be abolished. Everyone should >vote for all open CC positions, and the top four (or whatever is >appropriate) vote-getters should be the members. That way the board would >be more represenative of the sentiments of the members rather than >representative of a region. But, I know that's beyond the scope of this >committee. It is beyond our scope and it isn't. This is certainly a change in the bylaws and not I think an emergency matter. What we can do if we decide to is work out a workable guideline or whatever within the current Regional framework and recommend the change to non-regional representation (if we agree on that or as a minority opinion if we don't) to be voted on as a ByLaws change at the next regular election. What I think we need to focus on is A) a good plan for Elections that is within the current framework of the existing ByLaws and taking into consideration the overall way elections have been held (including eligibility etc) as well as B) recommend any future ByLaws changes. We can not count on ByLaws changes taking place no matter how strongly we believe in them and certainly not count on them being in place before another election is held. Personally at this time I am not convinced of doing away with regional representation. For one thing it narrows the constituency a Rep has to try to listen to and communicate with and from whom one receives questions, problems, etc. I think there is also something to the perception of a CC that some one or two people is *their* representative. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:55:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01633 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22440 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 819193C151; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4358F3C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.14]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917225505.MOCX425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:55:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917185933.00d13af0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:00:28 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] #s In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000917165606.00bcde40@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 04:58 PM 9/17/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >Found the post of Roger's - 842 of 2175 voted. does anybody have statistics on the other elections so we can see if this election was at much variance with previous ones as to percentage voting? Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:56:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01693 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22586 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3F8DD3C139; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7BD3C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.14]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917225640.MOSK425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:40 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917190112.00b30700@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:02:04 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917162532.00d92a10@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: At 05:32 PM 9/17/00 -0400, merope wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > >-Teresa > > How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing > > that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, > which > > is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? > >The fact that they didn't vote. I agree totally with Teresa, any release of voter's lists by an EC is a violation of trust. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:58:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01914 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22752 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2F1853C140; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f254.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.129]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D2D3C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:58:26 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.138 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:58:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.138] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:58:26 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 22:58:26.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9E70FD0:01C020FA] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol; I would think that the EC would have a list. The only problem I see is that we are under a time limit here. There would be no telling how long it would take for voters to write back, and then the necessary time in tabulating the results. I feel it is a good idea but right now there doesn't see to be time in doing it. Esse >From: Carol C-H >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:14:23 -0500 > >I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob >Chada's idea is a good one, and do not >understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members tell >me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter IDs >but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out >why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations >without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were >sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than >on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a >volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it not >seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was >not a socialist. >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I >was not a trade unionist. >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a >Jew. >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 19:13:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02926 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA24389 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 405DF3C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B633C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port553.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.193.253]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29736 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:13:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000917180743.00b95e00@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:09:42 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917162532.00d92a10@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Obviously this is one of the things about which I am ignorant because of my recently having come into USGenWeb. I totally trust your judgement on it, though. Carol At 05:32 PM 09/17/2000 -0400, merope wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > >-Teresa > > How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing > > that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, > which > > is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? > >The fact that they didn't vote. > >-Teresa > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. ~Victor Hugo~ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 19:47:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05609 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28140 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AC44E3C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (mhub1.tc.umn.edu [160.94.5.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCC83C129 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.253.76] by mhub1.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:46:55 -0500 Message-Id: <001d01c02100$c17104e0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:41:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I still have a copy of the Voter IDs and the "electorate," but I do not feel comfortable releasing it or contacting people on it as it was compiled only for voting purposes. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob > > Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > > understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members tell > > me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter IDs > > but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out > > why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > > without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were > > sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than > > on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > > volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it not > > seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > I'm not a board member, but I would imagine that _if_ the records still > exist Leigh Compton has them. Perhaps Roger Swafford would also have > them. > > I think running a poll of the members who did not vote would be > illustrative, but I also think it would need to be handled by the former > EC [which has disbanded] or by the AB. To release the info to us violates > the voters' trust. > > -Teresa > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 19:07:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02494 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23757 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 40C183C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD943C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.14]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917230715.MSVS425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:07:15 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917190313.00b819f0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:12:38 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000917161806.00b1dda0@mail.netdoor.com> References: <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> <4.3.1.2.20000917121939.00be2810@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A At 04:23 PM 9/17/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >>Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? >>I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. >> >>Can/should the EC over rule a SC? >>I would vote no. >I think these issues should not be determined by us, but should be >addressed by a committee rewriting the bylaws. Again, I don't think this is an EC matter. If a CC finds they have not been listed to vote, certainly it is up to the EC to verify that the omission was not an error by inquiring of the SC. If a CC feels their SC has denied them a right to vote there should be an avenue of protest available but that is not an EC matter. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:01:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06634 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29562 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 480083C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E2B3C129 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-77.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.77]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA24452 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:01:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001501c02103$6bdf7900$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <001501c020b2$0e6bfec0$962b95d0@youda><4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000917103155.00d3f100@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:00:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I would like to echo the idea that has already been presented. I would like for us to, somehow, find out why people did NOT vote or participate. Is there someway we could setup a "comments" website, or ask the SCs to compile a list of "reasons" submitted by their cc's? I agree with Carol. Let's figure out what is wrong in the eyes of 62% of the project. Carol (the other one) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol C-H" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > At 11:04 AM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >If this committee formed of a disparate group of SC's and CC's can discuss > >and come up with a report in spite of our differences, that alone will > >show that we do not all have to agree in order to work together and alone > >is a good thing! If we can actually accomplish getting needed changes made > >in the election procedure, we will be doing a great thing! > Holly, Bob Chada came up with what could potentially be a fantastic tool, > IMHO, that could give us a better idea of needed changes. I expressed > doubts that we could have cooperation. Could you please comment? You know > the folks involved and would know whether or not the idea would be workable - > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was > not a socialist. > Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I > was not a trade unionist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:25:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08478 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02573 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 72AB63C18D; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F013C18C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA25865 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:25:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <003e01c02106$d0486660$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:22:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Holly Timm" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 1:01 PM Subject: [ESC] Good Standing > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business agreed. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:39:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09311 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04032 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4A4093C16B; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6C53C158 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA26815 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:39:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <006601c02108$bdf0be20$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net><4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:38:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: It is probably a problem of semantics. But, I don't think "eligible to vote" and "right to vote" are the same thing, simply because of wording. I may be eligible to have a driver's license, but I may not have the right to drive because of expired tags, or whatever. That being said, I maintain that eligibility to vote (except where specified in the bylaws) should be left up to the SC. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellen Pack" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and certainly > no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be reached > that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. > > Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical > thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to > process the IDs: > > Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? > I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. > > Can/should the EC over rule a SC? > I would vote no. > > Ellen > > At 12:20 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >Yep. > > > >Carol C-H > > > >At 12:19 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > >>According to the By-Laws: > >> > >>ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > >> > >>"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up > >>Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." > >> > >>During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or not > >>a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a "right" > >>to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, thereby > >>paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. > >> > >>It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up again > >>in another election. > >> > >>Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? > >> > >>Ellen > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Esc mailing list > >>Esc@pairlist.net > >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > >was not a socialist. > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because > >I was not a trade unionist. > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a > >Jew. > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:44:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09748 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04639 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CA10A3C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C521B3C129 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA27090 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:44:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <007c01c02109$71cdaa20$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:43:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think it would have to be a volunteer survey. That is, if someone wanted to express their opinions about why they didn't vote, they could simply go to a website, or send us a note. (A website that did NOT collect voter IDs or email address would allow anyone to maintain anonymity. Anyone who didn't bother to say why they didn't bother to vote, we could conclude the reason is apathy. But, those who have definite reasons for not voting *would* respond. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > >-Teresa > > How, Teresa? This is not an uncommon survey to be done - the only thing > > that would be released would be the names and e-addresses of the CCs, which > > is public knowledge once they adopt a county - what would be violated? > > The fact that they didn't vote. > > -Teresa > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:52:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10510 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05670 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 641973C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (mhub1.tc.umn.edu [160.94.5.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7190F3C129 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.249.35] by mhub1.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:52:03 -0500 Message-Id: <001501c02109$da99aae0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net><4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> <006601c02108$bdf0be20$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:46:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Carol, As a SC, Perhaps you could address this-- we on past elections committes have always had trouble with some SCs providing lists or informing CCs of the voting process. How can we better engage and receive the help of SCs? That I feel is one of the greatest problems of the current elections process. How do we get SCs to participate without stepping on the authority of SCs? Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > It is probably a problem of semantics. But, I don't think "eligible to > vote" and "right to vote" are the same thing, simply because of wording. I > may be eligible to have a driver's license, but I may not have the right to > drive because of expired tags, or whatever. > > That being said, I maintain that eligibility to vote (except where specified > in the bylaws) should be left up to the SC. > > Carol > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ellen Pack" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:53 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > > > > Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and > certainly > > no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be reached > > that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. > > > > Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical > > thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to > > process the IDs: > > > > Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to vote? > > I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. > > > > Can/should the EC over rule a SC? > > I would vote no. > > > > Ellen > > > > At 12:20 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > >Yep. > > > > > >Carol C-H > > > > > >At 12:19 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >>According to the By-Laws: > > >> > > >>ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > > >> > > >>"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up > > >>Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." > > >> > > >>During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or not > > >>a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a "right" > > >>to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, thereby > > >>paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. > > >> > > >>It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up > again > > >>in another election. > > >> > > >>Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? > > >> > > >>Ellen > > >> > > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Esc mailing list > > >>Esc@pairlist.net > > >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > > >was not a socialist. > > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because > > >I was not a trade unionist. > > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not > a > > >Jew. > > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Esc mailing list > > >Esc@pairlist.net > > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:52:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10534 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05726 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 03EA83C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB0A3C129 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA27669 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:53:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00a001c0210a$aad8d320$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:52:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I disagree. I think a simple on-line form could be devised. I could set one up in about an hour. No, it would not be "secure." But, we don't have to ask for names, email addresses, or regions, either. It could be a simple blank where people could write their comments. It wouldn't require any tabulation, since we are only seeking ideas, and reasons why they didn't vote. It would be very clear if a theme were being repeated over and over. It should be voluntary participation only. The apathy we can't fix in 6 weeks. But, we *can* listen to strong opinions such as "my vote didn't count" or "the election was fixed" or "I disagree with the AB" or whatever the reasons may be for non-participation. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Esse Frye" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST > Carol; > I would think that the EC would have a list. The only problem I see is that > we are under a time limit here. There would be no telling how long it would > take for voters to write back, and then the necessary time in tabulating the > results. I feel it is a good idea but right now there doesn't see to be time > in doing it. > Esse > > > >From: Carol C-H > >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net > >To: esc@pairlist.net > >Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:14:23 -0500 > > > >I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob > >Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > >understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members tell > >me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter IDs > >but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out > >why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > >without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were > >sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than > >on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > >volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it not > >seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was > >not a socialist. > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I > >was not a trade unionist. > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a > >Jew. > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Esc mailing list > >Esc@pairlist.net > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:56:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10859 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06185 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9ADF23C12F; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75A63C12A for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp223-rch.klondyke.net [209.155.37.222]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17471 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:56:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c0210a$69a6c2e0$de259bd1@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com><4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:50:13 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Just had a thought. How about this: Since we are a "virtual" community, that is, there are no actual geographic boundaries in cyberspace, perhaps we can get away from geographic thinking. There is a definate benefit for the voters to have representatives who represent "their" segment. Yet, we experience difficulty because CCs often have counties in more than one state/region. What if we broke it up, instead of by geographic region, by alphabetical grouping? For instance, all those CCs with last names beginning with, say, the letters A through D would vote for one rep, E through I another, and so on. That way, each person elected would have a constituency to represent, and each voter would have one vote for their AB rep. How do the rest of your read Article V of the bylaws? Article V states: "The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National Coordinator, four (4) State Coordinator Regional Representatives, eight (8) Local Coordinator Regional Representatives, one (1) representative each from The USGenWeb Archives Project, The USGenWeb Census Project, and The USGenWeb Tombstone Project, and beginning in 1999, one (1) at-large representative. All shall have voting privileges except the National Coordinator who shall vote only in the case of a tie. The regions from which State Coordinator and Local Coordinator Representatives are elected shall be decided by the Advisory Board on an annual basis. " Does this necessarily have to be *geographic* regions? Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:12:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA12003 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08258 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A58C73C158; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89F53C12C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA29280 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:13:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00cf01c0210d$741ca660$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com><4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <000701c0210a$69a6c2e0$de259bd1@computer> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:12:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I really do have to get off my computer this evening! :o)) I like the idea of geographical reps rather than alpha. Wyoming didn't become a state until 1861. Before that, it was a territory that spread out into Nebraska, N. Dakota, Utah, Colorado, etc. Genealogically, this is an important division for us in Wyoming, because those of us in our "region" can often work together transcribing records that include cities and towns that later ended up in another State. For the western half of the USA, this is going to be true more than the eastern states. We *need* the regional division as it is from a genealogy perspective. It also gives us, at least in our region, the feeling that we are all working on similar genealogy problems, and representation in the USGW is a natural progression of that. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shari Handley" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > Just had a thought. How about this: > > Since we are a "virtual" community, that is, there are no actual geographic boundaries in cyberspace, perhaps we can get > away from geographic thinking. There is a definate benefit for the voters to have representatives who represent "their" > segment. Yet, we experience difficulty because CCs often have counties in more than one state/region. What if we broke > it up, instead of by geographic region, by alphabetical grouping? For instance, all those CCs with last names beginning > with, say, the letters A through D would vote for one rep, E through I another, and so on. That way, each person > elected would have a constituency to represent, and each voter would have one vote for their AB rep. > > How do the rest of your read Article V of the bylaws? Article V states: > > "The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National Coordinator, four (4) State Coordinator Regional > Representatives, eight (8) Local Coordinator Regional Representatives, one (1) representative each from The USGenWeb > Archives Project, The USGenWeb Census Project, and The USGenWeb Tombstone Project, and beginning in 1999, one (1) > at-large representative. All shall have voting privileges except the National Coordinator who shall vote only in the > case of a tie. The regions from which State Coordinator and Local Coordinator Representatives are elected shall be > decided by the Advisory Board on an annual basis. " > > Does this necessarily have to be *geographic* regions? > > Shari Handley > shari@tyaskin.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:30:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13204 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10526 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B0ED63C12D; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E7F3C12B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.b1.accfe4 (4253) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:28 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:30:27 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/17/00 11:06:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << >*Good Standing* judgements are no part of the EC's business > >yes or no? yes means you agree, the EC does NOT judge good standing no means you disagree and the EC should judge good standing is that better? >> Yes and yes, it is better!.. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:36:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13636 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11185 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 153E73C12D; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EA83C12B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp97-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.113]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA24236 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:36:13 -0500 Message-ID: <009d01c0210f$f94d6980$de259bd1@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917125807.00d76100@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:29:59 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Yes, they are no part of the EC's business. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:01 PM Subject: [ESC] Good Standing > ok... one thing i would like to do as we go is get some points on which we > seem to be totally agreed out of the way.... such a point seems to be > regarding good standing and eligibility > > It is my reading at the moment we seem to be unanimous on one point: > > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > > yes or no? > > Note: yes we will phrase it better in the report just being > practical and getting something off our discussion plate > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:43:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14104 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11877 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 60C523C12D; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02013C12B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.94.99c12df (3703) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <94.99c12df.26f6cd1f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:42:55 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Good Standing To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/17/00 12:56:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: > *Good Standing* judgement are no part of the EC's business > > yes or no? > Yes. Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:43:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14181 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11977 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E25173C18C; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA81A3C12B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp97-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.113]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA25214 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:42:31 -0500 Message-ID: <00eb01c02110$e0918380$de259bd1@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917160328.00b1da10@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:36:17 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I have the complete list of only the region for which I had responsibility (NE). The *full* list was managed by the EC chair, Roger Swafford. Each region's list was sent to 2 EC members so that votes from that region could be verified. So, Roger'd be the guy. Shari Handley shari@tyaskin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob > Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members tell > me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter IDs > but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out > why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were > sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than > on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it not > seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was > not a socialist. > Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I > was not a trade unionist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. > Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 21:55:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14932 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13208 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C99743C17F; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DCF3C12D for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-136.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.136]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA02674 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:55:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00db01c02113$6dab1e00$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.2.2.20000917120225.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net><4.3.2.7.2.20000917110440.00b36d40@mail.bright.net> <4.2.2.20000917134506.00adf110@postoffice.att.net> <006601c02108$bdf0be20$4d2b95d0@youda> <001501c02109$da99aae0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:54:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Jerimiah, I had to sit and think about this for a little awhile. I had to dig down into my own feelings about why *I* don't forward a lot to my cc's. (However, I did send you the list of cc's and inform them of the elections, and what and who was running, etc.) I found the answer in a "discussion" that I am in on the State-Coord-L list. I am, personally, very tired of a few individuals who believe that "the end justifies the means" and forget that they are part of a very large project with many diverse opinions and special needs of the states or regions. Some feel compelled, usually by good intentions but with disastrous results, that they know better than everyone else how things should be done. So, they do things on their own that affects us all, then there is the predictable crisis in the USGW. My own CC's have been very clear with me. They do not WANT to know about any of it! They want to be left alone to do their own thing. We've all seen it, and we all feel it, at least some of the time: the desire for all the infighting to just go away. Well, I don't mean to get on a soapbox. I'm just trying to describe the reason that, I think, so many don't bother to participate anymore. It isn't unique to the SCs who didn't respond or who didn't let their cc's know of the elections. It is simply that there is a fundamental problem in the USGW that is eating its way through the very fiber and core of the project. I've heard AB members and CC's alike say that they are *so* tired of the crises and in-fighting. Until we fix that, in some way, there will continue to be the apathy. ****When people feel victimized and helpless, they won't respond or participate***** I think that we, on this committee, needs to affirm that no one is excluded. I think we have to stop excluding people because they don't have the "right" to vote, or that they aren't "in good standing" or whatever reason someone may use to promote their own ideas without it being a majority decision. I believe we have to give the vote to everyone, without exception. I think we have to make each and every person feel that their opinions matter, through the voting process. And, I believe they have to feel that the voting is fair and unbiased and untainted by special interests or this or that group. I think we have to make the elections a TRUE representation of the *majority* and not those who managed to convince enough people through scare-tactics and blighting the lists with propaganda. We have to make *everyone* feel important again. That's when I think *some* of the apathy will go away. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > Carol, > > As a SC, Perhaps you could address this-- > we on past elections committes have always had trouble with some SCs > providing lists or informing CCs of the voting process. How can we better > engage and receive the help of SCs? That I feel is one of the greatest > problems of the current elections process. How do we get SCs to participate > without stepping on the authority of SCs? > Jerimiah > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carol > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:38 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > > > > It is probably a problem of semantics. But, I don't think "eligible to > > vote" and "right to vote" are the same thing, simply because of wording. > I > > may be eligible to have a driver's license, but I may not have the right > to > > drive because of expired tags, or whatever. > > > > That being said, I maintain that eligibility to vote (except where > specified > > in the bylaws) should be left up to the SC. > > > > Carol > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ellen Pack" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > > > > > > > Since the By-Laws offer no further statements on the subject, and > > certainly > > > no statements to the contrary, I believe the conclusion must be reached > > > that "Eligible to vote" and "Right to vote" are one in the same. > > > > > > Aside from say a 30 or 60 day deadline, which I see only as a mechanical > > > thing to help the SC get his list together, and the EC an opportunity to > > > process the IDs: > > > > > > Is it up to the EC to determine eligibility and/or members' right to > vote? > > > I feel the best person to determine eligibility is the SC. > > > > > > Can/should the EC over rule a SC? > > > I would vote no. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > At 12:20 PM 9/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Yep. > > > > > > > >Carol C-H > > > > > > > >At 12:19 PM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > > >>According to the By-Laws: > > > >> > > > >>ARTICLE VII. ELECTION PROCEDURES > > > >> > > > >>"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up > > > >>Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." > > > >> > > > >>During this past election, there was discussion regarding whether or > not > > > >>a member being "eligible" to vote also meant that a member had a > "right" > > > >>to vote. The EC Chair ruled that they were not one in the same, > thereby > > > >>paving the way for implementation of the April 1 cut off date. > > > >> > > > >>It might be worthy of discussion here, as the subject could come up > > again > > > >>in another election. > > > >> > > > >>Anyone care to know my thoughts on the subject? > > > >> > > > >>Ellen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > >>Esc mailing list > > > >>Esc@pairlist.net > > > >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > > > >was not a socialist. > > > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - > because > > > >I was not a trade unionist. > > > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was > not > > a > > > >Jew. > > > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > > > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Esc mailing list > > > >Esc@pairlist.net > > > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Esc mailing list > > > Esc@pairlist.net > > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 22:00:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA15225 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13787 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6EF353C199; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C523C191 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp97-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.113]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28077 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:58:01 -0500 Message-ID: <012d01c02113$0b1e3c40$de259bd1@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <000917152006.11b8e@sals.edu> <005c01c02108$383c3a20$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Voter Registration? (was - Re: [ESC] Eligibility Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:51:47 -0400 Organization: Tyaskin Web Designs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility > Purely from a SC point of view: > I wouldn't want to have to maintain a continuous, updated list of my CC's to > an election committee. What about a yearly "voter registration"? Hear me out, now: *It would cut down on the sheer volume of work in managing the vote to begin with. *Each registration could be via web-based form, asking name, CC of what county or SC of what state, etc., Have you been a CC or SC continuously since before (insert date here - ie June 1) As each reg comes in, a member of the standing election committee (if there is one ) could field it and verify by visiting the registrant's web site that they are indeed a USGW vol. *Those who wish to "stay out of the politics" could simply *not* register, just as they have that option in actual governmental elections. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 22:22:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA16606 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16288 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 090F43C1BB; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BFA3C12C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.30.a4b7da2 (4253) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:21:16 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <30.a4b7da2.26f6d61c@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:21:16 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/17/00 6:13:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: << We *need* the regional division as it is from a genealogy perspective. It also gives us, at least in our region, the feeling that we are all working on similar genealogy problems, and representation in the USGW is a natural progression of that. Carol >> I would have to agree with that. I think because we are a genealogical group. we need to keep the geographic divisions. They do have common goals and resources. A representative should have an idea of the areas they are representing. Not alphabetical representation. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 22:22:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA16613 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16292 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 22B543C1D9; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mhub3.tc.umn.edu (mhub3.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.43]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378553C12C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.248.132] by mhub3.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:22:21 -0500 Message-Id: <000201c02116$77d32fa0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <00a001c0210a$aad8d320$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:37:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think this is a good idea. A voluntary, anonymous survey. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST > I disagree. I think a simple on-line form could be devised. I could set > one up in about an hour. No, it would not be "secure." But, we don't have > to ask for names, email addresses, or regions, either. It could be a simple > blank where people could write their comments. It wouldn't require any > tabulation, since we are only seeking ideas, and reasons why they didn't > vote. It would be very clear if a theme were being repeated over and over. > It should be voluntary participation only. The apathy we can't fix in 6 > weeks. But, we *can* listen to strong opinions such as "my vote didn't > count" or "the election was fixed" or "I disagree with the AB" or whatever > the reasons may be for non-participation. > > Carol > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Esse Frye" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST > > > > Carol; > > I would think that the EC would have a list. The only problem I see is > that > > we are under a time limit here. There would be no telling how long it > would > > take for voters to write back, and then the necessary time in tabulating > the > > results. I feel it is a good idea but right now there doesn't see to be > time > > in doing it. > > Esse > > > > > > >From: Carol C-H > > >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net > > >To: esc@pairlist.net > > >Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:14:23 -0500 > > > > > >I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob > > >Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > > >understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members > tell > > >me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter > IDs > > >but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out > > >why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > > >without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were > > >sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than > > >on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > > >volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it > not > > >seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > > > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > was > > >not a socialist. > > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because > I > > >was not a trade unionist. > > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not > a > > >Jew. > > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Esc mailing list > > >Esc@pairlist.net > > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 22:32:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA17464 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17418 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C21313C1DF; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF3D3C1D9 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.5f.a943ba8 (4253) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:31:44 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <5f.a943ba8.26f6d88f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:31:43 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/17/00 6:56:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: << My own CC's have been very clear with me. They do not WANT to know about any of it! They want to be left alone to do their own thing. We've all seen it, and we all feel it, at least some of the time: the desire for all the infighting to just go away. >> I think you are absolutly right Carol, I don't forward a lot of the things from the SC list because most of my CC's are tired of all the fighting. They had loads of that already. I do forward things that are not strongly political, and things that inform them of important things at the national level. I feel that is what my job as SC is about. I did make sure to get my voter list in very early. I worked to get corrections to in when requested. I don't even know what to say about the SC's who did not turn in there lists. I feel it is my duty to my CC's to allow them the chance to choose to vote. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 22:59:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19736 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20555 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BA77A3C20D; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mail.1starnet.com (mail.1starnet.com [207.243.104.17]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F863C20C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rootsweb [207.243.105.238] by mail.1starnet.com (SMTPD32-6.04) id A5031A270100; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:59:15 -0500 X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:00:47 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [ESC] Intros In-Reply-To: <002e01c01fe4$39298200$742b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <200009172159317.SM02116@rootsweb> Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi! Sorry to be late sending this, but I just got home from a family reunion in AR. I'm the SC for Arkansas and am the CC for 2 counties in Texas. I have been on the AB for 2 years and served on the Election Committee last year. Betsy _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:14:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA20656 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22180 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BF07C3C18C; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp.inreach.com (mail.inreach.com [209.142.2.34]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1EE3C16C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ljdt (208-25-58-206.stk.inreach.net [208.25.58.206]) by smtp.inreach.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01338 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006901c0211e$c0089fa0$ce3a19d0@ljdt> From: "Mrs. Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres" To: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:15:50 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Good Standing Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Is padding votes a reason for not being held in "good standing"? What about voter fraud? If the consensus is that the matter of "good standing" should never be considered for more than "responding promptly to email, actively supporting researchers efforts to find information, maintaining their website with appropriate, up-to-date content" . . . then I don't suppose it would matter if a person is in "good standing" or whether it is any of the EC's business. But if it is a matter of our leaders "serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project" then perhaps it is a part of our bylaws that should be kept and something that should be considered by the election committee. Is it okay to have leaders who may pad votes or participate in voter fraud? If we take away the "good standing" reference are we becoming conditioned that it is okay to pad votes as some have eluded to today? And what recourse will this organization have if they dismiss this part of their bylaws if a person who has committed these acts wants to run for office or has committed these acts while in office? It is harder to take a stand for what's right than to just turn our backs on it and say it is none of our business. Before I would dismiss this I would give it careful consideration. Linda J. Hotchkiss Dela Torres Please visit my sites: Nevada Co., CA GenWeb: http://www.cagenweb.com/~nevada/ Personal Web Page: http://fly.to/ljdt GenConnect Sites for: Button, Cayton, Hickerson, Hotchkiss, Sterne _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:30:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA22045 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24061 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 54AA93C16C; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959333C13C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-176.efn.org (pm3-176.efn.org [206.163.180.176]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8I3TvA07932 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C58D78.2FDB@efn.org> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:35:20 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] ESC - Regions, SC's, etc. Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I think Carol (Wyoming) has made an extremely strong case for keeping regional groupings and regional reps. I am concerned also that going to an alphabetical list would circumvent the states completely, if just by oversight. As to the question of SC's not turning in voter lists or not informing their volunteers about the election (I was unaware of this until it came up in this discussion, and am under the impression it was only one SC that did this) - no matter what their reason, the obviously did not perform their duty as SC. Although I am appalled by this, I see it as an internal problem for that state and the volunteers within. Does that mean that something should not be done on a national level about it? Not entirely, but I prefer a carrot being used, not a stick. Good leadership and good example on a national level. I have a hard time believing that no CC in that state knew about the election, unless they are all hermits and never venture outside their county. It would be beneficial to find out, even in a general sense, why more voters did not vote. It could give us some good guidance. As someone mentioned though, we do have time constraints. If it could be done quickly, other wise maybe we could at least take an informal poll and report back? John _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:45:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23572 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25953 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AEADF3C1F2; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102F53C16C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p27.amax21.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.83.27]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23844 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:45:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C58CCB.CDA847B4@flash.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:32:27 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. References: <4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Unfortionately you are probably right about not getting a list. I just figured it was a good idea to find out why so many people didn't vote, and that way we might know for sure what is broke before we start trying to fix it. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:47:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23756 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26081 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CBFC23C1F7; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from mail.1starnet.com (mail.1starnet.com [207.243.104.17]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4F03C16C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rootsweb [207.243.105.238] by mail.1starnet.com (SMTPD32-6.04) id A035469010A; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:47:01 -0500 X-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:48:33 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: [ESC] #s In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917185933.00d13af0@mail.bright.net> References: <4.3.1.2.20000917165606.00bcde40@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <200009172247428.SM02116@rootsweb> Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I do know that only 491 voted in the NC election last time. Betsy At 07:00 PM 9/17/00 -0500, you wrote: >At 04:58 PM 9/17/00 -0500, Carol C-H wrote: >>Found the post of Roger's - 842 of 2175 voted. > >does anybody have statistics on the other elections so we can see if this >election was at much variance with previous ones as to percentage voting? > >Holly > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:56:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24345 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27050 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 618503C1FF; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from ogopogo.flash.net (ogopogo.flash.net [209.30.2.14]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59813C16C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p27.amax21.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.83.27]) by ogopogo.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02637 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:55:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C58F34.90E76CF1@flash.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:42:44 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Make it a responsibility of the EC to certify the election to the Board. That appears to be the logical place for it to happen. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 23:57:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24518 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27166 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 022B03C202; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD143C16C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA09485 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b901c02124$bbea2f00$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <001501c020b2$0e6bfec0$962b95d0@youda><4.3.1.2.20000916224659.00b4bdd0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20000917103155.00d3f100@mail.netdoor.com> <001501c02103$6bdf7900$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:58:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Сщгдв цу ыуе гз ф ЭПгуыедшые ензу цуиышеу ещ сщддусе штащкьфешщт фищге црн зущзду вшв щку вшв тще мщеу, Ooops, that wasn't supposed to be Russian. I really don't want to type that again! That's proof I can't type though! Anyway, as I was trying to say... Could we set up a guestlist or something like that and ask people on the general and state lists to visit and tell us why they did or didn't vote. That would be more neutral, and if it was stated that the data would be used to improve the process and the project, we might get more participation, and it would not be a violation of voters trust. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > I would like to echo the idea that has already been presented. I would like > for us to, somehow, find out why people did NOT vote or participate. Is > there someway we could setup a "comments" website, or ask the SCs to compile > a list of "reasons" submitted by their cc's? > > I agree with Carol. Let's figure out what is wrong in the eyes of 62% of > the project. > > Carol (the other one) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carol C-H" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:36 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > At 11:04 AM 09/17/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > >If this committee formed of a disparate group of SC's and CC's can > discuss > > >and come up with a report in spite of our differences, that alone will > > >show that we do not all have to agree in order to work together and alone > > >is a good thing! If we can actually accomplish getting needed changes > made > > >in the election procedure, we will be doing a great thing! > > Holly, Bob Chada came up with what could potentially be a fantastic tool, > > IMHO, that could give us a better idea of needed changes. I expressed > > doubts that we could have cooperation. Could you please comment? You > know > > the folks involved and would know whether or not the idea would be > workable - > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I > was > > not a socialist. > > Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because > I > > was not a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a > Jew. > > Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > > attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:08:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA25399 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28494 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 051123C20D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from clavin.efn.org (clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E985B3C202 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pm3-176.efn.org (pm3-176.efn.org [206.163.180.176]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e8I481A14632 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C59664.2114@efn.org> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:13:24 -0700 From: John McCoy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update - reply References: <39C58F34.90E76CF1@flash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: bob, I am a little slow tonight...could you please clarify for me what is meant by "certify" the election? Is this before the voting, certifying the voters lists, or after the voting, certifying the actual vote? Thanks, John Bob Chada wrote: > > Make it a responsibility of the EC to certify the election > to the Board. That appears to be the logical place for it > to happen. > > -- > Bob Chada > bchada@flash.net > Logan County, Oklahoma > > See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ > See our Logan County page: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:10:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA25540 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28739 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4DA473C20C; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from chupacabras.flash.net (chupacabras.flash.net [209.30.2.16]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3843C202 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p27.amax21.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.83.27]) by chupacabras.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00858 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:10:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C592A0.823D258E@flash.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:57:20 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A Playing devils advocate, I don't like the idea of the SC being the one to determine "good standing" status for a CC because that can be easily manipulated. I do agree with someones comments that the vast majority of us volunteers have a good code of ethics and believe in what we do, but you run the risk of an SC only granting status to CC's they know will vote a certain way, and not to others, or not granting status for reasons that have nothing to do USGenWeb, and either way, that can open a can of worms that is bigger than any of us want to deal with. Maybe "good standing" is something we may not want to touch on, period, and go with a one vote per position, with multi-position people deciding which they want to vote from. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:17:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA26291 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29693 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2B7793C205; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753D83C1F2 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA25594 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c101c02127$a42fa180$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:19:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I agree with what Teresa said here about CC's who are challenging a decision to vote should be allowed to vote. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Holly Timm wrote: > > > Again, I don't think this is an EC matter. If a CC finds they have not been > > listed to vote, certainly it is up to the EC to verify that the omission > > was not an error by inquiring of the SC. If a CC feels their SC has denied > > them a right to vote there should be an avenue of protest available but > > that is not an EC matter. > > Should there be provision made to allow people to vote while they are > challenging a decision by their SC that they are not eligible to vote? > > I would be concerned that the election may come and go while their > challenge works its way through the system. And of course, should whoever > gets to decide these things [Board, Grievance Committee] not get around to > it in a timely fashion, there will almost definitely be accusations of > political stonewalling. > > Perhaps we can suggest that persons who think they should be allowed to > vote have a venue for submitting their reasons for this and they be > allowed to vote in the interim. If the SC's reason for not finding them > eligible to vote is upheld then their vote can be tossed. If there is a > failure to deal with the issue quickly, the vote will be counted. > > Honestly, I don't get the sense that SCs denying the vote to their CCs is > nearly the problem that CCs not being allowed to vote when their SCs > thought they should be eligible was. After the voting cut off date, the > most complaints I heard was about co-CCs, asst. SCs, and state level > special project members not getting to vote. > > -Teresa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:23:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA26644 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00314 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 190D93C211; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EF23C1F2 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14172 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c501c02128$60664f20$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <003d01c02106$cf6691e0$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:24:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: We could have official political parties (Rootswebbies and Independents???), and people be required to register which party they belong too, if too many registered to one party join a state or region at the same time, that would be sufficient evidence of vote padding for an investigation. If people voted against their party, that may also be sufficient evidence of vote padding (or a really popular person in the other party). You have to be registered to vote (people who aren't registered don't care about politics), but everybody does have the opportunity to register at any time before the cutoff. It's a bit more complicated that what we are going for, but may be a solution to vote padding, assuming that's the problem we want to solve. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "merope" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:54 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > > > > vote-padding going to do in the present set-up... both *sides* do it, > > > cancel out or nearly > > > > I don't agree that padding on both sides will cancel each other out. I've > worked in political parties too much to believe that! > > The innocent and honest will always be at a disadvantage to organized > efforts to pad votes. As the USGW becomes more and more sophisticated, and > larger and more prominent on the web, the more padding there is going to be. > > The honest Joe who has a website in Iowa, sits with his eyes strained on > transcribing microfilm, doesn't have a chance when it comes to "politics." > > Another point. We can dismiss the "vote padding" issue as being a balancing > act by both sides. But, the rest of the USGW won't dismiss this issue. > There is already too much suspicion towards different factions. Even if no > one actually padded votes, someone will start screaming that they are! > > I think we still need to address this problem in some way. My suggestion > would be to make the statement saying that we can't control it without > hurting the hard-working, legitimate cc's, so we call upon the entire > project to live by the honor system. > > Carol > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:41:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA27813 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02137 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 98DB83C205; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9143C13C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.6a.6b2c915 (4253) for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:40:45 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <6a.6b2c915.26f6f6cc@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:40:44 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 9/17/00 9:10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bchada@flash.net writes: << I do agree with someones comments that the vast majority of us volunteers have a good code of ethics and believe in what we do, but you run the risk of an SC only granting status to CC's they know will vote a certain way, >> I think the CC's in any state where the SC does this will quickly remove the SC from there position. We can be removed with a 2/3 vote of our CC's, and a 2/3 vote of the Board. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 00:43:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA27978 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02274 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 921743C20F; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bunyip.flash.net (bunyip.flash.net [209.30.2.15]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED943C13C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.net (p27.amax21.dialup.okc1.flash.net [209.30.83.27]) by bunyip.flash.net (8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05998 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:42:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39C59A3C.21FC3E20@flash.net> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:29:48 -0500 From: Bob Chada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda and discussion References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917084758.00d314d0@mail.bright.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I hear where you are coming from, Holly. Its easy to forget that someone out there has to put all of this together. Sorry for crossing lines where I have. Here's my thoughts for the day (night actually) on the items under Eligibility: 1. Eligible politions - Board and assistants, regional reps,co-reps and assistants if they are there, SC's, CO-SC's and assistants if they are there, CC's, Co-CC's and assistants if they are there, special project page positions and assistants, and anyone else that has a page (Town Coordinators) or helps with a page within the umbrella of USGenWeb. 2. Good Standing - I don't think we want to go down this road, unless it is determined by something measureable (ie, posts new information at least once every two weeks) rather than subjective. 3. Cutoff Dates - Still thinking. 4. # Per County - Perhaps better said as per entity. Don't have a good answer, but I do believe that there should be a limit because I can see where that would be an easy area for someone to pad by adding a gazillion "ghost" assistants and vote them all. If we had a better voter turn-out it may not make any difference, but with the voting so low, it could sure skew a result. 5. Multi-Region CC's - One vote no matter how many hats. -- Bob Chada bchada@flash.net Logan County, Oklahoma See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ See our Logan County page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 01:01:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA29384 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04230 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B603D3C213; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F203B3C13C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA17746 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:01:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00dd01c0212d$baafc420$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <000917152006.11b8e@sals.edu> <005c01c02108$383c3a20$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:03:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I am trying to maintain an up to date list of CC's for INGenWeb in an Excel database, along ith e-mail addresses, co-cc's, alternate e-mail addresses and page addresses. I have one problem. Actually 5 problems. 2 CC's e-mail has bounced ever since I became SC (I found an alternate for one of them, but he did not answer a message sent to it), and 3 more simply do not answer their mail. After the initial setup, I think this will not be a terribly difficult thing to keep up with as long as they answer their mail for Roll calls. They will get fair "return from vacation" time and them I will need to make a "good standing" determination and find somebody who is actually willing to do the county pages. Doing this should make voter rolls extremely easy to take care of. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility > Purely from a SC point of view: > I wouldn't want to have to maintain a continuous, updated list of my CC's to > an election committee. > We are loosely organized in Wyoming, also. For example: I know when someone > is changing their email address like the cc who was "gone" for several weeks > while moving across country, or when a CC was recently having family > problems and went on a USGW "vacation." If, during this time, the EC sent > out an announcement, and their email started to bounce, would the EC come to > me and want me to "update" a cc list that doesn't even need updating? I'd > hate that with a passion. I'd start to feel like the EC was monitoring my > CC's instead of me! > > Carol > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Sullivan" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:20 PM > Subject: [ESC] Eligibility > > > > I've seen a lot of suggestions which sound pretty reasonable. I agree > with a > > lot of what Holly said. Actually, I agree with all of what Jerimiah > said - I > > never did see what good regional representation is when we're scattered > all > > over the place - but that's not going to happen. > > > > I think the guiding principle should be to allow as many people as > possible to > > vote, and to make it as easy as possible for them to vote. To me, that > would > > mean no cutoff date and taking names up to the beginning of the election. > I > > guess that's not going to happen either, although any properly designed > voting > > system should allow that without causing extra work for the EC. Since > there > > seems to be a collective determination that we have a cutoff, I'd say no > more > > than 30 days. > > > > I think the idea of someone, if not a standing EC, maintaining a list of > voters > > is good. No need to do it all at the last minute. It boggles my mind > that > > some states didn't know there were elections - not a single member > subscribed > > to USGW-CC-L? ;-) - or I would suggest that's really the SC's job. > > > > After pondering it it occurred to me that having such a list would allow > direct > > communication with members, both occasional updates and periodic address > probes > > to make sure addresses were still valid. Looks to me like this would > solve a > > number of problems. > > > > I have some other ideas for how that would work, but Holly might prefer I > wait > > until a later discussion. > > > > Radical in Schenectady, > > > > Bob Sullivan scp_sulli@sals.edu > > Schenectady County Public Library (NY) http://www.scpl.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 01:10:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA00125 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05227 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AD6213C140; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB413C13C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA23732 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00fb01c0212e$e9406e60$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000916192429.00b0ba00@mail.netdoor.com><4.3.1.2.20000916201433.00c5b6a0@mail.netdoor.com> <4.2.2.20000916204216.00aedf00@postoffice.att.net> <000701c0210a$69a6c2e0$de259bd1@computer> <00cf01c0210d$741ca660$4d2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I can vouch for Colorado most definitely being different from Kentucky (light years different), which is different from Indiana and Michigan. Both in a geographical and genealogical point of view, and in the... how should I put this and be politically correct (and not make people mad)... attitudes(?) of the CC's. The regions are not perfect, but they are probably more efficient than anything else we could set up. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > I really do have to get off my computer this evening! :o)) > > I like the idea of geographical reps rather than alpha. Wyoming didn't > become a state until 1861. Before that, it was a territory that spread out > into Nebraska, N. Dakota, Utah, Colorado, etc. Genealogically, this is an > important division for us in Wyoming, because those of us in our "region" > can often work together transcribing records that include cities and towns > that later ended up in another State. For the western half of the USA, this > is going to be true more than the eastern states. > > We *need* the regional division as it is from a genealogy perspective. It > also gives us, at least in our region, the feeling that we are all working > on similar genealogy problems, and representation in the USGW is a natural > progression of that. > > Carol > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shari Handley" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:50 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > > Just had a thought. How about this: > > > > Since we are a "virtual" community, that is, there are no actual > geographic boundaries in cyberspace, perhaps we can get > > away from geographic thinking. There is a definate benefit for the voters > to have representatives who represent "their" > > segment. Yet, we experience difficulty because CCs often have counties in > more than one state/region. What if we broke > > it up, instead of by geographic region, by alphabetical grouping? For > instance, all those CCs with last names beginning > > with, say, the letters A through D would vote for one rep, E through I > another, and so on. That way, each person > > elected would have a constituency to represent, and each voter would have > one vote for their AB rep. > > > > How do the rest of your read Article V of the bylaws? Article V states: > > > > "The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National Coordinator, > four (4) State Coordinator Regional > > Representatives, eight (8) Local Coordinator Regional Representatives, one > (1) representative each from The USGenWeb > > Archives Project, The USGenWeb Census Project, and The USGenWeb Tombstone > Project, and beginning in 1999, one (1) > > at-large representative. All shall have voting privileges except the > National Coordinator who shall vote only in the > > case of a tie. The regions from which State Coordinator and Local > Coordinator Representatives are elected shall be > > decided by the Advisory Board on an annual basis. " > > > > Does this necessarily have to be *geographic* regions? > > > > Shari Handley > > shari@tyaskin.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 01:14:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA00442 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05713 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D07DC3C140; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259013C13C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-33qthjj.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.198.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA12440 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <010f01c0212f$8409fb00$73c6aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <5f.a943ba8.26f6d88f@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:15:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: And you got the Recall Amendment taken care of in outstanding fashion (both going to the CC's and then going back up to the whole project). Thank you. Can you tell just got home this evening??? I'm answering everything in the order I get to it. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 > In a message dated 9/17/00 6:56:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net > writes: > > << My own CC's have been very clear with me. They do not > WANT to know about any of it! They want to be left alone to do their own > thing. We've all seen it, and we all feel it, at least some of the time: > the desire for all the infighting to just go away. >> > > > I think you are absolutly right Carol, I don't forward a lot of the things > from the SC list because most of my CC's are tired of all the fighting. They > had loads of that already. > > I do forward things that are not strongly political, and things that inform > them of important things at the national level. I feel that is what my job as > SC is about. I did make sure to get my voter list in very early. I worked to > get corrections to in when requested. > > I don't even know what to say about the SC's who did not turn in there lists. > I feel it is my duty to my CC's to allow them the chance to choose to vote. > > > > > Mary Ann > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:35:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09056 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03649 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D57113C185; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEFA3C16B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA26572 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:35:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005c01c02108$383c3a20$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <000917152006.11b8e@sals.edu> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:34:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Purely from a SC point of view: I wouldn't want to have to maintain a continuous, updated list of my CC's to an election committee. We are loosely organized in Wyoming, also. For example: I know when someone is changing their email address like the cc who was "gone" for several weeks while moving across country, or when a CC was recently having family problems and went on a USGW "vacation." If, during this time, the EC sent out an announcement, and their email started to bounce, would the EC come to me and want me to "update" a cc list that doesn't even need updating? I'd hate that with a passion. I'd start to feel like the EC was monitoring my CC's instead of me! Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sullivan" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:20 PM Subject: [ESC] Eligibility > I've seen a lot of suggestions which sound pretty reasonable. I agree with a > lot of what Holly said. Actually, I agree with all of what Jerimiah said - I > never did see what good regional representation is when we're scattered all > over the place - but that's not going to happen. > > I think the guiding principle should be to allow as many people as possible to > vote, and to make it as easy as possible for them to vote. To me, that would > mean no cutoff date and taking names up to the beginning of the election. I > guess that's not going to happen either, although any properly designed voting > system should allow that without causing extra work for the EC. Since there > seems to be a collective determination that we have a cutoff, I'd say no more > than 30 days. > > I think the idea of someone, if not a standing EC, maintaining a list of voters > is good. No need to do it all at the last minute. It boggles my mind that > some states didn't know there were elections - not a single member subscribed > to USGW-CC-L? ;-) - or I would suggest that's really the SC's job. > > After pondering it it occurred to me that having such a list would allow direct > communication with members, both occasional updates and periodic address probes > to make sure addresses were still valid. Looks to me like this would solve a > number of problems. > > I have some other ideas for how that would work, but Holly might prefer I wait > until a later discussion. > > Radical in Schenectady, > > Bob Sullivan scp_sulli@sals.edu > Schenectady County Public Library (NY) http://www.scpl.org > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 20:25:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA08455 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02567 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id F233A3C184; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E407F3C16B for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-25.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.25]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA25861 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:25:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <003d01c02106$cf6691e0$4d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:16:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > vote-padding going to do in the present set-up... both *sides* do it, > > cancel out or nearly > I don't agree that padding on both sides will cancel each other out. I've worked in political parties too much to believe that! The innocent and honest will always be at a disadvantage to organized efforts to pad votes. As the USGW becomes more and more sophisticated, and larger and more prominent on the web, the more padding there is going to be. The honest Joe who has a website in Iowa, sits with his eyes strained on transcribing microfilm, doesn't have a chance when it comes to "politics." Another point. We can dismiss the "vote padding" issue as being a balancing act by both sides. But, the rest of the USGW won't dismiss this issue. There is already too much suspicion towards different factions. Even if no one actually padded votes, someone will start screaming that they are! I think we still need to address this problem in some way. My suggestion would be to make the statement saying that we can't control it without hurting the hard-working, legitimate cc's, so we call upon the entire project to live by the honor system. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Sep 17 18:44:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA00909 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21055 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7E71F3C139; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977973C12C for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.14]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000917224430.MKDS425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000917183853.00b71180@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:49:54 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000917160328.00b1da10@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A I agree with merope, I don't think we can do a survey like this without violating CC trust. If we request a list of who didn't vote from the EC, that's a breach of trust, in fact I think even requesting the list of all who could have voted again delves into a trust area. If we ask everybody if they voted and if not why not, we are still inquiring into what is individually, none of our business. That said, I have thought of a way that perhaps we can get something of a response on this. We can post to all the public lists ( -ALL, -CC, -DISCUSS, SC and the regionals) and request forwarding to the states a very brief survey asking why they think people don't vote. Amongst us we represent at least half the states if not closer to 2/3 on which we ourselves could post the message if the SC fails to. In fact, we could perhaps get nearly every state that way. A. who would like to take a stab at drafting a neutral question, perhaps even multiple choice with one choice being "other - please explain" (the easier we make it the more replies we may get) ? B. what states do you have access to post on their main CC list so you could post such a question if the SC fails to or is slow about it? C. what do you think of this idea? and, as an afterthought, this will test a means by which we could ask other questions if we feel the need to do so although I think some restarint on doing so would be good or we are likely to pester them to death Holly At 05:25 PM 9/17/00 -0400, merope wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think Bob > > Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > > understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board members > tell > > me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent Voter > IDs > > but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find out > > why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > > without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs were > > sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible than > > on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > > volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does it > not > > seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > >I'm not a board member, but I would imagine that _if_ the records still >exist Leigh Compton has them. Perhaps Roger Swafford would also have >them. > >I think running a poll of the members who did not vote would be >illustrative, but I also think it would need to be handled by the former >EC [which has disbanded] or by the AB. To release the info to us violates >the voters' trust. > >-Teresa > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 06:54:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA23506 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04186 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 33B1B3C172; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECF93C126 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linda-s.netdoor.com (port1312.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.112]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA29892 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:54:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918055151.00abd180@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: msgenweb@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:01:51 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Linda Mason MS SC Subject: Re: [ESC] Intros In-Reply-To: <200009172159317.SM02116@rootsweb> References: <002e01c01fe4$39298200$742b95d0@youda> <4.3.2.7.2.20000915212009.03f756a0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I apologize for being so late in responding but I was on call for work and getting ready to start a new position this am so I was a little tied up. I have been with The USGW since early 1997. First as a CC in MsGenWeb and then as SC for the last year and a half. I am excited that we as a committee may be able to make a difference. I am catching up on posts and so far I see a lot of good ideas. I'll throw out any suggestion I have in a later email. Thanks, Linda ***************** MSGW SC CC & Listowner for Rankin & Warren UIN# 279574 _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 07:28:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA25276 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07094 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7508F3C153; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96CD3C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.7f.9c56ae2 (4188) for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:02 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <7f.9c56ae2.26f75641@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:01 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: One thought that had been discussed is a voter registration database. My thought, upon creation of a Standing Election Committee, is to have each SC conduct a roll-call within their state, with the intent of populating a Project-wide database of volunteers. Then periodically, quarterly perhaps, the Standing Election Committee would conduct a roll-call to keep the database current for any elections, (annual or otherwise). Tina In a message dated 9/18/00 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net writes: > Well, _if_ there were a standing EC, then one thing they could be charged > with is visiting each state in their region once a month or so and making > sure the voter list is updated. Prior to an election, they could then > send their list to the SC and ask for confirmation. If the SC fails to > confirm, the list is used as is. > > Just a thought. > > -Teresa _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 07:32:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA25445 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07543 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A57403C12D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f86.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.86]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1593C128 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:32:08 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.79 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:32:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.79] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:07 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2000 11:32:08.0066 (UTC) FILETIME=[13E5FE20:01C02164] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: I agree.... >From: "Jerimiah Moerke" >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: >Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:37:05 -0500 > >I think this is a good idea. A voluntary, anonymous survey. >Jerimiah >----- Original Message ----- >From: Carol >To: >Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 7:52 PM >Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST > > > > I disagree. I think a simple on-line form could be devised. I could >set > > one up in about an hour. No, it would not be "secure." But, we don't >have > > to ask for names, email addresses, or regions, either. It could be a >simple > > blank where people could write their comments. It wouldn't require any > > tabulation, since we are only seeking ideas, and reasons why they didn't > > vote. It would be very clear if a theme were being repeated over and >over. > > It should be voluntary participation only. The apathy we can't fix in 6 > > weeks. But, we *can* listen to strong opinions such as "my vote didn't > > count" or "the election was fixed" or "I disagree with the AB" or >whatever > > the reasons may be for non-participation. > > > > Carol > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Esse Frye" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:58 PM > > Subject: Re: [ESC] VOTERS LIST > > > > > > > Carol; > > > I would think that the EC would have a list. The only problem I see >is > > that > > > we are under a time limit here. There would be no telling how long it > > would > > > take for voters to write back, and then the necessary time in >tabulating > > the > > > results. I feel it is a good idea but right now there doesn't see to >be > > time > > > in doing it. > > > Esse > > > > > > > > > >From: Carol C-H > > > >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net > > > >To: esc@pairlist.net > > > >Subject: Re: [ESC] Random Thoughts on Agenda Item A. > > > >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:14:23 -0500 > > > > > > > >I would like to ask this again, of any board member, because I think >Bob > > > >Chada's idea is a good one, and do not > > > >understand why we couldn't get the info - can any of you board >members > > tell > > > >me who has a list of all of the thousands of people who were sent >Voter > > IDs > > > >but did not vote in the last election? We could survey them and find >out > > > >why they did not want to do it. That is done in other organizations > > > >without difficulty. Surely the info is available - the voter IDs >were > > > >sent out - and it is even on computer, which is much more accessible >than > > > >on printed hand lists which I have worked from in the past as a > > > >volunteer. Can we get cooperation from whoever has the list? Does >it > > not > > > >seem like a very good idea to anyone else? > > > > > > > > > > > >Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > > >First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because >I > > was > > > >not a socialist. > > > >Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - >because > > I > > > >was not a trade unionist. > > > >Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was >not > > a > > > >Jew. > > > >Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. > > > >attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) anti-Nazi German pastor > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Esc mailing list > > > >Esc@pairlist.net > > > >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Esc mailing list > > > Esc@pairlist.net > > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 07:36:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA25723 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07985 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 824BF3C12D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f257.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.132]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986E63C128 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:36:41 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.79 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:36:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.79] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:36:41 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2000 11:36:41.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[B725AE00:01C02164] Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Bob; I tend to disagree here. It should be the Board's responsibility and not the EC. Esse >From: Bob Chada >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:42:44 -0500 > >Make it a responsibility of the EC to certify the election >to the Board. That appears to be the logical place for it >to happen. > >-- >Bob Chada >bchada@flash.net >Logan County, Oklahoma > > >See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ >See our Logan County page: >http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 07:50:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26567 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09409 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6EFA53C13C; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2EA3C128 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.f3.2c7d879 (4188) for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:21 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:50:21 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Agenda Item A - By-Laws Art VII, Sec 6 To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: As SC of WI, I forward information to my state list items that they need to be aware of on the National level. I do use my best judgment. I work very closely with my CC's, and if any have a question and/or comment on such forwards they contact me privately, and/or post back to the WI list. Information is good, choice is theirs. Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 08:06:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA27667 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11175 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BFCA03C173; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r18.mx.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070FD3C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id s.f9.2d118b5 (4188) for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:16 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:16 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 118 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: Bob, As an SC, I think one of the hardest jobs would be, making a determination of "good standing." I would take that role very seriously, and to be perfectly honest, the way a CC may or may not vote on an issue, would not enter my mind. Tina In a message dated 9/18/00 12:10:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bchada@flash.net writes: > Playing devils advocate, I don't like the idea of the SC > being the one to determine "good standing" status for a CC > because that can be easily manipulated. I do agree with > someones comments that the vast majority of us volunteers > have a good code of ethics and believe in what we do, but > you run the risk of an SC only granting status to CC's they > know will vote a certain way, and not to others, or not > granting status for reasons that have nothing to do > USGenWeb, and either way, that can open a can of worms that > is bigger than any of us want to deal with. Maybe "good > standing" is something we may not want to touch on, period, > and go with a one vote per position, with multi-position > people deciding which they want to vote from. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 08:30:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA29491 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14166 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4E2B13C163; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from postoffice5.ipa.net (postoffice5.ipa.net [205.218.170.26]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3F43C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-230.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.230]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id HAA22586 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:30:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001501c0216c$10388ce0$e62b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <7f.9c56ae2.26f75641@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:28:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: A We've only been voting once a year. So, a quarterly roll-call would be a waste of time since the only lists that would be valid would be the one just before the election. HOWEVER , I would like to see more frequent voting on the issues that come up. Right now, the issue is trademarking the USGW name. But, very few are involved in that decision, which does not seem fair to me. How does everyone feel about it? We will never know because it is a "political" thing, so even the idea hasn't been forwarded to many of the CC's by the SCs. Ultimately, someone will trademark the USGW name, and we'll just have to live with it. There have been other issues recently. Such as the de-linking of the CP. We had to live with what the NC did, because there was no avenue to "vote" about it, except to try to vote out people who may have felt differently. This isn't right. My idea would be to have a continually active EC, who would maintain a voting, secure, website and list at all times. Then, when these issues came up, there could be a vote and a wider participation than just the AB. Not to take authority away from the AB, but to provide a mechanism where everyone could be heard on *all* the issues that might affect them. And, it wouldn't take a re-write of the bylaws, or some weldy time-consuming process to get a vote on these kinds of issues. Right now, the only way to voice your opinion about anything happening is to rant and rave on a list, or send a note to your AB who may or may not vote the way everyone in their region wants. Either way, if I disagree, or you, it doesn't matter, because ultimately things will go the way the AB wants, which might not always be what the majority wants. Or, things will go whatever way this or that person wants, if they can pull things off before anyone finds out (such as Kay Mason moving all the census files), etc., I'm not wanting to bring up sore topics, or rehash history. But, it seems to me that the common cc needs to have a say in these things. I believe it would solve many of the major problems in the USGW if every cc could be given a vote to decide these issues as they come up! The EC is one way to do that. For the current topic, if we had this system in place, the EC could simply announce that the voting was open on the topic of trademarking the USGW name. In a week, or whatever time frame, count the votes. Send the results to the AB and all the lists. End of problem. What does everyone think about this? Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists > One thought that had been discussed is a voter registration database. > > My thought, upon creation of a Standing Election Committee, is to have each > SC conduct a roll-call within their state, with the intent of populating a > Project-wide database of volunteers. Then periodically, quarterly perhaps, > the Standing Election Committee would conduct a roll-call to keep the > database current for any elections, (annual or otherwise). > > Tina > > In a message dated 9/18/00 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net > writes: > > > Well, _if_ there were a standing EC, then one thing they could be charged > > with is visiting each state in their region once a month or so and making > > sure the voter list is updated. Prior to an election, they could then > > send their list to the SC and ask for confirmation. If the SC fails to > > confirm, the list is used as is. > > > > Just a thought. > > > > -Teresa > > _______________________________________________ > Esc mailing list > Esc@pairlist.net > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:23:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA04453 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22082 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 864CF3C130; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64703C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918132326.YNU425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:23:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918085513.00e254e0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:28:54 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] staying on topic Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: We are beginning to lose focus just a bit drifting away from eligibility and into other areas of the agenda. These are some good ideas and thoughts but we're having so much great discussion it's getting overwhelming to be on more than one topic at a time. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:25:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA04523 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22359 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 073723C13C; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507293C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918132518.ZRL425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918092945.00c1f100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:30:45 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: References: <001501c0216c$10388ce0$e62b95d0@youda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: save these thoughts for the b. and /or c. part of the agenda please :-))) At 09:00 AM 9/18/00 -0400, merope wrote: >On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Carol wrote: > > > We've only been voting once a year. So, a quarterly roll-call would be a > > waste of time since the only lists that would be valid would be the one > just > > before the election. > >IMO, We need to encourage/recommend the standing EC to maintain up to date >voter lists for 1) any necessary special elections to replace an NC; 2) >handling recall procedures, if we ever get an amendment passed. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:26:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA04592 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22469 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 55B673C13C; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22D23C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918132555.BACK425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:25:55 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918093059.00bd38f0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:31:23 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <001501c0216c$10388ce0$e62b95d0@youda> References: <7f.9c56ae2.26f75641@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: save these thoughts for the b. and/or c. part of the agenda please :-)) At 07:28 AM 9/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >We've only been voting once a year. So, a quarterly roll-call would be a >waste of time since the only lists that would be valid would be the one just >before the election. > >HOWEVER , I would like to see more frequent voting on the issues that >come up. Right now, the issue is trademarking the USGW name. But, very few >are involved in that decision, which does not seem fair to me. How does >everyone feel about it? We will never know because it is a "political" >thing, so even the idea hasn't been forwarded to many of the CC's by the >SCs. Ultimately, someone will trademark the USGW name, and we'll just have >to live with it. > >There have been other issues recently. Such as the de-linking of the CP. >We had to live with what the NC did, because there was no avenue to "vote" >about it, except to try to vote out people who may have felt differently. >This isn't right. > >My idea would be to have a continually active EC, who would maintain a >voting, secure, website and list at all times. Then, when these issues came >up, there could be a vote and a wider participation than just the AB. Not >to take authority away from the AB, but to provide a mechanism where >everyone could be heard on *all* the issues that might affect them. And, it >wouldn't take a re-write of the bylaws, or some weldy time-consuming process >to get a vote on these kinds of issues. > >Right now, the only way to voice your opinion about anything happening is to >rant and rave on a list, or send a note to your AB who may or may not vote >the way everyone in their region wants. Either way, if I disagree, or you, >it doesn't matter, because ultimately things will go the way the AB wants, >which might not always be what the majority wants. Or, things will go >whatever way this or that person wants, if they can pull things off before >anyone finds out (such as Kay Mason moving all the census files), etc., > >I'm not wanting to bring up sore topics, or rehash history. But, it seems >to me that the common cc needs to have a say in these things. I believe it >would solve many of the major problems in the USGW if every cc could be >given a vote to decide these issues as they come up! The EC is one way to >do that. > >For the current topic, if we had this system in place, the EC could simply >announce that the voting was open on the topic of trademarking the USGW >name. In a week, or whatever time frame, count the votes. Send the results >to the AB and all the lists. End of problem. > >What does everyone think about this? > >Carol >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:28 AM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists > > > > One thought that had been discussed is a voter registration database. > > > > My thought, upon creation of a Standing Election Committee, is to have >each > > SC conduct a roll-call within their state, with the intent of populating a > > Project-wide database of volunteers. Then periodically, quarterly >perhaps, > > the Standing Election Committee would conduct a roll-call to keep the > > database current for any elections, (annual or otherwise). > > > > Tina > > > > In a message dated 9/18/00 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >merope@Radix.Net > > writes: > > > > > Well, _if_ there were a standing EC, then one thing they could be >charged > > > with is visiting each state in their region once a month or so and >making > > > sure the voter list is updated. Prior to an election, they could then > > > send their list to the SC and ask for confirmation. If the SC fails to > > > confirm, the list is used as is. > > > > > > Just a thought. > > > > > > -Teresa > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Esc mailing list > > Esc@pairlist.net > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:33:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05436 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23674 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 350E83C1CD; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A9F3C12D for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918133338.BEUR425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:33:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918093547.00e53500@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:39:06 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: certification belongs under c. and/or d. At 07:36 AM 9/18/00 -0400, you wrote: >Bob; >I tend to disagree here. It should be the Board's responsibility and not >the EC. >Esse > > >>From: Bob Chada >>Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >>To: esc@pairlist.net >>Subject: Re: [ESC] agenda update >>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:42:44 -0500 >> >>Make it a responsibility of the EC to certify the election >>to the Board. That appears to be the logical place for it >>to happen. >> >>-- >>Bob Chada >>bchada@flash.net >>Logan County, Oklahoma >> >> >>See our home page: http://www.flash.net/~tchada/ >>See our Logan County page: >>http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklogan/oklogan.htm >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Esc mailing list >>Esc@pairlist.net >>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:34:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA05506 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23794 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 318B73C12D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863043C123 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918133448.BFMR425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918094001.00e57c60@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:40:16 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Voting lists In-Reply-To: <7f.9c56ae2.26f75641@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: this belongs under b. and/or c. At 07:28 AM 9/18/00 -0400, you wrote: >One thought that had been discussed is a voter registration database. > >My thought, upon creation of a Standing Election Committee, is to have each >SC conduct a roll-call within their state, with the intent of populating a >Project-wide database of volunteers. Then periodically, quarterly perhaps, >the Standing Election Committee would conduct a roll-call to keep the >database current for any elections, (annual or otherwise). > >Tina > >In a message dated 9/18/00 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net >writes: > > > Well, _if_ there were a standing EC, then one thing they could be charged > > with is visiting each state in their region once a month or so and making > > sure the voter list is updated. Prior to an election, they could then > > send their list to the SC and ask for confirmation. If the SC fails to > > confirm, the list is used as is. > > > > Just a thought. > > > > -Teresa > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 09:59:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08123 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27926 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1BF4B3C177; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [205.212.123.12]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AEA3C12C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.12]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20000918135930.BUNK425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000918100326.00b36530@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:04:58 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Vote padding/Eligibility/Topic A In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c02106$cf6691e0$4d2b95d0@youda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Sender: esc-admin@pairlist.net Errors-To: esc-admin@pairlist.net X-BeenThere: esc@pairlist.net X-Mailman-Version: 1.2 (experimental) Precedence: bulk List-Id: Election Study Status: RO X-Status: good idea... we do need to address *good standing* as it has been an issue but this certainly can be part of a part of the report stating that the EC should not be deciding *standing* At 06:55 AM 9/18/00 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Carol wrote: > > > I think we still need to address this problem in some way. My suggestion > > would be to make the statement saying that we can't control it without > > hurting the hard-working, legitimate cc's, so we call upon the entire > > project to live by the honor system. > >Works for me. > >-Teresa > > > > > Carol > > >_______________________________________________ >Esc mailing list >Esc@pairlist.net >http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Sep 18 10:00:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08200 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pairlist.net (pairlist.net [216.92.1.92]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28097 for