From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 10 15:10:31 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 PAA12147 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:31 -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 PAA25552 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 62F383C152; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r12.mail.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BEB3C14D for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.6b.abf62cb (6398) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <6b.abf62cb.2714c39a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:10:18 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines 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 10/10/00 12:12:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << "Now available! Full access to email addresses of all USGW members! Just got to this web page: and use this password " >> Now listen I just can't pass this one up. No, unless a total moron (like me) wrote the password script, all they would get to see is the e-mail address that password goes with. Type in Chip Brown anywhere with any search engine you'll find me. Trust me spammers find me anyway. Just my nickel's worth, used to be ten cents, but with inflation. So with that said, let me leave you with a bit of wisdom: Let us live!!! Let us love!!! Let us share the deepest secrets of our souls!!! .....You first. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 15:39:58 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 PAA15161 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:58 -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 PAA01109 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 709CD3C190; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE3D3C146 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA04069 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <026a01c032f1$cc5fa020$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:35:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] chg'ing Eligibility Guidelines to Membership List 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: Teresa before I answer each of your questions let me say this. Since I posted my original outline for what I think the membership master file should contain and how it should be accessed there has been a lot of discussion. So what I will tell you below is how I suggested the database and the individual files should be set up. Perhaps my original suggestions have gotten lost in all of the discussion or a decision was made to change something that I either missed or have forgotten. If I make a mis-statement then I'm sure someone will tell us when they get home from work and read their e-mails. OK - here we go: Linda Wrote: > > I haven't seen a suggestion to have the web site or any area password > > protected with a "master password" only the actual file of an individual so > > your first suggestion, at this time, isn't valid. > Teresa Replied: > Either you or someone else suggested that "anyone" could access anyone > else's information in this database. I assumed that meant that anyone > with a password could access anything in the database. Did I miss > something? Are you suggesting that the database will not be password > protected? > My comment: My original suggestion was that any volunteer could go to the web site and enter or change or delete their own information. The first time a volunteer accessed their information they would enter a password. This password would make their file accessible to only them, although the SEC would have access to any file to allow them to make changes (if the volunteer did not). This was seen by some committee members as "cutting the SC out of the loop". >From there the discussion was broadened to include the uses for which the list could be used. A password of any type was not included in these discussions. But, the need for an individual password is still valid in so far as the add/change/delete feature of any individual's file is concerned. As for the LIST itself and whether it would be viewable by anyone within the project I did not suggest that. I did say I saw no reason an SC could not view a verification list on-line for their state prior to an election rather than the SEC e-mailing a list out to each SC. I did suggest that if anyone wanted to see what jobs Linda Davenport does then they should be able to enter my name and see all of my jobs. If someone wanted to see who worked on Marion Co AR they could enter Marion Co and get my name along with the names of anyone else working on the county. Linda Wrote: > > If the individual's e-mail address is encrypted then the harvesting of name > > and addresses is no easier than the way it can be done now which is by state > > and county. Therefore I don't see that it would increase spam to any > > volunteer. Teresa Replied: > If the individual's email address is encrypted then how can they or their > SC check it or accuracy? If its encrypted but a password will make it > available, then its available to anyone with a password. My Comment: See above. The password is only good for an individual record in the file. So if you decided your were mad at the entire project and posted your password on every list it would only allow everyone to mess with your own personal individual file not anyone else's The SEC would have what is called "access or supervisor rights". This is the same rights that your system administrator has with your office network. This is something like a master password but the SEC won't have an actual password. Within the program the members of the SEC are given certain rights and when they log on certain things are open to them. There would be no "password" to pass out if an EC member got pissed. The members of the SEC must have access to every file in the data base simply to keep the information clean and up to date since we all know that not every volunteer will take care of their own housekeeping chores. Encrypting passwords and e-mail addresses simply keeps a passer-by from harvesting an open list of names and addresses. When a list is needed, for example prior to an election for verification, the program would unscramble the e-mail addresses and print them on the report. If it's printed on the computer screen at the web site the SC can print it off on their personal printer. Or the SEC can generate a report and attach it an e-mail But that hardly opens up the name & e-mail address to every Tom, Dick & Harry since the SC has a list of their own volunteers anyway a membership list for their state certainly wouldn't be a secret to them. I have never suggested that anyone can just go to the site and print a list of the entire membership. I do advocate letting anyone look at any individual or county they are interested in. Linda Wrote: > > I've seen no recommendation made that the membership list be used to "keep > > tabs" on anyone. And why would anyone believe that a membership list would > > be used by the AB, SP, SC or anyone else to "keep tabs" on people. What > > would the membership list be keeping "tabs" of? Who a volunteer is and > > where they maintain a site isn't, to me, private information or even > > information to be ashamed of. However, perhaps I'm the only one who feels > > this way. Teresa Replied: > Let's see. Someone suggested that SCs could use it to see what > potential new CCs are up to elsewhere in the project. Since > determinations about where someone stands on issues in this project is > often based solely on who they are affiliated with, I can easily see how > the ability to look someone up in a registry could be abused. My Comments: Then that is the problem of the person making the assumption. As far as I personally am concerned such people should be shown the door into cyberspace out of the project, but that's neither here nor there. The problem of a few people making assumptions not based on fact will be with this project until the day it disappears from the web. I'm not in favor of letting those people rule this project. And, I'm certainly not in favor of scrapping a good idea that will benefit the project as a whole to satisfy a few people. Teresa Wrote: >Or say a > grievance gets filed against a Board member by a CC that no one's ever > heard of. A quick check of the database can show where they volunteer; > that info or info obtained from a quick email to their SC or SPC may color > how one handles their grievance. My Comments: I don't understand what you are getting at can you be a bit clearer? Teresa Wrote: > I get asked three or four times a month to "vet" people who have asked to > take on various assignments throughout USGW. Do you really want to make > that easier for me? My Comment: Sure I do. I'm all for making anyone's job easier. But how can the membership data make it easier for you to "vet" anyone? If someone wrote to you and said "Hey Teresa, is Susie Sunshine, in the "We hate Rootsweb / AB" camp?" and you had never heard of her how would going to the list and seeing that she is the co-hosting my county tell you how to answer? Would you assume that because I'm the host and to your personal knowledge you know that I'm NOT in the "hate rootsweb/AB camp" that Susie Sunshine would be the same? You couldn't honestly answer that because you do not know her and the information in her file can't answer that question for you. Now if the question was "Hey Teresa, Linda Davenport has applied for as CC for my state and I understand she worked with you on the EC committee, is she a troublemaker or what?" then you can answer from your own knowledge but no where in my file is there be a category that says "Troublemaker? Y/N" to help you out. So what would get from the file? How would you determine affiliation with any group, cause or whatever? Linda > > -Teresa lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 15:51:30 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 PAA16488 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:29 -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 PAA03237 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8619F3C146; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D234D3C11F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08760 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <027901c032f3$6a36ec80$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001010115141.00bf4960@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:41:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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 Carol I can - Me. I've said it several times on the ALL & CC lists and have received the flames that came my way with good humor. I doubt that Teresa feels angry or upset that I said she doesn't like nor trust the AB - she has said this herself many times, but once again that is not the issue. The question I asked was "..., how do you think this list could be used by the AB for abuse?" And I still wish to know. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > At 11:18 AM 10/10/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >Teresa, I'm curious, nothing more, how do you think this list could be used > >by the AB for abuse? You are well known for your dislike and distrust of the > >AB but I'm curious to know what you believe the AB could do with this list. > > > >Linda > Linda, I do not know Teresa for her dislike and distrust of the AB - and > she apparently is far from being alone in her distrust of "the AB" (as > opposed to individuals - please note), and for good cause, IMHO, especially > in her situation, given that "the AB", which theoretically should represent > her, will not even come to her defense - she is not alone in this, of > course, and that is just one of the reasons I also do not trust "the AB" - > matter of fact, I could not name one individual involved with USGenWeb who > has ever posted - either publicly or privately - that they DO trust "the > AB" - can you? > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary > act ~ George Orwell > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Oct 10 15:51:33 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 PAA16492 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:32 -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 PAA03243 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 49C833C183; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884383C181 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust113.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.113]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA11297 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <027a01c032f3$6b8e3f20$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <81.1420457.2714b110@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:43:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Thanks Shari - I tried my best to answer all of Teresa's questions regarding this. Perhaps I made things a little clearer (or who knows maybe I just added to the confusion ). Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > In a message dated 10/10/2000 10:07:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > shari@tyaskin.com writes: > > << Linda, > > No, you're not the only one who feels that way. I'm trying to understand > why it would not be a good idea to have such a > master list, but I keep coming back to the fact that nearly all states > already have a list of all their CCs, their email > addresses, and the counties they coordinate displayed online and easily > accessible. I just don't see how having a > national list of CCs and their sites would create any additional > difficulties. > > Shari > >> > > > Colorado doesn't list the email addresses on our County list. We removed them > two years ago. This helped to send people to the Counties to find the email > address, and slowed down a lot of researchers just sending a query to the CC > without looking around the county pages. > > 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 Tue Oct 10 19:00:42 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 TAA15431 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:41 -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 TAA06628 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9064D3C184; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6709C3C15E for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.d.afcd184 (3981) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:00:35 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: Eligibility Guidelines 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 10/10/00 3:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << Who a volunteer is and where they maintain a site isn't, to me, private information or even information to be ashamed of. However, perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way. >> It scares me more to think there are some out there (not talking about anyone here) that would want people not to know what or how many they host. I can think of no good reason to keep that secret for myself. I'm not ashamed of any of my projects and proudly claim ownership of all of them. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 19:02:28 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 TAA15555 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:27 -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 TAA07001 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D4DB93C196; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f92.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.92]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192B23C15E for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:02:25 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.106 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:02:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.106] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:25 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2000 23:02:25.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[279D1AA0:01C0330E] 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 and Carol; Not to be a devil's advocate, but if there was such a national registry or a membership list on a webpage for all to see, others without good intentions could use the addresses as a scam outlet or as a fake id. I think it is a good idea, but must be put in a different perspective. 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 Tue Oct 10 19:07:46 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 TAA16007 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:46 -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 TAA07781 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 50FFF3C1A4; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r05.mail.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640013C15E for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.25.bd79f07 (3981) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <25.bd79f07.2714fb27@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:07:19 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: Eligibility Guidelines 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 In a message dated 10/10/00 3:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << Since determinations about where someone stands on issues in this project is often based solely on who they are affiliated with, I can easily see how the ability to look someone up in a registry could be abused. >> Umm No, I disagree with this statement. We shouldn't make such a generalization and allow it to influence the mechanism of the whole project. I have had severe disagreements with my former SC. I have had severe disagreements with my current NC. But if they are right I will support them. Both will tell you the same thing. Ellen can even tell you I have fallen on both sides. This is based solely on issues and nothing else. Am I the exception to the rule? Not when you factor in the entire UsGenWeb and not just a certain niche. Please don't take offense to this, but we just shouldn't generalize when we're deciding something this important. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 19:19:56 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 TAA17304 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:55 -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 TAA09736 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 60DF33C13F; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB643C136 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.65.ac87e0f (3981) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <65.ac87e0f.2714fe0e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:42 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Re: Eligibility Guidelines 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 10/10/00 3:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, esc-admin@pairlist.net writes: << I could not name one individual involved with USGenWeb who has ever posted - either publicly or privately - that they DO trust "the AB" - can you? >> You got one here. I don't always agree with them, but I guess they don't me either. If they did agree with me they wouldn't be and Advisory Board. I guess they'd be a Yes Chip board. Yes, as long as there are multiple people on the board I will trust it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 21:07:03 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 VAA26187 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:07:02 -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 VAA26092 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E6EA53C17F; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:07:00 -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 626933C128 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-35.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.35]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA11964 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:07:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000701c0331f$37180e20$232b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:03:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 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: After my epic novel, I am still seeing notes about "mistrusting" the AB, or whatever. Linda, I am convinced that my position has been woefully misunderstood. I don't have a problem with verification of voter lists. But, I do have a problem with anyone else besides the SC having the final word, unless a CC disputes the SC's ruling through the AB. How verification is accomplished seems to me to be up to the EC. I'm not of a mind to write down who writes whom when and under what conditions. I am opposed to anyone except the SC supplying the voter lists. And, I do think the SC has that *right.* Without quoting past comments, there has been considerable notes about distrusting the AB/SC. I was trying to point out that some of the "mistrust" should rightfully be set on the shoulders of the CC's. There is more outright and blatant dishonesty from the CCs than the AB/SC. I was hoping to show that CC's are far more worthy of the "mistrust" than the AB/SC, but it is these cc's who shout "foul" most often. It is the loudest cc's who whitewash events to "prove" how wrongly they have been treated, when they probably got exactly what they deserved. Or, they skew facts to prove some sort of conspiracy. Then, because the CCs (on and off the lists) never hear both sides of anything, because the SCs/ABs rarely publish their reasons on a major list, there becomes a general atmosphere of mistrust, but no one can ever point to enough specific examples of it to prove that the SCs/ABs are, in fact, untrustworthy! This is a CC-created atmosphere of suspicion! If you feel the slightest twinge of offense in those statements, then perhaps you will get an inkling of what it feels like to continually hear the same about SCs/ABs! There is such a movement of mistrusting all those in "power" in this project, that few are considering the untrustworthiness of some of the cc's who are making most of the accusations! And, if you get that far, then maybe you can see that the CCs are the ones perpetuating the mistrust, not the AB/SC. So, again, if you want to end the mistrust towards the EC, or whatever "group." I believe strongly that the change must come in a change of attitudes from the CC's. That doesn't necessarily have to occur by catering to the current whims of the CC's, which will, no doubt, only find a new "reason" to mistrust the system the moment you create any changes. Do you understand, Linda? I'm not trying to be inflammatory or negative towards the CCs. But, I *am* saying that when the ATTITUDE is mistrust, then even your plan will be mistrusted, because that's the mindset. Nothing will be trusted until the cc's change their attitudes. And attitudes get changed by example and conscious decision. Not by the EC jumping through hoops everytime there is a new accusation which occurs about every 2 minutes in this project. You create trust by giving it. You create trust by assuming that everyone can be trusted, and being open to hearing the other guy's side when things seem "not quite right." You create trust by first assuming that everyone is working towards the same goals, with merely a different IDEA about how to arrive at that goal. You create trust by having respect for each other, even those in "power." You don't create trust by jumping through hoops to accommodate every accusation and goosey suspicion. I feel strongly that the goal must be to find a good, sane, system. And that is impossible to do when the focus is trying to satisfy the mistrust-ers (those who have a general mistrust of the AB/SC/NC). The focus must be on what will work smoothly, operating within the system that is already in place. And yes, that means maintaining the status quo. Because, quite frankly, I think maintaining the status quo will insure more trust because of it's consistency, rather than trying to invent a new system. Anything new will be highly controversial, because no one likes to change, and no one will adapt to it easily, and too many will mistrust it simply *because* it is new! And, again, this is important, so I'm going to repeat it: When the mindset is mistrust, they will only mistrust *your* system the moment they see it. They will pick it apart, and in very short order someone will say this committee was tainted because it was ultimately approved by the AB/NC. They will see all kinds of ghosts and boogey men in the shadows, because they mistrust. And nothing you do or say will ever please the mistrust-ers. Because they mistrust everything, with or without a good cause. The next step will be a big havoc on the major lists. (That's going to happen no matter what we recommend, anyway). You think your system will solve problems and create trust. It won't. Your system will only satisfy those who agree. Those who don't agree will sqwak and holler instead of the batch who are sqwaking and hollering now. And the mistrust-ers, those who have a general mistrust of the AB/SC/NC, will believe it is somehow "against the cc's" even when you've tried to accommodate them! I am opposed to a master membership list for privacy issues. And, the way most of the cc's in this project think (whether or not on a list), they would speedily conclude that the AB/NC/SCs were somehow using it wrongly because that is how things usually go, whether or not there is good reason for the accusation or not. And, I agree that the EC's duties must be limited to overseeing elections. And, I continue to say that the EC cannot be USED as a means to solve other problems in the USGW, including feelings of mistrust. If you make all these changes to solve the mistrust of the cc's, you're only going to create the birth of it anew only from the SCs, instead of the CCs. You say that I am so entrenched in my position that I won't view yours. I feel the same way about your position! If you think of this like a business, then to ignore and explain away the major objections of the "managers" then you are headed for trouble, too. *ALL* viewpoints must be considered. Think of this as a mini-USGW. The viewpoints you are hearing here in opposition to your ideas will be echoed again if your plans go into effect. Only we, in this committee, have the luxury of respectful disagreement. On the lists, it will be name-calling and attacks. No matter what we do, we are going to get attacked on the lists. There is going to be the highest possible scruntity over what we recommend. And there will be "dissenters" in abundance, or so it will seem by the loud protestations. In other words, we just can't cater to the current round of objections to the system, because those objections change the moment anything is changed. We have to find a system that is sound mechanically. Let's strive for something that everyone can live with, including the SCs. And let's provide an example of TRUST, so that at least the kernel of it can start to grow in this project. Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 21:59:37 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 VAA00680 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:59:36 -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 VAA04266 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6D2553C1DD; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:59:34 -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 BFE713C1CA for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.236]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001011015932.RPUT425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:59:32 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001010213541.00bd6890@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:05:25 -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] voter list 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's really quite simple... the list does not have to be online... anywhere... a database can be maintained, regionally perhaps and SC's sent the list of eligible voters and CC's can check their own by writing in can't they? This resolves the whole thing about maintenance of web pages and presentation and passwords to see info and et cetera. I will agree that many people are paranoid about privacy and a national listing of this sort at the web level would not be reassuring at all to many of them. Some states don't list the emails or even coordinator names at the state level, they just link to counties... some people use forwarding email addresses for their counties instead of their own... I don't think it is SEC business to provide a national list online. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 10 23:45:27 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 XAA09848 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:45:27 -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 XAA18908 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 31D453C22C; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f11.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.11]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648D43C20F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:45:24 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.200 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:45:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.200] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] voter list Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:45:24 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 03:45:24.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[B015DD00:01C03335] 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; How about a secure website? Most websites are not secure. If it was possible to find a secured site, we might have a better chance of getting members to participate. Esse >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] voter list >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:05:25 -0500 > >it's really quite simple... the list does not have to be online... >anywhere... a database can be maintained, regionally perhaps and SC's sent >the list of eligible voters and CC's can check their own by writing in >can't they? This resolves the whole thing about maintenance of web pages >and presentation and passwords to see info and et cetera. > >I will agree that many people are paranoid about privacy and a national >listing of this sort at the web level would not be reassuring at all to >many of them. Some states don't list the emails or even coordinator names >at the state level, they just link to counties... some people use >forwarding email addresses for their counties instead of their own... I >don't think it is SEC business to provide a national list online. > >Holly > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Oct 11 00:55:46 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 AAA15254 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:55:45 -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 AAA26537 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 29DF33C12B; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:55:43 -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 4ABE93C127 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.252.165] by mhub3.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:55:40 -0500 Message-Id: <001301c0333e$a3827a40$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net><4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net><003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda><004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda><006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda><4.3.1.2.20001009185731.00bee850@mail.netdoor.com> <4.3.1.2.20001010085229.00bfa630@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:49:27 -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: If we make this too available (for example, from a link from the main page), are we setting ourselves up for a spam list ready to go? Or were you thinking just sending an email to everyone on it with the link so people could check that way?? Just thinking... Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > Hasn't it already been decided to recommend an online, sortable, searchable > voter database? Anyone who is interested can go there and check its > accuracy, be they CC, SC, AB, NC, or whatever - and get it revised if it is > inaccurate - right? > > Carol > > At 07:31 AM 10/10/2000 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > >Yes > > > >Linda > > > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com > >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Carol C-H > >To: > >Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:58 PM > >Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > > > > At 06:48 PM 10/09/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > >The problem is that SCs and SP managers don't send out a blanket email to > > > >all other SCs to say, "Hey, I have a volunteer! Is he/she also a > >volunteer > > > >in your state?" In other words, there is currently NO WAY in the project > > > >for the SCs, or even the CCs, to check to see how many websites any one > > > >person has, or how many they have volunteered for. (something I'd love > >to > > > >see: a database where I could lookup the addy or name of anyone in the > > > >project to see where they have websites!) > > > Carol, > > > > > > With a sortable voter list online, won't this be possible? > > > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > > When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my > >vision, > > > then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre > >Lorde > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, > then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. ~ Audre Lorde > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 11 00:57:33 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 AAA15326 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:57:33 -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 AAA26781 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2DDAB3C12B; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:57:32 -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 397483C127 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.252.165] by mhub3.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:57:30 -0500 Message-Id: <002d01c0333e$e4a9dc20$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:51:17 -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 5.00.2014.211 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 agree with Teresa on the voting list. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Election Committee Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport said a whole bunch of things, > including this: > > [snip] > > > This is just one of the reason I'm pushing for a national membership list. > > If you look at the design outline I posted you will see that the volunteer > > is listed one time by name and then each of their positions is listed below > > their name. If you as a SC went to the SEC site and pulled up your > > volunteer's name you would see all positions that volunteer has. A quick and > > simply means available to any SC (just want you are asking for above). > > and this: > > [snip] > > > A thought just crossed my mind - would it help the case of a SC who has a > > bad CC fend off some of the flack if on the membership page anyone could > > type in a county/state and see the name of the CC and ALSO all the other > > position that volunteer holds? If the complaining person is sent to visit > > the SEC M/S page and then to look at each site that CC maintains it would be > > difficult to continue to yell "unfair SC" (assuming of course the person is > > doing a bad job). > > This discussion of "national registries" and "membership lists" that > "anyone can access" is beginning to make me nervous. I doubt very much > that a majority of project members are going to want their names and > counties and email addresses listed for just anyone to yank out and > examine. Given the history of mistrust in this project, I think this is a > very bad idea. > > After hearing this and considering the implications, I am beginning to > be of the opinion that any membership list created by the EC for the > purposes of elections should be available _only_ to the EC and _only_ for > the purpose of conducting elections. It should not be adapted for other > uses no matter who finds it convenient. If SCs and CCs are going to be > allowed access to it, they should be limited to accessing only their own > personal information for the purposes of verifying that it is correct. It > is not the job of the EC to do anything other than conduct elections; > maintaining a "registry" for any other purpose is not within its scope and > will probably lead to a negative perception of the EC, cut down on voter > registration and participation and possibly cause people who don't want to > be listed to leave the project. > > -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 Wed Oct 11 07:22:16 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 HAA12002 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:22:15 -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 HAA03673 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DEA673C16A; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:21:55 -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 10C563C12B for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA13234 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005501c03375$654cdc20$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> <000701c0331f$37180e20$232b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:04:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: >>> Carol Wrote <<< >>>snipped <<< Carol: I think you and I will have to do as we have in the past and that is respectfully disagree on some issues. I don't think this committee is a place to discuss trust or distrust of the AB. It is a place to decide what the SEC should do and somewhat how that should be done. The major goal, IMO, is to try to make recommendations that will get the SEC out of politics. If the majority of the people on this committee feel that it can best be accomplished by leaving things as they are then that should be our recommendation. I think we have all discussed ideas & issues to the point that we have wandering off from our initial goal. Perhaps it would be best if we once again posted the recommendations of the past EC and review them. They, after all, actually did the job and their recommendations should be considered again. What about it everyone? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 10:15:06 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 KAA27039 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:15:01 -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 KAA00184 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 08B7A3C1D3; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:14:59 -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 468023C12D for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-60.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.60]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA21370 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:15:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <006501c0338d$48d99c00$fa2c95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> <000701c0331f$37180e20$232b95d0@youda> <005501c03375$654cdc20$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:12:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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'm not wanting to discuss the AB mistrust, either. But, you give the mistrust as the reason for implementing your plan. Mistrust is the incentive behind many of the ideas submitted here instead of looking at the *problems* in those suggestions. Objections to your plan keeps having the answer that it will eliminate mistrust. My point is that the problems with a cc-submitted voter list still has some major problems with it, all of its own. All those problems have already been voiced on this list, so I won't repeat them now. My point is that the mistrust is a mindset with many in this project. And a cc-submitted list won't solve it, and will -- in fact -- just cause new problems and suspicions. So, to base a plan on trying to resolve the mistrust in the EC/AB, or whatever group, is not going to accomplish much, because the mindset will continue anyway. So, let's find a system without all the major problems that a cc-submitted voter list will create. Yes, it will resolve the problem of the SC who doesn't forward their lists to the EC. Yes, it will solve some of the cc's suspicion that their names weren't submitted. But, it will also create new problems. And, solving a problem by creating new problems isn't my idea of a good plan. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > >>> Carol Wrote <<< > > >>>snipped <<< > > > Carol: I think you and I will have to do as we have in the past and that is > respectfully disagree on some issues. > > I don't think this committee is a place to discuss trust or distrust of the > AB. It is a place to decide what the SEC should do and somewhat how that > should be done. The major goal, IMO, is to try to make recommendations that > will get the SEC out of politics. If the majority of the people on this > committee feel that it can best be accomplished by leaving things as they > are then that should be our recommendation. > > I think we have all discussed ideas & issues to the point that we have > wandering off from our initial goal. > > Perhaps it would be best if we once again posted the recommendations of the > past EC and review them. They, after all, actually did the job and their > recommendations should be considered again. > > What about it everyone? > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 11 10:42:06 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 KAA29857 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:42:05 -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 KAA05841 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4DB833C1B1; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:42:04 -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 68F303C1A3 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-51.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.51]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA25008 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:42:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <008b01c03391$13352b60$fa2c95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> <000701c0331f$37180e20$232b95d0@youda> <005501c03375$654cdc20$0200a8c0@Linda> <006501c0338d$48d99c00$fa2c95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:39:32 -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: Still thinking . . . I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a cc-submitted voter list. But, I think the plan needs to address the objections and problems that have already been voiced about the system. Can you modify the plan so that the problems are eliminated? Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From cch@netdoor.com Wed Oct 11 11:25:36 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 LAA04971 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pike.netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14426 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1064.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.164]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03881 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:25:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001011100755.00c1d7f0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:21:26 -0500 To: merope From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: Kelly?? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20001011091709.00be2ef0@mail.netdoor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Status: RO X-Status: Hmmmm..............now that you mention it, I remember Va Crilley posting about the GA one within the last few days, so bet you are right - Va is an enthusiastic archives volunteer (I know this because she and I went 'round and 'round about it a few days ago when I told her that I have no intention of submitting a big .txt multi-cemetery file she wants even to my county site until I can remember - or find - who sent it to me years ago - but even then I did not want it included in the archives - she said it is probably available elsewhere, and I hope it is - wished her luck finding it. She apparently did not know, though, that there was ever any thought of Linda claiming ownership of the compilation of the archives, and seemed surprised that Linda didn't seem to want to post clearing that up. Va and I go back a ways, though have never posted much - we have just been researching in the same area for years) Had started to sub to that GA census-lookup list, but think I'll pass. :-) Carol At 10:30 AM 10/11/2000 -0400, you wrote: >On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Carol C-H wrote: > > > Is Kelly a RootsWeb/MF employee? Someone just forwarded a post to -ALL > > that she had sent somewhere saying that she had created census lookup > lists > > for all states - that sounds more like a staff move than a volunteer one, > > to me - any idea? > >Not that I know of, but she's a real go-getter when it comes to the >Archives Census Project. This might just be something she and/or Maggie >came up with to heighten interest in the ACP, which is dying on the vine. > >-Teresa > > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a > revolutionary > > act ~ George Orwell > > > > Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 11:58:02 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 LAA08694 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:58:01 -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 LAA20859 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 471753C22A; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:57:22 -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 914A53C21D for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1064.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.164]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28030 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:57:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001011103734.00bdfbe0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:52:57 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Know what I think? In-Reply-To: <6e.3c91a88.2715e1c6@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: At 11:31 AM 10/11/2000 -0400, you wrote: >I see people saying that they take offense to someone (Linda?) saying Teresa >doesn't like the AB. I plead guilty, but did not intend that interpretation - I worded my post poorly. I've known Linda a long time, since Maiser, and knew what she meant, and meant no disrespect of her. Was just trying to say that, IMHO, Teresa is known for her intelligence and courage, rather than for disliking and/or mistrusting "the AB" - my point being that there is a lot of distrust for "the AB", and that, as you stated much more clearly than I did, Chip, there are too many issues dividing this Project - even just this committee - for us to be able to do anything to restore trust. I do not see that happening until a couple of critical issues have been addressed and handled, no matter how many committees try. Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 12:16:31 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 MAA10878 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:30 -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 MAA24019 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EFCF13C236; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:28 -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 035D43C1FA for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA28453 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <021701c0339e$8a914740$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001008084810.02b7d740@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001008173556.00bb8240@mail.bright.net> <003201c0317a$3dff8160$0200a8c0@Linda> <004901c03183$bc26a560$8d2c95d0@youda> <006201c031f6$08078400$0200a8c0@Linda> <002d01c0324b$a7017340$a82b95d0@youda> <005501c032b6$374ffec0$0200a8c0@Linda> <000701c0331f$37180e20$232b95d0@youda> <005501c03375$654cdc20$0200a8c0@Linda> <006501c0338d$48d99c00$fa2c95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:51:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Carol: Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not mistrust the AB, the SC or anyone else in this project. My statement was: "do our best to remove the SEC from the politics of the project and try to instill confidence in the honesty of the SEC and to provide a level playing field for all volunteers". I do not want to argue with you here or anywhere else for that matter. I was polite and said we should agree to disagree. To me this should have ended the matter. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > I'm not wanting to discuss the AB mistrust, either. But, you give the > mistrust as the reason for implementing your plan. Mistrust is the > incentive behind many of the ideas submitted here instead of looking at the > *problems* in those suggestions. Objections to your plan keeps having the > answer that it will eliminate mistrust. > > My point is that the problems with a cc-submitted voter list still has some > major problems with it, all of its own. All those problems have already > been voiced on this list, so I won't repeat them now. > > My point is that the mistrust is a mindset with many in this project. And a > cc-submitted list won't solve it, and will -- in fact -- just cause new > problems and suspicions. So, to base a plan on trying to resolve the > mistrust in the EC/AB, or whatever group, is not going to accomplish much, > because the mindset will continue anyway. So, let's find a system without > all the major problems that a cc-submitted voter list will create. Yes, it > will resolve the problem of the SC who doesn't forward their lists to the > EC. Yes, it will solve some of the cc's suspicion that their names weren't > submitted. But, it will also create new problems. And, solving a problem > by creating new problems isn't my idea of a good plan. > > Carol > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Linda Haas Davenport" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 6:04 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Eligibility Guidelines > > > > >>> Carol Wrote <<< > > > > >>>snipped <<< > > > > > > Carol: I think you and I will have to do as we have in the past and that > is > > respectfully disagree on some issues. > > > > I don't think this committee is a place to discuss trust or distrust of > the > > AB. It is a place to decide what the SEC should do and somewhat how that > > should be done. The major goal, IMO, is to try to make recommendations > that > > will get the SEC out of politics. If the majority of the people on this > > committee feel that it can best be accomplished by leaving things as they > > are then that should be our recommendation. > > > > I think we have all discussed ideas & issues to the point that we have > > wandering off from our initial goal. > > > > Perhaps it would be best if we once again posted the recommendations of > the > > past EC and review them. They, after all, actually did the job and their > > recommendations should be considered again. > > > > What about it everyone? > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Wed Oct 11 12:16:33 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 MAA10907 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:33 -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 MAA24026 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 15F293C240; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:31 -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 C95A03C23E for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA28955 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <021801c0339e$8c3c8640$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <6e.3c91a88.2715e1c6@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Know what I think? Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:06:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 Thanks Chip - my hat's in the same ring with yours. I made a suggestion that this years EC recommendations be reposted to this list and that we consider what they had to say. Anyone else interested? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:31 AM Subject: [ESC] Know what I think? > I think we're without focus and allowing petty side issues move us away from > doing anything meaningful. > > I think there are several SC's who will take exception to anything we decide > that in their minds threaten the current power structure inside their states. > I have not seen any suggestion in that direction from anyone on either side > of this committee. > > I see people who want to say who the CC's mistrust. They say this without > apparently reading the suggestions we got from our form. The CC's don't trust > anyone in power. They would trust it even less if they read some of our > transcripts both ways. > > Frankly people, I see the exact same division on this committee that I see in > the project. That side and this side. After this I won't be in favor with > either side. But when it's all said and done and these transcripts are leaked > to the membership (and they will be), the CC's, SC's, SP's, ASC's etc, will > see at least I stood up and said enough is enough. Either get back on topic > and drop the petty issues or admit we're as divided as the rest of the > project. I can not see how the petty infighting here can solve the same > issues in the general population. > > I see people saying that they take offense to someone (Linda?) saying Teresa > doesn't like the AB. I get a kick out of Teresa's articles, but I can hardly > call them AB fan letters. But regardless of her leanings I have found that > sometimes I agree with her and sometimes I don't. That's healthy. > > We have a deadline. There is some question in the wording whether our > committee ends on one day or four days later. Someone suggested that if we > don't have something decided we choose the later date. I don't see the reason > anymore. > > When all is said and done we will turn in a report that is as divided as the > project itself. > > It is not our place to decide who likes who or even how a national list > works. > > IT IS ONLY OUR PLACE TO SUGGEST ONE IS NEEDED > > Excuse me for yelling there, but I hope if people read no other part of this > post they read that. > > If you people want my resignation after this Holly only has to ask for it. > > Chip > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 11 12:19:10 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 MAA11102 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:19:09 -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 MAA24412 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2F01C3C1FA; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:19:08 -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 5189F3C19F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1064.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.164]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15288 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:19:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001011111450.00be0e10@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:15:10 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Know what I think? In-Reply-To: <021801c0339e$8c3c8640$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <6e.3c91a88.2715e1c6@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: Sounds like a good idea to me - Carol At 11:06 AM 10/11/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks Chip - my hat's in the same ring with yours. > >I made a suggestion that this years EC recommendations be reposted to this >list and that we consider what they had to say. > >Anyone else interested? > > Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:31 AM >Subject: [ESC] Know what I think? > > > > I think we're without focus and allowing petty side issues move us away >from > > doing anything meaningful. > > > > I think there are several SC's who will take exception to anything we >decide > > that in their minds threaten the current power structure inside their >states. > > I have not seen any suggestion in that direction from anyone on either >side > > of this committee. > > > > I see people who want to say who the CC's mistrust. They say this without > > apparently reading the suggestions we got from our form. The CC's don't >trust > > anyone in power. They would trust it even less if they read some of our > > transcripts both ways. > > > > Frankly people, I see the exact same division on this committee that I see >in > > the project. That side and this side. After this I won't be in favor with > > either side. But when it's all said and done and these transcripts are >leaked > > to the membership (and they will be), the CC's, SC's, SP's, ASC's etc, >will > > see at least I stood up and said enough is enough. Either get back on >topic > > and drop the petty issues or admit we're as divided as the rest of the > > project. I can not see how the petty infighting here can solve the same > > issues in the general population. > > > > I see people saying that they take offense to someone (Linda?) saying >Teresa > > doesn't like the AB. I get a kick out of Teresa's articles, but I can >hardly > > call them AB fan letters. But regardless of her leanings I have found that > > sometimes I agree with her and sometimes I don't. That's healthy. > > > > We have a deadline. There is some question in the wording whether our > > committee ends on one day or four days later. Someone suggested that if we > > don't have something decided we choose the later date. I don't see the >reason > > anymore. > > > > When all is said and done we will turn in a report that is as divided as >the > > project itself. > > > > It is not our place to decide who likes who or even how a national list > > works. > > > > IT IS ONLY OUR PLACE TO SUGGEST ONE IS NEEDED > > > > Excuse me for yelling there, but I hope if people read no other part of >this > > post they read that. > > > > If you people want my resignation after this Holly only has to ask for it. > > > > Chip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 11:31:27 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 LAA05844 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:26 -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 LAA15594 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1271E3C1E0; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r14.mail.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9E93C152 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.6e.3c91a88 (658) for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <6e.3c91a88.2715e1c6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:31:18 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 106 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Know what I think? 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 we're without focus and allowing petty side issues move us away from doing anything meaningful. I think there are several SC's who will take exception to anything we decide that in their minds threaten the current power structure inside their states. I have not seen any suggestion in that direction from anyone on either side of this committee. I see people who want to say who the CC's mistrust. They say this without apparently reading the suggestions we got from our form. The CC's don't trust anyone in power. They would trust it even less if they read some of our transcripts both ways. Frankly people, I see the exact same division on this committee that I see in the project. That side and this side. After this I won't be in favor with either side. But when it's all said and done and these transcripts are leaked to the membership (and they will be), the CC's, SC's, SP's, ASC's etc, will see at least I stood up and said enough is enough. Either get back on topic and drop the petty issues or admit we're as divided as the rest of the project. I can not see how the petty infighting here can solve the same issues in the general population. I see people saying that they take offense to someone (Linda?) saying Teresa doesn't like the AB. I get a kick out of Teresa's articles, but I can hardly call them AB fan letters. But regardless of her leanings I have found that sometimes I agree with her and sometimes I don't. That's healthy. We have a deadline. There is some question in the wording whether our committee ends on one day or four days later. Someone suggested that if we don't have something decided we choose the later date. I don't see the reason anymore. When all is said and done we will turn in a report that is as divided as the project itself. It is not our place to decide who likes who or even how a national list works. IT IS ONLY OUR PLACE TO SUGGEST ONE IS NEEDED Excuse me for yelling there, but I hope if people read no other part of this post they read that. If you people want my resignation after this Holly only has to ask for it. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 14:04:30 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 OAA23125 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:29 -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 OAA13500 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A43783C274; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:27 -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 01E463C247 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA27709 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <028a01c033ad$9fd57860$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:03:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Looking at last year's EC Recommendations 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 Thank you Teresa. I appreciate you posting this. I wanted to read again what the people who went thru the last election felt were important. Before I head off to format a couple of hundred more obits here are my thoughts: - you'll find them between the ******* Anyone else care to comment? Linda ##Majority Recommendations: (1) A standing Elections Committee should be appointed annually be each successive AB. If this is not accomplished, the Election Committee MUST be appointed earlier than the committee this year and last year. The AB needs to place any disagreements to the side and appoint an election committee by the first of April (at the latest) to allow for proper preparation for the election. To appoint later is unfair to the project and unfair to the committee. ********** My Comments: I believe this committee is in agreement that SEC is needed - although I don't remember seeing a consensus as to a year round committee or one that is just appointed for a single election. IMPO a standing year-round committee is needed. ************** (2) Standards should be created and given to the EC regarding voting rights for assistant ccs, co-ccs, special state project coordinators, and other contributors to the project. Specifically, the board should decide if the project should have limits on the number of people or positions in each state. This instruction should be sent well before the election to prevent any attempt by the AB to control the election. *********** My Comments I believe that this committee feels that the by-laws say that everyone except a transcriber or Look-up person is eligible to vote. 1 person - 1 vote was also decided on if I'm not mistaken ********************* (3) The AB should sponsor the creation of an automated online voting system run, operated, and programmed for the project for use in future elections. ************ My comments: Two points of view: (1) use an outside service of some type (2) write our own software. I don't remember an agreement being reached. Ellen made an excellent suggestion - that the group to chose the voting software and/or run it (if it's written in-house) should not be the same people on the SEC *************** (4) An email list should be created for presenting information to all project members (a read-only list that all CCs are subscribed to). ************ My Comments: I believe the final outcome of the discussion was to use the voter's (membership list) and send individual e-mails to everyone. It being more personal, more likely to be read than another e-list *************** (5) "Good standing" should not be determined by the elections committee. In order to maintain a sense of objectivity, independence, and fairness, the elections committee should manage the election not judge project members. If the AB wishes to clarify good standing, they should be responsible for enforcing it, not forcing it onto a committee that must retain neutrality. ********** My Comment: Determined to be the AB's problem not the SEC I believe ************ (6) The Election Committee should supervise all project elections, including special project elections. ************ My Comment: Agreement with this was reached I believe. **************** ##Minority Recommendations: (M1) Establish a standing Elections Committee appointed annually by each successive AB following procedures contained in the parliamentary authority. ********* My comment: See #1 above ***************** (m2) Review past precedent and adopt standing rules for future elections with due consideration for local coordinators, state level national special project coordinators, state level special project coordinators and such other contributors deemed to provide services useful to researchers. Particular emphasis should be made regarding the number of cc's, co-cc's per county or state level special project to be eligible to vote. ******** My Comments: Covered in # 2 above - 1 person -1 vote, everyone except transcribers & look-up people are eligible and have the right to vote unless the AB notifies the SEC that a particular volunteer is not in good standing and may not vote. In other words it's not the SEC's job to determine who can and who cannot vote. Am I correct? *********** (M3) Review the practice of members voting in multiple regions, it overly complicates the process. Votes of members with only one county have less impact than those with votes in multiple regions. This practice enables a very small minority to "possibly" impact one or more regional elections and therefore the makeup of the AB, which is contrary to ensuring the will of the majority as required by the parliamentary authority. To assure that all member are treated fairly and equitably by subscribing to the principal of one person/one vote in "all" regional races is recommended as the most fair and equitable method to effect a change in this practice. ********* My Comments: Also covered above - 1 person - 1 vote. If a person volunteers in more than one region then that person will have 1 vote in each region they are in. Correct? **************** (M4) Develop and maintain a complete membership roster including transcribers and look up volunteers utilizing procedures which provide the greatest possible confidence in the accuracy of the data. Absolute confidentiality of the roster must be maintained. Such complete rosters would enable a standing EC to conduct elections for special projects upon request ********** My Comment: Under discussion now - perhaps we can start again using this statement as the suggestion rather than mine or anyone else's? ************* (m5) Create and maintain a member/voter registration website to assist in preparation and maintaining of a membership roster to provide members with the means of changing their address and membership data themselves, in addition to notification of their respective SC's. This provides CC's with the choice to participate or not in the project electoral process. ********* My Comment: Under discussion now - Once again is it possible to start again using this statement as the starting point? ************** (m6) Create and maintain an automated online voting system as the primary means of conducting elections, referenda, polls or other uses germane to its purpose as authorized by the AB. Utilize an alternate means of tabulation and validation for comparison. *********** My Comment: See above ************ (m7) Utilize a broadcast e-list for dissemination of election information to "registered voters" who choose to participate in the project electoral process. It is not desirable to mandate that ALL cc's be subscribed to any list beyond current requirements. ******* My Comment: See above - personal e-mails rather than an e-mail list ********* (m8) Adopt a resolution which more clearly defines the "good standing" of members which includes an appropriate reference from the parliamentary authority. Such as from page 638, inclusion of the text in ]; "Although ordinary societies seldom have occasion to discipline members, an organization or assembly has the ultimate right to make and enforce its own rules, and [to require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes.]" ******** My Comment: Covered Above - not the SEC's problem ********** Anyone else? Or have I forgotten or misunderstood anything? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 17:06:53 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 RAA16312 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:53 -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 RAA17513 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 49A9A3C1B1; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:51 -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 99FDA3C16A for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.209]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001011210649.QYHG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:06:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001011170952.038995a0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:12:42 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, "Election Committee" From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Looking at last year's EC Recommendations In-Reply-To: <02ef01c033c1$90b29020$0200a8c0@Linda> 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: ok... I think what I would like to see is a 24 hour *timeout* and think time partly because maybe a bit of a pasue to take our time and read through all the many and lengthy messages over the last 48 hours would be a good thing, especially reading with an eye to the positive and also because I have a meeting tonight that is gonna run real late and can do nothing but in haste tonight. I will be printing out many of the recent (and some not so recent messages) to read at lunchtime at work tomorrow though and will be posting tomorrow night.... how about it? hugs to all and hang in there, we may have gotten a little testy here and a bit off track but we're still here and talking and thinking! Holly At 03:09 PM 10/11/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >Teresa said: > >Looks good to me. I think we've accomplished more on this committee > >than we think we have. > > >I agree completely. It seems as if Chip was right we did indeed get >sidetracked. We also seem to have lost a lot of the committee members >somewhere along the line . > >How about if we wait until everyone gets in from work and has a chance to >read today's mail and then if people agree with our comments on last >year's recommendations we can set those aside and talk about the ones that >are left using the numbers I assigned to each item to keep them straight. >That way perhaps we can wind this thing up and come up with some solid >recommendations that won't send anyone into a major tizzy - just small >ones > >Anyone out there with a different opinion? Holly? > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Oct 11 17:32:54 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 RAA19107 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:32:54 -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 RAA22188 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B53303C13A; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:32:52 -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 DCFF03C131 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25342 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <049701c033ca$be60d000$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001011170952.038995a0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Looking at last year's EC Recommendations Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:31:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Have fun Holly - I'm still struggling to get a few hundred obits formatted and up for Marion Co and, like housework, they just won't go away So a brief pause if fine with me. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: ; Election Committee Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Looking at last year's EC Recommendations > ok... I think what I would like to see is a 24 hour *timeout* and think > time > > partly because maybe a bit of a pasue to take our time and read through all > the many and lengthy messages over the last 48 hours would be a good thing, > especially reading with an eye to the positive and also because I have a > meeting tonight that is gonna run real late and can do nothing but in haste > tonight. I will be printing out many of the recent (and some not so recent > messages) to read at lunchtime at work tomorrow though and will be posting > tomorrow night.... > > how about it? > > hugs to all and hang in there, we may have gotten a little testy here and a > bit off track but we're still here and talking and thinking! > > Holly > > > At 03:09 PM 10/11/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > >Teresa said: > > >Looks good to me. I think we've accomplished more on this committee > > >than we think we have. > > > > > >I agree completely. It seems as if Chip was right we did indeed get > >sidetracked. We also seem to have lost a lot of the committee members > >somewhere along the line . > > > >How about if we wait until everyone gets in from work and has a chance to > >read today's mail and then if people agree with our comments on last > >year's recommendations we can set those aside and talk about the ones that > >are left using the numbers I assigned to each item to keep them straight. > >That way perhaps we can wind this thing up and come up with some solid > >recommendations that won't send anyone into a major tizzy - just small > >ones > > > >Anyone out there with a different opinion? Holly? > > > >Linda > > > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com > >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Wed Oct 11 20:25:13 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 UAA06600 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:25:12 -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 UAA20889 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 17E1D3C20F; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0223C131 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id s.3a.b812fe9 (618) for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:24:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: <3a.b812fe9.27165eda@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:24:58 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] This is a long one 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 comments on the EC rec's. .....REC........... << Actions of the AB prior to the election cycle set precedent for admissibility for questions related to the "good standing" of members. The "good standing" of three candidates was discussed but no formal votes were made. ....me.......... We should advise the AB to define good standing and to implement standard consequences for infractions. We should also advise them to apply this standard to everyone regardless of their position. In fact, those in power probably should be held to a higher standard. Since this part did play a role in the election I think it's within our jurisdiction to reccommend on it. .........REC........... The cooperativeness of some State Coordinators was less than desirable regarding the submission of voter lists to the EC. Delays created a very compressed time frame for creating the master and regional lists. The regional EC members only had about 48 hours to e-mail Voter ID's to members then had to resolve an approximate 3% bounce rate. ..........me.......... Longer pre-election period. Although, maintaining a member list nationally will cut down on the time anyway. And here again is my thinking that there should be some way for the EC to bypass an SC not doing their job. If and only if they are not doing their job to the point their voters may be left out without such action. ...........REC........... Numerous votes were received in the regional races from members who didn't qualify for a vote in that region. Instructions should have been included on the ballots instructing members without a county in one of the XXGenWebs in that region not to use that ballot. ..........me.......... This too is fixed by a national master database. .............REC............ Some members voted repeatedly for the same candidate which increased the workload of the validators. This was probably due to not sending a vote confirmation message back to the voter. ..........me............ I thought the idea of vote numerous times your last vote counts was flawed. First it opens the door for fraud. Second it causes more work. When we go to the polls this fall to vote for a president we vote once. We can't go back an hour later and vote again because we changed our minds. .........REC........... Getting valid addresses for members whose ID email bounced back was difficult for the EC members. In some cases visiting the website didn't help in obtaining a valid email address for the member. In future, EC members should only be responsible for forwarding bounced mail notification to the respective SC's. .......Me........... Common sense. ............REC.............. Feedback from some members asking what the ID was for indicates a lack of participation on state lists or information isn't getting to the local coordinators. Some members simply do not desire to participate in the election process, to respect their wishes, a voter registration period should be included in the annual election schedule. ............me............. If the EC gets numerous complaints from several individuals (not the same complaint over and over from one person) they should investigate how that region or state is being administered. Seems to me all of their recommendations can be summed up as follows: Create or use an automatic online voting system. Create a national database of voters. Create a way for voters to register, not just for the election but as members of the project. Provide a way around uncooperative SC's. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Wed Oct 11 16:27:13 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 QAA11118 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:27:12 -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 QAA10009 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4ECAF3C1B3; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:27:10 -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 789D03C16A for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust50.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.50]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05081 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <02ef01c033c1$90b29020$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Looking at last year's EC Recommendations Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:09:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Teresa said: >Looks good to me. I think we've accomplished more on this committee >than we think we have. I agree completely. It seems as if Chip was right we did indeed get sidetracked. We also seem to have lost a lot of the committee members somewhere along the line . How about if we wait until everyone gets in from work and has a chance to read today's mail and then if people agree with our comments on last year's recommendations we can set those aside and talk about the ones that are left using the numbers I assigned to each item to keep them straight. That way perhaps we can wind this thing up and come up with some solid recommendations that won't send anyone into a major tizzy - just small ones Anyone out there with a different opinion? Holly? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From sentto-2073493-2007-971346704-merope=radix.net@returns.onelist.com Thu Oct 12 06:32:00 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 GAA26448 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 06:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [208.50.144.95]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA00642 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 06:31:57 -0400 (EDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-2073493-2007-971346704-merope=radix.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Oct 2000 10:31:56 -0000 X-Sender: garymartens@mail.earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: restaurant2000@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 12 Oct 2000 10:31:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 30827 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 10:31:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Oct 2000 10:31:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.123) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 10:31:43 -0000 Received: from gpm (dialup-209.246.129.132.Dallas1.Level3.net [209.246.129.132]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA28677 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010121031.DAA28677@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net> To: restaurant2000@egroups.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) From: garymartens@earthlink.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list restaurant2000@egroups.com; contact restaurant2000-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list restaurant2000@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:31:53 -0500 Reply-To: restaurant2000@egroups.com Subject: Re: [restaurant2000] ROOTSWEB REVIEW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: > I recall not too long ago Joe Z was trying as hard as he could to sell > volunteers on the idea of doing ezines. > I figured at that time that he was just trying to recruit more free labor > from the volunteers to do more free services to promote the root$web's > agenda. .....cynical that i am...... Richard Harrison had ezine 's as one of his campaign themes -- he was going to tell everyone about what was going on with USGenWeb using an ezine. Well guess what, he has told those in his area almost nothing since he was elected. Ginger used to forward all Board communications to the NW mailing list. Joe Fisher also has control of that mailing list. The amount of communications from them - right at 0. Gary Martens NEGenWeb County Coordinator for Lincoln, Seward and Polk Counties AHSGR Village Coordinator for Schilling, Neu-Schilling & Konstantinovka -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/_/_/971346704/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: restaurant2000-unsubscribe@egroups.com From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 09:01:47 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 JAA21661 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:01:41 -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 JAA29354 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2A4D03C1DA; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:01:38 -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 1ECFF3C1C7 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-102.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.102]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA19014 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:04:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <004b01c03515$59c14e80$662b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001012173803.04061b20@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 07:57:11 -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: A I really liked your idea, Holly, of some of us sticking around to discuss other USGW problems, after the EC report is finished. You probably said it to get us all back on track. But, I wonder if that wouldn't be a good idea. Could we also recommend, to the AB/NC in a separate report, that another committee be formed to look into the re-occuring problems and issues in the USGW? Not to make judgements about who was right/wrong, but to make some recommendations about the ambiguity in some parts of the bylaws, the bad public image of the AB, problems that CCs have with SCs that no one will address, trust issues, overstepping bounds, trademarking and incorporating, etc., all those "hot spots" in the USGW? Maybe such a committee would recommend a Standing Grievance Committee, or maybe we could recommend that one be formed? (Just thinking out loud) It might help the project if some of these things were addressed by a group other than the AB. I agree with all your summarizing, etc., with the exception of #4. I liked an earlier post of yours which said that perhaps instead of recommending a particular voting system (written for the USGW or Votebots) that we just outline the requirements, such as confidentiality, etc. I wonder that if we lock the SEC into one particular method, what happens if there were real mechanical problems about the operation of that method? E.g.: if we say it has to be in-house, then what do they do when the in-house software proves to be unworkable, for any reason? And visa versa on an outside software. They won't be able to change to a more efficient or accurate software if, after the reality of using it, becames apparent. I'd vote for an out-of-house system just to quiet some of the controversy about vote tampering (going against my own crusade to stop making decisions based on suspicions). But, my concern is that sometimes things sound good in theory, but don't work in reality. So maybe we could leave that up to the EC with the recommendation that if they have to change voting software, they do it well in advance of any election, and never close to an election, because that doesn't give time to work out the bugs. (Sudden changes caused most of the problems in the last election, IMHO). Carol > 4) A fair impartial secure system of voting must be determined. We might > have agreement on most of the requirements for such a system and I don't > think it is necessary for us to actually recommend a specific system. We do > need I think to vote on whether this should be an in house USGenWeb > program/software or an outside one. > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 10:47:06 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 KAA02667 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:47:04 -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 KAA17795 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 03E813C16F; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:46:56 -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 6D7AC3C162 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-115.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.115]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA28850 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:50:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005501c03524$0e60e5e0$662b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:44:10 -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 agree with this, Teresa. Thanks! Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one etc. > > I think it is a good idea to list/outline the requirements of the voting > mechanism, but I also think it is a good idea to say how the committee > recommends we meet those requirements. > > One thing about a pre-packaged voting service [votebot, etc] it will be a > whole lot easier and less time consuming than designing one in-house. > > I don't think we need to specify a _specific_ system [like votebot], but > if we said that it is the committee's recommendation that the standing EC > use a neutral third-party mechanism and charge them with researching the > available systems that would be sufficient. > > If, of course, it is the consensus of this committee that outside software > be used. I think we need to vote on this. If the split is not large, > then we may need to consider a minority opinion on this topic. > > > > I agree with you here as well. It was very disconserting to have all > those problems after the polls opened and all the changes made. It did > not foster trust with the system. > > One thing we could do is suggest that the standing EC use neutral third > party software for the next few elections and also work on developing an > in-house mechanism to replace it eventually. It takes time to develop > good software and we can use the off the shelf stuff in the interim. [can > we have our cake and eat it too? ] > > -Teresa _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 11:24:31 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 LAA06980 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:24:31 -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 LAA24641 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CC6D13C132; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:24:26 -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 1F3BC3C128 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from connie ([12.77.162.192]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20001013152420.CDWK22058.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@connie> for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:24:20 +0000 Message-ID: <006901c03529$4f171d20$0201a8c0@connie> From: "Connie Bates" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:21:49 -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: > I think it is a good idea to list/outline the requirements of the voting > mechanism, but I also think it is a good idea to say how the committee > recommends we meet those requirements. > > One thing about a pre-packaged voting service [votebot, etc] it will be a > whole lot easier and less time consuming than designing one in-house. > > I don't think we need to specify a _specific_ system [like votebot], but > if we said that it is the committee's recommendation that the standing EC > use a neutral third-party mechanism and charge them with researching the > available systems that would be sufficient. > > If, of course, it is the consensus of this committee that outside software > be used. I think we need to vote on this. If the split is not large, > then we may need to consider a minority opinion on this topic. I agree with this. For the record, my vote is to use an neutral third-party mechanism. Connie _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Thu Oct 12 19:01:04 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 TAA17043 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:03 -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 TAA22205 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 957813C1DD; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:02 -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 A55463C1D3 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001012230058.ECLH425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:00:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001012173803.04061b20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:06:52 -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] probably a long one 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 Okay... I've started combing through recent messages and instead of answering them piecemeal as replies, I'm gonna copy paste (hopefully with the correct attributions as to who said what)... some will be points that have sort of slid by us, others about some much discussed items, some will amount to summarizing and some will be my thoughts and opinions, all of my part of it marked by "Holly:" for clarity when anyone replies. Pull up a comfy chair, a plate of your favorite snack (and for you smokers, a clean ashtray and a full pack of cigs).... We digressed a bit into discussions of other things seen as dividing this project but as someone pointed out, we are not here to try to fix the whole project but only those issues dealing directly with elections. When we're all done, I happily invite any of you who wish to (and others who might like to be included) to work together to try to resolve some of the other issues but NOT until we turn in our report Chip brought up a more or less unaddressed issue, sort of: "We should advise the AB to define good standing and to implement standard consequences for infractions. We should also advise them to apply this standard to everyone regardless of their position. In fact, those in power probably should be held to a higher standard. Since this part did play a role in the election I think it's within our jurisdiction to reccommend on it." Holly>>> We all pretty much agreed that good standing was not any of the EC's business BUT, this was in regards to the voting and voters lists... we have almost completely missed discussing the nominations phase (no accusations there, I missed it in the agenda even) and "good standing" does relate to nominations. Since we have not discussed this, the following is purely my thoughts on the matter: In the nominations phase, I still do not think judging good standing is within the EC's domain to judge. Either a person has already been declared not in good standing and is thsu ineligible for nomination or they have not. Once nominated, anyone, including the AB, or any individual member of USGenWeb may question someone's good standing but I feel strongly that this is an AB matter to determine in the final regard although perhaps an SC could declare a CC not in good standing (I know I have a couple who aren't technically per the Bylaws which say: "In good standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly to email, actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information, maintaining their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." Quoting from the EC Report: "The cooperativeness of some State Coordinators was less than desirable regarding the submission of voter lists to the EC. Delays created a very compressed time frame for creating the master and regional lists. The regional EC members only had about 48 hours to e-mail Voter ID's to members then had to resolve an approximate 3% bounce rate." Holly: I think this issue would pretty much not be a problem with a year round maintenance of voter lists including the periodic mass emailings that would catch the bounces with more time to resolve them. Many of you have brought up the perceived problem with uncooperative SC's which I think boils down to slow and unresponsive on the whole rather than uncooperative which smacks of deliberate intent. Again, the year round maintenance of voter rolls should pretty much deal with 98% of this problem and it's affect on voting. Carol said: "I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a cc-submitted voter list. But, I think the plan needs to address the objections and problems that have already been voiced about the system. Can you modify the plan so that the problems are eliminated?" Holly: calling all wordsmiths etc... let's see if we can come up with a plan for this part of the voter list thing that not only is fair all the way around but doesn't sound as if it is accusing anyone of not being trustworthy, caring etc. It is not always what is actually said that is most important, but how it is said. From the EC Report: "Numerous votes were received in the regional races from members who didn't qualify for a vote in that region. Instructions should have been included on the ballots instructing members without a county in one of the XXGenWebs in that region not to use that ballot." Holly: I think better communication with the ballots and on the voting page (or whatever exact method is used) would deal with this. The last elections pages were not at all clear as to what one ought to do and the emails with the vote ID's gave no significant instructions. Good instructions on voting procedure with the ballot information ( the email with vote ID's etc) and again on the actual voting location. With the kind of voter roll we have been talking about it should not be difficult to specifically say to each voter exactly what races they are eligible to vote in. Chip: "I thought the idea of vote numerous times your last vote counts was flawed. First it opens the door for fraud. Second it causes more work. When we go to the polls this fall to vote for a president we vote once. We can't go back an hour later and vote again because we changed our minds." Holly: This has been an available option from the first election on I think and due to the one month length of time for voting, I am not sure it compares readily to presidential elections. Points of agreement (at least a majority I think): 1) There should be a standing election committee year round. Holly: Not settled is it's composition, means of formation nor if it should be the full committee or a basic staff necessary for year round work which would take on additional members at actual election times. 2) One person one vote --- but nearly all of us I think agree this means one vote for NC, one vote for Rep-At-Large, and one vote in EACH region one has counties in (also one vote for an SP Rep if they are active in an SP). EC Report (I think) said: Particular emphasis should be made regarding the number of cc's, co-cc's per county or state level special project to be eligible to vote. Holly: We also seem to be in agreement that per the bylaws we can not at this time limit the number of CC's per county who are eligible to vote although perhaps we can suggest this be considered. Certainly it has been traditionally limited to 2 or 3 I think. 3) We are agreed I think that good standing or lack of it does not affect one's right to vote, only one's ability to run for office (per the Bylaws). 4) A fair impartial secure system of voting must be determined. We might have agreement on most of the requirements for such a system and I don't think it is necessary for us to actually recommend a specific system. We do need I think to vote on whether this should be an in house USGenWeb program/software or an outside one. 5) Contacting periodically all eligible voters is agreed upon and although we have something of a split on whether or not it should be by subscribing everybody to a mail list or directly by using the voter rolls, the strongest opinions and viewpoints seem to be that there should not be a mail list, it should be direct and I did not detect any strong insistence on using a mail list instead. Linda's comments on this summed it up well: "I believe the final outcome of the discussion was to use the voter's (membership list) and send individual e-mails to everyone. It being more personal, more likely to be read than another e-list" Holly: I am in complete agreement with this 6) Special project elections - we are agreed that per the bylaws, the EC should be managing the SP elections for Board Representative. 7) The Board report refers to *absolute confidentiality* of the voter rolls, even year round ones and I think we are in basic agreement on this issue but some seem to feel that an accessible list would not be *unconfidential* but several of us think strongly that it would be a breach of privacy and subject to possible abuse (spamming, snooping, and use by candidates to bombard or spam voters). Holly: I think that we should err (if error it is) on the side of caution and respect and that any method that makes the voter rolls available as a list to anyone who happens by is to be avoided. That perhaps we should simply recommend a database and a means by which any CC can check their status as well as a list for their state only sent to SC's for verification and so that an SC will know if someone who should be there has been left off. Further on the SC issue... the closest we have come on this list to *war* has been between those who feel there are SC's that perhaps purposely manipulate and control election access with their CC's and those (including those of us who are SC's) that think that it is primarily the SC's judgement as to who is or is not actually part of a state project. I don't think there is a single SC on this committee who thinks there should be NO method for a CC to check their own status directly but there was also the feeling that some felt it was up to the CC to say whether or not they were part of a state, something any SC would probably have a problem with. As we got into this, I think we had some misunderstandings and some lack of clarity on this in which at times it felt to both sides of this issue that the other side was being a bit heavy handed. having said that, I also do not think we are actually so far apart that we can not find a middle ground. Logistically speaking, the SC is the frontline... the main source for information and verification of who is or is not a part of a state in an eligible position to vote but they need not be the sole avenue if there is a means for any individual to check their status directly and make contact with the EC about their omission at which point the EC should contact the SC for clarification to what most probably will be a case of either accidnetal omission, unreported change or, misunderstanding by the individual as to who is eligible (a transcriber for example, believing they are eligible, or a Archives FM thinking they can vote regionally by virtue of the state they FM). Chip: "Frankly people, I see the exact same division on this committee that I see in the project. That side and this side. After this I won't be in favor with either side. But when it's all said and done and these transcripts are leaked to the membership (and they will be), the CC's, SC's, SP's, ASC's etc, will see at least I stood up and said enough is enough." There had better NEVER be any leaking of what was said here on this list as we studied the election procedure and prepared our report for public digestion and AB perusal. As far as I am concerned, our freedom to speak our minds here without any thought of microscopes and outside critique now or in the future was essential to our being able to do this well. No, there won't be anything I can do to anyone who does *leak* what was said here except never trust that person again but it is not something I expect of any of you here. Okay... timeout is over and hugs for everybody Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 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 VAA22243 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:53 -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 VAA28351 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0B71D3C24C; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r16.mail.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461933C242 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.5b.c85bc1d (7878) for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:42 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <5b.c85bc1d.27190d0a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:42 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123 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 10/12/00 7:01:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: > Pull up a comfy chair, a plate of your favorite snack (and for you smokers, a clean > ashtray and a full pack of cigs).... Okay, pistachio ice cream, coffee ... and after desert.. okay a cigarette... :-))) > I happily invite any of you who wish to (and others who might > like to be included) to work together to try to resolve some of the other > issues but NOT until we turn in our report Sign me up.. I really would like the project to all work together. USGenWeb is awesome, and it is my humble opinion, this committee being an example, we have a group of individuals that truly believe in the mission and goals, and need to just work together as we all are doing to bring consensus and compromise to a very much growing and wonderful project. Enough said.. :-))) > Chip brought up a more or less unaddressed issue, sort of: > "We should advise the AB to define good standing and to implement standard > consequences for infractions. We should also advise them to apply this > standard to everyone regardless of their position. In fact, those in power > probably should be held to a higher standard. Since this part did play a > role in the election I think it's within our jurisdiction to reccommend on > it." > Holly>>> We all pretty much agreed that good standing was not any of the > EC's business BUT, this was in regards to the voting and voters lists... we > have almost completely missed discussing the nominations phase (no > accusations there, I missed it in the agenda even) and "good standing" does > relate to nominations. Since we have not discussed this, the following is > purely my thoughts on the matter: In the nominations phase, I still do not > think judging good standing is within the EC's domain to judge. Either a > person has already been declared not in good standing and is thsu > ineligible for nomination or they have not. Once nominated, anyone, > including the AB, or any individual member of USGenWeb may question > someone's good standing but I feel strongly that this is an AB matter to > determine in the final regard although perhaps an SC could declare a CC not > in good standing (I know I have a couple who aren't technically per the > Bylaws which say: "In good standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly > to email, actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information, > maintaining their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving > as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project." I ponder what has been said above.. and for the life of me, I can't come up with a viable solution. I have, as many of you know, been involved in the issue of "not in good standing". At the time of my involvement, I felt very strongly, that a blatant demonstration to visitors of USGenWeb politics, (for lack of a better word); very much went against the mission and goals of the USGenWeb Project. In my assumption, I learned that I overstepped. I now feel that.. perhaps it is a decision to be made together with SC's , fellow CC's, and the AB. > Quoting from the EC Report: > "The cooperativeness of some State Coordinators was less than desirable > regarding the submission of voter lists to the EC. Delays created a very > compressed time frame for creating the master and regional lists. The > regional EC members only had about 48 hours to e-mail Voter ID's to members > then had to resolve an approximate 3% bounce rate." > > Holly: I think this issue would pretty much not be a problem with a year > round maintenance of voter lists including the periodic mass emailings that > would catch the bounces with more time to resolve them. Many of you have > brought up the perceived problem with uncooperative SC's which I think > boils down to slow and unresponsive on the whole rather than uncooperative > which smacks of deliberate intent. Again, the year round maintenance of > voter rolls should pretty much deal with 98% of this problem and it's > affect on voting. Agreed. > Carol said: > "I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a cc-submitted voter list. But, I > think the plan needs to address the objections and problems that have > already been voiced about the system. Can you modify the plan so that the > problems are eliminated?" > > Holly: calling all wordsmiths etc... let's see if we can come up with a > plan for this part of the voter list thing that not only is fair all the > way around but doesn't sound as if it is accusing anyone of not being > trustworthy, caring etc. It is not always what is actually said that is > most important, but how it is said. The ESC recommends that every effort be made to involve all eligible volunteers in the maintenance of a national voter database. It is felt that membership can be managed, whether it be individually, or statewide in this fashion, and that information will be current for future elections. This is encouraged to facilitate the widest possible involvement and participation in the election process, and to give all interested in the election process the ability personally to be involved in the required by the SEC. > > From the EC Report: > "Numerous votes were received in the regional races from members who didn't > qualify for a vote in that region. Instructions should have been included > on the ballots instructing members without a county in one of the XXGenWebs > in that region not to use that ballot." > > Holly: I think better communication with the ballots and on the voting page > (or whatever exact method is used) would deal with this. The last elections > pages were not at all clear as to what one ought to do and the emails with > the vote ID's gave no significant instructions. Good instructions on voting > procedure with the ballot information ( the email with vote ID's etc) and > again on the actual voting location. With the kind of voter roll we have > been talking about it should not be difficult to specifically say to each > voter exactly what races they are eligible to vote in. Agreed. > > Chip: > "I thought the idea of vote numerous times your last vote counts was > flawed. First it opens the door for fraud. Second it causes more work. When > we go to the polls this fall to vote for a president we vote once. We can't > go back an hour later and vote again because we changed our minds." > > Holly: This has been an available option from the first election on I think > and due to the one month length of time for voting, I am not sure it > compares readily to presidential elections. Question: Is the nomination and voting period to long? > Points of agreement (at least a majority I think): > > 1) There should be a standing election committee year round. Agreed. > Holly: Not settled is it's composition, means of formation nor if it should > be the full committee or a basic staff necessary for year round work which > would take on additional members at actual election times. See my note above. > 2) One person one vote --- but nearly all of us I think agree this means > one vote for NC, one vote for Rep-At-Large, and one vote in EACH region one > has counties in (also one vote for an SP Rep if they are active in an SP). Agreed. > EC Report (I think) said: Particular emphasis should be made regarding the > number of cc's, co-cc's > per county or state level special project to be eligible to vote. > > Holly: We also seem to be in agreement that per the bylaws we can not at > this time limit the number of CC's per county who are eligible to vote > although perhaps we can suggest this be considered. Certainly it has been > traditionally limited to 2 or 3 I think. Agreed. > 3) We are agreed I think that good standing or lack of it does not affect > one's right to vote, only one's ability to run for office (per the Bylaws). Agreed to a point, read my concerns above.. > 4) A fair impartial secure system of voting must be determined. We might > have agreement on most of the requirements for such a system and I don't > think it is necessary for us to actually recommend a specific system. We do > need I think to vote on whether this should be an in house USGenWeb > program/software or an outside one. Linda and Chip did a terrific job of presenting the requirements of such a system. I would hope that the elements that they designed and articulated be presented and taken into consideration in either the research and or design of an in-house application. > 5) Contacting periodically all eligible voters is agreed upon and although > we have something of a split on whether or not it should be by subscribing > everybody to a mail list or directly by using the voter rolls, the > strongest opinions and viewpoints seem to be that there should not be a > mail list, it should be direct and I did not detect any strong insistence > on using a mail list instead. > > Linda's comments on this summed it up well: > "I believe the final outcome of the discussion was to use the voter's > (membership list) and send individual e-mails to everyone. It being more > personal, more likely to be read than another e-list" > > Holly: I am in complete agreement with this Me too. > 6) Special project elections - we are agreed that per the bylaws, the EC > should be managing the SP elections for Board Representative. Agreed. > Okay... timeout is over > > and hugs for everybody > Holly Hugs Holly, and thanks for an awesome summation! Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 19:44:33 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 TAA15850 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:44:33 -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 TAA17173 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E70F93C24D; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:44:31 -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 73D623C1C3 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.7c.c2792ab (7878) for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:43:10 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:43:10 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123 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 10/13/00 7:16:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, merope@Radix.Net writes: > How detailed should we get with this? I would think a Chair, a secretary, > and perhaps 2 members per region and 2 for the Special Projects would be > enough for basic maintenance, and then more can be taken on as needed for > elections. Playing devil's advocate, I have yet to make up my mind on this. General question to all.. What safeguards, (if any), would be in place for those members of the committee added at election time, from facing possible criticism, and doubt of the project, just by their late periodic involvement in the election process? I am leaning towards ... the entire committee being put in place, and roles as needed, invoked, but all be actively involved in the entire term of the committee. Am I dreaming a potential problem? Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 13 19:54:14 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 TAA16544 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:54:13 -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 TAA18380 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CF7D53C248; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:54:11 -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 D9DFB3C1C5 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (208-149-44-181.dial-up.ipa.net [208.149.44.181]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA20568 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:54:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000d01c03570$8052e760$b52c95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:51:11 -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: also playing devil's advocate: wouldn't people who are suspicious just think that the entire full-time staff just had more time to work out how to vote tamper? To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > In a message dated 10/13/00 7:16:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > merope@Radix.Net writes: > > > How detailed should we get with this? I would think a Chair, a secretary, > > and perhaps 2 members per region and 2 for the Special Projects would be > > enough for basic maintenance, and then more can be taken on as needed for > > elections. > > > Playing devil's advocate, I have yet to make up my mind on this. > General question to all.. > > What safeguards, (if any), would be in place for those members of the > committee added at election time, from facing possible criticism, and > doubt of the project, just by their late periodic involvement in the > election process? > > I am leaning towards ... the entire committee being put in > place, and roles as needed, invoked, but all be actively involved > in the entire term of the committee. > > Am I dreaming a potential problem? > > 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 Oct 14 08:31:44 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 IAA03931 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:43 -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 IAA27420 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 30F7D3C28B; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B923C27F for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust159.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.159]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA11129 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006c01c035da$a19c6da0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:02:46 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 agree with Tina. I think it would be better if the entire committee is appointed at one time. Reasons For: There will always be people who find themselves unable to participate fully for awhile for one reason or another. This wouldn't be a problem if the committee was fully "staffed" from the beginning. All committee members would be familiar with what is to be done and how it is to be done rather than taking new people on close to an election and having to get them up to speed. It would eliminate new people questioning why/how things are done, etc. etc. If someone on the committee decides to run for office and resigns from the committee it wouldn't be a mad scramble trying to find a replacement - most likely a replacement wouldn't be needed if the full committee is in place from the beginning. If there were objections to any committee member the issue could be resolved well before any election. Problems with: I can't come up with any problems unless it would be if several members decided to run for office and left too many places vacant. I would like to see this committee make a recommendation for the size and make-up of the full SEC committee. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > In a message dated 10/13/00 7:16:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > merope@Radix.Net writes: > > > How detailed should we get with this? I would think a Chair, a secretary, > > and perhaps 2 members per region and 2 for the Special Projects would be > > enough for basic maintenance, and then more can be taken on as needed for > > elections. > > > Playing devil's advocate, I have yet to make up my mind on this. > General question to all.. > > What safeguards, (if any), would be in place for those members of the > committee added at election time, from facing possible criticism, and > doubt of the project, just by their late periodic involvement in the > election process? > > I am leaning towards ... the entire committee being put in > place, and roles as needed, invoked, but all be actively involved > in the entire term of the committee. > > Am I dreaming a potential problem? > > 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 Oct 14 08:31:45 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 IAA03936 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:45 -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 IAA27425 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A43D53C297; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61833C296 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust159.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.159]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA31395 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006d01c035da$a3386a60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> <000d01c03570$8052e760$b52c95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:09:21 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 think that no matter what the SEC does there will be people who will be in an uproar about "vote tampering". I'd like to see one position of the SEC be a PR person who's job it would be to keep everyone informed of what's going on and try to answer / address the suspicious minds. No matter what the SEC does or does not do they will not satisfy everyone, but good communication will certainly go a long way toward making the majority of volunteers comfortable with the voters list and voter software. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > also playing devil's advocate: > wouldn't people who are suspicious just think that the entire full-time > staff just had more time to work out how to vote tamper? way, just saying that if a person is suspicious, they'll find a reason to be > suspicious). > > Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 08:44:55 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 IAA04571 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:54 -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 IAA28589 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C580F3C28B; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:53 -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 05BA73C17D for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.3d.2246fda (4189) for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:45 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <3d.2246fda.2719af3d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:44:45 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 102 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 10/14/2000 5:31:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lhaasdav@mindspring.com writes: << I think that no matter what the SEC does there will be people who will be in an uproar about "vote tampering". I'd like to see one position of the SEC be a PR person who's job it would be to keep everyone informed of what's going on and try to answer / address the suspicious minds. No matter what the SEC does or does not do they will not satisfy everyone, but good communication will certainly go a long way toward making the majority of volunteers comfortable with the voters list and voter software. Linda >> I agree. It might be a very good idea to have a PR person. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 08:46:07 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 IAA04725 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:46:06 -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 IAA28786 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 96FC83C28B; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:46:05 -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 DD8963C17D for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.46]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001014124603.YMJS425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:46:03 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001014084427.030e94b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:52:00 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] committee formation In-Reply-To: <006c01c035da$a19c6da0$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@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: At 07:02 AM 10/14/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >I would like to see this committee make a recommendation for the size and >make-up of the full SEC committee. It is difficult to tell how many would actually be needed and I should think this might depend some what on the final voting method chosen etc. Perhaps we should recommend a minimum standing committee but without setting a final number leaving the door open for sizing it appropriately for teh duties. I would suggest we say two for each region and two for overall (national) which makes 8 OR maybe two more for the SP's if that *recommendation* passes... one is elected as chair and chair's don't generally have a vote UNLESS there is a tie so normal voting strength would be an odd number. And then say that the committee may be augmented as needed... something along those lines > > > How detailed should we get with this? I would think a Chair, a >secretary, > > > and perhaps 2 members per region and 2 for the Special Projects would >be > > > enough for basic maintenance, and then more can be taken on as needed >for > > > elections. > > > > > > Playing devil's advocate, I have yet to make up my mind on this. > > General question to all.. > > > > What safeguards, (if any), would be in place for those members of the > > committee added at election time, from facing possible criticism, and > > doubt of the project, just by their late periodic involvement in the > > election process? > > > > I am leaning towards ... the entire committee being put in > > place, and roles as needed, invoked, but all be actively involved > > in the entire term of the committee. > > > > Am I dreaming a potential problem? > > > > 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 Oct 14 09:09:44 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 JAA06142 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:43 -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 JAA01219 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AC7DA3C1A6; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:42 -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 18BEB3C19B for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.a2.ab52a5e (4189) for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:37 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:09:37 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] communication To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 102 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 10/14/2000 6:02:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << Perhaps the second of the two overall positions I suggested should be a secretary or communications liasion (Tina I think also mentioned this) who would handle incoming mail and forward or redirect appropriately to the right committee member. Also, along the lines of PR/communication... I think I left out in my long one that I think perhaps the committee should have a web site... a page that says who to contact about what (by region or problem type or whatever) and announce such things as when a mailing was sent out to everyone so people could see that they should have received something and didn't etc... okay, that is put sort of roughly but I am just on my first cup of coffee here this morning... Holly >> Keep drinking that coffee and wake the brain up more Holly. I love your ideas even better! I think all of these are very good. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 09:02:08 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 JAA05769 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:02:08 -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 JAA00567 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 204653C19B; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:02:07 -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 3BAA63C296 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.46]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001014130205.YSEO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:02:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001014090415.00becdd0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:08:01 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] communication In-Reply-To: <006d01c035da$a3386a60$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> <000d01c03570$8052e760$b52c95d0@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 07:09 AM 10/14/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >I think that no matter what the SEC does there will be people who will be in >an uproar about "vote tampering". I'd like to see one position of the SEC be >a PR person who's job it would be to keep everyone informed of what's going >on and try to answer / address the suspicious minds. No matter what the SEC >does or does not do they will not satisfy everyone, but good communication >will certainly go a long way toward making the majority of volunteers >comfortable with the voters list and voter software. Perhaps the second of the two overall positions I suggested should be a secretary or communications liasion (Tina I think also mentioned this) who would handle incoming mail and forward or redirect appropriately to the right committee member. Also, along the lines of PR/communication... I think I left out in my long one that I think perhaps the committee should have a web site... a page that says who to contact about what (by region or problem type or whatever) and announce such things as when a mailing was sent out to everyone so people could see that they should have received something and didn't etc... okay, that is put sort of roughly but I am just on my first cup of coffee here this morning... Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 10:54:24 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 KAA13143 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:54:23 -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 KAA11250 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3EF733C27B; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224FC3C17A for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp12-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.28]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20001 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:54:10 -0500 Message-ID: <010901c035ee$7110f840$84b3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> <000d01c03570$8052e760$b52c95d0@youda> <006d01c035da$a3386a60$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:52:12 -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: Linda, That is really a great idea. One of the problems with the EC this year (IMO, anyway), was this: We had agreed that the chairman would be the "spokesperson" for the EC, and that the rest of us would defer to him in answering questions/concerns. The problem was that, for whatever reason, he wasn't answering. The silence in response to questions and concerns only added to the perception of . . . . aloofness? smugness? We should definately recommend that a SEC have *someone* whose job it is to answer questions and keep the membership up to speed on what the SEC is doing. Help the SEC be perceived as accessible and responsive. Shari ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Haas Davenport To: Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > I think that no matter what the SEC does there will be people who will be in > an uproar about "vote tampering". I'd like to see one position of the SEC be > a PR person who's job it would be to keep everyone informed of what's going > on and try to answer / address the suspicious minds. No matter what the SEC > does or does not do they will not satisfy everyone, but good communication > will certainly go a long way toward making the majority of volunteers > comfortable with the voters list and voter software. > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carol > To: > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:51 PM > Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > > > > also playing devil's advocate: > > wouldn't people who are suspicious just think that the entire full-time > > staff just had more time to work out how to vote tamper? either > > way, just saying that if a person is suspicious, they'll find a reason to > be > > suspicious). > > > > 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 Sat Oct 14 13:41:46 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 NAA27733 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:41:46 -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 NAA27996 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6E3453C166; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:41:44 -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 78A5F3C161 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [134.84.252.3] by mhub3.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:39:09 -0500 Message-Id: <002701c03604$c8dbf000$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <7c.c2792ab.2718f80e@aol.com> <000d01c03570$8052e760$b52c95d0@youda> <006d01c035da$a3386a60$0200a8c0@Linda> <010901c035ee$7110f840$84b3f5d0@computer> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:32:52 -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 agree as well with the PR or communication person. I also agree with Shari's perceptions of what happened this year. Communication was one of the biggest problems. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Shari Handley To: Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > Linda, > > That is really a great idea. One of the problems with the EC this year (IMO, anyway), was this: We had agreed that the > chairman would be the "spokesperson" for the EC, and that the rest of us would defer to him in answering > questions/concerns. The problem was that, for whatever reason, he wasn't answering. The silence in response to > questions and concerns only added to the perception of . . . . aloofness? smugness? > > We should definately recommend that a SEC have *someone* whose job it is to answer questions and keep the membership up > to speed on what the SEC is doing. Help the SEC be perceived as accessible and responsive. > > Shari > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Linda Haas Davenport > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 8:09 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > > > > I think that no matter what the SEC does there will be people who will be in > > an uproar about "vote tampering". I'd like to see one position of the SEC be > > a PR person who's job it would be to keep everyone informed of what's going > > on and try to answer / address the suspicious minds. No matter what the SEC > > does or does not do they will not satisfy everyone, but good communication > > will certainly go a long way toward making the majority of volunteers > > comfortable with the voters list and voter software. > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Carol > > To: > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 6:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > > > > > > > also playing devil's advocate: > > > wouldn't people who are suspicious just think that the entire full-time > > > staff just had more time to work out how to vote tamper? > either > > > way, just saying that if a person is suspicious, they'll find a reason to > > be > > > suspicious). > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 14:36:11 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 OAA01025 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:10 -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 OAA03024 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A0EC03C166; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:08 -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 DF9DC3C163 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Morom01@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.c6.be8d0cd (660) for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Morom01@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:36:01 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 109 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Congratulations and Comment 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: Congratulations folks, now we're back on topic and discussing real issues, keep it up and we might get somewhere. I STRONGLY support Linda's and someone before her, idea about a PR person, it's very needed, and not just for elections, but by the whole project. I can't believe we're not submitting press releases to publications. Chip _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 16:35:11 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 QAA08158 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:35:10 -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 QAA13988 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1E2283C296; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:35:09 -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 2FE2A3C18E for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-61.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.61]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA17605 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:35:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002d01c0361d$db673720$3d2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:30:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Perhaps with the recommendation of a website, that we recommend a webpage of FAQs be maintained. If someone wrote with a question, answering that question to the person, plus posting the question (minus identifying info about the sender) to a FAQs page would help. Usually if one person asked the question, there are usually others with the same question, so a FAQs would even cut down on the workload of the PR/Communications person. And, it would prevent different answers to the same question. The only exception to posting a question on the FAQs page would be for specific complaints about specific situations, such as, "My SC is trying to keep me from voting," or other similar messages. Just a thought to address the problem mentioned below. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Shari Handley wrote: > > > Linda, > > > > That is really a great idea. One of the problems with the EC this year > (IMO, anyway), was this: We had agreed that the > > chairman would be the "spokesperson" for the EC, and that the rest of > us would defer to him in answering > > questions/concerns. The problem was that, for whatever reason, he > wasn't answering. The silence in response to > > questions and concerns only added to the perception of . . . . > aloofness? smugness? > > > > Your Chairman was answering. He was answering public queries and asking > the people to whom he responded to keep the answers confidential. > Interestingly enough, I more than once got a different answer from your > Chairman than I got from other committee members that I asked. > > Why? Who knows? Whatever the reason, the perception that the business of > this project has to be done in secret, no matter what it is, really has to > stop if you want people to think you are not aloof, smug, plotting, > whatever. > > > We should definately recommend that a SEC have *someone* whose job it > is to answer questions and keep the membership up > > to speed on what the SEC is doing. Help the SEC be perceived as > accessible and responsive. > > > > Agreed. > > -Teresa > > > Shari > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 14 17:24:51 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 RAA11399 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:24:50 -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 RAA18503 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:24:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 30C1B3C195; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from bob.propagation.net (unknown [63.249.193.1]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACEEF3C171 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from computer (ppp20-rch.klondyke.net [208.245.179.36]) by bob.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08784 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:24:40 -0500 Message-ID: <018201c03624$ed201840$84b3f5d0@computer> From: "Shari Handley" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:16:17 -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: > merope wrote: > > Your Chairman was answering. He was answering public queries and asking > the people to whom he responded to keep the answers confidential. > Interestingly enough, I more than once got a different answer from your > Chairman than I got from other committee members that I asked. I was not aware that he was doing that. > > Why? Who knows? Whatever the reason, the perception that the business of > this project has to be done in secret, no matter what it is, really has to > stop if you want people to think you are not aloof, smug, plotting, > whatever. I agree. We were trying hard within the group to get things more out in the open. The other EC members will vouch for that. Shari _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 14 18:35:47 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 SAA17815 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:35:46 -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 SAA25348 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B41CE3C1D5; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:35:45 -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 B8B413C1D1 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.252.158] by mhub2.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:35:42 -0500 Message-Id: <002b01c0362e$36f07e20$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <018201c03624$ed201840$84b3f5d0@computer> Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:29:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 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: Shari is correct. Many of us wanted much quicker and more open responses to questions. We needed better communication within the committee and from the committee to the project. I did not realize the chairman was responding, either. Again, we had poor communication both within the cmte and from the cmte to the project. Jerimiah ----- Original Message ----- From: Shari Handley To: Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one > > > merope wrote: > > > > Your Chairman was answering. He was answering public queries and asking > > the people to whom he responded to keep the answers confidential. > > Interestingly enough, I more than once got a different answer from your > > Chairman than I got from other committee members that I asked. > > I was not aware that he was doing that. > > > > > Why? Who knows? Whatever the reason, the perception that the business of > > this project has to be done in secret, no matter what it is, really has to > > stop if you want people to think you are not aloof, smug, plotting, > > whatever. > > I agree. We were trying hard within the group to get things more out in the open. The other EC members will vouch for > that. > > Shari > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 14 18:51:11 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 SAA19372 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:10 -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 SAA26909 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B048F3C1D5; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49D43C1D1 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.57.c48471d (4594) for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:04 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: <57.c48471d.271a3d58@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:04 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] probably a long one To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123 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 10/14/00 6:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, moer0020@tc.umn.edu writes: > Shari is correct. Many of us wanted much quicker and more open responses to > questions. We needed better communication within the committee and from the > committee to the project. I did not realize the chairman was responding, > either. Again, we had poor communication both within the cmte and from the > cmte to the project. > Jerimiah Ditto, from me. Much better communication is needed to the project. I would agree that that was the largest frustration within the committee and within the election process this past year. Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Mon Oct 16 19:53:26 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 TAA14717 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:53:25 -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 TAA22222 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A7A173C12F; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:53:22 -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 94B5E3C166 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.230]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001016235320.DFAY425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:53:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001016195820.00bad9c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:59:18 -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] the report 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... now comes the hard part... and not so fun writing the report... anyone want to take a stab at an outline... not our recommendations but an outline of what order to cover everything.. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 17 00:22:22 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 AAA06811 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:22:21 -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 AAA29339 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C74463C131; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:22:19 -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 AD8983C127 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.101.254.54] by mhub1.tc.umn.edu for esc@pairlist.net; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:22:17 -0500 Message-Id: <000401c037f0$f53f02c0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: References: <57.c48471d.271a3d58@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:39:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Test 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 haven't received any mail for a couple days from everyone. Just checking to see if you all are still here or if I'm gone! Jerimiah _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Tue Oct 17 00:38:04 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 AAA08275 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:38:03 -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 AAA01155 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 478053C18E; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:38:02 -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 9C4E33C127 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phays (user-38lc165.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.4.197]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA03200 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <023a01c037f4$4ebf9460$9dc9aec7@phays> From: "Patrick Hays" To: References: <57.c48471d.271a3d58@aol.com> <000401c037f0$f53f02c0$23885ea0@tc.umn.edu> Subject: Re: [ESC] Test Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:39:57 -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 in and out in the process of moving. Either way I should be able to check this e-mail address without my own computer. I will not be stable again until the 28th or so of October. That's why I haven't said much. If I disagree with something, trust me, you'll know. Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerimiah Moerke" To: Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 5:39 AM Subject: [ESC] Test > I haven't received any mail for a couple days from everyone. Just checking > to see if you all are still here or if I'm gone! > Jerimiah > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Oct 17 07:06:59 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 HAA04570 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:06:59 -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 HAA06906 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1BBFC3C14B; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:06:57 -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 5F1603C12F for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.8]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001017110655.TCJE425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:06:55 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001017065855.00bcd5c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:12:56 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] the report In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001016195820.00bad9c0@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: okay... let's start enlarging on this (thanks Teresa) At 09:09 PM 10/16/00 -0400, merope wrote: >I. Brief statement of formation of the committee and its charge, >operating procedures and philosophy, goals > >II. Brief overview of problems with previous elections; cite election >committee report where needed > >III. Recommendations some minor alterations made to the below >A. Standing committee > 1. Composition of the committee > 2. Method of forming the committee > 3. Tenure of the Committee >B. Duties of the committee > 1. scope [which elections it handles, regional, special projects, > special > elections, any elections which may be required by future bylaws > revisions > 2. Maintenance of voter rolls > 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees > 4. Election mechanism, software > 5. PR/communication perhaps nominees should be a separate item under Duties? >C. Things which are not the duty of the committee > 1. "Good standing" > >IV. Minority opinions [if any] > >V. Summary blurb > >Signatures > >Individual statements if needed I think all should sign and any dissenting statements should be part of minority opinions but let's not get ahead of ourselves... whatever needs to be in minority opinions will show up as we write the report, don;t decide now what's minority >[I feel that if any one of the committee refuses to "sign" the report, >they should be allowed to add a brief official statement as to why. I >don't get the sense that any of us is extremely displeased with the >proceedings, but if someone feels strongly enough it about they ought to >be able to say their piece as part of the official record. These could >alternatively be included under minority opinions.] > >Have I left anything out? > >-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 Thu Oct 19 17:58:58 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 RAA12724 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:53 -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 RAA12128 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A771C3C194; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:50 -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 C00133C12E for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.17]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001019215848.ENTP425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001019180137.00a9b2c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:04:51 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001017065855.00bcd5c0@mail.bright.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001016195820.00bad9c0@mail.bright.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] mini-tantrum 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 everybody.... let's get this report off the ground... if I write it, then it is what I have to say, not the committee's report any more and that I do NOT want.... we do have a deadline staring us in the face "Either the 12th or the 15th could be considered our *creation date* making either October 24th or 27th our final deadline." Please start slotting into the outline below the thoughts, ideas and decisions from our discussions. We don;t need to have polished words just yet... just fleshing out the outline. oh... another thought, I think minority opinions on points in the report should be included in the section addressed, not lumped together at the end. Holly At 07:12 AM 10/17/00 -0500, Holly Timm wrote: >okay... let's start enlarging on this (thanks Teresa) > >At 09:09 PM 10/16/00 -0400, merope wrote: >>I. Brief statement of formation of the committee and its charge, >>operating procedures and philosophy, goals >> >>II. Brief overview of problems with previous elections; cite election >>committee report where needed >> >>III. Recommendations > >some minor alterations made to the below > > >>A. Standing committee >> 1. Composition of the committee >> 2. Method of forming the committee >> 3. Tenure of the Committee >>B. Duties of the committee >> 1. scope [which elections it handles, regional, special >> projects, special >> elections, any elections which may be required by future bylaws >> revisions >> 2. Maintenance of voter rolls >> 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees >> 4. Election mechanism, software >> 5. PR/communication > >perhaps nominees should be a separate item under Duties? > >>C. Things which are not the duty of the committee >> 1. "Good standing" >> >>IV. Minority opinions [if any] >> >>V. Summary blurb >> >>Signatures >> >>Individual statements if needed > >I think all should sign and any dissenting statements should be part >of minority opinions but let's not get ahead of ourselves... whatever >needs to be in minority opinions will show up as we write the report, >don;t decide now what's minority > > >>[I feel that if any one of the committee refuses to "sign" the report, >>they should be allowed to add a brief official statement as to why. I >>don't get the sense that any of us is extremely displeased with the >>proceedings, but if someone feels strongly enough it about they ought to >>be able to say their piece as part of the official record. These could >>alternatively be included under minority opinions.] >> >>Have I left anything out? >> >>-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 Thu Oct 19 18:46:32 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 SAA18785 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:31 -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 SAA20620 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8471E3C232; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r02.mail.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6F43C125 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TVick65536@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.dd.b0d7f4f (7879) for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:03 -0400 (EDT) From: TVick65536@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:46:03 EDT To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Outline Item I. Formation, Charge, Procedures, Philosophy & Goals 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. Brief statement of formation of the committee and its charge, >>operating procedures and philosophy, goals I made the motion for the creation of the committee, and can speak to this outline issue. ***** >>I. Brief statement of formation of the committee and its charge, >>operating procedures and philosophy, goals I made the motion for the creation of the committee, and can speak to this outline issue. I move that the USGenWeb Advisory Board appoint a special committee, the Election Study Committee, to study and make recommendations about the election process within the USGenWeb Project. Said committee will consist of: 5 Advisory Board members ~ Proposed members of the committee are Holly Timm - Representative-At-Large (chair); Ellen Pack - Southeast / Mid- Atlantic CC Rep., Betsy Mills, Southwest / South Central SC Rep.; Tina Vickery, Northeast / North Central CC Rep., and Shari Handley, Southeast/Mid-Atlantic SC Rep. 5 State Coordinators; 10 County Coordinators; National Coordinator ~ ex-officio. The remaining members of the committee, (SC's and CC's), will be chosen by the Board Representative members of said Election Study Committee from a broad spectrum of individuals and viewpoints represented within the project. Said committee is charged to discuss and make recommendations to the Board on: 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. Said Election Study Committee would report to the USGenWeb Advisory Board and the USGenWeb Project membership no later than 6 weeks from creation. The recommendation report will be posted to the BOARD-L mailing list, as well as the STATE-COORD-L mailing list, and to the four regional lists for dissemination to each state XXGenWeb Project mailing lists. Tina Vickery Northeast / North Central CC Rep. *** Members of the Election Study Committee: State Coordinators: Nathan Zipfel, Linda Mason, Carol Haagensen, Patrick Hays, Mary Ann Hetrick County Coordinators: Robert Sullivan, Connie Bates, Jerimiah Moerke, John McCoy, Esther Frye, Chip Brown, Carol Carwile-Head, Teresa Lindquist, Bob Chada, Linda Haas Davenport. Advisory Board: Holly Timm (chairman), Ellen Pack, Betsy Mills, Tina Vickery, and Shari Handley. Tim Stowell, ex-officio *** Can we expand/include the operating procedure, philosophy and goals? Tina _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:33:30 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 UAA09859 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:29 -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 UAA08498 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 046603C3D2; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:12 -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 234133C365 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021002456.RSOT425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:24:56 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020202605.05032200@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:31:00 -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] moving forward 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... I'm breaking down the report skeleton that we have so far into sections so we don;t get so huge with comments and thoughts that it becomes confusing... Seven sections follow: Formation of the ESC Overview of past problems Recommendation and philosophy statement Formation of Standing Committee Duties of the Standing EC Mechanism Communications I'll dribble these online as I sort them out... Hope everybody who was away had a good time and is raring to get back to work on finishing this up Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 22:26:25 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 WAA17263 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:26:24 -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 WAA22129 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5BB623C255; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f143.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.143]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467D33C135 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:26:21 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.38 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:26:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.38] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:26:21 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 02:26:21.0589 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D1BE450:01C03B06] 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: My comments are capitalized under the sections below. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Holly Timm Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:06 -0500 Standing committee Teresa: The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. [sound reasonable?] Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we should say so? Esse: I AGREE... > >> 1. Composition of the committee My suggestions, but based on discussion: Chair Secretary/Publicist [this can be one person or two] 2 members per each region, 2 members from the Special Projects [in toto, not each] NC, as ex officio member [this would be 12-13 members, not counting the NC] > >> 2. Method of forming the committee We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. Holly: The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. Esse: TO CHANGE A BYLAW, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A VOTE TAKEN BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT? WOULD THAT BE CALLED A METHOD? > >> 3. Tenure of the Committee Two year terms? With part of the first committee having one years so as to stagger membership and aid in continuity. Chair re-elected each year? If members resign, the EC will be responsible for obtaining replacement volunteers. I would actually recommend that once the first EC is formed, the Board have no further involvement in EC membership. Holly: The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a bylaws change.... thoughts?? Esse: WHY NOT LET THE MEMBERS CHOOSE INSTEAD OF THE BOARD? IT WOULD TAKE SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE BOARD. _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 20 20:33:50 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 UAA09869 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:49 -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 UAA08517 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3E6033C3D4; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:33:13 -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 3B95C3C373 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021002613.RTJL425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:26:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020193655.00b4f610@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:32:18 -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] Section I - Formation of the ESC 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: A FORWARD [Brief statement of formation of the committee and its charge, operating procedures, philosophy, and goals. --- ooops, I moved the operating procedures goals into post #3] Appointed by the USGenWeb Advisory Board as a special committee, the Election Study Committee, was directed to study and make recommendations about the election process within the USGenWeb Project. Said committee consisted of 5 Advisory Board members, 5 State Coordinators, 10 County Coordinators, and the National Coordinator (ex-officio). In the motion creating it, the committee was charged to discuss and make recommendations to the Board on: 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. Said Election Study Committee would report to the USGenWeb Advisory Board and the USGenWeb Project membership no later than 6 weeks from creation. The recommendation report will be posted to the BOARD-L mailing list, as well as the STATE-COORD-L mailing list, and to the four regional lists for dissemination to each state XXGenWeb Project mailing lists." Teresa's comments: But I will add that IMO some of our goals were to institute an election procedure that will be consistent from election to elections, provide accountability, encourage more project members to participate in elections, and provide both the appearance and the reality of political neutrality in the election process. I think we can put the actual committee members at the end of the report, perhaps stating so in the section above saying something like: The members of the committee were purposely chosen from a broad spectrum of individuals and viewpoints represented within the project. There names are appended to the end of this report. (Should we include positions/regions/states/counties?) Members of the Election Study Committee: State Coordinators: Nathan Zipfel, Linda Mason, Carol Haagensen, Patrick Hays, Mary Ann Hetrick County Coordinators: Robert Sullivan, Connie Bates, Jerimiah Moerke, John McCoy, Esther Frye, Chip Brown, Carol Carwile-Head, Teresa Lindquist, Bob Chada, Linda Haas Davenport. Advisory Board: Holly Timm (chairman), Ellen Pack, Betsy Mills, Tina Vickery, and Shari Handley. Tim Stowell, ex-officio _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:38:23 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 UAA10177 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:23 -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 UAA09121 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 72A583C2D9; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:20 -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 4FC033C2D5 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021003818.SAJO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020193912.00cbf1c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:44:23 -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] Recommendation and philosophy statement 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 Recommendations [general statements/summary regarding our results... reference to minority opinions] [our method of operation/philsophy] by general statements I mean saying something about trying to make recommendations that are workable within the current framework if the Bylaws as wlel as suggestions for future Bylaws changes and improvements in the how (for example, the bylaws say the AB appoints the committee which for the moment is how we will have to go but we can and possibly should have additional recommendations for a change in the bylaws to permit the SEC to be chosen in another manner). a reference to minority opinions should simply be a note that not everyone always feels exactly the same about certain issues and minority opinions are included placed appropriately with the issue throughout the report... by our operating procedures, I mean to make a small statement summarizing our privacy *rule* and also include about our election survey... _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:42:40 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 UAA10369 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:39 -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 UAA09640 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6A0C33C178; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:37 -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 510723C125 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021004235.SCUD425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020193803.00ca22c0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:39 -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] Overview of past problems 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 OVERVIEW [Brief overview of problems with previous elections; cite election committee report where needed] Teresa: Noted problems: too short a time frame between seating the committee and the start of the election; concerns with voting mechanism [neutrality, security, privacy]; lack of trust in EC; lack of communication from the EC to the Board and to the project at large; lack of oversight of the EC by the Board or the project; difficulties in getting voter lists; low voter turnout; poorly communicated instructions; unfair response to allegations of "vote packing"; [anything else?] These might be grouped into "technical concerns" and "general concerns" or something like that. Holly: Low voter turnout has been chronic, not just this past election.... perhaps this is the place to make that statement about the cure being worse than the ill in regards to the reaction to possible vote packing although let's try to say things as positively as possible.... i.e., instead of an accusation of poorly communicated instructions, say a need for clearer more explicit instructions... _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:48:07 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 UAA10845 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:07 -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 UAA10421 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 11C883C178; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:05 -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 36A113C125 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021004802.SFRO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:48:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194031.00b4de80@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:06 -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] formation of Standing Committee 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 Standing committee Teresa: The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. [sound reasonable?] Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we should say so? > >> 1. Composition of the committee My suggestions, but based on discussion: Chair Secretary/Publicist [this can be one person or two] 2 members per each region, 2 members from the Special Projects [in toto, not each] NC, as ex officio member [this would be 12-13 members, not counting the NC] > >> 2. Method of forming the committee We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. Holly: The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. > >> 3. Tenure of the Committee Two year terms? With part of the first committee having one years so as to stagger membership and aid in continuity. Chair re-elected each year? If members resign, the EC will be responsible for obtaining replacement volunteers. I would actually recommend that once the first EC is formed, the Board have no further involvement in EC membership. Holly: The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a bylaws change.... thoughts?? _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:51:34 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 UAA10994 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:34 -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 UAA10731 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7C45E3C178; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:32 -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 B50303C125 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021005130.SHSQ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:51:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194159.03d37be0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:34 -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] Duties of the Standing EC 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 Duties of the committee Comments by Teresa: > >> 1. scope [which elections it handles, regional, special projects, special > >> elections, any elections which may be required by future bylaws revisions As listed here. Anything else? > >> 2. Maintenance of voter rolls Recommend as first order of business obtaining the old voter lists from the last election and using it as the base for developing an up to date voter roll. The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter rolls up to date on at least a quarterly basis using whatever methods accomplish that, either by working with SCs, "election personnel" in the states or Special Projects, using online registration, etc.The voter rolls are maintained solely for the purpose of conducting national elections and will be kept entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other parts of the project for any purpose. Holly: I think we had more specifics on this including such items as communications and verification of emails using the voter list (rather than subbing people to yet another mail list) > >> 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees All Project members will be assumed to be eligible to vote unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. We recommend no limitations be placed on voters, per the appropriate section of the bylaws [this means no limits on the number of CCs, ASCs, etc., no cutoff date, etc. If we want to use the "30 days prior" cutoff date, this would be the place to state that] Holly: the 30 days is a reasonable administrative time Teresa: When nominations are made, the EC will be responsible for verifying that the nominees are eligible to run for office, based on the criteria in the bylaws. No other determination of eligibility will be made by the EC, including that of good standing. Nominees shall be assumed to be in good standing unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. We should also include something along the lines that if a voter or nominee challenges a finding that they are ineligible to vote or run for office, the EC will in no circumstances make a ruling on their challenge. The Advisory Board should address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote or run for office in the current election. [should we say that if they do not, the person will be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote or run?] Holly: sounds good _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:54:24 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 UAA11243 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:23 -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 UAA11096 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 692DF3C178; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:22 -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 A8C7F3C125 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021005420.SJFN425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194300.04252850@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:00:25 -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] mechanism 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 > >> 4. Election mechanism, software Teresa We never took a vote on this but going back through the correspondence it looks like more of us prefer an outside, neutral program, such as Votebot. So perhaps we can recommend that the EC form a subcommittee to explore the various options in this area and select a neutral, third-party service by which to conduct all national level elections. They should have 30 days to do this? Longer? Holly: perhaps we should say that they should select a voting service/program which meets the requirements (as you have them below) and that probably an outside service would best meet these requirements at this time (i.e., not quite locking them into it forever) We recommend the service selected be able to: 1.accept votes [more than one per person, with the ability to drop earlier votes] 2. Display appropriate ballots depending on the ID of the person 3. Send a confirmation email once the vote is accepted [date/time stamped, says who they voted for] 4. Count votes 5. Compile vote statistics in a way that the EC can post so that people can verify their votes Additionally, the mechanism should be 1) flexible; 2) reliable; 3) free. Holly: 6. (or maybe added to 4) return results in a short time (24 hours or less???) _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Fri Oct 20 20:57:51 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 UAA11388 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:50 -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 UAA11528 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A1AE03C178; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:49 -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 DD7723C125 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.38]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021005747.SLBY425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:47 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194336.04251210@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:03:51 -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] Communications 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 > >> 5. PR/communication This would be the committee secretary's job, unless you all want the publicist to be a separate position in the committee. Their duties should include quarterly reports to the Board/Project of their activities; special reports after each election; responding to Board and Project members' questions; maintaining a web page Holly: communications is something of an across the board thing for all SEC members in my opinion, they should be communicating with the SC's in their region... dealing with questions from CC's (or any eligible voter) in their region, etc... Web page should have 1. Current Committee roster, assignments, and contact info 2. All EC reports to date available 3. Voter registration page Holly: or means of contact to check one's voter registration (I wasn't sure we had settled on an actual registration online --- I should think email accessibility might suffice, let's not make it too technically difficult for the SEC) 4. Election instructions 5. Links to candidate pages, if an election is underway > > _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 08:38:58 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 IAA23183 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:57 -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 IAA19494 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 533D13C136; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f122.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.122]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF753C12B for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:38:54 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.236 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:38:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.236] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:38:54 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 12:38:54.0876 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFC66DC0:01C03B5B] 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 see what you are saying, thanks! To go on then; To change a by-Law , would we HAVE to wait until July of next year to vote, or could we possibly have a emergency session (so to speak) of voting in a Standing Committee? I have faith in the Board's judgement, but I feel that the project membership must have a say in it, too. Esse ----Original Message Follows---- From: Holly Timm Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:23:52 -0500 > >Esse: WHY NOT LET THE MEMBERS CHOOSE INSTEAD OF THE BOARD? IT WOULD TAKE >SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE BOARD. The members can't choose without a bylaws change... unless you want to wait to have a standing committee until a bylaws amendment changing the method can be passed, the initial appointment of the SEC must be by the AB. I was trying to think of suggestions that would perhaps increase the diversity and yet follow the letter of the present bylaws. _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 21 08:52:10 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 IAA23915 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:09 -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 IAA20873 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3D67D3C136; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:08 -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 9815A3C12B for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.c1.7f39b9d (3865) for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:52:01 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Section I - Formation of the ESC etc To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 125 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 10/20/2000 5:37:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << The members of the committee were purposely chosen from a broad spectrum of individuals and viewpoints represented within the project. There names are appended to the end of this report. (Should we include positions/regions/states/counties?) >> Looks great, but I don't think we need to add all our Counties ect. I think it might make the report excessively long with all of our information appended. just my thoughts. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 09:08:46 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 JAA24847 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:46 -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 JAA22769 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 13CC63C136; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r06.mail.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796CC3C12B for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.a0.b1b9a78 (3865) for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:39 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:08:39 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 125 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 10/20/2000 5:51:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << Duties of the committee Comments by Teresa: > >> 1. scope [which elections it handles, regional, special projects, special > >> elections, any elections which may be required by future bylaws revisions As listed here. Anything else? > >> 2. Maintenance of voter rolls Recommend as first order of business obtaining the old voter lists from the last election and using it as the base for developing an up to date voter roll. The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter rolls up to date on at least a quarterly basis using whatever methods accomplish that, either by working with SCs, "election personnel" in the states or Special Projects, using online registration, etc.The voter rolls are maintained solely for the purpose of conducting national elections and will be kept entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other parts of the project for any purpose. Holly: I think we had more specifics on this including such items as communications and verification of emails using the voter list (rather than subbing people to yet another mail list) > >> 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees All Project members will be assumed to be eligible to vote unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. We recommend no limitations be placed on voters, per the appropriate section of the bylaws [this means no limits on the number of CCs, ASCs, etc., no cutoff date, etc. If we want to use the "30 days prior" cutoff date, this would be the place to state that] Holly: the 30 days is a reasonable administrative time Teresa: When nominations are made, the EC will be responsible for verifying that the nominees are eligible to run for office, based on the criteria in the bylaws. No other determination of eligibility will be made by the EC, including that of good standing. Nominees shall be assumed to be in good standing unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. We should also include something along the lines that if a voter or nominee challenges a finding that they are ineligible to vote or run for office, the EC will in no circumstances make a ruling on their challenge. The Advisory Board should address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote or run for office in the current election. [should we say that if they do not, the person will be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote or run?] Holly: sounds good >> Sounds good to me as well. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 09:16:43 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 JAA25194 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:43 -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 JAA23397 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 720B03C17E; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:41 -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 7DFB23C12B for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA27017 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <020a01c03b61$10ee67e0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194031.00b4de80@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:47:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:54 PM Subject: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee > Standing committee > > Teresa: > The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee > be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. > The standing EC will operate year round. > [sound reasonable?] > > Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we > should say so? My Comments: I agree > > > >> 1. Composition of the committee > My suggestions, but based on discussion: > Chair > Secretary/Publicist [this can be one person or two] > 2 members per each region, 2 members from the Special Projects [in toto, > not each] > NC, as ex officio member > [this would be 12-13 members, not counting the NC] > > >> 2. Method of forming the committee > We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. > Holly: > The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by > the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a > recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another > method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed > in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. My comments: # 1 - I agree # 2 - My suggestion would be that the AB appoint a chair - IMO this should NOT be an AB member. Let the chair ask for volunteers. Post the list of volunteers to the list of the state(s) the volunteer works in and to the 3 CC lists. Give enough time for any objections to be made. The Chair then selects the members and forwards their recommendation to the AB. The AB to accept or decline the entire slate of suggested volunteers. (no picking and choosing of individuals). If the AB declines to accept the committee then the chair can re-select members (although I can't see the AB declining). The hardest job will be find a chair that most people will accept as unbiased/honest/non-political since most people who would be willing to take on the job are involved in the project. Once the committee is formed - let the committee decide amongst themselves as to who will serve for 1 year (this first time) and who will serve for two. At the end of every year 1/2 of the committee would be replaced. > > > >> 3. Tenure of the Committee > > Two year terms? With part of the first committee having one years so as to > stagger membership and aid in continuity. Chair re-elected each year? If > members resign, the EC will be responsible for obtaining replacement > volunteers. I would actually recommend that once the first EC is formed, > the Board have no further involvement in EC membership. > > Holly: > The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here > is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee > member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it > would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a > bylaws change.... thoughts?? My Comments: See my suggestion above for tenure I don't believe a by-law change would be necessary for the AB to not be involved in the day to day workings of the SEC as long as regular reports are forwarded to the AB and in turn posted on the BOARD-L list. Linda > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 09:28:49 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 JAA25875 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:49 -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 JAA24757 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 256B43C1AF; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r07.mail.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0AE3C198 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.c2.2167993 (3865) for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:28:43 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 125 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 10/20/2000 5:48:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << Standing committee Teresa: The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. [sound reasonable?] Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we should say so? Mary Ann: Agreed > >> 1. Composition of the committee My suggestions, but based on discussion: Chair Secretary/Publicist [this can be one person or two] 2 members per each region, 2 members from the Special Projects [in toto, not each] NC, as ex officio member [this would be 12-13 members, not counting the NC] > >> 2. Method of forming the committee We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. Holly: The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. Mary Ann: I think that is the best way to go Holly. > >> 3. Tenure of the Committee Two year terms? With part of the first committee having one years so as to stagger membership and aid in continuity. Chair re-elected each year? If members resign, the EC will be responsible for obtaining replacement volunteers. I would actually recommend that once the first EC is formed, the Board have no further involvement in EC membership. Holly: The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a bylaws change.... thoughts?? >> _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 09:16:46 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 JAA25198 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:45 -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 JAA23400 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CC1FF3C183; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:43 -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 A12343C178 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA02624 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <020b01c03b61$129205c0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194300.04252850@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] mechanism Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:54:04 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 I agree that the initial recommendation be to find an outside service and also that a separate committee be appointed to do so. However, I would like to see the recommendation also include the selection of a committee to design and write an in-house program. I'm not going to add to that single comment. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:00 PM Subject: [ESC] mechanism > > >> 4. Election mechanism, software > > Teresa > We never took a vote on this but going back through the correspondence it > looks like more of us prefer an outside, neutral program, such as Votebot. > So perhaps we can recommend that the EC form a subcommittee to explore the > various options in this area and select a neutral, third-party service by > which to conduct all national level elections. They should have 30 days to > do this? Longer? > > Holly: perhaps we should say that they should select a voting > service/program which meets the requirements (as you have them below) and > that probably an outside service would best meet these requirements at this > time (i.e., not quite locking them into it forever) > > We recommend the service selected be able to: > 1.accept votes [more than one per person, with the ability to drop earlier > votes] > 2. Display appropriate ballots depending on the ID of the person > 3. Send a confirmation email once the vote is accepted [date/time stamped, > says who they voted for] > 4. Count votes > 5. Compile vote statistics in a way that the EC can post so that people can > verify their votes > Additionally, the mechanism should be 1) flexible; 2) reliable; 3) free. > > Holly: > 6. (or maybe added to 4) return results in a short time (24 hours or less???) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 09:37:30 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 JAA26301 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:29 -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 JAA25575 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C87B33C17C; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r09.mail.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7363C171 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.4c.bc52aa4 (3865) for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:17 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <4c.bc52aa4.2722f60c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:37:16 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] Communications To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 125 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 10/20/2000 5:58:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hollyft@bright.net writes: << > >> 5. PR/communication This would be the committee secretary's job, unless you all want the publicist to be a separate position in the committee. Their duties should include quarterly reports to the Board/Project of their activities; special reports after each election; responding to Board and Project members' questions; maintaining a web page Holly: communications is something of an across the board thing for all SEC members in my opinion, they should be communicating with the SC's in their region... dealing with questions from CC's (or any eligible voter) in their region, etc... Mary Ann: Agreed Web page should have 1. Current Committee roster, assignments, and contact info 2. All EC reports to date available 3. Voter registration page Holly: or means of contact to check one's voter registration (I wasn't sure we had settled on an actual registration online --- I should think email accessibility might suffice, let's not make it too technically difficult for the SEC) Mary Ann: I think as long as we give them the option to be albe to contact the Committe members, a regestration page would not be needed. But to allow more voter confidence a page would give them an option, provided their is a system to check the registraton. 4. Election instructions 5. Links to candidate pages, if an election is underway > > >> _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 09:47:28 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 JAA26930 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:27 -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 JAA26669 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E01653C1AF; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:26 -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 1053D3C1AC for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08598 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <022401c03b65$5c93ce20$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194159.03d37be0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:37:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > Duties of the committee > > Comments by Teresa: > > >> 1. scope [which elections it handles, regional, special projects, > special > > >> elections, any elections which may be required by future bylaws revisions > As listed here. Anything else? My comments: I agree > > > >> 2. Maintenance of voter rolls > Recommend as first order of business obtaining the old voter lists from the > last election and using it as the base for developing an up to date voter > roll. The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter rolls up to > date on at least a quarterly basis using whatever methods accomplish that, > either by working with SCs, "election personnel" in the states or Special > Projects, using online registration, etc.The voter rolls are maintained > solely for the purpose of conducting national elections and will be kept > entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other > parts of the project for any purpose. > > Holly: I think we had more specifics on this including such items as > communications and verification of emails using the voter list (rather than > subbing people to yet another mail list) > My comments: How specific do we want to be? Here's my recommendation: Recommend as the first order of business the compiling of a current voter list. The SEC shall request a current voter list from each SC and all duplicate entries will be combined into one voter record (ie those that have multiple counties, townships or work in different states). Verification of e-mail address and positions shall be made by use of an e-mail broadcast system to send personal e-mail messages to each voter. Other means of verification may be used as determined necessary by the committee to fulfill its obligation to have an accurate, up to date voter list. Any disputes or discrepancies shall be: (1) resolved between the SC and the SEC (2) If no resolution is possible the matter will be refereed to the regional AB rep for resolution. During Day to Day Operations: The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter list up to date on at least a quarterly basis thru (1) using an e-mail broadcast software to send individual messages to all voters verify e-mail addresses and positions. (2) maintaining a membership area on a SEC website (3) submission of the current list (sorted by state) to the current SC and/or any person chosen within the state to handle such duties (4) and/or by other means as determined by the SEC during its day to day operations. Resolution of any disputes or discrepancies shall be handled as stated above. The voter rolls are maintained solely for the purpose of conducting national elections. The complete membership roll will be kept entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other parts of the project for any purpose. > > >> 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees > All Project members will be assumed to be eligible to vote unless > determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and > Special Projects Coordinators. We recommend no limitations be placed on > voters, per the appropriate section of the bylaws [this means no limits on > the number of CCs, ASCs, etc., no cutoff date, etc. If we want to use the > "30 days prior" cutoff date, this would be the place to state that] > > Holly: the 30 days is a reasonable administrative time My comments: Per the bylaws every volunteer is eligible to vote except for look-up volunteers and transcribers for reg elections. Transcribers apparently are entitled to vote in the SP elections. My recommendation: The SEC shall abide by the by-laws which states that all volunteers are eligible to vote in regular elections unless they are look-up volunteers or transcribers. Therefore the SEC will treat all volunteers (other than the two types stated above) as eligible voters. For Special Project elections the SEC will abide by the definition of eligible voters that the particular project has determined. If such a definition has not been formalized then the SEC will assume that all volunteers within any SP, including transcribers, are eligible voters. The only exception to the above will be a notification that a volunteer has been determined to be "not in good standing" by the AB who must send such notice to the SEC in writing. Should any volunteer be eligible to vote in different regions the volunteer shall have one vote in each region where they are eligible to vote. Each volunteer shall have one vote for any national seat. A 30 day registration cut off date prior to any election shall be used to give the SEC the opportunity to have the election process ready. > > Teresa: > When nominations are made, the EC will be responsible for verifying that > the nominees are eligible to run for office, based on the criteria in the > bylaws. No other determination of eligibility will be made by the EC, > including that of good standing. Nominees shall be assumed to be in good > standing unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State > > Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. We should also include > something along the lines that if a voter or nominee challenges a finding > that they are ineligible to vote or run for office, the EC will in no > circumstances make a ruling on their challenge. The Advisory Board should > address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote > or run for office in the current election. > [should we say that if they do not, the person will be given the benefit of > the doubt and allowed to vote or run?] > > Holly: sounds good > My comments: The only change I would like to see in the above is that the ONLY determination of "good standing" be made by the AB and no-one else. The regional rep should make the recommendation to the AB but the AB should be the ONLY entity to say ya or nay. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 06:17:54 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 GAA16367 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:17:53 -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 GAA07207 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C35D23C171; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:17:51 -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 012803C121 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.13]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001021101747.BDIT425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:17:47 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021061538.03c81ed0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 06:23:52 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee 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 10:26 PM 10/20/00 -0400, Esse Frye wrote: >Holly: >My comments are capitalized under the sections below. > > >----Original Message Follows---- >From: Holly Timm >Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net >To: esc@pairlist.net >Subject: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:54:06 -0500 > >Standing committee > >Teresa: >The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee >be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. >The standing EC will operate year round. >[sound reasonable?] > >Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we >should say so? >Esse: I AGREE... > > >> 1. Composition of the committee >My suggestions, but based on discussion: >Chair >Secretary/Publicist [this can be one person or two] >2 members per each region, 2 members from the Special Projects [in toto, >not each] >NC, as ex officio member >[this would be 12-13 members, not counting the NC] > > >> 2. Method of forming the committee >We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. > >Holly: >The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by >the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a >recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another >method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed >in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. >Esse: TO CHANGE A BYLAW, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A VOTE TAKEN BY ALL MEMBERS OF >THE PROJECT? WOULD THAT BE CALLED A METHOD? ooops... not clear there was I... which method refers to which method to appoint the SEC not a choice of methods to pass a bylaw > > >> 3. Tenure of the Committee > >Two year terms? With part of the first committee having one years so as to >stagger membership and aid in continuity. Chair re-elected each year? If >members resign, the EC will be responsible for obtaining replacement >volunteers. I would actually recommend that once the first EC is formed, >the Board have no further involvement in EC membership. > >Holly: >The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here >is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee >member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it >would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a >bylaws change.... thoughts?? >Esse: WHY NOT LET THE MEMBERS CHOOSE INSTEAD OF THE BOARD? IT WOULD TAKE >SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE BOARD. The members can't choose without a bylaws change... unless you want to wait to have a standing committee until a bylaws amendment changing the method can be passed, the initial appointment of the SEC must be by the AB. I was trying to think of suggestions that would perhaps increase the diversity and yet follow the letter of the present bylaws. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 10:08:31 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 KAA28138 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:30 -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 KAA29062 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 711DC3C198; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:29 -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 C2F813C136 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA03875 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <026d01c03b68$4dc88b80$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020194336.04251210@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Communications Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:50:37 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:03 PM Subject: [ESC] Communications > > >> 5. PR/communication > This would be the committee secretary's job, unless you all want the > publicist to be a separate position in the committee. Their duties should > include quarterly reports to the Board/Project of their activities; special > reports after each election; responding to Board and Project members' > questions; maintaining a web page > > Holly: communications is something of an across the board thing for all SEC > members in my opinion, they should be communicating with the SC's in their > region... dealing with questions from CC's (or any eligible voter) in their > region, etc... My comments: If I were on the committee I would recommend that a PR person be assigned the communication job as their sole job. I too believe that all members should be accessible to anyone in the project who has a problem or just wants to send some kind of message or comments. I would suggest that all such messages and the replies be CC'ed to the PR person. If necessary the PR person could fix any misunderstandings quickly or update a committee member on a particular thing or whatever, but there would be one spot where all e-mails ended up (and not an archive) and one person would know what was going on at all times. > > Web page should have > 1. Current Committee roster, assignments, and contact info > 2. All EC reports to date available > 3. Voter registration page > Holly: or means of contact to check one's voter registration (I wasn't > sure we had settled on an actual registration online --- I should think > email accessibility might suffice, let's not make it too technically > difficult for the SEC) My comments: I agree to the #1 & # 2. I included the means to resolve a dispute in one of the other e-mails. #3 & Holly: I think that what finally came out of all the discussion was a means for a voter to verify their information only. They could not add it, delete it or change it. If a problem arises with the information the volunteer should have a means of clicking on an e-mail address and stating the problem. Probably the PR person should get such messages and then forward them on to the correct person to handle it. > > 4. Election instructions > 5. Links to candidate pages, if an election is underway > > > > My Comments: I would rather see ALL candidate pages on the SEC's website put together by region or national seat. Making it easy for a volunteer to remember or bookmark the SEC's website and to have everything in one place. Perhaps the page could include a list of the states that are included in each region so a person can quickly determine which areas they are eligible to vote in? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 10:08:33 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 KAA28146 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:32 -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 KAA29071 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id BADBE3C1AC; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:31 -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 F16DF3C1AB for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23767 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <026e01c03b68$4f491100$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] mechanism Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:58:12 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Agreed - which is why I agreed to the recommendation of a 3rd party system. I would like to see a committee formed that would work on developing in-house software. This will be difficult and time consuming (as you know from the huge amount of discussion we had here on this committee) however, it would be beneficial in the long-run. The length of time will benefit the SEC and all volunteers because it will give the SEC the opportunity to establish themselves as a non-partisan group and also give the software committee the opportunity to let people know about the software, try it out, vet it, break it or whatever before it is put into operation. As long as people have input into something they will be more likely to accept it. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] mechanism > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > However, I would like to see the recommendation also include the selection > > of a committee to design and write an in-house program. I'm not going to add > > to that single comment. > > I agree that we should recommend that the EC establish something like a > "working group" consisting of a subset of EC members and including project > members who are programmers who'd like to participate in the development > of an inhouse voting mechanism for later use. > > There should be no rush on this; developing good software takes time, but > I think its a good idea to work toward making ourselves independent. > > -Teresa > > > > Linda > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 10:08:41 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 KAA28158 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:41 -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 KAA29088 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 45F4C3C136; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:40 -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 B5C5D3C1B7 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA16836 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <026f01c03b68$5098c280$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020193803.00ca22c0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of past problems Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:01:16 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Teresa pretty much covered everything between this e-mail and her other one about the mechanics of the last election. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:48 PM Subject: [ESC] Overview of past problems > OVERVIEW > [Brief overview of problems with previous elections; cite election > committee report where needed] > > > > Teresa: > Noted problems: too short a time frame between seating the committee and > the start of the election; concerns with voting mechanism [neutrality, > security, privacy]; lack of trust in EC; lack of communication from the EC > to the Board and to the project at large; lack of oversight of the EC by > the Board or the project; difficulties in getting voter lists; low voter > turnout; poorly communicated instructions; unfair response to allegations > of "vote packing"; [anything else?] These might be grouped into "technical > concerns" and "general concerns" or something like that. > > Holly: > Low voter turnout has been chronic, not just this past election.... perhaps > this is the place to make that statement about the cure being worse than > the ill in regards to the reaction to possible vote packing although let's > try to say things as positively as possible.... i.e., instead of an > accusation of poorly communicated instructions, say a need for clearer more > explicit instructions... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 10:08:51 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 KAA28285 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:50 -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 KAA29109 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 888263C198; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:49 -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 224413C1B9 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23298 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <027001c03b68$523c6060$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001016195820.00bad9c0@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001017065855.00bcd5c0@mail.bright.net> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:07:38 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Signatures to the report 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 a list of our names and our position(s) should be at the end of the list. Should one or more of us have a minority opinion I would like to see it included in the section it belongs in and include the names of us who are offering a minority opinion. I know that if I feel strongly about something and want my minority opinion included I feel that it's only right to add my name so that anyone reading the report knows where it came from. As for the length of the report - I don't think it matters how long it is as long as each concern is addressed and is addressed clearly enough so that each AB member can understand it without having to either dig thru the archives of this list or ask for clarification because they were not privy to all of our discussions. And, that our recommendations be clear and detailed enough to allow the SEC (once formed) to understand them readily. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 10:17:24 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 KAA28677 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:17:23 -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 KAA29912 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 0AF5B3C1AC; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:17:22 -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 224093C136 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA05764 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <02ab01c03b69$8b4f2a80$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:12:16 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 I didn't get it anywhere. I have no idea who or who is not allowed to vote in an archive election. I assumed that transcribers were eligible. When I voted in the SP / archive elections I had no transcribers so I didn't even think about it. If I had had some I would have been inquiring as to why they couldn't vote. Which is why I said "apparently" and also said that eligible voters would be determined by the definition of eligible voters if such a definition existed. Since you say that Linda has one for the archives already established then that would be the definition the SEC would use to determine who would be a qualified voter. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Election Committee Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > > > My comments: > > Per the bylaws every volunteer is eligible to vote except for look-up > > volunteers and transcribers for reg elections. Transcribers apparently are > > entitled to vote in the SP elections. > > According to Linda Lewis, only state level file managers are eligible to > vote in Archives elections. Where do you get the information that > transcribers are allowed 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 Sat Oct 21 13:50:34 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 NAA12845 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:50:34 -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 NAA23764 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 201573C139; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f121.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.121]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A4E3C137 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:50:30 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.220 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:50:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.220] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:50:30 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 17:50:30.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[67342BF0:01C03B87] 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; Not to get off the subject, but if the Special Project members don't want to go by what the By-Laws say, then why are they in existance? If they don't follow the laws that have been set up for the project, the they should be booted out or brought to the Board's attention. Esse ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net To: Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:06 -0500 ..... Staff? .... drat that was a slip - did too many of these things in business I agree that transcribers are excluded in the by-laws but, not to start a ruckus, most of the SP don't seem to work absolutely within the by-laws and seem to set their own agendas. I will certainly agree to going with what the by-laws say and exclude my comments on the SPs. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > The bylaws specifically transcribers and lookup volunteers can't vote. > They don't exclude the Special Projects in that. > > Looking at the section on Special Projects, it says the "staff" of the SP > will elect their reps. > > this latter is less clear to me [who is "staff?] then the former, and I > recommend that we go with the former. I would bet that the intent of the > bylaws committee was to exclude SP transcribers, as well as transcribers > for counties, etc. > > -Teresa > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > I didn't get it anywhere. I have no idea who or who is not allowed to vote > > in an archive election. I assumed that transcribers were eligible. When I > > voted in the SP / archive elections I had no transcribers so I didn't even > > think about it. If I had had some I would have been inquiring as to why they > > couldn't vote. > > > > > > Which is why I said "apparently" and also said that eligible voters would be > > determined by the definition of eligible voters if such a definition > > existed. Since you say that Linda has one for the archives already > > established then that would be the definition the SEC would use to determine > > who would be a qualified voter. > > > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: merope > > To: Election Committee > > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:54 AM > > Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My comments: > > > > Per the bylaws every volunteer is eligible to vote except for look-up > > > > volunteers and transcribers for reg elections. Transcribers apparently > > are > > > > entitled to vote in the SP elections. > > > > > > According to Linda Lewis, only state level file managers are eligible to > > > vote in Archives elections. Where do you get the information that > > > transcribers are allowed 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 10:48:22 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 KAA00651 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:48:21 -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 KAA03516 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C01A43C1AF; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:48:20 -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 11BA13C136 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust229.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.229]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA18901 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <02d001c03b6d$df09a840$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:06 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: ..... Staff? .... drat that was a slip - did too many of these things in business I agree that transcribers are excluded in the by-laws but, not to start a ruckus, most of the SP don't seem to work absolutely within the by-laws and seem to set their own agendas. I will certainly agree to going with what the by-laws say and exclude my comments on the SPs. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > The bylaws specifically transcribers and lookup volunteers can't vote. > They don't exclude the Special Projects in that. > > Looking at the section on Special Projects, it says the "staff" of the SP > will elect their reps. > > this latter is less clear to me [who is "staff?] then the former, and I > recommend that we go with the former. I would bet that the intent of the > bylaws committee was to exclude SP transcribers, as well as transcribers > for counties, etc. > > -Teresa > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > I didn't get it anywhere. I have no idea who or who is not allowed to vote > > in an archive election. I assumed that transcribers were eligible. When I > > voted in the SP / archive elections I had no transcribers so I didn't even > > think about it. If I had had some I would have been inquiring as to why they > > couldn't vote. > > > > > > Which is why I said "apparently" and also said that eligible voters would be > > determined by the definition of eligible voters if such a definition > > existed. Since you say that Linda has one for the archives already > > established then that would be the definition the SEC would use to determine > > who would be a qualified voter. > > > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: merope > > To: Election Committee > > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:54 AM > > Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My comments: > > > > Per the bylaws every volunteer is eligible to vote except for look-up > > > > volunteers and transcribers for reg elections. Transcribers apparently > > are > > > > entitled to vote in the SP elections. > > > > > > According to Linda Lewis, only state level file managers are eligible to > > > vote in Archives elections. Where do you get the information that > > > transcribers are allowed 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 21 19:38:14 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 TAA08814 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:13 -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 TAA00419 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 61ED73C15A; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:10 -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 A1CF53C11F for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA28337 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:41:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005001c03bb7$84044460$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:29:29 -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 5.00.2919.6600 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: This may be a dumb, or unworkable idea, but, I'll offer it anyway. What if there were 2-3 "alternate" EC members who did nothing, could not say anything, (like only in "read" mode on a list), but who were available if someone resigned for whatever reason. Then the alternate could step in and be immediately up-to-date on anything going on. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "merope" To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Holly Timm wrote: > > > Standing committee > > > > Teresa: > > The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election Committee > > be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. > > The standing EC will operate year round. > > [sound reasonable?] > > > > Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we > > should say so? > > Yes, this is one of the areas in which we took a vote, so we should note > that. > > I made up the 30 days part, but I think that's a reasonable time frame. > > > > >> 2. Method of forming the committee > > We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. > > > > Holly: > > The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed by > > the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a > > recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another > > method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being appointed > > in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. > > > How about this. > > Each set of Board members [SC, 2 LC reps for example] chooses 2 EC members > from volunteers from their region. So Betsy, Barbara and Ken would choose > the volunteers from the SW/SC region, Joe and Pam and the CP rep [if > there ever is one] would choose the volutneers from the SPs, etc. and > then the Board would vote both on 1) the entire slate of candidates [no > nitpicking, no weeding out]; and 2) a temporary chair. Once the committee > is formed, its first order of business should be to elect a Chair. The EC > can then solicit for a non-voting Secretary. This would make 10 voting > members, a Secretary, and the NC as ex-officio. > > I am reluctant to suggest that the EC operate under parliamentary > procedure or to select a parliamentary authority for it. I don't see it > working for the Board and I've heard it didn't work all that great for the > last EC either. > > > > > Holly: > > The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... here > > is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee > > member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... it > > would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until a > > bylaws change.... thoughts?? > > Well, we can use the same procedures as described above to appoint > replacements to the EC. If for instance one fo the SW/SC members decides > they need to resign, then Betsy, Barbara and Ken would solicit for > volunteers, select one and present their choice to the Board for > appointment. > > If we decide that the EC needs to be reappointed anew each year, we could, > in the interests of timeliness, skip the step where the Board votes on the > replacement and just let the EC, workimg with the appropriate reps select > replacementes. I imagine the most likely time of the year for > resignations will be right around election time and we need the committee > up to full strenght then, and not waiting around for the Board to approve > new members. > > > -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 Sat Oct 21 19:38:16 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 TAA08818 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:15 -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 TAA00424 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4574C3C167; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:14 -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 0A8DC3C15E for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-176.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.176]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA28346 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:41:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005301c03bb7$86ccda40$b02b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:33:29 -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 5.00.2919.6600 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: > > [should we say that if they do not, the person will be given the benefit of > > the doubt and allowed to vote or run?] > > > > Holly: sounds good > > Do others agree with this? We had not really discussed it before and it > might be controversial. Yes, it might be controversial, but I think it encourages the AB to make timely decisions at a time when elections are underway instead of referrring problems back to the State, or giving some poor cc the runaround. Let's err on the side of the cc on this one. Let them vote if no decision is reached within a certain amount of time, say 10 days? Carol _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 21:17:22 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 VAA19649 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:21 -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 VAA10920 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 355003C15F; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from imo-r13.mail.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718093C126 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHet703234@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id s.37.bbb28aa (7381) for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:15 -0400 (EDT) From: MHet703234@aol.com Message-ID: <37.bbb28aa.27239a1b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:17:15 EDT Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee To: esc@pairlist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 125 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 10/21/2000 4:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wygenweb@ipa.net writes: << This may be a dumb, or unworkable idea, but, I'll offer it anyway. What if there were 2-3 "alternate" EC members who did nothing, could not say anything, (like only in "read" mode on a list), but who were available if someone resigned for whatever reason. Then the alternate could step in and be immediately up-to-date on anything going on. Carol >> That doesn't sound dumb to me. Mary Ann _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 21:55:29 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 VAA21808 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:55:29 -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 VAA14723 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 31BBB3C137; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:55:28 -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 772063C12C for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.30]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022015526.PZPO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:55:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021215303.00bdd740@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:01:32 -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] status 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: okay... I've just gotten home from my mother-in-law's 75th birthday party and I am printing out all the messages replying to the various sections (boy am I glad I broke those up ) and gonna sort them out by sections discussed. I'm then gonna try pasting the comments, additions etc into updated and hopefully more cohesive rough drafts for our attention tomorrow... although completing the task may run into tomorrow morning I am not a good writer of *report* type documents although I am fairly good at polishing and touching up so when I say rough draft, I mean it. Some of you are better at that than I am and this is also (as I have said in the past) *our* report so NOTHING I have written is engraved in stone. Some of you aren't so big with the words but your comments of approval are equally as welcome (shows you are paying attention!!). After the next round of draft comments, perhaps I should start working this up as a web page as the whole report will be a bit lengthy for an email.... then we can just cut paste into emails any comments we feel a need to comment or edit. Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 00:08:16 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 AAA01084 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:08:16 -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 AAA28263 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EB9543C124; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:08:14 -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 39C1A3C122 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.30]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022040813.YBIO425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:08:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022001306.04d2e210@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:14:19 -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] time for some sleep 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: okay... given you some stuff to digest, I'll be back at the rest of it in the morning... well, actually it is past midnight and technically morning already but I am about to stop being able to think or type. nitey nite Holly _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 06:51:44 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 GAA23352 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:43 -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 GAA02270 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DE75C3C12A; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2471C3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13205 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009b01c03c15$f847aac0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:27:05 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Esse: I don't think this list is a place for a discussion of the SPs. All I was trying to do was include any SP elections in the SEC's chores. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Esse Frye To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > Linda; > Not to get off the subject, but if the Special Project members don't want to > go by what the By-Laws say, then why are they in existance? > If they don't follow the laws that have been set up for the project, the > they should be booted out or brought to the Board's attention. > Esse > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Linda Haas Davenport" > Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net > To: > Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:47:06 -0500 > > ..... Staff? .... drat that was a slip - did too many of these things in > business > > I agree that transcribers are excluded in the by-laws but, not to start a > ruckus, most of the SP don't seem to work absolutely within the by-laws and > seem to set their own agendas. I will certainly agree to going with what the > by-laws say and exclude my comments on the SPs. > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: merope > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 9:25 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > > > > > The bylaws specifically transcribers and lookup volunteers can't vote. > > They don't exclude the Special Projects in that. > > > > Looking at the section on Special Projects, it says the "staff" of the SP > > will elect their reps. > > > > this latter is less clear to me [who is "staff?] then the former, and I > > recommend that we go with the former. I would bet that the intent of the > > bylaws committee was to exclude SP transcribers, as well as transcribers > > for counties, etc. > > > > -Teresa > > > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > > > I didn't get it anywhere. I have no idea who or who is not allowed to > vote > > > in an archive election. I assumed that transcribers were eligible. When > I > > > voted in the SP / archive elections I had no transcribers so I didn't > even > > > think about it. If I had had some I would have been inquiring as to why > they > > > couldn't vote. > > > > > > > > > > Which is why I said "apparently" and also said that eligible voters > would be > > > determined by the definition of eligible voters if such a definition > > > existed. Since you say that Linda has one for the archives already > > > established then that would be the definition the SEC would use to > determine > > > who would be a qualified voter. > > > > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: merope > > > To: Election Committee > > > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:54 AM > > > Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the Standing EC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My comments: > > > > > Per the bylaws every volunteer is eligible to vote except for > look-up > > > > > volunteers and transcribers for reg elections. Transcribers > apparently > > > are > > > > > entitled to vote in the SP elections. > > > > > > > > According to Linda Lewis, only state level file managers are eligible > to > > > > vote in Archives elections. Where do you get the information that > > > > transcribers are allowed 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun Oct 22 06:51:48 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 GAA23356 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:47 -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 GAA02273 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 5C19B3C12D; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5F33C12C for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA18492 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009c01c03c15$fb31d260$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <005001c03bb7$84044460$b02b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:29:00 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 don't think it's dumb or unworkable. It would certainly be a solution for how to replace members and get them up to speed. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee > This may be a dumb, or unworkable idea, but, I'll offer it anyway. > > What if there were 2-3 "alternate" EC members who did nothing, could not say > anything, (like only in "read" mode on a list), but who were available if > someone resigned for whatever reason. Then the alternate could step in and > be immediately up-to-date on anything going on. > > Carol > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "merope" > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 6:53 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] formation of Standing Committee > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Holly Timm wrote: > > > > > Standing committee > > > > > > Teresa: > > > The Election Study Committee recommends that a standing Election > Committee > > > be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. > > > The standing EC will operate year round. > > > [sound reasonable?] > > > > > > Holly: I think we are pretty much unanimous on the above and perhaps we > > > should say so? > > > > Yes, this is one of the areas in which we took a vote, so we should note > > that. > > > > I made up the 30 days part, but I think that's a reasonable time frame. > > > > > > >> 2. Method of forming the committee > > > We never really worked out how we wanted to do this. > > > > > > Holly: > > > The present bylaws state that the election committee shall be appointed > by > > > the Ab so perhaps that is how it should be initially formed with a > > > recommendation that a Bylaws change be implemented to permit another > > > method... which method though? and we must leave it open to being > appointed > > > in an ongoing manner by the AB IF such a bylaws change does not pass. > > > > > > How about this. > > > > Each set of Board members [SC, 2 LC reps for example] chooses 2 EC members > > from volunteers from their region. So Betsy, Barbara and Ken would choose > > the volunteers from the SW/SC region, Joe and Pam and the CP rep [if > > there ever is one] would choose the volutneers from the SPs, etc. and > > then the Board would vote both on 1) the entire slate of candidates [no > > nitpicking, no weeding out]; and 2) a temporary chair. Once the committee > > is formed, its first order of business should be to elect a Chair. The EC > > can then solicit for a non-voting Secretary. This would make 10 voting > > members, a Secretary, and the NC as ex-officio. > > > > I am reluctant to suggest that the EC operate under parliamentary > > procedure or to select a parliamentary authority for it. I don't see it > > working for the Board and I've heard it didn't work all that great for the > > last EC either. > > > > > > > > Holly: > > > The AB having no further involvement would require a bylaws change... > here > > > is one thought... perhaps each board member chooses an SEC committee > > > member... there is some diversity amongst the board which should help... > it > > > would increase the size a bit but it's workable I think, certainly until > a > > > bylaws change.... thoughts?? > > > > Well, we can use the same procedures as described above to appoint > > replacements to the EC. If for instance one fo the SW/SC members decides > > they need to resign, then Betsy, Barbara and Ken would solicit for > > volunteers, select one and present their choice to the Board for > > appointment. > > > > If we decide that the EC needs to be reappointed anew each year, we could, > > in the interests of timeliness, skip the step where the Board votes on the > > replacement and just let the EC, workimg with the appropriate reps select > > replacementes. I imagine the most likely time of the year for > > resignations will be right around election time and we need the committee > > up to full strenght then, and not waiting around for the Board to approve > > new members. > > > > > > -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 Sun Oct 22 06:52:03 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 GAA23362 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:52:02 -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 GAA02290 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6B9F33C128; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C083C12F for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA19926 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021230154.04215940@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:42:45 -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 5.00.2615.200 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 Holly Wrote: > Also identified as a problem in the last election was what may be described > as "Unfair response to allegations of "vote packing" " It was the unanimous > opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to > control potential or alleged vote packing without the cure being worse than > the ill. (Note from Holly: can anyone phrase this paragraph better please????) Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote packing". If someone comes back and says "why" then it can be expanded on. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 08:37:37 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 IAA28244 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:37 -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 IAA10911 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C27A93C12F; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from hotmail.com (f36.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.36]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DDB3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:37:34 -0700 Received: from 63.66.233.218 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:37:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.66.233.218] From: "Esse Frye" To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:37:34 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2000 12:37:34.0209 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA1B5F10:01C03C24] 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; What about a 15 to 20 day limit then? That would give plenty of time. Esse ----Original Message Follows---- From: Holly Timm Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:09:04 -0500 [Note to ESC: Carol suggested specifying a 10 day limit but if a challenge is mounted within fewer days of the end of an election, that's a problem, basically I think that it should be that they get to vote until a determination otherwise is handed down (innocent until proven guilty). _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 21 22:17:34 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 WAA23790 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:17:34 -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 WAA16936 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 740243C137; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591C23C136 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pavilion (A010-0206.MNAS.splitrock.net [209.156.76.206]) by smtppop3pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id VAA39525915 Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:13:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "Nathan Zipfel" To: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:17:55 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Survey Evaluation 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 Hi all, I've spent some time going through the results of the survey that we did. There certainly was some interesting comments. I've created a page that summarizes the information for you all to review. The URL is http://www.pa-roots.com/esc/escsurvey.html This was my "stab" and categorizing the comments, definitely not a perfect way of doing it, but I believe it gives us a good picture. The biggest issue that I saw repeated was in one way or another Poor communication. The second was Politics. Not much that we can really do about the "politics", but there was some good suggestions about dealing with communication. A couple of recommendations were: 1- a mandatory "read only" list that all project members must belong to that the NC can use to send information to all. 2 - the SC's need to do a better job in communicating to the county hosts. 3 - the EC needs to do a better job of communicating with the voters. Possible utilizing a mandatory list. The candidates need to do a better job in presenting their views to the voters. I've got the data in Excel 2000 if anyone wants a copy to view and calculate on. I may look at those who didn't vote and prepare some statistics on them. Nate Nathan Zipfel PaGenWeb Project State Coordinator http://www.pa-roots.com/pagenweb _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 22:38:40 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 WAA25291 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:38:39 -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 WAA19012 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id B5FA83C13C; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:38:37 -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 F1DDE3C137 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.30]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022023835.TFIQ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:38:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021223225.00bc4700@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:44:41 -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] Formation of the ESC (draft) 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 FORWARD Appointed by the USGenWeb Advisory Board as a special committee, the Election Study Committee, was directed to study and make recommendations about the election process within the USGenWeb Project. Said committee consisted of 5 Advisory Board members, 5 State Coordinators, 10 County Coordinators, and the National Coordinator (ex-officio). In the motion creating it, the committee was charged to discuss and make recommendations to the Board on: 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. Said Election Study Committee would report to the USGenWeb Advisory Board and the USGenWeb Project membership no later than 6 weeks from creation. The recommendation report will be posted to the BOARD-L mailing list, as well as the STATE-COORD-L mailing list, and to the four regional lists for dissemination to each state XXGenWeb Project mailing lists." The members of the committee were purposely chosen from a broad spectrum of individuals and viewpoints represented within the project and their names are appended to the end of this report. Our goals were to institute an election procedure that will be consistent from election to election, provide accountability, encourage more project members to participate in elections, and provide both the appearance and the reality of political neutrality in the election process. [NOTE: The committee members and their main position will be listed at the end like Teresa suggested: "Signed, The Election Study Committee: Holly Timm, Chair Nathan Zipfel, PAGW SC Linda Mason, MSGW SC, Carol Hagenson, WYGW SC . . . Teresa Lindquist, KSGW CC . . . Betsy Mills, SW/SC SC representative, USGW Advisory Board . . Tim Stowell, National Coordinator, The USGenWeb Project [ex officio]" Except perhaps Tim should not be a signatory to the report as he is ex officio and not a participant although his presence and status should be noted. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sat Oct 21 22:55:46 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 WAA26459 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:55:45 -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 WAA20745 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:55:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8EA833C12D; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:55:44 -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 E3FC03C126 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.30]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022025542.ULQE425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:55:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021224447.00bc6d20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:01:49 -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] Philosophy Statement 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 chose to come up with recommendations that would be workable immediately within the present structure of the Bylaws as well as consider any recommendations for changes to the Bylaws for additional improvement if and when such changes were made. On the whole the committee has hammered out recommendations to which we were all agreeable although there are some minority opinions included on certain issues in those portions of the report. The committee operated under a privacy guideline expressly designed to encourage all of us to speak freely and make suggestions and even play devil's advocate. Our meetings were conducted on a private email list in a loose discussion format with occasional votes taken on specific topics. We also invited public comment and input by means of a survey page which received close to 300 responses for which we thank the general population of the USGenWeb Project. (NOTE: I am also going to introduce the entire report with a note thanking each and every one of you in glowing terms as I am extremely proud of how we have discussed what was sometimes very touchy subjects and even gotten into considerable disagreement and yet still managed to work together and come up with what I think is an excellent result. At this point I would like to add that even if our recommendations are totally ignored by the AB (which I do NOT think will be the case) we have shown that teamwork and cooperation and resolutions of problems ARE POSSIBLE! Gold stars and double chocolate fudge brownies for everybody!!!! ........ HOLLY) _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 00:06:03 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 AAA00994 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:02 -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 AAA28083 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3B2EB3C1E6; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:01 -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 548223C122 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.30]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022040558.XWKW425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:05:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:12:04 -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] Standing Committee Formation 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 Holly: Heads up on this one everybody, I've tried constructing something from our current and past comments. The Election Study Committee unanimously recommends that a standing Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. 1. Composition of the committee Two SEC members from each region; two SEC members for the Special Projects; two At Large SEC members. From these 12 members, the SEC will choose a chairman and a Publicist, each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of their individual terms. 2. Method of forming the committee Initially, the board members representing each region (normally one SC representative and two CC representatives) would select two people from volunteers from eligible voters within their region; the Special Projects Board members would select two people from volunteers from eligible voters within the Special projects; the NC and The Representative at Large would each select one individual as members at large of the committee from volunteers from eligible voters from any segment of the project for a total of 12 Standing Election Committee members. Replacement of SEC members due to end of term, resignation, or continuing non-responsiveness would be by the appropriate board member(s) in conjuction with any recommendations from the then current SEC. If deemed necessary by the SEC and approved by the AB, the SEC may take on additional workers (as opposed to committee members) during actual election periods which shall be defined as the time from nominations through final vote count although it is the opinion of this commitee that such additional workers would probably not be necessary. The selection of the SEC Chair and the SEC Publicist will be made by secret ballot sent to the National Coordinator and the AB's At Large Representative for counting both of whom are ex-officio members of the SEC except and unless they are presently running for office at which time they must immediately withdraw form the SEC mail list and ex officio status as must any SEC member who runs for office. Since the terms for the SEC and the terms for the AB and the regular election are not the same time period there should be no difficulty in conducting simple email votes for SEC Chair and Publicist. 3. Tenure of the Committee Initially, each pair of SEC members as outlined in (2) will have one individual serving for one year and one individual for two years so as to stagger the turnover in SEC members. Thence forward, regular terms (not the filling of unexpired terms) will run for two years. As it is realistic to expect that these recommendations may be actualized by the end of this year, the terms are suggested as being from January 1 to December 31 even in the event that the actual formation of the SEC takes place prior to January 1, 2001. ----------------------- Carol suggested possibly having 2-3 *read-only alternates* but when I tried to work their selection into any sort of procedure that still stayed within the bylaws it got really complicated and after due thought, it is my opinion that the normal processes of the SEC will not be so burdensome that there would be any difficulty coming up to speed and with the direct and simple communication between the appropriate board members (region, SP, etc) and the SEC, a replacement could be made relatively quickly from recent volunteers. Linda Haas-Davenport also brought up a more extensive choice process which seemed to be a bit lengthy and time consuming but perhaps there is a less complicated way of doing do or perhaps if we increase the specifics of obtaining volunteers... directions as to where to *advertise* for them... perhaps extend it form not just volunteers but also nominations as some might not volunteer that someone else thinks would be good and that nominee would be a good choice. Linda also commented about the AB not being involved in the day to day workings and I don't see any involvement beyond the initial selection process which purposely avoids the AB as a whole doing the selecting so an entrenched clique on the board can not keep a stranglehold on the SEC. I suggested both the NC and the At Large as ex officio to expand slightly the contact with the AB and to allow for one or the other to be non-functional without severing the contact. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated though that ex officio means non-voting and non-participating in day to day business unless their opinions are specifically sought. Esse asked regarding bylaws changes and the emergency provision... Holly: In my opinion, this would not fall under the emergency bylaws change provision which I feel strongly should be reserved for serious critical urgent situations which I hope never actually occur. Teresa commented regarding no necessity for the SEC to operate under parliamentary procedure and I agree wholeheartedly but wasn't sure where to put it or how to say it. The SEC is a working committee, not a decision making committee and should not have any need for the restrictive structure of PP. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 07:52:17 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 HAA25985 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:16 -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 HAA07021 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AD9BF3C12A; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C84A3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106] (may be forged)) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09987 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <010801c03c1e$6dd90b00$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:36:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:12 AM Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > Holly: Heads up on this one everybody, I've tried constructing something > from our current and past comments. > > The Election Study Committee unanimously recommends that a standing > Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board > receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. My comment: I agree > > 1. Composition of the committee > Two SEC members from each region; two SEC members for the Special > Projects; two At Large SEC members. > From these 12 members, the SEC will choose a chairman and a Publicist, > each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of > their individual terms. My Comment: I think we should add the 2 alternates that were suggested. - Ok I withdraw that based on comments by Holly later in this message about it not being possible under the by-laws. > > 2. Method of forming the committee > Initially, the board members representing each region (normally one SC > representative and two CC representatives) would select two people from > volunteers from eligible voters within their region; the Special Projects > Board members would select two people from volunteers from eligible voters > within the Special projects; the NC and The Representative at Large would > each select one individual as members at large of the committee from > volunteers from eligible voters from any segment of the project for a total > of 12 Standing Election Committee members. > Replacement of SEC members due to end of term, resignation, or continuing > non-responsiveness would be by the appropriate board member(s) in > conjuction with any recommendations from the then current SEC. > If deemed necessary by the SEC and approved by the AB, the SEC may take on > additional workers (as opposed to committee members) during actual election > periods which shall be defined as the time from nominations through final > vote count although it is the opinion of this commitee that such additional > workers would probably not be necessary. My comment: Your suggestions are excellent but I would like to register my minority opinion: I would prefer that the members of the SEC be chosen from volunteers and not be appointed by the AB even tho this year the AB has a lot of diversity. I covered this in another e-mail and if you want me to formalize my minority opinion to include in the report I will. > The selection of the SEC Chair and the SEC Publicist will be made by > secret ballot sent to the National Coordinator and the AB's At Large > Representative for counting both of whom are ex-officio members of the SEC > except and unless they are presently running for office at which time they > must immediately withdraw form the SEC mail list and ex officio status as > must any SEC member who runs for office. Since the terms for the SEC and > the terms for the AB and the regular election are not the same time period > there should be no difficulty in conducting simple email votes for SEC > Chair and Publicist. > My comment: I agree > 3. Tenure of the Committee > Initially, each pair of SEC members as outlined in (2) will have one > individual serving for one year and one individual for two years so as to > stagger the turnover in SEC members. Thence forward, regular terms (not the > filling of unexpired terms) will run for two years. As it is realistic to > expect that these recommendations may be actualized by the end of this > year, the terms are suggested as being from January 1 to December 31 even > in the event that the actual formation of the SEC takes place prior to > January 1, 2001. > > ----------------------- > Carol suggested possibly having 2-3 *read-only alternates* but when I > tried to work their selection into any sort of procedure that still stayed > within the bylaws it got really complicated and after due thought, it is my > opinion that the normal processes of the SEC will not be so burdensome that > there would be any difficulty coming up to speed and with the direct and > simple communication between the appropriate board members (region, SP, > etc) and the SEC, a replacement could be made relatively quickly from > recent volunteers. > My comment: If alternates won't work within the framework of the by-laws then so be it. What crossed my mind when considering the alternates was that the committee would not have to fight the same battles twice internally. I can readily conceive of a situation where a member must be replaced - the replacement comes on board and immediately starts asking "WHY" and possibly starts disagreeing with this or that. This would be a time consuming problem. An alternate in "read only" mode still has the option of expressing their concerns via private e-mail to any member much as we can do with BOARD-L. I also thought about the possibility of several of the first batch of volunteers simply not participating. On this list for example, we have a few members who have never posted or responded to anything. If we go back and look at the archives of this list it pretty much boils down to only a very few who are active. The same will probably happen with the SEC and the first time around I would expect a pretty high turnover as the committee struggles to get real working members. This is all just my rambling thoughts. > Linda Haas-Davenport also brought up a more extensive choice process which > seemed to be a bit lengthy and time consuming but perhaps there is a less > complicated way of doing do or perhaps if we increase the specifics of > obtaining volunteers... directions as to where to *advertise* for them... > perhaps extend it form not just volunteers but also nominations as some > might not volunteer that someone else thinks would be good and that nominee > would be a good choice. My comment: Yes the process I described was a bit lengthy but what I was striving for was openness. I would like to see the SEC be viewed as non-partisan from the git-go which means that rather than having people appointed by the AB (although your recommendation were excellent since there is diversity on the AB this year) that the SEC would be made up of volunteers. This would allow some of the most vocal opponents to the current election process the possibility of being on the committee and having input into the process. It would also quell any allegations of "committee packing" by the AB - whether the AB packed anything or not if all committee members are chosen by the AB (even being chosen by individual members) then the allegations will be there. Where go get / advertise ...: I would like to see an announcement on the National web page, every state list, the BOARD-L and the 3 CC lists explaining (briefly) the formation of the SEC and asking for volunteers and your suggestion of nominations is excellent. Perhaps the response will be so small or one region or another under represented so that the specific AB member will have to "appoint" someone, but should that happen it can be made pretty public. If we do nothing else in this committee and if nothing else changes I want very much to see the SEC **START** as a group of people who owe no allegiance to the AB, any AB member or any SC or any other fraction. This first committee will set the tone for all future committees and this first committee will the be most watched and scrutinized of any EC or SEC committee. IMO it is imperative that the selection process, especially this first time, be as impartial and non-political as humanly possible. > > Linda also commented about the AB not being involved in the day to day > workings and I don't see any involvement beyond the initial selection > process which purposely avoids the AB as a whole doing the selecting so an > entrenched clique on the board can not keep a stranglehold on the SEC. I > suggested both the NC and the At Large as ex officio to expand slightly the > contact with the AB and to allow for one or the other to be non-functional > without severing the contact. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated though > that ex officio means non-voting and non-participating in day to day > business unless their opinions are specifically sought. My comments: I didn't realistically expect the AB to be involved in the day to day workings of the committee. I put that in so that there would be no misunderstanding about what the AB could and could not do by anyone reading the recommendations or the final "rules" for the committee. It is a sore point with some very vocal people so I thought by putting my statement in it would quell some of the those people at the very beginning. Last election the AB was upset that the EC did not communicate with them and things got off-track. If monthly reports are made to the AB and posted on BOARD-L then not only will the AB know what is going on but other people will as well but the AB would not be able to micro-manage the committee. (Is that clear at all???? ) > > Esse asked regarding bylaws changes and the emergency provision... > Holly: In my opinion, this would not fall under the emergency bylaws change > provision which I feel strongly should be reserved for serious critical > urgent situations which I hope never actually occur. > > Teresa commented regarding no necessity for the SEC to operate under > parliamentary procedure and I agree wholeheartedly but wasn't sure where to > put it or how to say it. The SEC is a working committee, not a decision > making committee and should not have any need for the restrictive structure > of PP. My comment: 100% agreement with Teresa's recommendation. Holly - go back to your e-mail that states the purpose of the committee and add it at the end which is where it really belongs Linda > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 22 07:52:17 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 HAA25985 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:16 -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 HAA07021 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id AD9BF3C12A; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C84A3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106] (may be forged)) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09987 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <010801c03c1e$6dd90b00$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:36:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: My comments inserted below: Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:12 AM Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > Holly: Heads up on this one everybody, I've tried constructing something > from our current and past comments. > > The Election Study Committee unanimously recommends that a standing > Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board > receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. My comment: I agree > > 1. Composition of the committee > Two SEC members from each region; two SEC members for the Special > Projects; two At Large SEC members. > From these 12 members, the SEC will choose a chairman and a Publicist, > each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of > their individual terms. My Comment: I think we should add the 2 alternates that were suggested. - Ok I withdraw that based on comments by Holly later in this message about it not being possible under the by-laws. > > 2. Method of forming the committee > Initially, the board members representing each region (normally one SC > representative and two CC representatives) would select two people from > volunteers from eligible voters within their region; the Special Projects > Board members would select two people from volunteers from eligible voters > within the Special projects; the NC and The Representative at Large would > each select one individual as members at large of the committee from > volunteers from eligible voters from any segment of the project for a total > of 12 Standing Election Committee members. > Replacement of SEC members due to end of term, resignation, or continuing > non-responsiveness would be by the appropriate board member(s) in > conjuction with any recommendations from the then current SEC. > If deemed necessary by the SEC and approved by the AB, the SEC may take on > additional workers (as opposed to committee members) during actual election > periods which shall be defined as the time from nominations through final > vote count although it is the opinion of this commitee that such additional > workers would probably not be necessary. My comment: Your suggestions are excellent but I would like to register my minority opinion: I would prefer that the members of the SEC be chosen from volunteers and not be appointed by the AB even tho this year the AB has a lot of diversity. I covered this in another e-mail and if you want me to formalize my minority opinion to include in the report I will. > The selection of the SEC Chair and the SEC Publicist will be made by > secret ballot sent to the National Coordinator and the AB's At Large > Representative for counting both of whom are ex-officio members of the SEC > except and unless they are presently running for office at which time they > must immediately withdraw form the SEC mail list and ex officio status as > must any SEC member who runs for office. Since the terms for the SEC and > the terms for the AB and the regular election are not the same time period > there should be no difficulty in conducting simple email votes for SEC > Chair and Publicist. > My comment: I agree > 3. Tenure of the Committee > Initially, each pair of SEC members as outlined in (2) will have one > individual serving for one year and one individual for two years so as to > stagger the turnover in SEC members. Thence forward, regular terms (not the > filling of unexpired terms) will run for two years. As it is realistic to > expect that these recommendations may be actualized by the end of this > year, the terms are suggested as being from January 1 to December 31 even > in the event that the actual formation of the SEC takes place prior to > January 1, 2001. > > ----------------------- > Carol suggested possibly having 2-3 *read-only alternates* but when I > tried to work their selection into any sort of procedure that still stayed > within the bylaws it got really complicated and after due thought, it is my > opinion that the normal processes of the SEC will not be so burdensome that > there would be any difficulty coming up to speed and with the direct and > simple communication between the appropriate board members (region, SP, > etc) and the SEC, a replacement could be made relatively quickly from > recent volunteers. > My comment: If alternates won't work within the framework of the by-laws then so be it. What crossed my mind when considering the alternates was that the committee would not have to fight the same battles twice internally. I can readily conceive of a situation where a member must be replaced - the replacement comes on board and immediately starts asking "WHY" and possibly starts disagreeing with this or that. This would be a time consuming problem. An alternate in "read only" mode still has the option of expressing their concerns via private e-mail to any member much as we can do with BOARD-L. I also thought about the possibility of several of the first batch of volunteers simply not participating. On this list for example, we have a few members who have never posted or responded to anything. If we go back and look at the archives of this list it pretty much boils down to only a very few who are active. The same will probably happen with the SEC and the first time around I would expect a pretty high turnover as the committee struggles to get real working members. This is all just my rambling thoughts. > Linda Haas-Davenport also brought up a more extensive choice process which > seemed to be a bit lengthy and time consuming but perhaps there is a less > complicated way of doing do or perhaps if we increase the specifics of > obtaining volunteers... directions as to where to *advertise* for them... > perhaps extend it form not just volunteers but also nominations as some > might not volunteer that someone else thinks would be good and that nominee > would be a good choice. My comment: Yes the process I described was a bit lengthy but what I was striving for was openness. I would like to see the SEC be viewed as non-partisan from the git-go which means that rather than having people appointed by the AB (although your recommendation were excellent since there is diversity on the AB this year) that the SEC would be made up of volunteers. This would allow some of the most vocal opponents to the current election process the possibility of being on the committee and having input into the process. It would also quell any allegations of "committee packing" by the AB - whether the AB packed anything or not if all committee members are chosen by the AB (even being chosen by individual members) then the allegations will be there. Where go get / advertise ...: I would like to see an announcement on the National web page, every state list, the BOARD-L and the 3 CC lists explaining (briefly) the formation of the SEC and asking for volunteers and your suggestion of nominations is excellent. Perhaps the response will be so small or one region or another under represented so that the specific AB member will have to "appoint" someone, but should that happen it can be made pretty public. If we do nothing else in this committee and if nothing else changes I want very much to see the SEC **START** as a group of people who owe no allegiance to the AB, any AB member or any SC or any other fraction. This first committee will set the tone for all future committees and this first committee will the be most watched and scrutinized of any EC or SEC committee. IMO it is imperative that the selection process, especially this first time, be as impartial and non-political as humanly possible. > > Linda also commented about the AB not being involved in the day to day > workings and I don't see any involvement beyond the initial selection > process which purposely avoids the AB as a whole doing the selecting so an > entrenched clique on the board can not keep a stranglehold on the SEC. I > suggested both the NC and the At Large as ex officio to expand slightly the > contact with the AB and to allow for one or the other to be non-functional > without severing the contact. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated though > that ex officio means non-voting and non-participating in day to day > business unless their opinions are specifically sought. My comments: I didn't realistically expect the AB to be involved in the day to day workings of the committee. I put that in so that there would be no misunderstanding about what the AB could and could not do by anyone reading the recommendations or the final "rules" for the committee. It is a sore point with some very vocal people so I thought by putting my statement in it would quell some of the those people at the very beginning. Last election the AB was upset that the EC did not communicate with them and things got off-track. If monthly reports are made to the AB and posted on BOARD-L then not only will the AB know what is going on but other people will as well but the AB would not be able to micro-manage the committee. (Is that clear at all???? ) > > Esse asked regarding bylaws changes and the emergency provision... > Holly: In my opinion, this would not fall under the emergency bylaws change > provision which I feel strongly should be reserved for serious critical > urgent situations which I hope never actually occur. > > Teresa commented regarding no necessity for the SEC to operate under > parliamentary procedure and I agree wholeheartedly but wasn't sure where to > put it or how to say it. The SEC is a working committee, not a decision > making committee and should not have any need for the restrictive structure > of PP. My comment: 100% agreement with Teresa's recommendation. Holly - go back to your e-mail that states the purpose of the committee and add it at the end which is where it really belongs Linda > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 22 08:03:02 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 IAA26503 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:03:01 -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 IAA07814 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 763013C12C; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:03:00 -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 7EA663C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022120257.QLQQ425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:02:57 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022070219.03a69e60@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:09:04 -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] Duties of the SEC (draft) 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 Duties of the committee 1. The Election Committee is to handle the national level elections for Board Representatives including the elections for National Coordinator, Representative At Large, Regional SC and CC Representatives, Special Project Representatives, and votes on Bylaws Amendments as well as any elections required by future bylaws revisions.. 2. Maintain voter rolls The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter rolls up to date on at least a quarterly basis using whatever methods accomplish that, either by working with SCs, "election personnel" in the states or Special Projects, using online registration, etc.The voter rolls are maintained solely for the purpose of conducting national elections and will be kept entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other parts of the project for any purpose. The first order of business of the election committee is the compiling of a current voter list. They shall request the list(s) of eligible voters from the last election and current voter list from each SC and SPC. The resulting current voter list will be maintained on a Regional basis, a Special project basis and a National basis. The regional voter lists will ensure that all duplicate entries (those that have multiple counties, townships or work in different states within the region) are combined into one voter record. The national list (formed by combining the regional and special project lists) will ensure that all duplicate entries (those that have counties, townships or work in different regions) are combined into one voter record and that those eligible both as a state or county coordinator and as a special project worker vote only once for National Coordinator and Representative at Large. Verification of e-mail address and positions shall be made by use of an e-mail broadcast system to send personal e-mail messages to each voter. Other means of verification may be used as determined necessary by the committee to fulfill its obligation to have an accurate, up to date voter list. Any disputes or discrepancies shall be: (1) resolved between the SC and the SEC (2) If no resolution is possible the matter will be refereed to the regional AB rep for resolution. The committee will be responsible for keeping the voter list up to date on at least a quarterly basis thru (1) using an e-mail broadcast software to send individual messages to all voters verify e-mail addresses and positions. Note: It was the consensus of the ESC committee that direct individual emails to voters would be both more effective in response and found to be more acceptable to many coordinators as compared to being subbed to yet another list. (2) maintaining a membership registration or contact area on an SEC website (3) submission of the current list (sorted by state) to the current SC and/or any person chosen within the state to handle such duties --- suggested by the ESC committee that the states and the special projects choose by whatever means they decide an election liaison to be the contact for that entity with the election committee. (4) and/or by other means as determined by the SEC during its day to day operations. Resolution of any disputes or discrepancies shall be handled as stated above. The voter rolls are maintained solely for the purpose of conducting national elections. The complete membership roll will be kept entirely confidential and will not be supplied to the Board or to other parts of the project for any purpose. 3. Eligibility of votes and nominees The Study Committee had considerable discussion on who is eligible to vote and agreed unanimously that the bylaws state unequivocally that ALL project members are eligible to vote excluding transcribers and lookup volunteers and that therefore no restriction can be made on the number of coordinators per county, that town coordinators and state level special project coordinators (as opposed to Special Project coordinators from the national level projects) such as Native American projects, African American projects, military projects organized as and part of the XXGenWeb state projects are eligible to vote. A 30 days prior to election cut-off was deemed acceptable purely on an administrative basis. Eligible voters as defined in the bylaws, Article VII Section 6 "All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote". Therefore all such Project members will be assumed to be eligible to vote unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. If someone's right to vote is deemed ineligible to vote, challenges to such a finding will not be ruled on by the EC but the Advisory Board or Special Project Coordinator or XXGenWeb State Coordinator should address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote or run for office in the current election. If they do not, the person will be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote or run. Eligible voters may vote once for each region or special project postion for which they are eligible and once for national postions and once for each of any bylaws on the ballot. Eligible to vote in Special Project elections are State level File Managers and Coordinators as has been the practice in past elections. Transcribers are not included as defined in the Bylaws, Article VII Section 6. [Note to ESC: should we specifically address the fact that the EC has not handled the SP part of the national elections in the past but that per the bylaws they should be?] 4. Nominations When nominations are made, the EC will be responsible for verifying that the nominees are eligible to run for office, based solely on the criteria in Article VI, Section 9 of the bylaws. No other determination of eligibility will be made by the EC, including that of good standing. Nominees shall be assumed to be in good standing unless determined otherwise by the Advisory Board or State Coordinators and Special Projects Coordinators. If the nominee challenges a finding that they are ineligible to vote or run for office, the EC will in no circumstances make a ruling on their challenge. The Advisory Board should address the challenge in a timely fashion so as to allow the person to vote or run for office in the current election. If they do not, the person will be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to vote or run. [Note to ESC: Carol suggested specifying a 10 day limit but if a challenge is mounted within fewer days of the end of an election, that's a problem, basically I think that it should be that they get to vote until a determination otherwise is handed down (innocent until proven guilty). _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 08:27:54 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 IAA27794 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:27:53 -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 IAA10116 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 96CFF3C12C; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:27:52 -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 E99633C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022122750.QTKC425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:27:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022081504.038da670@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:33:57 -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] Mechanism (draft) 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: Mechanism The voting mechanism selected should meet the following qualifications: 1. Accept votes [more than one per person, with the ability to drop earlier votes] 2. Display appropriate ballots depending on the ID of the person or have clear directions so a voter can easily find the correct portions of the ballot for which they are eligible to vote. 3. Send a confirmation email once the vote is accepted [date/time stamped, says who they voted for] 4. Count votes and return reliable results within a short period of time, a goal of 24 hours or less being recomended. 5. Compile vote statistics in a way that the EC can post so that people can verify their votes 6. Be confidential and secure Additionally, the mechanism should be 1) flexible; 2) reliable; 3) free. It is recommended by this committee that a voting method meeting the above requirements would probably best be chosen initially from an outside service but it is also strongly suggested that the election committee look into forming a supporting group to work on producing election software that meets our requirements. The SEC is aware that developing a good in-house software alternative would take time but feel that it is a good idea to establish independence from outside sources in the long term and that in the meantime the SEC can establish itself as a non-partisan group. ----------- Linda suggested an outside committee (i.e., additional to the election committee) be appointed to look into the choice of an outside service but I don't see the need to over-committee this. I should think that the SEC as formed should be able to locate and arrange such an outside service and, frankly, in my opinion, if they can't manage that either an additional committee couldn't do it either or that SEC is not competent to perform its duties. Certainly it is also possible that a different outside service would be used from one election to the next either due to some dissatisfactions with the means or due to being no longer available and it would be cumbersome to create an added committee each time to locate one. Constructing an in-house service is a different matter and does require special skills and knowledge (programming). I wrote about that above as *strongly suggested* as it was something several of us thought a good idea but not all felt was essential... I suppose strongly suggested is somewhere between a recommendation and a minority opinion _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 08:39:00 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 IAA28383 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:38:59 -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 IAA10978 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 46F793C12F; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:38:57 -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 8C00C3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022123855.QWYU425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:38:55 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022083500.038d0100@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:45:02 -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] Added section for duties/communications 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 meant to include (probably best in the Duties section): Each regional voter list and communications should be maintained and managed by the two members chosen for/by that region. The national list should be managed and maintained by the two members chosen by the NC and At Large and, of course, the SP voter list should be managed and maintained by the members chosen by the SP reps. Any of the above committee members may have been chosen to be chair or publicist (secretary) but except for initial set-up of the voting lists and means of maintaining them (excel spreadsheets, text lists, whatever) the duties are not that burdensome that a member could not perform both those duties and the duties of chair or publicist. The regional and national members should manage communications with the state liaisons and/or SC's etc cetera but the publicist should maintain the web site and manage communications to the AB and to the project as a whole via main lists (-ALL, -Discuss, -cc, SC list) The web site should be providing the regional member names and emails so that cc's may contact their appropriate region regarding any problems... same for SP or national problems Perhaps replies to contacts from CC's (CC's in the broad sense to include SPC's, TC's etc) should be also CC'd to the publicist and include the full text of the message replied to... I don't think we can reasonably expect or demand that the CC's message be addressed to both. The publicist's email could also be listed on the web site's contact page as the person to address if one is nto sure who to address. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 09:06:33 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 JAA00034 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:32 -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 JAA13979 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 387073C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:31 -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 379033C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-107.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.107]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA02155 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:09:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005701c03c28$6fb40100$6b2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021230154.04215940@mail.bright.net> <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:49:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: . . .without the potential of adversely affecting good, hardworking cc's who are not vote-padding. Therefore, the ESC calls upon all members of the Project to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity during any election or voting issue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > Holly Wrote: > > Also identified as a problem in the last election was what may be > described > > as "Unfair response to allegations of "vote packing" " It was the > unanimous > > opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to > > control potential or alleged vote packing without the cure being worse > than > > the ill. (Note from Holly: can anyone phrase this paragraph better > please????) > > Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote > packing". > > If someone comes back and says "why" then it can be expanded on. > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 22 09:06:37 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 JAA00043 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:36 -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 JAA13991 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E47073C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:34 -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 00A283C134 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (pool-4-107.jopl.ipa.net [208.149.43.107]) by postoffice6.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA02158 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:09:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005801c03c28$709efd40$6b2b95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <010801c03c1e$6dd90b00$0200a8c0@Linda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:59:40 -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: Taking into consideration that Linda and I have agreed to disagree, and that I don't want to start this debate again . . . I'm still going to say that it won't matter *how* the SEC is chosen, IMHO, under the current bylaws. Because group A will complain if done one way, and group B will complain if done another. There isn't going to be any pleasing of everyone, and there isn't any way under the current bylaws to by-pass the AB. So, I would simply state in the report that it is the *majority* (unanimous?) opinion of this committee, that at some time in the future, the bylaws need to be revised to allow election officials or committee members to be totally independent and unrestrained from any selection by AB members, such as the SEC committee members being an elected position from each region rather than chosen from a pool of volunteers by any group, AB, or other committee. I'm sure there are better ways to say that. But, I think you get the idea. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: "Election Committee" Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > My comments inserted below: > > Linda > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Holly Timm > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:12 AM > Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > > > > Holly: Heads up on this one everybody, I've tried constructing something > > from our current and past comments. > > > > The Election Study Committee unanimously recommends that a standing > > Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board > > receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. > > My comment: > I agree > > > > > 1. Composition of the committee > > Two SEC members from each region; two SEC members for the Special > > Projects; two At Large SEC members. > > From these 12 members, the SEC will choose a chairman and a Publicist, > > each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of > > their individual terms. > > My Comment: > I think we should add the 2 alternates that were suggested. - Ok I withdraw > that based on comments by Holly later in this message about it not being > possible under the by-laws. > > > > > > 2. Method of forming the committee > > Initially, the board members representing each region (normally one SC > > representative and two CC representatives) would select two people from > > volunteers from eligible voters within their region; the Special Projects > > Board members would select two people from volunteers from eligible voters > > within the Special projects; the NC and The Representative at Large would > > each select one individual as members at large of the committee from > > volunteers from eligible voters from any segment of the project for a > total > > of 12 Standing Election Committee members. > > Replacement of SEC members due to end of term, resignation, or continuing > > non-responsiveness would be by the appropriate board member(s) in > > conjuction with any recommendations from the then current SEC. > > If deemed necessary by the SEC and approved by the AB, the SEC may take on > > additional workers (as opposed to committee members) during actual > election > > periods which shall be defined as the time from nominations through final > > vote count although it is the opinion of this commitee that such > additional > > workers would probably not be necessary. > > > My comment: > Your suggestions are excellent but I would like to register my minority > opinion: I would prefer that the members of the SEC be chosen from > volunteers and not be appointed by the AB even tho this year the AB has a > lot of diversity. I covered this in another e-mail and if you want me to > formalize my minority opinion to include in the report I will. > > > > > The selection of the SEC Chair and the SEC Publicist will be made by > > secret ballot sent to the National Coordinator and the AB's At Large > > Representative for counting both of whom are ex-officio members of the SEC > > except and unless they are presently running for office at which time they > > must immediately withdraw form the SEC mail list and ex officio status as > > must any SEC member who runs for office. Since the terms for the SEC and > > the terms for the AB and the regular election are not the same time period > > there should be no difficulty in conducting simple email votes for SEC > > Chair and Publicist. > > > > My comment: > I agree > > > > > 3. Tenure of the Committee > > Initially, each pair of SEC members as outlined in (2) will have one > > individual serving for one year and one individual for two years so as to > > stagger the turnover in SEC members. Thence forward, regular terms (not > the > > filling of unexpired terms) will run for two years. As it is realistic to > > expect that these recommendations may be actualized by the end of this > > year, the terms are suggested as being from January 1 to December 31 even > > in the event that the actual formation of the SEC takes place prior to > > January 1, 2001. > > > > ----------------------- > > Carol suggested possibly having 2-3 *read-only alternates* but when I > > tried to work their selection into any sort of procedure that still stayed > > within the bylaws it got really complicated and after due thought, it is > my > > opinion that the normal processes of the SEC will not be so burdensome > that > > there would be any difficulty coming up to speed and with the direct and > > simple communication between the appropriate board members (region, SP, > > etc) and the SEC, a replacement could be made relatively quickly from > > recent volunteers. > > > > My comment: > If alternates won't work within the framework of the by-laws then so be it. > What crossed my mind when considering the alternates was that the committee > would not have to fight the same battles twice internally. I can readily > conceive of a situation where a member must be replaced - the replacement > comes on board and immediately starts asking "WHY" and possibly starts > disagreeing with this or that. This would be a time consuming problem. An > alternate in "read only" mode still has the option of expressing their > concerns via private e-mail to any member much as we can do with BOARD-L. I > also thought about the possibility of several of the first batch of > volunteers simply not participating. On this list for example, we have a few > members who have never posted or responded to anything. If we go back and > look at the archives of this list it pretty much boils down to only a very > few who are active. The same will probably happen with the SEC and the first > time around I would expect a pretty high turnover as the committee struggles > to get real working members. This is all just my rambling thoughts. > > > > > Linda Haas-Davenport also brought up a more extensive choice process which > > seemed to be a bit lengthy and time consuming but perhaps there is a less > > complicated way of doing do or perhaps if we increase the specifics of > > obtaining volunteers... directions as to where to *advertise* for them... > > perhaps extend it form not just volunteers but also nominations as some > > might not volunteer that someone else thinks would be good and that > nominee > > would be a good choice. > > My comment: > Yes the process I described was a bit lengthy but what I was striving for > was openness. I would like to see the SEC be viewed as non-partisan from the > git-go which means that rather than having people appointed by the AB > (although your recommendation were excellent since there is diversity on the > AB this year) that the SEC would be made up of volunteers. This would allow > some of the most vocal opponents to the current election process the > possibility of being on the committee and having input into the process. It > would also quell any allegations of "committee packing" by the AB - whether > the AB packed anything or not if all committee members are chosen by the AB > (even being chosen by individual members) then the allegations will be > there. > > Where go get / advertise ...: I would like to see an announcement on the > National web page, every state list, the BOARD-L and the 3 CC lists > explaining (briefly) the formation of the SEC and asking for volunteers and > your suggestion of nominations is excellent. Perhaps the response will be so > small or one region or another under represented so that the specific AB > member will have to "appoint" someone, but should that happen it can be made > pretty public. If we do nothing else in this committee and if nothing else > changes I want very much to see the SEC **START** as a group of people who > owe no allegiance to the AB, any AB member or any SC or any other fraction. > This first committee will set the tone for all future committees and this > first committee will the be most watched and scrutinized of any EC or SEC > committee. IMO it is imperative that the selection process, especially this > first time, be as impartial and non-political as humanly possible. > > > > > > Linda also commented about the AB not being involved in the day to day > > workings and I don't see any involvement beyond the initial selection > > process which purposely avoids the AB as a whole doing the selecting so an > > entrenched clique on the board can not keep a stranglehold on the SEC. I > > suggested both the NC and the At Large as ex officio to expand slightly > the > > contact with the AB and to allow for one or the other to be non-functional > > without severing the contact. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated > though > > that ex officio means non-voting and non-participating in day to day > > business unless their opinions are specifically sought. > > > My comments: > I didn't realistically expect the AB to be involved in the day to day > workings > of the committee. I put that in so that there would be no misunderstanding > about what the AB could and could not do by anyone reading the > recommendations or the final "rules" for the committee. It is a sore point > with some very vocal people so I thought by putting my statement in it would > quell some of the those people at the very beginning. > > Last election the AB was upset that the EC did not communicate with them and > things got off-track. If monthly reports are made to the AB and posted on > BOARD-L then not only will the AB know what is going on but other people > will as well but the AB would not be able to micro-manage the committee. (Is > that clear at all???? ) > > > > > > Esse asked regarding bylaws changes and the emergency provision... > > Holly: In my opinion, this would not fall under the emergency bylaws > change > > provision which I feel strongly should be reserved for serious critical > > urgent situations which I hope never actually occur. > > > > Teresa commented regarding no necessity for the SEC to operate under > > parliamentary procedure and I agree wholeheartedly but wasn't sure where > to > > put it or how to say it. The SEC is a working committee, not a decision > > making committee and should not have any need for the restrictive > structure > > of PP. > > > My comment: > 100% agreement with Teresa's recommendation. Holly - go back to your e-mail > that states the purpose of the committee and add it at the end which is > where it really belongs > > Linda > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Oct 22 09:07:19 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 JAA00085 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:18 -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 JAA14106 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id CC6263C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:16 -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 0D47F3C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022130714.RGVF425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:14 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022083402.03860c20@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:13:20 -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] Communications and Misc (draft) 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 commented: I would rather see ALL candidate pages on the SEC's website put together by region or national seat. Making it easy for a volunteer to remember or bookmark the SEC's website and to have everything in one place. Perhaps the page could include a list of the states that are included in each region so a person can quickly determine which areas they are eligible to vote in? My thoughts... An SEC website would be an essential part of improved communications... It should contain: 1) Contact page detailing who on the SEC to contact, listing all members with emails both clickable and written out, their region of responsibility including the listing of the states in each region as well as noting who the chair is and who the publicist is. [comment from Holly: it was mentioned several times about online registration, although I think we can suggest this as an option, it gets into technical feasability and we should not require or force it in anyway. It should cetainly not be the sole means of someone verifying their vote status.] 2) A page detailing eligibility guidelines including how and who to contact regarding problems 3) A general page about how the election mechanism functions in general (nominations, voting process, result release) to be replaced at an actual election time with a similar page detailing the specifics of that election including clickable and written out urls to where each region voter goes, where to vote for national level, etc... including states listed composing each region. During an election period there also MUST be a posted alternative for voting for those who for any reason have a problem using the chosen voting mechansim which does occur in a small percent of individuals due either to technical incompatibility or voter confusion. 4) A page linking to all public election committee reports to date (it is conceivable that there may be private reports to the AB regarding individuals and problems involving specific people that should not be public) 5) During an election period a page listing all candidates with urls to their campaign pages both clickable and written out. [comment from Holly: although I see the reasoning in suggesting that the SEC prepare candidate pages, I think that process would be wide open to prejudice and slant, omission and error but that having a settled page url for listing the candidates and their urls would be just as workable as far as findability for the voters, additionally, how they present themselves is part of the process of deciding who to vote for... to make each candidate submit their page for posting on the SEC site would restrict the candidates ability to add or change the page] Teresa commented: I will also say that I do not recommend that the EC operate under a "gag rule" or secrecy rules. I don't think members should be subbed to the list [like they are to Board-L] since there may be times when the EC needs to discuss members' standing, or others things that should be private. So we should encourage the EC members to be accessible and open and respond to questions, but to exercise discretion and not discuss EC business that pertains to specific individuals Holly: Should we call this a discretion rule? I also think it should be clear that if any member of the SEC feels there is an unresolved problem they should communicate said problem to AB members, preferably initially with their region's reps and not feel compelled to keep their mouth shut about problems on the committee. My phrasing is certainly awkward here but I hope you get the gist of what I mean. Probably we should include some of this message's parts in the Duties section under Publicist. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 09:11:02 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 JAA00363 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:11:02 -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 JAA14441 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A17063C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:11:00 -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 BEDF93C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:10:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022131058.RIEF425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:10:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022091508.03875e00@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:17:05 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) In-Reply-To: <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021230154.04215940@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 05:42 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to > > control potential or alleged vote packing without the cure being worse than > > the ill. (Note from Holly: can anyone phrase this paragraph better > please????) > >Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. > >It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that >there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote >packing". works for me >If someone comes back and says "why" then it can be expanded on. which reminds me... I would like all of you to remain on this list for a couple of weeks while the AB and the project process our report so that we may discuss questions regarding it. No matter how carefully we craft the report there are bound to be some places where what we said was perfectly clear to us but requires clraification to those who have not been sitting here with us all along _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 09:14:15 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 JAA00584 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:15 -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 JAA14770 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9D7AC3C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:13 -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 E45443C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022131412.RJIL425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022091905.03a665b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:18 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> 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 08:31 AM 10/22/00 -0400, merope wrote: > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote > > packing". > >Is it worth it to add something along the lines of "and stay within the >bylaws?" a good thought.... comments? although actually, for myself anyway, it was not so much staying within the bylaws, it was not cutting off innocents in the process... so perhaps not? >-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 Oct 22 09:14:15 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 JAA00584 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:15 -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 JAA14770 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9D7AC3C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:13 -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 E45443C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022131412.RJIL425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:14:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022091905.03a665b0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:18 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> 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 08:31 AM 10/22/00 -0400, merope wrote: > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote > > packing". > >Is it worth it to add something along the lines of "and stay within the >bylaws?" a good thought.... comments? although actually, for myself anyway, it was not so much staying within the bylaws, it was not cutting off innocents in the process... so perhaps not? >-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 Oct 22 09:16:16 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 JAA00637 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:16:15 -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 JAA14960 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 11AF93C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:16:14 -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 3973A3C121 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022131611.RKDP425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:16:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022092101.03875740@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:22:18 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) In-Reply-To: <005701c03c28$6fb40100$6b2b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021230154.04215940@mail.bright.net> <009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> 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 07:49 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >. . .without the potential of adversely affecting good, hardworking cc's who >are not vote-padding. Therefore, the ESC calls upon all members of the >Project to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity during any election >or voting issue. I like it! and I like the idea of not only addressing our recommendations primarily to the board to implement but also addressing the project as a whole on an area where they too need to be *recommended to* >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" >To: >Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:42 AM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > > > > Holly Wrote: > > > Also identified as a problem in the last election was what may be > > described > > > as "Unfair response to allegations of "vote packing" " It was the > > unanimous > > > opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to > > > control potential or alleged vote packing without the cure being worse > > than > > > the ill. (Note from Holly: can anyone phrase this paragraph better > > please????) > > > > Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. > > > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged >vote > > packing". > > > > If someone comes back and says "why" then it can be expanded on. > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Oct 22 09:20:04 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 JAA00851 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:04 -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 JAA15299 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 6BFDA3C132; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:02 -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 A6BAE3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022132000.RLPG425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:20:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022092323.03a66810@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:26:07 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Survey Evaluation In-Reply-To: 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 09:01 AM 10/22/00 -0400, merope wrote: >Nice work, Nate! yup! thanks Nate! >Holly, should we refer to this graphic when we talk about the survey in >our report? >It needs a little cleaning up [oh, what we wouldn't do for a "lake of >trust" ] but otherwise is fine. okay... Nate, you want to clean it up or pass it on to someone else here to clean up? the only added thing I would like to see is that there were several who apparently or definitely were lookup people or transcribers who were NOT eligible to vote even udner the bylaws and perhaps this figure needs to be a footnote to the "didn't vote" _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 09:51:35 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 JAA02477 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:51:34 -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 JAA18416 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 612533C138; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:51:33 -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 B42873C135 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022135131.RVXH425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:51:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022095458.03a13f00@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:57:37 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) 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 08:37 AM 10/22/00 -0400, Esse Frye wrote: >What about a 15 to 20 day limit then? That would give plenty of time. In reply to my comment: >[Note to ESC: Carol suggested specifying a 10 day limit but if a challenge >is mounted within fewer days of the end of an election, that's a problem, >basically I think that it should be that they get to vote until a >determination otherwise is handed down (innocent until proven guilty). Esse, what I intended here was that the person would be eligible to vote until and unless a decsiion was issued otherwise. If there are five days until the end of the election and they have ten days to decide, the person could simply lose any meaning to their vote if they could make it after the results were known due to the time period. _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 09:58:05 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 JAA02875 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:58:05 -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 JAA19055 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8712C3C138; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:58:03 -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 D993E3C128 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.39]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022135801.RXXR425.invictus@pooh.bright.net>; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:58:01 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022095755.038743d0@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:04:08 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net, From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation In-Reply-To: <005801c03c28$709efd40$6b2b95d0@youda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <010801c03c1e$6dd90b00$0200a8c0@Linda> 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 07:59 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Carol wrote: >I'm still going to say that it won't matter *how* the SEC is chosen, IMHO, >under the current bylaws. Because group A will complain if done one way, >and group B will complain if done another. There isn't going to be any >pleasing of everyone, and there isn't any way under the current bylaws to >by-pass the AB. agreed... >So, I would simply state in the report that it is the *majority* >(unanimous?) opinion of this committee, that at some time in the future, >the bylaws need to be revised to allow election officials or committee >members to be totally independent and unrestrained from any selection by >AB members, such as the SEC committee members being an elected position >from each region >rather than chosen from a pool of volunteers by any group, AB, or other >committee. It is certainly not unanimous and I am not certain if it is a majority opinion or a minority opinion, I think several of us don't see it as neccesary although wouldn't object to it either. Perhaps we can say that we think that at some time in the future consideration should be given to revising the bylaws to provide a method of obtaining SEC members directly via the project rather than via appointment by the AB. I also feel that to some degree elections put people in positions based partially if not majorly on *name recognition* and that an elective process for SEC members will skip over someone not well known to the electorate who could be an excellent quiet behind the scenes non-political worker and instead elect someone well known and political in actuality (most of those well known in the project are politically oriented). _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 10:44:26 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 KAA05835 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:44:26 -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 KAA23854 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 071FE3C138; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA413C130 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08345 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01a701c03c36$7bfdb920$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022083402.03860c20@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Communications and Misc (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:24:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Holly wrote: [comment from Holly: although I see the reasoning in suggesting that the SEC prepare candidate pages, I think that process would be wide open to prejudice and slant, omission and error but that having a settled page url for listing the candidates and their urls would be just as workable as far as findability for the voters, additionally, how they present themselves is part of the process of deciding who to vote for... to make each candidate submit their page for posting on the SEC site would restrict the candidates ability to add or change the page] I was apparently not clear in what I said. My idea was that each candidate prepare their campaign page and either (1) have the page uploaded to the SEC site or (2) that one page on the SEC site contain links to a candidate's campaign page. I was trying to convey that I would like to see a campaign page be established on the SEC's web site that lists each position being voted on, broken down into national and regional seats. Each section showing what states are allowed to vote for that given seat. Under that information can be listed the URLs for the campaign pages for the candidates for that seat. I was not suggesting that the SEC prepare the campaign pages at all, only to have a "one stop shop" for everyone to visit. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:14:45 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 LAA08097 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:44 -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 LAA27117 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 866D13C13B; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFB63C138 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29502 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01c201c03c3a$b85f58c0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022070219.03a69e60@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:03:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Holly wrote: [Note to ESC: should we specifically address the fact that the EC has not handled the SP part of the national elections in the past but that per the bylaws they should be] Linda: I do believe it would be best. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:15:06 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 LAA08166 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:15:05 -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 LAA27156 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 020573C130; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CDB3C13D for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15994 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01c401c03c3a$baedf2e0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022070219.03a69e60@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:08:11 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Other than the two minority opinions I registered in separate e-mails the rest of Holly's daft is excellent and I agree with it. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:09 AM Subject: [ESC] Duties of the SEC (draft) > Duties of the committee > > 1. The Election Committee is to handle the national level elections for > Board Representatives including the elections for National Coordinator, >>>>>> snipped <<<<<<<<<< _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:31:38 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 LAA09595 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:31:38 -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 LAA29191 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 691863C138; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:31:36 -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 731A63C130 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from youda (208-149-44-228.dial-up.ipa.net [208.149.44.228]) by postoffice5.ipa.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA17189 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:31:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001701c03c3c$b3c7e460$e42c95d0@youda> From: "Carol" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001022093413.03873b20@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:28:14 -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: volunteers > (those of you whom I drafted know who you are ). As once chosen, the > AB is being given no power of removal (and uh-oh, we better address that as > the SEC itself ought to be able to do something about it) there is no > further allegiance owed. these are certainly not plum assignments for which > anyone should feel loyalty to the AB member(s) who chose them. > I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept that once the SEC is formed then the AB (and presumably no one else, either) can remove them, one or all. I am just envisioning somewhere along the line a problem, someone trademarking and incorporating the election process and charging a fee to vote, (not likely, just a far-out example, but it could happen under that statement in these guidelines) and then there be no way to "remove" someone or another. Can we just leave that part out to allow some ambiguity, so that in the off-chance that something goes awry, someone would have the authority to correct the problem? _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:45:07 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 LAA10461 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:06 -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 LAA00736 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 76BE03C135; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E033C130 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA12351 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fb01c03c3e$f6448b20$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022081504.038da670@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:34:07 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Holly Wrote: > Mechanism Constructing an in-house service is a different matter and does require special skills and knowledge (programming). I wrote about that above as *strongly suggested* as it was something several of us thought a good idea but not all felt was essential... I suppose strongly suggested is somewhere between a recommendation and a minority opinion . IMO, the SEC should express, in writing, what they would like to have the software accomplish, but they should not be privy to the daily discussion of HOW to make the s/w work. It only generates confusion as it did on this list. Some of the terminology used by computer people can be confusing or misleading to non-computer people. When Chip and I were discussing header records and footer records, we both knew all of the checks and balances that such file types contain, but it didn't make sense to any non-computer person and lead to some real misunderstandings. Shall I register this as a minority opinion? Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:45:11 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 LAA10469 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:10 -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 LAA00749 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A48F43C138; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BD03C136 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05213 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fc01c03c3e$f7a37ee0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:35:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Teresa I didn't think of that. Good suggestion. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 7:31 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > > Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. > > I agree. > > > > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged vote > > packing". > > Is it worth it to add something along the lines of "and stay within the > bylaws?" > > -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 Oct 22 11:45:20 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 LAA10484 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:20 -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 LAA00782 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7E83B3C130; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B273C13B for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA25364 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fd01c03c3e$f8eb8f40$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:36:15 -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 5.00.2615.200 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: Count me in also Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: merope To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Holly Timm wrote: > > > which reminds me... I would like all of you to remain on this list for a > > couple of weeks while the AB and the project process our report so that we > > may discuss questions regarding it. No matter how carefully we craft the > > report there are bound to be some places where what we said was perfectly > > clear to us but requires clraification to those who have not been sitting > > here with us all along > > I'll be happy to stick around. > > -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 Oct 22 11:45:31 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 LAA10488 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:30 -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 LAA00797 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4DED23C130; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592B93C135 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17030 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01fe01c03c3e$fa5b4be0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021230154.04215940@mail.bright.net><009d01c03c15$fdfa6840$0200a8c0@Linda> <4.3.2.7.2.20001022092101.03875740@mail.bright.net> Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:37:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: This has my vote Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Timm To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > At 07:49 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Carol wrote: > >. . .without the potential of adversely affecting good, hardworking cc's who > >are not vote-padding. Therefore, the ESC calls upon all members of the > >Project to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity during any election > >or voting issue. > > > I like it! > and I like the idea of not only addressing our recommendations primarily to > the board to implement but also addressing the project as a whole on an > area where they too need to be *recommended to* > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Linda Haas Davenport" > >To: > >Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:42 AM > >Subject: Re: [ESC] Overview of Past problems (draft) > > > > > > > Holly Wrote: > > > > Also identified as a problem in the last election was what may be > > > described > > > > as "Unfair response to allegations of "vote packing" " It was the > > > unanimous > > > > opinion of this committee that there was no realistic means of trying to > > > > control potential or alleged vote packing without the cure being worse > > > than > > > > the ill. (Note from Holly: can anyone phrase this paragraph better > > > please????) > > > > > > Holly - just leave off - without the cure being worse than the ill. > > > > > > It would then read: " It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that > > > there was no realistic means of trying to control potential or alleged > >vote > > > packing". > > > > > > If someone comes back and says "why" then it can be expanded on. > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Oct 22 11:45:42 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 LAA10501 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:41 -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 LAA00840 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 393C33C130; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C68C3C138 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29216 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01ff01c03c3e$fc6b4020$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <010801c03c1e$6dd90b00$0200a8c0@Linda> <005801c03c28$709efd40$6b2b95d0@youda> Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:40:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Carol: This is one of those times you and I do agree . I don't think there is any possible way to quell all negative opinion no matter what is done. I'm only struggling to try to come up with a way that will cause the **least** amount of upheaval. I think your comment is well considered. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > Taking into consideration that Linda and I have agreed to disagree, and that > I don't want to start this debate again . . . > > I'm still going to say that it won't matter *how* the SEC is chosen, IMHO, > under the current bylaws. Because group A will complain if done one way, > and group B will complain if done another. There isn't going to be any > pleasing of everyone, and there isn't any way under the current bylaws to > by-pass the AB. > > So, I would simply state in the report that it is the *majority* > (unanimous?) opinion of this committee, that at some time in the future, the > bylaws need to be revised to allow election officials or committee members > to be totally independent and unrestrained from any selection by AB members, > such as the SEC committee members being an elected position from each region > rather than chosen from a pool of volunteers by any group, AB, or other > committee. > > I'm sure there are better ways to say that. But, I think you get the idea. > > Carol > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Linda Haas Davenport" > To: "Election Committee" > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 6:36 AM > Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > > > > My comments inserted below: > > > > Linda > > > > lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Holly Timm > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:12 AM > > Subject: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation > > > > > > > Holly: Heads up on this one everybody, I've tried constructing something > > > from our current and past comments. > > > > > > The Election Study Committee unanimously recommends that a standing > > > Election Committee be seated within one month [30 days] of the Board > > > receiving this report. The standing EC will operate year round. > > > > My comment: > > I agree > > > > > > > > 1. Composition of the committee > > > Two SEC members from each region; two SEC members for the Special > > > Projects; two At Large SEC members. > > > From these 12 members, the SEC will choose a chairman and a Publicist, > > > each to serve for one year as defined in (3) regardless of the length of > > > their individual terms. > > > > My Comment: > > I think we should add the 2 alternates that were suggested. - Ok I > withdraw > > that based on comments by Holly later in this message about it not being > > possible under the by-laws. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Method of forming the committee > > > Initially, the board members representing each region (normally one SC > > > representative and two CC representatives) would select two people from > > > volunteers from eligible voters within their region; the Special > Projects > > > Board members would select two people from volunteers from eligible > voters > > > within the Special projects; the NC and The Representative at Large > would > > > each select one individual as members at large of the committee from > > > volunteers from eligible voters from any segment of the project for a > > total > > > of 12 Standing Election Committee members. > > > Replacement of SEC members due to end of term, resignation, or > continuing > > > non-responsiveness would be by the appropriate board member(s) in > > > conjuction with any recommendations from the then current SEC. > > > If deemed necessary by the SEC and approved by the AB, the SEC may take > on > > > additional workers (as opposed to committee members) during actual > > election > > > periods which shall be defined as the time from nominations through > final > > > vote count although it is the opinion of this commitee that such > > additional > > > workers would probably not be necessary. > > > > > > My comment: > > Your suggestions are excellent but I would like to register my minority > > opinion: I would prefer that the members of the SEC be chosen from > > volunteers and not be appointed by the AB even tho this year the AB has a > > lot of diversity. I covered this in another e-mail and if you want me to > > formalize my minority opinion to include in the report I will. > > > > > > > > > The selection of the SEC Chair and the SEC Publicist will be made by > > > secret ballot sent to the National Coordinator and the AB's At Large > > > Representative for counting both of whom are ex-officio members of the > SEC > > > except and unless they are presently running for office at which time > they > > > must immediately withdraw form the SEC mail list and ex officio status > as > > > must any SEC member who runs for office. Since the terms for the SEC and > > > the terms for the AB and the regular election are not the same time > period > > > there should be no difficulty in conducting simple email votes for SEC > > > Chair and Publicist. > > > > > > > My comment: > > I agree > > > > > > > > > 3. Tenure of the Committee > > > Initially, each pair of SEC members as outlined in (2) will have one > > > individual serving for one year and one individual for two years so as > to > > > stagger the turnover in SEC members. Thence forward, regular terms (not > > the > > > filling of unexpired terms) will run for two years. As it is realistic > to > > > expect that these recommendations may be actualized by the end of this > > > year, the terms are suggested as being from January 1 to December 31 > even > > > in the event that the actual formation of the SEC takes place prior to > > > January 1, 2001. > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > Carol suggested possibly having 2-3 *read-only alternates* but when I > > > tried to work their selection into any sort of procedure that still > stayed > > > within the bylaws it got really complicated and after due thought, it is > > my > > > opinion that the normal processes of the SEC will not be so burdensome > > that > > > there would be any difficulty coming up to speed and with the direct and > > > simple communication between the appropriate board members (region, SP, > > > etc) and the SEC, a replacement could be made relatively quickly from > > > recent volunteers. > > > > > > > My comment: > > If alternates won't work within the framework of the by-laws then so be > it. > > What crossed my mind when considering the alternates was that the > committee > > would not have to fight the same battles twice internally. I can readily > > conceive of a situation where a member must be replaced - the replacement > > comes on board and immediately starts asking "WHY" and possibly starts > > disagreeing with this or that. This would be a time consuming problem. An > > alternate in "read only" mode still has the option of expressing their > > concerns via private e-mail to any member much as we can do with BOARD-L. > I > > also thought about the possibility of several of the first batch of > > volunteers simply not participating. On this list for example, we have a > few > > members who have never posted or responded to anything. If we go back and > > look at the archives of this list it pretty much boils down to only a very > > few who are active. The same will probably happen with the SEC and the > first > > time around I would expect a pretty high turnover as the committee > struggles > > to get real working members. This is all just my rambling thoughts. > > > > > > > > > Linda Haas-Davenport also brought up a more extensive choice process > which > > > seemed to be a bit lengthy and time consuming but perhaps there is a > less > > > complicated way of doing do or perhaps if we increase the specifics of > > > obtaining volunteers... directions as to where to *advertise* for > them... > > > perhaps extend it form not just volunteers but also nominations as some > > > might not volunteer that someone else thinks would be good and that > > nominee > > > would be a good choice. > > > > My comment: > > Yes the process I described was a bit lengthy but what I was striving for > > was openness. I would like to see the SEC be viewed as non-partisan from > the > > git-go which means that rather than having people appointed by the AB > > (although your recommendation were excellent since there is diversity on > the > > AB this year) that the SEC would be made up of volunteers. This would > allow > > some of the most vocal opponents to the current election process the > > possibility of being on the committee and having input into the process. > It > > would also quell any allegations of "committee packing" by the AB - > whether > > the AB packed anything or not if all committee members are chosen by the > AB > > (even being chosen by individual members) then the allegations will be > > there. > > > > Where go get / advertise ...: I would like to see an announcement on the > > National web page, every state list, the BOARD-L and the 3 CC lists > > explaining (briefly) the formation of the SEC and asking for volunteers > and > > your suggestion of nominations is excellent. Perhaps the response will be > so > > small or one region or another under represented so that the specific AB > > member will have to "appoint" someone, but should that happen it can be > made > > pretty public. If we do nothing else in this committee and if nothing else > > changes I want very much to see the SEC **START** as a group of people who > > owe no allegiance to the AB, any AB member or any SC or any other > fraction. > > This first committee will set the tone for all future committees and this > > first committee will the be most watched and scrutinized of any EC or SEC > > committee. IMO it is imperative that the selection process, especially > this > > first time, be as impartial and non-political as humanly possible. > > > > > > > > > > Linda also commented about the AB not being involved in the day to day > > > workings and I don't see any involvement beyond the initial selection > > > process which purposely avoids the AB as a whole doing the selecting so > an > > > entrenched clique on the board can not keep a stranglehold on the SEC. I > > > suggested both the NC and the At Large as ex officio to expand slightly > > the > > > contact with the AB and to allow for one or the other to be > non-functional > > > without severing the contact. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated > > though > > > that ex officio means non-voting and non-participating in day to day > > > business unless their opinions are specifically sought. > > > > > > My comments: > > I didn't realistically expect the AB to be involved in the day to day > > workings > > of the committee. I put that in so that there would be no misunderstanding > > about what the AB could and could not do by anyone reading the > > recommendations or the final "rules" for the committee. It is a sore point > > with some very vocal people so I thought by putting my statement in it > would > > quell some of the those people at the very beginning. > > > > Last election the AB was upset that the EC did not communicate with them > and > > things got off-track. If monthly reports are made to the AB and posted on > > BOARD-L then not only will the AB know what is going on but other people > > will as well but the AB would not be able to micro-manage the committee. > (Is > > that clear at all???? ) > > > > > > > > > > Esse asked regarding bylaws changes and the emergency provision... > > > Holly: In my opinion, this would not fall under the emergency bylaws > > change > > > provision which I feel strongly should be reserved for serious critical > > > urgent situations which I hope never actually occur. > > > > > > Teresa commented regarding no necessity for the SEC to operate under > > > parliamentary procedure and I agree wholeheartedly but wasn't sure where > > to > > > put it or how to say it. The SEC is a working committee, not a decision > > > making committee and should not have any need for the restrictive > > structure > > > of PP. > > > > > > My comment: > > 100% agreement with Teresa's recommendation. Holly - go back to your > e-mail > > that states the purpose of the committee and add it at the end which is > > where it really belongs > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Oct 22 11:45:51 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 LAA10505 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:51 -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 LAA00854 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7AF083C130; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7436F3C13C for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA16786 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <020001c03c3f$01a0de60$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: Subject: Re: [ESC] Standing Committee Formation Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:41:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Teresa wrote: I would suggest for replacing EC members whose terms are ended, that the Board begin accepting volunteers for those positions that are opening up at the start of December [or even mid-November], select new members and get them voted on so that they are ready to join the committee on Jan 1, using the procedures they used for initial formation of the committee [including voting on the slate of replacements, instead of individual replacements]. I would also add that people may continue on the committee in a new term if they wish and the EC and Board are agreeable to it. [I don't think term limits are necessary for this committee and if someone is doing a good job and wants to stay no point in turning them away.] Linda - I agree Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 11:53:36 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 LAA11041 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:53:36 -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 LAA01718 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A76D53C136; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:53:34 -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 011D33C130 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.bright.net ([209.143.46.16]) by invictus.bright.net with ESMTP id <20001022155332.TONP425.invictus@pooh.bright.net> for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:53:32 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022115839.00c49b60@mail.bright.net> X-Sender: hollyft@mail.bright.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:59:38 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) In-Reply-To: <01fb01c03c3e$f6448b20$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022081504.038da670@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: Sorry... thought it was clear that I felt the software writing group should be a separate endeavor form the SEC day to dya business... it shoudl some how be affliated with the SEc I think... a working committee reporting to it perhaps? At 10:34 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >Holly Wrote: > > Mechanism >Constructing an in-house service is a different matter and does require >special skills and knowledge (programming). I wrote about that above as >*strongly suggested* as it was something several of us thought a good idea >but not all felt was essential... I suppose strongly suggested is somewhere >between a recommendation and a minority opinion > > >Althought I would perfer that the SEC have **nothing** to do with the >selection of an outside service simply because it would do away with all >charges of "vote tampering" I will not disagree at all that the SEC should >have the job of selecting an outside voteing service if that is the majority >opinion. I don't feel strongly enough about it express a minority opinion. > >However, when it comes to writing an in-house software package then a >separate committee does need to be establsihed. I think I speak for all of >us on this committee who are fairly knowledgeable about computer programming >(if not speak up guys). > >Some of the most heated discussions on this list were about what each >individual "Thought" the software was going to do or not do. Yet, most of >the fears, wants, or don't wants put forth were already addressed in the >design outline. A lot of time was spent trying to explain the workings of >software to people who really don't know how computer software works. That >is not to put anyone down at all. There are thousands of things I don't know >about but sometimes I sure have opinons about them . > >IMO, the SEC should express, in writing, what they would like to have the >software accomplish, but they should not be privy to the daily discussion of >HOW to make the s/w work. It only generates confusion as it did on this >list. Some of the terminology used by computer people can be confusing or >misleading to non-computer people. When Chip and I were discussing header >records and footer records, we both knew all of the checks and balances that >such file types contain, but it didn't make sense to any non-computer person >and lead to some real misunderstandings. > >Shall I register this as a minority opinion? > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Oct 22 12:46:02 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 MAA14418 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:01 -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 MAA07569 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 470593C152; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9B53C142 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11548 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <023901c03c47$78a074a0$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001022093413.03873b20@mail.bright.net> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:22:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] Volunteer problem - comment 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 Wrote: I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes on has to beat the bushes for volunteers... we had some where around 18 volunteers for the 10 CC slots on this committee but I had to beat the bushes for SC volunteers (those of you whom I drafted know who you are ). As once chosen, the AB is being given no power of removal (and uh-oh, we better address that as the SEC itself ought to be able to do something about it) there is no further allegiance owed. these are certainly not plum assignments for which anyone should feel loyalty to the AB member(s) who chose them. Linda writes: I do know that . But perhaps if the word is spread widely and also if people think that they will not be involved in the "politics" of the project enough (and more than enough) people will volunteer . And, by breaking up the committee into regions that should help dig at least 2 volunteers out of the woodwork for each region and also keep the committee from becoming top heavy with any particular fraction. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 12:46:15 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 MAA14430 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:14 -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 MAA07584 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id EA7043C152; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832DE3C156 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03312 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <023a01c03c47$79e88500$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001021231842.0425c2f0@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001022093413.03873b20@mail.bright.net> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:29:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: esc@pairlist.net Subject: [ESC] AB day to day mgmt comment 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's comments: >I didn't realistically expect the AB to be involved in the day to day >workings of the committee. I put that in so that there would be no >misunderstanding about what the AB could and could not do by anyone >reading the recommendations or the final "rules" for the committee. It is >a sore point with some very vocal people so I thought by putting my >statement in it would quell some of the those people at the very beginning. > >Last election the AB was upset that the EC did not communicate with them >and things got off-track. If monthly reports are made to the AB and posted >on BOARD-L then not only will the AB know what is going on but other >people will as well but the AB would not be able to micro-manage the >committee. (Is that clear at all???? ) Holly Wrote: Actually a good bit of the problem this last time was not only not receiving reports but that efforts by the AB to work things out were ignored, the AB is still not bale (by our recommendations) to micro-manage but they are able to oversee things in general which would have made a considerable difference last time around as would reports of actions taken like the 90 day decision which was not discovered until we were about underway with the actual voting Linda Writes: I agree I'm only trying to put the obvious into words. You know, I know and probably everyone else on this list knows that the AB doesn't have time to micro-manage anything. But, there are a lot of people who think they do. If the AB has a good set of guidelines / rules / whatever for the SEC then the need to do much of anything would only occur if the entire committee started wandering off into something that was against the by-laws or wasn't doing their job or suddenly came up with something that caused the general membership to get in arms. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 12:52:57 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 MAA14857 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:52:57 -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 MAA08222 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:52:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 876AC3C156; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:52:55 -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 D66173C152 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from me.netdoor.com (port1244.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.210.44]) by pike.netdoor.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21523 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:52:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001022114606.00c81340@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: cch@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:48:50 -0500 To: esc@pairlist.net From: Carol C-H Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) In-Reply-To: <023b01c03c47$7b79d360$0200a8c0@Linda> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022081504.038da670@mail.bright.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20001022115839.00c49b60@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 Is this still a minority opinion? Carol C-H At 11:42 AM 10/22/2000 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: >Well Holly we both keep missing key words and I thought I was saying I >would prefer to see a recommendation of a different committee rather than a >suggestion of a different committee. > >In answer to your question: > >I would suggest that the s/w committee report to the SEC. The SEC members >are the ones who will have to tell the s/w folks what they want in the >software and how they want to use it. The two groups will have to "meet" and >hammer out what's needful but when it comes down to "hey guys do we use >header/footer records or Y/N flags" then it needs to be separate. > >If I were in charge I'd have both committees "meet" on the SEC's list and >talk about what is wanted, etc etc etc and then the S/W committee could >retire to their own list and discuss ways and means to accomplish the >whatever. Once decided they would take their ideas back to the SEC list and >hammer out the final requirements. After the hammering is finished - I'd let >the s/w folks crawl into the hole that all programmers crawl into during >development and emerge with a test program. Everyone would push, pull and >shove the test program around until both sides are satisfied and then >present it to the general membership to test. > >Just the way I'd do it. > >Linda > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Holly Timm >To: >Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 11:59 AM >Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) > > > > Sorry... thought it was clear that I felt the software writing group >should > > be a separate endeavor form the SEC day to dya business... it shoudl some > > how be affliated with the SEc I think... a working committee reporting to > > it perhaps? > > > > At 10:34 AM 10/22/00 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > > >Holly Wrote: > > > > Mechanism > > >Constructing an in-house service is a different matter and does require > > >special skills and knowledge (programming). I wrote about that above as > > >*strongly suggested* as it was something several of us thought a good >idea > > >but not all felt was essential... I suppose strongly suggested is >somewhere > > >between a recommendation and a minority opinion > > > > > > > > > > >Althought I would perfer that the SEC have **nothing** to do with the > > >selection of an outside service simply because it would do away with all > > >charges of "vote tampering" I will not disagree at all that the SEC >should > > >have the job of selecting an outside voteing service if that is the >majority > > >opinion. I don't feel strongly enough about it express a minority >opinion. > > > > > >However, when it comes to writing an in-house software package then a > > >separate committee does need to be establsihed. I think I speak for all >of > > >us on this committee who are fairly knowledgeable about computer >programming > > >(if not speak up guys). > > > > > >Some of the most heated discussions on this list were about what each > > >individual "Thought" the software was going to do or not do. Yet, most of > > >the fears, wants, or don't wants put forth were already addressed in the > > >design outline. A lot of time was spent trying to explain the workings of > > >software to people who really don't know how computer software works. >That > > >is not to put anyone down at all. There are thousands of things I don't >know > > >about but sometimes I sure have opinons about them . > > > > > >IMO, the SEC should express, in writing, what they would like to have the > > >software accomplish, but they should not be privy to the daily discussion >of > > >HOW to make the s/w work. It only generates confusion as it did on this > > >list. Some of the terminology used by computer people can be confusing or > > >misleading to non-computer people. When Chip and I were discussing header > > >records and footer records, we both knew all of the checks and balances >that > > >such file types contain, but it didn't make sense to any non-computer >person > > >and lead to some real misunderstandings. > > > > > >Shall I register this as a minority opinion? > > > > > >Linda > > > > > >lhaasdav@mindspring.com > > >Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas > > >Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion > > >List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 Carol C-H http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ _______________________________________________ Esc mailing list Esc@pairlist.net http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/esc From esc-admin@pairlist.net Sun Oct 22 12:57:32 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 MAA15255 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:57:32 -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 MAA08633 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pairlist.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1F66C3C152; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: esc@pairlist.net Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pairlist.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCA43C13C for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Linda (1Cust106.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net [63.27.16.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04440 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <02f701c03c49$13f3d540$0200a8c0@Linda> From: "Linda Haas Davenport" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001022081504.038da670@mail.bright.net><4.3.2.7.2.20001022115839.00c49b60@mail.bright.net> <4.3.1.2.20001022114606.00c81340@mail.netdoor.com> Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:56:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Carol: I'm not sure. Holly recommendation seemed to be "suggest" a separate committee. My opinion is that one is needed. I'm sure where we stand on this. Linda lhaasdav@mindspring.com Home.page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas Marion.Co.AR http://www.rootsweb.com/~armarion List hostess for -h.a.a.s/l.e.w.a.l.l.e.n/w.a.s.h.i.n.g.t.o.n n.c ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol C-H To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [ESC] Mechanism (draft) > Is this still a minority opinion? > > Carol C-H > > At 11:42 AM 10/22/2000 -0500, Linda Haas Davenport wrote: > >Well Holly we both keep missing key words and I thought I was saying I > >would prefer to see a recommendation of a different committee rather than a > >suggestion of a different committee. > > > >In answer to your question: > > > >I would suggest that the s/w committee report to the SEC. The SEC members > >are the ones who will have to tell the s/w folks what they want in the > >software and how they want to use it. The two groups will have to "meet" and > >hammer out what's needful but when it comes down to "hey guys do we use > >header/footer records or Y/N flags" then it needs to be separate. > > > >If I were in charge I'd have both committees "meet" on the SEC's list and > >talk about what is wanted, etc etc etc and then the S/W committee could > >retire to their own list and discuss ways and means to accomplish the > >whatever. Once decided they would take their ideas back to the SEC list and > >hammer out the final requirements. After the hammering