BlogThis! Bat Cave Monday, October 25, 2004 Day 1 This hearing into charges against Tim Stowell is now open. Charges against Richard Pettys will be considered separately. The following people have been subscribed to this list: Committee Members: Isaiah Harrison (Chair), Cyndie Enfinger, Pam Reid, Richard Howland, Shari Handley, Teri Brown, Don Kelly, Darilee Bednar, Linda Blum Barton, Denise Woodside, Gail Meyer Kilgore, Larry Flesher, Phyllis Rippee, Bettie Wood, Angie Rayfield Accused: Tim Stowell Board Secretary: Greta Thompson Parliamentarian: Roger Swafford This is a confidential list. Material posted here may not be forwarded to private individuals not on the list or to any public list or website. Anyone suspected of breaching the confidentiality of this list will be immediately removed. I will now forward for the record: * The cover letter to Mr. Stowell * The Statement of Charges * Mr. Stowell's response to the Charges Once that is done, the floor will be open for questions and comments from the Committee members and Mr. Stowell. -Isaiah ? Response of Timothy Stowell. to Complaint > Against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr. > > By the filing of this Complaint, the USGenWeb Advisory Board has acted in a > manner that exceeds the scope of powers granted to them in the USGenWeb > Project Bylaws, more specifically, in Article VI, Section 3 which states: > "The responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any > problem issues as they arise, aiding the state projects upon request, > overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances > or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain the national website." > > The Accused wishes to point out that the Bylaws do not grant the Advisory > Board the power to conduct trials or hearings, nor to file complaints of any > kind, thus this Advisory Board has exceeded their scope in the filing of > this Complaint. > > However, in the spirit of cooperation, the Accused will answer these charges > as follows: > > Mr. Stowell denies all allegations of wrongdoing on his part as set forth in > the Complaint. Each separate allegation will be responded to herein and > refererenced exhibits are located that this URL: > http://www.geocities.com/usgwtruth/ > > Allegation: Violation of Section I of the USGenWeb Bylaws: > > Respondent denies any violation of Section I of the USGenWeb Bylaws. The > name of the Project was GAGenWeb. > > Exhibit 1: Copy of the GAGenWeb Guidelines. > Exhibit 2: Listing of other states that refer to themselves by > [State Name] GenWeb > Article IX, Section 1, USGenWeb Bylaws: All websites shall include > prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state > project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in > effect for that state. > > This was not violated. > > Allegation: Violation of Section II of the USGenWeb Bylaws: > > Respondent denies any violation of Section II of the USGenWeb Bylaws. The > state website offered county, local, and town websites that housed data. > > Exhibit 3: County Table for GAGenWeb > > Allegation: Violation of Article XI, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the USGenWeb > Bylaws. > > Section 1: Denied - the State did allow for county adoptions > Section 2: Denied - Georgia had County Coordinators and each new > coordinator was subbed to the GAGen list. If a coordinator was unsubbed it > was due to vacations or a change in email address. When on vacation they > wished to be unsubbed so their mailbox wouldn't overflow. It was the > responsibility of each CC to let the SC know when they returned. > Section 3: Denied - Websites had links to the state and national pages, > included query pages, and there were other requirements that were set forth > in the GAGenWeb Guidelines. > Section 4: Denied - I did not remove data that was contributed by > researchers. My states and counties were delinked and disaffiliated at the > request of the USGenWeb Advisory Board. Subsequently, I was ordered by > Rootsweb to remove the links and logos to USGenWeb. My sites remain in the > same exact location as prior to being delinked. I categorically deny > allowing cc's to be listed who had left. I never knowingly allowed any site > to be listed as being hosted when it was not. If a CC resigned - their > county was put up for adoption and either myself or a RC's name and email > address would be listed until such time as the site was adopted. Sometimes > folks vanished and as soon as we found out they were no longer there, we'd > put the county up for adoption. Sometimes a CC resigned but offered to > maintain until a new CC was found, their name was left there, with the > adopt me notice. > > Allegation: Violation of Article XII, Sections, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the > USGenWeb Bylaws. > > Section 2: Denied - All required links were there as indicated, and if not, > no notice was received by the SC as required by the USGenWeb Bylaws, i. e., > Article VI, Section 5. "The Advisory Board shall also have the > responsibility to remove links from the national website, as appropriate, > to websites which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for > The USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. > Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified > of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their > website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on > justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator." > > Section 3: Denied - All required links were there as indicated, and if not, > no notice was received by the SC as required by the USGenWeb Bylaws, i. e., > Article VI, Section 5. "The Advisory Board shall also have the > responsibility to remove links from the national website, as appropriate, > to websites which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for > The USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. > Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be > notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to > bring their website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be > flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator." > > Section 4: Denied - I was subbed to the SC list until the NC unsubbed me. > I was unable to resub myself. I maintained a list of local coordinators. > The NC never requested personal information from me or anyone on the SC > List. > > Section 5: Denied - See Exhibit 1. GaGenWeb had state guidelines which > included procedures for handling grievances.When the Georgia Guidelines were > being formed, I wrote the Parlimentarian at least 2 times requesting a > review of them to weed out any conflicts with the USGenWeb Bylaws. No > response was received indicating any variances. > > Section 6: Denied - Sites were reviewed as time permitted, with the RC > system, each person had approximately 20 counties to keep tabs on. Some > sites were not updated as much as I'd have preferred, and if those are the > ones in question, they remain the same to this date. In looking over the > GaGenWeb sites, I see that 20 are out of compliance as of this date. I am > unable to give more specific answers due to lack of specificity in charges > received. See Exhibits 3 and 4. > > Exhibit 3 - URL's of out of compliance GaGenWeb counties as of today > Exhibit 4 - Copy of the County List for GaGenWeb as of today > > Section 7: Denied - I was unaware of any links which failed to meet > USGenWeb or GaGenWeb guidelines.I depended on my RCs to check for counties > that were abandoned. GA had set up a process and it was working. I am > unaware of any counties that did not meet the state guidelines that we were > not working to correct. Every CC requires different handling and AB should > review the entire site, not just glance at the front page. > > GaGenWeb State Guidelines - Allegation: Violations Alleged: Numbers 1, 3, > 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16. > > GaGenWeb Guideline #1: Denied - Membership was granted to the SC, ASC, > RC's, County Coordinators, Co-County Coordinators, Asst. County > Coordinators, and Special Projects Coordinators. Per the guidelines, no > county could have more than two voting co-cc's and no more than one voting > asst. cc. See Exhibit 5. > > Exhibit 5 - List of GaGenWeb members 1st Quarter 2004. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #3: Denied - At the inception of the guidelines, all > members of the GAGenWeb were granted statewide voting privileges. After the > inception of the guidlines, SCs, ASCs, RCs, CCs, and SPCs were given voting > privileges immediately upon assuming duties. All other members were given > statewide voting privileges six months after assuming duties. Each voting > member of GaGenWeb had one vote per election or issue. USGenWeb elections > are conducted by the EC and I did submit to the EC my lists in accordance > with the USGenWeb By-Laws. The EC conducted elections and sent out > passwords to cc's. > > Exhibit 6 - Vote totals to adopt GAGenWeb guidelines > > GAGenWeb Guideline #6: Denied - GAGenWeb and Special Projects sites > provided genealogical researchers with freely accessible records pertainint > to each county. County sites were not permitted to be primarily a directory > of county-related links to other sites. County sites were not allowed to be > primarily a site for sale of genealogy-related items such as books and > CD-Roms. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #7: Denied - County sites were linked to and from the > main GAGenWeb site. GAGenWeb delinked and dismissed county coordinators > only when they were not in compliance or had violated USGenWeb or GAGenWeb > guidelines and bylaws. I did dismiss one person for making extremely crude > remarks of a sexual nature regarding myself and a RC. This was totally > inappropriate behavior and bordered on sexual harassment. > > > GAGenWeb Guideline #10: Denied - As SC, the guidelines were followed by > cc's. If they failed to follow them, they were given a chance to remediate > problems and if they failed to do so, were delinked. Carolyn Golowka was > removed in accordance with the GAGenWeb Guidelines for failure to put data > that was given to her on her county site per Article 13 of those Guidelines. > Like every other GAGenWeb cc, Carolyn had the remedies as stated in the > guidelines available to her but she chose not to avail herself of them. If > cc's took issue with their removal, the GAGenWeb Guidelines had provisions > for remedies available to them. The AB, in their removal and delinking of > me, failed to recognize or encourage former cc's to make use of the remedies > available to them in the GAGenWeb Guidelines. They totally by-passed the > state and failed to allow the state to remediate problems. The AB failed to > conduct themselves within the powers granted them by the USGenWeb Bylaws, i. > e., Article VI, Section 3. "The responsibilities of the Advisory Board > shall include: addressing any problem issues as they arise, aiding the state > projects upon request, overseeing elections, advising and mediating, if > necessary, any grievances or appeals, and appointing a Webmaster to maintain > the national website." Rather than to fulfill their duties, the AB, instead > chose to overstep the Bylaws and initiate actions themselves, thus > circumventing the GAGenWeb Guidelines. Additionally, the only provisions > within the Bylaws for the removal of a SC are by a 2/3 vote of the AB AND a > 2/3 vote of the cc's within the state, with a quorum of 75 percent of > eligible voters being required to participate. This was not done and > mediation was not offered. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #12: Denied - Coordinators were appointed according to > the GAGenWeb Guidelines. If they were refused counties it was based upon > the GAGenWeb Guidelines. The reason either myself or my RCs had at times > more than 3 counties was to babysit them until a county coordinator could be > found. Carolyn Golowka was removed according to the GAGenWeb Guidelines for > failure to put data that was given to her on her site per Article 16 of > the GAGenWeb State Guidelines. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #13: Denied - Please see response to allegation of > violation of USGenWeb Bylaw XII, Section 7. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #14: Denied - Please see response to allegation of > violation of USGenWeb Bylaw XII, Section 7. I will not respond to the > complaints by Debra Crosby, Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, Carolyn Golowka as > the charges are entirely based upon illegal emails, wherein the copyrights > of myself and Brenda Pierce were violated, for the sole purpose of bringing > charges. The emails that were used without the knowledge or permission of > the either Brenda or myself. Also note that Crosby, Rankin and Golowka all > chose not to avail themselves of the remedies as set forth in the GAGenWeb > Guidelines and instead chose to go directly to the AB, who by their > presumptive actions prevented any mediation or resolution of the complaints > at the state level. Furthermore, the AB did not direct the CCs in question > to follow the State Guidelines for redress. The AB's response was to remove > and delink myself, Richad Pettys, and Brenda Pierce. Now the AB has blamed > me for a lack of remediation which they, themselves prevented from taking > place. Since the Bylaws state that States are encouraged to have guidelines > beyond the Bylaws, the AB is in effect telling these members to ignore the > GAGenWeb Bylaws and the USGenWeb Bylaws.Therfore, all these charges are > categorically denied. > > GAGenWeb Guideline #16: Denied - To the best of my knowledge the pages > within the State were in compliance of the USGenWeb and GAGenWeb Guidelines > and Bylaws. If there were pages out of compliance the AB failed to inform > me or to give me the two weeks to remediate issues as is called for in the > USGenWeb Bylaws. Therefore, this charge is categorically denied. > > In response to the complaint that I didn't announce new cc's on the list, > that was dealt with over a year ago prior to the vote to remove me from > GAGenWeb by the cc's. I apologized to the list, and this was already dealt > with. To use this again against me is double-jeopardy and is not legal in > any state in this country, or at the Federal level. I categorically deny > this allegation. > > In response to the complaint that Richard and myself created an atmosphere > of fear and intimidation, I categorically deny such charges and offer > Exhibits 7 and 8. > > Exhibit 7 - Letter from Bill Clody which was forwarded to the CC list. > Exhibit 8 - Letter from Amy Hetrick to me. > > This accused, Timothy S. Stowell, hereby requests that he be immediately > returned to all of his positions held within the USGenWeb Project as of > April 23, 2004. If this is not done, he will seek a remedy in the Federal > courts in which he will name the National Coordinator, each member of the > Advisory Board as of April 23, 2004, and the USGenWeb Project. In bringing > litigation against the USGenWeb Project, each and every individual member of > the project may be held liable for the > actions of this Advisory Board. > > I hereby demand full legal names and home addresses at which service may be > effected by an officer designated perfect such service of process. > > Respectfully, > > Tim Stowell > ? ****************************************************************** Complaint against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr. SUMMARY: Tim Stowell, in his position as State Coordinator of GAGenWeb has violated the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and the Guidelines of GAGenWeb, and has allowed the same Bylaws and Guidelines to be violated by those he appointed to the positions of Assistant State Coordinator and Regional Coordinators. Richard Pettys, Jr., in his position as 2nd Assistant State Coordinator and as a Regional Coordinator in GAGenWeb has violated the Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project and the Guidelines of GAGenWeb. The USGenWeb Project Bylaws Violated are Article I, II, XI - Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4; Article XII - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. GAGenWeb Project Guidelines violated are Numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16. Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys have used unfair, discriminatory, and deceitful management practices and have created an atmosphere of secrecy, oppression, distrust and fear among the CCs of GAGenWeb. In doing so, they have ignored their responsibilities and duties in the positions of State Coordinator and Assistant State Coordinator, respectively, and have violated the rights of CC's. The above violates both the letter and the spirit of The USGenWeb Project and has done harm to both the volunteers and the researchers of the GAGenWeb Project. CHARGES: (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee. (b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. (c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought intocompliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required. (d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored. (f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN- L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues. (2) Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs. In 2003,Mr. Pettys started a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC). The GRC worked to revise GAGenWeb guidelines to provide further protection for CC rights within the project, and to establish a grievance procedure that did not involve the State Coordinator or the appointed ASCs and RCs. The Committee asked for input from CC's throughout their work. Mr. Pettys threatened to stop the work of the committee, and did disband the committee before their work could be completed. Following this action, Mr. Stowell announced a vote to be taken on GAGEN-L. The vote, which was counted by Mr. Stowell and Mari Byers of TNGenWeb, indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a non-binding poll. (3) The most recent dismissals of County Coordinators were in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines. (a) IN THE CASE OF SYLVIA RANKIN, LINDA GEIGER and DEBRA CROSBY The GAGenWeb Guidelines do not state that "feelings that are burdensome to us as a whole" or feelings of being "extremely disgruntled and unhappy in the GAGenWeb Project" are reasons for dismissal. Nor is there a clause sanctioning dismissal for additional, unspecified reasons as determined by the SC or the GAGenWeb Council. The following are the only reasons specified in the GAGenWeb Guidelines for dismissal: Section 14: abandonment of the site (defined in Section 13) and/or violations of these guidelines. Section 15 Offering Items for Sale on County Sites: "Persistent complaints to GAGenWeb about failure to deliver the proper items and/or refunds where applicable could result in dismissal from GAGenWeb. A coordinator who sells, or solicits items not covered within the exceptions above will be immediately dismissed from GAGenWeb." Section 19 (GAGEN Email list): Violation of rules of common courtesy on the email list "may subject the offender to loss of posting privileges or dismissal from GAGenWeb for a repeated pattern." Section 11 Settlement of Grievances: In the event of a disagreement involving a GAGenWeb site, or a disagreement over genealogical data stored on, or proposed for, a GAGenWeb site a coordinator has the right to ask the coordinator in the next highest position to settle the grievance up through the SC to the GAGenWeb Council. "After exhausting GAGenWeb's grievance procedures, a party may have recourse under the USGenWeb Bylaws." The fact that Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, and Debra Crosby were unsubscribed from the GAGenWeb list before SC Tim Stowell announced their dismissal and within "an hour or so" of the time that the GAGenWeb Council was notified indicates that none of them saw the statement that dismissed them. Finally, coordinators in violation of any page requirements "will be given warning and 30 days to correct the infraction" (Section 16; cf. Section 20f). While "feelings that are burdensome" are not one of the requirements, the abrupt dismissal of the coordinators certainly violates the spirit of the stated rights of coordinators. EXHIBIT A: Message to Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, and Debra Crosby from Tim Stowell EXHIBIT B: Message to GAGenWeb mail list from Tim Stowell (b) IN THE CASE OF CAROLYN GOLOWKA Brenda Pierce, in her position as ASC, engaged in a campaign to create or manufacture evidence against Kay Stowe, as evidenced by her letter to Kay Stowe and by the case of the Bible records data. Standards applied by Brenda Pierce in the case of Carolyn Golowka's site were not applied uniformly to the counties in her region, including county(ies) coordinated by Tim Stowell. Section 13 of the GAGenWeb Guidelines states that "new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update." Clear warning and sufficient time (30 days) to correct problems were not provided before Carolyn was dismissed. Tim Stowell approved of and supported Brenda's action and referenced Section 6 of the By-laws in writing to Richard Howland. EXHIBIT C: Message to Kay Stowe from Brenda Pierce EXHIBIT D: Message regarding Bible Records EXHIBIT E: Message notifying Carolyn of problems with site EXHIBIT F: Message notifying Carolyn of termination EXHIBIT G: Message to Richard Howland from Tim Stowell August 3, 2004 Tim Stowell cc: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com As the Secretary of the USGenWeb Advisory Board, I have the responsibility of sending you a Statement of the Charges made against you as a member of the USGenWeb and the GAGenWeb. You will find that Statement attached. You have fifteen days to prepare a defense and send it to me. The Advisory Board will hold its hearing as soon as we receive your response. The hearings will be conducted on a list dedicated to that purpose. You have the right to ask to be subscribed to that list, to present your defense to, and to receive a transcript of the hearing. I am asking for a receipt, acknowledging that you have received and read this message. If you have any questions for the Advisory Board, please address them to me. Sincerely, Greta Thompson Recording Secretary USGenWeb Advisory Board bluebear@new.rr.com At 09:11 AM 8/18/2004 -0700, you wrote: > Response of Timothy Stowell. to Complaint > Against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr. The Chair would like to address two points in Mr. Stowell's response. > > By the filing of this Complaint, the USGenWeb Advisory Board has acted in a > manner that exceeds the scope of powers granted to them in the USGenWeb > Project Bylaws, The Advisory Board acting under parliamentary law has the right and obligation to act as necessary to protect the rights of the organization and its members. > I hereby demand full legal names and home addresses at which service may be > effected by an officer designated perfect such service of process. > > Respectfully, > > Tim Stowell Your request is denied. -Isaiah Since there is no precedence in USGenWeb history for this, What are the rules? Who is who and under what guidelines are we working? Just what Committee is this? Since these people have already judge the Accused guilty and expunged him from the project, why are they again being asked to again judge him for the same Charges? Since several of the member have already shown and stated that they have personal issues that have not be resolved, why are they allowed to sit in judgment? I understand that there is very little chance that such a bias group will be able to find the Accuse not guilty, but what if they do? Does the accused go back as GAGenWeb SC? Just what is the upside for the Accused? Richard... for USGenWeb Membership. Well, this part had to be done and now the committee can move on. I feel uncomfortable with threats intended to intimidate members of this committee. Onward and upward. Don Kelly Lets try to state it simple Richard. 1. The charges were compiled, printed and delivered. 2. How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?. 3. The response to plea and defense. 4. Now both sides have been heard and it is time to move on. I am personally offended by your suggestion that members of this committee have already found Tim guilty. We received his response only today, and I haven't had time yet to compare it for congruency. In my view, while exceptions are always possible, that statement generally rings untrue. Don Kelly Chapter 30 of The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure Often-Asked Questions Question: When an organization's bylaws disagree with it parliamentary authority, which should it follow? Answer: Its bylaws. A parliamentary authority, such as this book, is intended as a backup, to apply in situations not cover bylaws or standing rules. Under what precedent or rule is the Accused not allowed to know his accuser's. Richard... for the USGenWeb Membership It may ring untrue Don, but this group voted as is recorded in Board minutes: http://www.usgenweb.com/business/AB-05-2004.shtml Suspension of 3 USGenWeb members (5-29-04) Representative at Large Shari Handley moved - that all Georgia County Coordinators and Assistant County Coordinators who have been dismissed in the past 6 months be immediately reinstated to their previous positions as CC, ACC or RC in GAGenWeb without prejudice, and with no loss of seniority. - that Tim Stowell be immediately suspeended (removed temporarily) from membership in The USGenWeb Project for a period of 60 days or until the results of a removal hearing are known. - that immediate steps be taken to holdd elections for State Coordinator in Georgia as soon as such elections can be arranged with the EC. - that immediate steps be taken to holdd elections for State Coordinator in North Dakota as soon as such elections can be arranged with the EC. - that Richard Pettys be immediately suuspended (removed temporarily) from membership in The USGenWeb Project for a period of 60 days or until the results of a removal hearing are known. - that Brenda Pierce be immediately susspended (removed temporarily) from membership in The USGenWeb Project for a period of 60 days or until the results of a removal hearing are known. The removal hearing(s) shall be conducted by the Advisory Board. Since the election nominations period is scheduled to begin June 1st, and the outcome of this motion will have an impact on the ability of those named to run for USGenWeb office, the following provision is included in this motion: In the event that the results of this motion are not known by 11:59 p.m. May 31, 2004, The USGenWeb Elections Committee is directed to place a "hold" on any nomination received for any of the persons named in this motion, pending the results of the motion. If the motion passes, those named will be considered to have been suspended from membership as of the date this motion was made. If the motion fails, any such nomination may proceed normally. The motion was numbered 04-14. Discussion ensued. (5-31-04) The motion passed with 10 "yes" votes, 1 "no" vote, no abstentions, and 3 members not voting. Those voting YES: Cyndie Enfinger, Shari Handley, Teri Brown, Don Kelly, Gail Meyer Kilgore, Denise Woodside, Linda Blum-Barton, Larry Flesher, Phyllis Rippee, and Bettie Wood Those voting NO: Richard Howland Those abstaining: none Those not voting: Pam Reid, Jan Cortez, and Darilee Bednar Call it what you like. But a secret hearing was held and a ballot cast. The Accused was found guilt and sentenced. By this group. All of which was done in defiance of It's Bylaws and Parliamentary Procedure. Richard... for the USGenWeb Membership I, for one, and entering this with an open mind. Denise Woodside As a Hearing Committee, this group is responsible for determining the guilt and/or innocence of Mr. Stowell in regard to each of the charges and reporting that finding to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board will determine appropriate action depending on the outcome. Members would have to recuse themselves from participating and voting only if a direct personal or financial interest in the matter could be demonstrated. -Isaiah A public ballot was cast. No one has been found guilty & no sentence has been passed. They have been formally accused and suspended pending a resolution of the matter. None of which is the issue for this hearing. Could we possibly, just this once, stick to the matter at hand and quit re-hashing the same tired grandstanding & posturing? Thank you, Tim, for your prompt response to the charges. I'm sure there will probably be questions and requests for additional information after we've had a chance to read them thoroughly. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Angie......Amen! Phyllis posted by BatCave at 3:45 PM Day 2 If you have already decided the parties are not guilty, then shouldn't you ecuse yourself from further deliberations? Don Don I believe that the word you are wanting to use is recuse? I think that you and several others on this committee have demonstrate that they don't care where the Accused is guilty or not. That you fully intend for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence, guilt, or innocence, to vote guilty. I also think that a chair that will answer questions of an outside list and not answer the questions of a committee member, should find another job. More so when he publicly announces that "It has been my experience that the threat of a lawsuit is the last ploy of a loser." Now since we are here at this hearing can we finally see this evidence that proves the Accused guilty of charges? Richard... for the USGenWeb Membership Having read Mr. Stowell's response to the charges, does any member have questions for him? -Isaiah I am not sure what the appropriate way to do this hearing is, but since Mr. Stowell has denied all violations, I'd like to go through each one, one by one, starting with the first - allowing for both sides to spell out why they think the bylaws was violated or not. _____________________________________ ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this organization shall be "The USGenWeb Project." The name, "The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project. To this, Mr. Stowell has stated: Allegation: Violation of Section I of the USGenWeb Bylaws: Respondent denies any violation of Section I of the USGenWeb Bylaws. The name of the Project was GAGenWeb. Exhibit 1: Copy of the GAGenWeb Guidelines. Exhibit 2: Listing of other states that refer to themselves by [State Name] GenWeb Exhibits posted: www.geocities.com/usgwtruth/ ___________________________________________ I would like to start the discussion with Article 1. I do not see where the GAGenWeb project under direction of Mr. Stowell violated Article I of the USGenWeb guidelines. Although the GAGenWeb logo spelled out the name of Georgia, I do not see where this Article mandates that the logos cannot use the entire name of the state in the logo. Additionally, the use of GeorgiaGenWeb and GAGenWeb could easily be used interchangably given that GA is the abbreviation for Georgia and GA would be pronounced "Georgia" rather than being pronouced : "Gee Aay". Is this additional discussion on Article I? Should we discuss each article and hold the vote to the end? Or vote after each article discussion? Denise Woodside Richard, With all due respect to you, I believe your position on AB is to represent the State Coordinators in the NENC Region of USGenWeb Project as my position is to represent the County Coordinators in the SEMA Region of USGenWeb Project, which happens to include GA. So, just to set things straight understand that my goal here is to do just that. While you might like to think your words, actions and thoughts represent the entire USGenWeb membership, I would have to respectfully disagree because you don't represent my views as a CC nor do you represent the views of the overwhelming majority of the CC's that I hear from in SEMA region. I am totally prepared to represent those CC's but have several concerns that I want to see addressed first. The first of those is that this *forum* is meant to be a closed confidential environment and in my opinion, that confidentiality has already been breeched both by Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys by posting their replies to AB concerning the charges to Daily Board Show. In addition, Mr. Pettys has posted his reply to DISC Linda This is an excellent suggestion and it would be best to vote on each article immediately after it is discussed. Are there further comments on Article I -Isaiah I will probably have some questions, but I'm still going through his reply. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Keyboard click problems (tactile switches)....need a new keyboard. Right about the word, but wrong conclusion. I haven't compared everything presented by both views; there are many separate points to consider. Despite bobble-head distractions, I will do the best I can, and vote each point when I am satisfied. Don Obviously, I hit the wrong key somewhere - I will repost this email when I complete it. Sorry! Linda This explanation covers the GAGenWeb state page Denise, and I agree the difference is technical, a technical violation. But how do the county pages of GAGenWeb display the project name and affiliations? Are not these part of the pool to be looked into? One stand out technical violation on one of the webpages listed the state project as, GA Genweb, with a space between the GA and the Genweb. That IMHO takes one technical violation, GeorgiaGenWeb, to a step two technical violation. Cut it either way, there were violations. Were they GROSS violations?, I think not. Were they DELIBERATE violations?, I don't know, but some could have been. Were they VIOLATIONS? I think that answer is clearly yes. But IMHO they don't rise to the level of the serious violations described by the list of charges. Don Kelly Mr. Chair, I am prepared to address the issue of Article I of The USGenWeb Project Bylaws violations but I do have a couple of questions and concerns. I would first like to know if this mailing list is restricted to plain text messages. And second, I would like to hear Mr. Stowell's statement concerning the confidentiality of this list and whether he plans to uphold that confidentiality. I believe this is a fair question to ask due to the recent posting of his response to AB to the Daily Board Show and his post to TN-ALL including a link to item #8 of his "usgwtruth" site which he has included with his response as evidence. In posting this information Mr. Stowell has already made public what he considered "private personnel matters" while he was State Coordinator in GAGenWeb. In the interest of the County Coordinators that I represent in the SEMA region of The USGenWeb Project, I feel discussion of this second point is in order. This tactic is indicative of the "atmosphere of secrecy, oppression, distrust and fear among the CCs of GAGenWeb" allegedly created by Mr. Stowell and his appointed assistants and as a representative of those CC's, I feel they have the right to not be brought into the public fray surrounding this hearing by people who do not respect The USGenWeb Project, it's volunteers and it's elected Advisory Board. Respectfully, Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Representative Procedure Question??? If I missed this my apologies... I've started with the last post first... If after the runoff we have new AB members... will be have to start over???? Or can something be established now so that if we vote on each article that vote will hold... Darilee I remember asking that the people listing the charges against Mr Stowell and Mr Petty stick to the meat of the issue and leave out little nit-picky side stuff... Darilee I'll reply, and then shut up . . I'm not a bylaws expert but all Article I says is: "The name of this organization shall be "The USGenWeb Project." The name, "The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project." To me, the only way to violate Article I is to use USGenWeb or XXGenWeb on a site that is not affiliated with the USGenWeb project. I don't see where using GeorgiaGenWeb or anything else like that is expressly prohibited. Like Darilee, I think this point is nit-picking and even worse, I feel it is groundless. I'd like vote this one "off the slate" and move on to the next Article to see if it was violated. Denise A summary is supposed to be an abbreviated statement what will be found in the much more detailed charges. A listing of the Articles and numbers in a "summary" is only appropriate if corresponding information is found within and connected with each individual charge and/or sections thereof. I found nothing in the CHARGES that can even remotely be stretched to reference Article I of the bylaws. IMHO: The fact that it is even mentioned in the summary is completely without merit and should be dropped as non-inclusive in the charges themselves. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative Fellow AB members - Please note this message is to BOARD-EXEC, not the USGWCONF list as I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss this there. Is it appropriate to use the "hearing" forum to question the charges that I believe were voted on by a majority of the AB and approved to send in the form they were in - inclusive of everything they include? I guess one of the confusing things to me is that each post seems to use a differing set of descriptions - charges, summary, etc. My understanding was that the original Motion 04-14 went out and at the time it was said that it did not have to include all charges at that time. It was voted on by AB and passed, correct? Then the AB voted on Charges that were sent and were to be more detailed. It was my understanding that all of the evidence did not have to be included with the charges but could be presented during the hearing. So, I would like a clarification. I think it's a little late in the game to change the rules as they have been stated previously. And I don't believe changing the rules or questioning the rules in the middle of the hearing is appropriate either. I don't think anyone has been clear about this process from the beginning although apparently the majority has felt there was merit in taking the action or it wouldn't have happened. I am not interested in this dragging on forever but I am also not interested in hurrying through it for the sake of ?? and leaving the CC's of GAGenWeb hanging in the lurch once again. Linda I voted for the motion based on the number of complaints that were received from removed GAGenWeb CCs/ex-CCs, the consistency of the claims within those messages and based on feedback from the area that I represent. I felt that a suspension (maybe just temporary) to the leadership in that project would give the AB time to sort out what the truth is, as with any other grievance type issue, without the risk of additional CCs being removed. I in no way voted a guilty verdict. I do not know Tim or any of the others in the charges and am not swayed by the personal opinions of others. I may not be the most vocal person on the AB, but I do take my role seriously and will not be lumped into the broad statement of not caring where the accused is guilty or not. Thanks, Cyndie I agree with Denise on this one. Angie As long as we no not notify and/or penalize other states for this violation, I do not feel that it is fair to penalize here. The following states not only use the full state name +USGenWeb in their logo, but do not use XXGenWeb anywhere on their home page that I could see: Hawaii Florida New Hampshire The other states in Tim's exhibit do use XXGenWeb somewhere on their page. I feel we have set precedence by allowing other states to violate this. I agree that the official name should be XXGenWeb Project as in the guidelines. In my personal opinion, I get the postal code for some states mixed up and I appreciate the spelled out version for MS, MN, ME, MO, MI etc. somewhere on the page so I know I'm at the right state. Thanks, Cyndie In order for us to be indentified as a USGenWeb Project, all states should use the XXGenWeb name as it says it "shall be" in our bylaws. The spelling of the full state name, ie GeorgiaGenWeb, indicates another project that has no USGenWeb Project affliation. > Exhibit 2: Listing of other states that refer to themselves by [State Name] GenWeb If I go into a store & steal a piece of candy, leave, then my daughter goes into that same store & steals a piece of candy, & gets caught, am I still in the right because I got away with it? This does not appear to be a "gross" violation, & can easily be swept under the rug. It is, in my opinion, still a violation, just like my piece of candy was still theft. Bettie <>< posted by BatCave at 3:42 PM Day 3 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] ARTICLE I Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:55:17 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:55:31 -0500 From: Richard... Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I don't see where ARTICLE I even calls for a state Logo? Let alone describes what it is to show? Nor do I find it in ARTICLE XII. STATE PROJECTS? Technical or otherwise. If there is some evidence of violation I still haven't seen it? Richard... for the USGenWeb Membership -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:45:05 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:45:21 -0500 From: Richard... Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c48601$2bb41d10$20f99904@cpq933> Linda: With all due respect to you, I believe that my position as Advisory Board Member, as it is with every USGenWeb Member, and USGenWeb SC to represent the project as a whole. Not just your interest. It makes me sad to think that you have bullied The AB in to the mess that is now taking place. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have been harmed by the accused and yet you are still here wanting to judge the evidence that you brought against them. Perhaps you should be thinking just how it will look to the USGenWeb Members. Richard... for the USGenWeb Membership whether you like it or not. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:24:03 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:24:07 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c48601$2bb41d10$20f99904@cpq933> <000001c48601$2bb41d10$20f99904@cpq933> At 11:45 PM 8/19/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Linda: > >With all due respect to you, Richard- You are out of order. Accusations against other AB members are out of place on this list and you have gone well beyond the limit with your unfounded allegations. You are now on monitored status. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:13:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:13:16 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I do believe that discussing the items one by one is a good way to move ahead, however I also believe it would be more expeditious to deal with the body of the Charges rather than the Summary. So, I will 1. Ask the Committee Members to cast their votes in regard ARTICLE I . Please vote YES if you believe Mr. Stowell guilty of violating ARTICLE I of the USGenWeb bylaws, NO if you believe him not guilty. and 2. Ask the Committee Members to begin discussion on item (1) of the charges: (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee. (b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. (c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought intocompliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required. (d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored. (f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Procedure question? Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:31:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:31:38 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com If the hearing regarding Mr. Stowell is not completed prior to September 1, I do not believe it would be necessary to start over, however it will not be my decision. How things proceed at that point will be up to the new NC and AB. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:04:37 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:04:47 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I received several requests from Mr. Pettys today: 1. From: "mannannan" To: "bluebear" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: Hearing List > Please ensure that I am subscribed to the hearing list instanter. > > I will be filing several motions later in the day. > > Richard Pettys, Jr. I asked the secretary to advise Mr. Pettys he would be subscribed to the list when the Committee was ready to take up his case. 2. From: "mannannan" To: Cc: ; "Tim Stowell" Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:32 AM Subject: And An Objection > > > I hereby object to the form of the hearings and the separation of Tim and I > for your hearing purposes. Tim and I were suspended together, charged > together and should be tried together. > > Therefore, I hereby object to the form of the hearing and demand that the > hearings be held together. > > Richard Pettys, Jr. I asked the secretary to inform him that his request was denied and he has responded repeating the request. (The roles of Stowell and Pettys were different and the degree of their participation in the various events was different. I think the truth can be arrieved at much more effectively by considering their cases separately.) 3. From: "mannannan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: Personal Representative > Please take notice that I hereby place the Committee on notice that I wish to > be represented in these proceedings by Teresa Lindquist. Ms. Lindquist may > be reached through her email at merope@radix.net. > > All further communication should be sent both to Ms. Lindquist and myself. > All communication from me shall be through my personal representative, Teresa > Lindquist. > > Sincerely, > Richard R. Pettys, Jr. No action has been taken on this request yet. While Mr. Pettys is entitled to legal representation, I don't know that he is entitled to a "personnel representative," especially one who is a Member Not in Good Standing of the project. He hasn't asked for her to be subbed to the hearing list yet, but.... -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:13:27 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:13:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com My 2 cents worth on including Teresa - we specifically state that in the mediation process a person can have one representative without defining that individual as member or not or whatever. So in the case of a hearing I would think that we would offer nothing less than that. Not that I'm wanting Teresa involved, but I don't feel comfortable denying that. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:15:56 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:15:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I vote NO on Article I. Denise Woodside -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:40:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside To: richpump@sbcglobal.net For what it is worth Richard, I don't agree with this action. Denise Isaiah Harrison wrote: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:24:07 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Richard- You are out of order. Accusations against other AB members are out of place on this list and you have gone well beyond the limit with your unfounded allegations. You are now on monitored status. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Questioning Charges at this time Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:56:42 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:56:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Linda, I think your concern may be over the questions that I'm asking, but I'm not sure. I don't completely understand what your concern is from the below. I will say that I don't completely understand this whole process either though. I hope you don't think that I'm changing the rules. I know this will be a tough battle to fight because many of the things that Tim and company did aren't things that you can have concrete proof of. But I certainly feel as though the Hearing is the correct forum to bring up the evidence that is available. As far as bring up new charges during the hearing, are you saying that there might be charges that aren't on one of the articles or sections of the bylaws mentioned? I thought by going through the bylaws, we could pull the evidence together that way, but maybe you don't think that is an effective way to proceed? Will that cause issues with the evidence you have to share? By the way - I really am questioning all this because I don't know. I'm definitely NOT question you Linda, or your motives. I like you and have a lot of respect for you, and I don't envy you for having to go through all this mess. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:01:04 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:01:07 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040819234505.021d9b30@pop.west.cox.net> Since the mediation procedure specifically states that parties may have assistance from another member of their choice, it seems reasonable to me that such assistance would also apply to a hearing, which holds potentially greater ramifications than a mediation procedure. There's nothing in our policy that says that the other parties involved have to give their approval, or have a veto over it. And nothing in the policy that specifies that it must be a member in good standing. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:22:43 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:22:45 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Not Proven. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:31:31 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:31:31 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com While the question of whether or not Mr. Pettys is allowed a "personal representative" is open to discussion, the question of Ms. Lindquist's status is not. As a member not in good standing, Teresa Lindquist is not qualified to participate in any activities of the USGenWeb Project. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Article I--Vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:44:30 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:53:25 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I do not now how to word my vote. I vote to drop this Article I business. I vote to drop ANY accusation of misconduct stated in the Summary that does correspond specifically with one of the stated charges. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I--Vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:02:22 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:02:26 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <003c01c486c5$734b23c0$6f72a00c@wchs> Perhaps the best wording for voting would be either "Proven" or "Not Proven." Not just because I used those terms . To be more accurate, I used those terms because it seems to me that for each charge, there is either evidence to prove it, or there isn't. I don't like using "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" because they seem more appropriate for the final outcome, as in a trial. Maybe it's my own read on it, but I see the hearing as kind of a two-part process. 1) Are the individual charges proven? and then 2) Do the actions rise to a level of gross misconduct, deserving of sanctions? Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:33:42 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:33:46 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040820072523.00b4a338@pop.west.cox.net> I strongly disagree with this stance. As a member not in good standing, Teresa Lindquist is not qualified to participate in activites of the USGenWeb Project only as outlined in the bylaws and guidelines of the project. Nothing in the bylaws or guidelines prohibits a MNGS from acting as an advisor to a member during a hearing or mediation procedure. If necessary, I would be happy to make a motion on BOARD-L to bring the matter up for a vote of the AB. For all I know, there may be many people on the board that disagree with me. But I think that if Richard's request is to be denied, it should be by a vote of the board, not an executive order of the NC. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:53:46 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I agree, Angie. If this is brought up on Board-L, I will second that motion. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:57:06 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:56:45 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040820072523.00b4a338@pop.west.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20040820072523.00b4a338@pop.west.cox.net> The reason that Teresa Lindquist is a MNGS is that she failed to respect the confidentiality of this list and of the EC list. To my knowledge she has never expressed any regret for having done so nor indicated that she would in the future respect the confidentiality of any list. Subscribing her to the Hearing List would guaranty all posts to the list would appear in the DBS. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Board-Exec] Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside To: Richard... Even though I haven't voiced my concerns as strongly as you, it does really bother me that so many think that just because "Tim is a real SOB" and "Guilty of a great many sins." it gives the AB the right to behave foolishly and claim it is for some good of the project. I don't know . . . . Maybe I'm silly, but even a serial killer deserves a fair trial. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:32:30 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:32:29 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I like the terms proven and not proven I vote not proven!!! Respectfully Darilee Bednar NW/PL CC Rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:45:10 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:54:06 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Well, which is going to make the AB look less foolish......allowing Teresa Lindquist to represent Richard Pettys and expecting posts to show up in the DBS, OR....denying Pettys' right to a personal representative of his own choice and expecting posts to show up in the DBS? I will support a motion to allow her to be his representative. Also, I have a question: Are Tim, Pettys, and any personal representative subbed to the list during the deliberations....so that they see our comments? Just curious. Phyllis -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:27:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:05:54 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040819230438.02164968@pop.west.cox.net> Good morning committee. Will each vote be numbered, or will the first vote simply reference ARTICLE I? Some members may want to let this one slide because it it relatively innoceous, yet there are technical violations and they are documented. It seems to me that relative weight of one complaint against another is not THE issue. If there were violations we must vote YES, or if there were no violations, we must vote NO. I am fundamentally against giving a free pass..............good point being other states are watching. They are wondering what precedent the AB will set now, a precedent future ABs must follow. Will other states clean up their logos and project names now that defects are brought to their attention? I believe some of them never gave it a thought because it never came up before, but now it became an issue, they will (hopefully) fix the problems.. If a free pass to violate bylaws is given here, what do we do the next time a violation crops up? We must treat everyone the same.....every state the same. To set a bad precedent now bodes ill for the future We have little choice in this matter except to vote YES, or sweep the entire matter under the rug. Just IMHO, so have a great day all. Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:27:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:24:44 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <41260935.1050505@inmyattic.com> My vote is proven/guilty. To violation of ARTICLE 1, the evidence is clearly shown on the webpages for everyone to see, no doubt about that, and the bylaw is equally clear; State Project names are XXGenWeb to denote membership of USGenWeb. NOTE: If we used AmericaGenWeb, would that be the same? IMHO NOT.. I find there was a violation of the bylaw, however slight..........still it is undeniably present. So I vote proven/guilty as appropriate. NOTE: IMHO "guilty" is not the best word to use either. Proven is better.........I agree. Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:42:02 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:42:15 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040819230438.02164968@pop.west.cox.net> <005f01b1dfea$d8f39f20$09b69243@default> Committee, I just got a private email I won't go into except to say I am not deliberately rubbing people the wrong way. Here we have an opportunity to uphold a bylaw. Will we take this opportunity or will we not? Look at the matter this way please.......objectively. Every decision made by this AB sets a precedent for future ABs to follow. If we set a bad precedent today, will some future AB reverse this precedent and devalue the decisions we made today. ARTICLE 1 is clear. The pages in violation are clear. Violations in other states are immateial to this particular issue. So do we uphold this bylaw today, or do we just let it slide and in effect devalue it? Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:42:43 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:42:49 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com My personal opinion would be that permitting Pettys to choose his own personal representative is the "less foolish" choice. If she is asked to keep the proceedings confidential, and agrees to do so, then I see no reason not to let Pettys have his choice. But if she agrees to the confidentiality of the proceedings and then turns around the posts them elsewhere, I think it would be appropriate to remove her. Agreeing to confidentiality and then breaking her word would show her lack of integrity. If she does it, and Richard Pettys doesn't protest her actions, or *does* protest her removal, it would show a lack of integrity on his part. But denying Pettys the choice of his personal representative would, to me, show a lack of integrity on the part of the AB. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:01:57 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:47:19 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <000d01c486d6$4fa73ce0$0373a00c@wchs> Does anyone else share the feeling that this is what Petty's wants, to further muddy the waters? IMHO let her represent him.....post her messages to defend him on the list, but be subscribed to this list, that is not at all necessary. Theresa can't participate in project business anyway.......that is the second shoe. Don. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:54:10 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:54:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I would be the very first to agree with you Don, that "a little guilty" is still guilty or "a little violation" is still a violoation. Our difference of opinion in this matter, however, is that I do not feel that Article I was violated at all - even a little. My opinion is that the "violation" that you are saying is proven is a violation of your perception of Article I and our perceptions disagree. I certainly don't anyone anyone to think that I feel it is appropriate to sweep anything under the rug. I don't. But I do stand behind my interpretation of Article I. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:58:40 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:58:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Exactly! Once she violates confidentiality then remove here, but don't deny her because you know she will violate confidentiality. I'm agreeing with Angie again . . . we have to stop meeting like this. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:01:05 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:01:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Hey Teri - you confused me. Your email came across with a Dec. 31, 1987 date. Oh . . . to be 23 again . . . . Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:13:50 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:14:00 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040820175414.29050.qmail@web14923.mail.yahoo.com> Denise, please look again. Pull up the page. Pull up the bylaw, side by side. The bylaw says the state project name will be XXGenWeb. Now look at the pages. Does the name say XXGenWeb. If the name is not XXGenWeb, then that is the violation. The bylaw says what the bylaw says. There is no wiggle room for interpretation, no words like "may", plenty of words like "shall".................and zero wiggle room between. So if the bylaw is wrong, let's change it, but please don't just ignore it, please don't devalue it. So will you defend this bylaw, or not? Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:15:39 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:15:32 -0400 From: Jan Cortez Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <000f01c486dd$1ccd7da0$350c1b41@d51xkd11> I have to agree with Angie here. Let Petty's have his choice and if Teresa publishes anything, then she needs to be removed immediately. But, then again she may refrain from posting to the DBS, and as soon as its over, publish the whole thing. Of course, I think that Tim and Petty's will do the same thing anyway. Sometimes I wonder if the whole thing was made public, as it goes, it might have been better, since both Tim and Petty's asked for a public hearing. Jan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:30:33 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:30:41 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com If it's made public by Tim and/or Richard, well, so be it. They've made their choice. But if they choose to make it public, then the "the AB defamed me" becomes a non-issue. Well, it will always be made an issue by some people, but in the "real world," it would be a non-issue. Why? Because the AB *didn't* make the information public. They did. If they choose to take the charges and the evidence into the public view, if they end up looking bad, it's their own actions, not ours. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:36:50 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:36:49 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <41260935.1050505@inmyattic.com> <014201c486da$fec36fb0$ba7af842@donsd7wz1qya5r> The bylaws say "shall be", not "may be", not "can be" http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+2003+15143966234+ F Sun, 31 Aug 2003 The logo should read as the other states do (first two state letters CAPS and then GenWeb .......... i.e., GAGenWeb This was posted almost a year ago on the required list, which acknowledges "knowing what other states do & certainly implies to me that it was "known" what the bylaws say, & how they are interpreted by GAGenWeb. There was no arguement that I can find or that I can remember. I'm not real sure we should be voting on each one of the charges until the hearing is over, & then vote on everything as a whole. I do believe it should be a poll where we should say proven or not proven. My answer to the poll is "Proven" Some of the charges intertwine with other charges, & some charges will "relate" later on (or make a conncetion) to show a set pattern taken in GAGenWeb. I hope we are reserving the right to NOT dismiss these Articles/Charges after they are voted on, & will basically hold them until the hearing is over. Bettie <>< -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:41:56 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:41:58 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040820175414.29050.qmail@web14923.mail.yahoo.com> <01b301c486e1$7a5f0e30$ba7af842@donsd7wz1qya5r> Here is another posting on 31 Aug 2003 in response to this question Speaking of which, Does it matter which way it is written? Should we type GaGenWeb or GAGenWeb? http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+2003+15153970989+ F You brought up a very good point, one in which I have been an offender of without paying much attention to. The State projects under USGenWeb are all TWO Letter abbrevs. in CAPS with GenWeb after them, no spaces. So, GAGenWeb; NCGenWeb; MIGenWeb; PAGenWeb, etc. it applies across the board to all the states under USGenWeb. So I will revise to show GAGenWeb. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:48:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:48:17 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040820175414.29050.qmail@web14923.mail.yahoo.com> <01b301c486e1$7a5f0e30$ba7af842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <412645f6.55946409@earthlink.net> Here is another posting on 31 Aug 2003 http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+2003+14963911222+ F Several months ago Jimmy and I were going to do a contest for a new logo that matches our REAL NAME GaGenWeb. We put it off a couple of times, and now I believe we should get back to this as I mentioned to the other RCs the other day. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:04:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:04:18 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040820175414.29050.qmail@web14923.mail.yahoo.com> <01b301c486e1$7a5f0e30$ba7af842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <412645f6.55946409@earthlink.net> <41264771.f4da0294@earthlink.net> Here is another posting on our required mail list 31 Aug 2003 saying that they've seen it both ways & appreciate the clarifaction http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+2003+15173977866+ F Brenda, thanks for clarifying on the GAGenWeb, actually I have wondered a long time, and your post seemed a good opportunity to find out. I've seen it both ways, and didn't know if there was a 'correct' way or not. Sharon >The State projects under USGenWeb are all TWO Letter abbrevs. in CAPS with GenWeb after them, no spaces. So, GAGenWeb; NCGenWeb; MIGenWeb; PAGenWeb, etc. it applies across the board to all the states under USGenWeb. So I will revise to show GAGenWeb.< -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:57:50 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com This is driving me crazy everyone... We have to have guidelines... I was assuming the NC and the people who worked up the charges had created guidelines... and now, we are directionless clowns... This is totally unprofessional, illogical, and a plain waste of time... I want everyone to take two steps backwards while someone (s) submits a guideline ... Please.... I would remind everyone... we strongly suggest to an SC to have all rules written down... because it was unfair to expect CC's to know the unwritten rules... and my thoughts on Article 1*********** I've been parking my trike on the parking strip in front of my store... as I've added a patio with chairs to the usual place. Yesterday a city policeman came in and told me I couldn't park there as he had had to give a man a ticket for parking his bike on the parking strip in front of his home... (neighbors had complained)... If I continued to park on the parking strip grass I was goin' to get a ticket also. So I moved my bike and parked in regular parking... and I can no longer park it in the old spot because the policeman told me I couldn't ride on the sidewalk to get to it. The POINT IS: If something is WRONG for one person it is WRONG for everyone else. So the idea of "website nazis" better be discussed again and preparations better be made to enforce the same standards on all state websites. That's why I voted not proven... Darilee (yep... off the deepend) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:26:11 -0500 From: Richard... To: undisclosed-recipients:; References: <20040820175414.29050.qmail@web14923.mail.yahoo.com> <01b301c486e1$7a5f0e30$ba7af842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <412645f6.55946409@earthlink.net> Bettie thank you for bring this up. Subject: [GAGEN] Correction: Should be GAGenWeb Logo not GaGenWeb. You will notice that they correctly called it the GAGenWeb Logo. Of course you also know that it isn't necessary to include the name in the logo. In fact it is often not. Sometime just letters. Sometimes just a name. Some times just a graphic. Nothing in ARTICLE I. NAME of the bylaws is said or implied about logos. Richard...for the USGenWeb Membership. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:32:11 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:32:09 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I'm having trouble understanding just what you want. Stowell and Pettys have been accused of some things by the AB. They are either guilty or not guilty of each of the charges. It is the responsibility of the individual AB members to make decisions about that. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Guidelines Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:29:00 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:37:59 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Darilee....I'm putting this response here because that is where you sent it. The motion to suspend carried with it a list of charges, along with the words that allowed further charges when a hearing was held. NOTICE the word "charges." When a list of charges was sent to Stowell and Pettys, there was nothing in that list that stated there was a violation of Article I of the bylaws. That statement was in the Summary......that is NOT where charges should be and to take anything presented in the Summary and go inch by inch through it, is not proper. The bed has been made.....there are CHARGES to deal with and anything in the Summary that does not support the CHARGES should not be dealt with now....and would not be dealt with now in a real world court.....nor in the conducting of a fair hearing. Isaiah asked for a vote on Article I and then requested that we skip the Summary and move along to discuss the first Charge. Phyllis -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Evidence of Charges (Part 1) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:49:28 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:49:22 -0700 From: Linda Barton (by way of Isaiah Harrison ) Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I would like to present evidence that addresses the email from Ms. Hedrick that Mr. Stowell has shared with public forums because of the remarks made about me and included in his evidence of his innocence of charges. I am presenting it not because Mr. Stowell chose to place it in a public forum for whatever reasons he may have had but because I believe the body of this correspondence and other evidence referenced is relevant to several of the charges against Mr. Stowell. Summary of those at the bottom. What that correspondence and other evidence does show is the following - 1) That Ms. Hedrick had been asked by the previous CC (Susan or Sue Peterson) of Glynn County to take over Glynn County as CC before she resigned (Feb 7, 2003)from GAGenWeb. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GAGEN/2003-02/1044749863 2) That Ms. Hedrick requested to adopt Glynn County on Feb 14, 2003. As has been pointed out by Mr. Stowell on several occasions, the RC's were responsible for responding to adoption requests. The RC of the Coastal Region, which included Glynn County, was Richard Pettys Jr. Ms. Hedrick stated to me on April 10th, 2003 and earlier that she had been waiting since Feb 14, 2003 to adopt Glynn County and that Mr. Pettys had never responded to her requests to adopt the county but Mr. Stowell had after her second request went to both of them on 2/26/2003. 3) That during this time period, the county table changed many times concerning Glynn County. Being linked to the website of Sue Peterson, being linked to a new site created by Mr. Pettys in rootsweb space showing himself as County Coordinator - not as "sitting" the site while it was up for adoption but as CC; this same website in rootsweb space revised by Mr. Stowell apparently to reflect Amy as the CC; and finally Amy's own website. 3) That on 4/10/2003 before Amy had a password for her webspace or had been given any direction in the beginning of her website, she received a password to vote in the SC Recall vote in GAGenWeb. In effect, according to the GAGenWeb Guidelines, she had not been a CC for 30 days at this point. She had also not been subscribed to the GAGEN-L. The County Selection list of Mr. Stowell's for GAGenWeb with last update of 21 Feb 2003 shows Glynn County as Adoption Pending with Richard Pettys listed because he was the Regional Coordinator of the Coastal Region. Amy Hedrick's name was on the County Selection List of Mr. Stowell's for GAGenWeb on 16 Mar 2003. Her name was listed as CC but the email link went to Mr. Stowell's email address. The link to the county site went to http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html On March 27, 2003 I wrote Ms. Hedrick the following - Amy, > > Hi, just wanted to welcome you aboard as a new CC for Glynn County at > Georgia Genweb. If you have any questions about anything, feel free to > contact me. I took over my first site there 2 years ago so I have > been able to figure a few things out! > > Good luck! > > Linda Blum-Barton On March 27, 2003 Ms. Hedrick replied to me - "I don't know whether I have gotten the Glynn site or not. I noticed one was up on Rootsweb, but Richard Pettys is the coordinator. **((Referencing above link to Glynn County as of 3/16/2003; between 3/16/2003 and 3/27/2003, the link had been changed to go to a Glynn Co site created by Mr. Pettys))** Is this just a formality until I take over the site, or is he taking it over? Tim Stowell never sent me the password and any info on what to do yet. Either way, thanks for the welcome!" On March 28, 2003 I replied to Ms. Hedrick - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Barton" To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:12 AM Subject: Georgia GenWeb > Amy, > > I am sorry I should have explained a little more in my last email. The > Georgia GenWeb Table of Contents has your name as new CC of Glynn > County as of 3/16/03 but the email link there went to Tim's email when > I tried to contact you. I found your email from a post on a message > board about Glynn County. Do you want me to look at the archives of > our list and see if he has announced you as CC of the site there yet? > I just assumed you had the site since your name is posted on TOC. > > > Linda Blum-Barton And, on March 28, 2003 Ms. Hedrick replied in part to me - "I thought that I had the site too. I emailed Tim today and he said that he would get back to me when he found out what is going on. He had no idea that Richard started the Glynn site. I saw my name listed also, and it links to Tim. He said he would set up a skeleton page, then turn it over to me. Tim has been out of town with a sick relative for the last few days. I hate to bother him about this, but I have been waiting for over a month to get this site. Susan Peterson asked me at the beginning of February if I wanted to take the site over. I sent emails to Richard and Tim starting on the 14th. Tim answered the second one on the 26th. Then he finally decided to accept me, because he couldn't get in contact with Richard. I hate to gossip, but Richard took............." ".........I hope he isn't doing this to Susan Peterson and myself, especially after I have already been told that I have the site and I am really looking forward to doing this, plus I am local, I live on the Brantley/Glynn county line, and as you can see from the Glynn message board, I do a lot of lookups for people. You were not mistaken in your welcome email, I am supposed to be the new CC of the Glynn site. Hopefully Tim can get back to me this weekend and let me know what is going on. Like I said, I have been waiting on this since February. Amy Hedrick" ------------------------------------------------------------------ County Selection List History on Glynn County - 1/28/2003 - Glynn - Adoption Pending - Richard Pettys - url linked http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html 2/06/2003 - Glynn - Bob & Sue Peterson - url linked http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html 2/21/2003 - Glynn - Adoption Pending/Richard Pettys - url linked -http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynncco.html 2/23/03 - Same as 2/21/2003 2/26/2003 - Same Url is linked for Glynn Co site - Richard Pettys listed - no Adoption Pending notice; email addrress is mailto:rpettys@smyrnacable.net 3/25/2003 -- last update date; saved on 3/28/2003 - Line is in Yellow which indicated Under Construction; URL goes to petersnn.org address above; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick new as of 16 Mar 2003; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net *******First correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick 3/27/2003********See above ********Second correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick 3/28/2003****** See above **Third Correspondence I had with Amy Hedrick, instigated by her because she had received a voting password to vote in the SC Recall Issue for GAGenWeb Dated 4/10/2003********** See below. 4/16/2003 - Last Update date - 4/06/2003; saved on 4/16/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to petersnn.org address above; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick new as of 16 Mar 2003; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net 4/23/2003 - Last Update date - 4/20/2003; saved on 4/23/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net 4/28/2003 - Last Update date -4/28/2003; saved on 4/28/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net 05/01/2003 - Last Update date - 05/01/2003; Line is in Yellow indicating Under Construction; URL goes to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ and the date of new URL is 19 Apr 2003; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is tstowell@chattanooga.net 05/31/2003 - Last Update date - 05/31/2003; Line is Green indicating New website;URL goes to http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html; CC is listed as Amy Hedrick; email link for CC is amylyn@btconline.net (Amy Hedrick's email address) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Amy Hedrick [mailto:amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:02 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: GenWeb Poll I thought I would ask you about this. Seeing as how I am new to this, I don't think I want to vote on the removal of Tim Stowell, as I don't have any idea on what is going on. Do I have to send in a response of some sort, or just ignore this "State Coordinator Recall Election Poll"? If I don't want to vote, should I just select present? I am not familiar with how things work, or what all of these abbreviations stand for, like ASC, etc. I am still waiting for Tim to show me how to run my site. I don't know how to start anything. I have downloaded the software, but I am waiting on him to get back home from wherever he went this week. I will agree on one aspect, he is not very timely on returning emails. I have been waiting since February 14th 2003 to start this site, Richard Pettys never responded to my queries, only Tim. I downloaded all of the software last week, all this week I am waiting for him to have time. Maybe someone else can show me the ropes on uploading pages, and maintaining the site. Sorry to lay this in your lap. I just don't know what to do or who to ask for help. Thank you for your time. Amy Hedrick Glynn County CC ------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Barton To: Amy Hedrick Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: RE: GenWeb Poll Amy, I am assuming this means Tim has at least been in touch with you confirming this is your site now. You do not have to vote if you do not want to but it will help the "whole project" to at least mark "present" instead of ignoring it. Apathy in our elections is one of our problems. ASC, by the way, means Assistant State Coordinator, which at the moment is Brenda Pierce. ............. The base reason this vote is being held is because he was approached about trying to get our GAGenWeb guidelines revised to allow for election of SC (State Coordinator) every 2 or 3 years. He could run in this election and if his CC's were happy, he would be reelected but he does not want elections. .................. ....... There are plenty of people who are willing to help you learn how to do all of this. You will have to get the password from him but the first thing is, do you have software to build webpages with? If so, let me know what it is. Also, I assume the "software" you have downloaded is one of the FTP programs, is that correct? Let me know about your web page software and ftp program and I can help you through getting this started and if we run into something I can't help with, I will put you in touch with someone who will be able to help you. Do you already have the password for the rootsweb webspace? Linda Barton ****My email to Amy on 4/10/2003 - I have removed portions of this email that I don't care to have spread around the internet. I will be glad to show the full emails including headers on Amy's emails to me to anyone who wants to see them that I believe will not use them outside of this forum. In a nutshell, at this point in time there had been many CC's added in time to get them on the voter list before the recall vote. I tried to explain a little to Amy about the background of what had gone on - in a nutshell - I told her the vote was to recall Tim, not to change the guidelines so she would understand that. It was obvious to me and others that this website and Amy were in the middle of some sort of *struggle* between Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys and I could tell she would be a good CC because of the work I had seen that she had done and did not want to see her get used in whatever this *struggle* might be. I did use the word "gestapo" in my description. -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Hedrick [amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:23 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: Re: GenWeb Poll I downloaded the FTP software and an HTML-kit. A friend is supposed to get Microsoft FrontPage for me, but until then, I can use this. Tim has not given me the password yet. He said that he will help me in getting started and show me how to do this, so I don't think he will dump me on that count. I do agree that the SC should be elected every 2 to 3 years. Most chain hotels that I have worked in, do this to avoid a hierarchy, or Gestapo as you put it. Power can be an evil thing. I was already warned about Richard by another CC whose site was just taken over by him without her consent or notice. I will vote "present", I just wanted to make sure this is what to mark if I didn't want to vote at this time. If this vote is to change the "laws" and have an election every 2-3 years, I am for that. Right now I have nothing to loose if I vote "yes", except for the password to the site. I don't know if I am subscribed to the mail list yet. I did receive this poll though. Amy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Barton To: Amy Hedrick Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:02 PM Subject: RE: GenWeb Poll Amy, Believe me, if you were subscribed to the mail list, you would know it because at present you would have already received about 30 + emails today alone from that list. The ballots going out have livened things up a little today! The poll came directly through the Election Committee which means Tim included you as a "legal" CC even though he hasn't changed the TOC to reflect that......but, that is Tim! You have nothing to lose by HOWEVER you choose to vote because the EC is run by honest people and it is a very protected process. No one knows how you vote in any election.....ever. Well, one or two people on EC do, but no one else. (EC being Election Committee). The reason I was asking about the mail list is that Richard, Tim and a couple of others are posting there trying to "urge" people to not vote at all......which would cause us not to receive a quorum......which means the vote will not count. A "present" vote at least gives us a quorum if enough people respond, whether they vote yes, no or present. Not voting at all stacks the vote in their favor. I would love to see you vote with us, but in no way want to mislead you in thinking that a vote here is for changing the guidelines so we will have elections. This vote is to remove Tim Stowell as SC or not and nothing else. There are alot of us who feel we will never get elections unless he is gone, thus the push. It is nothing personal on our side, he has made it so. The only way to get the guidelines changed as they are written now (GA GenWeb guidelines) is to get it approved through the SC (State Coordinator) and the GAGenWeb Council......the council members are almost all "appointed" by Tim.....which, well, I don't have to tell you what that means. I just checked the ftp directory and there is only one folder for space on rootsweb for Glynn County. It is gaglenn. That is not the address used by the current site that is linked from TOC (Table of Counties) . Has Tim said whether or not Susan Peterson has donated her information for use on the new site? That needs to be confirmed by someone. At this point, I think, Tim should have contacted her about this. Well, actually, there is nothing there anymore but the front page and links to other websites. I don't know if it has always been that way or if she had other information there, do you? I just found a link at bottom of that page that says "Back to Top of Page" and it actually goes to a page of a directory submitted by you, but that is the only other page I found there. Nonetheless, you can go ahead and start designing your website. The front page needs to meet all Georgia and USGENWEB guidelines. You should have been sent links to those, if not, let me know and I will send them. You can get your website ready so that when Tim gets you the password, you can start uploading right away. The uploading is very easy to catch on to.....Have you already started designing pages? If not, let me know and I will send you a couple of links that are helpful. We used to have a great Help for CC's page at Georgia's state pages but alas the person who keeps it is someone that doesn't always agree with Tim so she had that "privilege" taken away. Her page is still up, just not linked from Georgia and I can send it to you. I use Microsoft Front Page to build my pages but not to upload. I upload using WSFTP-LE and have very little trouble with anything. If you want me to send those links, let me know and if you have any other questions, send them on. I would just start designing pages so when the password gets to you, you can go with it! Linda Barton ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amy Hedrick [amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:57 AM To: Linda Barton Subject: Re: GenWeb Poll I don't know how to design my website. I am totally "stupid" on this. What I mean, is that I don't know how to use this software to do what has to be done. I have never done this before. Susan has taken all of her stuff "down" right now. A lot of it was mine, and I want to redo it, due to copyright laws on some of the info I used. She is going to share what she, herself, has done, with me. She suggested leaving it at her web site and I can link to it from mine for now. I agree with this, as I don't know what I am doing, and it would be a lot easier for her to put her stuff up and not have to send it to me right now. At a later time, she will send me hardcopies of this stuff. For now, I want it up immediatley and this would be the quickest way to do it. I do not speak computer language, so a lot of this is "Greek" to me. I was sent a password with the poll, is that the same for the website or is it just for me to log into polls, etc.? And what do I do with the password after I get it anyways? I believe I will vote in this election. Who is supposed to sign me up to the List? Do I just send a email with subscribe in the subject like other lists, or does someone have to sign me up? Susan sent me all of the links on what is expected of me, etc. She was the one that suggested I take over the site, we met in person last June at a meeting that I spoke at, and since I sent her a lot of info for the site, she asked me to take the site from her. This site was one that she paid for, she started the it before Rootsweb gave you space. I did download the FTP software from Ipswitch and an HTML software, Tim said that the FTP was for uploading info, and the HTML was for building the site. I do not know how to do either, or where to begin. A friend is supposed to get Microsoft Front Page for me, he is a web site builder, but I very rarely see him, he builds my job's web page. The software is too expensive for me to buy ($170), so he was going to give me his. Susan suggested Front Page also. Even if I had it, I still wouldn't know what to do with it :) Do you think buying a book for "dummies" on web page building would help? Later! Amy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Evidence of Charges (Part 2) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:53:42 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:53:40 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com From: Linda Barton To: Amy Hedrick Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: RE: GenWeb Poll Amy, Is it HTML-Kit Build 292 that you downloaded? I just went and looked at it......can't tell much about how it works compared to Front Page without downloading it but wanted to make sure that is what you have before I do. Linda ----------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Amy Hedrick [mailto:amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:05 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: Re: GenWeb Poll Yes, this is what I downloaded. The front page with my name on it is already up. Like I said, I am only waiting on the password and a little direction to get started. I may just bite the bullet and buy Front Page. Thanks. Amy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Barton To: Amy Hedrick Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: RE: GenWeb Poll Amy, I couldn't find that page last night......must have been a rootsweb problem, but it is not linked from the Georgia 'TOC yet. That is still going to Susan's front page with Richard's name added. So, I think Richard designed this page, right? I think I remember that when I found it earlier, it had his name on it. Either he or Tim did this page, changed the name to yours and uploaded it.......is that right? Whoever uploaded it to rootsweb has the password that you will need to upload more pages and to access this page to make changes, additions, etc...... Are you going to go ahead and try to start designing pages while you wait on the password? If so, and you think you might need some direction, I will download that software so I can answer any questions you might have or give you some basic direction in starting. Let me know if you want me to do this. Linda ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -----Original Message----- From: Amy Hedrick [mailto:amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:00 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: Re: GenWeb Poll Yes I would like to learn how to use this for now. Richard put up a page with a green background and a few links on it, the address for the library is wrong though! Then Tim changed the intro, because I think that Richard's intro is rude, and it has my name and email now. Susan's page is a pink-like color, hers is probably still up too, it's at petersnn.org I will try to get Front Page soon. I don't even know how to start using this HTML software, it is bewildering. Thanks for your help. Amy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Barton To: Amy Hedrick Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 7:54 PM Subject: RE: GenWeb Poll Amy, This one, which is on rootsweb space is the new one, I assume http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaglynn/ but it is not linked from Georgia GenWeb Table of Counties....... This one is........ http://www.petersnn.org/petersnn/glynnco.html which means no one will be going to the "new page" until it is changed unless they happen upon it on a search engine. It doesn't really matter at this point but sometimes we wonder if Tim does stuff like this for "an underlying reason" or just because he is pretty lax about getting things done. I will download that software later tonight and play with it some......then send you some basic info to start building pages with.......then you can type to your hearts content until everything "catches up" and you get the password to start uploading pages. I will look at it also from the standpoint of building pages that won't take much "revision" when you switch to Front Page. Linda ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -----Original Message----- From: Amy Hedrick [mailto:amylyn@btconline.net] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 9:36 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: Front Page I went ahead and bought Front Page tonight, sorry if you downloaded the other thing. I figured I will use it for a long time, so it was worth the money. The first address you listed is the site that Richard started without telling anyone, and then Tim took it from him because it had already been promised to me. Then Tim changed the intro paragraph, because I asked him too. The second address is Susan's site, which she took down all of the links until I get started, plus she had to rework them. >From talking with Tim, I think he is getting tired of Richard and his antics. Apparently he encountered some trouble with him on this Glynn Site, he never told me what happened or why Richard just started the site after ignoring my email to volunteer, and Tim's emails suggesting me as the CC. Oh well! I have Microsoft Front Page now, so you can tutor me on this if you will. Thanks for all of your help! Amy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- After this, I don't have email correspondence with Amy saved. I helped her get accustomed to MSFront Page and the WSFTP process, she uploaded her pages and was off. She built a great site for Glynn County, GA researchers. My only recollection of any correspondence I had with her after that was when I posted on GAGEN-L that I was working on a transcription of an 1869 Masonic Biography & Dictionary and offered to send transcriptions relative to any county or the state to anyone who asked for them. She wrote me and said she'd like to have anything about Glynn county and I sent it to her. This was in April 2003 so it would have been during our other correspondence anyway. Could have been May before I sent it to her. http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 03+7992277997+F Again, I remember writing to Amy because of a post she made to GAGEN-L in Jan 2004 http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+9962183461+F It was highly unacceptable to the SC and RC's for this type of post to be made on GAGEN-L and there are numerous cases in 2002-2004 where a post concerning someone's disappearance or broken links were met with nasty replies about keeping personnel business offlist. I don't believe I told her she might lose her site over it, just tried to warn her she might get emails from RC's because of it. I don't have a copy of this email to her. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I believe the above evidence applies to the following sections of the charges against Mr. Stowell - (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee. (b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. (c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought intocompliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required. (d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Copies of the county selection lists that are referenced are available. Since no attachments or HTML are available through this list, I suppose I could view source and send a copy of the .txt from that if you want to see them. Some of these are available through archive.org. More evidence addressing these and other charges is forthcoming. I have also received something from a CC today to format and send along that addresses some of the charges. Respectfully submitted, Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:53:43 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:53:47 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I want written guidelines in an outline I can follow. I want a clear beginning and ending to each specific charge Some said lets look at each one separately... You said good idea You called for a vote (I've seen like 5 votes) People are still discussing the first issue (I'm thinking...) and not voting on it. I would like leadership... Please Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] First Charge Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:46:03 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:55:03 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Charge number one deals with the manipulation of mail lists and possible denial of voting rights on a national level. I would like to see the proof that CC were not subbed to the mail lists. I would like to see the proof that people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not member of GAGenWeb. I would like to see the proof that sites were not updated and that this prevented a quorum from being reached when a vote was taken. I would like to see the proof that Tim Stowell adopted counties above the limit of 3....and was not merely babysitting them as he claims. I would like to see the proof that CCs tried to adopt counties and were rejected. I would like to see the proof that co-CCs or ass't CCs were denied being added when requested by the CC. I would like to see proof that CCs were placed without being announced on the lists. I would like to see proof that "phantom CCs" existed. And, if you wish to discuss these issues as 1 a., 1 b., 1 c.....that's fine with me. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:25:41 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:25:43 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040820195753.92196.qmail@web80215.mail.yahoo.com> > The POINT IS: If something is WRONG for one person it is WRONG for everyone else. Yes that's what I believe too, & theses other states DO need to be told about their violations. Like the majority of the states do-They need to correct the spellings wherever they are, not just their logos, but they are not the ones with all the charges against them If Tim is using this as a defense "these other states do it", then why aren't the majority of the states doing the same thing? They don't use StatenameGenWeb, & then go to another gen project & use the same logo or spelling there. Bettie >< -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Discussion of Charges Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:34:17 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:34:26 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com A point has been brought up that I believe probably should be addressed on the record here. As much as we would like to continue moving forward, I believe it would be inappropriate -- not to mention confusing -- to begin discussion of the next set of charges without concluding the voting on Article I. As near as I can tell, we haven't received votes from everyone yet. I think we should also stick to what is the normal routine -- once the vote has been called, discussion of the issue being voted upon should end. Not doing so creates confusion and unnecessarily drags out the vote. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:19:17 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:19:31 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I work a full time job, Monday-Friday, which is a 45-minute drive from my home and I'm unable to spend time on mail from these lists while at work. I have not responded to the vote yet, because I just got home and there are loads of messages just from today on both lists. I realize that some are anxious to get through this and are able to read their email at all times, but I hope you will have patience for others that have time restrictions by allowing reasonable time for all to respond. >From what I see (though I could have received messages in the wrong order), Isaiah is not the one who started discussion on the charges without ending the vote on Article I. It would make sense to me to have Isaiah manage the discussion time, voting time, etc. for each charge, like is done with motions on BOARD-L. If we follow the same structure as motions with each charge being clearly defined for discussion, I don't see where an outline is necessary. Just my opinion. Thanks, Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:31:21 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:31:35 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I agree with allowing Richard to choose whoever he wants to represent him. If they violate confidentiality, remove them. Thanks, Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Article I--Vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:41:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:41:26 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Was proof offered that two week notice was given to Tim by the AB to correct the XXGenWeb issue as listed in the by-laws (not discussion messages on the GA list, but notice from the AB to Tim)? If so, I may have inadvertently deleted the message. "Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator." If we can prove notice was given by the AB and ignored, I'll vote proven, otherwise, I vote not proven. Thanks, Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:20:59 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:21:05 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Is Hear goin' to be archived so anyone can read the emails sent to that list???? Because I can guarantee everyone that if Teresa is allowed access to that list it will be all over the net... Yah, I know Tim could save the emails and post them himself... I still say MNIGS should mean something... and so far for Teresa it doesn't mean squat.... and I'm now positive it doesn't bother Tim either. Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] GUIDELINES WANTED Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:31:50 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Hi Cyndie You are so right... everyone is at different time zones... and different hours... I will be leaving work soon and will not have computer access until I get back... and let's not even talk about Sunday... I did not mean to offend you or any one... I just want someone to take charge... and I want to see documentation... (a very good word for a genealogist). Yep, I agree with Phyllis I would suggest Shari... the way things are dragging out... the new AB will be seated before we finish the hearing... or Phyllis because most of the time I understand her long explainations. But I defer to the NC... Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:47:33 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:47:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Larry Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I fully agree with Angie's position on this issue. Larry Flesher SW/SC SC Rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:57:06 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:57:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Larry Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I also support allowing Teresa Lindquist to act as personal representative - however, the "groundrule" of confidentiality should be clearly explained to her (and to the person she proposes to represent) at the outset, along with the penalty for violation as immediate removal from the position of qualified personal representative. Larry Flesher SW/SC SC Rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Evidence of Adopting beyond the limit of 3 counties Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:05:44 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:05:37 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Adoption of more than the limit of 3 counties after the GAGenWeb Guidelines were passed in April 2002. 45 days was given to comply with guidelines. Anyone with more than 3 at that time were allowed to keep those until they were given up. This list includes only the counties listed on the County Selection List as being CC'd by the referenced people. Mr. Stowell violated this guideline in two ways, by himself adopting more than 3 counties after the Guidelines were passed; and by allowing some of the Regional Coordinators to do the same; ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- State Coordinator - >From the passage of the GAGenWeb Guidelines - Tim Stowell went from 3 counties, down to 2 and then back up to 5 in 2004. Feb 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, and Ware Counties. May 31, 2002 Update - Saved June 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Oct 2, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Dec 19, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Jan, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Feb 21, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta and Hancock Counties Feb 7, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. Forsyth and Troup are shown in Green indicating New websites. May 24, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. All counties are shown on normal background indicating existing websites, not adoption pending or up for adoption or under construction or new. Charles Barnum has been added as Co-CC with Tim Stowell on Troup County as of 29 Apr 2004. June 01, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Evans yellow indicating new website; Forsyth, Hancock, Troup w/ Charles Barnum ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Regional Coordinators - At the time the guidelines were passed, Brenda Pierce had six counties. She had given Spalding County to her husband, Chuck Pierce.So around the time the guidelines passed, she took Cobb County which gave her seven again. Then she gave Cobb county up again some time in 2002 which left her with six counties. The entire time that Chuck Pierce was listed as CC of Cherokee County on the County Selection List with Vanessa Sanders; Brenda's name was listed on the actual website as the County Coordinator. Vanessa Sanders name was never to be found on the website. Feb 2002 - Brenda Pierce - CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding, Spalding May 31, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Cobb, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Oct 2, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Dec 19, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Jan, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Feb 21, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Feb 7, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding May 24, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Feb 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of None May 31, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Spalding Oct 2, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (shown as New site with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding Dec 19, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding Jan, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding Feb 21, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding Feb 7, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene as of 21 Jan 2004, Spalding May 24, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene, Spalding ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Feb 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer May 31, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer, McIntosh Oct 2, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Dec 19, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Jan, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Feb 21, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Feb 7,2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Echols, Evans, Gilmer, Liberty, McIntosh May 24, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh June 1, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer Counties; Liberty County has at this time been adopted by Letha Bailey letha@maclyr.com And McIntosh county has been adopted by Sarah Hughes. Neither of these CC's ever added their name to the website or changed anything on it. Letha Bailey had been CC long enough to have been in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines for time given to a new CC to make changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Feb 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Jenkins, Macon, Treutlen May 31, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon Oct 2, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam new as of 21 Sept 2002 Dec 19, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Jan, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Feb 21, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Feb 7, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart May 24, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart June 1, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford, Macon, Putnam; On this TOC - Hart County is listed with a new URL but the CC is still listed as Deb Lowe; The new URL goes to Margie Daniel's present day Hart County website http://www.rootsweb.com/~gahart/ Deb Lowe's Hart County site is still at it's old location http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/9478/hartcoga.html And even though the County Selection Table still showed Darrell Ertzberger as CC of Stephens County, the URL went to this site http://www.rootsweb.com/~gastephe/ The copy of this website I kept shows a last update date of 5/16/2004 with Margie Daniels listed as the contact. This is not Darrell Ertzberger's site. You should be able to tell that from archive.org pages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I have copies of the referenced County Selection Lists and as I stated in my last post, I could send a .txt copy of the page if needed. Some of these are found through archive.org. Respectfully submitted, Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Rep posted by BatCave at 3:38 PM 0 comments Day 4 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Evidence of Adopting beyond the limit of 3 counties Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:05:44 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:05:37 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Adoption of more than the limit of 3 counties after the GAGenWeb Guidelines were passed in April 2002. 45 days was given to comply with guidelines. Anyone with more than 3 at that time were allowed to keep those until they were given up. This list includes only the counties listed on the County Selection List as being CC'd by the referenced people. Mr. Stowell violated this guideline in two ways, by himself adopting more than 3 counties after the Guidelines were passed; and by allowing some of the Regional Coordinators to do the same; ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- State Coordinator - >From the passage of the GAGenWeb Guidelines - Tim Stowell went from 3 counties, down to 2 and then back up to 5 in 2004. Feb 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, and Ware Counties. May 31, 2002 Update - Saved June 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Oct 2, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Dec 19, 2002 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Jan, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham and Coweta Counties Feb 21, 2003 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta and Hancock Counties Feb 7, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. Forsyth and Troup are shown in Green indicating New websites. May 24, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Forsyth, Hancock and Troup Counties. All counties are shown on normal background indicating existing websites, not adoption pending or up for adoption or under construction or new. Charles Barnum has been added as Co-CC with Tim Stowell on Troup County as of 29 Apr 2004. June 01, 2004 - Tim Stowell as CC of Chatham, Coweta, Evans yellow indicating new website; Forsyth, Hancock, Troup w/ Charles Barnum ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Regional Coordinators - At the time the guidelines were passed, Brenda Pierce had six counties. She had given Spalding County to her husband, Chuck Pierce.So around the time the guidelines passed, she took Cobb County which gave her seven again. Then she gave Cobb county up again some time in 2002 which left her with six counties. The entire time that Chuck Pierce was listed as CC of Cherokee County on the County Selection List with Vanessa Sanders; Brenda's name was listed on the actual website as the County Coordinator. Vanessa Sanders name was never to be found on the website. Feb 2002 - Brenda Pierce - CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding, Spalding May 31, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Cobb, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Oct 2, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Dec 19, 2002 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Jan, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Feb 21, 2003 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding Feb 7, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding May 24, 2004 - Brenda Pierce CC of Campbell, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Paulding ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Feb 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of None May 31, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Spalding Oct 2, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (shown as New site with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding Dec 19, 2002 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee (with Vanessa Sanders),Spalding Jan, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding Feb 21, 2003 - Chuck Pierce - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Spalding Feb 7, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene as of 21 Jan 2004, Spalding May 24, 2004 - CC of Cherokee with Vanessa Sanders, Greene, Spalding ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Feb 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer May 31, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Gilmer, McIntosh Oct 2, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Dec 19, 2002 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Jan, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Feb 21, 2003 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh Feb 7,2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Echols, Evans, Gilmer, Liberty, McIntosh May 24, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer, McIntosh June 1, 2004 - Richard Pettys - CC of Cobb, Gilmer Counties; Liberty County has at this time been adopted by Letha Bailey letha@maclyr.com And McIntosh county has been adopted by Sarah Hughes. Neither of these CC's ever added their name to the website or changed anything on it. Letha Bailey had been CC long enough to have been in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines for time given to a new CC to make changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Feb 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Jenkins, Macon, Treutlen May 31, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon Oct 2, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam new as of 21 Sept 2002 Dec 19, 2002 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Jan, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Feb 21, 2003 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Crawford, Macon, Putnam Feb 7, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart May 24, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford with Davine Campbell & Guelda Hay, Macon with Millie Stewart, Putnam with Millie Stewart June 1, 2004 - Margie Glover Daniels - CC of Clarke, Crawford, Macon, Putnam; On this TOC - Hart County is listed with a new URL but the CC is still listed as Deb Lowe; The new URL goes to Margie Daniel's present day Hart County website http://www.rootsweb.com/~gahart/ Deb Lowe's Hart County site is still at it's old location http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/9478/hartcoga.html And even though the County Selection Table still showed Darrell Ertzberger as CC of Stephens County, the URL went to this site http://www.rootsweb.com/~gastephe/ The copy of this website I kept shows a last update date of 5/16/2004 with Margie Daniels listed as the contact. This is not Darrell Ertzberger's site. You should be able to tell that from archive.org pages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I have copies of the referenced County Selection Lists and as I stated in my last post, I could send a .txt copy of the page if needed. Some of these are found through archive.org. Respectfully submitted, Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Article I vote Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:19:48 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:20:02 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Not Proven. Shari Handley RAL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:57:48 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:19:29 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <20142982.1093053434302.javamail.root@m24> I have no objection to Richard P using a rep of his choice to present his defense. HOWEVER Teresa is NIGS and cannot participate in project business or be subscribed to a project mailing list unless she obtains a waiver from the NC. Preumably she will know what is said on this Hear list anyway because someone will tell her. Not being subscribed to this Hear list will not hamper her defense of Richard P. IMHO she should not be given a waiver to use this Hear list in any way she chooses, Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:44:56 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:45:02 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com BUT.... If we tell Richard that he can have a rep of his choice to present his defense, AND he chooses Teresa, then if we do not permit her to be subscribed to the list, then we are effectively giving him PERMISSION to take posts off-list. Much better to request the confidentiality agreement and subscribe her, then remove her if the posts show up elsewhere, than to create a situation where it can be argued that we basically put someone in a situation of either violating confidentiality or not getting the assistance they chose. Personally, I feel quite sure that Teresa is looking forward to an opportunity to post the information elsewhere. Whatever -- I've got nothing to hide, and the end result won't be any more slanted than it will be when she gets bits & pieces forwarded to her (and she will, it's a given). And personally, I think Teresa will be about as useful to Richard as a bike to a fish, and I don't think "assistance" in the hearing is actually the purpose. But I don't think it's right to deny someone the assistance they request in a matter as serious as this. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Moving ONn Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:30:21 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:39:14 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Suggest reference to message from Isaiah Harrison.....20 August 2004 at 1:13 AM Vote AND begin discussion of Charge number One. Phyllis -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving ON Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:45:05 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:45:03 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I plead guilty to trying to move things along too fast. There was a lull in the discussion and I thought people were done with ARTICLE I, but that was not true, and apparently there are still more comments to be made. Some members are not ready to vote on that item. Also voting on one item while the next one is being discussed seems to be too confusing for some members. So..... 1. We will suspend the voting on ARTICLE I (from the summary). At a future point I will call for additional discussion on this item. After the discussion we will start the vote over. 2. Please continue discussion on ITEM 1 (ONE) (from the Charges): (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee. (b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. (c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought intocompliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required. (d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored. (f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:44:14 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:53:09 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Well....confidentiality didn't mean anything to someone, or the message containing the charges wouldn't have appeared on DBS. And, then there's the boast by W. David that he knows everything that is transpiring. Confidentiality didn't mean anything to Teresa when she was running for office, or during the time she served on the AB. But, those who thought they were going to find a "smoking gun" in the confidential posts that she put up for all to read, were sorely disappointed. I suppose that we could also stipulate that only ONE of them will be allowed to post statements, while the other will be subbed in "read only" mode. Furthermore that if an attempt is made to post statements from both in an email from the one with that privilege, TL will be unsubbed immediately. Phyllis -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:24:46 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:24:55 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I tend to agree that the odds are slim that Teresa would (a) agree to confidentiality, and (b) actually keep discussions confidential. But I think under the circumstances it would be better to let her re-post a post or two than to penalize Richard before the fact (and that's exactly how it will be spun if we don't let him choose his advisor). Of course, if she refuses to agree to confidentiality, I would say it would be reasonable to refuse to subscribe her to the hearing list in any form. Phyllis may be on to something with the idea of subscribing someone in "read only" status, but I'd be a little more specific. Richard, as the accused, shouldn't be read-only, no matter whether or not he wants Teresa to have a forum. His advisor (Teresa, or whoever) would be subscribed in read-only status, and while she could certainly be expected to advise him on what to say or what to answer, the advisor should not be actively participating. In other words, the advisor speaks to the accused, and no one else -- no speeches posted by way of the accused, no commentary. After all, the advisor's role is just that -- to ADVISE. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Question Regarding Evidence Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:27:15 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:27:20 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com We have received grievances or personal messages that would support the charges of this hearing, but these messages were sent to the AB or AB members directly. How do we go about using this evidence without breaching the confidentiality of those who wrote the messages? It is clear that if this information is posted on HEAR, it may end up elsewhere. Thanks, Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:52:18 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:01:13 -0500 From: Phyllis Rippee Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Angie......it's getting better all the time If the accused are to be privy to the comments that we make, they have to be in "read only mode" until we have something that we want to ask them for further clarification.....they should not be able to interject a comment whenever they wish. The fact that Tim has not, leads me to think that maybe Isaiah has already taken care of this because I don't think Tim can be good all by himself. So, how about.........requiring confidentiality from the accused and personal representative.....requiring a choice of who is to post replies should we want more information....breech of confidentiality means immediate removal and the necessity of exchange of info between accused and advisor. TL is not going to have any more influence with the members than she's ever had. Those who are out to B M C about the AB degrees> are going to do it anyway; others will wait for the synopsis from the AB when it is over; others don't give a hoot and haven't the slightest idea that anything is going on. Going home. See ya, Monday. Phyllis -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Question Regarding Evidence Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:04:52 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:05:01 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I'm guessing, then, that you've received information from someone asking to be kept confidential? Or have they been specific? If they haven't said one way or the other, would it be possible to ask if they would be willing to make a "public" statement, and give their name? If they don't want their name used, period, I'm not sure how we could use the evidence, at least not for the most part. In a way, it might depend on what the evidence *was*. If someone is saying, for instance, that they asked on X occasions to be subbed to the required list but weren't subscribed, it doesn't seem right to use it -- there's no way for someone to say that the evidence is incorrect if they don't have specifics. If they have an email they say was written by Tim or Richard that proves any of the points being argued, I don't know much way to present it without headers to *prove* that it came from who they say it did, although I suppose it would be possible to edit the headers to have the "from" information without the "to" information. I would feel a little differently, though, about a statement from someone addressing, for instance, the issue of whether CC's felt threatened or intimidated by the alleged practices in GA. If someone writes a statement and specifies that they are requesting confidentiality on the list for fear of reprisal, I wouldn't really have a problem with forwarding the statement minus the identifying headers. The only reason would be because they are speaking to their opinions or feelings, not something you would normally consider a statement of fact. And I would only agree that the statement should be included if the AB member forwarding it can attest that he/she has personally checked any verifiable facts in the statement, including who it came from and that they were a project member at the time period they claim. And preferably it would only be statements that include feelings or opinions based on first-hand observation, not a case of "I heard from friend who heard from a friend that they heard that he did such-and-such." Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:41:11 -0500 From: Richard... To: Shari Handley , Cyndie , Pam Reid , "Richard..." , teri , Gail Meyer Kilgore , bookstorelady , Denise Woodside , Linda Barton , LGFlesher , Bosque Lover , Phyllis Rippee , Don Kelly References: <004501c487a0$78155e80$0d73a00c@wchs> I was told that Tim was victim of a lighting strike, and lost Modem. I haven't heard if he has had it repaired yet. But would expect him back soon. I like you don't think Tim can be good all by himself. Richard... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:48:25 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:48:29 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I have asked Mr. Pettys to hold his various requests until the Hearing Committee is ready to deal with his case. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Question Regarding Evidence Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:53:29 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:42 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com The expectation is that HEAR is a confidential forum, and we need to operate under that expectation. The fact that this is a personnel matter and some of the evidence is of a private nature is the very reason that we are holding a closed hearing. If the information ends up elsewhere, it will be due to a serious breach of confidentiality. We cannot totally prevent some untrustworthy person from doing this, but we do need to be able to conduct a thorough hearing. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Richard Pettys Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:54:48 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:55:01 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com This works for me. Good plan, Phyllis. Shari posted by BatCave at 3:36 PM 0 comments Day 5 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Evidence of Adopting beyond the limit of 3 counties Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:14:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:14:17 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Thank you Linda. I appreciate your detailed documentation Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Evidence of Charges (Part 1) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:27:26 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:27:26 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Thank you Linda. I was surprised that Mr. Stowell chose to send to a list a letter from Ms Hedrick that "attacked" you and Mr Pettys. I am happy to see your copy of email exchanges and your documentation. Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] The Hearing Is Open Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:55:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:37:13 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 08:59 AM 8/18/04 -0700, you wrote: >This is a confidential list. Material posted here may not be forwarded to >private individuals not on the list or to any public list or website. >Anyone suspected of breaching the confidentiality of this list will be >immediately removed. Acknowledged. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Moving Along... Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:38:38 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1987 23:19:03 -0600 From: teri Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040819230438.02164968@pop.west.cox.net> Not Proven. Teri NE/NC CC rep -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Article I & more Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:41:34 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:41:00 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Article I Discussion - My thoughts on this violation are that as volunteers if we are going to be asked to follow any rules then we should be asked to follow all rules, not just some and be able to throw the others out with the bathwater. Who decides which are to be followed and which aren't? The fact that other states use the full name of their state in their logos and on their pages is interesting but doesn't mean to me that the GAGenWeb shouldn't use the name correctly, just that the other states should be required to follow the same rules. Article I states that the names "The USGenWeb Project" and the "The XXGenWeb Project (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project. Apparently the writers of the original Bylaws thought there was a good reason to have service marks reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project. And, the members of The USGenWeb Project showed their agreement with this Article by voting to include it with the Bylaws. Why would there be reserved service marks if they weren't meant to be used? It doesn't seem that you would only do that to keep someone else from using them. >From Merriam Webster Dictionary - One entry found for service mark. Main Entry: service mark Function: noun : a mark or device used to identify a service (as transportation or insurance) offered to customers >From Black's Law Dictionary - Servicemark. A name, phrase, or other device used to identify and distinguish the services of a certain provider. [Included here is the symbol used described as "Bullets" Bullets are used to separate definitional information (before the bullet) from information that is not purely definitional (after the bullet), such as encyclopedic information or usage notes.]Servicemarks identify and afford protection to intangible things such as services, as distinguished from the protection already provided for marks affixed to tangible things such as goods and products. -- Often shortened to mark. -- Also spelled service mark; service-mark. [Included here is Cf. (Described as "Used to refer to related but contrastable terms"]TRADEMARK (1). Trademark,n. 1. A word, phrase, logo, or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from those of others. [Again, the bullet symbol is placed here. Refer to servicemark above for description of its use] The main purpose of a trademark is to guarantee a product's genuineness. In effect, the trademark is the commercial substitute for one's signature. To receive federal protection, a trademark must be (1) distinctive rather than merely descriptive, (2) affixed to a product that is actually sold in the marketplace, and (3) registered with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. In its broadest sense, the term trademark includes a servicemark. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- And, this leads into Violations of GAGenWeb Guidelines #16 A & B. The GAGenWeb Guidelines included by Mr. Stowell in his response to charges include the following - 16. Minimum GAGenWeb Requirements for County Sites. A) - The GAGenWeb logo must be prominently displayed on the front page of the Web site, and linked to http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/. B) - All pages on the Web site must be clearly identifiable as GAGenWeb. If the specification of a servicemark is included in the bylaws and the use of an official logo is required in state guidelines then there must be a reason why. I refer you to the following links at archive.org. Examples of GAGenWeb pages http://web.archive.org/web/20040213145447/http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagen web/table.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20040216020112/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/ind ex.html And the GAGEN-L required list for CC's. http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+148378737+F http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+14223199943+F During Mr. Stowell's tenure as SC of GAGenWeb there were numerous variations of logos and names used on the State pages and on pages of Regional Coordinators who were appointed by Mr. Stowell to serve on a ruling council and to *assist* and recruit CC's. After the above post by Mr. Stowell was made on GAGEN-L on May 17, 2004, I was contacted by a CC because she had received notice to remove her "grayed out" logo. She has sent me statements that she stated could be used here. This is an email she had previously received from her Regional Coordinator ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Clody To: linda@pickenscountyga.com ; sylvia@pickenscountyga.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:19 AM Subject: Picken County GAGenWeb I would like to congratulate both of you on a great looking site. I was cruising around late tonight just looking over update dates on sites in the region and when I got to yours I stopped and looked at it. Then I thought about it a little and looked at it some more. I think it is very elegant, professional looking and some how conveys the cool freshness of the mountains where you are located. I don't know if it is the color set that you chose or the carving from the church but there is almost a feel of the mountains. Bill Clody Northwest Georgia Regional Coordinator Walker County CC -------------------------------------------------------------------- Her statement - Originally Tim emailed me (several years ago--when I first did the Pickens County site) that it was perfectly OK on my black/white or greyscale website aimed at low graphics to use the greyscale logo. He remarked in his email to me that he wasn't that wild about the pink logo himself. There was an email to the GAGen list about being in compliance with the official pink logo, noting that everyone had to update their sites and use the correct logo. Bill Clody, who had previously written Linda G and I to say what a nice site we had (see email forwarded to you this date), backed Tim in saying that we had to remove the greyscale logo. I did it immediately, with an email to Tim reminding him that he had approved it several years prior. No comment back from him. The first I heard of new compliance rules was his posting on the list, mentioning specifically "grayed out". He did not email me privately on his change of heart on this issue. Knowing of the "bad climate" within the GA GenWeb project at the time, I elected to replace the greyscaled Georgia logo with the pink one so as to not provide any fodder for the perceived gestapo-type leadership. I wanted to keep Pickens County. I noted that they did not require the official non-greyed out logos for USGenWeb, etc. Sylvia Rankin Pickens County CC ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- After the post by Mr. Stowell referenced above, I (Linda Blum-Barton) wrote and asked him about another greyed out logo that I knew existed on a page done by a Regional Coordinator & Assistant State Coordinator - -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:59 PM To: lab@boone.net Subject: RE: [GAGEN] a couple of misconceptions No - that looks fine - although a bigger logo would be nice. Tim At 08:57 AM 5/17/04 -0400, you wrote: >By grayed out - is this what you mean? > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacherok/ > >Linda B. Barton ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Please note that I wrote and sent this message at 8:57 AM on 5/17/2004. At that time and prior to that for a long period of time the above referenced Cherokee County site had used a greyed out version of the logo. Between the time I sent this letter and when Mr. Stowell answered me at 9:59 PM the logo on that page changed. I have a copy of the page as it was changed but not the original. I am sure there is at least one CC who would testify to this also. If you go to archive.org and click on the Feb 2004 TOC - you can see the Cherokee site without the grayed out logo as it was at least until Feb 2004. After that it changed to the second example, by Feb 10 2004 apparently - according to archive.org that is when it was changed http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20040210171646/http://rootsweb.com/~gacherok/ (This link should show the greyed out logo on the Cherokee site, but on my recently slow dial up connection, the graphics aren't all displaying) ---------------------------------------- I wrote back to Mr. Stowell - Tim At 10:31 PM 5/17/04 -0400, you wrote: >Actually, before I sent you the email this morning - the "gray" or >"black & white" logo looked much like the one that used to be on the >Pickens County website. I'm glad to see that Vanessa & Chuck decided to >change both project logos to the official ones of those projects. It >gets confusing for new CC's to see "leaders" using other than the >official logos. It gives the appearance that it's accepted. > >Linda His reply was "That's why I killed the link to the other logos from the contest of a few years back - so there would be no confusion as to what was acceptable." ------------------------------------------------------------- There were examples (I have examples but they don't work in .txt) all over GAGenWeb using the name and logo in different ways. Were these people told to take their logos down individually in May 2004? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- To me, the importance of this issue lies in what has now occurred. Many websites which include data donated by visitors to those sites and past CC's of those sites have been taken away from The USGenWeb Project and The GAGenWeb Project. They are using the name GeorgiaGenWeb on those sites as many of them did before so what recognition is there for the visitors that these are no longer affiliated with The USGenWeb Project and GAGenWeb? The service mark is important, as described in the definition given above, it is name recognition and service recognition. In the above mentioned case of Sylvia Rankin, the logo issue apparently had not mattered until very recently. It appears to me that the case of Sylvia Rankin was someone being singled out for a violation while other violations of the same exact guideline were ignored. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Do I personally view the previous "official" logo and name usage as a violation of Article I of USGenWeb Bylaws? Yes, I do because of my interpretation of it. Do I agree it could be interpreted another way? Yes. Do I believe there were violations of GAGenWeb Guidelines #16 A & B allowed to continue by some members of GAGenWeb under Mr. Stowell's tenure as SC while others were ignored? Yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Do I believe the violation that I see of Article I of USGenWeb Bylaws rises to the level of suspension on it's own merit? No, I don't. I believe it is one small part of a much larger issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Do I believe the violations that I see of GAGenWeb Guidelines #16 A & B allowed by Mr. Stowell and his ruling council rise to the level of suspension? Yes, as part of a continued pattern of total disregard of these guidelines allowed for some members and enforcement of them *against* others. It was prejudicial towards the members who were targeted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Please consider this my discussion on these points and my vote. Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I & more Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:55:52 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:55:48 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c48888$5a1b60d0$0d8bf043@cpq933> Good points, pointing out the falacy of interpretation. This bylaw is written so clearly that there is no room for interpretation. It says clearly what it means. Any project name not written as XXGenWeb is clearly out of compliance. Are we then going to bend to personal interpretation, or will we enforce the bylaw, or will we just throw the bylaw out? Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Questioning Charges at this time Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:17:36 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:17:22 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Denise, I apologize for not having answered your post before now. I have been pretty busy and had to go out of town over the weekend. My concern was not just over your questions. I have no concerns about the charges and evidence being discussed at all. My concern was over the discussion beginning to take place in the middle of a hearing that seemed to be questioning the order of the hearing itself and seemed to be heading in the direction of questioning the charges & summary themselves that had already been agreed upon - as opposed to discussion of the evidence of the charges. I appreciate everyone's attention to bringing some order to the hearing process and for helping to clarify some issues I had that obviously others did also. And, if I do submit something out of order, please let me know. I have quite a bit more evidence to present concerning the charges and will be sending that as promptly as possible this week. I have 3 new jobs that have come in and two that I am finishing up so I can't spend 24 hrs a day on this but know that I need to commit as much time as possible in the next few days. I hope you all appreciate the fact that each of these presentations is and has been time consuming for quite awhile and will have patience. Linda -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Keeping On-subject Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:25:23 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:25:22 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Please limit you comments at this time to ITEM ONE from the list of Charges. There will be opportunity for other topics later. (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (etc.) If there is no additional discussion on this item by tomorrow morning, I will call for a vote. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:05:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:05:09 -0400 From: angie Reply-To: Angie.Rayfield@ruby.behosting.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com A) Concerning 1-a & 1-b: County Coordinators were not subscribed to the required list even after requesting to be subscribed, and that non-members were subscribed. Question: Do we have a list of non-members that were subscribed to the list, or any specifics? And do we have statements to be submitted from members that had to make repeated requests before they were subscribed? If so, I believe it would be appropriate at this time to submit those. B) Concerning 1-c: County websites not in compliance. The response from Mr. Stowell does not, in my opinion, really address the issue. He refers to Exhibit 3, which is a list of Georgia counties that he feels are out of compliance as of 8/16/2004. Whether or not there are currently counties that need to be brought up to speed is not the issue here, the issue is whether Mr. Stowell permitted County Coordinators to remain with the project although their pages did not meet guidelines. (A side issue would be whether Mr. Stowell permitted some CCs to be removed for not meeting guidelines while not requiring all non-compliant CCs to be removed.) On the list provided by Mr. Stowell as his defense, I noted that 4 of the listed counties showed to have been last updated a year or more previously, although the guidelines specify 9 months. Those counties are: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacatoos/ -- updated May 2003 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/3242/floyd.htm -- updated May 2003 http://www.rootsweb.com/~gatowns/ -- updated Jan. 2003 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/3242/whtfld.htm -- updated May 2003 These pages have all been non-compliant in regards to updates since Mr. Stowell's tenure as State Coordinator. Question: Besides these 4 examples of non-compliant pages that continued to exist during his tenure, do we have any additional violations to be presented? C) Concerning 1-d: SC & RCs were permitted to continue to adopt counties beyond the three specified in state guidelines, while others requesting to adopt counties were refused even though they had fewer than 3. Mr. Stowell's exhibit, the Excel listing of CC names, etc., does seem to show people with more than 3 counties, but there are no dates to show when these counties were adopted, so there is no way to know whether these counties had already been adopted before the guidelines went into effect. However, Mr. Stowell made the statement "The reason either myself or my RCs had at times more than 3 counties was to baby-sit them until a county coordinator could be found." Although there are quite a few counties noted as "adoptable" on the exhibit provided by Mr. Stowell, none of those notations appear on counties listed for the SC or the RC/ASCs, even though one of the ASCs shows to have 9 counties under her control in addition to a special project site. Question: Do we have specific complaints from prospective volunteers concerning refusals to adopt counties? D) Concerning 1-e: Requests from coordinators for aproval of co- or Asst CCs were denied or ignored. Question: Do we have specific complaints from CCs detailing requests that were denied? Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Fwd: [USGW-Discuss] The rest of the story Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:38:17 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:38:22 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I know that some of the AB don't subscribe to Discuss... So I'm forwarding this comment from Margie Daniels... in response to a note from Donna Parrish Any desire to keep this hearing quiet is negated by Margie Daniels.... Darilee Margie Daniels wrote: From: "Margie Daniels" Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:55:48 -0500 To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [USGW-Discuss] The rest of the story Donna, For the record you have left out some very important parts to this "story". 1. You alleged on an open mail list that the council had voted to remove you from the gagenweb and you had received a dismissal letter. Fact. There was never a vote to have you removed and you never received a letter dismissing you from the gagenweb. It never happened. You were requested to send a copy of this dismissal letter and you QUIT instead. Did you not quit because you could not produce a letter that never existed. 2. Adding a co cc to your site without going through proper channels did not make them a co cc as you are aware. When you quit the last time, you left the data with the stipulation that Tim take the county and Tim agreed to this in order to keep the data for the state all 5 pieces of it. Did you know then that this would cause him to have charges brought that he exceeded the 3 county limit? In fact this is one of the complaints against him. So for the record, you alleged openly that you received a letter of dismissal as a result of a vote to remove you, in fact this vote and letter never happened. This lie caused distress to the members of the council that had once again had to endure a member's false accusations on an open list. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GAGEN/2004-01/1074345126 Margie Daniels -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Fwd: Re: [USGW-Discuss] Sturgis Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:39:37 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:39:42 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com It seems Tina has opened the door to discussing the issues on discuss... Darilee Jane Combs wrote: Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:10:08 -0500 (Central Standard Time) From: "Jane Combs" Subject: Re: [USGW-Discuss] Sturgis To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Well, at least some people were able to act as CC and be removed... I wanted to adopt a GA county and was rudely (and I do mean RUDELY) turned down because "he" didn't like the fact that I was associated with the MSGenWeb! He" didn't like the SC so therefore I wasn't good enough for the GAGenWeb! Jane Combs CC Lawrence Co MSGenWeb CC Hinds Co MSGenWeb CC Oglethorpe Co AHGP CC Oconee Co AHGP -------Original Message------- From: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Date: 08/22/04 12:51:10 To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [USGW-Discuss] Sturgis Donna, I fear you missed my point. I am not denying that CCs in Ga were treated unfairly and removed incorrectly, but I am saying despite all that, those charged need to be treated fairly and not just have the same thing done back to them. We do not live in an eye for an eye society. We live in a society of innocent until proven guilty. And a society where if found innocent that ALL rights and priviledges are returned. Derek Nichols CC On 22 Aug 2004 at 9:47, Nwgahistory@aol.com wrote: > Exactly Derek. That is why the AB had to take an action, > Donna Parrish > > In a message dated 8/20/04 5:40:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > breeze@nbnet.nb.ca writes: > > << How would any of us feel if we were removed from anything, found > out it was > in error, and then told, opps sorry but you've lost your > rights/positions/etc because WE messed up, not you. I don't think > there is one of us in this Project that would accept such. > > This is about human decency and moral/ethical responsibilities. > > > Derek Nichols > CC > >> > > > ==== USGENWEB-DISCUSS Mailing List ==== > --Celebrate the USGenWeb Project! -- Can you identify? > A Scene in the Woods, Forest Lake There are multiple Forest Lakes in > WI http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/wi/images/postcards/woods.jpg > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Tim's Forsyth site Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:50:19 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GAGEN/2004-01/1074661683 Margie should have referred to this string... Hopefully this is a note from Tim announcing why he is the new CC for Forsyth Co., Donna's county. the next email is from Donna thanking him for doin' it Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:21:54 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:21:56 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> I can contribute under the question under section C below. I was denied an adoption request and the CC for Habersham County AHGP is a supporting witness if you need her. She was a member of GAGenWeb when it hppened and wanted to give the GAGenWeb county to me. However, neither Tom nor Richard had a direct hand I know of in that refusal. It was the RC who later resigned. He may have consulted with Tim, but I don't know it as a fact. The other CC (AHGP) may know more about that. Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: removal Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:43:43 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:43:45 -0400 From: angie Reply-To: Angie.Rayfield@ruby.behosting.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <000901c486d2$bcff2b30$350c1b41@d51xkd11> <200408221427.i7merrna001279@ms-smtp-02-eri0.ohiordc.rr.com> Margie, If you have facts or evidence relevant to the proceedings, I would be glad to present it during the hearing on your behalf. But as an AB member taking part in the current hearing, I believe it would be highly inappropriate to take part in a personal and private discussion of the proceedings with anyone. Despite your constant -- and public -- accusations of bias, I have every intention of basing my decision on the evidence presented during the hearing, and ONLY on that evidence. Personal conversations outside of the hearing can only lead to an appearance of impropriety, and concerns of an attempt to influence the proceedings. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative posted by BatCave at 3:34 PM 0 comments Day 6 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] 1a Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:02:53 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:02:50 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Carolyn Golowka welcomed to GAGenWeb as a new CC - May 2002; http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 02+4271100274+F I searched for her name in the archives of the list in 2002, 2003 & 2004 - The only other posts in 2002 were wellcoming her; and again when an email written by her to someone else was forwarded to GAGEN-L. No posts in 2003 and none in 2004 before June. http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+4901085854+F -----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Golowka [mailto:cgolowka@prodigy.net] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:59 PM To: Linda Barton Subject: GAGen List Linda, Just in case you need it - I applied several times to join the GAGEN list while Tim was administrator for the state of Georgia. I was not on the list for years as far as I can tell. The last time I requested to become a member of the list was April, I think. I have looked for a sent email but apparently I don't have one for that month. I know that I tried to join before Brenda decided my site was to be eliminated, if memory serves me correctly. I know, though, I had requested to join several times over the years. I was on for a while some time ago and then I wasn't. Requests to reinstate me were ignored. So, I never knew what was going on. If there were elections, I was never included. I was not part of the rules and regulations they created for GA. I didn't even know it was going on. So, as I said, just thought you should know this happened to me. Thanks. Carolyn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] 1a Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:18:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:19:13 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com By chance, do we have a list of the CC's subbed to GAGEN-L at the time of the suspension to compare to those listed as CC's on the Table of Contents at the time of the suspension? This would help to give a scope of the number of discrepancies. Thanks, Cyndie posted by BatCave at 3:31 PM 0 comments Day 7 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:27:41 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:27:36 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040824092725.02d77a18@pop.west.cox.net> Isaiah, since some sections are cut and dried so to speak, and others are complicated; including new yet unproven facts which seem to arrive daily, IMHO we should vote on each section in the order of charges it appears. I believe there will be less confusion that way, and members can bone up on sections one at a time, which by normal accounts should yield more accurate results. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge #1 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:54:27 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:53:59 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I would appreciate being able to send all of the evidence through that pertains to Charge #1 before we begin voting. Since we moved to that Charge as a whole - it covers a multitude of issues and I am sending more evidence today. I received an email from a CC while I was gone over the weekend who wanted to forward more evidence to me and I am waiting on a reply from her. I am trying to divide it up into the subsections as best as I can now in order to send it that way since it was "divided" up.. I was also going to answer Angie & Cyndie's questions concerning the evidence which was a Yes to all of Angie's questions and a yes to Cyndie also. I wondered after reading Angie's questions whether or not the evidence I sent through on Friday before I left town reached this list and reached Angie as that addressed parts of #1 also. Linda -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Charge #1 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:29:46 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:29:43 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I've allowed more time than I said I would before beginning the voting on Charge #1. Now I have a question. Do you want to vote on the charge as a whole, or vote separately on each subsection? -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Re: {not a subscriber} Question from the accused? Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:01:19 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:01:11 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 11:10 PM 8/23/2004 -0600, you wrote: >Tim would like to know if he is allowed have an Advisor Representative to >be subscribed here on list. It is a very busy time at start of school for >him. Richard... > >Richard M. Howland >ICQ # 898319 >Mailto:richpump@sbcglobal.net Tim is subscribed to this list. If he wants as advisor subbed here he needs to ask. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge #1 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:42:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:42:11 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040824092725.02d77a18@pop.west.cox.net> It's not a problem to hold off if there is more information coming. Your post did make it to that list but I had to divide it into two parts because of the length. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] Fwd: [Fwd: [HEAR] Re: {not a subscriber} Question from the accused?] Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:35:37 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com I recall seeing that Richard is moderated on the USGWCONF-2-L list, but nothing about him being prohibited from posting to this list or even about being moderated or Board or Board-Exec. I noticed today that his forwarded messages were saying {not a subscriber}. What is going on? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Fwd: [Fwd: [HEAR] Re: {not a subscriber} Question from the accused?] Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:56:10 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:56:45 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Richard Howland has not been unsubscribed from any lists, but he is being moderated on Board-L, Exec and Hear as a result of an inappropriate comment he made about another AB member. He still receives all mail sent to the three lists. I review his posts before either forwarding them to the lists or returning them to him (in the case he chooses to make additional inappropriate comments). -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Fwd: [Fwd: [HEAR] Re: {not a subscriber} Question from the accused?] Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:12:21 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Thanks Isaiah. Since his post said {Not a Subscriber}, I wasn't sure. I've never moderated anyone on my lists, so I didn't know the message would come across this way. I wasn't aware that his comment on HEAR had caused the moderation on Board and Board-Exec. Is it possible for it to be lifted on Board-Exec, since this list is not public and not archived? Richard, are you receiving all posts on the three lists - well two lists, there haven't been any posts on BOARD? Do you have list appropriate messages that aren't be sent through to the group? Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] 1a & 1b Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:13:24 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:44:07 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com The following are a list of persons who were listed on the County Selection List for GAGenWeb as County Coordinators and who were not subbed to the GAGEN-L mailing list which is the required list for County Coordinators. As of early June 2004 when Joy Fisher took over the Administration of this list. - There are also numerous Co-CC's who weren't subbed either. Kenneth Brown; kenbrown_ct@yahoo.com; Tattnall County Ross Vinson; ross@redoaktree.org; Terrell County Barbara Caramba Coker; rootsreality@yahoo.com; Towns County Tonya Crosby; thcrosby@yahoo.com; Twiggs County Greg Holley; gholley@dca.net; Warren County Amanda Logue; alogue@washemc.net; Washington Gail Lacy; GLacy44222@aol.com; Wheeler County Donald H. Clark; dclark@mail.telfair.public.lib.ga.us; Wheeler County Arlene Woody; arlene@brookensfamily.org; Bartow County, Peach County Cindy Millwood; clm41358@bellsouth.net; Bartow County, Peach County Thomas Earl Cleland; tomcle@aol.com; Brantley County Myra Watkins; MyraWatkins@prodigy.net; Butts County Marsha Reese; candlercounty@dcemail.com; Candler County mcduffiecounty@dcemail.com; McDuffie County Greg Wainright; Satillroots@aolcom; Charlton, Wayne Counties Carol Ann Tindell; cat@ancestraldesigns.com; Dawson, Old Walton, Fannin Counties Hank Burnham; h.burnham@worldnet.att.net; Dodge County Linda Aaron; laaron@uga.edu; Elbert County Wayne Dorough dorwgd@cox.net; Glascock Dan Pierce tworunga@hotmail.com; Hall, Lumpkin counties Deb Lowe deb_way@bellsouth.net; Hart County Brent Currie; currie1@bellsouth.net; Long Harry Folsom miamibig@bellsouth.net Lowndes Marlene Berry MarleneBerry@earthlink.net; Morgan Sandy Ward Stewart rskhdr@bellsouth.net; Pierce Scott Dingler scottdingler@attbi.com; Polk County Marj Thompson; ivey@raex.com; Rabun County Harry Folsom miamibig@bellsouth.net; Lanier County, Lowndes County; Brent Currie currie1@bellsouth.net; Long County Harris Hill harrishill@starband.net; Schley County; Alan Anderson alanande@bellsouth.net; Sumter County Carolyn Golowka cgolowka@prodigy.net Newton, Rockdale Counties -------------------------------------------------------------------- Linda B. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] 1a & 1b Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:13:25 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:46:22 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com In reference to people who were subbed to the GAGEN-L Mailing list required for CC's I offer the following - As of June 5, 2004 - people who were subbed who were not members of GAGenWeb. (This excludes people who were known to be subbed such as Ken Johnson, because of his affiliation with Georgia USGenWeb Archives; Cristine Goff who had been subbed because of her position as SEMA SC Rep;Linda Sigler-Sanders, The Tombstone Project for Georgia;) --------------------------------------------- Laura Schmidt DigMyPast@msn.com Previous CC & RC in GAGenWeb; more information below concerning when she resigned; and proof that she was posting to the list as late as 2004. Statement sent to me by Virginia Crilley. -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Crilley [mailto:varcsix@hot.rr.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:11 PM To: lab@boone.net Subject: Laura Schmidt data When Laura Schmidt resigned in 2003, she should have been removed from the GAGen list...she was not. I mentioned this to Tim a couple of times. If you look at GAGen messages you will find that she sent 4 messages in 2004 even! I think she was probably still on until Joy took over the GAGen list and started to clean it up. Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:48:02 -0800 From: "Joe & Laura Schmidt" To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <02c201c2d5f4$7538fa00$108bfa43@schmidt> Subject: [GAGEN] Resignation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit GAGENWEB Tim, Margie, Virginia, et al, Do to time restraints, health, stress, and personal problems in general; I hereby resign my posts as Peach county coordinator, Greene County coordinator, and East Central Georgia Regional coordinator. I want to leave on a positive note, so I have to say this: Working in the Georgia GenWeb has been a very very wonderful experience. It is the most active state I have ever been involved with. Our discussions may have gotten hectic and heated at times, but that only means that we have a bunch of people in this state that believe in the value of this project. It has been an honor to have worked with each and every one of you. Tim, you have always been there for me. You have stood by my side and supported me. I couldn't have asked for a better State or National Coordinator. I am proud to consider you my friend. Margie, you are wonderful. I hope our paths continue to cross in our researching. You have tried your best to keep me informed in the happenings of this project. I have not always read all the emails, but I knew if you sent me one (and you are in your own sort file in my email) I needed to read it. You have always been fair to everyone and a support when I needed you. Thank you! Virginia, it has been an honor to have you as my Regional coordinator. We have not always seen eye to eye, but you have been fair dealing with the issues that came up between us. Thank you for that! To the county coordinators under me, I am sorry I have not always been there. Health is something I have no control over. I should have resigned earlier, but I just did not want to give up! Thank you for your patience. I plan on retaining all of my mailing lists. Respectfully, Laura Schmidt DigMyPast@msn.com ================ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:48:01 -0800 From: "Joe & Laura Schmidt" To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <018501c41291$533bea90$f26d4c04@lauraschmidt> Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Page requirements - Guidelines Revision Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ----- Original Message ----- From: MeMe To: DigMyPast@msn.com ; mannannan@maclyr.com Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:25 AM Subject: [GAGEN] Page requirements - Guidelines Revision http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+19064117799+F 4 messages sent during 2004 --- last ones in April of 2004 -- -more than a year after she resigned. ---------------------------------------------- Charmaine Holley - archivehobbit@mac.com (this address was subbed twice) Charmaine Holley adopted Troup County in January or March 2003 but never did anything with the website; http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 03+22395810931+F http://web.archive.org/web/20030412204131/http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagen web/table.htm Her retirement from GAGenWeb wasn't announced on GAGEN-L but she was listed on the above table in April 2003 and Tim Stowell had adopted this county by December 2003. ------------------------------------------------ Olivia Saffold http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+16233607635+F http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GAGEN+20 04+16253609066+F Tim's post explaining Ms Saffold's post to GAGEN-L was a little puzzling in itself because it would be hard to forget what had just occurred the previous month concerning the African American Special Project for GA and the Georgia African American Mailing List that was instigated through this same email address. http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GA-Af ricaAmer+2004+4696180+F http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GA-Af ricaAmer+2004+2541496+F http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GA-Af ricaAmer+2004+2335164+F This apparently precipitated the resignation of Babe Linn and Sandy Johnson, the previous African American Special Project Coordinators and the appointment of Tru Black as the new African American Special Project Coordinator. http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GA-Af ricaAmer+2004+52118275+F I would think it would be hard to forget something like this in a weeks time. ---------------------------------------------- Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] 1a & 1b Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:13:17 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:47:15 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Carol Ann "C. A. T." Tindell wrote to me while I was gone over this past weekend and was going to forward emails to me concerning this issue but I have not heard back from her. In part of her email to me, she told me she had just gotten Outlook restored on her computer after installing a firewall, so she could be having more trouble. If I hear from her in the next day or so, I'll forward the information. This is part of her email - "I can tell you this....in summary...I asked Tim Stowell several times over the period of about 2-3 years before I resigned from GAGenWeb to place me on the list. I never was. However, that may be my own doing, not sure. During this 2-3 year time-frame, I had a local ISP in which I viewed all incoming email at the web level, before I used that ISP to send/receive email into Outlook on my puter. This way I was able to eliminate spam, etc. before it touched my puter. I still do it this way today as it really helps. My main, permanent email of cat@ancestraldesigns.com is part of my owned domain. All email sent to this permanent addy is automatically forwarded to my local ISP inbox that isn't known to the sender. I would send email via my ISP connection, which is required, yet have the reply-to addy as cat@ancestraldesigns.com. I can also change ISPs as need be and not have to worry about getting mail or need to send out change of address notices. This method created two email addresses for me in using RW email lists. It's been several years since I administrated RW email lists, but if I remember correctly, you can't have 2 email addys combined this way. That may be the reason why I was excluded, but Tim did not try to work with me to resolve this problem." Her email address she sent this email through was C.A.T. Tindell [catindell@direcway.com]. ----------------------------------------------- Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Representative posted by BatCave at 3:29 PM 0 comments Day 8 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Evidence of Charges (Part 1) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:29:55 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:56:49 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040820134752.0226bda8@pop.west.cox.net> At 12:27 PM 8/21/04 -0700, Darilee wrote: >Thank you Linda. I was surprised that Mr. Stowell chose to send to a list >a letter from Ms Hedrick that "attacked" you and Mr Pettys. To do otherwise, would have been dishonest. It would have required selective to cut out items that might sound adverse to my ASC. Nope, better to send it all - warts and all, for that was her true and full letters to me. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I & more Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:29:57 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:02:32 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c48888$5a1b60d0$0d8bf043@cpq933> At 01:55 PM 8/22/04 -0700, Don wrote: >Good points, pointing out the falacy of interpretation. > >This bylaw is written so clearly that there is no room for interpretation. > >It says clearly what it means. > >Any project name not written as XXGenWeb is clearly out of compliance. Will your august body now go after all the other SC and CCs that are not in compliance on this particular issue? >Are we then going to bend to personal interpretation, or will we enforce the >bylaw, or will we just throw the bylaw out? Good point. Just when will the AB begin abiding by ALL the Bylaws? Why should any SC/CC/LC, whatever, obey ALL the Bylaws since their own AB has ignored them for the sake of what the situation of the moment (this or any other) may offer the AB the chance to create retroactive rules out of thin air? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:29:58 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:07:14 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 06:05 PM 8/22/04 -0400, Angie wrote: >On the list provided by Mr. Stowell as his defense, I noted that 4 of the >listed counties showed to have been last updated a year or more previously, >although the guidelines specify 9 months. Those counties are: > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacatoos/ -- updated May 2003 >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/3242/floyd.htm -- updated May 2003 >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gatowns/ -- updated Jan. 2003 >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/3242/whtfld.htm -- updated May 2003 Did you look at every page within the said site, not just the front page? Often folks update, add other pages but don't update their main page. >These pages have all been non-compliant in regards to updates since Mr. >Stowell's tenure as State Coordinator. How do you figure that, since I've been the SC since 1999? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:30:00 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:11:58 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> At 05:21 PM 8/22/04 -0700, you wrote: >I can contribute under the question under section C below. I was denied an >adoption request and the CC for Habersham County AHGP is a supporting >witness if you need her. She was a member of GAGenWeb when it hppened and >wanted to give the GAGenWeb county to me. > >However, neither Tom nor Richard had a direct hand I know of in that >refusal. It was the RC who later resigned. He may have consulted with Tim, >but I don't know it as a fact. The other CC (AHGP) may know more about that. > >Don Don, A correction here - the RC for the Habersham region was Margie Daniels - definately not a he. She did not resign as RC for that region until after June 1st. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Ms. Golowka Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:29:12 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:27:52 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I had something more to present on this - which I'll reconstruct tomorrow, as my computer got tired of searching old emails, froze up and killed 2 messages I was writing for this list. 330 AM now - bedtime. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:49:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:42:36 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> As I indicated, I had no direct contact with the RC. The CC told me the RC said I was denied for "personal reasons" which is a quote. I may have assumed it was the RC who later resigned and she was a he. The point is I was qualified and denied for personal reasons. I don't know who was responsible, or who approved of the refusal, but the buck stops somewhere.. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] 1a & 1b Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:57:07 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:57:56 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Linda, Thank you for the time you took to provide this information to my request!! Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:30:57 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:31:33 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com >-----Original Message----- > >>These pages have all been non-compliant in regards to updates >since Mr. >>Stowell's tenure as State Coordinator. > >How do you figure that, since I've been the SC since 1999? > The time period from January 2003 through May 2004 didn't occur since 1999? Fine, I'll change the wording. The pages became non-compliant as regards to updates during Mr. Stowell's tenure, and remained non-complaint in that regard through the duration of Mr. Stowell's active tenure as State Coordinator. If you can point out pages or data added to those accounts during the period in question, please feel free to do so. I have not yet located any. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative posted by BatCave at 3:27 PM 0 comments Day 9 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:56:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:55:27 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com In chronological order as best I could piece together - From: "Carolyn Golowka" To: " Brenda Pierce" Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:08 AM Subject: Re: GAGenWeb Sites Newton & Rockdale Brenda, Yes, I do intend to maintain the sites. I will make sure the correct date is available and that they have current data. As an Archive person, much of what is available is placed there when folks send in transcribed data. But, I do agree that they need more work and will take that on ASAP. I do thank you for checking. You are doing a great job and I appreciate it. Carolyn Golowka ALGenWeb Archives File Manager AL Civil War Roots Webmaster ALGenWeb Lowndes, Macon, Monroe and Montgomery County Coordinator GAGenWeb Hall, Newton and Rockdale County Archives File Manager ----- Original Message ----- From: " Brenda Pierce" To: "B & C Pierce" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: GAGenWeb Sites Newton & Rockdale > Carolyn: > > I am beginning to look at the sites in the Metro Region (I am behind my > peers as they have been doing theirs for quite sometime now). I really need > to know if you plan to maintain and add data to Newton and Rockdale. They > have not been updated since Sept 11 and Oct 5, 2002 and both still show > under construction. I really appreciate the fact of you taking the counties > when I had so many to keep up with and Lisa was unable to continue after the > baby, but the cc's voted on the guidelines, and I must do my part in > requesting that sites come under compliance. I will, of course, be happy to > help with your sites if you need a helping hand, just let me know. > > I look forward to hearing from you, and hope that everything is ok with you > and your family. > > Again, please do let me know if you need some help, I will certainly help > you get them fixed up and help with what ever I can. > > Thanks, > > Brenda Pierce ================================================ Reply-To: ltlbit@mindspring.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) From: "Brenda " To: cgolowka@prodigy.net Subject: Newton Site Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:34:12 -0400 X-ELNK-Trace: ac5ab80e0a892d8c5e89bb4777695beb702e37df12b9c9eff472b38da8185fed35bbecdb8b60 253b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:99.4056 C:78.1961 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:2.0000) r p m C X-pstn-addresses: from forward (user good) [1222/53] Carolyn: I am writing about the Newton County site, it needs data on there badly and Kaye Stowe is graciously allowing us to use items that she has and some she has not sent to the archives. Can you let me know if you can post this material on the Newton County site, if so I will forward it to you as she sends what she wants us to post. I realize that you stated when last we emailed that you were very busy with school, so let me know what your situation is now. I am excited that Kaye is sharing with us for the site, as we don't have any real data there. I realize that having it in the archives is great, but we really need the data on our County sites as well for those that wish to view it in html. Thanks, Brenda Pierce ====================================== Reply-To: ltlbit@mindspring.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) From: "Brenda " To: "Carolyn Golowka" Subject: Re: Newton Site Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:59:38 -0400 X-ELNK-Trace: ac5ab80e0a892d8c5e89bb4777695beb702e37df12b9c9efb84b9ccd7caa75e9877351dc5d5c 919d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:99.8514 C:93.2377 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from forward (user good) [1298/56] Carolyn: Thanks for responding, and I am glad you have time to put things on the site. No, she didn't try to contact you that I know of, I contacted Kaye directly, she has some very nice things in the archives that will work well on the county site and she is being very generous with us, and I am so thrilled to see some of the stuff that she has that I have never seen before. I asked for her permission and told her that if you did not have time to put it up that I could, so that the data would be at the county level as well as the archives. She will still submit for both the county and the archives, so please don't feel that I am taking away from the archives. I certainly understand the KISS rule, although I don't always utilize it much to the chagrin of others. I do like a little creative license so as to not bore everyone that does come. There are folks though that come to county sites because they want to view "web pages" in html format, they like the look and feel and are comfortable there, and as such I really do want our county sites to have as much data there as possible for them to view. The .txt files are fine for those that want to view them, and prefer to view them, but that is not everyone's preference, just like viewing html or pdf is not everyone's preference. I will forward what Kay has sent thus far for your site, and she has shared some other things for other sites as well. She has some really great items, some of the items that I had not seen before. I know everyone is thrilled to have her contributing information, and now it can be enjoyed in two places. If you get overwhelmed and need a hand, give me a yell, and I'll help you. I don't want to overburden folks, but I would like to get our counties data filled for the folks that choose to visit there. Again, let me know ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Golowka To: ltlbit@mindspring.com Sent: 5/12/04 11:49:39 PM Subject: Re: Newton Site Brenda, I am certainly happy to accept any submissions that anyone wishes to send. I will see that they are posted. Remember, Brenda, as you know, .txt can be read by any computer. My father, for example, is in a nursing home that has old computers. They cannot afford to update the computers every few years. They have great difficulty reading some html pages. The saying goes use 'kiss' - keep it simple stupid. We used that often in my computer science classes when I was working on my computer science degree. Just because you can use all the bells and whistles doesn't mean you should. Be that as it may, there is litteraly TONS of stuff in the Archvies, TONS. But, I would be happy to accept any submissions anyone wants to post for Newton County. Kaye should send me what ever is appropriate for the site. I will see that it gets uploaded. Not a problem. Tell me, did Kaye try to contact me directly? If so, I did not receive any email and I am glad you let me know. So, thanks much. Carolyn Golowka USGenWeb Archives - Alabama File Manager AL Civil War Roots Webmaster ALGenWeb Lowndes, Macon, Monroe and Montgomery County Coordinator GAGenWeb Hall, Newton and Rockdale County Archives File Manager ================================================================= From: Carolyn Golowka To: kcjnz@triad.rr.com Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:51 AM Subject: Photo from Leguinn School Kay, I also received a message about the photo you sent into the Newton County Archives for Leguinn School. The message was to Brenda Pierce in which you stated the following: This is a great photo. Has my grandfather and 2 of his brothers, 5 siblings of my grandmother, one of my nieces great-grandfather on her dad's side not kin to me(whose sister also was a great-aunt to me). Are you lost yet? And I can tell you how all those Meadors are related, but not sure we're actually kin. Just seem to live next door for about 50 years. And we were able to identify almost everyone by showing to one of the ladies in the photo a few years back. Would you like any of this connected with the photo? The description gives who is in the photo but not their relationships. I wouldn't think it safe to say your relationship, but the relationshiop between siblings, etc, by name, could be noted. You can also find the link for the photos on the Newton County website, just as with the Bible Records. Let me know what you think and if you would like to add this information so others know the relationships. THANK YOU very much. Carolyn Golowka USGenWeb Archives - Alabama File Manager AL Civil War Roots Webmaster ALGenWeb Lowndes, Macon, Monroe and Montgomery County Coordinator GAGenWeb Hall, Newton and Rockdale County Archives File Manager ================================================================== Brenda, Kay likes my site. Leave it alone. I don't want to fight. I want to SERVE THE RESEARCHER. I don't want to play politics. I have better things to do with my time like link the 179 more new files I received for Newton and Rockdale Counties in the Archives. These will automatically be available to the researchers who come to my pages very quickly, SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE RESEACHER. That is what is important. I have done all I can to SERVE THE RESEARCHER as efficiently and following good computer programming practices. Carolyn Golowka USGenWeb Archives - Alabama File Manager AL Civil War Roots Webmaster ALGenWeb Lowndes, Macon, Monroe and Montgomery County Coordinator GAGenWeb Hall, Newton and Rockdale County Archives File Manager ----- Original Message ----- From: Kay Stowe To: Carolyn Golowka Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Photo from Leguinn School Carolyn- Am glad you're out there watching out for me! No, the info on the people was not intended to be linked to the photo, just a note to her. The comments section that you already posted notes those relationships stating the WRIGHTS and ELLINGTONS are siblings and naming their parents. Needs nothing more, I think. Just ignore any other requests for duplication for me, and I will let her double-list the stuff I send to BUTTS co if she wants to. Maybe that'll make everybody happy! I have spent a LOT of time on a lot a websites over the past 3 years "playing" genealogy, and have found yours one of the friendliest and easiest to use. Commented to my husband a while back that you and I must think alike, because the way the info is organized just seems to make sense. I have found a lot of good stuff! (Since I'm kin to half the county anyway...) Am delighted to offer anything I have for your use, but have also tried to choose things with a broad interest that would appeal to more than 5 other people. Even if you feel like you must post everything people send, it would not bother me a second if you were to tell me something I sent might not be appropriate. Am truly sorry for my part in this confusion. Just ignore anything else that comes your way, and no need to change anything...except that mistake that I MADE by double-submitting the COOK headstones. ( I have in my files alone 167 descendants) I got an error message once because I tried to send a bitmap instead of jpg., and overcompensated. Think I'm so smart, sometimes, with computers, then go do something that stupid....I hate being your problem child. This is my first day off work for the summer - tutot math (and computers if that's not funny) at community college. May have more time to play, but will try not to bug you too much. Thanks for everything! -Kay ================================================================== Reply-To: ltlbit@mindspring.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) From: "Brenda " To: "Carolyn Golowka" Subject: Sites & Data Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 21:51:26 -0400 X-ELNK-Trace: ac5ab80e0a892d8c5e89bb4777695beb702e37df12b9c9ef8290dbf318592265c9f872d821b9 03f2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:98.8113 C:82.4442 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:2.0000) r p m C X-pstn-addresses: from forward (user good) [1298/56] Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:35 p.m. EST Hi Carolyn: I don't want to read anything incorrectly, but after reading a note from Kay where she sent some items for another site, it said something in there about Newton County preferring she thought to use links and that was ok with her, it made me wonder what happened between the message below and Kay's message. Can you clarify if/when you are putting up Kays information on the GAGenWeb County site? There are several others that have given permissions as well, and it is quite a bit of data. Our county sites have to have data on them per USGenWeb, and that is why I have asked for this data. So, please clarify what is going on. Brenda Pierce =============================== From: Carolyn Golowka To: ltlbit@mindspring.com Sent: 5/15/04 8:59:31 AM Subject: Re: Sites & Data Brenda, As per my education as a computer programmer, there is lots and lots of data available to the users of the Newton County pages and I will like to them directly as it is the best use of time and materials. As you know, the Archives is nothing more than a database. When creating a database, it is extremely important to have only one place where the data is and then have the users (of which the county pages are users) access the data. It would be absolutely ridiculous and time consuming to have the data both in the database and on the county site. There are literally hundreds of files just for Newton County in the Archives. It would not be efficient use of time or server to have these hundreds of files in both places. Either site, Archives or County, could miss something and that does not serve the user (i.e.. researcher). We are here for the researcher. I REPEAT - WE ARE HERE FOR THE RESEARCHER. There is nothing in the bylaws that requires me to have the source material on my County site. What I must have is information to help the researcher. It does not matter that the information is on my server or not. It does not matter that I use html or not. Text files download faster and work for more people than html pages alone. I REPEAT - WE ARE HERE FOR THE RESEARCHER. We want to make it easy for the researcher to find what they need. I am forwarding Kay's response to me. Brenda, good programming is not repeating all the files in the Archives into the County. That is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think a bank or other institution that creates and uses databases repeat the database in different places???? Can you think how much would be mixed up? And houw much could be left out of either set of information? Poor programming practices is what gets businesses in trouble. And it can get these two entities of the same organization in trouble as well. You and Tim, amember not in good standing, and others, only want the information under your control. You want to "own" it. It is apparent you do not want what is actually best for the researcher. My site indeed links to the Archives. It is what the researchers are looking for - data. I REPEAT, DUPLICATION FILES DOES NOT SERVE THE RESEARCHER. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT REQUIRE ME TO USE HTML PAGES FOR DATA. As long as the researcher can easily find the data, that is all that matters. I do not have to put it on my server at all. If my site were on a different server and not rootsweb, especially if I were paying for the server space, I would want to limit what was there WITHOUT EFFECTING THE RESEARCHER. So, I would certainly link to the Archives for the LIMITED information there. The Archives doesn't have everything so the rest of my server space would be for what is NOT in the Archives. I realize that you and Tim, the member not in good standing, have some sort of agenda. I am not going to be a part of your agenda. I AM GOING TO SERVE THE RESEARCHER THE BEST WAY I HAVE BEEN TRAINED. I am a computer scientist. I will 'program' according to these good practices, and not in any way to be of disservice to the researcher. Also, fighting over where the data is stored does not serve the researcher, the prime objective of the USGenWeb. If you and Tim are woking on making your own, new, genealogical online organization, fine and dandy. Just don't drag the USGenWeb with you. Just get on with it and leave the organization. It is apparent in the discussions lists I have seen that the GenWeb know of the problems Tim, the member not in good standing, and you and others have created. We do not need this. WE NEED TO SERVE THE RESEARCHER USING GOOD PROGRAMMING PRACTICES. Leave it alone, Brenda. Carolyn Golowka USGenWeb Archives - Alabama File Manager AL Civil War Roots Webmaster ALGenWeb Lowndes, Macon, Monroe and Montgomery County Coordinator GAGenWeb Hall, Newton and Rockdale County Archives File Manager ======================================================= At 11:07 PM 5/15/04 -0400, Brenda wrote: >>>> Carolyn: Your sites under the following guidelines have been deemed to be "abandoned", and you must remove the logos from your site that pertain to this project. GAGenWeb Guidelines: 6. Purpose of a GAGenWeb County Site and Special Project Site. The purpose of a GAGenWeb county site is to provide genealogical researchers with freely accessible records about the county to help further their family research. A GAGenWeb county site will not be placed to serve primarily as a directory of county-related links to other sites, or as a Web site strictly devoted to selling genealogy-related items, such as books and CD-ROMs. 13. Abandoned Sites. A GAGenWeb county or special project site will be deemed abandoned if any of the following occur: a) A CC or SPC cannot be reached by email for 30 days, without prior notification to the RC or SC and the GAGEN list. b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9) months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than 100 years old. Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update.) c) A CC or SPC refuses to answer email from an RC; ASC; or SC. d) A CC refuses to add county-related, transcribed data to their site from a submitter, if the transcribed data does not appear to violate any person or entity's copyright. ("Violations" of this section will invoke an inquiry to find the cause of the refusal, to be sure of the reasons for the refusal.) USGENWEB BYLAWS: ARTICLE II. PURPOSE Section 1. The USGenWeb Project is an organized group of volunteers working to create an online center for genealogical research by linking every county in the United States. The purpose of this organization shall be to gather genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers Section 2. This purpose shall be accomplished by presenting websites which shall be central repositories of historical and genealogical research data, donated either by the website coordinator or other contributors. In presenting this information, the foundation of the organization shall be at the local websites (county, township, parish, town, etc.) which shall be linked to the state websites which shall be linked to the national website. The USGenWeb Project shall also provide a "digital library" called The USGenWeb Project Archives. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:10:37 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:10:41 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com When I pointed out that counties listed by Mr. Stowell as being currently out of compliance had gone without updates for well over the 9 months specified in the GAGenWeb guidelines in effect at the time and while he was the State Coordinator, he suggested that updates could be made without the date on the index page reflecting the changes. It doesn't appear that that was the case. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative >-----Original Message----- >From: Vicki Thauvin [mailto:accounts@rootsweb.com] >Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:41 AM >To: angie@inmyattic.com >Subject: Re: Question.... > > > >Angie, > >I can tell you that neither ~gacatoos nor ~gatowns have had >files uploaded >since 2003. Anything more than that, the account holders will >need to email >RootsWeb. > >-- > >Vicki >RootsWeb Web Accounts Team > posted by BatCave at 3:25 PM 0 comments Day 10 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] My original response - modification Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:11:56 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:16:08 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com In my original response I wrote the following: "I hereby demand full legal names and home addresses at which service may be effected by an officer designated perfect such service of process." I now withdraw that, as such is no longer needed. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] fake cc Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:02 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:54:14 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Someone reminded me of an item I'd forgotten all about - one person who later resigned, we tried to work with and finally gave up trying - whom this group allowed to file a grievance against me - one Paulette Moon, Jackson County CC, had a ghost CC working behind us on her site stating she was basically filing the slot while he did the site - a fact found out only during the grievance process - namely Keith Giddeon. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Re: {not a subscriber} Question from the accused? Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:22 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:53:05 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Pray tell why Richard Howland is no longer on this list? I've seen no message saying he has recused himself. If the chair is going to start tossing off folks who may agree with me, to be fair the chair should also remove ones who've brought previous complaints, thus being accuser and judge namely Betty Wood and Linda Barton. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:25 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:17:35 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040825020714.00820be0@mail.chattanooga.net> At 06:31 PM 8/25/04 -0500, Angie Rayfield wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>>These pages have all been non-compliant in regards to updates >>since Mr. >>>Stowell's tenure as State Coordinator. >> >>How do you figure that, since I've been the SC since 1999? >> > >The time period from January 2003 through May 2004 didn't occur since >1999? Fine, I'll change the wording. > >The pages became non-compliant as regards to updates during Mr. >Stowell's tenure, and remained non-complaint in that regard through the >duration of Mr. Stowell's active tenure as State Coordinator. > >If you can point out pages or data added to those accounts during the >period in question, please feel free to do so. I have not yet located >any. > >Angie Rayfield >SEMA SC Representative A bit testy aren't you? You may recall that a portion of the Georgia Guidelines - which this body has no jurisdiction over - states that data put in the Archives counts as an update. If the CC was linked to the Archives and an a file was added to the Archives in that time frame according to that regretable guideline the county site would be considered updated. I don't have the time to go and visit the Archives to see if such was done. On the other hand I'm willing to bet that perhaps except for Delaware with 3 counties, most states have sites that haven't had updates in that same time frame and well before that as well. Please let me know when we can discuss the Bylaws this body has broken with regards to the situation in Georgia and North Dakota. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] 1a & 1b Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:30 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:27:12 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 08:47 PM 8/24/04 -0400, you wrote: >Carol Ann "C. A. T." Tindell wrote to me while I was gone over this past >weekend and was going to forward emails to me concerning this issue but >I have not heard back from her. In part of her email to me, she told me >she had just gotten Outlook restored on her computer after installing a >firewall, so she could be having more trouble. If I hear from her in the >next day or so, I'll forward the information. > >This is part of her email - > >"I can tell you this....in summary...I asked Tim Stowell several times >over the period of about 2-3 years before I resigned from GAGenWeb to >place me on the list. I never was. However, that may be my own doing, >not sure. Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:43:31 -0700 X-From_: nobody Tue Dec 10 17:43:30 2002 Old-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:43:30 -0700 From: Nobody To: GAGEN-L-request@lists5.rootsweb.com Subject: subscribe X-Processed: GAGEN-admin@lists5.rootsweb.com subscribe cat@ancestraldesigns.com X-Envelope-To: GAGEN-L-request X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=6.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: * The prospective subscriber address generates the following multigram matches to the current list: 23 claire@genealogy-quest.com 3982 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 68 geniesanders@lycos.com 3866 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 43 carlac@ncweb.com 3126 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 47 ChuckandKim14@aol.com 2900 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 89 GenealogyGeorgia@aol.com 2780 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 21 sigler-sanders@mailcity.com 2364 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 16 SumterCoGaGenWeb@aol.com 2262 cat@ancestraldesigns.com 45 mdaniel3@midsouth.rr.com 2262 cat@ancestraldesigns.com ====================================== Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:49:31 -0700 X-From_: nobody Tue Dec 10 17:49:31 2002 Old-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:49:31 -0700 From: Nobody To: GAGEN-L-request@lists5.rootsweb.com Subject: subscribe X-Processed: GAGEN-admin@lists5.rootsweb.com subscribe cat@tds.net X-Envelope-To: GAGEN-L-request X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0 tests= version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: The prospective subscriber address generates the following multigram matches to the current list: 37 Connie@wvdsl.net 4808 cat@tds.net 53 lab@boone.net 2213 cat@tds.net 39 gholley@dca.net 1556 cat@tds.net 27 donald@allen.net 805 cat@tds.net 57 donald@allen.net 805 cat@tds.net 55 dbyrd@lightcom.net 744 cat@tds.net 41 cdmchugh@bellsouth.net 545 cat@tds.net 66 ken@pro-usa.net 365 cat@tds.net ===================================== Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:26:27 -0700 X-From_: catindell@direcway.com Mon Jan 27 17:26:27 2003 Reply-To: "C.A.T. Tindell" From: "C.A.T. Tindell" To: Old-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:26:28 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list Subject: {not a subscriber} Re: [GAGEN] Rights of CC - Role of Co CC X-Envelope-To: GAGEN-L X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=6.0 tests=CARRIAGE_RETURNS,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT_OE version=2.43 X-Spam-Level: Sending from an address not subbed at the time. =================================== Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:32:26 -0700 X-Original-Sender: catindell@direcway.com Fri Mar 7 10:32:24 2003 Reply-To: "C.A.T. Tindell" From: "C.A.T. Tindell" Old-To: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:32:23 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [GAGEN] Music on County Pages To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4409 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-99.2 required=6.0 tests=CARRIAGE_RETURNS,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OE, USER_IN_WHITELIST,X_LOOP,X_MAILING_LIST version=2.43 X-Spam-Level: Posting to GAGEN from that address. ======================================== Reply-To: "C.A.T. Tindell" From: "C.A.T. Tindell" To: "Tim Stowell" Cc: "Virginia Crilley" Subject: Re: Fannin Co. GAGenWeb Resources Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:34:40 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=6.0 tests=CARRIAGE_RETURNS,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT_OE,X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH, X_PRIORITY_HIGH version=2.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Filter-Version: 1.11a (milter.highertech.net) Hi Tim, Yeah, my site was down on Friday due to server maintainance & upgrades thanks to the 2 virsuses recently attacking computers world-wide. People should expect to find right now many sites temporarily off-line so that servers can upgrade their security systems. I couldn't get into RootsWeb's Research Templates off of their main page yesterday either. Yes, you can re-sub me to GAGENWEB-L. please use: cat@ancestraldesigns.com as email addy. To bad NC can't see the harm that they are causing. It is just those attitudes that was the catalyst for them to lose many outstanding Western NC CCs over the years and why researchers find the bulk of information on this area at sites other than NCGenWeb. Have a good holiday, C.A.T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" To: Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:18 AM Subject: Fannin Co. GAGenWeb Resources > Hi CAT. Long time, no hear. > > Are you ready to be resubbed to GAGEN? > > I had a report that the Fannin site was down, so I checked and your site > is up and running, so I'll let the folks know it is as well. > > With regard to your complaint regarding the North Carolina folks - the > North Carolina SC and associates are not going to do anything - so I > suppose that's a dead issue. > > Tim ===================================== No I didn't sub her to GAGenWeb for that was the SC/ASC/RC list. ===================================== Tim >During this 2-3 year time-frame, I had a local ISP in which I viewed all >incoming email at the web level, before I used that ISP to send/receive >email into Outlook on my puter. This way I was able to eliminate spam, >etc. before it touched my puter. I still do it this way today as it >really helps. > >My main, permanent email of cat@ancestraldesigns.com is part of my owned >domain. All email sent to this permanent addy is automatically >forwarded to my local ISP inbox that isn't known to the sender. I would >send email via my ISP connection, which is required, yet have the >reply-to addy as cat@ancestraldesigns.com. I can also change ISPs as >need be and not have to worry about getting mail or need to send out >change of address notices. > >This method created two email addresses for me in using RW email lists. >It's been several years since I administrated RW email lists, but if I >remember correctly, you can't have 2 email addys combined this way. >That may be the reason why I was excluded, but Tim did not try to work >with me to resolve this problem." > >Her email address she sent this email through was C.A.T. Tindell >[catindell@direcway.com]. >---------------------------------------------- > >Linda Blum-Barton >SEMA CC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Article I & more Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:31 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:48:12 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040819152550.36496.qmail@web14921.mail.yahoo.com> At 04:41 PM 8/22/04 -0400, Linda Barton wrote: >Article I Discussion - > >My thoughts on this violation are that as volunteers if we are going to >be asked to follow any rules then we should be asked to follow all >rules, not just some and be able to throw the others out with the >bathwater. Who decides which are to be followed and which aren't? > >The fact that other states use the full name of their state in their >logos and on their pages is interesting but doesn't mean to me that the >GAGenWeb shouldn't use the name correctly, just that the other states >should be required to follow the same rules. > >Article I states that the names "The USGenWeb Project" and the "The >XXGenWeb Project (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation >for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The >USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project. "Reserved" does not mean that web sites had to use logos in that format. This particular Bylaw needs revision, for the simple fact of the matter is there are other entities that have xxgenweb in them, notably argenweb an entity in Argentina that uses same. The USGenWeb Project cannot therefore claim exclusively its use. No spelled out bylaw states that a state/county site had to use xxgenweb in its design. They could of course, but nothing written down does. Now you can ponder all you wish as to what was in the minds of the framers and I'm sure not all of them agreed on every single dot and tittle of the proposed Bylaws. To my knowledge the Project is not under the dominion or definition of Black's laws or whatever other authoritative source you may wish to trot out. We only have our Bylaws to go by. Since they don't specifically state xxgenweb MUST use this designation - your argument falls flat on its face. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:12:24 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:06:25 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> At 12:42 AM 8/25/04 -0700, you wrote: >As I indicated, I had no direct contact with the RC. The CC told me the RC >said I was denied for "personal reasons" which is a quote. I may have >assumed it was the RC who later resigned and she was a he. The point is I >was qualified and denied for personal reasons. I don't know who was >responsible, or who approved of the refusal, but the buck stops somewhere.. > >Don Kelly It was not clear in your first statement which of the two times you requested to be a CC in Georgia that you were speaking of. I was under the impression it was the second time, while it seems you were speaking of a former time. During that former time, it is true that a male was the RC who subsequently resigned to be replaced by Margie Daniels. But to the crux of your offer to CC in Georgia - There is no Bylaw that states a SC/ASC, membership committee, whatever has to accept any particular person, qualified or not. To my knowledge no reason has to be given why someone is not selected as CC, for often more than one person would request a county in the time it was up for adoption. Sometimes though only one person would ask, sometimes none and the Regional Coordinator or I would take over the county to babysit it for a time, upgrade it, before putting it back out for adoption. Perhaps in some states they'll take any breathing body. Having been burned by folks seeking only to have their names in lights, with no action on their part subsequent to that, we began a lengthy process of making sure folks would be a good fit, unless they were able to provide links to other sites they hosted which would lend credence to the fact that they did know how to build web pages and upload them. Did some slip through the cracks? Sure. Most of my RCs and I still work full time jobs, so problem took time to track down, validate, try to get the CC to do updates and so forth. While we could ask folks to do updates, we couldn't 'make them' do so. But like us, CCs also have lives and problems that come up that need attending to. Giving folks some slack, while perhaps not codified, is I feel in the best interests of the various projects. Tim >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim Stowell" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:11 PM >Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 > > >> At 05:21 PM 8/22/04 -0700, you wrote: >> >I can contribute under the question under section C below. I was denied >an >> >adoption request and the CC for Habersham County AHGP is a supporting >> >witness if you need her. She was a member of GAGenWeb when it hppened and >> >wanted to give the GAGenWeb county to me. >> > >> >However, neither Tom nor Richard had a direct hand I know of in that >> >refusal. It was the RC who later resigned. He may have consulted with >Tim, >> >but I don't know it as a fact. The other CC (AHGP) may know more about >that. >> > >> >Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:11:49 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:48:58 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Information provided by Brenda Pierce: How Carolyn came to be in the project: After Virginia (Crilley) and several others made such a big deal about Lisa Obegenski (who had had a baby, and other issues, and had not worked on her pages in a few months); and I contacted Lisa and she said if I could find people to take Henry, Butts, Newton, Rockdale that she would be fine with that because she really did not have time to work on them at present. I asked Betty Wood to help with Newton, Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, etc. She is the one that brought Carolyn in to take Newton and Rockdale and got Linda (Barton) to take Henry. Linda (Barton) already had Fayette. Kim Gordon took Clayton. >From the wayback machine re Forsyth...... Donna (Parrish) and Brenda Webb no longer are listed on the 20020207 - February 2002 counties selection table. I can't remember what the deal was at that time. Also July .... not listed.... http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm Note she was listed as having Dawson with Donna Parrish. Not listed Oct 2002 - Donna Only. http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm 2003 Still not listed http://web.archive.org/web/20030207232509/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20030412204131/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm Still not listed. I was at that time actively recruiting people and even asked for Betty Wood's assistance, thus ended up with Carolyn (Golowka) and Linda Barton. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:42:30 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:42:44 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I tend to get a bit testy over meaningless quibbles that avoid dealing with the issue at hand, yes. So, are you saying that your interpretation of the GAGenWeb Guidelines that were in effect at that time is that the CC does not need to do ANY updating to the county pages as long as a link exists to the Archives, and the Archives have been updated? And if that is that case, then why would Carolyn Golowka be considered to have not updated her county even though the Archives in that case had been updated? And may I point out that the number and/or frequency of updates in other states is not at issue here? If nothing else, other states are not required to update according to the schedule outlined in the GAGenWeb guidelines. Those apply to Georgia, and to Georgia only. The USGenWeb Bylaws are silent on the matter of the number or frequency of updates. Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:50:18 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:50:31 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Actually, upon closer inspection of the GAGenWeb Guidelines, I believe that you have stated the requirements improperly. The exact wording is "New links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update." I know of no possible way to add a link to new material in the Archives without updating or uploading files, which wasn't done for the two accounts that we have received the information on. Angie >-----Original Message----- > >You may recall that a portion of the Georgia Guidelines - >which this body >has no jurisdiction over - states that data put in the >Archives counts as >an update. If the CC was linked to the Archives and an a file >was added to >the Archives in that time frame according to that regretable >guideline the county >site would be considered updated. > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:41:54 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:42:10 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> Clarify: Since 1998 applied for same county five times. Have family galore in that county. The last two CCs before now were fully aware I could maintain a website, and I had family there, and wanted to adopt. No matter how you cut it, "for personal reasons" is discriminatory and has nothing to do with the rules for selecting volunteers. So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a good reason. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:03:54 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:03:57 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> > Clarify: Since 1998 applied for same county five times. Have family galore > in that county. The last two CCs before now were fully aware I could > maintain a website, and I had family there, and wanted to adopt. > > No matter how you cut it, "for personal reasons" is discriminatory and has > nothing to do with the rules for selecting volunteers. > > So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I > wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a > good reason. I also tried to adopt counties, mainly McDuffie since it was neighbor to one I already did. Here is the "output" from the last requests where my husband & I both wanting to do it together. I had 2 counties at the time, & my husband had none. The first 2 adoption requests went to all the RCs, the last only went to the SC & ASCs. The adoption form said "NOTE: Please allow a day or two for answer." Bettie <>< --------------------------------------------------------- Mail Merge Gateway The following is a copy of the mail that was submitted. TO: varcsix@hot.rr.com, mmccook@bellsouth.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, margie@majorinternet.net, mannannan@maclyr.com, ltlbro@bellsouth.net, bclody@charter.net, jackij@chesapeake.net SUBJECT: County Adoption Request FROM: nana321@earthlink.net.papa321@earthlink.net REPLY TO: nana321@earthlink.net.papa321@earthlink.net ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Bob & Bettie Wood Sun Feb 15 13:12:52 2004 Want to adopt McDuffie County On Sun Feb 15 13:12:52 2004, the following message was submitted via the mailmerge server running on nobody@www.rootsweb.com (Nobody): NAME: Bob & Bettie Wood ADDRESS: @63.185.64.15 MESSAGE TEXT: Back to the form. This form generated by mailmerge. Lincoln D. Stein Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail Merge Gateway The following is a copy of the mail that was submitted. TO: varcsix@hot.rr.com, mmccook@bellsouth.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, margie@majorinternet.net, mannannan@maclyr.com, ltlbro@bellsouth.net, bclody@charter.net, jackij@chesapeake.net SUBJECT: County Adoption Request FROM: papa321@erathlink.net REPLY TO: papa321@erathlink.net ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Bob & Bettie Wood Mon Mar 1 13:12:28 2004 Wish to adopt McDuffie County, GA On Mon Mar 1 13:12:28 2004, the following message was submitted via the mailmerge server running on nobody@www.rootsweb.com (Nobody): NAME: Bob & Bettie Wood ADDRESS: @65.177.40.135 MESSAGE TEXT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail Merge Gateway The following is a copy of the mail that was submitted. TO: tstowell@chattanooga.net, ltlbit@mindspring.com, mannannan@maclyr.com SUBJECT: County Adoption Request REPLY TO: ADDRESS: GeorgiaGenWeb Project TITLE=Thank You For Posting Your Comment! ESCAPE_HTML=1 OUTPUT_FORM= Tue Mar 30 18:02:31 2004 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:05:25 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:05:32 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> > So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I > wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a > good reason. Jane Combs also writes on the Discuss list that she was denied Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:10:08 -0500 (Central Standard Time) From: "Jane Combs" To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com Well, at least some people were able to act as CC and be removed... I wanted to adopt a GA county and was rudely (and I do mean RUDELY) turned down because "he" didn't like the fact that I was associated with the MSGenWeb! He" didn't like the SC so therefore I wasn't good enough for the GAGenWeb! Jane Combs CC Lawrence Co MSGenWeb CC Hinds Co MSGenWeb CC Oglethorpe Co AHGP CC Oconee Co AHGP -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:08:36 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:08:43 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> > So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I > wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a > good reason. Messages to & from Jane Combs concerning her adoption request ---------------------------------------------- From: mannannan Date: 05/12/04 07:48:12 To: jascombs@sbcglobal.net Subject: Echols County Hi, Jane. My name is Richard Pettys. I am the Regional Coordinator for the Coastal Region of Georgia, which includes Echols County. As such, your interest in Echols was forwarded to me. Based on previous experiences, which included one of your fellow Mississippi CC's and your SC, I am reluctant to adopt Echols out to someone who may be associated with those two individuals. To that end, if you and I were to agree that you could adopt Echols County, there would have to be some agreement in place between us. In short, you would be on a 90 day probationary period. If, at the end of 90 days, you decided not to stay or I was unhappy with your work for any reason, we could terminate the relationship with no hard feelings. At the end of the 90 days, you would be a full member of the GAGenWeb Project and have all of the privileges and rights set forth in the Guidelines. Does this work for you? Richard ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Jane Combs Date: 05/13/04 14:17:25 To: mannannan@maclyr.com Subject: Re: Echols County Mr. Pettys, I'm so very sorry you feel as you do. Number 1, I do not know what you are talking about. I have been on the MSGenWeb for about 2 months now. I do not know the people on there! This is all new to me and I'm doing the best I can. As to you holding a grudge or whatever it is, then I'm sorry for you! I will not and do not care to have anything to do with the GAGenWeb if this is how you conduct your business! Just forget I ever contacted you or the GAGenWeb! You do a very poor job in public relations. Jane Combs -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:14:03 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:13:44 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com In regard to the part of Brenda's information that concerns me I would like to present this (see below). I had never corresponded with Bettie Wood before I offered to take Henry County and Brenda Pierce put me in touch with Bettie because she had the passwords, etc for the site. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4843/henry.htm Lisa Little's Henry County site above says that she had Walton, Henry, Newton & Rockdale at one time. (Not sure of the date this page was updated but it is still live.) I am assuming that Lisa Little & Lisa Obeginski were one and the same person. But the information that Lisa Obeginski gave up Butts, Clayton, etc. seems to be incorrect as it doesn't appear that she was the CC for those counties and the information about Bettie Wood contacting me to adopt Henry is in error. The February 2002 County Selection List at archive.org shows Butts - Adoption Pending Clayton - Pat Lowe Henry - Lisa Obeginski Newton - Lisa Obeginski Rockdale - Lisa Obeginski Walton - Joe Harrington/Bettie Wood On Nov 20, 2001 - Butts - Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption Clayton - Pat Lowe Henry -Lisa Obeginski Newton -Lisa Obeginski Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski Walton - Bettie Wood Aug 2001 - Butts -Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption Clayton -Pat Lowe Henry -Lisa Obeginski Newton - Lisa Obeginski Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski Walton - Bettie Wood Linda B. Barton Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... Return-Path: Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.243]) by fl-mta03.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20020523160719.ixzb619.fl-mta03@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:07:19 -0400 Received: from user-37ka1qi.dialup.mindspring.com ([207.69.7.82] helo=brenda) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Av7U-0001cm-00 for lab@boone.net; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:07:16 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01c2012c$7772db80$520745cf@brenda> From: "Brenda Pierce" To: "Linda Barton" References: <000a01c201b1$3b264c40$dc595c40@lindabar> Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:03:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2010A.EF888EC0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2010A.EF8888EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Linda: =20 This is great - I would love for you to take Henry -=20 I will look at your site and let you know about compliance - trust me if = anyone is going to be Thanks for doing such a wonderful job and I really appreciate your = taking Henry. Thanks. again.=20 Brenda ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Linda Barton=20 To: Brenda Pierce=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: Fayette County site.... Brenda, I think that my site is in compliance with new guidelines. Is this = something you are going to be checking for? If so, please let me know = if you see any problems there. =20 I am considering offering to take Henry County if it is in fact going = to be available.....if so, do you know how much of the site would be = available for transfer to new pages? =20 Let me know what you think about that.......HONESTLY, please..... Linda Blum-Barton http://www.rootsweb.com/~gafayett/index.html http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~blumbarton/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ga/butts.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ga/fayette.htm -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 2:49 PM To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 Information provided by Brenda Pierce: How Carolyn came to be in the project: After Virginia (Crilley) and several others made such a big deal about Lisa Obegenski (who had had a baby, and other issues, and had not worked on her pages in a few months); and I contacted Lisa and she said if I could find people to take Henry, Butts, Newton, Rockdale that she would be fine with that because she really did not have time to work on them at present. I asked Betty Wood to help with Newton, Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, etc. She is the one that brought Carolyn in to take Newton and Rockdale and got Linda (Barton) to take Henry. Linda (Barton) already had Fayette. Kim Gordon took Clayton. >From the wayback machine re Forsyth...... Donna (Parrish) and Brenda Webb no longer are listed on the 20020207 - February 2002 counties selection table. I can't remember what the deal was at that time. Also July .... not listed.... http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.h tm Note she was listed as having Dawson with Donna Parrish. Not listed Oct 2002 - Donna Only. http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.h tm 2003 Still not listed http://web.archive.org/web/20030207232509/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/tab le.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20030412204131/www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/tab le.htm Still not listed. I was at that time actively recruiting people and even asked for Betty Wood's assistance, thus ended up with Carolyn (Golowka) and Linda Barton. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:41:48 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:24:00 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> Pattern Forming? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bosque Lover" To: Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 > > So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I > > wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a ? > good reason. posted by BatCave at 3:23 PM 0 comments Day 11 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Transfer of Authority Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:45:26 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:45:37 -0700 From: Isaiah Harrison Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Over the next few days I will be transferring various aspects of authority to Shari Handley, the incoming National Coordinator. In a few minutes I will remove myself from participation on this list and transfer the Chairmanship of this committee and ownership of the list to Shari. Thank you all for your cooperation so far. My best wishes to you for the successful completion of this difficult task. -Isaiah -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:49:13 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:45:06 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040828234015.00be14c0@pop.west.cox.net> Good morning committee. Following please find a message from and my response to a former CC for GAGenWeb This supports the theory that discrimination was practiced in awarding county adoptions. This may like an iceburg be 90% under the surface. ===================== Thanks Kim. You are doing great. You are now an experienced CC. Those incidents in GA hurt a lot. I couldn't believe how the application was handled. I was nearly convinced that I imagined the whole thing. I agree that personal reasons should never be a good reason to deny an application to adopt. The USGenWeb bylaws prohibit discrimination and I think you and I saw the beast face to face. Welcome back to GAGenWeb, and best of luck. Donald O'Còllàùgh/O'Còllàìgh Kelly ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim gordon" To: Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: RE: GAGenWeb > Hi Don, > > Yes, I do remember. I moved the site to AHGP 26 April 2003. I no longer > wanted to be part of the project due to Tim, Brenda, and Margie. I could no > longer put up with their gestapo ways. Once Tim and his gang was gone, I > adopted Crawford County GAGenWeb which is where I live. > > Yes, I do agree that you were discriminated against in this instance. I > admit I was totally shocked when you were denied Habersham County because > you have roots there. In my opinion that is enough to give a person a > county. I don't have anything against Keith but think he should have given > the county to you. I do recall it being stated that you were not given the > county due to personal reasons. > > I hope this helps. > > Kim Gordon > SC Arizona AHGP > CC Clayton County, GA AHGP > CC Coconino County, AZ AHGP > CC Crawford County, GA AHGP > CC Crawford County, GA GenWeb > Crawford County Historical Society > Ed & Kim's Connections > ASC Georgia AHGP > CC Habersham County, GA AHGP > SC Hawaii AHGP > Historic Crawford Foundation, Inc. > Roberta-Crawford County Chamber of Commerce > CC Talbot County, GA AHGP > CC Taylor County, GA AHGP -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Transfer of Authority Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:49:10 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:37:50 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040828234015.00be14c0@pop.west.cox.net> Thank you Isaiah..........you did good. Don Kelly posted by BatCave at 3:21 PM 0 comments Day 12 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:41:03 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:15:16 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040828151735.008e67f0@mail.chattanooga.net> At 08:42 PM 8/28/04 -0500, Angie wrote: >I tend to get a bit testy over meaningless quibbles that avoid dealing >with the issue at hand, yes. So do I. >So, are you saying that your interpretation of the GAGenWeb Guidelines >that were in effect at that time is that the CC does not need to do ANY >updating to the county pages as long as a link exists to the Archives, >and the Archives have been updated? >And if that is that case, then why would Carolyn Golowka be considered >to have not updated her county even though the Archives in that case had >been updated? Ms. Golowka didn't break that particular guideline. She refused to put data submitted to her for inclusion on the county website. If you would read the Bylaws of the entire project - which trump any state project's bylaws, they state county sites are the central repository for xyz county, not the Archives. However, since most of you are Archives personnel...... >And may I point out that the number and/or frequency of updates in other >states is not at issue here? If nothing else, other states are not >required to update according to the schedule outlined in the GAGenWeb >guidelines. Those apply to Georgia, and to Georgia only. True. However, how Georgia's Guidelines are administered is not the AB's concern. They are a state matter, not a national matter. Otherwise you folks would try micromanaging other states with guidelines/bylaws. It is just not in your jurisdiction under the Bylaws. Of course you folks seem to find the Bylaws a nuisance since you've flat out ignored them. >The USGenWeb Bylaws are silent on the matter of the number or frequency >of updates. True - and again not the AB's jurisdiction. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:41:05 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:29:48 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040828151735.008e67f0@mail.chattanooga.net> At 08:50 PM 8/28/04 -0500, you wrote: >Actually, upon closer inspection of the GAGenWeb Guidelines, I believe >that you have stated the requirements improperly. > >The exact wording is "New links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining >to the county in question, may be considered an update." > >I know of no possible way to add a link to new material in the Archives >without updating or uploading files, which wasn't done for the two >accounts that we have received the information on. > >Angie Since the Bylaws which you folks have conveniently ignored - do not give the AB the jurisdiction to oversee state guidelines/bylaws - it is not your concern. If you aren't going to treat all states the same - you'd best find yourself another job. You might re-read Article I for reference. The thing is folks have lives outside this Project. I realize some of you don't. I tend to give folks leeway to a point. Folks that do what they promised to do on joining, whether it be steady, rapid or very slowly, given all of the other things that pop in their real lives, are living up to that promise. Folks that flat out refuse to do what they promised, create problems where none existed can find the door. None of these problems existed in Georgia until the Archives goons* came to Georgia and started causing a fuss. Add to that were Mr. Rigdon who was running a commercial site. I hate to let him go, for he is the person who introduced me to the Project back in 1996 - our first contact in 30 years, growing up on the same street. I believed in the Archives concept for the fact that files would stay even if sites disappeared. But when the Georgia Archives folks started stealing files from sites, plopping them in the Archives, with either their own names, the original poster's name without their permission or knowledge, or with no name, that support dropped. Called on the carpet, Ms. Crilley, the GA Archives mistress, denied such, even with the proof in public. When I asked for her removal, to someone that would be honest and forthright - I was told to basically stuff it. Ms. Crilley was smart enough not to sign the complaints, all the while working in the background with various parties named and unnamed, to foment discord in the GAGenWeb Project. I suppose had I been buddy/buddy with the NC like the North Carolina management team, I'd have been left alone but since I called him on his takeover when he first started his regime, he has been at war with me ever since. For those of you newbies - this is not the first time this has happened but the 4th time. Tim * a much too kind word, but I'll leave it at that for now -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:41:06 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:39:46 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> At 07:42 PM 8/28/04 -0700, you wrote: >Clarify: Since 1998 applied for same county five times. Have family galore >in that county. The last two CCs before now were fully aware I could >maintain a website, and I had family there, and wanted to adopt. > >No matter how you cut it, "for personal reasons" is discriminatory and has >nothing to do with the rules for selecting volunteers. > >So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I >wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a >good reason. > >Don Kelly I can't say for 1998, since I was not in a position to know about such. Your Parliamentarian spouts that organizations have the right to protect themselves. Why you were refused earlier I don't know. I only know of 2 times. Hmm, I can use the same argument then - you folks are discriminating against me. Hassling me 3 times is abuse. You know the real truth, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there were troublemakers in Georgia, some sitting right here. In the 2 previous hearings/trials the rules were changed mid-stream to try to 'get' me. Some rules were made retroactive and all other kinds of shenanigans. So who is the real Bylaws breaker here? The AB/NC flat out, hands down. I know the truth hurts, why aren't you all man/woman enough to acknowledge that you do not in fact have the right under the Bylaws to do this? If you're gonna go after me for some alleged sins, then you need to go back and clean out North Carolina for it is as bad as ever even now. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:41:08 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:42:58 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> At 10:05 PM 8/28/04 -0500, you wrote: >> So the real violation was discrimination, and that also is abuse. If I >> wasn't qualified, than that is a good reason. "Personal reasons" is not a >> good reason. > >Jane Combs also writes on the Discuss list that she was denied > >Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:10:08 -0500 (Central Standard Time) >From: "Jane Combs" >To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > >Well, at least some people were able to act as CC and be removed... I wanted >to adopt a GA county and was rudely (and I do mean RUDELY) turned down >because "he" didn't like the fact that I was associated with the MSGenWeb! >He" didn't like the SC so therefore I wasn't good enough for the GAGenWeb! > >Jane Combs >CC Lawrence Co MSGenWeb >CC Hinds Co MSGenWeb >CC Oglethorpe Co AHGP >CC Oconee Co AHGP Richard Pettys answered this lady on her request. Since I've not seen a copy of his reply to her, I can't really comment on this. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:05:13 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:58:46 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> At 09:24 PM 8/28/04 -0700, you wrote: >Pattern Forming? > >Don Nope. After getting requests from so many folks that turned out to be Archives folks, who put up only shell pages, no data, bare minimum requirements, or do nothing CCs, we began to become leery, to make just sure whom we were getting. In other words, was it another Archives plant? This started even before your first witch hunt in the Keith Giddeon era. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Conduct During This Hearing Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:58:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:00:01 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Tim, You will refrain from personal attacks, name-calling, and insults in this hearing. Any further instances of this will result in your responses being moderated. You are to present your defense and answer questions in an orderly, civil manner. All discussion here, from everyone, is expected to remain courteous and respectful. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:05:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:06:05 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040828234015.00be14c0@pop.west.cox.net> At 09:45 AM 8/29/04 -0700, you wrote: >Good morning committee. Following please find a message from and my response >to a former CC for GAGenWeb > >This supports the theory that discrimination was practiced in awarding >county adoptions. This may like an iceburg be 90% under the surface. >===================== This 'lovely' person is the one who sent a note of sexual ineundo to one of my RCs, speaking of that RC and myself. That was conduct not becoming of any CC or volunteer in any project. She was immediately dismissed for same. Now of course if you folks think that just any old sort of person can be in this organization, say what they want, to whom they want, where they want, anytime they want - then you dear folks need to get off your PC hindquarters and get real. If that was Gestapo tactics - so be it. However, I think not. Decent folks should not have to put up with such. However, if you think they should, perhaps the membership would like to know why? That you defend trash such as this, is also an indicator of your character. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:15:48 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:10:40 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040830023946.01add6e0@mail.chattanooga.net> You just said you know of two cases where I was denied an adoption. And in the same breath you said projects have a right to protect themselves. As I stated before, your name never came up in either case. You don't have to comment further on that matter you know. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:33:38 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:33:41 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> <3.0.5.32.20040830025846.00a97880@mail.chattanooga.net> I comment to the extent that is was easy to find projects in Arkansas and Iowa, each with over two hundred pages of data. It was also easy to find out if anyone was a member of any archives project. Protection? Protection from what? Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:39:48 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:40:25 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Tim, How long from the time an "Archives" person adopted a county, in instances where they were allowed, were they given to put your definition of data on their site? I know when I adopted a site that was abandoned by a previous CC and all pages removed, it took me time to get just the shell in place. I work full time and setting up forms, web pages and gathering historical information, resources and other information for the shell takes a lot of time. I've had CC's leave a site and take my contributed data with them, so I prefer to put my contributed data in the Archives for the same reasons you outlined. If the CC prefers to put their personally transcribed/contributed data in the Archives in GA and no researchers contribute your definition of data to the county, yet the CC is growing their site, I don't see why they are labeled as an "Archives Plant". Do you consider links to researcher's sites with data as being a data addition? If data is offered and the CC refuses, that is one thing, but is Ms. Crilley the only Archives person who has refused? Thanks, Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:53:55 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:54:01 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Is there any more actual evidence to present from either side in regards to Charge 1? If not, Madame Chair, are we going to vote on Charge 1 before proceeding to the charge re: Carolyn Golowka, or discuss all the charges before a vote? Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:41:44 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:43:29 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Tim, Your posts to this hearing will now be moderated, since you have chosen to ignore last night's warning about the conduct expected here. Your responses and posts will be edited if you choose to attempt to post character attacks and/or insults again. Also, if you have proof of your allegation that Ms. Gordon sent a note containing sexual inuendo, please provide it. Otherwise, the committee is to disregard that comment. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:22:02 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:29:22 -0500 From: teri Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040830205351.7092.qmail@web80207.mail.yahoo.com> Darilee, I agree - moderating Tim and Richard seems a bit unfair. I would like to hear the things they have to say - directly from them. Teri ----- Original Message ----- From: "bookstorelady" To: Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:53 PM Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing > Personally I would not like to see any moderation on this list especially > for Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys. > > This is suppose to be a forum for them ... > to Moderate them here ... is unwise and perhaps unfair. > > We are adults here... > > > Respectfully > Darilee Bednar -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:16:51 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Angie, Yes, I have more evidence to present and hope to have it ready later tonight or tomorrow. It will include everything else I have or have been sent in regard to Charge #1. Linda Blum-Barton -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:45:12 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:45:57 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I'll agree to no moderation on this list also with the hopes that in the future points can be made by presenting arguments in the form of facts/evidence instead of insults. Thanks, Cyndie posted by BatCave at 3:20 PM 0 comments Day 13 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:51:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:53:21 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I will not allow the hearing to become a free-for-all. Tim's notes will be forwarded to the list in their entirety. If he tries to post something with inappropriate content (insults, personal attacks), I will return it to him with a request that he resubmit his response without the inappropriate content. This will in no way impede his ability to respond in a mature way to any charges or questions from this body. Consider it a request for "Order in the Court". Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:20:15 -0500 From: Richard... To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: Shari just what do you think this hearing is if not an insult and personal attack? It has been made up from the beginning by a few people to attack another they don't like. The only time it follows any sort of rules or procedure is when they vaguely suit it's purpose of attack and confutation. Just when are we going to get back to using the bylaws and parliamentary procedure that were suspended so that a few members could do what in their hearts they knew was right even if it was wrong? The Advisory Board may well win in this hearing, but it is not Tim that loses. It is USGenWeb project. This Board may not be able to admit the great big mistake it made in being led down this dastardly trail. But at some point it must be pointed out. The membership will have to know how they have been betrayed. By this group of mean spirited people. Bending a few rules when compared to trashing everything the project and its membership stand for will not balance very well. Richard... posted by BatCave at 3:19 PM 0 comments Day 14 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Article I & more Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:26:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:13:11 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040819152550.36496.qmail@web14921.mail.yahoo.com> <3.0.5.32.20040828154812.008e4b60@mail.chattanooga.net> In preparation for voting on section 1 of the complaint, I believe Mr. Stowell addressed the issue of the state project name. I choose to consider the part where Mr. Stowell addressed the issue and ignore the comments about other states and how they display their names.....that is a completely different issue. To clarify my thinking on the complaint section 1 and Mr. Stowell's response, I pose a question to him. What section of the USGenWeb bylaws do you feel exempts Georgia from using XXGenWeb as the state project name as specified in the bylaw? Thanks all...been watching the satellite view of the coming herricane. I hope it misses Florida and the whole US of A this time. I also hope our members in Virginia are safe.....that is quite a flood they have going on. 12 inches of rain in one day? That is a lot. Cheers all. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:02:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:03:05 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040828144858.008e3ab0@mail.chattanooga.net> At 11:13 PM 8/28/04 -0400, you wrote: >In regard to the part of Brenda's information that concerns me I would >like to present this (see below). I had never corresponded with Bettie >Wood before I offered to take Henry County and Brenda Pierce put me in >touch with Bettie because she had the passwords, etc for the site. > >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4843/henry.htm > >Lisa Little's Henry County site above says that she had Walton, Henry, >Newton & Rockdale at one time. (Not sure of the date this page was >updated but it is still live.) > >I am assuming that Lisa Little & Lisa Obeginski were one and the same >person. I believe that's right. I seem to remember she had a change of marriage status thus a name change. >But the information that Lisa Obeginski gave up Butts, Clayton, etc. >seems to be incorrect as it doesn't appear that she was the CC for those >counties and the information about Bettie Wood contacting me to adopt >Henry is in error. Brenda's note doesn't say that Lisa gave up Clayton. I have clarified that Butts was a misspeak on Brenda's part. Tim >The February 2002 County Selection List at archive.org shows >Butts - Adoption Pending >Clayton - Pat Lowe >Henry - Lisa Obeginski >Newton - Lisa Obeginski >Rockdale - Lisa Obeginski >Walton - Joe Harrington/Bettie Wood > >On Nov 20, 2001 - >Butts - Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption >Clayton - Pat Lowe >Henry -Lisa Obeginski >Newton -Lisa Obeginski >Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski >Walton - Bettie Wood > >Aug 2001 - >Butts -Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption >Clayton -Pat Lowe >Henry -Lisa Obeginski >Newton - Lisa Obeginski >Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski >Walton - Bettie Wood > >Linda B. Barton > >Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:03 PM >Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... > >From: "Brenda Pierce" >To: "Linda Barton" >Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... >Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:03:19 -0400 > >Linda: =20 >This is great - I would love for you to take Henry -=20 > > >I will look at your site and let you know about compliance - trust me if >= anyone is going to be > >Thanks for doing such a wonderful job and I really appreciate your = >taking Henry. >Thanks. again.=20 >Brenda [Please note that Shari is forwarding this because she thinks Tim is moderated] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:27:29 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:27:31 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:03 AM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: RE: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 * * *At 11:13 PM 8/28/04 -0400, you wrote: *>In regard to the part of Brenda's information that concerns me I would *>like to present this (see below). I had never corresponded *with Bettie *>Wood before I offered to take Henry County and Brenda Pierce put me in *>touch with Bettie because she had the passwords, etc for the site. *> *>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4843/henry.htm *> *>Lisa Little's Henry County site above says that she had Walton, Henry, *>Newton & Rockdale at one time. (Not sure of the date this page was *>updated but it is still live.) *> *>I am assuming that Lisa Little & Lisa Obeginski were one and the same *>person. * *I believe that's right. I seem to remember she had a change *of marriage *status *thus a name change. * *>But the information that Lisa Obeginski gave up Butts, Clayton, etc. *>seems to be incorrect as it doesn't appear that she was the *CC for those *>counties and the information about Bettie Wood contacting me to adopt *>Henry is in error. * *Brenda's note doesn't say that Lisa gave up Clayton. * *I have clarified that Butts was a misspeak on Brenda's part. * *Tim * *>The February 2002 County Selection List at archive.org shows *>Butts - Adoption Pending *>Clayton - Pat Lowe *>Henry - Lisa Obeginski *>Newton - Lisa Obeginski *>Rockdale - Lisa Obeginski *>Walton - Joe Harrington/Bettie Wood *> *>On Nov 20, 2001 - *>Butts - Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption *>Clayton - Pat Lowe *>Henry -Lisa Obeginski *>Newton -Lisa Obeginski *>Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski *>Walton - Bettie Wood *> *>Aug 2001 - *>Butts -Teresa Rozich Up for Adoption *>Clayton -Pat Lowe *>Henry -Lisa Obeginski *>Newton - Lisa Obeginski *>Rockdale -Lisa Obeginski *>Walton - Bettie Wood *> *>Linda B. Barton *> *>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:03 PM *>Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... *> *>From: "Brenda Pierce" *>To: "Linda Barton" *>Subject: Re: Fayette County site.... *>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:03:19 -0400 *> *>Linda: =20 *>This is great - I would love for you to take Henry -=20 *> *> *>I will look at your site and let you know about compliance - *trust me if *>= anyone is going to be *> *>Thanks for doing such a wonderful job and I really appreciate your = *>taking Henry. *>Thanks. again.=20 *>Brenda *> *> *>----- Original Message -----=20 *> From: Linda Barton=20 *> To: Brenda Pierce=20 *> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:53 PM *> Subject: Fayette County site.... *> *> *> Brenda, *> *> I think that my site is in compliance with new guidelines. *Is this = *>something you are going to be checking for? If so, please *let me know = *>if you see any problems there. =20 *> *> I am considering offering to take Henry County if it is in *fact going *>= to be available.....if so, do you know how much of the site *would be = *>available for transfer to new pages? =20 *> *> Let me know what you think about that.......HONESTLY, please..... *> *> Linda Blum-Barton *> http://www.rootsweb.com/~gafayett/index.html *> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~blumbarton/ *> http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ga/butts.htm *> http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ga/fayette.htm *> *> *> *>-----Original Message----- *>From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *>Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 2:49 PM *>To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *>Subject: [HEAR] Carolyn Golowka - part 2 *> *> *>Information provided by Brenda Pierce: *> *>How Carolyn came to be in the project: After Virginia (Crilley) and *>several others made such a big deal about Lisa Obegenski (who *had had a *>baby, and other issues, and had not worked on her pages in a few *>months); and I contacted Lisa and she said if I could find people to *>take Henry, Butts, Newton, Rockdale that she would be fine with that *>because she really did *>not have time to work on them at present. I asked Betty Wood to help *>with *>Newton, Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, etc. She is the one that brought *>Carolyn in to take Newton and Rockdale and got Linda (Barton) to take *>Henry. Linda *>(Barton) already had Fayette. Kim Gordon took Clayton. *> *>>From the wayback machine re Forsyth...... *> *>Donna (Parrish) and Brenda Webb no longer are listed on the 20020207 - *>February 2002 counties selection table. I can't remember *what the deal *>was at that time. Also July .... not listed.... *>http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenw *eb/table.h *>tm *> *>Note she was listed as having Dawson with Donna Parrish. *>Not listed Oct 2002 - Donna Only. *>http://web.archive.org/web/20021004072200/rootsweb.com/~gagenw *eb/table.h *>tm *> *> *>2003 Still not listed *> *>http://web.archive.org/web/20030207232509/www.rootsweb.com/~ga *genweb/tab *>le.htm *> *>http://web.archive.org/web/20030412204131/www.rootsweb.com/~ga *genweb/tab *>le.htm *> *>Still not listed. *> *>I was at that time actively recruiting people and even asked for Betty *>Wood's assistance, thus ended up with Carolyn (Golowka) and Linda *>Barton. posted by BatCave at 3:17 PM 0 comments Day 15 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:10:12 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:15:37 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> <3.0.5.32.20040830025846.00a97880@mail.chattanooga.net> At 12:33 AM 8/30/04 -0700, you wrote: >I comment to the extent that is was easy to find projects in Arkansas and >Iowa, each with over two hundred pages of data. I don't doubt there are sites within the project with from 1 to hundreds of pages, but I daresay that the better of the two ends of the spectrum is that a site have more pages versus a shell site. >It was also easy to find out >if anyone was a member of any archives project. Agreed - but only if they are truthful as to who they are - which I found out in a case in, I believe it was, May, 2004 where one Sarah Hughes stated she was a person of that name only to find out that she was in fact someone else. At that point I decided that thanks but no thanks even though I'd already added her name to the county selection table, while she was supposedly finding web space. >Protection? Protection from what? I didn't see that I'd mentioned protection in my note below, so I'm not sure where this question is coming from. Would you care to elaborate? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:10:14 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:13:22 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040830025846.00a97880@mail.chattanooga.net> At 06:40 AM 8/30/04 -0400, you wrote: >Tim, > >How long from the time an "Archives" person adopted a county, in instances >where they were allowed, were they given to put your definition of data on >their site? It's not my definition of data. Data is data. A set of links does not qualify as data. The Bylaws allude to this when they state a special project cannot qualify as such by being a set of links. The 'Archives' persons in question had been with GAGenWeb well before the Guidelines were adopted, so that's over 2 years ago, yet at the time of their dismissal, still had shell sites. I started adding a book to the state site on state history, which had some county history sketches in it. I offered to pass along said histories to the CCs to be added to the county site only. I would either transcribe it myself and send it to them, or send them the page for inclusion on their site, asking for a transcription in return for the state site. The last time I looked the Baker County site did not have the history on it, instead it was in the Archives, with my name on it as the contributor. I didn't contribute it, nor did I authorize it to be placed there. I realize this is a bit off topic but it is an example of how data contributed to county sites were shuffled off to the Archives with neither the permission nor the knowledge most of the time of the contributor. Some felt if it was contributed to the county sites, it was ok to go ahead and send it to the Archives without the submitters permission. Personally I don't feel that way. I believe we should honor our commitment to contributors that it goes where they say they are contributing it. We can certainly ask them if they would like to or would they mind if we passed it along to the Archives but we should never take it for granted that it is ok to do such. >I know when I adopted a site that was abandoned by a previous >CC and all pages removed, it took me time to get just the shell in place. I >work full time and setting up forms, web pages and gathering historical >information, resources and other information for the shell takes a lot of >time. Understood but this was not the case in any of these. >I've had CC's leave a site and take my contributed data with them, so >I prefer to put my contributed data in the Archives for the same reasons you >outlined. Understood and that's your prerogative. >If the CC prefers to put their personally transcribed/contributed >data in the Archives in GA and no researchers contribute your definition of >data to the county, yet the CC is growing their site, I don't see why they >are labeled as an "Archives Plant". What a CC decides to do with data they transcribe is up to them - yet the Bylaws, state the county site is the central repository. So it would seem that while they can contribute it to the Archives they should first add it to their county site. If data is data that is public record, it isn't going to change as it is a past event - therefore would need no update, so the argument that having it only one place assists with updating becomes moot. One can only grow a site with data additions. Folks have contributed data, data was offered to them, yet poof off it went to the Archives not to the county site. >Do you consider links to researcher's >sites with data as being a data addition? No. It's just a link. >If data is offered and the CC >refuses, that is one thing, but is Ms. Crilley the only Archives person who >has refused? I have no knowledge of what Ms. Crilley may or may not have refused. Ms. Crilley was the Archives person who either lifted data herself or authorized others to do so. Ms. Golowka is the one who refused to put data on the county site. Ms. Rankin also refused and put letters from the ASC Brenda Pierce and RC Bill Clody in PDF format on her web site along with no so nice commentary about putting data on her site that the procured for her to add. As mentioned above by the reference to Baker County, Ms. Crosby, also falls into that category. For now that's the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I trust this answers your questions in this regard? >Thanks, >Cyndie Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:25:47 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:28:54 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040830030605.00a979c0@mail.chattanooga.net> At 11:43 AM 8/30/04 -0400, you wrote: >Tim, > >Your posts to this hearing will now be moderated, since you have chosen >to ignore last night's warning about the conduct expected here. I do not post items to lists as I write them. I bulk post when I go online with my mail. All the mail from 8/30 that I posted was sent before I ever saw any warning from you. I actually saw it on Monday 8/30 during the day, after my posts hit the list late Sunday night 8/29-early am 8/30. I couldn't therefore ignore something that came after my posts were made. > Your >responses and posts will be edited if you choose to attempt to post >character attacks and/or insults again. The post I replied regarding Ms. Golowka was edited for content. If you are going to edit my replies to requests for information should I just send it to each Board member privately? >Also, if you have proof of your allegation that Ms. Gordon sent a note >containing sexual inuendo, please provide it. Otherwise, the committee >is to disregard that comment. As long as it is kept private and not posted as part of the transcript of this hearing, I will. Otherwise it is a matter of record from one of the 2003 hearings minutes. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:44:28 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:43:59 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040830021516.01adc320@mail.chattanooga.net> At 05:18 AM 8/31/04 -0500, you wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Ms. Golowka didn't break that particular guideline. She refused to put >>data submitted to her for inclusion on the county website. If >>you would >>read the Bylaws of the entire project - which trump any state project's >>bylaws, they state county sites are the central repository for >>xyz county, >>not the Archives. >> >>However, since most of you are Archives personnel...... >> > >For what it's worth, I'm not Archives personnel, and never have been. > >You've said several times that Carolyn "refused" to put data submitted >to her on the county website. Do you have a complaint from a submitter >that donated data was placed in the archives without their permission? In the case of Carolyn - data a contributor had made, she placed in the Archives rather than the county site. When it was discovered in the Archives, the ASC Brenda Pierce wrote the contributor to ask if she would allow the data to be added to the county site. The contributor was happy to allow it to be placed there as well. Whether or not that particular submitter assumed it was going to the county site rather than the Archives, I don't know. If you are speaking of submitters elsewhere whose donated data was placed in the Archives without their knowledge or permission, yes I do have proof and knowledge of such. I've sent my own personal account along earlier. >There is nothing in the USGenWeb Project bylaws that prohibit placing >data in the archives as opposed to on the county page. The submitter >determines where the data will be placed. Agreed. I don't think it is within the province of a CC to determine where a contributor wants their data placed. If a contributor sends data to me it goes on the county site. It does not go to the Archives unless they request it to be. A CC can certainly ask a contributor if they would mind or not if it goes to the Archives but cannot or should not assume for the contributor that it goes anywhere but the county site. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:44:28 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:43:59 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040830021516.01adc320@mail.chattanooga.net> At 05:18 AM 8/31/04 -0500, you wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Ms. Golowka didn't break that particular guideline. She refused to put >>data submitted to her for inclusion on the county website. If >>you would >>read the Bylaws of the entire project - which trump any state project's >>bylaws, they state county sites are the central repository for >>xyz county, >>not the Archives. >> >>However, since most of you are Archives personnel...... >> > >For what it's worth, I'm not Archives personnel, and never have been. > >You've said several times that Carolyn "refused" to put data submitted >to her on the county website. Do you have a complaint from a submitter >that donated data was placed in the archives without their permission? In the case of Carolyn - data a contributor had made, she placed in the Archives rather than the county site. When it was discovered in the Archives, the ASC Brenda Pierce wrote the contributor to ask if she would allow the data to be added to the county site. The contributor was happy to allow it to be placed there as well. Whether or not that particular submitter assumed it was going to the county site rather than the Archives, I don't know. If you are speaking of submitters elsewhere whose donated data was placed in the Archives without their knowledge or permission, yes I do have proof and knowledge of such. I've sent my own personal account along earlier. >There is nothing in the USGenWeb Project bylaws that prohibit placing >data in the archives as opposed to on the county page. The submitter >determines where the data will be placed. Agreed. I don't think it is within the province of a CC to determine where a contributor wants their data placed. If a contributor sends data to me it goes on the county site. It does not go to the Archives unless they request it to be. A CC can certainly ask a contributor if they would mind or not if it goes to the Archives but cannot or should not assume for the contributor that it goes anywhere but the county site. Tim [Please note that Shari is forwarding this because she thinks Tim is moderated] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:35:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:34:30 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:16 AM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 [Please note that Shari is forwarding this because she thinks Tim is moderated] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:36:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:35:53 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:13 AM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:37:20 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:37:15 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:29 AM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: RE: [HEAR] Testimony for hearing * * *At 11:43 AM 8/30/04 -0400, you wrote: *>Tim, *> *>Your posts to this hearing will now be moderated, since you *have chosen *>to ignore last night's warning about the conduct expected here. * *I do not post items to lists as I write them. I bulk post *when I go online *with my mail. * *All the mail from 8/30 that I posted was sent before I ever saw any *warning from you. I actually saw it on Monday 8/30 during the day, *after my posts hit the list late Sunday night 8/29-early am 8/30. * *I couldn't therefore ignore something that came after my posts were *made. * *> Your *>responses and posts will be edited if you choose to attempt to post *>character attacks and/or insults again. * *The post I replied regarding Ms. Golowka was edited for content. * *If you are going to edit my replies to requests for *information should I *just send it to each Board member privately? * *>Also, if you have proof of your allegation that Ms. Gordon sent a note *>containing sexual inuendo, please provide it. Otherwise, the *committee *>is to disregard that comment. * *As long as it is kept private and not posted as part of the transcript *of this hearing, I will. Otherwise it is a matter of record from one *of the 2003 hearings minutes. * *Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:38:10 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:38:05 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] *Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:44 AM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 1 * * *At 05:18 AM 8/31/04 -0500, you wrote: *>>-----Original Message----- *>> *>>Ms. Golowka didn't break that particular guideline. She *refused to put *>>data submitted to her for inclusion on the county website. If *>>you would *>>read the Bylaws of the entire project - which trump any *state project's *>>bylaws, they state county sites are the central repository for *>>xyz county, *>>not the Archives. *>> *>>However, since most of you are Archives personnel...... *>> *> *>For what it's worth, I'm not Archives personnel, and never *have been. *> *>You've said several times that Carolyn "refused" to put data submitted *>to her on the county website. Do you have a complaint from a *submitter *>that donated data was placed in the archives without their *permission? * *In the case of Carolyn - data a contributor had made, she placed in *the Archives rather than the county site. When it was *discovered in the *Archives, the ASC Brenda Pierce wrote the contributor to ask if she *would allow the data to be added to the county site. The *contributor was *happy to allow it to be placed there as well. * *Whether or not that particular submitter assumed it was going to the *county site rather than the Archives, I don't know. * *If you are speaking of submitters elsewhere whose donated data was *placed in the Archives without their knowledge or permission, yes I do *have proof and knowledge of such. * *I've sent my own personal account along earlier. * *>There is nothing in the USGenWeb Project bylaws that prohibit placing *>data in the archives as opposed to on the county page. The submitter *>determines where the data will be placed. * *Agreed. I don't think it is within the province of a CC to determine *where a contributor wants their data placed. If a contributor sends *data to me it goes on the county site. * *It does not go to the Archives unless they request it to be. A CC can *certainly ask a contributor if they would mind or not if it goes to *the Archives but cannot or should not assume for the contributor that *it goes anywhere but the county site. * *Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Unmoderated Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:41:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:40:56 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Since Tim has explained that he did not see my warning due to the way that he downloads and replies to messages (in bulk), I have removed him from moderated status. Tim - you are free to post directly to this hearing list once again so long as you conduct yourself in a respectful manner. Thanks, Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:56:41 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:56:50 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040830021516.01adc320@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040902034359.01be1cc0@mail.chattanooga.net> Thanks Tim. Submitters in my experience rarely mention archives so the default placement is the county site. There were three or four exceptions where other projects submitted data to my county and asked it not be copied to the USGW archives because it was already in their project archives. Two submitters I recall were members of USGW, but didn't want their material to appear on a rootsweb server..........which limits choice of archives and creates a quandary.. The bylaws says counties will be repositories of data, so I will defend that bylaw. Is refusal to put data on the county website grounds for removal? IMHO It depends; a county site with just one database on board is in compliance (barely), they qualify as having data on board, and I encourage them to add more. A BIG BUT If they have zero data on board, and refuse to put data on board, and show researchers nothing but links, that is IMHO a blatant violation of the bylaw, and they after a 60 days grace period are fired. Please note that our NC and I slightly disagree on interpretation of this particular bylaw. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:26:23 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:11:38 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> <3.0.5.32.20040830025846.00a97880@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040902011537.01b8c680@mail.chattanooga.net> Sure Tim. Relating to selecting volunteers to adopt sites, you formerly stated something to the effect that states have a right to defend themselves. Is that statement mistakenly taken out of context? If so, I apologise. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:26:24 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:26:29 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: Tim, you have shown instances to support a mistake in awarding adoptions, but how does that affect my applications? I belonged to no archives, had ancestors in the county, and knew how to maintain websites. It might help this committee if you will state for us exactly what the GAGenWeb policies and procedures for adopting out vacant county websites was/is. I have never seen that document. I have seen at least two cases written by witnesses where discrimination was clearly indicated, and suggestions of more. If discrimination is acceptable, it should appear in the project P & P. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:22:31 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:22:34 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Thanks to Shari for getting me caught up on the situation on the other list that I am not on. Tim does have a point. The bylaws do not say the XXGenWeb Project has to be on the county web sites. All that hard work I did as SC of Texas, trying to get everybody to comply with this rule, and it wasn't a rule at all. Glad to say that I did not remove anybody as a CC over this issue. Another point I have not seen anybody mention. When the bylaws were passed in 1998, there was NO service mark for USGenWeb or XXGenWeb. The bylaws saying there was does not make it so. While there is now a service mark for USGenWeb and The USGenWeb Project, there is NO service mark for GAGenWeb. This issue should be dropped. David ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this organization shall be "The USGenWeb Project." The name, "The USGenWeb Project," and "The XXGenWeb Project" (where XX is the two-letter postal code abbreviation for each state) are service marks and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:27:44 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:27:46 -0400 From: Jan Cortez Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: If you aren't on the other list - how is it you know what Tim is talking about? Jan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:48:44 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:49:00 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: Begging your pardon....please read the whole article. "and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any websites representing The USGenWeb Project." GAGenWeb represents USGenWeb so the XXGenWeb title designation is operative. You did right by enforcing the bylaw in Texas, otherwise we could have no unified project. I asked Mr. Stowell to quote the bylaw that exempted GAGenWeb from the XXGenWeb rule. I am waiting for the answer. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:56:24 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:56:37 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <025a01c4914c$d786bc50$bbfce718@jancortez> You are confusing me David. Are you saying GAGenWeb does not represent USGenWeb, so is therefore exempt from following the rules? What exactly are you saying? I don't see an exemption in the bylaws at all, not even close. Don Kelly?????????? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:33:11 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:33:22 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Don Kelly wrote: > Begging your pardon....please read the whole article. > > "and reserved exclusively for The USGenWeb Project and any > websites representing The USGenWeb Project." That does not make it law. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:34:59 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:35:10 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Jan Cortez wrote: > If you aren't on the other list - how is it you know what Tim is talking > about? > > Jan Shari sent me a copy of the messages that have been posted. And to Kathie also. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:37:18 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:37:30 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Feel free to go to the federal web site on service marks and see if you can find one for GAGenWeb or XXGenWwb. The service mark is for USGenWeb and The USGenWeb Project. And to the feds, the service mark is all caps. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:44:27 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:44:30 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: Just makes it a bylaw. That is our project law. That is what USGenWeb and member GenWebs live by. Not up on legal service marks, but my understanding is, like a copyright, one can have a service mark without registering it with the federal government, but if you want to protect it from use by another organization, you need to legally register it. If what I recall is correct, not being registered doesn't make it any less a service mark. But isn't this point of view a lot like straining a knat while swallowing a camel? What is really important? Think about it. IMHO Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:53:43 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 22:53:48 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Oh, dang! I thought I had subbed everyone everywhere. Sorry - I've just subbed you and Kathi to the hearing list. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTING ON CHARGE 1 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:35:03 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:35:05 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Since no further evidence has been forthcoming, I will now call for a vote on Charge 1. We will vote on each section individually. There are 6 sections. Please respond to each of the 6 ensuing notes (VOTE: Charge 1a, VOTE: Charge 1b, etc.) by indicating whether you find Tim Stowell RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE for each section. Members will have until 11:33 EDT Saturday, September 4th to cast their votes. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:36:21 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:36:25 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator Within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality And purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee. RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1b Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:38:39 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:38:44 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator Within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and Purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not Subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. IS MR. STOWELL RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1c Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:40:22 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:40:27 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought into compliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required. IS MR. STOWELL RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1e Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:42:27 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:42:31 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by Actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored. IS MR. STOWELL RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1f Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:42:59 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:43:03 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com (1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator Within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and Purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project. (f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues. IS MR. STOWELL RESPONSIBLE or NOT RESPONSIBLE? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 22:51:02 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:42:07 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: To charge 1a Responsible Don Kelly, NW/P SC Rep To charge 1b Responsible Don Kelly NW/P SC Rep Charge 1c Responsible Don Kelly NW/P SC Rep To charge 1d Responsible Don Kelly To charge 1e Not proven. I vote not responsible. Don Kelly To charge 1f Proven. I vote responsible. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:23:46 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 22:04:58 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <007601c49171$a82eae20$8879f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> One charge appears to be missing here. The charge that GAGenWeb did not follow the bylaw which specified that names will be XXGenWeb appear sustained by prima facia evidence....by comparing the actual name XX GenWeb or XXXXXXXGenWeb to the governing bylaw, the name shall be XXGenWeb Is this charge being dropped, or will it be voted on later? Don Kelly posted by BatCave at 3:16 PM 0 comments Day 50 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] FW: VOTE: Charge #3 Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:39:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Responsible. Denise Woodside -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Charge #3 - RESULTS and NEXT STEPS Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:55:07 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:54:47 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com With 11 members voting on Charge #3 to find Tim responsible, 1 abstaining, and 3 members not yet voting, Tim is declared responsible for the charges outlined therein. With this, Tim has been found to be responsible for all of the infractions outlined in all the charges made against him. We will now move on to the penalty phase of the hearing. Tim, I am removing you from moderated status on this hearing list. You will have 24 hours to post a statement of things you'd like the AB to take into account as they deliberate the penalty/consequences of your actions as outlined in the charges. Once you have made your statement, or 24 hours from now (1 a.m. EDT 10/17/04), whichever comes first, you and Ginger will be unsubscribed from this hearing list, and the AB will discuss and decide whether a penalty is warranted, and if so, what the penalty will be. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Transcript/Digests Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:58:28 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:58:14 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Greta, Will you please provide new AB member Betsy Mills with copies of the digests from the hearing so far? Betsy, I'm sure it goes without saying that the hearing digests are confidential. Thanks, Shari Handley National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project posted by BatCave at 3:16 PM 0 comments Day 16 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:10:53 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:10:57 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Charge 1b Responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Charge 1c Responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Charge 1d Responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Charge 1e Not responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Charge 1f Not responsible. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:43:03 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1b Responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1b Responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1c Responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1d Responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1e Not responsible. Denise Woodside Charge 1f Not responsible. Denise Woodside -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:31:13 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:31:15 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. Charge 1b Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. Charge 1d Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. Charge 1e Not Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. Charge 1c Not Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. Charge 1f Not Responsible Cyndie Archives Rep. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1b Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:56:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:56:16 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Responsible Charge 1f Responsible Charge 1c Responsible Charge 1d Responsible Charge 1a responsible David Charge 1e Responsible David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: A note about the charges Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:20:07 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:20:08 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I don't feel comfortable in voting these charge against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys at the same time. Tim was the responsible officer of GAGenWeb and should be held responsible. Richard Pettys was not. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] a point Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:19:51 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:19:56 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: <03e101c491fa$a6e3e060$bbfce718@jancortez> Now I have a concern/question or whatever you want to call it How long is the voting process going to be for? I was concerned because of the hurricane, & some AB won't be available because it's a holiday weekend, because we have new people that need to read all the evidnece because we don't know which, if any, AB members are missing (has anyone heard from Gail Kilgore?) because I thought Linda had some more evidence to present. I had some too, but was waiting on that section to come up, & the evidence to be asked for. I may have missed that message though Will the voting be extended so all those that are away on holiday will be able to vote? Also how is the "verdict" going to be determined? By a simple majority? By a quorum? Ugh....now I'm confused Bettie <>< -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] VOTE: A note about the charges Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:59:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 19:59:10 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com David, The current hearing is for Tim Stowell only. Once Tim's hearing is complete, Richard Pettys' hearing will begin. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] VOTE: A note about the charges Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 18:12:10 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:12:14 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Ok. I guess the opening statement is just a little bit confusing. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:27:19 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:27:26 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: Responsible Charge 1b. Responsible Bettie <>< Charge 1c Responsible Bettie <>< Charge 1d Responsible Bettie <>< Charge 1e Responsible Bettie <>< Charge 1f Responsible Bettie <>< -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] VOTE: Charge 1a Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:33:47 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:33:56 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I copied and pasted Charge 1 from the final version of the statement of charges that was sent to Tim. If it wasn't on there, he wasn't charged with it. Shari posted by BatCave at 3:15 PM 0 comments Day 52 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:39:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:39:21 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com What next? We seem to have run out of comments. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:36:58 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:35:11 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Shari, do we need a motion made as to the penalty, if any, for Tim? Angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:44:01 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:44:08 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I move that Tim Stowell be banned from GAGenWeb for a period of five years, and that he be prohibited from running for office with USGenWeb or any XXGenWeb for a period of five years. How's that? David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:01:43 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:01:23 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I think there needs to be a "little" more detail in whatever our motion/statement/?? Is. I think that's where the project keeps running into brick walls - the lack of details in motions, bylaws, etc.....and with this one, any and all possible ramifications ought to be considered. I would like the opportunity to read the posts that have been made concerning the hearing and I know that Bettie is not going to be back online until tomorrow sometime. In addition, she was having computer issues the last I heard from her. I've spent the better part of the last two days getting permission to "retrieve" about 30 wills previously donated to a GAGenWeb county site that was taken away from the project in June including all donations by "other" contributors. On to other records next. Luckily, most of them had been donated by one person so I haven't had to write too many letters! Linda B. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:06:42 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:04:57 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I had a little different wording in mind, but something along those lines... angie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:08:27 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:08:37 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Sure, we can drag this out until November, then have a hearing on Richards Pettys for five or six months, and then it will be time for another election. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:44:21 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:43:28 -0700 From: Gail Meyer Kilgore Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I really have no say in this as I didn't participate in the hearing due to the fact I was gone part of August to the middle of September, and yes, Greta did offer to send me the transcript but I had already told Richard before I left to unsub me from the list as I would not be able to participate. But, I would think that the motion would start off something like this... Having reviewed all the information submitted during the hearing and reading Tim Stowell's defense to the charges against him, we, the AB with a vote of ???? to ????, have found Tim Stowell responsible for the charges filed against him as the SC of Georgia, therefore, I make a motion [ and here put in his penalty....] Just a suggestion, and to let you know that I am reading the emails.. ;-)) g -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:05:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:45:55 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: I think too strong. Don -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:02:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:02:45 -0500 From: teri Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: I think it sounds fair. Like that he is only banned from Georgia - since the problem was Georgia. And he can continue his county sites in New York and other places. Teri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:44:32 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:44:40 -0500 From: teri Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <01dd01c4b588$780a57e0$6179f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> What about 3 years? Teri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:04:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:04:23 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <01dd01c4b588$780a57e0$6179f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <016201c4b58d$f7132620$6601a8c0@teritwo> I lean toward barring him from management levels above CC or having authority over CCs in charge of CCs for a period of one year in which he could be a CC, but NIGS so he could not vote. During the year everyone could see how it goes with a plan B for the second year if further trouble does develop, to make the ban longer. Don Kelly -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:24:14 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:24:13 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Its a start. Here's what I'd like to see . . . ------------------------------------- Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that he is hereby: 1. Removed from GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. 2. Permitted to immediately apply for readmission and reinstatement as a CC for any county site he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04). However, the current State Coordinators are *not* required to accept him back. -------------------------------------- Requiring Lee King, who is now SC of NDGenWeb, to accept him back is not an option. Tim burned his bridges there and sent Lee some very ugly abusive correspondence. I will NOT make her take him back. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:24:38 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:24:38 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com David is right, though he could have phrased it a little less crabbily. ;) We need to get this horse in the barn. I don't think we'd be better served by a lengthy, wordy tome about the penalty. Cut-and-dried would work best. I'd like to see the following: Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that he is hereby: 1. Removed from GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. 2. Permitted to immediately apply for readmission and reinstatement as a CC for any county site he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04). However, the current State Coordinators are *not* required to accept him back. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:29:45 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:29:56 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com He be removed from GAGenWeb and NDGenweb, and then he is allowed to immediately apply for readmission and reinstatemetn as a CC? How is that a penalty? David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:34:56 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:35:08 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I don't understand why 2. should be part of the options at all. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:37:22 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:37:21 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com It formalizes his removal as State Coordinator in both states, and hands the reins to the state projects to decide whether to accept him as a CC again, or not. If anyone has another idea, let's see it. The points that, for me, are not negotiable are that his removal as SC for both states is finalized, and that the state projects are NOT forced to reinstate him as CC. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:41:31 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:41:43 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I like what I've already said better. I don't think he should have the option of claiming his counties in Georgia, even if the SC were agreeable. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:53:28 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:53:28 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com He has some counties in other states (NY, TN - any others?) that he could continue to coordinate. Since he was "officially" suspended, I anticipate that he'd be reinstated there. The reality of the situation is that he was never removed from those counties despite the suspension. However, he HAS already been replaced in ND, and though his counties are "on hold" in GA, I will not require *any* state project (particularly ND and GA) to reinstate him at any time, and I want that in black and white. Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Stowell: Penalty Phase Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:55:23 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:55:35 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I guess we are not on the same wave length. David OK, then how about this? . . . ------------------------------------- Tim Stowell has been found to be responsible for each of the charges against him. Therefore, it is the decision of the USGenWeb Advisory Board that he is hereby: 1. Removed from all positions held in GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. 2. Banned from GAGenWeb for a period of _________ (fill in the blank) 3. Permitted to apply for readmission and reinstatement as a CC for county sites he held at the time he was suspended (5/29/04), other than in GAGenWeb. However, the current State Coordinators are *not* required to accept him back. -------------------------------------- Like I said, there MUST be some provision saying that the state projects in which he was previously involved are NOT required to take him back. Shari posted by BatCave at 3:14 PM Day 35 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Unreachable Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:10:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:10:29 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Thanks Shari. I was hoping to not go through this a third time. We don't have to evacuate, but as with Charley & Frances, I expect to loose power sometime Sunday and for it to be out for a few days. Today will be yet another hunt for gas and bread. I'm stocked up on other necessities; bottled water, canned food, batteries, candles and CHOCOLATE. Mention the word "hunker" in Central FL and you're looking for trouble. Cyndie -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Be nice. Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:36:37 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:36:34 -0400 From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: Denise Woodside To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com References: David - I'll give you my answer to this question which is from the perspective of a CC rep that represents CCs of GA, but I personally had no involvement or even knowledge of the events in GA prior to being on the AB a year ago. In June and July the charges were being formalized by going through the volues of information on list and from people's complaints, etc. I was alarmed and concerned about the amount of time it was taking, especially considering the length of the suspension that was given. I think at the time, (at least it seemed to me) that everyone thought the 60 days would be plenty of time to gather the facts and conduct the hearing. I know there were several people working very hard on going through the information and gathering the charges, so I in no way want to say that they were not working hard at this. But given we are volunteers with other jobs, I think we as a group seriously underestimated how much time it would take. It has even been mentioned - and crossed my mind as well - that charges should have been ready to go when the suspension was handed out. However, the other side of that is that the straw that broke the camel's back, again in my opinion, was the dismissal of the CCs in GA. At that point, who knew what was next - the AB stepped up and stopped the bleeding. We are far from healing the wound and likely the scar tissue will be ever present. Hard decisions had to be made and in hindsight, a different approach may have been better. To be honest though, this was going to be a difficult road regardless of the path. As far as the final outcome of this hearing, I do think it is inappropriate to begin discussing that on this list or any other until the hearing is completed. I have already began forming opinions myself and will offer my suggestions then. Also . . . this is a learning process. As much as I hope to never be involved in a process like this again, if I am, I will be wiser because of this process. Denise -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Unreachable Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:18:13 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT) From: bookstorelady Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com I didn't notice Apricot Brandy in your list... I'm sending wishes and prayers towards you.... Darilee -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [HEAR] Unreachable Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:20:21 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:20:43 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com There is Smirnoff Ice for me and Miller Genuine Draft for the hubby in the fridge. We now have a generator to keep it cool. :) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Be nice. Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:43:47 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:43:53 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Thanks, Denise, With 90 days to decide this, from June 1 to September 1, I didn't really think I would have to deal with this at all. David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Be nice. Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:43:47 -0600 Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:43:53 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Thanks, Denise, With 90 days to decide this, from June 1 to September 1, I didn't really think I would have to deal with this at all. David posted by BatCave at 3:11 PM Day 19 Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:26:08 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:26:52 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <20040822220509.m56328@inmyattic.com> <3.0.5.32.20040825021158.00820480@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040828150625.008e5350@mail.chattanooga.net> <001e01c48d71$cee9b4a0$c379f842@donsd7wz1qya5r> <413148bb.1adf53fd@earthlink.net> <3.0.5.32.20040830025846.00a97880@mail.chattanooga.net> <3.0.5.32.20040902011537.01b8c680@mail.chattanooga.net> At 09:11 AM 9/2/04 -0700, Don Kelly wrote: >Sure Tim. Relating to selecting volunteers to adopt sites, you formerly >stated something to the effect that states have a right to defend >themselves. Yes - organizations do have that right. Folks must first meet the minimum requirements or be teachable. Some are, some aren't. If more than one person volunteers to host a site, one can compare folks or perhaps instead of taking a known gamble on an unknown to broaden the base. Of course it is always a judgment call. >Is that statement mistakenly taken out of context? If so, I apologise. It is for I didn't write it in my message below so I wasn't sure of your reference point or what you were replying to. It's rather hard to answer questions without a point of reference. Sorry for the delay in replying. I had a hard drive crash Thursday afternoon and spent the remainder of Thursday, Friday evening trying to save what I could. I so hate hard drive crashes for one can't seem to back up often enough or get the right stuff backed up. It wasn't my main computer but it was my data transcription computer. I think I salvaged most of it but not without a lot of angst, frustration and well if you've been there before, you understand. Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 1 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:26:11 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:41:01 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: At 09:26 AM 9/2/04 -0700, Don Kelly wrote: >Tim, you have shown instances to support a mistake in awarding adoptions, >but how does that affect my applications? I belonged to no archives, had >ancestors in the county, and knew how to maintain websites. Since I was only aware of one application until you and Keith refreshed my memory that there was another, I can only speak to those. >It might help this committee if you will state for us exactly what the >GAGenWeb policies and procedures for adopting out vacant county websites >was/is. I have never seen that document. >From the then GAGuidelines - what was. What now is I can't say. You'll have to ask the new person. 12. Appointment of a Coordinator. A county or special project coordinator may be selected by the SC, or, with the SC's approval, the RC. To determine if the candidate receives the county or special project, an RC or SC may take any of the following into consideration: a) the opinion of the outgoing CC or SPC. b) the candidate's past performance in GAGenWeb. c) the candidate's past performance in other other state, national or world GenWeb Projects. d) the opinion of the SC or RC. e) the opinion of the GAGenWeb Council. >I have seen at least two cases written by witnesses where discrimination was >clearly indicated, and suggestions of more. One of the charges was that I wouldn't allow an existing CC to take on more counties up to the 3 county limit. Why would one award another county to someone when they weren't even doing anything with the counties they had other than keep them at the bare minimum requirements? Yet another charge by the same folks is I wouldn't let new blood in. One can't have it both ways. When new folks did come in, they were written by certain individuals with all sorts of wild tales about how I'd take their site from them if they didn't do thus and so. It wasn't true. Even when the folks complained about me in two previous hearings/actions before this body, after it was over, NONE of them were dismissed. Now a vindictive person would have fired everyone of them on the spot. But I didn't. Yet even with my kindness towards them......here we are again. >If discrimination is acceptable, it should appear in the project P & P. GAGenWeb did not have a P&P. Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:26:17 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 02:48:42 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 01:55 AM 9/5/04 -0400, you wrote: >Charge 2 is now open for questioning and discussion. > >(2) Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the >GAGenWeb CCs. > In 2003, a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC) was started by Mr. >Pettys. The GRC worked to revise GAGenWeb guidelines to provide further >protection for CC rights within the project, and to establish a >grievance procedure that did not involve the State Coordinator or the >appointed ASCs and RCs. The Committee asked for input from CC's >throughout their work. Mr. Pettys threatened to stop the work of the >committee, and did disband the committee before their work could be >completed. Following this action, Mr. Stowell announced a vote to be >taken on GAGEN-L The vote, which was counted by Mr. Stowell and Mari >Byers of TNGenWeb, indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to >continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would >not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a >non-binding poll. > >Shari Handley >srh@tyaskin.com There is a mistake in your blurb above. A majority of the CCs indicated nothing, since only approximately 35% of the members participated in the poll. Polls are just that, a poll. Polls are non-binding. Polls are done to gauge the feelings of a certain group of individuals on a particular subject. Right off the top, it was noted as a poll: Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:30:00 -0400 From: Tim Stowell To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] GRC - Time Out As soon as I can get it set up - most likely later today, I'll publish two addresses - mine and someone outside GAGenWeb, to whom you can write, if you so choose to, answer by selecting from the following answers - plus make any other comments you may wish to at that time. By sending to two addresses - we can make sure the tally is correct plus have a disinterested observer's participation in the counting. A - I want the GRC committee re-formed, so that the work started by the GRC committee just disbanded, may continue B - I like the Guidelines just as they are C - I prefer to have no Guidelines and just use the national Bylaws. This will give an opportunity for all CCs to express their opinion without fear of what someone else might say about them or their opionions. Since some have the tendancy to ignore requests to post where asked and post here instead, this list is going into Time Out mode, until after this poll is finished. Tim ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, on-line information. =================================== Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:10:03 -0400 From: Tim Stowell To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] Poll results (preliminary) The preliminary results are that the other counter and I have exchanged notes as to our totals count. At this point we have a variance which we will work out tomorrow. Approximately 35% of the members took part in this poll. Once I have the totals confirmed by Mari, I'll publish them on GAGEN and we can go from there. Next I'll work on a summary of the comments as they relate to the subject of the GRC. Comments on other items will be summerized and sent along seperately. Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net Chattanooga, TN ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html ===================================== Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:59:42 -0400 From: Tim Stowell To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] Poll Results On the question: A - I want the GRC committee re-formed, so that the work started by the GRC committee just disbanded, may continue B - I like the Guidelines just as they are C - I prefer to have no Guidelines and just use the national Bylaws. ================ 39 answers received from 39 unique address/individuals. At least one person sent 3 to 4 emails due to problems with their email. One reply was counted for them and they were advised that their reply had been received. The reason it has taken so long to resolve the variance in the poll totals is that folks sent their preferences to among others: the NC, an AB member, to this list and at least 5 to me only. 26 persons chose to make no comment while 13 did. The results of the poll are as follows: A - 20 B - 11 C - 8 I've copied the comments to document form to ready to send to this list. Comments that speak of specific individuals either by name or category of service will not be passed along. I wish to at this time thank Mari Byers for assisting me in counting the poll totals and verifying that each reply was tallied correctly. Tim Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 2 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:26:18 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 03:14:24 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c493bd$4cd6e3f0$0ef99904@cpq933> You can place long URLs in http://tinyurl.com to come up with a nice short one that will work and doesn't aggravate folks. Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 06:08:58 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 05:08:47 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040906024842.00af7c10@mail.chattanooga.net> Does anyone know for sure if the GRC was disbanded because the leadership didn't like what they were proposing? If another reason, what was the factual reason why the GRC disbanded? I think I can understand why only 35% (Tim's statement) of GAGenWeb members participated in the process. Don Kelly Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge 2 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:08:55 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:08:55 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Hi Linda, For the purposes of the transcript, and to ensure that the evidence is presented here completely, please do copy the messages to the list. Thanks, Shari -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [HEAR] FW: Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:52:15 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:51:48 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Crilley [mailto:varcsix@hot.rr.com] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 11:47 AM To: lab@boone.net Subject: Statement on GRC The Guidelines Revision Committee was originally formed by Richard Pettys in April 2003. I was asked to join in Aug 2003, after some members had resigned. http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/Guidelines/ This page gives a very brief, but accurate description of the work done. http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/Guidelines/minutes.html Reading through these minutes will give you a feeling about the work of the committee. Unfortunately the "open GRC" group on Yahoo does not seem to be available any longer. The Open list shows how consistently the Committee worked on specific guidelines. From April 2003-Aug 2003, the group seemed to concentrate on a Bill of Rights for CCs. A great deal of time was spent on that formation, but my knowledge of this is only based on what was submitted to GAGEN-L and the Council. The Council was opposed to most changes that were suggested. Two Council Members, Margie Daniels, and Gloria Holback, resigned from the GRC and from that point on spoke against the work of the GRC on Council. The Council would continually send back to GRC over some minor detail which kept the GRC from making any progress. This was very frustrating to the GRC. As a Council Member, I tried hard to support the GRC, but my one vote didn't carry much weight. The rule was that nothing could be presented to the CCs for a vote unless the Council approved it first. Although the Committee did have differences of opinions on various specific wording of guidelines, I would never characterize it as a "bickering" committee or one that didn't get along at any time from Aug 2003 - April 2004 (while I was a member). It was united in its efforts to make sure that some of the abuses and loopholes being used by the Council in getting "around" the Guidelines was improved. The Guidelines in place were being used "against" the very CCs they were created to protect. We were also united in that we wanted to hear from the CCs at every step of the way. We had regional reporters who asked for responses as each topic was brought up. GAGen-L list was always used for announcing the topic and asking for views. Jacki posted all comments anonymously and the GRC took these views into account and worked at a steady pace, although often slowed down by there being no Chairperson to call for the vote so we could adopt the portion and move on. The Council consistently refused to approve any revision. In the later days of the GRC (after Richard had issued the note that we were given a deadline to complete the work), we consistently worked and covered the main issues of how decisions were to be made, how CCs had a voice in their State Project, and the purpose of the "appointed Council" vs "elected representatives". Richard had hampered the efforts of the GRC because of his long absences, and sometimes he would appoint Jacki as Chairperson. In some instances when she couldn't hear from him at all, the group would just proceed. The alleged "bickering" that Richard used for his excuse to disband was not amongst the committee members, but because Tim Stowell, as SC, interjected comments and appeared to be attempting to steer the GRC along the lines he wanted them to go. There was strong objection to some of his comments which were not based on truth. Tim's comments did get off the subject. He brought up a discussion of the role of the Archives which was to have been discussed at a later date. The Roles of the SC, ASC, RC were under consideration during the time period of 3/22/04 up until the time the GRC was shut down. Tim was not pleased with the GRC discussing the importance of the SC role and the various aspects of it. Tim's argument was that the Council and RCs were just following the Guidelines which were previously passed and that he as SC had little to do with it. Since several of us were present during the creation of those Guidelines, we did our best to point out that his statement was not true. This is a rebuttal that I posted on the "open list" which has since disappeared. ================================================ "The Guidelines do not mandate what the Council has become... it has evolved over the past years. You as SC have given the Council power by your own choosing, not by the Guidelines. This GAGenWeb controversy began when Keith called for an Election of the SC. I supported having this election, and still do. You chose to take this personally, and have not to this day held an Election of the SC, as you have indicated many times that you would. If an election had been held when Keith requested it, I have no doubt that you would have won the position hands down. From the Keith controversy, came the dismissal of the Jackson Co CC, who Keith was assisting as her RC. That dismissal was not supported by ALL of the Council. When a vote was taken within the Council, one of the voting members of the Council, a Special Projects person that you had accepted, was "thrown out". This was a major step in the present ruling power of the Council." ============================= After the GRC was ended, CCs raised questions about it. Tim held a "poll" which the CCs truly believed was their chance to voice their opinion. The results showed that CCs did want the work of the GRC to continue. Tim chose to treat this as a non-binding opinion, and did not re-instate it. Mari Byers (TN SC) was asked to count the votes along with Tim, and even she was in disagreement with the end result. She sent to me an e-mail requesting that I forward it to the GAGen-L list. I was bann from the GAGen List for forwarding the e-mail as breaking confidentiality of the GAGen List. Also at that same time I was removed from the Council (GAGenWeb list), and the Reporter who was giving a summary of topics of discussion was instructed NOT to mention my removal from the GAGenWeb in her report to GAGen. It was never clear if I was removed as RC, but I was no longer considered a part of the Council, and was not able to participate in their work after that. Council secrecy was enforced once more. For your convenience, here is Mari's e-mail: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:08:34 -0500 From: Virginia Crilley To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040422150756.01909950@pop-server.hot.rr.com> Subject: Fwd: forward to GA list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Forwarded at her request >Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:18:38 -0500 >From: Mari Byers >Subject: forward to GA list >X-Sender: keyofbflat@mail.comcast.net >To: varcsix@hot.rr.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 >X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine >Original-recipient: rfc822;varcsix@hot.rr.com >X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 2.97546E-110; #1: 1 >X-NAS-Classification: 0 >X-NAS-MessageID: 19915 >X-NAS-Validation: {E38B60C8-F3E6-41BF-A165-7E8BABF840C9} > >Hi Virginia, > Would you mind forwarding this to the Ga list for me: > > I apologize for being a part of the recent GRC poll. It was my > full intent to help maintain accuracy in the vote count. You all know > over 50% of the votes were in favor of continuing the GRC. Those results > were correct. I had no idea these votes would be interrupted the way > they were and for that I'm sorry. >Mari Byers >Tennessee State Coordinator-TNGenWeb Project If there is anything else I can clarify, please do not hesitate to call on me. I worked with Tim and David Morgan when the Regional Coordinator concept first came into being. It is a good concept but was turned into a "power" position. The Council kept everything secret. I remember one member stating that ones at the bottom should not be telling management how to do things. I was appalled at a Council which considered our volunteer CCs as being "them" against "us" and supposed to be doing as they were told without considering their input. That attitude and the fixation on votes and control is what caused the situation to deteriorate and which allowed the abusive action against any CC who dared to question or speak their views. Both Richard and Tim urged the Council to remove various CCs who were questioning the leadership. Those CCs who also happened to be on the AB were targeted, but fortunately the action was never taken against them. Virginia Crilley posted by BatCave at 2:46 PM 0 comments Day 20 Subject: [HEAR] Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:20:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:19:58 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com This was forwarded to me as an attachment, a MSWord document. I cut and pasted it into this email in order to present it here. Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Rep Statement concerning the GAGenWeb Project's Guidelines Revision Committee from Vivian Price Saffold former member of the Guidelines Revision Committee 7 September 2004 Richard Pettys invited me to become a member of the Guidelines Revision Committee in April, 2003, the same month he organized the committee. >From the outset, I wondered why the GRC had not been organized by State Coordinator Tim Stowell. I repeatedly questioned Chairman Pettys about this and got only vague answers. At one point he told me that he had organized the committee on his own because the Council had failed to act on the issue of guidelines revision. Another time he told me that he had the support of the SC and Council to organize the committee in this manner. I have studied the GAGenWeb guidelines intensively and realized that there was no way any revision could be achieved without support from the Council. However, I agreed to join this committee believing it was the only way for CCs to try to affect change. Throughout the process, Stowell and Pettys made good use of two tactics for which they have become well known. Stowell was the master of misdirect. When the discussion was not going to his liking, he inserted another topic - often the Archives - that got the talks off track. Pettys did not participate in the process unless he thought it necessary to steer the group back to his point of view. The formation of the Guidelines Revision Committee, in my opinion, had one purpose: to push through some inconsequential changes to the guidelines in order to quiet the unrest that permeated the project at that time. Early on in the process, when Margie Daniels and Gloria Holback were members, there was more arguing on the committee, because there was a balance between those who supported the Council and those who did not. When the committee gained more anti-Council members, there was more agreement on positions that could have been viewed as against the powers-that-be. When it became clear that Pettys no longer controlled the committee, he pulled the plug. Although the GRC submitted proposals to the Council and tried to encourage the Council to participate in the guidelines revision process, every effort was rebuffed or ignored. What little input the GRC received from the Council was always negative. I had hoped that the committee could establish a dialogue which might result in compromise, but the lack of response made this impossible. After the Council's rejection of the Bill of Rights without comment or giving the GRC an opportunity for revision, I was so frustrated by the lack of response, I proposed giving the Council a deadline for responding to our questions concerning what the Council members found objectionable about the document. My proposal was rejected as too harsh. Saffold wrote 25 September 2003 I think this this committee should send a letter, signed by every member of the committee, to the GAGenWeb State Coordinator, with copies to every member of the council, requesting an official report on the outcome on the vote on the Bill of Rights, along with a detailed explanation of the council's concerns about the document. It should be made clear in the letter that the committee reserves the right to edit the BOR and resubmit it to the council, if it so chooses. It also should be stated in the letter that the committee believes the council should make a report to the membership, and if the council chooses not to do so, the committee will make its own report. The letter should give two deadlines (one for reporting to the committee and one for reporting to the membership), giving adequate time for the council to draft its report. If the GRC chairman or secretary feels that writing such a letter might place either in a difficult position, the chairman may ask for volunteers from the committee to write the letter. Because the guidelines stated that only the Council could propose revisions to the membership, no part of what was decided by the GRC ever reached the CCs. It is my opinion that nothing substantive ever would have been voted on by the membership. I do not think it is exaggerating to say that the members of the committee were stunned to learn that Pettys was disbanding the committee. Pettys wrote 6 Apr 2004 Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something. I believe Pettys' statement to be disingenuous. Pettys himself admitted that he had little time to devote to the committee. Pettys wrote 18 Feb 2004 For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything. However, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back for the GRC was the addition to the committee of Sylvia Rankin. At that point in the committee's existence, Chairman Pettys had been absent for some time (about five weeks, according to one of his posts) due to demands of his employment. The committee believed it was in the best interest of the project and the process to continue under the leadership of Jacki Jonas until Pettys returned. The committee had lost a member, and proceeded to replace that member with Rankin. Although he had not participated for some time before Virginia Crilley's motion to admit Sylvia Rankin, Pettys quickly resurfaced and made a motion to nominate Brenda Pierce for membership. Please note that Pettys was a non-voting member of the committee. I believe it was inappropriate for him to make a motion. Pettys wrote 10 December 2003 With three positions open (and I am declaring Katie's position open at this time) [Pettys' wife Kathleen, who never made a single comment during the course of the committee's existence], I will withdraw my opposition to Sylvia's appointment in exchange for the extension of an invitation to Brenda Pierce, who was also passed over (by ME) the last time around because I felt that the members would not approve of her based on her statements and her views of the issues. When the committee was formed, I selected from the volunteers who applied. I based my selection on the volunteers who embodied both sides of the issues we were facing. I based my selection of the volunteers based on what I had read from postings and from what I saw on webpages of the hardwork and dedication to this project. As members withdrew, quit or took their ball and went home, new members came on board. While I could have made the selections, I felt that the committee was the best entity to make these decisions. I continue to feel that way. However, I also believe that it is incumbent upon me to guide the committee in its selection process. And, inasmuch as Jackie has opened this discussion as chair, she should complete the same as chair. Thus, I move to amend the motion as follows: I move we issue an invitation to Sylvia Caldwell Rankin to join the committee and that we issue an invitation to Brenda Pierce to join the committee. Pettys' motion failed to gain a second. I addressed Pettys' reasons for disbanding the committee in a post to the West Central Region, the group with whom I was charged with communicating the business of the committee: Saffold wrote 8 April 2004 (subject: "final report") By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the Guidelines Revision Committee. As this may be my last report to you, I would like to commend you heartily for all the interest you have shown in the committee's efforts to bring fairness and openness to the GAGenWeb project and thank you for your generous flow of ideas. I commend Richard for organizing the committee. I am quite disappointed that he felt he could not see the effort through to completion. I disagree with his reasons for disbanding it: 1. Belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues 2. Continuous off-topic remarks 3. Apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties Do we debate? Of course. Debate is part of the process. Does debate sometimes become heated? Of course. But, the current committee members work well together, and I think you will see from the committee minutes that there is no rancor. We have already ironed out some thorny issues and, if allowed, will continue to do so. Do we sometimes digress into issues that some would call "off-topic." I suppose. The debate over the Archives, however, is relevant to the purpose of this organization. Is it a long process? You bet. We are addressing complicated issues, sometimes debating every single word in a sentence. We deliberately allow time for CC feedback. And, we are volunteers. We do have obligations beyond GAGenWeb and this committee. I am sure you are aware that the CCs did vote to approve the current guidelines. I don't think that vote meant that those guidelines are perfect and never need altering. At the very heart of our current debate is the fact that, under the current rues, the members of this project *cannot amend their own guidelines.* Only the council can initiate a change to the guidelines. I do not believe we can count on the current powers-that-be to ever change that fact. I know I have attempted several times to go through the accepted chain of command, beginning with my RC, submitting requests for consideration of amendments to the guidelines. I have never even been granted the courtesy of a response. The GRC is the only vehicle we have for CC input into the rules by which we are governed. I found it interesting that Pettys declared my final report and that of Jacki Jonas and others (every member of the GRC posted a similar message) "inappropriate." Of course, by that time the reports already had been distributed. Pettys wrote 10 April 2004 The Final Report as submitted by Jacki and others is null and void. It is the final report of a committee which did not exist when the report was made. Moreover, it is my position that a final report can only be made by the Chair of a Committee. To the extent that I was the Chair of the GRC, I am the only one who can make such a report. Inasmuch as I did not, the final report submitted by Jacki and others is wholly inappropriate and is a nullity. I summarized my beliefs about the entire GRC experience in correspondence shortly after the disbanding: Saffold wrote 7 April 2004 By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the GRC. Of course, since he formed it on his own, without council approval, he certainly has the authority to do this, even if, in my opinion, he has an ethical obligation to continue. I do find it ironic, however, that he has been, for the most part, an absentee chairman. Although Jacki Jonas has made an admirable effort at picking up the slack, the committee has been virtually leaderless from the outset. This lack of solid direction has been the committee's major problem. I also think that Richard's lack of participation has been in part deliberate. You can't be held responsible for something you took no part in. His stated reason for disbanding the committee: Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. However, I believe that the underlying reason is that the committee was moving in a direction that did not fit his agenda. While he was absent for an extended period of time recently, the committee chose a replacement for a member who dropped out, someone Richard does not approve of. When he returned, he proposed that another member of the council be added, but the committee did not agree. Also, the committee members recently have been more vocal in challenging the power brokers, and we in Georgia know that just won't do. I do not think that real reform was ever Richard's intention. I believe the purpose of the committee was intended to make it look like the power brokers were interested in reform and letting the CCs have a voice. I think the goal was to present a new set of guidelines that contained few real changes, so that a vote by the membership would reinforce the status quo. After Pettys disbanded the committee, Stowell conducted a poll asking CCs if they wanted to continue the GRC. His interpretation of the result was, in my opinion, a cruel mockery of the membership he professed to serve. Stowell wrote 19 April 2004 The status of the GRC is it doesn't exist. Richard disbanded it. The Council vote overwhelmingly confirmed his decision. As for the poll - 20 replied A 11 - B 8 - C of those who voted this translates to: A = 51.3% B = 28.2% C = 20.5% However, out of the total members - this translates to 20 = 17.7% of the members say they think the Guidelines need revision. 75.2% say either by voting or not voting that the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is. 7.1% of the total members prefer to completely do away with the Guidelines. While portions of the Guidelines may need revisiting - for clarification or by changes requested of the members the vast majority of the members seem to be saying leave well enough alone. Therefore the GRC or some similar committee will not be reconstituted. Members who wish to make suggestions for changes to the Guidelines may request same through their RC or to me. [Please note that I wrote my RC and the SC many times, and never even had the courtesy of a response.] Saffold wrote 21 April 2004 I must say that funny math never occurred to me as a spin on the recent poll results. Counting the votes of CCs who did not vote cannot be supported by the state guidelines or national bylaws and is absolutely wrong. They did not vote. Period. That is all that can be inferred. In an email on 21 April 2004, Council member Gloria Holback contended that the Council was under no obligation to follow the wishes of the CCs, because, "It was a poll and not a vote." Saffold wrote 22 April 2004 Ah, so a poll is just a pointless ruse, to make the membership think the council takes into consideration what the CCs think. And because it's not really a vote, it's OK to manipulate the outcome. I get it. Tim Stowell could have organized a Guidelines Revision Committee that would have had the advantage of his personal "seal of approval," but he did not. He could have participated in a more productive and positive manner in the deliberations, but he did not. He could have led the Council to work with the GRC, but he did not. Instead, he allowed Richard Pettys to organize a committee that was destined to fail, because it had no official support. In doing so, he was able to avoid any potential blame that might have ensued when the committee proved unproductive. Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Clarification Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:33:45 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Shari and all, Please feel free to correct me of provide guidance. As we begin this discussion on Charge 2, I am confused as to what our purpose here should be. Obviously we will be voting on this charge, but assuming we were to determine that Tim Stowell is responsible for ignoring the results of his poll which demonstrated that the CCs wanted to continue the GRC - what are we saying? -> Are we saying that any SC cannot taake a poll/informal vote without being bound by its results? At what point are we to say whether or not an offense is an offense worthy of suspension? In this case, my opinion is point proven - Tim took a poll/vote and didn't follow the feelings of the majority. However, lots of elected folks do this. But not something to suspend people over. Now if the charge were to be proven that stated that the SC put the halts on GRC because he/she didn't want additional power going to the CCs, then that is different. Does anyone follow my rambling besides me? Denise Woodside Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Clarification Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 19:02:45 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:03:09 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Denise Woodside wrote: > Shari and all, > > Please feel free to correct me of provide guidance. > > As we begin this discussion on Charge 2, I am confused as to what our purpose here should be. Obviously we will be voting on this charge, but assuming we were to determine that Tim Stowell is responsible for ignoring the results of his poll which demonstrated that the CCs wanted to continue the GRC - what are we saying? > -> Are we saying that any SC cannot take a poll/informal vote without being bound by its results? > At what point are we to say whether or not an offense is an offense worthy of suspension? > > In this case, my opinion is point proven - Tim took a poll/vote and didn't follow the feelings of the majority. However, lots of elected folks do this. But not something to suspend people over. This is just my opinion, Denise, but I believe people were justifiably upset that Tim ignored the poll and didn't continue the committee. They were frustrated, disappointed. Of all the things that have occured over the last two years, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Tim didn't plan to do anything constructive, then he should not have conducted the poll. That builds hopes up, only for them to be cruelly crushed. > > Now if the charge were to be proven that stated that the SC put the halts on GRC because he/she didn't want additional power going to the CCs, then that is different. > I could not tell you the SCs reasons. David Subject: [HEAR] Charge #2 - Messages Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:21:23 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:20:47 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Posts to GRC Message Board on Yahoo Relating to Charge #2 - This was a public forum set up so the CC's of GAGenWeb to follow the progress of the Guidelines Revision Committee. The messages of the committee were originally not public. I don't know the exact date that the decision was made to change to a public forum. (I have tried to post these in chronological order) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-168-1076688798-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: "Brenda Pierce" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.85.143 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:13:13 -0400 Subject: [GRC] Guidelines Revision Committee Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Mr. SC: I write with respect to the Guidelines Revision Committee. I have placed the committee on notice today of my intent to limit our deliberations and work to a period of 90 days from this date. As such, on or about May 13, 2004, you may expect to receive from me either the final recommendations on the revised guidelines or a report from me that states that the committee was unable to complete the task and asking for you to disband the committee. I have advised the committee members that, in the event one or more object to my actions, that they file with you a formal grievance, which I shall not fight, but which shall be met with a request to the GAGenWeb Council to disband the committee. I have copied the GRC members with a BCC on this email to the GRC list. I have also notified the First ASC of my intentions and my actions. The Secretary shall be directed to place my email on the Committee site and to forward the same to the GAGen list. With the exception of the parties identified herein and members of the GAGenWeb Council who may have a need to know of this missive, it is understood that the same shall remain private between the members of the GRC, you, First ASC Pierce and myself. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. I trust you will advise me in the event that you object to my decisions, intentions and actions. I remain, your humble Second ASC, Respectfully submitted, /S/ Richard R. Pettys, Jr. Chairman Guidelines Revision Committee Second ASC Coastal Georgia Regional Coordinator Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-167-1076688232-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.85.143 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:03:49 -0400 Subject: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that is what I am going to do here. We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get through it quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. I know that some delay can be attributed to my lack of attention for several months and the fact that I refuse to check email more than once per day or on weekends. Part of the reason is the fact that the pace of this committee depresses me. Part of it is that the past year was very tough for me. And part of it is that *I* am losing interest in much of our proceedings and even the politics of the project. Everyone has probably noticed that I have been maintaining a lower profile and keeping my fingers away from the keyboard. I simply do not have time for much tom-foolery. >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our task. So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's and the SC. I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the same. Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate grievance channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee be disbanded. I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing this through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but we really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. Let's just push our job through, please. Thank you. Richard Pettys Chairman ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-173-1076716220-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: cristian@netonecom.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.172.26.13 From: "Jan Cortez" X-Yahoo-Profile: jicortez Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:45:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, To put it quite simply, I am appalled at your message. If you are losing interest in this committee or the politics of this project, then my best suggestion would be for you to resign and let someone else take over who does have an interest in this committee. Jacki, would be an excellent candidate, as she was able to pull us through when you weren't available. To give us a 90 day timeline, and if this is not completed in that time frame is ludicrous. It either means that we must do a slap stick job of it, to get anything thru, or that the objective is that someone does not want this committee to succeed. I'm truly beginning to believe the latter, because even if we do hit the timeline and complete our work in 90 days, then we have a council that can vote it down. Would it leave us any time to go back? Or is that the objective? Anything of this nature must, in my opinion, be done in a well thought out manner. You can't throw it together. It takes time and it takes input from the CC's. Anything less will result in what we currently have. I appeal to the SC of this project to appoint Jacki as the Chairperson and allow us to complete the work that we have begun in a timely manner that will do all of us justice. Anything less, in my opinion is a slap in the face to the CC's of this project who work tirelessly to put info online and to those, *all* of which I consider well respected, who have gotten us to this point. Respectfully, Jan Cortez ----- Original Message ----- From: "mannannan" > I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, > that is what I am going to do here. > > We, as a group, need to ----------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-172-1076704005-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: varcsix@hot.rr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.65 From: "v_ruffin" X-Originating-IP: 24.162.159.130 X-Yahoo-Profile: v_ruffin Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:26:40 -0000 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, I am totally confused by your note and the method you have chosen to convey it. I agree with Wyndell's comments... the long delays while we wait for you to give us the "go ahead" has been frustrating. As you said, we are all capable of doing the job this Committee set out to accomplish.... so let's all try to be as responsive as possible to messages as they are posted. Jan and I are ready to present the next sub-committee report and will do so as soon as the discussion of the purpose seems to have taken place. --- In gagrc@yahoogroups.com, Wyndell Taylor wrote: > At 12:03 PM 2/13/04 -0400, mannannan wrote: > >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-169-1076697465-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: gagenie@bellsouth.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: gagenie@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 205.152.59.64 From: Wyndell Taylor Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:32:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com At 12:03 PM 2/13/04 -0400, mannannan wrote: >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish >our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council >that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our task. Richard, I have real serious problem with the statements made by you in this message. If you have lost interest in this committee, or the entire project, then you need to step aside and let someone else take the lead. I will only speak for myself here, but waiting for you to check email, or decide to do something has really gotten to me. I have felt like just tossing the entire process off and moving on to a good fishing trip, or hunting trip. Either would have been more productive. If you feel that we are a waste of time, then please think of letting Jackie take over. She has done a wonderful job of moving things along while you were away. Or, report to Tim and let him place someone else in the slot and let us be about the business at hand. I think this committee is capable of making decisions and coming up with a workable set of guidelines within a reasonable amount of time. However we need to have some direction and someone to direct us toward that goal. > >So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will >report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the >guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's and >the SC. Not sure that this is impossible, but why all of a sudden a deadline to work against? >I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the same. > >Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate grievance >channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC >that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee be >disbanded. Gee..... what a way to go. > >I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing this >through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but we >really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is >intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- >respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. I am not sure just what respect I hold, but would like to see this committee move with the speed in which it has wanted to go. Although I have not communicated with 'all' members of the commitee, but in the past, several of us have wanted to get off our hands and get the work done. > >Let's just push our job through, please. Yes, please. Wyndell > >Thank you. > >Richard Pettys >Chairman --------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-177-1076855361-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: msaffold@bellsouth.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: msaffold@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 205.152.59.72 From: Michael Saffold Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:25:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, I concur with the statements of Jan and Wyndell. If you are, as you said, "losing interest," then maybe it is time for you to move on and let those who remain motivated complete the job. While I strongly oppose setting a deadline, I agree that we need to move along with all deliberate speed. I firmly believe that appealing your decision through the current grievance process would result in the committee's forced demise. The inadequacy of the current grievance process is one of the main issues confronting this committee. For the good of the project, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Respectfully, Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County At 12:03 PM 2/13/2004 -0400, you wrote: >I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that >is what I am going to do here. > >We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get >through it quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. ------------------------------------------------------------ X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-178-1076857965-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: cristian@netonecom.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.172.26.13 From: "Jan Cortez" X-Yahoo-Profile: jicortez Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:08:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I strongly agree that we need to move along, however, as in the past, we've now eaten up another few days in which we receive no answers or response from the GAGenWeb team. National Bylaws state: Section 5. State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws. State projects shall be highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance procedures within the state. We as committee members are not able to step in and take control of the committee and move things forward, it seems only our SC and council can allow that. We are powerless and in the hands of those who control and have the *power* within the GAGenWeb. It surely is a very sad state of affairs. Jan Cortez ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Saffold" > Richard, > > I concur with the statements of Jan and Wyndell. If you are, as you said, > "losing interest," then maybe it is time for you to move on and let those > who remain motivated complete the job. While I strongly oppose setting a > deadline, I agree that we need to move along with all deliberate speed. > > I firmly believe that appealing your decision through the current grievance > process would result in the committee's forced demise. The inadequacy of > the current grievance process is one of the main issues confronting this > committee. > > For the good of the project, I strongly urge you to reconsider. > > Respectfully, > > Vivian Price Saffold > Meriwether County -------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-188-1077118407-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.91.197 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:33:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything. Richard ---------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-190-1077120102-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.91.197 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:01:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I would ask the EC to establish a seperate vote for the guidelines revision with each questions being set forth as "Shall XXX be adopted to replace section ZZ of the Guidelines?" with the responses being "Yes", "No" or "Abstain". Richard ---------- Original Message ------------ From: "Jeanne Arguelles" To: Sent: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:23:13 -0600 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing > Howdy All, > > I have a question. In the event that we complete our task, and the Council > agrees to present the proposed Guideline revisions to the CCs for a vote... > how and when would that vote take place? Would the voting be > handled by the Elections Committee? Would it be done in conjunction > with the National Election in July? > > Jeanne > > > I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that is > > what I am going to do here. > > > > We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get through > it > > quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. > > > > I know that some delay can be attributed to my lack of attention for > several > > months and the fact that I refuse to check email more than once per day or > on > > weekends. Part of the reason is the fact that the pace of this committee > > depresses me. Part of it is that the past year was very tough for me. > And > > part of it is that *I* am losing interest in much of our proceedings and > even > > the politics of the project. > > > > Everyone has probably noticed that I have been maintaining a lower profile > > and keeping my fingers away from the keyboard. > > > > I simply do not have time for much tom-foolery. > > > > From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to > finish > > our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council > > that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our > task. > > > > So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will > > report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the > > guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's > and > > the SC. > > > > I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the > same. > > > > Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate > grievance > > channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC > > that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee > be > > disbanded. > > > > I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing > this > > through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but > we > > really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is > > intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- > > respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. > > > > Let's just push our job through, please. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Richard Pettys > > Chairman > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-513-1081307905-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 216.78.104.218 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:18:16 -0400 Subject: [GRC] The Committee Is Adjourned Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something. Richard Chairman Subject: [HEAR] GAGEN Posts Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:44:42 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:44:30 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Posts from GAGEN-L archives concerning the poll taken in reference to the GRC. Regarding the *numbers* and how they were interpreted by Mr. Stowell, I refer you back to evidence already presented concerning the number of GAGenWeb CC's who were not subbed to GAGEN-L at this time - would not have known about the poll - could not have participated. ---------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:30:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Apr 8 01:30:55 2004 X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:30:00 -0400 Old-To: gagen-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6625 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] GRC - Time Out As soon as I can get it set up - most likely later today, I'll publish two addresses - mine and someone outside GAGenWeb, to whom you can write, if you so choose to, answer by selecting from the following answers - plus make any other comments you may wish to at that time. By sending to two addresses - we can make sure the tally is correct plus have a disinterested observer's participation in the counting. A - I want the GRC committee re-formed, so that the work started by the GRC committee just disbanded, may continue B - I like the Guidelines just as they are C - I prefer to have no Guidelines and just use the national Bylaws. This will give an opportunity for all CCs to express their opinion without fear of what someone else might say about them or their opionions. Since some have the tendancy to ignore requests to post where asked and post here instead, this list is going into Time Out mode, until after this poll is finished. Tim ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, on-line information. ---------------------------------- Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0600 X-Original-Sender: bsstock@comcast.net Mon Apr 12 22:19:06 2004 From: "Barbara S Stock" Old-To: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:19:12 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6640 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] GRC Confidence vote results by the Council The instructions for the confidence vote regarding the disbanding of the GRC (Guidelines Revision Committee) were as follows: >In light of Richard's surprising move on Wednesday to disband the GRC > committee, I'm asking for a vote of the Council regarding this matter. > > Please vote accordingly. > > Yes - if you agree with Richard's action. > No - if you do not agree with Richard's action. > Abstain - it doesn't matter one way or the other. The totals of the confidence vote are: Yes - 6 No - 2 Abstain - 2 Not voting - 2 Barbara Smallwood Stock GAGENWEB Viewperson ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, on-line information. -------------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:00:05 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Apr 15 00:00:00 2004 X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:59:42 -0400 Old-To: gagen-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Old-Cc: Mari Byers X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6646 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] Poll Results On the question: A - I want the GRC committee re-formed, so that the work started by the GRC committee just disbanded, may continue B - I like the Guidelines just as they are C - I prefer to have no Guidelines and just use the national Bylaws. ================ 39 answers received from 39 unique address/individuals. At least one person sent 3 to 4 emails due to problems with their email. One reply was counted for them and they were advised that their reply had been received. The reason it has taken so long to resolve the variance in the poll totals is that folks sent their preferences to among others: the NC, an AB member, to this list and at least 5 to me only. 26 persons chose to make no comment while 13 did. The results of the poll are as follows: A - 20 B - 11 C - 8 I've copied the comments to document form to ready to send to this list. Comments that speak of specific individuals either by name or category of service will not be passed along. I wish to at this time thank Mari Byers for assisting me in counting the poll totals and verifying that each reply was tallied correctly. Tim ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Regional Coordinators are there to help County Coordinators. Don't hesitate to contact them should you have any, any question. To find info on your region visit http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/regional.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:03:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Apr 20 06:03:21 2004 X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:22:29 -0400 Old-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GRC Status X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6675 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com At 07:24 AM 4/15/04 -0500, you wrote: >Tim, >what is the status of the GRC? I think we're all anxious to get back to >work, and just awaiting your e-mail to advise us. > >Virginia The status of the GRC is it doesn't exist. Richard disbanded it. The Council vote overwhelmingly confirmed his decision. As for the poll - 20 replied A 11 - B 8 - C of those who voted this translates to: A = 51.3% B = 28.2% C = 20.5% However, out of the total members - this translates to 20 = 17.7% of the members say they think the Guidelines need revision. 75.2% say either by voting or not voting that the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is. 7.1% of the total members prefer to completely do away with the Guidelines. While portions of the Guidelines may need revisiting - for clarification or by changes requested of the members the vast majority of the members seem to be saying leave well enough alone. Therefore the GRC or some similar committee will not be reconstituted. Members who wish to make suggestions for changes to the Guidelines may request same through their RC or to me. If the folks here wish, we can review the work of the now defunct committee as a starting basis for a review of the Guidelines. Tim ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on this list! ---------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:20:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: lab@boone.net Tue Apr 20 23:20:43 2004 Reply-To: From: "Linda Barton" Old-To: Subject: RE: [GAGEN] GRC Status Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:12:17 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 1fe8c41b0fffd1c384f2d7c7e4f84d2a990ddac93203ac984c845eb0fdd8ad44350badd9 bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6676 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Tim, I don't follow your logic here. You have stated there are 114 eligible voters on the list turned in to the Election Committee of the USGenWeb Project for GAGenWeb. ------------------------------- The GAGenWeb Guidelines state - 1. Membership. Membership in GAGenWeb is granted to those persons who hold the following positions within GAGenWeb: State Coordinator (SC); Asst. State Coordinator(s) (ASC); Regional Coordinators (RC); County Coordinators (CC); Co-county Coordinators (CCC); Assistant County Coordinators (ACC) and GAGenWeb Special Projects Coordinators (SPC). No county will have more than two (2) voting Co- CCs, and/or more than one (1) voting Asst. CC. --------------------------------- The USGenWeb Bylaws state - Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote. And - Section 1. The only requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers. ------------------------------------ It appears that the GAGenWeb "membership status" is less broad than that of USGenWeb so I am assuming that there are 114 eligible voters or less for votes within GAGenWeb. ------------------------------------- The GAGenWeb Guidelines state - 23. Quorum Required For Voting. All members of the GAGenWeb Project are encouraged to vote in all national and state-wide elections. To constitute a quorum, a minimum of 25 per-cent of the members of the GAGenWeb eligible to vote must participate in an election or referendum in order for the election or referendum to be binding. ------------------------------------- MATH - 25% of 114 eligible voters = 28.5 voters. ------------------------------------- The only other stipulations in the GAGenWeb Guidelines concerning "in state" votes is under Section 5 pertaining to election of State Coordinator. That section states that "winner(s) decided by a majority of those voting". ------------------------------------- In addition, The USGenWeb Project Bylaws state - Section 4. A majority of those members voting shall elect. No member shall hold more than one voting office at any one time. ------------------------------------- So, in light of this, I don't understand why 51.3% of those voting on this issue do not prevail. A post from a little over a year ago submitted by Richard Pettys states that you, as the current SC, were interested in guidelines revision to allow more input from the CC's. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GAGEN/2003-04/1049815023 I would appreciate your explanation of the Guidelines, either GAGenWeb or USGenWeb, you used to come up with this "take" on the numbers. Linda Blum-Barton -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:22:48 -0600 X-Original-Sender: msaffold@bellsouth.net Wed Apr 21 06:22:48 2004 X-Sender: msaffold@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:22:34 -0400 Old-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com From: Michael Saffold Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GRC Status X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6682 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com I must say that funny math never occurred to me as a spin on the recent poll results. Counting the votes of CCs who did not vote cannot be supported by the state guidelines or national bylaws and is absolutely wrong. They did not vote. Period. That is all that can be inferred. Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County At 11:22 PM 4/19/2004 -0400, you wrote: At 07:24 AM 4/15/04 -0500, you wrote: >Tim, >what is the status of the GRC? I think we're all anxious to get back to >work, and just awaiting your e-mail to advise us. > --------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Gloria Holback [mailto:gholback@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:44 AM To: lab@boone.net Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GRC Status Linda, It was not a vote to see if it should continue....it was a simple POLL. Gloria ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Barton" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1 ------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:27:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: lab@boone.net Wed Apr 21 08:27:55 2004 Reply-To: From: "Linda Barton" Old-To: Subject: RE: [GAGEN] GRC Status Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:27:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 1fe8c41b0fffd1c384f2d7c7e4f84d2a61fc6b1bc4c05569fd672be4528574ee350badd9 bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6694 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Gloria, If it were a "poll" instead of a "vote" then there should have been "Rules for a Poll" posted here before such was taken. The reason there are guidelines and bylaws in this project is so that people can't make up rules in the middle of the game or as we go along. We, as CC's, deserve that protection. I don't know how you know that four more people would have voted one way or another IF they had been available to vote, but if that were to matter there could have been 20 other people who would have voted one way or another also that you aren't aware of. It is beside the point - the timing was chosen by SC. That isn't an issue. The issue is the "take" on the numbers in light of the present rules we are all supposed to be operating by. In doing a quick search on Google I found the following information concerning parliamentary procedure on votes and/or polls. Majority - The number greater than half the votes cast Abstention - Means going along with the will of the majority If you see in the GAGenWeb Guidelines or the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, a definition of the difference in a "poll" and a "vote", could you point that out to us please? Thanks, Linda -----Original Message----- From: Gloria Holback [mailto:gholback@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:44 AM --------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:15:49 -0600 X-Original-Sender: msaffold@bellsouth.net Thu Apr 22 05:15:48 2004 X-Sender: msaffold@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 07:15:15 -0400 Old-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com From: Michael Saffold Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GRC Status X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6719 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Ah, so a poll is just a pointless ruse, to make the membership think the council takes into consideration what the CCs think. And because it's not really a vote, it's OK to manipulate the outcome. I get it. Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County At 09:20 AM 4/21/04 -0400, you wrote: It was a poll and not a vote. No one was voting but it was a simple poll. Also it was over the Easter weekend and there were about four persons who would have polled to B, and due to their not getting back in town or back to their pc until after the poll they did not get counted. But that is besides the point. It was a poll and not a vote. There is a difference. Gloria ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Saffold" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GRC Status > I must say that funny math never occurred to me as a spin on the recent ? poll results. Counting the Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #2 - Messages Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 21:00:09 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 19:58:21 -0700 From: Don Kelly Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c4954a$788f6b00$d5fc9904@cpq933> Greeting Hearing Committee. During the last two days I read the material about charge#2 that has crossed my screen. There is more evidence to come and it is too early to draw bottom line conclusions, but before I return to work, I have noticed a couple of things that disturb me. Evolving from charge#2 are activities that seem similar to items under charge #1 which we just voted upon: 1. It appears the committee was permitted to deliberate on new guidelines, but restricted by guidelines designed to promote a pre-determined outcome which would favor management over membership. 2. It also smacks of "make work".......keep progressive volunteers occupied expecting to help the project when in fact the committee had no support from the leadership for reform. I'll be looking for new material to reverse my thinking, but am not holding my breath. This just looks like samo and still more samo, and the SC is again involved in the fraud. Respectfully submitted. Don Kelly Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:07:54 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:49:26 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 01:44 AM 9/5/04 -0400, you wrote: >(1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State >Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator >within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality >and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the >GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was >achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within >the GAGenWeb Project. > > > (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and >may or may not have ever received information from the Election >Committee. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1a Telling folks that they have the right to vote or not, is not manipulating any vote. Folks are free to do as they choose. It was not my responsibility if the EC doesn't get its information out, since CCs have to register to get the announcements from the EC. > (b) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as >required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws, despite repeated >requests. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as >subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1b Where is the proof? Who was on the list who were not members or potential members or folks coming on board? Just because everything wasn't prattled out on the state list means nothing. You are unaware of private correspondence as to why some folks were subbed to the list. Did I perhaps overlook someone who'd left who had more than one address subbed? Most likely. Making mistakes is not a crime. > (c) A number of County websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go >for years without being updated or being brought into compliance with >GAGenWeb Guidelines Permitting these Coordinators to continue to "hold" >a place or vote helped prevent a quorum being reached when required. > > 9 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 1 abstention, 2 not voting, 1 >recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1c Please - when the Guidelines were voted on/in, just a tad over 1/2 voted for them, so even on that very important issue we couldn't get folks interested to vote, so if they weren't interested on that - just how is it I prevented a 75% quorum at some other time? > (d) The State Coordinator and Regional Coordinators were permitted >to continue to adopt counties beyond the stated limit of 3 counties, >preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CC's who would have held a >vote. Other GAGebWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer >than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. >Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were >ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as >"Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1d Caretaking counties is not against the rules, fixing them up to put back on the market. Evans county doesn't count for the handwriting was already on the wall - that space was in my name, I took it to prevent others from taking it. Troup was co-CCd until recently; Forsyth was a special circumstance, perhaps a plot, to trap me, I don't know. Hancock was taken over when the CC quit during the first ruckus in 2002-3. Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, was unresponsive to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton. The RC who accepted your Ms. Barton stated that she didn't know HTML, had to be taught from scratch. Coincidence? Coweta was my original county. > (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's >within the project. While the majority of >the Regional Coordinators and ASC's were able to use these positions, >requests for the approval of these positions in other counties were >denied or ignored. > > 5 "RESPONSIBLE", 6 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found NOT RESPONSIBLE for charge 1e > > > (f) CC's were placed who were never announced as new CC's on >GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or >other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that >at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using >an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not >become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to >continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on quorums on >controversial votes/issues. > > 7 "RESPONSIBLE", 4 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1f Why would anyone make themselves an open target for folks out to get them? After being criticized over posting/not posting changes to the state list, I quit altogether - for some folks nothing I did was good enough for them. All they wanted was the keys to the silverware. I've seen zero PROOF of phantom CCs. Please provide such. >RECAP: > >1a: RESPONSIBLE >1b: RESPONSIBLE >1c: RESPONSIBLE >1d: RESPONSIBLE >1e: NOT RESPONSIBLE >1f: RESPONSIBLE Where is Mr. Howland's vote? Was he even informed that this vote was taking place? I've seen no reference to him having recused himself. If he has been denied the right to vote, I trust he will inform the Project at large of these actions against an elected, non-recused member of the AB. No place I know of except perhaps China, Russia and like ilk are complaintants and judges the same. While Ms. Barton, Ms. Wood's can offer comment, they should not be allowed to vote. Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:07:50 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:10:26 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: At 03:48 PM 9/5/04 -1000, you wrote: > >I believe Tim made a mistake not to continue this committee. It was >very obvious that the vast majority of CCs in GA wanted this >committee to continue. The committee was a committee sponsered by the ASC. He created the committee. He had the right to disband it. >Even though Richard Pettys started and ended it, Tim could have >continued it. I could have and did speak with Ms. Jonas concerning such. However, just because the 'administration' didn't have a Guidelines review committee in place - did not stop nor prohibit anyone else from forming their own committee and coming up with proposals. In other words, the CCs themselves could have started their own committee. There was no Guideline against such. To my knowledge, the question was never asked or proposed by any CC. Much like the Project itself - individuals, groups of individuals can create Bylaws amendments and if they can get 5 states (or 6, depending upon interpretation of the Bylaws), to agree to x proposed amendment, then it can be on the ballot during the annual election period. >I hold Tim responsible for his lack of action. > >David Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] FW: Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:12:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:31:35 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com At 12:51 PM 9/6/04 -0400, you wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Virginia Crilley [mailto:varcsix@hot.rr.com] >Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 11:47 AM >To: lab@boone.net >Subject: Statement on GRC > > >The Guidelines Revision Committee was originally formed by Richard >Pettys >in April 2003. I was asked to join in Aug 2003, after some members had >resigned. Personally I didn't want the committee to have at most more than 2 RCs on it. With Richard and Jackie on it, I felt more would be too top heavy. >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/Guidelines/ >This page gives a very brief, but accurate description of the work done. > >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacolqu2/Guidelines/minutes.html >Reading through these minutes will give you a feeling about the work of >the >committee. Unfortunately the "open GRC" group on Yahoo does not seem to >be >available any longer. The Open list shows how consistently the >Committee >worked on specific guidelines. > > From April 2003-Aug 2003, the group seemed to concentrate on a Bill of >Rights for CCs. A great deal of time was spent on that formation, but >my knowledge of this is only based on what was submitted to GAGEN-L and the >Council. > >The Council was opposed to most changes that were suggested. Nope. The oversight by the Council was only to make sure proposals didn't conflict with other parts of the Guidelines or the USGenWeb Bylaws. >Two Council >Members, Margie Daniels, and Gloria Holback, resigned from the GRC and >from that point on spoke against the work of the GRC on Council. The Council >would continually send back to GRC over some minor detail which kept the >GRC from making any progress. This was very frustrating to the GRC. As >a Council Member, I tried hard to support the GRC, but my one vote didn't >carry much weight. The rule was that nothing could be presented to the >CCs for a vote unless the Council approved it first. One item - one - was sent back to the GRC by the Council - at first Mr. Pettys himself refused to take it back to the Council. >Although the Committee did have differences of opinions on various >specific wording of guidelines, I would never characterize it as a "bickering" >committee or one that didn't get along at any time from Aug 2003 - April >2004 (while I was a member). It was united in its efforts to make sure >that some of the abuses and loopholes being used by the Council in >getting "around" the Guidelines was improved. The Guidelines in place were >being used "against" the very CCs they were created to protect. > >We were also united in that we wanted to hear from the CCs at every step >of the way. We had regional reporters who asked for responses as each topic >was brought up. GAGen-L list was always used for announcing the topic >and asking for views. > >Jacki posted all comments anonymously and the GRC took these views into >account and worked at a steady pace, although often slowed down by there >being no Chairperson to call for the vote so we could adopt the portion >and move on. The Council consistently refused to approve any revision. Nope. One item only as mentioned above. >In the later days of the GRC (after Richard had issued the note that we >were given a deadline to complete the work), we consistently worked and >covered the main issues of how decisions were to be made, how CCs had a >voice in their State Project, and the purpose of the "appointed Council" >vs "elected representatives". > >Richard had hampered the efforts of the GRC because of his long absences, >and sometimes he would appoint Jacki as Chairperson. In some instances >when she couldn't hear from him at all, the group would just proceed. > >The alleged "bickering" that Richard used for his excuse to disband was >not amongst the committee members, but because Tim Stowell, as SC, >interjected comments and appeared to be attempting to steer the GRC >along the lines he wanted them to go. There was strong objection to some of >his comments which were not based on truth. Tim's comments did get off the >subject. He brought up a discussion of the role of the Archives which >was to have been discussed at a later date. > >The Roles of the SC, ASC, RC were under consideration during the time >period of 3/22/04 up until the time the GRC was shut down. Tim was not >pleased with the GRC discussing the importance of the SC role and the >various aspects of it. Baloney. >Tim's argument was that the Council and RCs were just following the >Guidelines which were previously passed and that he as SC had little to >do with it. Since several of us were present during the creation of those >Guidelines, we did our best to point out that his statement was not >true. > >This is a rebuttal that I posted on the "open list" which has since >disappeared. >================================================ >"The Guidelines do not mandate what the Council has become... it has >evolved over the past years. You as SC have given the Council power by >your own choosing, not by the Guidelines. > >This GAGenWeb controversy began when Keith called for an Election of the >SC. I supported having this election, and still do. > >You chose to take this personally, and have not to this day held an >Election of the SC, as you have indicated many times that you would. If >an election had been held when Keith requested it, I have no doubt that >you would have won the position hands down. > > From the Keith controversy, came the dismissal of the Jackson Co CC, >who Keith was assisting as her RC. That dismissal was not supported by >ALL of the Council. Nope. The Jackson Co CC resigned December 27th. We tried to work with her, but she was so wishy washy we finally gave up. >When a vote was taken within the Council, one of the voting members of >the Council, a Special Projects person that you had accepted, was >"thrown out". Nope, she was never a Special Projects person. She had stated she would handle the Unknown Queries - never did, thus was removed. >This was a major step in the present ruling power of the Council." >============================= > > >After the GRC was ended, CCs raised questions about it. Tim held a >"poll" which the CCs truly believed was their chance to voice their opinion. >The results showed that CCs did want the work of the GRC to continue. Tim >chose to treat this as a non-binding opinion, and did not re-instate it. The results showed that 20 folks out of 110+ wanted to continue. Nothing prevented them from forming their own committee. >Mari Byers (TN SC) was asked to count the votes along with Tim, and even >she was in disagreement with the end result. She sent to me an e-mail >requesting that I forward it to the GAGen-L list. I was bann from the >GAGen List for forwarding the e-mail as breaking confidentiality of the >GAGen List. No, Ms. Crilley, sent her a note first to which she replied. >Also at that same time I was removed from the Council (GAGenWeb list), >and the Reporter who was giving a summary of topics of discussion was >instructed NOT to mention my removal from the GAGenWeb in her report to >GAGen. It was never clear if I was removed as RC, but I was no longer >considered a part of the Council, and was not able to participate in >their work after that. Council secrecy was enforced once more. No, she was still considered RC for her region, she was on a 6 month suspension from the Council list. The Council list was much like Board-Exec - not everything you folks discuss is for public knowledge - ie personnel issues, other pertinent items. Board-Exec requires secrecy, each AB member agrees to such. >For your convenience, here is Mari's e-mail: > >Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:08:34 -0500 >From: Virginia Crilley >To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com >Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040422150756.01909950@pop-server.hot.rr.com> >Subject: Fwd: forward to GA list >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Forwarded at her request > > >Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:18:38 -0500 > >From: Mari Byers > >Subject: forward to GA list > >X-Sender: keyofbflat@mail.comcast.net > >To: varcsix@hot.rr.com > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 > >X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine > >Original-recipient: rfc822;varcsix@hot.rr.com > >X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 2.97546E-110; #1: 1 > >X-NAS-Classification: 0 > >X-NAS-MessageID: 19915 > >X-NAS-Validation: {E38B60C8-F3E6-41BF-A165-7E8BABF840C9} > > > >Hi Virginia, > > Would you mind forwarding this to the Ga list for me: > > > > I apologize for being a part of the recent GRC poll. It was my > > full intent to help maintain accuracy in the vote count. You all >know > over 50% of the votes were in favor of continuing the GRC. >Those results > were correct. I had no idea these votes would be >interrupted the way > they were and for that I'm sorry. >Mari Byers >>Tennessee State Coordinator-TNGenWeb Project > >If there is anything else I can clarify, please do not hesitate to call >on me. I worked with Tim and David Morgan when the Regional Coordinator >concept first came into being. It is a good concept but was turned into >a "power" position. The 'power' position - outlined in the USGenWeb Bylaws - to find folks willing to host sites, to live up to what they agreed to do. That was the 'power' position. >The Council kept everything secret. Such as? Oh let's see we discussed do you know of this person? What are your thoughts on xyz hosting abc county. No big conspiracy. >I remember one >member stating that ones at the bottom should not be telling management >how to do things. I was appalled at a Council which considered our volunteer >CCs as being "them" against "us" and supposed to be doing as they were told >without considering their input. That attitude and the fixation on >votes and control is what caused the situation to deteriorate and which >allowed the abusive action against any CC who dared to question or speak their >views. Poppy cock. >Both Richard and Tim urged the Council to remove various CCs who were >questioning the leadership. Those CCs who also happened to be on the >AB were targeted, but fortunately the action was never taken against them. Poppy cock. >Virginia Crilley Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #2 - Messages Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:07:50 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:57:09 -0400 From: Tim Stowell Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <000001c4954a$788f6b00$d5fc9904@cpq933> At 07:58 PM 9/7/04 -0700, D Kelly wrote: >Greeting Hearing Committee. > >During the last two days I read the material about charge#2 that has crossed >my screen. > >There is more evidence to come and it is too early to draw bottom line >conclusions, but before I return to work, I have noticed a couple of things >that disturb me. > >Evolving from charge#2 are activities that seem similar to items under >charge #1 which we just voted upon: > >1. It appears the committee was permitted to deliberate on new guidelines, >but restricted by guidelines designed to promote a pre-determined outcome >which would favor management over membership. Nope. The overview by the Council was only to make sure conflicts didn't exist between other Guidelines or the USGenWeb Bylaws. Period. >2. It also smacks of "make work".......keep progressive volunteers occupied >expecting to help the project when in fact the committee had no support from >the leadership for reform. Nope. >I'll be looking for new material to reverse my thinking, but am not holding >my breath. > >This just looks like samo and still more samo, and the SC is again involved >in the fraud. What fraud? The ASC created a committee out of thin air. While I was subbed to said list - I rarely read the messages posted to it, popping in only from time to time if a subject line caught my attention. For the period of the committee for which I have messages - 4/15/03 to 4/13/04, there are 2076 messages on the two lists the committee employed. Margie Daniels informed me she left after 975 messages of nothing being accomplished. Tim Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:21:26 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:21:27 -0500 From: Bosque Lover Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Organization: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/LightningBugs.htm To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com References: <3.0.5.32.20040908024926.007ffe10@mail.chattanooga.net> > While Ms. Barton, Ms. Wood's can offer comment, they should not be allowed > to vote. If I was included in the charges, I would have certainly recused myself. If you were allowed to vote on fraud charges that directly involved you and some of your appointees, & there is no PP against us voting, then we certainly should be allowed to do so. Bettie <>< Subject: [HEAR] FROM THE CHAIR - Comments re: Charge #1 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:41:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:41:28 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Tim, The portion of the hearing dedicated to Charge #1 has concluded. Any input you had regarding Charge #1 should have (and was) provided while the committee was dealing with that section. The committee's findings in regards to Charge #1 are final. Please limit your comments to those relating to Charge #2 at this time. As for Mr. Howland, he was free to vote on Charge #1 and obviously chose not to do so. He is subscribed to this list, and is not on moderated status. Shari Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:52:02 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:52:08 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Tim Stowell wrote: > Troup was co-CCd until recently; Forsyth was a special circumstance, perhaps > a plot, to trap me, I don't know. Hancock was taken over when the CC > quit during the first ruckus in 2002-3. > > Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, was unresponsive > to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton. Linda Barton was unteachable, didn't know html? Are we talking about the same Linda Barton? > > The RC who accepted your Ms. Barton stated that she didn't know HTML, > had to be taught from scratch. > > I've seen zero PROOF of phantom CCs. Please provide such. This may not be a phantom CC, but it really seems strange to me. On your http://www.gagenweb.org/ county selection page, Myra Watkins is listed as the CC, with her e-mail address. Yet, when you go to her county, Butts, the only e-mail address on the page belongs to Brenda Pierce. What kind of CC is that? David David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ Subject: [HEAR] Identity Question Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:11:33 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:11:04 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Snipped from Mr. Stowell's post - "Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, was unresponsive to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton. The RC who accepted your Ms. Barton stated that she didn't know HTML, had to be taught from scratch. Coincidence?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Just to clarify the *identity* question here. I adopted Fayette County, GA in March or April 2001. I had never had a website, did not know html or even what it was - I was born in Fayette County and my mother's family were original settlers - that was my interest. I offered to adopt it after a controversy on the mail list by several researchers because the CC was non responsive to them including not posting data offered to that CC. Another researcher offered to adopt the county and was denied - he suggested I adopt it. I had begun to transcribe quite a few original documents regarding Fayette County that were handed down to me from my parents and also offered those and they were never put online. My memory is that I was referred to the GENCONNECT boards and during this time period - those became defunct and items were put in the archives. I don't know the date history of GENCONNECT or the Archives but this is off the top of my head. My memory is that the RC asked me to take the archives for Fayette at about the same time I took the county and told me I could put the info that had been on GENCONNECT in either place. I was self taught from scratch - I obtained MS Front Page and taught myself how to use it. Anyway, this other *Linda Barton* was never brought to my attention until I received this email from Mr. Stowell in December 2003 - I assumed he was either verifying the voter list or the GAGEN-L sub list when he sent this to me. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:46 PM To: lab@boone.net Subject: Is this you? Linda, Rather - was this you? lpc@net-magic.net (Barton, Linda) Tim My reply - Tim, No.....I have had the same email address and only one email address for Six years or so. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- I did some searching after I received this and found some hits Jan 1999 On an old GAGenWeb County Selection List with a Linda Barton as CC of Chatham County with above email address. http://web.archive.org/web/19990117022054/http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagen web/table.htm The page linked is Tim Stowell's. April of 1999 is same as above. By Nov of 1999 archive.org shows the page as CC'd by Tim Stowell. -------------------------------------------------------------- Searching on Google at Rootsweb using the email address I found the following - http://www.rootsweb.com/~gabacon/bcsur.htm http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NIMROD-SMITH/1998-09/0906346250 http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CountyCork/1998-03/0890844303 Apparently her name is Linda Cox Barton. I am not her. I have no idea what her affiliation or history was with GAGenWeb in 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------ I have lived in Boone, NC for 11 years. I have the first email address I ever had through a local ISP - Boone.net - they have been bought out several times and are now owned by Earthlink. I assume someone who knows how to track origination of uploads and emails could check the numerous posts/messages you should find through Google on me - Linda Blum-Barton at lab@boone.net and determine the difference between myself and Linda Cox Barton. All of my websites are on Rootsweb and it is my understanding that they can tell you who uploads to their webspace. Respectfully Submitted, Linda Blum-Barton -----Original Message----- From: Tim Stowell [mailto:tstowell@chattanooga.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:49 AM To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS At 01:44 AM 9/5/04 -0400, you wrote: >(1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State >Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator >within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality >and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the >GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was >achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote >within the GAGenWeb Project. > > > (a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and >may or may not have ever received information from the Election >Committee. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1a Telling folks that they have the right to vote or not, is not manipulating any vote. Folks are free to do as they choose. It was not my responsibility if the EC doesn't get its information out, since CCs have to register to get the announcements from the EC. > (b) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as >required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws, despite repeated >requests. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as >subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1b Where is the proof? Who was on the list who were not members or potential members or folks coming on board? Just because everything wasn't prattled out on the state list means nothing. You are unaware of private correspondence as to why some folks were subbed to the list. Did I perhaps overlook someone who'd left who had more than one address subbed? Most likely. Making mistakes is not a crime. > (c) A number of County websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go >for years without being updated or being brought into compliance with >GAGenWeb Guidelines Permitting these Coordinators to continue to "hold" >a place or vote helped prevent a quorum being reached when required. > > 9 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 1 abstention, 2 not voting, 1 >recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1c Please - when the Guidelines were voted on/in, just a tad over 1/2 voted for them, so even on that very important issue we couldn't get folks interested to vote, so if they weren't interested on that - just how is it I prevented a 75% quorum at some other time? > (d) The State Coordinator and Regional Coordinators were permitted >to continue to adopt counties beyond the stated limit of 3 counties, >preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CC's who would have held a >vote. Other GAGebWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer >than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. >Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were >ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as >"Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods. > > 10 "RESPONSIBLE", 1 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1d Caretaking counties is not against the rules, fixing them up to put back on the market. Evans county doesn't count for the handwriting was already on the wall - that space was in my name, I took it to prevent others from taking it. Troup was co-CCd until recently; Forsyth was a special circumstance, perhaps a plot, to trap me, I don't know. Hancock was taken over when the CC quit during the first ruckus in 2002-3. Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, was unresponsive to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton. The RC who accepted your Ms. Barton stated that she didn't know HTML, had to be taught from scratch. Coincidence? Coweta was my original county. > (e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst >CC's within the project. While the majority of the Regional >Coordinators and ASC's were able to use these positions, requests for >the approval of these positions in other counties were denied or >ignored. > > 5 "RESPONSIBLE", 6 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found NOT RESPONSIBLE for charge 1e > > > (f) CC's were placed who were never announced as new CC's on >GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or >other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that >at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using >an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not >become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to >continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on quorums on >controversial votes/issues. > > 7 "RESPONSIBLE", 4 "NOT RESPONSIBLE", 2 not voting, 1 recused > Mr. Stowell is found RESPONSIBLE for charge 1f Why would anyone make themselves an open target for folks out to get them? After being criticized over posting/not posting changes to the state list, I quit altogether - for some folks nothing I did was good enough for them. All they wanted was the keys to the silverware. I've seen zero PROOF of phantom CCs. Please provide such. >RECAP: > >1a: RESPONSIBLE >1b: RESPONSIBLE >1c: RESPONSIBLE >1d: RESPONSIBLE >1e: NOT RESPONSIBLE >1f: RESPONSIBLE Where is Mr. Howland's vote? Was he even informed that this vote was taking place? I've seen no reference to him having recused himself. If he has been denied the right to vote, I trust he will inform the Project at large of these actions against an elected, non-recused member of the AB. No place I know of except perhaps China, Russia and like ilk are complaintants and judges the same. While Ms. Barton, Ms. Wood's can offer comment, they should not be allowed to vote. Tim Subject: RE: [HEAR] FW: Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:16 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:24:32 -0500 From: Angie Rayfield Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com >-----Original Message----- > >The results showed that 20 folks out of 110+ wanted to continue. >Nothing prevented them from forming their own committee. > I believe the exact quote from your email is "Therefore the GRC or some similar committee will not be reconstituted." That would not seem to indicate that CCs were free to continue the efforts of the GRC, or at least, not with any expectation that their efforts would be recognized. Angie Rayfield SEMA SC Representative Subject: [HEAR] FW: Statement about GRC Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:56:29 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:56:05 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com -----Original Message----- From: Wyndell Taylor [mailto:gagenie@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:48 PM To: lab@boone.net Subject: Statement about GRC In April of 2003, Richard Pettys, one of the Assistant State Coordinator and a Regional Coordinator of the GAGenWeb Project formed a committee to look at and revise the Guidelines that had been adopted by the membership of the GAGenWeb. I was selected as one of the members to serve on this committee. In the first few months, there was a lot of discussion that went into a document that we called the BOR (Bill of Rights) for the County Coordinators. After much discussion back and forth, the committee came up with a document that was voted on and passed by the committee. Richard Pettys was asked to present it to the council. At this time, two members resigned from the committee. They had not supported the document. After the replacement of the members that had left, we begin to work on other parts of the Guidelines. Again, much discussion was put into these. The council returned the Bill of Rights to us as unusable. The committee continued to work on different parts of the Guidelines and working out the differences. There were differences of opinion of what should and should not be in the sections, but there was no serious disagreements that was not being worked out. During much of this time Richard Pettys was missing and not answering his mail. The committee was adrift and almost without real direction. He did make Jacki Jonas his Co Chair, and she did a good job of trying to get the forward moment going again. On February 13, 2004, Richard Pettys announced that we had 90 days to complete our work and submit to council our work, or he would adjoun the committee. >From that day until April 06, 2004 when Richard Pettys adjourned the committee, an effort was made to finish our task. We did not get the 90 days that we were told we would have. In My Opinion, and this is strictly My Opinion, the Guidelines Revision Committee was a farce. I believe that it was set up in an attempt to settle the County Coordinators down. There had been a lot of discussion on the GAGEN-L list about the way some County Coordinators were being treated by the leadership. I also believe that the committee was the brain child of Richard Pettys with no input from the State Coordinator, or the other Regional Coordinators that severed as the 'governing body' of the GAGenWeb Project. I do not believe that there was ever a desire for the Committee to susceed. The State Coordinator wanted to keep the project just like it was. Most CC's were afraid to speak up for fear they would be removed. Again, the above is only my opinion. And was formed over my relationship with the project since September of 1996. On April 07, 2004, I resigned my postion of Co-CC of the Cobb County page of the GAGenWeb Project. Which County's CC was Richard Pettys. In my resignation I stated that I did not agree with his decision to adjourn the committee. The resignation in effect removed me from the GAGenWeb Project. Respectfully Wyndell Taylor Subject: RE: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:58:19 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:58:25 -0400 From: Shari Handley Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Please limit discussion to the current topic - Charge #2. Shari Handley National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project *-----Original Message----- *From: David W. Morgan [mailto:damorgan@nyx.net] *Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 4:52 PM *To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge #1 Vote: RESULTS * * *On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Tim Stowell wrote: * *> Troup was co-CCd until recently; Forsyth was a special *circumstance, perhaps *> a plot, to trap me, I don't know. Hancock was taken over when the CC *> quit during the first ruckus in 2002-3. *> *> Chatham County was taken over when the CC was unteachable, *was unresponsive *> to attempts to assist her - Linda Barton. * *Linda Barton was unteachable, didn't know html? * *Are we talking about the same Linda Barton? * * *> *> The RC who accepted your Ms. Barton stated that she didn't know HTML, *> had to be taught from scratch. *> * *> I've seen zero PROOF of phantom CCs. Please provide such. * * *This may not be a phantom CC, but it really seems strange to me. *On your http://www.gagenweb.org/ county selection page, Myra Watkins *is listed as the CC, with her e-mail address. Yet, when you go to *her county, Butts, the only e-mail address on the page belongs *to Brenda Pierce. What kind of CC is that? * *David * *David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii *http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ * * *============================== *You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from *http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/ Subject: RE: [HEAR] Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:48:56 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:49:12 -0400 From: Cyndie Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Tim, With regards to your comment that "75.2% say either by voting or not voting that the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is." Can you show where prior to this vote it was clarified to all voters that a non-vote would be counted as "the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is" as opposed to their vote not counting or counting as one of the other options? Had members known a no-vote would be counted this way in advance, it may have changed their decision to vote. Thanks, Cyndie posted by BatCave at 2:46 PM 0 comments Day 21 Subject: [HEAR] Statement on GRC Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:20:35 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:19:58 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com This was forwarded to me as an attachment, a MSWord document. I cut and pasted it into this email in order to present it here. Linda Blum-Barton SEMA CC Rep Statement concerning the GAGenWeb Project's Guidelines Revision Committee from Vivian Price Saffold former member of the Guidelines Revision Committee 7 September 2004 Richard Pettys invited me to become a member of the Guidelines Revision Committee in April, 2003, the same month he organized the committee. >From the outset, I wondered why the GRC had not been organized by State Coordinator Tim Stowell. I repeatedly questioned Chairman Pettys about this and got only vague answers. At one point he told me that he had organized the committee on his own because the Council had failed to act on the issue of guidelines revision. Another time he told me that he had the support of the SC and Council to organize the committee in this manner. I have studied the GAGenWeb guidelines intensively and realized that there was no way any revision could be achieved without support from the Council. However, I agreed to join this committee believing it was the only way for CCs to try to affect change. Throughout the process, Stowell and Pettys made good use of two tactics for which they have become well known. Stowell was the master of misdirect. When the discussion was not going to his liking, he inserted another topic - often the Archives - that got the talks off track. Pettys did not participate in the process unless he thought it necessary to steer the group back to his point of view. The formation of the Guidelines Revision Committee, in my opinion, had one purpose: to push through some inconsequential changes to the guidelines in order to quiet the unrest that permeated the project at that time. Early on in the process, when Margie Daniels and Gloria Holback were members, there was more arguing on the committee, because there was a balance between those who supported the Council and those who did not. When the committee gained more anti-Council members, there was more agreement on positions that could have been viewed as against the powers-that-be. When it became clear that Pettys no longer controlled the committee, he pulled the plug. Although the GRC submitted proposals to the Council and tried to encourage the Council to participate in the guidelines revision process, every effort was rebuffed or ignored. What little input the GRC received from the Council was always negative. I had hoped that the committee could establish a dialogue which might result in compromise, but the lack of response made this impossible. After the Council's rejection of the Bill of Rights without comment or giving the GRC an opportunity for revision, I was so frustrated by the lack of response, I proposed giving the Council a deadline for responding to our questions concerning what the Council members found objectionable about the document. My proposal was rejected as too harsh. Saffold wrote 25 September 2003 I think this this committee should send a letter, signed by every member of the committee, to the GAGenWeb State Coordinator, with copies to every member of the council, requesting an official report on the outcome on the vote on the Bill of Rights, along with a detailed explanation of the council's concerns about the document. It should be made clear in the letter that the committee reserves the right to edit the BOR and resubmit it to the council, if it so chooses. It also should be stated in the letter that the committee believes the council should make a report to the membership, and if the council chooses not to do so, the committee will make its own report. The letter should give two deadlines (one for reporting to the committee and one for reporting to the membership), giving adequate time for the council to draft its report. If the GRC chairman or secretary feels that writing such a letter might place either in a difficult position, the chairman may ask for volunteers from the committee to write the letter. Because the guidelines stated that only the Council could propose revisions to the membership, no part of what was decided by the GRC ever reached the CCs. It is my opinion that nothing substantive ever would have been voted on by the membership. I do not think it is exaggerating to say that the members of the committee were stunned to learn that Pettys was disbanding the committee. Pettys wrote 6 Apr 2004 Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something. I believe Pettys' statement to be disingenuous. Pettys himself admitted that he had little time to devote to the committee. Pettys wrote 18 Feb 2004 For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything. However, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back for the GRC was the addition to the committee of Sylvia Rankin. At that point in the committee's existence, Chairman Pettys had been absent for some time (about five weeks, according to one of his posts) due to demands of his employment. The committee believed it was in the best interest of the project and the process to continue under the leadership of Jacki Jonas until Pettys returned. The committee had lost a member, and proceeded to replace that member with Rankin. Although he had not participated for some time before Virginia Crilley's motion to admit Sylvia Rankin, Pettys quickly resurfaced and made a motion to nominate Brenda Pierce for membership. Please note that Pettys was a non-voting member of the committee. I believe it was inappropriate for him to make a motion. Pettys wrote 10 December 2003 With three positions open (and I am declaring Katie's position open at this time) [Pettys' wife Kathleen, who never made a single comment during the course of the committee's existence], I will withdraw my opposition to Sylvia's appointment in exchange for the extension of an invitation to Brenda Pierce, who was also passed over (by ME) the last time around because I felt that the members would not approve of her based on her statements and her views of the issues. When the committee was formed, I selected from the volunteers who applied. I based my selection on the volunteers who embodied both sides of the issues we were facing. I based my selection of the volunteers based on what I had read from postings and from what I saw on webpages of the hardwork and dedication to this project. As members withdrew, quit or took their ball and went home, new members came on board. While I could have made the selections, I felt that the committee was the best entity to make these decisions. I continue to feel that way. However, I also believe that it is incumbent upon me to guide the committee in its selection process. And, inasmuch as Jackie has opened this discussion as chair, she should complete the same as chair. Thus, I move to amend the motion as follows: I move we issue an invitation to Sylvia Caldwell Rankin to join the committee and that we issue an invitation to Brenda Pierce to join the committee. Pettys' motion failed to gain a second. I addressed Pettys' reasons for disbanding the committee in a post to the West Central Region, the group with whom I was charged with communicating the business of the committee: Saffold wrote 8 April 2004 (subject: "final report") By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the Guidelines Revision Committee. As this may be my last report to you, I would like to commend you heartily for all the interest you have shown in the committee's efforts to bring fairness and openness to the GAGenWeb project and thank you for your generous flow of ideas. I commend Richard for organizing the committee. I am quite disappointed that he felt he could not see the effort through to completion. I disagree with his reasons for disbanding it: 1. Belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues 2. Continuous off-topic remarks 3. Apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties Do we debate? Of course. Debate is part of the process. Does debate sometimes become heated? Of course. But, the current committee members work well together, and I think you will see from the committee minutes that there is no rancor. We have already ironed out some thorny issues and, if allowed, will continue to do so. Do we sometimes digress into issues that some would call "off-topic." I suppose. The debate over the Archives, however, is relevant to the purpose of this organization. Is it a long process? You bet. We are addressing complicated issues, sometimes debating every single word in a sentence. We deliberately allow time for CC feedback. And, we are volunteers. We do have obligations beyond GAGenWeb and this committee. I am sure you are aware that the CCs did vote to approve the current guidelines. I don't think that vote meant that those guidelines are perfect and never need altering. At the very heart of our current debate is the fact that, under the current rues, the members of this project *cannot amend their own guidelines.* Only the council can initiate a change to the guidelines. I do not believe we can count on the current powers-that-be to ever change that fact. I know I have attempted several times to go through the accepted chain of command, beginning with my RC, submitting requests for consideration of amendments to the guidelines. I have never even been granted the courtesy of a response. The GRC is the only vehicle we have for CC input into the rules by which we are governed. I found it interesting that Pettys declared my final report and that of Jacki Jonas and others (every member of the GRC posted a similar message) "inappropriate." Of course, by that time the reports already had been distributed. Pettys wrote 10 April 2004 The Final Report as submitted by Jacki and others is null and void. It is the final report of a committee which did not exist when the report was made. Moreover, it is my position that a final report can only be made by the Chair of a Committee. To the extent that I was the Chair of the GRC, I am the only one who can make such a report. Inasmuch as I did not, the final report submitted by Jacki and others is wholly inappropriate and is a nullity. I summarized my beliefs about the entire GRC experience in correspondence shortly after the disbanding: Saffold wrote 7 April 2004 By now you may have heard that Richard Pettys has disbanded the GRC. Of course, since he formed it on his own, without council approval, he certainly has the authority to do this, even if, in my opinion, he has an ethical obligation to continue. I do find it ironic, however, that he has been, for the most part, an absentee chairman. Although Jacki Jonas has made an admirable effort at picking up the slack, the committee has been virtually leaderless from the outset. This lack of solid direction has been the committee's major problem. I also think that Richard's lack of participation has been in part deliberate. You can't be held responsible for something you took no part in. His stated reason for disbanding the committee: Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. However, I believe that the underlying reason is that the committee was moving in a direction that did not fit his agenda. While he was absent for an extended period of time recently, the committee chose a replacement for a member who dropped out, someone Richard does not approve of. When he returned, he proposed that another member of the council be added, but the committee did not agree. Also, the committee members recently have been more vocal in challenging the power brokers, and we in Georgia know that just won't do. I do not think that real reform was ever Richard's intention. I believe the purpose of the committee was intended to make it look like the power brokers were interested in reform and letting the CCs have a voice. I think the goal was to present a new set of guidelines that contained few real changes, so that a vote by the membership would reinforce the status quo. After Pettys disbanded the committee, Stowell conducted a poll asking CCs if they wanted to continue the GRC. His interpretation of the result was, in my opinion, a cruel mockery of the membership he professed to serve. Stowell wrote 19 April 2004 The status of the GRC is it doesn't exist. Richard disbanded it. The Council vote overwhelmingly confirmed his decision. As for the poll - 20 replied A 11 - B 8 - C of those who voted this translates to: A = 51.3% B = 28.2% C = 20.5% However, out of the total members - this translates to 20 = 17.7% of the members say they think the Guidelines need revision. 75.2% say either by voting or not voting that the Guidelines as they exist are ok as is. 7.1% of the total members prefer to completely do away with the Guidelines. While portions of the Guidelines may need revisiting - for clarification or by changes requested of the members the vast majority of the members seem to be saying leave well enough alone. Therefore the GRC or some similar committee will not be reconstituted. Members who wish to make suggestions for changes to the Guidelines may request same through their RC or to me. [Please note that I wrote my RC and the SC many times, and never even had the courtesy of a response.] Saffold wrote 21 April 2004 I must say that funny math never occurred to me as a spin on the recent poll results. Counting the votes of CCs who did not vote cannot be supported by the state guidelines or national bylaws and is absolutely wrong. They did not vote. Period. That is all that can be inferred. In an email on 21 April 2004, Council member Gloria Holback contended that the Council was under no obligation to follow the wishes of the CCs, because, "It was a poll and not a vote." Saffold wrote 22 April 2004 Ah, so a poll is just a pointless ruse, to make the membership think the council takes into consideration what the CCs think. And because it's not really a vote, it's OK to manipulate the outcome. I get it. Tim Stowell could have organized a Guidelines Revision Committee that would have had the advantage of his personal "seal of approval," but he did not. He could have participated in a more productive and positive manner in the deliberations, but he did not. He could have led the Council to work with the GRC, but he did not. Instead, he allowed Richard Pettys to organize a committee that was destined to fail, because it had no official support. In doing so, he was able to avoid any potential blame that might have ensued when the committee proved unproductive. Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Clarification Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:33:45 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Denise Woodside Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Shari and all, Please feel free to correct me of provide guidance. As we begin this discussion on Charge 2, I am confused as to what our purpose here should be. Obviously we will be voting on this charge, but assuming we were to determine that Tim Stowell is responsible for ignoring the results of his poll which demonstrated that the CCs wanted to continue the GRC - what are we saying? -> Are we saying that any SC cannot takke a poll/informal vote without being bound by its results? At what point are we to say whether or not an offense is an offense worthy of suspension? In this case, my opinion is point proven - Tim took a poll/vote and didn't follow the feelings of the majority. However, lots of elected folks do this. But not something to suspend people over. Now if the charge were to be proven that stated that the SC put the halts on GRC because he/she didn't want additional power going to the CCs, then that is different. Does anyone follow my rambling besides me? Denise Woodside Subject: Re: [HEAR] Charge 2 Clarification Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 19:02:45 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:03:09 -1000 (HST) From: David W. Morgan Reply-To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Denise Woodside wrote: > Shari and all, > > Please feel free to correct me of provide guidance. > > As we begin this discussion on Charge 2, I am confused as to what our purpose here should be. Obviously we will be voting on this charge, but assuming we were to determine that Tim Stowell is responsible for ignoring the results of his poll which demonstrated that the CCs wanted to continue the GRC - what are we saying? > -> Are we saying that any SC cannot take a poll/informal vote without being bound by its results? > At what point are we to say whether or not an offense is an offense worthy of suspension? > > In this case, my opinion is point proven - Tim took a poll/vote and didn't follow the feelings of the majority. However, lots of elected folks do this. But not something to suspend people over. This is just my opinion, Denise, but I believe people were justifiably upset that Tim ignored the poll and didn't continue the committee. They were frustrated, disappointed. Of all the things that have occured over the last two years, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Tim didn't plan to do anything constructive, then he should not have conducted the poll. That builds hopes up, only for them to be cruelly crushed. > > Now if the charge were to be proven that stated that the SC put the halts on GRC because he/she didn't want additional power going to the CCs, then that is different. > I could not tell you the SCs reasons. David Subject: [HEAR] Charge #2 - Messages Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:21:23 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:20:47 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Posts to GRC Message Board on Yahoo Relating to Charge #2 - This was a public forum set up so the CC's of GAGenWeb to follow the progress of the Guidelines Revision Committee. The messages of the committee were originally not public. I don't know the exact date that the decision was made to change to a public forum. (I have tried to post these in chronological order) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-168-1076688798-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: "Brenda Pierce" , "Tim Stowell" Cc: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.85.143 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:13:13 -0400 Subject: [GRC] Guidelines Revision Committee Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Mr. SC: I write with respect to the Guidelines Revision Committee. I have placed the committee on notice today of my intent to limit our deliberations and work to a period of 90 days from this date. As such, on or about May 13, 2004, you may expect to receive from me either the final recommendations on the revised guidelines or a report from me that states that the committee was unable to complete the task and asking for you to disband the committee. I have advised the committee members that, in the event one or more object to my actions, that they file with you a formal grievance, which I shall not fight, but which shall be met with a request to the GAGenWeb Council to disband the committee. I have copied the GRC members with a BCC on this email to the GRC list. I have also notified the First ASC of my intentions and my actions. The Secretary shall be directed to place my email on the Committee site and to forward the same to the GAGen list. With the exception of the parties identified herein and members of the GAGenWeb Council who may have a need to know of this missive, it is understood that the same shall remain private between the members of the GRC, you, First ASC Pierce and myself. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. I trust you will advise me in the event that you object to my decisions, intentions and actions. I remain, your humble Second ASC, Respectfully submitted, /S/ Richard R. Pettys, Jr. Chairman Guidelines Revision Committee Second ASC Coastal Georgia Regional Coordinator Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-167-1076688232-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.85.143 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:03:49 -0400 Subject: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that is what I am going to do here. We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get through it quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. I know that some delay can be attributed to my lack of attention for several months and the fact that I refuse to check email more than once per day or on weekends. Part of the reason is the fact that the pace of this committee depresses me. Part of it is that the past year was very tough for me. And part of it is that *I* am losing interest in much of our proceedings and even the politics of the project. Everyone has probably noticed that I have been maintaining a lower profile and keeping my fingers away from the keyboard. I simply do not have time for much tom-foolery. >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our task. So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's and the SC. I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the same. Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate grievance channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee be disbanded. I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing this through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but we really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. Let's just push our job through, please. Thank you. Richard Pettys Chairman ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-173-1076716220-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: cristian@netonecom.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.172.26.13 From: "Jan Cortez" X-Yahoo-Profile: jicortez Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:45:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, To put it quite simply, I am appalled at your message. If you are losing interest in this committee or the politics of this project, then my best suggestion would be for you to resign and let someone else take over who does have an interest in this committee. Jacki, would be an excellent candidate, as she was able to pull us through when you weren't available. To give us a 90 day timeline, and if this is not completed in that time frame is ludicrous. It either means that we must do a slap stick job of it, to get anything thru, or that the objective is that someone does not want this committee to succeed. I'm truly beginning to believe the latter, because even if we do hit the timeline and complete our work in 90 days, then we have a council that can vote it down. Would it leave us any time to go back? Or is that the objective? Anything of this nature must, in my opinion, be done in a well thought out manner. You can't throw it together. It takes time and it takes input from the CC's. Anything less will result in what we currently have. I appeal to the SC of this project to appoint Jacki as the Chairperson and allow us to complete the work that we have begun in a timely manner that will do all of us justice. Anything less, in my opinion is a slap in the face to the CC's of this project who work tirelessly to put info online and to those, *all* of which I consider well respected, who have gotten us to this point. Respectfully, Jan Cortez ----- Original Message ----- From: "mannannan" > I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, > that is what I am going to do here. > > We, as a group, need to ----------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-172-1076704005-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: varcsix@hot.rr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.65 From: "v_ruffin" X-Originating-IP: 24.162.159.130 X-Yahoo-Profile: v_ruffin Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:26:40 -0000 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, I am totally confused by your note and the method you have chosen to convey it. I agree with Wyndell's comments... the long delays while we wait for you to give us the "go ahead" has been frustrating. As you said, we are all capable of doing the job this Committee set out to accomplish.... so let's all try to be as responsive as possible to messages as they are posted. Jan and I are ready to present the next sub-committee report and will do so as soon as the discussion of the purpose seems to have taken place. --- In gagrc@yahoogroups.com, Wyndell TTaylor wrote: > At 12:03 PM 2/13/04 -0400, mannannan wrote: > >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-169-1076697465-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: gagenie@bellsouth.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: gagenie@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 205.152.59.64 From: Wyndell Taylor Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:32:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com At 12:03 PM 2/13/04 -0400, mannannan wrote: >From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to finish >our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council >that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our task. Richard, I have real serious problem with the statements made by you in this message. If you have lost interest in this committee, or the entire project, then you need to step aside and let someone else take the lead. I will only speak for myself here, but waiting for you to check email, or decide to do something has really gotten to me. I have felt like just tossing the entire process off and moving on to a good fishing trip, or hunting trip. Either would have been more productive. If you feel that we are a waste of time, then please think of letting Jackie take over. She has done a wonderful job of moving things along while you were away. Or, report to Tim and let him place someone else in the slot and let us be about the business at hand. I think this committee is capable of making decisions and coming up with a workable set of guidelines within a reasonable amount of time. However we need to have some direction and someone to direct us toward that goal. > >So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will >report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the >guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's and >the SC. Not sure that this is impossible, but why all of a sudden a deadline to work against? >I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the same. > >Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate grievance >channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC >that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee be >disbanded. Gee..... what a way to go. > >I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing this >through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but we >really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is >intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- >respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. I am not sure just what respect I hold, but would like to see this committee move with the speed in which it has wanted to go. Although I have not communicated with 'all' members of the commitee, but in the past, several of us have wanted to get off our hands and get the work done. > >Let's just push our job through, please. Yes, please. Wyndell > >Thank you. > >Richard Pettys >Chairman --------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-177-1076855361-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: msaffold@bellsouth.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Sender: msaffold@mail.atl.bellsouth.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 205.152.59.72 From: Michael Saffold Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:25:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Richard, I concur with the statements of Jan and Wyndell. If you are, as you said, "losing interest," then maybe it is time for you to move on and let those who remain motivated complete the job. While I strongly oppose setting a deadline, I agree that we need to move along with all deliberate speed. I firmly believe that appealing your decision through the current grievance process would result in the committee's forced demise. The inadequacy of the current grievance process is one of the main issues confronting this committee. For the good of the project, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Respectfully, Vivian Price Saffold Meriwether County At 12:03 PM 2/13/2004 -0400, you wrote: >I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that >is what I am going to do here. > >We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get >through it quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. ------------------------------------------------------------ X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-178-1076857965-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: cristian@netonecom.net X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.172.26.13 From: "Jan Cortez" X-Yahoo-Profile: jicortez Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:08:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I strongly agree that we need to move along, however, as in the past, we've now eaten up another few days in which we receive no answers or response from the GAGenWeb team. National Bylaws state: Section 5. State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws. State projects shall be highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance procedures within the state. We as committee members are not able to step in and take control of the committee and move things forward, it seems only our SC and council can allow that. We are powerless and in the hands of those who control and have the *power* within the GAGenWeb. It surely is a very sad state of affairs. Jan Cortez ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Saffold" > Richard, > > I concur with the statements of Jan and Wyndell. If you are, as you said, > "losing interest," then maybe it is time for you to move on and let those > who remain motivated complete the job. While I strongly oppose setting a > deadline, I agree that we need to move along with all deliberate speed. > > I firmly believe that appealing your decision through the current grievance > process would result in the committee's forced demise. The inadequacy of > the current grievance process is one of the main issues confronting this > committee. > > For the good of the project, I strongly urge you to reconsider. > > Respectfully, > > Vivian Price Saffold > Meriwether County -------------------------------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-188-1077118407-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.91.197 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:33:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com For the record, it is not a matter of losing interest. It is a matter of this having dragged on for nearly a year combined with numerous changes in my life in the last five months or so. In no way am I complaining about being busier than I have ever been before nor am I complaining about working 10, 12 and 16 hour days. I simply have way less time to devote to anything. Richard ---------------------------------------- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-190-1077120102-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 66.32.91.197 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:01:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com I would ask the EC to establish a seperate vote for the guidelines revision with each questions being set forth as "Shall XXX be adopted to replace section ZZ of the Guidelines?" with the responses being "Yes", "No" or "Abstain". Richard ---------- Original Message ------------ From: "Jeanne Arguelles" To: Sent: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:23:13 -0600 Subject: Re: [GRC] Editorializing > Howdy All, > > I have a question. In the event that we complete our task, and the Council > agrees to present the proposed Guideline revisions to the CCs for a vote... > how and when would that vote take place? Would the voting be > handled by the Elections Committee? Would it be done in conjunction > with the National Election in July? > > Jeanne > > > I think I just invented a new word - editorializing. Nonetheless, that is > > what I am going to do here. > > > > We, as a group, need to get through this material. We need to get through > it > > quickly and not beat a dead horse to death. > > > > I know that some delay can be attributed to my lack of attention for > several > > months and the fact that I refuse to check email more than once per day or > on > > weekends. Part of the reason is the fact that the pace of this committee > > depresses me. Part of it is that the past year was very tough for me. > And > > part of it is that *I* am losing interest in much of our proceedings and > even > > the politics of the project. > > > > Everyone has probably noticed that I have been maintaining a lower profile > > and keeping my fingers away from the keyboard. > > > > I simply do not have time for much tom-foolery. > > > > From today's date, February 13, 2004, I am placing a 90 day window to > finish > > our task. At the end of the 90 days, I will report to Tim and the Council > > that we have completed our task or that we were unable to complete our > task. > > > > So, we have until May 13, 2004 to complete our task or the committee will > > report that we have been unable to do so and the task of redrafting the > > guidelines will fall upon the GAGenWeb Council, comprised of RC's, ASC's > and > > the SC. > > > > I am sending a message to the SC and to the Council today reporting the > same. > > > > Should anyone wish to object, please do so through the appropriate > grievance > > channels. I will not fight the objection. I will simply report to the SC > > that we are unable to complete our task and recommend that the committee > be > > disbanded. > > > > I will agree to be more proactive if we can all agree to start pushing > this > > through. I realize we are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but > we > > really need to get done with this. Everyone on this committee is > > intelligent, creative, kind and respectful. We have two of the most well- > > respected people in this project on the committee in Jan and Wyndell. > > > > Let's just push our job through, please. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Richard Pettys > > Chairman > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- X-eGroups-Return: sentto-11580877-513-1081307905-msaffold=bellsouth.net@returns.groups.yah oo.com X-Sender: mannannan@maclyr.com X-Apparently-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.81 20021127 X-OriginatingIP: 216.78.104.218 (mannannan) X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 209.239.41.243 From: "mannannan" Mailing-List: list gagrc@yahoogroups.com; contact gagrc-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list gagrc@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:18:16 -0400 Subject: [GRC] The Committee Is Adjourned Reply-To: gagrc@yahoogroups.com Due to my belief that we will not be able to iron out the pending issues and because of the continuous off-topic remarks and the apparent issues over the archives and its state of competition with the counties, I hereby adjourn this committee. The committee is hereby disbanded. I have declared it a failed experiment. It has been a pleasure serving with each of you. I only wish we could have accomplished something. Richard Chairman Subject: [HEAR] GAGEN Posts Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:44:42 -0600 Resent-From: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:44:30 -0400 From: Linda Barton Reply-To: To: USGWCONF-2-L@rootsweb.com Posts from GAGEN-L archives concerning the poll taken in reference to the GRC. Regarding the *numbers* and how they were interpreted by Mr. Stowell, I refer you back to evidence already presented concerning the number of GAGenWeb CC's who were not subbed to GAGEN-L at this time - would not have known about the poll - could not have participated. ---------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:30:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Apr 8 01:30:55 2004 X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:30:00 -0400 Old-To: gagen-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6625 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] GRC - Time Out As soon as I can get it set up - most likely later today, I'll publish two addresses - mine and someone outside GAGenWeb, to whom you can write, if you so choose to, answer by selecting from the following answers - plus make any other comments you may wish to at that time. By sending to two addresses - we can make sure the tally is correct plus have a disinterested observer's participation in the counting. A - I want the GRC committee re-formed, so that the work started by the GRC committee just disbanded, may continue B - I like the Guidelines just as they are C - I prefer to have no Guidelines and just use the national Bylaws. This will give an opportunity for all CCs to express their opinion without fear of what someone else might say about them or their opionions. Since some have the tendancy to ignore requests to post where asked and post here instead, this list is going into Time Out mode, until after this poll is finished. Tim ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== USGenWeb's motto is - Volunteers dedicated to free, on-line information. ---------------------------------- Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:19:06 -0600 X-Original-Sender: bsstock@comcast.net Mon Apr 12 22:19:06 2004 From: "Barbara S Stock" Old-To: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:19:12 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6640 X-Loop: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: GAGEN-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] GRC Confidence vote results by the Council The instructions for the confidence