Yes this is a VERY sad day. Now we need to make sure each of our counties and
our states survive what become a bloody battle.
Advisory Board............... any suggestions?
BarbL
Union
jpowelljr wrote:
Hi list... I hope Darrel doesn't mind if I forward this to
this list as was requested by the NC.
BTW... I believe this to be sad day in USGenWeb History, I
hope Nancy reconsiders, although it is a very tough position
that she is in.
Jim
Email: Jpowelljr(a)worldnet.att.net
Family Homepage:
Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/
For slower connections:
Http://www.afn.org/~afn04266/
Coordinator of Henderson County KyGenweb Page
Http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyhender/
Coordinator of Gilchrist County FLGenWeb Page
Http://www.rootsweb.com/~flgilchr/
Assistant State Coordinator FLGenWeb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message from Nancy Trice ...
I started to send this privately to the members of the board
but after
thinking about it for several hours have decided to post it
publicly. I ask
that all state coordinators forward it to their state lists,
but I'm sure
that some of you won't. For the benefit of those CCs whose
SCs doesn't
forward it as requested, it will also be posted at:
http://www.nlt.net/usgenweb/11-2-98.html
I'll start by reminding all of you that I have been part of
this project
for longer than any of you, discussing the concept with Jeff
Murphy in late
Feb and early March 1996 before KyGenWeb even started...
before it was ever
announced on the KYROOTS list. I have loved it and worked
my butt off for
over 2 1/2 years to help make it what it is today. I have
been SC and
archivist, or file manager, for 3 states, handled several
hundred orphan
counties, put up numerous pages to help the new CCs, and
have personally
helped many of you. I have attempted to do what I think is
best for
USGenWeb, as I was elected to do... as I have done for over
2 1/2 years...
and have been vilified and maligned for doing so.
Whether any of you realize it or not, I was put in a very
awkward position
when the CCs elected me... I was against the bylaws as
written...
campaigned against them... and am now in a position of
having to work
within them because the consensus of opinion appeared to be
that they are
better than no bylaws... vote them in and fix them later.
Well, you've all
seen now how really bad they are and how they are open to
different
interpretations. It doesn't matter what the intent was when
they were
written. They are very poorly written, period!
The bylaws say that the National Coordinator is the chair of
the Advisory
Board but gives no direction for the NC to follow except
'these Bylaws and
by accepted parliamentary procedure'. What is considered
'day-to-day
administration'? What is 'accepted parliamentary
procedure'? Who is to
decide? This should have all been spelled out in the bylaws
instead of
leaving it so ambiguous. Since it wasn't I have done my
best to try to
abide by them anyway as best I could and have been shot down
at every step.
The bylaws say that the Advisory Board '...shall address any
problem issues
as they arise'... 'advising and mediating, if necessary, any
grievances or
appeals...'.
Websters dictionary gives the definition of Advisory as:
adj. 1. Having power to advise. 2. Containing or given as
advice;
not mandatory.
To me, and to many other CCs, this says that the board are
advisors to the
NC and the project volunteers... not the project 'leaders'.
Article VI, Section 2 of the bylaws says that 'the National
Coordinator
shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board'.
Article VIII,
Section 1 of the bylaws says that 'Nine (9) voting members
of the Advisory
Board shall constitute a quorum'.
Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about how those
meetings are to
be held, including that they may be held on a general board
discussion list
and the quorum established because the board members are
subbed to that list.
I felt strongly (and still do) that board meetings should be
held in real
time in order to properly establish a quorum according to
the bylaws. I
also feel that the people who elected the board members
expected you to
attend those meetings. As a nominee, I would also have
thought that you
would expect there to be meetings that you would need to
attend. It's
obvious that the majority of the board doesn't feel the way
I do.
It was discussed on the board list that you needed a
secretary to keep up
with motions, votes, etc. I placed it on the Oct. 4 agenda
where it was
promptly tabled.
Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws states: The Advisory
Board shall also be
responsible for administering the domains,
usgenweb.com,
usgenweb.net and
usgenweb.org, over which The USGenWeb Project membership has
control and
for which the members are the official lessees.
As the NC I wrote to Dale Schneider shortly after taking
office to inquire
as to his intentions with the
usgenweb.com domain. To this
date I have
not received a response from him, even though I sent a 2nd
email a few weeks
later. I placed this item on the agenda for the board to
discuss where it
was promptly tabled with a comment that he has said he won't
turn it over
to the Advisory Board at this time. Because I wrote to him
I have now been
accused of 'being obsessed with obtaining control of
usgenweb.com' by Linda
Lewis and Don Spidell, both of whom are positive I plan on
getting my
grubby little hands on it so I can turn it over to Jerry and
Lucy Dill. If
anyone on the board that had 'spoken' with Dale had bothered
to inform me
that they had corresponded or chatted with him and what he
had said, I
wouldn't have placed it on the agenda. Even after placing
it on the
agenda, I could have been informed so it could be removed,
but in my
opinion you deliberately chose not to. Today, the bylaws
still say that
the board controls that domain, and of course you do not...
and further
you have not indicated in any way how you intend to
reconcile the bylaws to
the reality.
The board needs to begin working on election procedures for
next year. I
placed this on the agenda for Oct. 4 and a committee chair
was elected. If
anything has been done about setting up the committee I am
unaware of it at
this time (4 weeks later).
It's obvious that the bylaws need to be amended in many
places. I put this
on the Oct. 4 agenda and a committee chair was elected. If
anything has
been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it
at this time (4
weeks later).
Numerous project members have written me requesting that the
board address
the question of whether or not a member of Rootsweb staff
[namely Karen]
should even be on the board-l mail list, suggesting that if
the board
needed her input on something she could be asked. I put it
on the agenda
where it was quickly tabled, and has not been addressed
yet. I, and
others, do not feel that Karen should be on the board list
since she was
not elected by anyone [no offense meant to Karen].
On 11-1-98 Betsy wrote:
>And, Nancy, I am at a loss as to why you were offended that Trey and I
decided to seek input into who our constituents would like
to see as their
next representative. It concerns me that you automatically
assume that we
wouldn't even consider your suggestion. Certainly it is one
of the
suggestions that we were considering along with suggestions
from our
constituents.
One of the suggestions you were considering? Who was
considering? and
where? Certainly not on the board list. I was not
necessarily offended by
the fact that you took it to the CCs, and might even have
agreed with you
had there been any real discussion on it. What does offend
me however is
that I made a suggestion, 2 or 3 of you immediately shot it
down and with
no further discussion it's on the SC list... no discussion
at all as to how
we should proceed or whether we should take it to the CCs,
try to have
another election, or whatever... it was just done. When I
then commented on
it on the SC list, Holly immediately asked why I was
discussing it there
instead of here. Funny... that's where the discussion
was... not here! I
think that we should have decided how to proceed as a group
and not just by
1 or 2 of you. Isn't this what you have all been saying to
me for the past
2 months? Whether right or wrong, I saw this action as just
one more slap
in the face to the NC by the Advisory Board.
Almost every one of you have shot me down in the past 2
months because I
tried to lead us, as I was elected to do by the CCs, and the
majority of
you have all said, in actions if not by words, that you [the
AB] are the
project leader, and have effectively relegated the position
of NC to a
motion numberer and vote counter.
[snip]
Betsy continued:
>At this point, everything is so public that we can't even discuss anything
without being ripped to shreds on other lists. You don't
know the reasons
I have voted as I have on ANY of the issues as you have not
asked. I would
LOVE to discuss things with everyone (especially you), hear
their views,
express my views, maybe even change my views after hearing
the discussion,
etc.
Have you one time asked me why I feel as I do? Have you
tried to open a
dialogue? No... the board members just stated they were
against something
or for something and immediately pushed for a vote. Maureen
questioned the
board about this numerous times.
>But this can not happen as it now stands.
Not pointing any fingers here, but who did that? I said in
Sept. that I did
not think the board list should be opened. I said we should
have our
discussions on the list, in private, then hold a meeting to
vote. Most of
you shot that down. I offered a very workable compromise
which all but 1
or 2 of you immediately shot down as not workable, and I
believe every one
of you voted to open the list archives and hold a continuous
meeting. I
don't know how any of you feel about it now, but I think
that was a
terrible decision. I think the board has tied it's own
hands, and unless
you close the board list archives I don't think you'll ever
get anything
done.
I also know that as both a CC and a SC I would never bring
any problem I
might have to the board because there is no privacy
anymore. I think by
opening the list archives you have done a great injustice to
any SC or CC
that might want to seek your advise. I believe the board
discussions
should be private, board meetings either open to the public
or at least a
log or minutes of the meeting posted.
[snip]
>Personally, I would like for us to back up and slow down on this
replacement issue. I don't understand the reason behind the
rush to
immediately appoint someone. The only persons I have heard
from in support
of Kathy are all from KS which is only one of the states
represented in
this region. Everyone else I have heard from wishes that we
could poll the
constituents of our region. The answer might still be to
appoint Kathy,
but it might not. But at least we would know the wishes of
the CC's or our
region. Is there anything wrong with this???
What have I said that indicated I was in a rush to fill the
position Betsy?
Again, had there been discussion about it I might have
changed my original
position on the matter, but I wasn't given that
opportunity. I just think
the board should have decided as a body how to proceed
instead of some of
you taking it upon yourselves without a vote, in effect
doing what you have
all accused me of doing.
It's quite obvious to me that the AB does not interpret any
of the bylaws
the same way I do. It's also obvious that none of you have
the same
concerns that I do. I have stated over and over that I am
for a bottom up
structure. That means the CCs should control the project.
There are 50
states, which means 100 people if none of them were SC in
more than 1 state
and each state has an ASC, and there are 4 SC reps for them,
and only 8 to
represent in the neighborhood of 2000 CCs. To me that is
top down, not
bottom up. I am also completely against the special projects
all having a
voting board member. I think that is an open invitation for
more and more
special projects to be set up in order to get a board seat
and eventually
the special projects will control the USGW board. 4 of the
15 board members
were elected by less than 100 people, all of whom are SCs,
and 3 were
supposedly voted on, [but might have been appointed], by
special projects,
many of whom are not CCs. As a CC I don't like the numbers,
and many
others I've talked with don't either.
I'm also concerned by the statements I see now that a CC
that received
votes in the last election should not be appointed because
their views
'might not be the best for USGW' or words to that effect.
Frankly, I think
the board should be comprised of people with differing view
points and
different ideas, not by a group of people all with the same
philosophy or
agenda. I think for USGW to continue to grow all ideas must
be considered.
From what I have seen on the lists however, it appears that
a certain
group of people want only people with their views on the
board, and anyone
that doesn't share their views is labeled a troublemaker and
quickly run
off the list.
I also feel that a process needs to be set up to insure that
a 'fired'
volunteer gets a fair shake if they file an appeal. Yes,
I'm talking about
Kenny Thomas. That's over and done with now but it still
leaves a very
bitter taste in the mouths of many of the CCs, especially
those in Ks. This
board did nothing to mediate the problem or even try to find
out what
really happened, automatically assuming that everything that
Linda Lewis
said was gospel and everything that Kenny Thomas, and
Maureen Reed, said
was a lie. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in
the middle. I
tried to set up a board list where it could be discussed by
all interested
parties but that didn't work either did it? Seems that the
board [and
RootsWeb staff] apparently thought I wouldn't allow the
right people to be
subbed or something.
I've heard from numerous CCs that Linda refused to let them
sub to the
Archives-L list because they were CCs and not state level. I
asked to be
subbed to that list when it looked like the Ks situation
would be discussed
there. Linda subbed me then immediately unsubbed me when I
asked everyone
to wait until the new list was obtained. Because of some of
the
accusations I had heard I asked her to resub me. She did
so, very
grudgingly, then immediately set up a new list for the
archive CCs, subbed
me to it and unsubbed me from the archives-l without so much
as a note.
That goes a long way toward giving credence to some of the
problems I have
heard about, to say nothing about giving the distinct
impression that she
feels that what goes on in the Archives is of no concern to
the NC, or the
USGenWeb project. At the very least it was very
disrespectful to the NC,
regardless of who the NC might be.
After re-reading this several times, and considering how the
board feels,
and how I feel about the bylaws, I think it's best if I just
go ahead and
resign. Maybe you can get someone as NC that holds your
views.
You may consider this my resignation as National
Coordinator.
nt
==== FLGEN Mailing List ====
Have you submitted your transcribed records to the
FLGenWeb Project Archives yet??????