At 08:13 AM 5/22/99 -0400, Ron & Kathy wrote:
For those wanting to ensure that things are done honestly at the
National
Level:
Since you have asked for honesty - please let me 'correct' some of your
statements below:
A motion was made, by a member of the Archive Project, who is also
the
acting Representative for the Archives Project,
He is not the 'acting' Representative. He is the Representative elected by
the Archives Project members to fill the remaining term of the Archives
Representative to the National Advisory Board, a position left open when
the former Representative resigned.
who just so happens to be
the appointed representative that replaced Linda Lewis who is the
National
Coordinator for the Archives Project. The Archives Project stands to
swallow up the Census Project in this deal which to me, INMHO, is a blatant
conflict of interest.
The Archives Project is not swallowing up anything - Census is to be moved
back the to the Project Archives aka Digital Library a different animal of
a nearly alike name, not the Archives Project. The Census Project was a
part of the Project Archives until it was removed by the person who was
hired to head that Project.
The main focus of the motion is to bring back into the fold of the Project
Archives the Census material that was removed by the Census director at her
own whim.
A motion like this should never have been accepted
from this particular Representative on this particular issue and he
should
not be allowed to vote on issue that directly effect his interests and
concerns outside of the Board. Kay Mason, the Census Project National
Coordinator will not be voting for the same principal.
It is my opinion that the USGW NC should call this motion illegal by nature
of Conflict of Interest.
Any Board member may make a motion on any subject. Congressmen make
motions all the time for goodies for their districts and is not looked at
as being a conflict of interest.
But Joe's motion makes sense. It is just plain dumb to have two Census
projects within one the USGenWeb Project. It confuses the heck out of
volunteers, visitors, and most people. It's nearly impossible for folks to
volunteer to transcribe census reocords - and that should not be. It is
very hard for visitors to find the actual census records - and that should
not be. As the National Coordinator - I'll do what I can to fix the second
one. The first one needs to be resolved by one census project not two.
This is not right and the Census Project should be
allowed to be destroyed based on the desires of a few individuals.
Agreed.
The Census Project is a very important and very well run and managed
Project.
The staff and volunteers enjoy it as it is. The staff will not work
for
Linda Lewis and many of the volunteers will not work nor house their work
for others. So now what? This needs more thought and more care. And
catering to certain individuals by certain leaders needs to stop.
Yes Ron it does. In that light, you forgot to tell folks that you are one
of the right hand persons to Kay Mason for her Census project.
Tim
Thanks,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Stowell <tstowell(a)mccallie.org>
To: GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com <GAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Saturday, May 22, 1999 2:09 AM
Subject: [GAGEN-L] [STATE-COORD-L] Advisory Board Activity
>For those wanting to know what's happening on the National level:
>
>"A motion is made that
>
> Whereas directories are being inappropiately used for
>unintended archival purposes it is hereby resolved that all archival data
>directories not under the USGW XXGenWeb Archives and containing census
>data be
>purged immediately of all such data and the census data placed in
>the appropiate XXGenWeb archives. This includes but is not
>limited to the
ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/census/
>directory.
>It is further resolved that Dr Brian Leverich be requested
>to return the USGW Census Account(s) to the USGW Archives Census
>Accounts."
>
> Joe Zsedeny
> USGW Archives Rep
>
>Motion Seconded by Yvonne James-Henderson.
>
>The NC has number this motion 99-12.
>
>A motion to Table Motion 99-12 until the Board is at full
>compliment was made by Bridgett Smith and seconded by Ginger
>Cisewski.
>
>Voting on the Motion to Table is currently proceeding.
>
>Respectrully submitted,
>
>Bill
>Sec.