Fellow USGenWeb Project Volunteers,
For whatever it is worth, I concur and support Trey Holt's objections to the BRC's
revisions and motion to implement the revisions as currently written.
Edward Hayden,
SC LAGenWeb Project
CC in KYGenWeb, MOGenWeb, ARGenWeb, TXGenWeb, LAGenWeb
-----Original Message-----
From: Trey [mailto:holt@txcyber.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:40 PM
To: USGENWEB-SW-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] BRC, A new state project?
Fellow USGenWeb Project Volunteers,
I guess I must have missed the announcement of the 51st state project joining the USGenWeb
Project.
The Advisory Board has allowed the "Bylaws Revision Committee" to make Motion
04-13 which if passed will place these "revisions" as they are calling them on
the upcoming ballot. The bylaws still read in Article XVI, and I went back and checked
just in case parliamentary procedure somehow has changed them since I last looked :), that
it takes a state project to propose an amendment to the bylaws and 5 states to co sponsor
it or them before they may be placed on the ballot. Given what is written in Article XVI
of the bylaws the "Bylaws Revision Committee" must have at some time been
declared a new state project because only state projects can propose amendments to the
bylaws and I am sure that no one would try to make up a story that these are not
amendments.
All kidding aside we all know that this is exactly what some members of the BRC are trying
to do. They believe that by calling these "revisions" that they can rely on
"Sturgis" parliamentary procedure to bypass the bylaws and create rules for
provisions that they believe are not in the bylaws. The bylaws do provide for
"revisions" it just calls them amendments.
The original instructions given to the committee in 2002 by Holly Timm was to study the
USGenWeb bylaws to determine which articles or sections needed revision and to: 1)delete
unnecessary sections, 2) clarify or strengthen sections, 3) add new articles as deemed
necessary.
In addition, the committee was prohibited from making major changes in the project
structure, such as deciding which of the census project is to be officially recognized or
eliminating the archives.
It is clear from these instructions that tweaking is what was meant not a major overhaul
in fact the BRC was prohibited from making major changes in the project structure.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Amendments as: "The act of changing for the
better; improvement. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript. The process of
formally altering or adding to a document or record. A statement of such an alteration or
addition (ie, The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.)"
Given her instructions the NC probably should not have put the word "revision"
in the name of the committee, if she was the one that did, because that is what seems to
be what is causing the trouble. If you look in a thesaurus the words "revision"
and "amendments" are synonyms therefore to try to use the argument that the
bylaws due not provide for "revisions"
is a false one.
The bylaws clearly provide instructions for amending the bylaws and this is not the proper
way. Besides the fact that these "revisions" have several major problems this
motion needs to be either to filed or postponed indefinitely, or sent back to the
committee so it can be divided up into proper amendments and sent out so that a state can
present them properly. I would prefer to just see them postponed indefinitely because
these things should have never been written in the first place.
When we were putting the current bylaws together the one thing that I always heard from
other members was keep the power at the county level and in the states. They told me it is
the local projects and the state projects that make the USGenWeb Project great. I'm
not sure what made the Advisory Board or the NC in 2002 think they had the authority to
even create this Bylaws Revision Committee but this committee should have never been
created since there already was a clear process in the bylaws for amending them from the
local and state level. By creating this committee the Advisory Board then and succeeding
Advisory Boards have said that they do not trust the state projects or the local
coordinators to amend the bylaws if they feel it is necessary.
The Board has the following options
To approve the motion as written (adopt it) or can amend the motion as
follows:
- to file or postpone indefinitely ( in effect, kills the revision)
- to postpone to a specific time ( * would require future AB action to post for vote by
referendum)
- to file and post with exceptions (strike out sections or articles of the
revision)
- to refer back to committee for further work
Let your Advisory Board Member Representatives hear your opinion.
Thanks
Trey Holt
Brazos Co TXGenWeb