Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Greetings,
Please y'all, can we possibly keep the discussions a little more civil and less inciteful?
As y'all know, Derick asked me to continue as list admin for our two lists...this is not a power thing, just a practical way to help him with his duties. Said that to say this. On any other lists that I serve as Grandpa on, the tone of the current line of discussions would not be permitted, so I'm making a personal appeal to please keep the discussions on a higher level without accusations and innuendos punctuated by personal "slams".
And as a reminder, participation on this list is voluntary and we currently have only 39 cc's subscribed.
Regards,
Paul
--Boundary_(ID_p38kEWngyrG+OKk/Frc45Q)
Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7A12125; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thank you, Leah, for addressing specific concerns!
I complement your knowledge of history and government, but I'm not sure
whether some of your points are applicable. If we wanted to model
ourselves completely on our founding fathers, we'd include provisions that
only white men are 'full citizens.' Don't forget that the one-man-one-vote
notion was radical and a minority view -- it was considered reasonable by
most that only men of property and education should vote; after all, the
rest are unwashed rabble who are incapable of understanding the intricacies
of government.
And it's probably worth noting that our current representative form of
government was NOT democratically voted into place. The majority did not
vote for the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, or the
Constitution. The members of the Continental Congress were appointed to
their positions by various groups within the Colonies. And the Declaration
of Independence was not authored by committee or majority vote, but by one
person. The editing and discussion came afterwards. But none of that is
necessarily relevant to the discussion.
>Angie, your comparison of a CC choosing an assistant as being similar
>to Derick choosing officials is wrong. The vital difference is that CCs
>are not elected, but the SC is elected. <snip>
>So we have delegated our power to Derick, but now he wants to take his
>power over our "civil society" and give it to unelected individuals.
>There is a difference between delegating matters that do and do not
>involve the exercise of group power. Having an unelected board
>make decisions concerning an individual involves the exercise of group
>power.
>Angie, I hope you can now see why your comparison is incorrect. My
>assistant doesn't have any power over another CC, but Derick's officials
>do.
Actually, I believe the wrong comparison is being drawn. The
organizational chart, as drawn up by Derick, makes the regional
representatives/ASCs more comparable to the president's advisors or chief
of staff (most definitely not elected positions), not the Congress. In
fact, to quote directly: "This is not division for the overseeing of CCs or
their activities."
Would it work better, do you think, if Derick modified his current plan to
include two points:
(1) The ASCs/Board act in an advisory capacity only, with the SC not being
bound by their vote or opinions.
(2) The organizational plan as presented is not intended as permanent or
in lieu of by-laws/guidelines, but is temporary and only to serve until
such time as said by-laws/guidelines can be voted upon by the members of
NCGW as a whole.
>These bylaws would both create law and give Derick the power to appoint
>officials, but without bylaws his attempt to share power is illegitimate.
Under the USGW by-laws, the state project is *required* to have an ASC. It
does not specify that this must be an elected position; in fact, it doesn't
specify that the SC must be an elected position. Unless and until NCGW
should adopt by-laws that specify otherwise, I think the USGW by-laws give
Derick the authority to appoint to the position of ASC.
>Derick is free to implement his plan, but he is clearly wrong when he
>calls it a representative government. The decisions of anyone but Derick
>over any CC are meaningless. Since I have not delegated my power to the
>Board members, the Board does not have any sovereignty over me and I am
>free to ignore their decisions.
Agreed. Derick's terminology was not necessarily correct, but I think he
was trying to make a point.
>Otherwise, there will always be a reason for the minority to complain
>because Derick's political structure is illegitimate. I know I would feel
>a lot more comfortable if our rights were spelled out in bylaws.
Also agreed. While many XXGW groups operate just fine without formal
guidelines or by-laws, I'd say that it's obvious that NCGW cannot do so
indefinitely (and this isn't intended as an insult to the group or any
individual, but I think it's a pretty fair statement). But I think it's a
step forward that Derick has actually put things in writing and in public
so that all CCs know how things will be handled until by-laws are in effect.
Angie
--Boundary_(ID_p38kEWngyrG+OKk/Frc45Q)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7A12125
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
--Boundary_(ID_p38kEWngyrG+OKk/Frc45Q)--
Rather that just continue inciting this unproductive theme, there might be a way to resolve this matter that could be decisive. Why not set up a chat session, call a meeting for all CCs to attend, post an agenda and then let those who have something to say discuss their concerns. Then let the CCs vote right then and there UP or DOWN on any given matter. When it is over, I suggest that anyone who feels they can not abide by majority rule, go out and do their own thing.. and that includes me.
I want to ask, where in the organizational plan does it say that someone has the power over others. I read the USGenWeb by-laws that someone posted showing the duties of the SC and it clearly says that the SC has the authority to appoint others to assist him/her in their duties. I simply do not see that what has been done is anything more than this. Why not wait and see exactly how someone's "power" is being abused before trying to disrupt an organization just for the purpose of venting your frustrations.
I have heard for years that one did not want to be involved with GenWeb because it was so political with so many turf wars. Because of my interest in a particular area, I finally became a CC and have been blissfully doing my thing for sometime now. The past couple of days have convinced me that the very vocal minority will guarantee that NOTHING will ever get done - no matter how long they have to fillibuster!
Please, cut it out for a few days so some real business can get done. There are things that need to be done. The State pages do need to be updated. I personally need help with a couple of matters that I can not get attended to because of all the air time taken up with nothing but what is really a personal gripe.
If you want to make certain that GenWeb does not progress, just keep at it. You are doing a very good job of driving this lady back to her own quiet space.
I am disgusted and ready to quit because I now believe what I have always heard about the constant bitching of those who WISH they were running the show but just did not care enough to run for the office.
I am sorry but I am throughly disgusted! This is truly turning my stomach!
Nola
OOps! I meant to send this to the list...
Terria
I really thought the vote for SC was very simple....the EC handled it
and everything was above board....why can't we have the same? Why do
you want to blindly accept anything handed down by ANY SC as laws? I
don't understand that philosophy either, especially when all the CC's
so adamently shot down bylaws. I don't agree that the structure our
SC is putting out is within the scope of his or her job as SC. I
interpret the bylaws differently than you. Who is right, who is
wrong? It depends on your point of view. My point is that if you
have a vote, whatever the majority chooses to do will be the
law.....no questions....it will be above board with no one person
deciding what this state needs. Why do you all find that so
appauling? It is the way things have been done in this project...up
until now!
Terria
Angie Rayfield wrote:
>
> --Boundary_(ID_apnCacw9WUghed1KeZ/lxg)
> Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05; charset=us-ascii;
> format=flowed
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> At 08:32 AM 7/30/2002 -0400, Terria W. Baynor wrote:
> >What trouble would it be for a simple vote?
>
> There has never, in all the years I've been involved with NCGW, been a
> "simple vote."
>
> Angie
>
> --Boundary_(ID_apnCacw9WUghed1KeZ/lxg)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-disposition: inline
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
>
> --Boundary_(ID_apnCacw9WUghed1KeZ/lxg)--
Cristy,
One other thing, about the All list. My last post was asking about
the USGenWeb.org, .com and .net being down. Is that complaining that
EVERYTHING bothers me? I don't post often, but do when I see
something that concerns me. I thought that is what these lists were
for, to discuss things that affect CC's and this project. I think
there are many in this project that would love to kick others out
because they don't agree with what they say. Frankly, some of the
mean comments I have heard recently <g> on these lists make me wish I
could do the same to them. This project is bigger than either of us
and we need to look at the whole picture. In other words, it takes
all kinds of people to get the diversity that we need to help us grow.
I have just as much right to post these comments to you as you do to
tell me to "stop with this constant picking."
Thank you!
Terria
CDZ4U(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/2002 9:31:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> hoji(a)skantech.net writes:
>
> > jerk everyone around with new
> > organizational plans?
> >
> So are you the voice of "everyone" ?? See, it's really easy to twist the
> words around to fit your own meaning. I'd like to know exactly, Terria, How
> YOU personally are being "jerked" around?? I'm a CC just like you are for
> this state and I also belong to the ALL-L list just like you do and all I
> ever see is EVERYTHING that bothers YOU.
> Enough of this already, What is the REAL problem here? Because you didn't get
> some grievance settled in your favor way back when? Let it go. Nobody is
> jerking you around Terria, No one is forcing anything on you, I'm just asking
> you, as a fellow CC for NC to stop with this constant picking here.
>
> Thank You,
> Cristy Fisher
> CC for Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, NC
Cristy,
I am sorry you think all of this is picking. Personally, I don't! I
think it is important for the CC's to maintain their rights and being
vocal is one of them. You say no one is forcing anything on
me.....well look again at your message. You are trying to force me to
shut up. Well I won't until I see things done in the right way. What
trouble would it be for a simple vote? Derick says it is too much to
ask and I say that is exactly what he should be doing as SC.
By the way, I don't claim to be the voice of everyone! Even if I were
SC, I wouldn't claim to know what every CC wanted without a vote. If
you read my full sentence below you would see I was talking about the
**potential** of being jerked around with each new SC's organizational
plans. Our state needs consistancy to help it to grow. I too, would
like to see NCGenWeb become all that it can be! A majority vote of
the CC's can fix this!
Terria
CDZ4U(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/2002 9:31:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> hoji(a)skantech.net writes:
>
> > jerk everyone around with new
> > organizational plans?
> >
> So are you the voice of "everyone" ?? See, it's really easy to twist the
> words around to fit your own meaning. I'd like to know exactly, Terria, How
> YOU personally are being "jerked" around?? I'm a CC just like you are for
> this state and I also belong to the ALL-L list just like you do and all I
> ever see is EVERYTHING that bothers YOU.
> Enough of this already, What is the REAL problem here? Because you didn't get
> some grievance settled in your favor way back when? Let it go. Nobody is
> jerking you around Terria, No one is forcing anything on you, I'm just asking
> you, as a fellow CC for NC to stop with this constant picking here.
>
> Thank You,
> Cristy Fisher
> CC for Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, NC
Angie, Derick, and all,
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Angie Rayfield wrote:
> I wasn't going to use either 'stick in the mud' or 'troublemaker,' but
> whatever works for you <g>. If you, as a CC, chose to have an
assistant CC, would you think that everyone in the project should have a
>say in it? If you, as CC, divide up some of the research areas or
> responsibilities among your volunteers, should the SC or the other CC's
>be able to say, "Nope, can't do that without our permission"? I doubt
>it.
>> The NCGW project has gone nowhere because of the demands of a vocal
> minority that every minor detail be debated ad nauseum and brought to a
> vote. On several occasions that I can recall, the topic under
>discussion never gets brought to a vote because no one can ever agree who
>has the right to call a vote or how a vote should be handled. And here
>we go again.
Angie, your comparison of a CC choosing an assistant as being similar
to Derick choosing officials is wrong. The vital difference is that CCs
are not elected, but the SC is elected. There is a whole Western political
tradition concerning representation, power, and rights that Americans have
inherited and extended. So rather than reinvent the wheel, perhaps we
should discuss basic political theory.
If you look at Locke's Two Treatises of Government, you find that
"In the state of nature all men equally have the right to punish
transgressors: civil society originates when, for the better
administration of the law, men agree to delegate this function to certain
officers. Thus government is instituted by a "social contract"; its powers
are limited, and they involve reciprocal obligations; moreover, they can
be modified or rescinded by the authority which conferred them."
From http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm
So we have delegated our power to Derick, but now he wants to take his
power over our "civil society" and give it to unelected individuals.
There is a difference between delegating matters that do and do not
involve the exercise of group power. Having an unelected board
make decisions concerning an individual involves the exercise of group
power.
Angie, I hope you can now see why your comparison is incorrect. My
assistant doesn't have any power over another CC, but Derick's officials
do.
Derick doesn't consider NCGenWeb a democracy but a representative
government. In a representative government, members of government that
hold group power have to be chosen by the people. The President doesn't
get to pick the members of the Senate or House. This is the major problem
with Derick's plan.
To take this to an obvious conclusion, any decision made by an
unelected individual over a group member is not binding, since the group
did not place their power in that person. Nor can Derick argue said
officers are enforcing his will. Representatives make rules (law) and
then select individuals, such as judges, to enforce/interpret those laws.
But we have no law, so there is nothing for Derick's appointees to
interpret. Now we could write bylaws that support Derick's plan. These
bylaws would both create law and give Derick the power to appoint
officials, but without bylaws his attempt to share power is illegitimate.
Angie wrote:
> Maybe the question is -- just what exactly do YOU believe the SC is
> permitted to do? Does every action have to be debated and voted on? If
> so, what is the purpose of having an SC? If not, just what actions do you
> feel are the responsibilities of the SC?
> FWIW, "bottom up" organization sounds fine and dandy, but even the most
> grass-roots organization requires leadership. It's simply impractical and
> unworkable to try to work a project as large as NCGW and/or USGW as a
> simple democracy. It amazes me that, after seeing dozens of complaints
> over the years about the 'lack of leadership' in NCGW, and our seeming
> inability to move forward, that the first thing that happens when someone
> tries to act like a leader is that he's attacked for leading.
>
and Derick wrote:
>Absolutely not! What ever gave you the idea that the XXGW is operating
>as ademocracy? The entire body of our organizations is composed of a
>representative form of government, just like the US Government.
>Perhaps you failed to study history. Democracy is NOT what our government
>is about. All of our members are represented by the best folks available.
>That's what you congressman, senator, city councilman, ect. are elected
to do.
The problem is that we as a group have not decided what the SC is permited
to do. If Angie and Derick think that democracy is unworkable in NCGenWeb
and believe that our system is a representative government, like the
United States, then they are unfamiliar with how that political
system works. Once again Derick's Board members are not representatives.
Representatives are ELECTED. Representative governments have rules
(Constitution) that address what powers are delegated by the people to
the government and limit the representatives' power over the people. The
representatives do not get to decide the rules, except in a Convention
which is dissolved after it writes rules (Constitution, bylaws, etc.).
The foundation of the American political system is Locke's Treatises.
Power to determine government always resides with the people. That is why
the Constitution starts with "We the people". This is why we need bylaws
if we are going to implement a more complex representative government.
Derick is free to implement his plan, but he is clearly wrong when he
calls it a representative government. The decisions of anyone but Derick
over any CC are meaningless. Since I have not delegated my power to the
Board members, the Board does not have any sovereignty over me and I am
free to ignore their decisions.
I do think it was rather rude of Derick to have suggested that Terria had
failed to study history when he himself is ignorant of how a
representative government works. Derick would probably be shocked to
learn that one of the major considerations of the founders was protecting
the minority from the majority. Why? Majority are often composed of
ignorant and dangerous rabble.
So maybe this is the time for us all to sit down as a group
(minority Anarchists and majority Angels) and write some rules.
Otherwise, there will always be a reason for the minority to complain
because Derick's political structure is illegitimate. I know I would feel
a lot more comfortable if our rights were spelled out in bylaws.
I am not making these arguments to prevent NCGenWeb from moving forward
or to cause discord. I am not opposed to having other individuals involved
in administering NC. But there are right and wrong ways of creating a
government.
Leah (who knew there was a reason her professors asigned the works of
17th and 18th political writers, other than torture.)
lcsims(a)eskimo.com
Stanly Co.
In a message dated 7/29/2002 9:31:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hoji(a)skantech.net writes:
> jerk everyone around with new
> organizational plans?
>
So are you the voice of "everyone" ?? See, it's really easy to twist the
words around to fit your own meaning. I'd like to know exactly, Terria, How
YOU personally are being "jerked" around?? I'm a CC just like you are for
this state and I also belong to the ALL-L list just like you do and all I
ever see is EVERYTHING that bothers YOU.
Enough of this already, What is the REAL problem here? Because you didn't get
some grievance settled in your favor way back when? Let it go. Nobody is
jerking you around Terria, No one is forcing anything on you, I'm just asking
you, as a fellow CC for NC to stop with this constant picking here.
Thank You,
Cristy Fisher
CC for Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, NC
Then are you saying you will have a vote? If so, great! I will help in any
way I can,
but if not, then you are saying their voice isn't important. I can't
interpret that any other way.
Terria
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" <derickh(a)charter.net>
To: "Terria Baynor" <Terria(a)baynor.com>; <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Cc: <rkeason(a)directvinternet.com>; <angie(a)angiesplace.behosting.com>;
<ncgen(a)mindspring.com>; <PaulDBuckley(a)worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] NCGW Organization Plan
> At 06:15 PM 7/29/02, Terria Baynor wrote:
> >Derick and everyone else interested,
>
> ><SNIP>
>
> I was not prepared to answer this but since you quote me verbatim and then
> twist what I have said to read the way you choose to believe, a response
is
> necessary. Quoting you:
>
> >You said it very well here Derick, you don't believe that the CC's are
> >important enough to have a say! I am sure this kind of put down will
> >encourage many more volunteers in this project.
>
> Now, pulling up what I said, there is an entirely different slant:
>
> > > > Don't we (all the CC's here in NC) deserve a democracy?
> > > Absolutely not! What ever gave you the idea that the XXGW is operating
as
> > > democracy? The entire body of our organizations is composed of a
> > > representative form of government, just like the US Government.
Perhaps
> > > you failed to study history. Democracy is NOT what our government is
about.
> > > All of our members are represented by the best folks available. That's
what
> > > your congressman, senator, city councilman, ect. are elected to do.
>
> Please don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of failing to listen.
> And please don't insult the CCs by suggesting they are not important
enough
> to have a say.
>
> --Derick
>
>
>
<snip>
What would you like to see voted on that has not been. Just very courious
about what your concerns are and I have not seen them voiced.
>
> Nola
>
Nola,
I guess that is my point. There hasn't been an opportunity to voice
anything because we have been told this is the way it is going to be....like
it or not.....if you don't like it then get out. Yes, that does tend to
rankle me! It makes me think I am not appreciated in this project at all
because I voice my opinions. I am sorry that the SC position is a position
that takes flack from people on both sides of the fence, but that is part of
the job.
You asked what my concerns are, well, I have been stating them all along. I
am concerned that the CC's are not having a voice by not having a vote on an
organization plan that really looks more like bylaws than an organizational
structure. I feel like the position of SC should be addressed more
thoroughly. Like a description of duties. Do we want a SC to have full
authority to do as they please? I have no objections to the SC having
control of the day to day business....The question is, what is the day to
day business? Is it creating a whole new layer of government? or is it
fixing links and maintaining the state pages, subbing & unsubbing CC's to
the list, etc, etc. I don't have any problem with the SC doing those
things, but I feel we need to vote on major things such as bylaws and
organization of our state. Do we want this organization to continue or is
every new SC going to come in and jerk everyone around with new
organizational plans? Do you see my point? I am not against organizing. I
think I proved that 2 years ago when I fought for bylaws. I am against one
or two or a small group making those big decisions for our state. If they
want to call me a sniper, troublemaker, or whatever because I have raised
this issue, well so be it. I am only trying to stand up for what is right
and fair, not to mention what will be best for our state. And by the way,
it wouldn't have mattered who the SC was, (even Ron) my stand would still be
the same.
Terria
--Boundary_(ID_oFmdIInH+29jh/EFjSDffg)
Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At 07:55 PM 7/29/2002 -0400, Beaufort wrote:
>oh, one more thing i forgot to send...
>
>The SCs in North Carolina are elected to serve for ONE year...at which time
>they must submit to an election where the CCs either give a thumbs up to one
>more year...or no more years. It is a law we voted on presented by
>Elizabeth Harris.
>Sharon was the first SC to submit to the one year approval election.
For which Derick is probably immensely grateful at this point At the rate
this nonsense is going, his term will be up before he ever has an
opportunity to try to lead this project.
Angie
--Boundary_(ID_oFmdIInH+29jh/EFjSDffg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
--Boundary_(ID_oFmdIInH+29jh/EFjSDffg)--
I too, am one of the silent majority in NC...not having posted more than a
dozen letters here the last 2 years.
I can see clearly what the problem is.
The Bylaws clearly write that:
ARTICLE XII. STATE PROJECTS
"Section 1. Each state shall have a State Coordinator who manages the state
website and oversees the state project. In addition, each state shall have
an Assistant State Coordinator or other support team in place that can take
charge in case the State Coordinator becomes unavailable for a period of 30
days, unless there are extenuating circumstances."
My comments:****The SC is elected to "manage" or coordinate the volunteers
of this project which like Nola said, the CCs ARE the PROJECT. The key word
is "coordinate". You see, the State Coordinator is Not the President as one
CC mistakenly referred to the position as. The SC is only elected to
coordinate Not Create a new system of government. But read on...
"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 ."
My comments****This part....Section 5 is VERY IMPORTANT. You see it says
that "State Projects are empowered...." IT doesn't say the State
Coordinator is empowered. We Volunteers are the STATE Project, and
therefore, we volunteers are the only ones that can "develop/adopt any
additional rules/bylaws and guidelines." The SC can only coordinate us in
this effort. No wonder some of the long time CCs are offended...we have
been completely bumped out of our rights granted us in the bylaws. Yes, it
would be a lot of work to coordinate an active state who was trying to make
up bylaws etc, but that is what the SC agrees to when he accepts the job.
People that don't have the temperament or time to be heavily involved in the
desires and goals of the volunteers of this state, shouldn't take the job.
NEXT:
"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."
<snip>
my comments****Note that it says the "FOUNDATION of the organization shall
be at the local websites". That is us ..the CCs...we were intended to be
the real movers and shakers of the ORG. We were given the power to elect
"coordinators" to aid us in governing ourselves. With one sweep of his
hand, Derick has taken all this away from us. Everyone should be offended.
The AB should be offended. Anyone who is an advocate of CC rights should
not be agreeable to this highly over interpretation, of the duties of a
State Coordinator. I might add it doesn't matter how great the system
Derick sets up is...if it is done by pushing aside the CCs to accomplish it.
No matter how great the system might be, I should add that the project is
NOT worth a hill of beans if it does exist into a future where the CCs have
been pushed aside and dictated to.
my comments****Lastly: many people including our new leadership have been
butchering the name of our organization. Years ago we were clearly told we
should get this correct...because there was another owner of the name
GENWEB. Equally we are not NCGW..or any of the variations some folks are
using. Everything about us give value to our name...we should use it
correctly & proudly.
Per the bylaws:
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. "
**my comments: In my opinion, the SC should concentrate on keeping counties
adopted...writing to CCs to know that they are still on the job....maintain
the required state mail list....praise CCs who are doing an excellent
job...maintain the state website which has some broken links even
now....either moderate or appoint someone to moderate the Discuss
list...check counties on a regular basis for the required 2 logos and links
back.....maintain a current list of eligible voters for the
state....encourage the CCs to participate....encourage visitors to donate
data to the county sites via the home page...follow the bylaws....protect
the rights of CCs....and so forth and so on.... Do not REWRITE our right to
govern ourselves in ALL mattters, in the state and in our county sites, just
because by nature most CCs don't want to get political. You
know...sometimes a little bit can go a long way....why don't we give THAT
System a try. We can manage ourselves very well...we don't want a daddy or
a president.
diane kelly
>The NCGW project has gone nowhere because of the demands of a vocal
>minority that every minor detail be debated ad nauseum and brought to a
>vote. On several occasions that I can recall, the topic under discussion
>never gets brought to a vote because no one can ever agree who has the
>right to call a vote or how a vote should be handled. And here we go again.
>
Thank you, Angie! This succinctly sums up my two years of experience
as SC, and the frustrations attendant thereon.
There are two possible ways to run this project:
1) we vote on every issue that comes up, including approval of CCs,
changes to state-level web pages, who can or can't vote, and who can
or can't vote to determine who can or can't vote, and so on
or
2) we democratically elect a person to whom we grant executive
authority to make day-to-day decisions in the running of the project
The second option seems to me the only efficient way to proceed.
Derick has proposed an organizational structure. I'm sure he will
welcome discussion on its merits or deficits, and will modify it if
he perceives a consensus to do so. Give us your suggestions for
improvement, and let's get on with evaluating them. What don't you
like about the plan, other than the fact that Derick proposed it?
--
Elizabeth Harris
ncgen(a)mindspring.com
NCGenWeb project: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/
Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/
Derick and everyone else interested,
The only time I have disagreed is when the leadership has forced
things on the CC's without a vote, or when I was falsely accused of
sharing information! Yes I have been vocal when I see wrong doing.
What you are doing and the way you are acting is wrong. Nowhere in
the USGenWeb bylaws does it state that an SC can set all the rules for
the CC's and make then answer to a government that wasn't voted on.
You assume because nobody speaks out, that they are in agreement with
your plan. That is a false assumption! Even our government gives us
a vote! You are denying us the opportunity to exercise our rights as
CC's.
You said it very well here Derick, you don't believe that the CC's are
important enough to have a say! I am sure this kind of put down will
encourage many more volunteers in this project.
Terria
PS....leadership IMHO is not dictatorship, a good leader doesn't push things
on their followers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" <derickh(a)charter.net>
To: <Terria(a)baynor.com>
Cc: <PaulDBuckley(a)worldnet.att.net>; <ncgen(a)mindspring.com>;
<angie(a)angiesplace.behosting.com>; <rkeason(a)directvinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] NCGW Organization Plan
> At 10:51 AM 7/29/02, you wrote:
> >I would like to know why we are considered "snipers" when we have a
> >legitimate disagreement with the leadership?
>
> I think the question here is WHEN have you not had a disagreement with the
> leadership.
> The modifying word, LEGITIMATE, has only been used by you. If what I have
> done is contrary to the USGW and NCGW laws and guidelines then you may
have
> a LEGITIMATE disagreement. If not--you don't
>
> > Is it too much to ask to have a vote on the organization you have
imposed?
>
> At this point, yes, it is too much to ask. The new organization was
> designed for the betterment of the NCGW as a whole, not to coddle the
> sensibilities of the disruptive vocal minority. It wasn't arrived at
> without a great deal of help and research.
>
> > Don't we (all the CC's here in NC) deserve a democracy?
>
> Absolutely not! What ever gave you the idea that the XXGW is operating as
a
> democracy? The entire body of our organizations is composed of a
> representative form of government, just like the US Government. Perhaps
you
> failed to study history. Democracy is NOT what our government is about.
All
> of our members are represented by the best folks available. That's what
you
> congressman, senator, city councilman, ect. are elected to do.
>
> > The vote will probably go your way anyway Derick, why can't you give us
> > a voice?
>
> You just can't come to terms with the fact that you already had a voice.
> You had your choice not only to vote but to run for office.
>
> > Just because you won the election doesn't mean that everyone wants to
> > blindly follow this plan of yours, some may and others may not.
>
> It really doesn't matter. I didn't campaign on a plan. The plan was
evolved
> after a great deal of discussion with our [representative] team. to
provide
> for the most even-handed form of representation, something we haven't had
> until now.
>
> > I mean no disrespect, but likewise, I don't want you to disrespect me
by
> >labeling me. I have an opinion, it may differ from yours, but am I to
> >be treated as less of a person because of it? Stop, before copping an
> >attitude that everyone that doesn't agree are out to do you in.
> >Asking for fairness and a voice for the CC's is not sniping, it is
democracy.
>
> And again, we do not operate as a democracy, we operate with a
> representative form of government.
>
> >Thank you for understanding, or at least trying to.
> >Terria
>
> I do understand and want only the best for you and for all the CC's. My
> value to the NCGW is as a manager, not the one elected to solve each and
> every problem. I have appointed Ron Eason as Personnel Coordinator and he
> has accepted that role. In the interest of a more efficient organization,
I
> have directed all CCs to contact Ron if they have any problems within this
> organization.
>
> I'm sorry if our plan is not what you hoped for or expected. Anything you
> have to say will be heard. We will not be accepting public complaints via
> the discuss list as it has proved to be non-productive in the past. Ron
> will listen to what you have to say and if he is unable to come to a
> conclusion, the three ASCs will deal with the matter. If they are unable
to
> come to a decision, then, and only then, will I become involved.
>
> Please try and understand that this organization is bigger then either of
> us and I want to see it finally reach its level of greatness. It has
> already reached the point where I am just another CC with additional
tasks.
>
> Cordially,
>
> --Derick
>
>
Terria,
I was serious when I asked what you thought was being done that should not be or what should be done that was not. As I said, the CCs really are the ONLY ones with power because without our labor, the leadership would have no organization to lead. No one can force anything on me or anyone else. I would have no hesitation about quitting at anytime that I felt someone had tried to force something on me that I did not agree with. I do not need GenWeb to make my data available but the leadership needs all of us to make the whole concept work. I wonder if you have tried saying what it is that you do not like and see if you can not resolve it that way. What would you like to see voted on that has not been. Just very courious about what your concerns are and I have not seen them voiced.
Nola
Well said Nola!!!!!!!!
I don't know but THINK the most of the silent majority would agree with what
you have said,
I do!!!
Tracy Putnam
>From: "N. Duffy" <nduffy(a)patch.net>
>To: NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Re: Organization Plan
>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:59:02 -0500
>
>I would like to ask a question of those who disagree with the
>Organizational Plan. Just what is included that poses a problem for
>anyone? In the alternative, what would anyone like to see included that is
>omitted. I have not seen any suggestions from those who have objected to
>the Organizational Plan. So, exactly what is missing?
>
>Since I do not know any of the people individually, I certainly can not be
>labeled as being pro and/or anti anyone. I am a C.C. for one reason only -
>I sincerely want to make the material I have available to all those who are
>searching for information on their ancestors. While I WISH that the GenWeb
>pages would encourage others to contribute, in fact, I think that is just
>that, wishful thinking. I find that most of the great GenWeb pages are
>really a product of the dedicated efforts of one or two people. Any SC or
>anyone else who has any ulterior motive about "packing a board" or
>"appointing their own people" would only be cutting off their nose to spite
>their face. What possible motive could a SC have in trying to "stack a
>deck" with anyone who was not willing to do what the dedicated C.C.s do all
>the time - provide free genealogical data. If for any reason, someone
>decided to replace me for the counties that I have, how could they possibly
>profit ? They would soo!
>n be looking at empty pages and I can not imagine that is what anyone would
>want. It could only reflect on them in an adverse way that could not
>possibly promote any personal goals they might have. I for one have a
>very simple solution to what I would do if I found anyone tried to
>unreasonably interfere with what I am doing. I would simply take all my
>own work, put it on my own web pages, and go on down the road. The
>dedicated CCs do not need GenWeb, GenWeb needs them and for that reason,
>they do have the ultimate power. If there is someway that anyone could
>profit by that, I would really like to know what it is. If for some reason
>I was not working to provide data to those visiting our pages, I would HOPE
>that someone would be in a position to step in and take control. I have
>seen a LOT of empty pages and wondered why the CC did not step aside and
>let someone with the time, energy and inclination get the job done.
>
>As for the thought that "packing the deck" might insure future re-election.
> That could conceivably be a real concern but again, to what purpose? A
>SC who does not further the aim of free genealogy would soon be sitting at
>the head of an empty empire. What could that possibly do for them?
>
>In the end, no matter what I do or do not do with the pages I handle, there
>is absolutely nothing I can ever personally gain from it other than the
>personal satisfaction of knowing that others, who I shall never know or
>hear from, had the thrill of finding a bit of data that I posted.
>
>As for the democracy, NO organization can possibly achieve anything without
>someone having the ability to make the day to day decisions. It seems
>that the Organizational Plan does provide for a board to share the decision
>making. To have to appeal to the electorate for each and every act would
>not further the democratic nature of the organization but would indeed
>create anarchy.
>
>I really have no interest in the politics of GenWeb and only took the time
>to write this since someone suggested that the quiet majority had not been
>heard from. I have now spoken my mind and plan to retire back to
>transcribing genealogical data and let the SC and his board do what they
>do.
>
>Nola Duffy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
I would like to ask a question of those who disagree with the Organizational Plan. Just what is included that poses a problem for anyone? In the alternative, what would anyone like to see included that is omitted. I have not seen any suggestions from those who have objected to the Organizational Plan. So, exactly what is missing?
Since I do not know any of the people individually, I certainly can not be labeled as being pro and/or anti anyone. I am a C.C. for one reason only - I sincerely want to make the material I have available to all those who are searching for information on their ancestors. While I WISH that the GenWeb pages would encourage others to contribute, in fact, I think that is just that, wishful thinking. I find that most of the great GenWeb pages are really a product of the dedicated efforts of one or two people. Any SC or anyone else who has any ulterior motive about "packing a board" or "appointing their own people" would only be cutting off their nose to spite their face. What possible motive could a SC have in trying to "stack a deck" with anyone who was not willing to do what the dedicated C.C.s do all the time - provide free genealogical data. If for any reason, someone decided to replace me for the counties that I have, how could they possibly profit ? They would soo!
n be looking at empty pages and I can not imagine that is what anyone would want. It could only reflect on them in an adverse way that could not possibly promote any personal goals they might have. I for one have a very simple solution to what I would do if I found anyone tried to unreasonably interfere with what I am doing. I would simply take all my own work, put it on my own web pages, and go on down the road. The dedicated CCs do not need GenWeb, GenWeb needs them and for that reason, they do have the ultimate power. If there is someway that anyone could profit by that, I would really like to know what it is. If for some reason I was not working to provide data to those visiting our pages, I would HOPE that someone would be in a position to step in and take control. I have seen a LOT of empty pages and wondered why the CC did not step aside and let someone with the time, energy and inclination get the job done.
As for the thought that "packing the deck" might insure future re-election. That could conceivably be a real concern but again, to what purpose? A SC who does not further the aim of free genealogy would soon be sitting at the head of an empty empire. What could that possibly do for them?
In the end, no matter what I do or do not do with the pages I handle, there is absolutely nothing I can ever personally gain from it other than the personal satisfaction of knowing that others, who I shall never know or hear from, had the thrill of finding a bit of data that I posted.
As for the democracy, NO organization can possibly achieve anything without someone having the ability to make the day to day decisions. It seems that the Organizational Plan does provide for a board to share the decision making. To have to appeal to the electorate for each and every act would not further the democratic nature of the organization but would indeed create anarchy.
I really have no interest in the politics of GenWeb and only took the time to write this since someone suggested that the quiet majority had not been heard from. I have now spoken my mind and plan to retire back to transcribing genealogical data and let the SC and his board do what they do.
Nola Duffy
--Boundary_(ID_0REDrAOr1zj/w7cGHX8/fw)
Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
At 11:25 PM 7/28/2002 -0400, Terria Baynor wrote:
>***I don't have a problem with an SC making an organizational "plan"
>what I object to is that the cc's don't have a voice in it at all.
>Where is the fairness in that? You could say that I am being a stick
>in the mud, a troublemaker, or whatever, but I believe in democracy
>and fairness.
I wasn't going to use either 'stick in the mud' or 'troublemaker,' but
whatever works for you <g>. If you, as a CC, chose to have an assistant
CC, would you think that everyone in the project should have a say in
it? If you, as CC, divide up some of the research areas or
responsibilities among your volunteers, should the SC or the other CC's be
able to say, "Nope, can't do that without our permission"? I doubt it.
The NCGW project has gone nowhere because of the demands of a vocal
minority that every minor detail be debated ad nauseum and brought to a
vote. On several occasions that I can recall, the topic under discussion
never gets brought to a vote because no one can ever agree who has the
right to call a vote or how a vote should be handled. And here we go again.
>***Bingo!!! on your last sentence. <g> I believe it is mostly a control
>thing.
>If the SC's can control what CC's are in their state, whether you want
>to admit it or not, that gives them control. Tell me, who are the ones
>approving new CC's????
>Is it the CC's themselves? Yes, in a very few cases, but all those empty
>counties needed CC's and who ultimately is responsible for filling those
>positions? Yes our acting SC has filled many of them.....that is great,
>they needed to be filled. (I am not knocking that) They may not have their
>hand-picked few, but then again it leaves room for that to happen. No
>accusations here, that is not my intent, I am just trying to show how abuse
>can and does enter in for SC's. If the SC has votes his or her way then
>they can push just about any agenda they want to on the CC's. This, I feel
>is the case with the new organizational plan that has been forced on us
>without a vote. What is wrong with having all of this brought to a vote? I
>am sure that there are enough CC's here that will support what the SC is
>trying to push, there is no need to not use a democratic way to institute
>it.
OK, let me follow your logic -- nothing wrong with an organizational plan,
and you say there's plenty of support for it, but there should be a vote on
it just for jollies? Derick should have to prove that as the SC he's
supposed to be the head of this project for the next two years? To me, it
seems redundant and a waste of time and energy that could better be used
elsewhere.
Maybe the question is -- just what exactly do YOU believe the SC is
permitted to do? Does every action have to be debated and voted on? If
so, what is the purpose of having an SC? If not, just what actions do you
feel are the responsibilities of the SC?
>****You may have found it interesting, but I found it downright depressing
>that the AB couldn't even act on their own power in a legitimate grievance.
>In so doing, they have set a precidence of not having power to override a
>SC. So, the bottom's up organization of USGenWeb is a joke.....when the
>only one able to flex their power is the SC's. I have permission for the
>following quote off the All-list. I will not use their name, but it says it
>very well in my opinion.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there's no logic here. You complain
that the AB can't override the SC (not that that's a relevant point to the
organization of NCGW), but them complain that the bottom-up organization is
a joke. Excuse me, but if the SC has more authority than the AB, then that
IS an example of bottom-up organization. Either way, the role of the SC
within the national project is not the issue, and for that matter, isn't
something that can be determined by NCGW. The only question for us here is
the role of the SC in NCGW.
FWIW, "bottom up" organization sounds fine and dandy, but even the most
grass-roots organization requires leadership. It's simply impractical and
unworkable to try to work a project as large as NCGW and/or USGW as a
simple democracy. It amazes me that, after seeing dozens of complaints
over the years about the 'lack of leadership' in NCGW, and our seeming
inability to move forward, that the first thing that happens when someone
tries to act like a leader is that he's attacked for leading.
>****** I will add one more thing. IMO if the SC's did things properly, in a
>democratic way, they wouldn't get the constant objections and complaints you
>speak of. Why can't our state be a model for other states to follow in
>using democracy to get things done? That would be a wonderful goal!
IMO, it would be helpful if the constant objections and complaints could be
specific. So far, the complaints I've seen have been very vocal, but not
from many people, and come under two main categories, "There's nothing
really wrong with it but you should have asked me first," and "But what if
someone decides to do this, that, or the other? The SC could take over the
world."
Angie
--Boundary_(ID_0REDrAOr1zj/w7cGHX8/fw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7C87F05
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
--Boundary_(ID_0REDrAOr1zj/w7cGHX8/fw)--
I would like to know why we are considered "snipers" when we have a
legitimate disagreement with the leadership? Is it too much to ask to
have a vote on the organization you have imposed? Don't we (all the
CC's here in NC) deserve a democracy? The vote will probably go your
way anyway Derick, why can't you give us a voice? Just because you
won the election doesn't mean that everyone wants to blindly follow
this plan of yours, some may and others may not. I mean no
disrespect, but likewise, I don't want you to disrespect me by
labeling me. I have an opinion, it may differ from yours, but am I to
be treated as less of a person because of it? Stop, before copping an
attitude that everyone that doesn't agree are out to do you in.
Asking for fairness and a voice for the CC's is not sniping, it is
democracy.
Thank you for understanding, or at least trying to.
Terria
"Derick S. Hartshorn" wrote:
>
> Ron, all,
>
> Until this point, I thought we had nearly unanimous support for the current
> form of progressive organization after the electors of the NCGenWeb Project
> allowed me to direct this organization. I was sure that most folks had read
> the NCGENWEB ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE <
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/organiza.htm >. I may be mistaken but I
> was under the impression that I was elected to the position of State
> Coordinator, to act in accordance with USGW By-Laws, Article XIII.
> Regarding my experience with prior NCGW administrations I should probably
> not be surprised that there are some folks who continually refuse to be
> placated. Ron, will you please find out what this series of problems are
> and make some suggestions to the Board on how to alleviate them.
>
> To all the NCGenWeb family members, if I have not made it clear by now that
> I am here only because you elected me and have little time for sour grapes,
> please make note now. I have carefully made provision for a complaint
> mechanism that gives honest attention to each and every complaint that
> might emanate from within the NCGenWeb Project. Ron Eason is currently the
> USGW CC Representative for the So.East/Middle Atlantic Region. I envisioned
> his capacity in the NCGW as being one of preeminence, since NC is just one
> of his responsibilities, I have the utmost confidence that Ron will give
> each and every person in this organization a fair hearing. Should he fail
> to achieve a resolution, the Board (the three ASCs) will make a
> recommendation to me. Since someone has to be the ultimate mediator, I will
> make the decision if the previous two levels can not come to a decision.
> Should that not be favorable to the appellate, the USGenWeb has ample means
> of appeal.
>
> I am a volunteer, just as are each and every one of you. I really sick of
> the sniping that has gone on since we first began, six years ago. There
> always seems to be, in whatever organization you care to mention, a very
> small vocal minority that love to promote discord. I am not ready to turn
> this organization over to the anarchists. I have been duly elected and the
> staff of the NCGenWeb Project has been duly appointed. If any complaints
> are legitimate, let's air them through the proper manner and act upon them.
> Upon their resolution, LET'S MOVE ON !!!!!!!!
>
> Oh, BTW, my AGENDA is to see the NCGenWeb excel in every way. ME? My prize
> is two years of distraction from personal research. Anyone else want to
> suceed me and have to put up with the snipers? And, if anyone has
> aspirations of changing the USGW in a major way, by all means RUN FOR OFFICE.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Derick
>
> At 11:25 PM 7/28/02, Terria Baynor wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Angie Rayfield" <angie(a)inmyattic.com>
> >To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:41 PM
> >Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] NCGW Organization Plan
> >
> >
> > > I guess it's a matter of your point of view. I don't see Derick's plan as
> > > a government. Rather, he's put in writing how he intends to organize
> > > things and operate as our SC. One of the complaints that I kept hearing
> > > was that NCGW has stagnated because of a lack of leadership. Well, not
> > > only do we have someone trying to lead, he's actually put his plans and
> > > visions in writing to share with all of us. I think creating an
> > > organizational plan is not only logical, and necessary, but I think it's
> > > probably well within the scope of the SC's authority.
> >
> >***I don't have a problem with an SC making an organizational "plan"
> >what I object to is that the cc's don't have a voice in it at all.
> >Where is the fairness in that? You could say that I am being a stick
> >in the mud, a troublemaker, or whatever, but I believe in democracy
> >and fairness.
> >*******************
> > > The idea of an SC controlling the vote by hand-picking CC's to me is a
> > > little ridiculous. NCGW holds SC elections every two years. There would
> > > have to be a pretty heavy turnover of CC's in a pretty short time span for
> > > an SC to be able to somehow skew the results by picking his/her
> > > friends. Not to mention, what in the world would an SC accomplish even if
> > > the vote could be packed? I'm not trying to be obnoxious when I say that
> >I
> > > just don't see what the benefit would be. Make more money? Promote up
> > > higher in the company? Become rich and famous? So far, about the only
> > > thing I can see is that maybe the SC could get re-elected and spend
> >another
> > > 2 years dealing with this.
> >
> >***Bingo!!! on your last sentence. <g> I believe it is mostly a control
> >thing.
> >If the SC's can control what CC's are in their state, whether you want
> >to admit it or not, that gives them control. Tell me, who are the ones
> >approving new CC's????
> >Is it the CC's themselves? Yes, in a very few cases, but all those empty
> >counties needed CC's and who ultimately is responsible for filling those
> >positions? Yes our acting SC has filled many of them.....that is great,
> >they needed to be filled. (I am not knocking that) They may not have their
> >hand-picked few, but then again it leaves room for that to happen. No
> >accusations here, that is not my intent, I am just trying to show how abuse
> >can and does enter in for SC's. If the SC has votes his or her way then
> >they can push just about any agenda they want to on the CC's. This, I feel
> >is the case with the new organizational plan that has been forced on usz
> >trying to push, there is no need to not use a democratic way to institute
> >it.
> >************************
> > > I found the comparison to the relationship between the AB & SC
> > > interesting. In NCGW, we've effectively created the same situation
> >between
> > > the SC and the CC's -- in the years that I've been involved with NCGW,
> >I've
> > > repeatedly seen as SC's essentially bound hand-and-foot by constant
> > > objections from CCs over every minor detail of the project. Nothing gets
> > > done because no one is permitted to get anything done! I didn't vote for
> > > SC just to have someone update the webpage and the email list -- if that's
> > > all that the SC can do without running to the group for endless discussion
> > > and bickering over nitpicky details, then the SC position is useless and
> > > can be abolished. Somehow, I don't see that moving things forward...
> >
> >****You may have found it interesting, but I found it downright depressing
> >that the AB couldn't even act on their own power in a legitimate grievance.
> >In so doing, they have set a precidence of not having power to override a
> >SC. So, the bottom's up organization of USGenWeb is a joke.....when the
> >only one able to flex their power is the SC's. I have permission for the
> >following quote off the All-list. I will not use their name, but it says it
> >very well in my opinion.
> ><snip>
> >"It isn't a "bottom-up" organization, and it isn't a republican democracy,
> >it
> >is an appointed majority, and an entrenched dictatorship, and the Puppet
> >head, the NC, is powerless, because the support that the Position needs to
> >act isn't there, it is a figurehead position. Even the AB is a "Advisory
> >Board" and doesn't have any power to act. After all you don't have to listen
> >to "advice" nor are you required to follow it.
> >
> >The structural choke point is the appointed for life State Coordinators, who
> >are excluded from the democratic process by the bylaws. Even the NC, with
> >concurrence of the AB, has no power to remove them. They can through their
> >own "independent process" stack and load the counties to meet their personal
> >empirical agendas.
> >
> >This doesn't address the problems of the Archives Project and the other
> >"special" projects, who are so "independent" of USGenWeb Project, they had
> >filed for, and were awarded, the USGenWeb trademarks on their own, predating
> >the National effort to seek the trademarks.
> >
> >There is no common structure in the USGenWeb Project, it is a bunch of "in
> >name only" hand wringing, noninvolved parties concerned ONLY with their own
> >little piece of "territory," and not interested in improving the WHOLE, or
> >even hearing about it.
> >
> >It is and was a GREAT idea, but sadly it isn't what it COULD have become.
> >Poor Planning Promotes Poor Performance.
> >
> >The powerless cannot lead the clueless."
> ><end snip>
> >****** I will add one more thing. IMO if the SC's did things properly, in a
> >democratic way, they wouldn't get the constant objections and complaints you
> >speak of. Why can't our state be a model for other states to follow in
> >using democracy to get things done? That would be a wonderful goal!
> >
> >Terria