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
Nola, sorry to disappoint you, but there's no "they." As always, I'm
all by myself. None of those marvelous tales of aliens and
conspiracies you like to imagine. It's my web space and I put the
records there because the lists can't accept attachments.
You can make all the excuses you want for what you did, and I know you
will. But there simply is no excuse. That Paul and Denise colluded
with you only makes it worse. But *you* are the incorporator. And
*you* did this more than a year ago and never said ONE WORD to the
membership before you did it or since. The ONLY reason you're coming
clean now is that you got caught, albeit a more than a year too late.
-Sandy
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Nola <nduffy(a)patch.net> wrote:
> As all of you know, the state previously voted to incorporate and for the
> past few months we have been working on a set of by-laws to present to the
> state for approval.
>
> Some of you are already aware that I have personally incorporated the state
> as the first step toward getting the state ready to function as a
> corporation. The charter shows that Denise is the current president and
> Paul is the VP and I believe I show as the secretary.
>
> Because there is a concerted effort on the part of some prior members of the
> state to create another firestorm in the state as many of you have
> previously seen, the mere fact of the incorporation is the first club they
> want the membership to use.
>
> I want to be the first to let you know that they have provided a web page to
> inform the CCs of the state about the dastardly deed.
>
> It can be viewed at:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~teylu/ncgwinc.html
>
> I do apologize for another attempt to take over the NCGenWeb by the long
> proven method of divide and conquer.
>
> Nola
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Becky,
Please do.
Nola
----- Original Message -----
From: <RLDOZIER(a)aol.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Important
> You are up, so I am going to call you
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your
> travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
The below listed is what I was talking about that is getting out of hand....no matter how much something irritates some
Derick, questioning the formation of a whole new project when we have
a long-standing and excellent one already in place hardly seems to fit
the bill of "trouble-making"... let alone with the vile "f" word as
modifier.
But I am full-well sick of your vile, off-list intimidation, so
anything you send to me will be responded to publicly on the discuss
list. It's way past time for everyone to see you for what you are.
-Sandy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Derick Hartshorn <DerickH(a)charter.net>
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] [NCGENWEB] NCGenWeb Cemetery Project
To: Sandy <teylu2(a)gmail.com>
At 12:44 PM 8/19/2008, you wrote:
>
> I guess I don't quite understand the difference, Denise. For example,
> in the Vance Co. section of the Tombstone Project, there's the
> Woodlief cemetery, which has photos. To me, this doesn't seem
Sandy,
Why don't you quit being such a f_______ trouble maker?
If you don't like the idea Denise proposed, why don't you just shut
the h____ up and quit bothering the rest of us and go on.
Denise is trying to do her job and doesn't need a s___ head like you
trying to cause trouble.
If you have any better ideas, why don't you propose them instead of
continuing to be a obstacle to progress?
Guess who?
This is getting really old...quick! I usually keep my mouth shut during
these squabbles on the discussion board, but I have to vent before I remove
my email from this list. I feel like I’m in grade school with the constant
bickering that goes on the board. Never in my life have I seen such childish
whining over trivial subjects such as “the right to vote,” “duplicating of
services,” and the “changing of by-laws.”
Can we just all get along and get back to providing the best genealogy
information for visitors to the project? This is not Congress nor are we
solving the national debt. The spirit and mission of the project is to
provide genealogical information and help for everyone. We lose sight of
that mission and the spirit diminishes, at least in my eyes, when county
coordinators argue on the discussion board. Call it personality conflicts,
call hatred call whatever you like, but do it in private email. I actually
read the discussion board because it helps me with my research and
development of my site. It literally takes me a half hour to an hour to work
through the arguing and bickering to locate the information Denise and Nola
are trying to post. If you folks find it necessary to argue please do it via
private email. If you need a chat room to vent and “duke it out,” then I can
provide it to you at no charge.
R. Trent Briles
Randolph County CC.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy" <teylu2(a)gmail.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship
> Diane,
>
> Unfortunately, several statements, most notably your own, have
> repeatedly misrepresented the motion, making it necessary to repost
> it.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Mike & Diane <garebel(a)embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Sandy we are all adults and we can all very obviously read. You are
>> beating
>> a dead dog to death! Most people have read the proposed changes that you
>> are
>> wanting us to sponsor and obviously from the posts that are going through
>> no
>> one agrees with the changes and all of your brow beating is not going to
>> get
>> anyone to change their minds!
>>
>> We all understand that you want us to vote on whether NCGenWeb should
>> sponsor the bylaws changes. Why would any of want to sponsor the change
>> if
>> none of us want the change to begin with?
>>
>> We all understand it is our God given right to vote but you have to
>> understand we all have our own voices and opinions and you constantly
>> trying
>> to browbeat and talk down to anyone and everyone that tries to voice
>> their
>> opinion does nothing but make you look bad.
>>
>> Please accept everyone's opinions and quit trying to force your will on
>> everyone that disagrees or differs with your own.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/craven/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/dobbs/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/duplin/duplin.htm
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/greene/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/jones/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/lenoir/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/newhanover/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/onslow/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/pasquotank/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/pender/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/perquimans/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/sampson/
>> http://www.ncgenweb.us/ncmil/
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: Sandy
>> Date: 8/23/2008 6:42:41 PM
>> To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
>> Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship
>>
>> The motion:
>> "In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
>> Vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
>> Move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
>> Co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
>> Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
>> The USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
>>
>> Please read the motion and note that no position whatsoever is
>> Mentioned about the proposed amendment itself. The wording does not
>> Offer "support for" or "endorsement of" the amendment. The motion
>> States _only_ that NCGenWeb is joining the other co-sponsors "in order
>> To provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to vote on
>> The proposed amendment..."
>>
>> This motion enables everyone to support our membership's right to vote
>> Without compromising anyone's personal stance on the content of the
>> Amendment itself. I don't know how to be any more democratic, and I
>> Would never want to be any less democratic.
>>
>> If ever allowed to vote on the proposed amendment, two-thirds must
>> Approve it. If they do, so be it. That isn't called a problem, it's
>> Called a democracy.
>>
>> When the very opportunity to vote is denied, there is no democracy.
>>
>> -Sandy
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.7/1628 - Release Date: 8/22/2008
>> 6:32 PM
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message6®¢ŠŠrž²xro²óó®jjïÿñyóÿó
__________________________________________________
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
http://www.doteasy.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy" <teylu2(a)gmail.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship
>The motion:
"In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
Please read the motion and note that no position whatsoever is
mentioned about the proposed amendment itself. The wording does not
offer "support for" or "endorsement of" the amendment. The motion
states _only_ that NCGenWeb is joining the other co-sponsors "in order
to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to vote on
the proposed amendment..."
Whether one wants to call it "support for" or "endorsement of", it still
doesn't change the fact that I vote " NO". I think that we all understand
what the motion is about and there is no need to continue to "clarify" it
for us. I don't think that we should be a sponsor for the motion.
Deloris
Diane,
Unfortunately, several statements, most notably your own, have
repeatedly misrepresented the motion, making it necessary to repost
it.
-Sandy
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Mike & Diane <garebel(a)embarqmail.com> wrote:
> Sandy we are all adults and we can all very obviously read. You are beating
> a dead dog to death! Most people have read the proposed changes that you are
> wanting us to sponsor and obviously from the posts that are going through no
> one agrees with the changes and all of your brow beating is not going to get
> anyone to change their minds!
>
> We all understand that you want us to vote on whether NCGenWeb should
> sponsor the bylaws changes. Why would any of want to sponsor the change if
> none of us want the change to begin with?
>
> We all understand it is our God given right to vote but you have to
> understand we all have our own voices and opinions and you constantly trying
> to browbeat and talk down to anyone and everyone that tries to voice their
> opinion does nothing but make you look bad.
>
> Please accept everyone's opinions and quit trying to force your will on
> everyone that disagrees or differs with your own.
>
>
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/craven/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/dobbs/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/duplin/duplin.htm
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/greene/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/jones/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/lenoir/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/newhanover/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/onslow/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/pasquotank/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/pender/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/perquimans/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/sampson/
> http://www.ncgenweb.us/ncmil/
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Sandy
> Date: 8/23/2008 6:42:41 PM
> To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Co-sponsorship
>
> The motion:
> "In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
> Vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
> Move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
> Co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
> Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
> The USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
>
> Please read the motion and note that no position whatsoever is
> Mentioned about the proposed amendment itself. The wording does not
> Offer "support for" or "endorsement of" the amendment. The motion
> States _only_ that NCGenWeb is joining the other co-sponsors "in order
> To provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to vote on
> The proposed amendment..."
>
> This motion enables everyone to support our membership's right to vote
> Without compromising anyone's personal stance on the content of the
> Amendment itself. I don't know how to be any more democratic, and I
> Would never want to be any less democratic.
>
> If ever allowed to vote on the proposed amendment, two-thirds must
> Approve it. If they do, so be it. That isn't called a problem, it's
> Called a democracy.
>
> When the very opportunity to vote is denied, there is no democracy.
>
> -Sandy
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.7/1628 - Release Date: 8/22/2008
> 6:32 PM
>
>
> .
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
The motion:
"In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
Please read the motion and note that no position whatsoever is
mentioned about the proposed amendment itself. The wording does not
offer "support for" or "endorsement of" the amendment. The motion
states _only_ that NCGenWeb is joining the other co-sponsors "in order
to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to vote on
the proposed amendment..."
This motion enables everyone to support our membership's right to vote
without compromising anyone's personal stance on the content of the
amendment itself. I don't know how to be any more democratic, and I
would never want to be any less democratic.
If ever allowed to vote on the proposed amendment, two-thirds must
approve it. If they do, so be it. That isn't called a problem, it's
called a democracy.
When the very opportunity to vote is denied, there is no democracy.
-Sandy
I'd rather not have anything as important as the By-Laws changed with a
simple majority. So, I vote No, to North Carolina endorsing the proposed
amendment.
Deloris Williams
Sandy,
If the proposed amendment was one you strongly disagreed with, would you
still vote for the state to co-sponsor the proposed amendment? Think of
something, anything, you would HATE to see the USGenWeb project do and then
tell us you would urge the state to co-sponsor the amendment.
It just seems to me that it IS this specific amendment you support and
therefore want to ensure that 5 states can be found to co-sponsor the
proposed amendment allowing a simple majority to change our By-Laws at will.
Do the By-Laws need work - probably so. However, what is it about the
By-Laws you think needs changing so badly that you want a simple majority
of the membership who are voting at a given point, to be able to change
them. I find it very interesting that one of the strongest supporters of
the proposed amendment argued even more strongly against allowing 51% to
control the outcome of a decision that was not what they wanted at the
moment. Very interesting change in position. By-Laws should not be
changed on such whims.
I have no question that 5 states will co-sponsor the amendment and can even
name a few who are just waiting for someone else to do it so they will not
have to. Why? Because they are afraid of what the effect of their
endorsement of the proposed amendment will have on the ultimate outcome and
for this reason they are trying to find others to do it for them.
However, I do not think the NCGenWeb members should agree to co-sponsor an
amendment, unless the membership believes in the merits of the proposed
change.
I do think co-sponsorship implies approval and endorsement.
Perhaps a majority of the NC CCs do wish to see the opportunity for a simple
majority to be able to change our by-laws and if so, they will vote yes and
we will become a co-sponsor. Otherwise, if they think our By-Laws should
not be constantly be in a state of flux, they may prefer to express that
opinion by voting NO on the motion to co-sponsor the amendment. I trust
our members to vote as they think best and will support their decision.
I belong to a number of national organizations and I do not know one in
which the By-Laws can be changed by a simple majority. Procedural rules are
a different matter. Most organizations do support a change in procedural
rules with a simple majority. There must be some good reason why the
majority of organizations do not permit a change in By-Laws based on a
simple majority vote at any given point in time.
I do hope that others will give their opinions and vote, either yes or no -
so we do agree on that point. I simply do not feel it is proper to urge our
members to vote to support and co-sponsor an amendment if they do not agree
on the merits of the amendment. I am happy to rely on their own good
judgment. The ability to vote, yes or no, IS the American way and I hope
that 100 % of the members will vote. What I would hate to see is to have
NCGenWeb co-sponsor a By-Law amendment based on the votes of a mere handful
of people. If everyone fails to vote, then it could be passed by only a
couple of people. That is not in the best interest of the USGenWeb or the
NCGenWeb.
I do urge everyone to vote!
Nola
Diane, I believe you've misunderstood me. Denise opened discussion on
the *motion* - not the proposed amendment, which is not open for a
vote. Much as you, or I, or everyone might *like* to vote on the
proposed amendment, we are *all* barred from doing so. Which is
precisely why I made the motion that's before us -- to help *enable*
us the opportunity to vote on the proposed amendment.
I just don't see much point is discussing an issue we're all barred
from voting on. If we can't vote, our opinions don't amount to a row
of pins.
The motion before us is a motion to enable you, me, and everybody else
the opportunity TO vote. If we ever get that opportunity, our
opinions about the proposed amendment would be worth expressing. Right
now, who cares? We can't vote!
Again, the motion before us is:
"In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
-Sandy
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Mike & Diane <garebel(a)embarqmail.com> wrote:
> In all actuality it is open for a discussion. Quote from Denise "Discussion
> on this motion is to take place on ncgenweb-discuss. If you are not
> subscribed to this list and would like to be, email me at seek4fam(a)yahoo.com
> and ask to be added. For those of you who prefer to follow the conversation
> from the Archive of the Mailing List, this is the URL for that Archive:
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS/. " Unquote.
>
>
> So anyone and everyone that wants to post their opinion to this list or
> wants to state the way they will or will not be voting is allowed.
>
> Diane
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Sandy
> Date: 8/23/2008 12:10:40 PM
> To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Proposed amendment is not open for a vote, folks
>
>
> As a reminder, the proposed amendment is not open for a vote, so
> Whether any of us might be inclined to support it or oppose it makes
> No difference to anyone. Each of us is barred from voting on it - call
> It equal opportunity discrimination, if you will.
>
> The motion before us merely seeks to provide each of us that
> Opportunity TO vote. If we ever GET to vote, we'll all have equal
> Opportunity to vote however we please.
>
> Guess you can call me "too American." You might not vote the way I'd
> Vote, but by Jove, I'll defend your right TO vote regardless. :-)
>
> -Sandy
>
>
> The motion before us is:
>
> "In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
> Vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
> Move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
> Co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
> Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
> The USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
As a reminder, the proposed amendment is not open for a vote, so
whether any of us might be inclined to support it or oppose it makes
no difference to anyone. Each of us is barred from voting on it - call
it equal opportunity discrimination, if you will.
The motion before us merely seeks to provide each of us that
opportunity TO vote. If we ever GET to vote, we'll all have equal
opportunity to vote however we please.
Guess you can call me "too American." You might not vote the way I'd
vote, but by jove, I'll defend your right TO vote regardless. :-)
-Sandy
The motion before us is:
"In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
>
That is neither here nor there. The fact is that now there are a lot of
people that do not have the projects best interests at heart. They would
rather see the project fail than to try to continue to build it into the
project we all know it is, can and will be.
If the bylaws are co-sponsored by NCGenWeb then we are saying we agree with
changing the bylaws to read that a majority of voters speak for everyone.
That means if there are 1,000 voters and 501 vote to do something and 499
vote not to do it then the majority wins.
This is not and should not be the proper procedure to run a project such as
the USGenWeb Project.
I think most people would and do agree that a 2/3 majority vote is how the
bylaws should stay.
Diane
http://www.ncgenweb.us/craven/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/dobbs/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/duplin/duplin.htmhttp://www.ncgenweb.us/greene/http://www.ncgenweb.us/jones/http://www.ncgenweb.us/lenoir/http://www.ncgenweb.us/newhanover/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/onslow/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/pasquotank/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/pender/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/perquimans/http://www.ncgenweb.us/sampson/http://www.ncgenweb.us/ncmil/
-------Original Message-------
From: Sandy
Date: 8/23/2008 12:25:10 AM
To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Motion is to be allowed to vote
Diane,
I don't think you were in the project at the time, so you may not
Realize that if a two-thirds majority had been required, we wouldn't
Even have the bylaws.
-Sandy
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Mike & Diane <garebel(a)embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think most people would and do agree that a 2/3 majority vote is how the
> bylaws should stay.
And if that's true, Diane, it will be reflected when they vote. But
first, we must trigger the process which ensures everyone gets to
vote, which in this case means ensuring there are 5 co-sponsors.
Otherwise, you're denying the membership the opportunity to agree - or
to disagree with you. Is that your intent?
My intent is merely to ensure that everyone has that opportunity to
vote. That's why I made the motion. Opposing co-sponsors is synonymous
with opposing the membership's right to vote.
-Sandy
I'm not the least bit concerned with what anyone might claim is
"implied" when it comes to providing people the right to vote, Nola.
I'm well aware, even if others might not be, that this is a procedural
matter. Co-sponsorship is the procedural mechanism by which the
membership is provided - or denied - the opportunity to vote.
Co-sponsors support the right of the membership to vote by providing
the only mechanism by which members _can_ vote.
Fact is, "states" don't get to vote on the proposed amendment.
Individual project members will vote however they choose *if* they're
allowed the opportunity to vote. Without 5 cosponsors, no member gets
to vote.
Of course, anyone worried that a referendum might not go the way
they'd like could be expected to oppose sponsorships so that nobody
gets to vote. That's certainly one political strategy. It's just not
mine.
-Sandy
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Nola <nduffy(a)patch.net> wrote:
> Sandy,
>
> I think it is a bit more. What if a simple majority of the CCs in the state
> should vote in favor of "being allowed to vote" (your definition). Would
> that not imply we are agreeing the NCGenWeb should be one of the
> co-sponsors? What if he CCs of NCGenWeb do not wish to co-sponsor the
> by-laws amendment. Do you think they should still vote yes to your motion?
> Please clarify what your motion was intended to do if not to ask the members
> of the NCGenWeb to agree to co-sponsor the amendment. Then tell the CCs why
> they should vote "yes" to co-sponsor an amendment if they are not in favor
> of the amendment.
>
> Nola
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy" <teylu2(a)gmail.com>
> To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 8:52 PM
> Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Motion is to be allowed to vote
>
>
>> It seems some clarification of the current motion and the overall
>> process is needed.
>>
>> The motion on the floor is solely about gaining the opportunity to
>> vote -- nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> At present, none of us is _allowed_ to vote for or against the
>> proposed amendment, so the amendment's merits are irrelevant.
>>
>> In order to gain the opportunity to vote, certain hoops must be jumped
>> through. This is hoop #1. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed
>> amendment, it dies without a single person being allowed to vote for
>> or against it. I think that's unfair and downright wrong. I believe
>> anyone who donates time to this project deserves the chance to vote on
>> this - regardless of how they vote.
>>
>> Even if we manage to gain the opportunity to vote, the present bylaws
>> dictate that any amendment receive a *two-thirds* majority of the vote
>> to become enacted. (What are the odds?) Mind you, 10 years ago the
>> bylaws themselves only mustered a *simple* majority of 398 for v. 304
>> against. (If you weren't a project member 10 years ago, you didn't
>> have a voice in the bylaws.)
>>
>> Voting for the current motion is merely voting in favor of being
>> allowed to vote.
>>
>> -Sandy
>>
>>
>> Here is the motion before us:
>>
>> "In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
>> vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
>> move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
>> co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
>> Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
>> the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
>> [The proposed amendment was then quoted for reference only so everyone
>> could see what we *might* get to on *if* we ever get to vote.]
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Let me clarify my previous email.
I do NOT think we should co-sponsor the amendment, the bylaws changes and/or
even entertain the idea of it.
It has been and always should be a 2/3 vote and that is the way it should
remain.
It doesn't matter if 50 vote or 50,000 vote it should be whatever the 2/3
majority decide upon.
If it is changed to just a majority vote then that would mean that just one
single vote could decide the future of the project and that could very well
mean the destruction of the project as a whole.
Think about it....
Diane
http://www.ncgenweb.us/craven/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/dobbs/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/duplin/duplin.htmhttp://www.ncgenweb.us/greene/http://www.ncgenweb.us/jones/http://www.ncgenweb.us/lenoir/http://www.ncgenweb.us/newhanover/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/onslow/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/pasquotank/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/pender/
http://www.ncgenweb.us/perquimans/http://www.ncgenweb.us/sampson/http://www.ncgenweb.us/ncmil/
-------Original Message-------
From: Nola
Date: 8/22/2008 10:17:26 PM
To: ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Motion is to be allowed to vote
Sandy,
I think it is a bit more. What if a simple majority of the CCs in the state
Should vote in favor of "being allowed to vote" (your definition). Would
That not imply we are agreeing the NCGenWeb should be one of the
Co-sponsors? What if he CCs of NCGenWeb do not wish to co-sponsor the
By-laws amendment. Do you think they should still vote yes to your motion?
Please clarify what your motion was intended to do if not to ask the members
Of the NCGenWeb to agree to co-sponsor the amendment. Then tell the CCs why
They should vote "yes" to co-sponsor an amendment if they are not in favor
Of the amendment.
Nola
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy" <teylu2(a)gmail.com>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 8:52 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Motion is to be allowed to vote
> It seems some clarification of the current motion and the overall
> process is needed.
>
> The motion on the floor is solely about gaining the opportunity to
> vote -- nothing more, nothing less.
>
> At present, none of us is _allowed_ to vote for or against the
> proposed amendment, so the amendment's merits are irrelevant.
>
> In order to gain the opportunity to vote, certain hoops must be jumped
> through. This is hoop #1. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed
> amendment, it dies without a single person being allowed to vote for
> or against it. I think that's unfair and downright wrong. I believe
> anyone who donates time to this project deserves the chance to vote on
> this - regardless of how they vote.
>
> Even if we manage to gain the opportunity to vote, the present bylaws
> dictate that any amendment receive a *two-thirds* majority of the vote
> to become enacted. (What are the odds?) Mind you, 10 years ago the
> bylaws themselves only mustered a *simple* majority of 398 for v. 304
> against. (If you weren't a project member 10 years ago, you didn't
> have a voice in the bylaws.)
>
> Voting for the current motion is merely voting in favor of being
> allowed to vote.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
> Here is the motion before us:
>
> "In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
> vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
> move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
> co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
> Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
> the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
> [The proposed amendment was then quoted for reference only so everyone
> could see what we *might* get to on *if* we ever get to vote.]
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.7/1628 - Release Date: 8/22/2008
6:32 PM
.
It seems some clarification of the current motion and the overall
process is needed.
The motion on the floor is solely about gaining the opportunity to
vote -- nothing more, nothing less.
At present, none of us is _allowed_ to vote for or against the
proposed amendment, so the amendment's merits are irrelevant.
In order to gain the opportunity to vote, certain hoops must be jumped
through. This is hoop #1. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed
amendment, it dies without a single person being allowed to vote for
or against it. I think that's unfair and downright wrong. I believe
anyone who donates time to this project deserves the chance to vote on
this - regardless of how they vote.
Even if we manage to gain the opportunity to vote, the present bylaws
dictate that any amendment receive a *two-thirds* majority of the vote
to become enacted. (What are the odds?) Mind you, 10 years ago the
bylaws themselves only mustered a *simple* majority of 398 for v. 304
against. (If you weren't a project member 10 years ago, you didn't
have a voice in the bylaws.)
Voting for the current motion is merely voting in favor of being
allowed to vote.
-Sandy
Here is the motion before us:
"In order to provide the entire USGenWeb membership the opportunity to
vote on the proposed amendment to the USGenWeb Project's bylaws, I
move that the NCGenWeb Project join Indiana and Mississippi in
co-sponsoring the following proposed amendment to the USGenWeb
Project's bylaws. Unless 5 states co-sponsor the proposed amendment,
the USGWP membership will not be allowed the opportunity to vote."
[The proposed amendment was then quoted for reference only so everyone
could see what we *might* get to on *if* we ever get to vote.]