On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 Angie Rayfield wrote:
I have a little different view on guidelines,
since to me, guidelines are a matter of "This
is really the way that I would like to see it
done, but you don't have to do it this way." I
don't see that as being something that should
require a vote
If that's all the Organizational Plan was meant to be, then
I'd agree with you
:) But, instead of that, it allows for 3 ASC to do duties that the SC was
voted to perform. Keep reading....
Two specific changes were made shortly after
Derick put up this page....the second clarifying
that the people Derick referred to as the
"board" act in an advisory capacity only.
Sounds good, but that isn't
reality. The 2nd change was made Jul 30th and
*after* that date two ASC's took it upon themselves to perform duties.
One unsubscribed Maggie Olson from this list, without even notifying her! As
it turned out it was the ASC who didn't understand RootsWeb policy, not
Maggie, Maggie was re-subscribed and got no apology from the ASC.
Another ASC delinked two counties and put them up for adoption, without even
notifying the CC's! It turned out to be a misunderstanding, and at least this
ASC apologized.
Those two actions by ASC's don't sound to me like
"advisory capacity only." If the proof is in the pudding...what sort of other
"advisory capacity only" actions against CC'c by the 'leadership'
can we
expect to happen in the future?
This is the sort of stuff that gives CC's bad feelings towards USGenWeb
leadership, and the kind of things that make CC's quit the USGenWeb altogether
and become hateful towards the Project as has occured with former NCGenWeb
CC's. These sort of actions happen elsewhere too...like the overzealous
Georgia ASC who, going against his own states guidelines, wrongfully delinked
John Rigdons page.
My opinion, Derick shouldn't have posted to a
private message to the list without permission.
I have no argument with you there. But I don't
think that's relevant to a discussion of the
organizational plan.
Because the organizational plan says the SC shall comply with
the USGenWeb
bylaws, and the bylaws state that USGenWeb members shall comply with the (c)
laws, and Derick did not do so.
You see, Angie...CC's want to believe in the USGenWeb, they want to believe in
the bylaws, they want to believe in state guidelines or what every a state
calls them, they want to believe in lists rules...how can the CC's do this
when the 'leaders' themselves break the rules, some times even their own
rules!?
I've read both this plan and the USGW by-laws
more times than I care to count, and don't see
the conflict. What specifically is in violation
of USGW bylaws?
ARTICLE XII. STATE PROJECTS Section 1. ..."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 PERION OF 30 DAYS...." The
caps are mine. I don't want to bother searching the archives to read the
discussion of this bylaw, but I'd guess the reason it's stated as such, is so
SC's can't appoint ASC's to do the duties that the CC's voted the SC to
do...otherwise, I'm sure some states would have "coordinators" the CC's
didn't
vote for.
Daryl - dlytton(a)mindspring.com