I sincerely apologize for posting it to the list. Derick is the only one who has
responded on the
list. Please ignore.
Nola
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nola Duffy" <nduffy(a)patch.net>
To: <ncgenweb-discuss(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] [NCGENWEB] Poll of NCGENWEB member onproposed By-Law
Amendments
Derick,
As usual, you read it right! I also think the majority of CCs in the country also feel
it is not
needed and as you can see, there has been zero discussion on the list about it. I will
put you
down
as No to each question. Actually I wish more would say they think neither is needed
instead of
ignoring both. I am very fond of Ellen but even her heart is not in doing anything.
However,
like
me, she could not abide the first.
We still miss you! If I get to drive to NC this year, I would love to give you a call
and perhaps
invite you and your wife to have breakfast, lunch or dinner with me, depending on what
time I hit
your part of NC. I usually fly to NC and rent a car but I hope to drive this year so
that I can
hit
a few court houses and state archives along the way.
Nola
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derick Hartshorn" <DerickH(a)charter.net>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS(a)rootsweb.com>
Cc: <fspradlin(a)earthlink.net>; <sburow(a)swbell.net>;
<syshephard(a)charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] [NCGENWEB] Poll of NCGENWEB member on proposed By-Law
Amendments
> At 10:17 AM 5/15/2007, you wrote:
>>There are two proposed USGenWeb Project amendments that need
>>NCGenWeb co-sponsorship. Both propose
>>to amend the same bylaw article:
>>
>>Article V. Composition of Advisory Board.
>>
>>1. Don Tharp's KSGenWeb sponsored amendment.
>>
>>http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml dated Feb. 20, 2007
>>as modified Mar. 27, 2007.
>>
>>So far, TNGenWeb, NVGenWeb, and WAGenWeb have co-sponsored this amendment.
>>
>>2. Ellen Pack's NVGenWeb sponsored amendment.
>>
>>http://www.natchezbelle.org/amendment/amendment.html Additionally,
>>a poll on this proposed
>>amendment is currently underway at TNGenWeb and sponsorship is expected.
>
> I have had the opportunity to read over the original USGWP Bylaw
> Article V and the proposed amendments.
>
> I have come to the conclusion that the first amendment (1. Don
> Tharp's KSGenWeb sponsored amendment) is not only unnecessary but
> appears to foster "mob rule."
> Please don't misinterpret my choice of words. The original concept of
> democracy sounded OK but it allowed the voices of every citizen to
> clog an otherwise smooth running government. This became one of the
> reasons for the fall of ancient Greece. Out American forefathers saw
> the pitfalls of pure democracy and were so appalled that they
> instituted the representative form of government. (Make no mistake,
> the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.) Our USGWP bylaws
> currently reflect as good a form of representation as is practical
> under the circumstances. There is no member of the USGWP that has no
> representation on the state and national level.
>
> Concerning the second amendment (2. Ellen Pack's NVGenWeb sponsored
> amendment) appears to be an alternative to #1; perhaps it is the bone
> that is being thrown to those who support proposed amendment #1. I
> can't really understand why regionally structured representation is
> necessary. Neither the US government or any representative governing
> body I am aware of has such a structure. As a North Carolinian within
> my NCGW Project, my scope has little in common with the other states
> in the SE/MA Region.
>
> Since 1996, I have been a member of the USGWP and have served a term
> as State Coordinator. During that time the autonomous nature of our
> Project has allowed the USGWP to achieve preeminent status in the
> sphere of genealogical research. During that time, a few ripples have
> appeared across our otherwise tranquil pond. One of these came from a
> small but disruptive group who wanted to foist their minority views
> upon the entire Project. Even today, they seek to expand the
> grievance procedure in an attempt to achieve their selfish goals.
>
> Another ripple they generated is related to the first. They continue
> to be troubled with the sponsorship (and dollars) that keeps the USGWP afloat.
>
> In short, I can think of no compelling reason to adopt either amendment.
>
> Derick S. Hartshorn
> Former NCGWP State Coordinator
> USGenWeb Project-County Coordinator
> Catawba/Burke/Lincoln/Gaston/Cleveland, NC
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM