<Since these 24 or 25 people do not however
constitute a majority of the CCs, in deference to Diane's complaint I am
willing for discussion of these issues to continue on the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS
list if she or anyone else feels that more should be said. Shall we say
until January 15th?. At this time we will reassess whether we are ready
for a vote.>
Now what I am hearing is that we have to vote on whether or not we can
discuss topics on the discuss list?
Am I hearing that we must vote or whether to continue or discontinue
discussion on the Discuss list? If you didn't make the discussion list for
open political discussion as the issue arise and grow and take shape then
you might as well shut it down right now. If you made the list for open
discussion then there is no voting on what topics are allowed. I can dig up
"your "description of this list if I need to.
Yes I did say that I objected to the vote and ballot to you in writing more
than once. You even replied to two of my messages on dec 1 and dec 3.
As a matter of fact I filed a complaint with Brigette about that very thing.
I then I
filed the same complaint with Yvonne and Holly. I was basically ignored by
both.
I have since written a complaint to the acting NC for the problem with
having my grievance against this election process ignored.
Of course I didn't discuss the current Vote while it was in process. That
is the point it was already in process. Discussion was cut short in favor
of a rushed
vote.
I filed my complaint during this times as I said above and it was ignored
all this time by my Reps.
During that dry spell, you filed a complaint against me. You accuse me of
misrepresenting you and I believe I proved to all involved that I did Not
misrepresent you. You were angry that I went to the ALL list with my local
issues, however I must point out that you had said to take the discussion
there more than once, I recall.
While a grievance against me was in process I did not think it time for me
to be communicating with you or the list. Therefore I did not post. As a
matter of fact, I do not consider it settled yet.
I did not undermine my own complaint by not voting, I could not in good
conscious participate in a
manipulated and forced election.
Fairness also means allowing discussion for all not just a few. You know
American would never have gained it independence if discussion and dissent
had not been allowed. These are the standards we live by in the real world.
If you wanted to be fair you would help create a governing body for No Car
to set up elections and make decisions that are fair to all.
p.s. as far as my having forgotten the vote deciding who votes. This was the
results sent me, and I misread them. See below. The Vote by county: 78
YES is what threw me.
Proposal ITEM ONE: future votes shall be taken on the basis of one vote per
participating CC, and not on the basis of one vote per county.
VOTE BY INDIVIDUAL:
44 YES
3 NO
1 absention
VOTE BY COUNTY:
78 YES
5 NO
1 abstention
==============================
=============================================
"There is nothing truly great in any man--except Character."
Give a person an ounce of power to see a glimpse of their true character.
=============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Harris <ncgen(a)mindspring.com>
To: NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 1:26 PM
Subject: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L] Re: [NCGENWEB-L] Results of the recent voting
Diane wrote,
>The election results mean nothing because the whole election was
improperly
>created and improperly conducted.
>We will never know what an educated and informed electorate might have
>decided because free speech and discussion was banned by our SC.
I would like the rest of the readers of this list to know that I wrote
privately to Diane twice in advance of this referendum, on November 23 and
again on November 27, telling her what I intended to have on the ballot,
and in the second of these messages I specifically asked for her input.
She did not take this opportunity to enter into a dialogue about what
should, or should not, be included on the ballot. Diane has also ignored
my offer to continue the dicussion of these issues on the -DISCUSS list
while the vote was in progress.
While I am disappointed that only 41 persons voted, out of 71 eligible, I
think the answer is in any case unequivocal that very few people want to
see discussion of either the domain name or incorporation issue continue on
NCGENWEB-L. Furthermore, a majority of those voting preferred to drop the
discussion altogether rather than either continuing discussion or
proceeding to a vote. Since these 24 or 25 people do not however
constitute a majority of the CCs, in deference to Diane's complaint I am
willing for discussion of these issues to continue on the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS
list if she or anyone else feels that more should be said. Shall we say
until January 15th?. At this time we will reassess whether we are ready
for a vote.
Diane also wrote, in a second message,
>As far as the election goes, I never recognized its existence, and I, and
>others did not vote in it. My 5 votes are not in that pile anywhere. Also
>40 votes does not mean 40 individuals, because each county and project
>gets a vote. There are 100 counties and plus projects and reps. I don't
>believe we
>CCs are even privy to the number of potential votes allowed for NoCar.
We established who was eligible to vote in the first referendum, which
Diane seems to have forgotten. We agreed overwhelmingly that each project
participant should be entitled to one vote, regardless of how many counties
or projects he or she was involved with. I sent our vote-taker a list of
72 persons, all but four of whom were CCs. The other four are special
projects volunteers who are not currently CCs.
Diane, had she voted, would have been entitled to one, not five, votes.
The present count is of 41 individuals who cast one vote each.
By ignoring my request for her input on the form that the vote should take
(and I told her twice that I planned to ask for a referendum on whether
discussion should be continued, brought to a vote, or ended, the three
possible actions we could have taken), and by refusing to vote herself,
Diane has in my opinion completely undermined her own complaint that the
direction of NCGenWeb is not being determined by a democratic process. I
am trying to manage this project in a fair and even-handed manner.
Fairness means listening to the opinions of all the CCs, not just one very
vocal one.
Diane also made the following remark:
>used her bully
>pulpit to file a complaint against me, simply for having an opinion
>different
>than hers and for trying to express it.
My complaint was not that Diane's opinion differs from mine, but that she
misrepresented my actions and statements in a public forum, USGENWEB-ALL.
I asked Bridgett Smith, our southeast area representative on the USGenWeb
project board, for her assistance in mediating this dispute. Bridgett
listened to both of us and then asked us to try to settle it privately. It
never reached the stage of a formal grievance.
Elizabeth Harris
ncgen(a)mindspring.com
state coordinator for NCGenWeb:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/