I would NOT like to see New Jersey sponsor this amendment. There are good
reasons to leave the voting procedure as it is, i.e., 66-2/3% voting in the
affirmative. USGenWeb is a grass roots organization. The organization is
the county or town coordinator. Anything above that should exist for only
one reason, that is to support the local coordinator. In that support, I
include the need for a state site to help people find the county/town site
that are looking for and to host that material that is truly statewide
material.
A national organization is really only needed to represent USGenWeb to the
outside community. Over the past years, I haven't seen much happen there
except for a USGenWeb logo. Everything seems to be fighting over positions,
what projects should or should not be done, but very little to help the local
coordinator which is USGenWeb. I would be hard pressed to present a good
argument to have a set of National Bylaws other than the legal argument
which, if USGenWeb is a corporation, requires that there be some minimal set
of bylaws.
So leave the percentage alone. If enough local coordinators want to change
something, it will easily garner the necessary percentage of votes to pass.
Let's spend our time on genealogy and not on word smithing a document
(USGenWeb Bylaws) that should have little to do with our purpose in life.
Al Sinclair
Hunterdon County
----- Original Message -----
From: <DAWells2(a)aol.com>
To: <njgen(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:33 AM
Subject: [NJGEN] National Bylaws Amendment
I previously posted information on the sponsorship of a new National
bylaws
amendment. I have only heard from one person - Al Sinclair.
No one has indicated whether they are interested in New Jersey becoming a
sponsor for this national amendment. I am inserting below a posting by
Jeff
Scism, who has given permission to cross post his email.
On my part, I am undecided as to whether or not I would like to see New
Jersey as a sponsor for this national amendment. I would like to hear from
all
of my coordinators as to your opinions on this matter. Please read
Jeff's
posting below, along with Annie's post to the USGenWeb-SE digest, of which
many
of you may already be members. However, for those who are not
members of
that list (which you should be as you are in the SE region), I am
reposting
here.
All of these things that take place at the National level affect each and
every one of you and I want you to be informed. Your rights as a
coordiantor
are affected each time these things take place. Please take an
interest
and
let me know how you feel. It is your right to be heard, especially
at the
state level (and I want to represent your interests), as to what you would
like
to see happen on a National level. Help me help you by letting me
know
what
your reaction is to these types of things. These decisions affect
the
future
of each coordinator.
Indiana and Mississippi have taken on the sponsorship for this Bylaw
amendment so far.
Thanks.
Denise
-------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:41:43 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: "AnnieG" <anniegms(a)telepak.net>
Subject: [USGW-SE] Fw: [USGENWEB-SW] Guest posting - RE: Bylaws
proposal
To: <usgenweb-se(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <48ACABB7.000003.03936@ANN-ANPH3T4SU8F>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jeff Scism has given permission to cross post this to other lists.
Jeff is a CC in three counties in Indiana, Montgomery, Putnam, and
Fountain.
In addition he is the current chair of the Indiana Genweb Grievance
Committee.
He is also a member of the INGenWeb Standards committee.
He is a Past Advisory Board Member, for the NE area.
Jeff chaired the USGenWeb Bylaws Committee, (the last one), and was a
member of the one before that one. He has written NINE bylaws revisions
for thie USGW project. (None have made it to ballot).
AnnieG
-------Original Message-------
From: Jeff Scism
Date: 08/20/08 17:48:07
To: USGenWeb-SW(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Guest posting - RE: Bylaws proposal
Hello, I am Jeff Scism, former cc of Churchill County, Nv. I have been
invited back to answer any questions about the proposed USGenWeb Bylaws
Amendment.
As an introduction, the bylaws amendment proposal has been co-sponsored
by two states, Indiana and Mississippi.
http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml
The ONLY change this proposal makes is to change the number (%) of
voters casting votes from a current 2/3rds majority to a simple (50%+1
vote) majority to pass future bylaws amendments, this one is under the
current rules and will require a 2/3rds majority to carry.
A total of five states co-sponsoring is required to place the issue on
the ballot. If three more states do not sponsor it, it becomes a "dead"
issue.
Why this amendment is proposed...
There are two "hoops" that have to be jumped through to allow the
membership to consider any Bylaws amendment.
The first "hoop" is the sponsoring by at least five states. This, by
our current bylaws, directs that the proposal be balloted during the
next annual voting period, July 1-31.
The second "hoop" is getting 66%+ of those voting to approve the
amendment.
In the past there have been many well thought out and desirable
proposals which never got to the ballot, because five states could not
agree to co-sponsor.
The Basic bylaws document has has many built in flaws that have been
known for years, and so far three full revisions have failed to make it
to the ballot.
Although we are always tempted to fix all of what is wrong, we must
acknowledge that ONE small change at a time is likely all we can
convince people to adapt to, and get five states to co-sponsor.
This means that getting tech errors and flaws corrected will take years,
having only one opportunity per year to submit to the process, and if
that effort doesn't pass that is a t least a year wasted.
This is the first step, not only will it allow easier amendments, it
will also give the membership more of a say in how things are done.
Currently with the 2/3rds requirement, 34% of the voters in the Project
is a majority. It only takes 34% of those voters to over ride the
remaining voters support. With passage of this amendment the power to
make changes is placed back in the hands of the simple majority, The
CCs will be able to have a vote that counts, without having to convince
MORE than 66% of the voters.
In addition to this proposal, NEXT year others will follow, if this
passes, which will gradually work on the existing issues. ADD the
members' rights section, define a membership class, and a voting class,
establish how to join.
These are things which the current bylaws lack.
Other issues which may arise:
Establish a single Parliamentary authority, so all states operate under
the same processes and rights. This will allow the bylaws to be a lot
LESS, as most issues and processes are already covered in the Guide.
This will also install a fair procedure that isn't "made up as we go"
as past procedures have been.
Move the "Operating Procedures" out of the bylaws and into an attached
document, so that a Project wide vote isn't required (and at least a
year wait) to make changes that are specific to operations.
Install a separability clause, so if one portion of the Bylaws is deemed
to be void, the rest will be unaffected.
Establish a POLICY section where policies will be separate from Bylaws.
Remove sections that contradict Law.
Allow administrative amendments to correct errors in spelling, or
sentence structure. Make changes of things like links and addresses of
websites that may change. (An example is the current bylaws amendment
procedure which references the USGenWeb-all list, which is no longer
used.)
If you have any questions about this or future proposals, feel free to
write to me, Jeff(a)ibssg.org, or ask on list.
The aim of this process is to put the vote of the members first.
Thank You.
--
Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG
**************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
NJGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message