Joy and others,
Perhaps some believe all SCs are "evil", Joy's word not mine, but I
don't hold that opinion, Robert of this state and my other SC/ASC of
Kansas have never tried to subjugate any of their members, so I don't
know of whom Joy speaks. Perhaps it is those SCs that have dismissed
their CCs arbitrarily and then refused arbitration, perhaps some
other type of subjugation, Joy would have to be more specific.
Be that as it may, Joy's concern for the proposed amendment appears
to be the number of Advisory Board members. I have rewritten the
proposed amendment to address those concerns. I have added three RALs
to replace the three SCs that would be reduced, bringing the Advisory
Board numbers back to their present numbers.
This also gives the Special Projects a voice in the selection of the
three RALs members along with the LCs and SCs of the organization.
The Special Projects members shouldn't be forgotten.
I believe both of us have recognized the inequality of the SCs having
four representatives for such a small group of members and that is
what both amendments addressed.
My objection to Joy's amendment is that of the SCs being elected
during the 2007 election maintaining their seats as Regional
Representatives. That simply perpetuates the inequality of the SC
voice for another two years. Who knows what will happen in two years,
and I don't believe that is necessary. See the revised proposed
amendment at URL
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/elk/2007amndnew.html
and see if addresses our concerns with the end result being the
equalizing of voices and representation for all members of the organization.
We haven't heard from others on this list, if you have an opinion I,
for one, would certainly like to hear from you. Your opinions and
input are important.
DonT
At 11:21 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Don:
I am 100% serious about the amendment. My reasons for doing it are
very different than yours, however. I do not think SCs are evil,
most do not have any intention of subjugating the CCs. It is
strictly a numbers game to me. There are too few SCs to find
candidates willing to subject themselves to the mud-slinging of
running for the AB.
I have better things to do with my life than to try to throw
roadblocks in your way.
BTW, I am SC of SD, not SC. <grin>
--
Joy Fisher
---- Don Tharp <detict(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Good questions Robert, I'll have to mull those over for awhile. Not
> likely that it would happen, but possible.
>
> Joy, are you serious with your proposal, not just trying to throw up
> a road block here? You are the SC of SC have you already asked your
> members there to support your proposal? Have you asked other states
> to co-sponsor, etc?
>
> What I am saying is if you are serious, fine, let's review and
> discuss them both, if you aren't, then let's not waste these good
> people's time.
>
> DonT
>
> At 09:34 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
> >Both proposed amendments have their advantages and disadvantages from my
> >perspective.
> >
> >My question is what happens if both Don's and Joy's proposed bylaw
> >amendments attain the required state sponsorship? It's hard for me to
> >imagine the national election being set up so that one would have to
> >choose between them--or is that a possibility. If both would pass,
> >which would take effect? Anyone have a theory?
> >
> >Robert
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nvgen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:nvgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
> >Behalf Of Joy Fisher
> >Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:14 PM
> >To: nvgen(a)rootsweb.com
> >Subject: [NVGEN, Nevada Genealogy List] Proposed Amendment
> >
> >Robert:
> >
> >Let's submit both amendments to the NV CCs. Let them decide whether they
> >want to support one amendment or the other or neither.
> >
> >ARTICLE V. COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY BOARD
> >
> >Old:
> >The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National
> >Coordinator, four (4) State Coordinator Regional Representatives, eight
> >(8) Local Coordinator Regional Representatives, one (1) Special Projects
> >representative elected by members of the special projects, and one (1)
> >at-large representative. All shall have voting privileges except the
> >National Coordinator who shall vote only in the case of a tie. The
> >regions from which State Coordinator and Local Coordinator
> >Representatives are elected shall be decided by the Advisory Board on an
> >annual basis.
> >
> >New:
> >
> >The Advisory Board membership shall consist of: the National
> >Coordinator, twelve (12) Regional Representatives, one (1) Special
> >Projects Representative elected by members of the special projects, and
> >two (2) At-Large Representatives. All shall have voting privileges
> >except the National Coordinator who shall vote only in the case of a
> >tie. The regions from which Regional Representatives are elected shall
> >be decided by the Advisory Board on an annual basis.
> >
> >Implementation: All AB members elected during the election where this
> >amendment is enacted will serve out their terms. The four State
> >Coordinator Representative positions will become Regional Representative
> >positions either upon expiration of their term or should the seat be
> >declared vacant.
> >
> >
> >ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD
> >
> >Old:
> >Section 9. Nominees for National Coordinator shall have the following
> >qualifications: at least one year (the twelve months immediately
> >preceding an election) of continuous service and current activity as a
> >member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb
> >Project. Qualifications of nominees for State Coordinator
> >Representative, Local Coordinator Representative, and Special Project
> >Representative are the same with the addition that their service shall
> >have been as a State Coordinator, Local Coordinator, or one of the
> >various positions associated with the Special Projects, respectively.
> >"In good standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly to email,
> >actively supporting researchers' efforts to find information,
> >maintaining their website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and
> >serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The
> >USGenWeb Project.
> >
> >New:
> >
> >Section 9. Nominees for National Coordinator shall have the following
> >qualifications: at least one year (the twelve months immediately
> >preceding an election) of continuous service and current activity as a
> >member in good standing, and eligibility to vote within The USGenWeb
> >Project. Qualifications of nominees for Local Coordinator Representative
> >are the same with the addition that their service shall have been as a
> >State Coordinator, Local Coordinator, or one of the various positions
> >associated with the states. Qualifications of nominees for Special
> >Project Representative are the same with the addition that their service
> >shall have been associated with the Special Projects. "In good
> >standing" is demonstrated by responding promptly to email, actively
> >supporting researchers' efforts to find information, maintaining their
> >website with appropriate, up-to-date content, and serving as a good
> >example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project.
> >
> >Old:
> >ARTICLE VIII. ADVISORY BOARD PROCEDURES
> >
> >Section 1. Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory Board shall
> >constitute a quorum.
> >New:
> >
> >Section 1. A majority of voting members plus one, of the Advisory Board
> >shall constitute a quorum. The number of voting members shall be defined
> >as the total number of members (excluding the National Coordinator)
> >minus the number of vacant seats, if any. Example: 14 total Advisory
> >Board members, one vacancy, means 13 voting members. A majority is 7
> >members, therefore a quorum is 8 members.
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >NVGEN-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
NVGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message