Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
She is on the list to vote for Coshocton county, yes you cannot vote
until the next election, but you would qualify to vote for national
elections as the old coordinator of that county in Pa. Did you get your
password? The election is over on the 25th.
Sandy
Scott wrote:
> ....there is really nothing here [in the list archives] about how
> guidelines should be made, whether on the list or in a committee
Well, there were no rules as to how rules should be made, and then a
process occurred when the elections guideline was created (the caps are
mine)....
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0891820183
Patty says, "WE will be developing rules"..."This week WE discuss what I
have proposed." [In the current situation the proposals have come from the
CCs].
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHGEN/1998-04/0892497633
Re Co-CCs voting, Patty asks, "How do other's feel?"
And I know that at one time Patty came right out and asked for discussion.
Albeit there was not much discussion on the list as most folks emailed
Patty directly with their suggestions, the rule making was Not done by an
appointed committee, ALL of the CCs were invited to directly participate.
This set a precedent for how rule-making was to be done in the OHGenWeb.
Does that make it a rule? Would following the same procedure a second time
make it the rule? How about a third time?? SC Judy Kelble re OHGenWeb Code
of Conduct: "I ask for, expect and welcome a healthy discussion on what you
would and would not like to see within this Code." SC Judy Kelble re Email
List Code of Ethics: "...please voice your opinions."
So...we have at least three times that OHGenWeb rule-making was done by the
Acting SC or SC asking for ALL CCs to DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE. At no time in
the OHGenWeb was rule-making ever done by an SC deciding for us that an
SC-appointed committee would make our rules.
I stand by that in order to change the established process, all of the CCs
would need to vote upon if they want the current issues of creating
elections guidelines to be done as per established process, or by a
committee. And it should be done in accordance to the wants of the CCs, not
the SC.
As a side note...I am very impressed at how the process has been going re
the proposed Amendment and Resolution, and at the suggestions the
Coordinators have come up with.
Daryl
At 10:53 AM 8/15/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>the new list would not be used in the current elections, so anyone new to
>the project this spring/ summer will not qualify to vote until next years
>elections. And all the people who were incorrectly listed on the list get
>to vote in the election as they were on the list. This is why the mailing
>list roll call was so important, so the correct persons will get to vote,
>we thought they could in this election but we were told not until the next
>election will the corrections count.
I assume then that I will not get to vote since I took over Coshocton
County in the spring. And the old coordinator, who has moved on to PA will
get to vote?
Or did it misread this?
Sheila
Denny said: >>>If they have been involved with the project for a
year, then perhaps they then can vote but who sets the bar to determine
if they have indeed contributed and are just not a name on the web page?<<<
I **like** this idea! It gives the ASC/Co-CC a chance to show their
committment to others beyond the CC who appointed them. Current ACC's and
Co-CC's would be grandfathered for this rule and be eligible now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denny Shirer" <drdx(a)neo.rr.com>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN] Revised Amendment to current Elections Guideline
> Linda,
>
> We certainly would not want to lose the contributions you have made so
> there has to be some resolution. It was suggested that you become CC
> instead of ASC and your CC would take a back seat in your county while
> continuing of CC of the other. This seems like an obvious quick fix for
> you. It is up to you two to figure out who wants to do the share of the
> work.
>
> Thinking of this and the work just one CC does on his/her county, what of
> those that have 3, 4 or 5 counties and all the work there is to be done to
> maintain them? It would seem they should deserve some extra votes due to
> their level of commitment,,, but they don't get anymore than a person with
> one county. So, I can relate to the frustration and admire your dedication
> and work. We just need to set up some guidelines where everyone is
> recognized that does contribute to the state and put something in place
> that protects us as well from external influence.
>
> It is not like we have an official membership list. Sure we have to go
> through the motions to become a CC but anyone can be an ASC or Co-CC
> dependent on the whim of the CC for that county. Perhaps we should allow
> voting to those assistants depending on their history with the project.
> That way a CC cannot just appoint a brand new ASC or Co-CC and let them
> have voting rights. If they have been involved with the project for a
> year, then perhaps they then can vote but who sets the bar to determine if
> they have indeed contributed and are just not a name on the web page? It
> is a complicated issue and while it may seem black and white to those
> assistants like yourself who deserve a voice in the process, it isn't.
>
> So we have some work to do. I don't think we have heard anything
> conclusive yet on the subject but I and the rest of the CC's certainly
> know and appreciate the level of dedication of assistants like yourself.
> I'm sure we will come up with some guidelines that will be agreeable.
>
> Denny Shirer - drdx(a)neo.rr.com - Canton, OH
> Muskingum County, OHGenWeb - http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohmuskin/
>
> Linda Boorom wrote:
>> Well guys,
>>
>> I thought that over the years in my involvement with GenWeb I had
>> contributed as
>> much or more than many other CC's in OH. I know have devoted many hours
>> to the
>> expense of my own research & even my family, just ask them.
>>
>> If I have no voice or say & have no vote, well, I'm not really sure how
>> involved
>> I want to be............
>>
>> from the heart,
>> Linda
>>
>
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb
> Sandy's essay on Appalachian Language
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohathens/Appalachianlanguage.htm
>
>
Bob said: >>In National Elections all members of the USGenWeb get to vote
excluding
look-up volunteers and transcribers per article 7, section 6 of the
bylaws. Assistant CCs get to vote the same as CCs, one vote per person,
there are no fractional votes, and no other exclusions.<<
Bob, you comments are well timed as if what you are saying is true, then it
resolves the issue. I would agree that **it makes no sense** to let ASC's
or Co-CC's vote in the National Elections and **not** in State elections. I
personally can then rest easy that this issue is resolved which I'd
appreciate.
As you suggested, I read Article 7, Section 6 which states:
"Section 6. All members of The USGenWeb Project, excluding Look-Up
Volunteers and Transcribers, shall be eligible to vote." But there is
**not** are definition of what a "member" is.
I looked in the Bylaws for how a "member" is defined. When reading them top
to bottom, there are references to: National Coordinator, State Coordinator,
Assistant State Coordinator, Project Coordinator, Local Coordinator, Special
Projects (National level) Coordinator, Special Projects (National level)
Assistant Coordinator but in no case was there a reference to Co-County
Coordinator or Assistant County Coordinator (or same for Local Coordinator
which is the language the Bylaws uses).
You know your way arround the Bylaws better than I do. What am I missing
that will allow our ASC's and CoCC's to vote as they are able to do today in
Ohio?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bremer,Robert" <bremerr(a)oclc.org>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [OHGEN] Guidelines for voting
> Sandy wrote:
>
> The way elections are handled now and previously for the current
> National Elections is that only the mailing list members for OHGen-L are
> permitted to vote. Mailing list members are limited to CC's and their
> co CC's and special project members. Each person no matter how
> many counties or special projects they host only get one vote. Then of
> these qualified voters with co-CC's, they share their vote. If there
> are 2 CC's for one county, each vote counts as one half vote. If there
> were three or four co CC's their votes fraction out accordingly, 1/3 or
> 1/4 of the vote. This is used to prevent vote stacking like is
> mentioned in previous emails. So in summary each county can receive one
> vote unless the voter represents more than one county then the voter
> forfeits his right to vote for his/her remaining counties out of
> fairness to the remaining CC's who only have one single CC.
>
> Reply:
>
> In National Elections all members of the USGenWeb get to vote excluding
> look-up volunteers and transcribers per article 7, section 6 of the
> bylaws. Assistant CCs get to vote the same as CCs, one vote per person,
> there are no fractional votes, and no other exclusions.
>
> To set things up any differently in OHGenWeb would mean an assistant CC
> would get to vote for the national coordinator, representative at large,
> and two CC representatives as usual, but potentially could not vote for
> their own state coordinator.
>
> Robert Bremer
> bremerr(a)oclc.org
>
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb/ohiomap.html
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb
>
>
David wrote:
> I looked in the Bylaws for how a "member" is defined....but in
> no case was there a reference to Co-County Coordinator or
> Assistant County Coordinator (or same for Local Coordinator
> which is the language the Bylaws uses)...What am I missing that
> will allow our ASC's and CoCC's to vote as they are able to do
> today in Ohio?
Not a thing :) Over the years though, some "dirty politics" have entered
the scene. I know of one State that at one time had two counties with the
same CC, and the CC had 3 different Co-CCs for each county, solely for the
purpose of vote stacking, which made a total of 7 votes for the same SC. We
don't *have* to amend our current rule, we could leave it like it is. But
if we don't amend it now, we leave OHGenWeb open to the same type of vote
stacking, unless a limit is placed upon the number of votes allowed per
County or Special Project, such as two.
As for the current Bylaws definition of "Member"...that has been abused in
the past also, and the revision reads, "Members of The USGenWeb Project are
those individuals of "good standing" within The USGenWeb Project who
maintain a website (county, township, parish, town, etc.) as part of an
XXGenWeb, or who function as file managers for a part of an authorized
Special Project" which still allows for Assistants because they help
maintain websites.
Daryl
At 02:52 PM 8/15/2005 -0400, Denny Shirer wrote:
>It is not like we have an official membership list. Sure we have to go
>through the motions to become a CC but anyone can be an ASC or Co-CC
>dependent on the whim of the CC for that county. Perhaps we should allow
>voting to those assistants depending on their history with the project.
>That way a CC cannot just appoint a brand new ASC or Co-CC and let them
>have voting rights. If they have been involved with the project for a
>year, then perhaps they then can vote but who sets the bar to determine if
>they have indeed contributed and are just not a name on the web page? It
>is a complicated issue and while it may seem black and white to those
>assistants like yourself who deserve a voice in the process, it isn't.
Perhaps part of the issue is whether it is a CC with ACC's [assistants who
just help the main person who is the one with overall responsibility and
decision power] or Co-CC's who share responsibility equally. Perhaps
distinguishing between the positions might help?
Holly
Holly wrote:
> Perhaps part of the issue is whether it is a CC with ACC's [assistants
> who just help the main person who is the one with overall responsibility
> and decision power] or Co-CC's who share responsibility equally.
> Perhaps distinguishing between the positions might help?
How about this...the current rule and the amendment say Coordinators and
Assistant Coordinators can vote. Handy, in case a Coordinator can't vote or
doesn't want to vote.
If, when the amendment is passed out to be voted upon, there's a multiple
choice for how many votes a County or Special Project can have...which is
how the current revised amendment is set up. That way, the Coordinators
will be deciding if only the Coordinators can vote, or if the Assistant
Coordinators can also vote. I personally can't think of a more fair (or
simple) way to do it, than to have the Coordinators decide.
Daryl
Sandy wrote:
The way elections are handled now and previously for the current
National Elections is that only the mailing list members for OHGen-L are
permitted to vote. Mailing list members are limited to CC's and their
co CC's and special project members. Each person no matter how
many counties or special projects they host only get one vote. Then of
these qualified voters with co-CC's, they share their vote. If there
are 2 CC's for one county, each vote counts as one half vote. If there
were three or four co CC's their votes fraction out accordingly, 1/3 or
1/4 of the vote. This is used to prevent vote stacking like is
mentioned in previous emails. So in summary each county can receive one
vote unless the voter represents more than one county then the voter
forfeits his right to vote for his/her remaining counties out of
fairness to the remaining CC's who only have one single CC.
Reply:
In National Elections all members of the USGenWeb get to vote excluding
look-up volunteers and transcribers per article 7, section 6 of the
bylaws. Assistant CCs get to vote the same as CCs, one vote per person,
there are no fractional votes, and no other exclusions.
To set things up any differently in OHGenWeb would mean an assistant CC
would get to vote for the national coordinator, representative at large,
and two CC representatives as usual, but potentially could not vote for
their own state coordinator.
Robert Bremer
bremerr(a)oclc.org
Did Sandy say there was a limit of 3?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheila Helser" <sheilascorner(a)ohio.net>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: [OHGEN] how many?
> While reading about the voting I was thinking, how many counties is a
> coordinator allowed to do in the OHGenWeb project? It is a person can do
> say 5-6 counties or is there a limited number?
>
> Sheila
>
> ,_,
> (O,O)
> ( )
> *~" " ~*``*~*``*~*``*~*``*~
> www.sheilascorner.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb
> Sandy's essay on Appalachian Language
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohathens/Appalachianlanguage.htm
>
>
Linda, I would be more than willing to give my voting rights for Hamilton
county over to you so that you can have a say in the project.
Tina
At 08:32 PM 8/14/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Well guys,
>
>I thought that over the years in my involvement with GenWeb I had
contributed as
>much or more than many other CC's in OH. I know have devoted many hours to the
>expense of my own research & even my family, just ask them.
>
>If I have no voice or say & have no vote, well, I'm not really sure how
involved
>I want to be............
>
>from the heart,
>Linda
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daryl Lytton" <dlytton(a)mindspring.com>
>To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [OHGEN] Revised Amendment to current Elections Guideline
>
>
>> David wrote:
>>
>> > This is a difficult issue to be sure but at least we are discussing.
>>
>> Yes...it is a difficult issue. I suppose the way to handle who can vote,
>> would be the same way to handle other issues not everyone agreed upon. This
>> was done while establishing the original guideline, by offering multiple
>> choices to the voters. Following that established procedure, until there
>> are more suggestions it would look like this:
>>
>
>
>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>OHGenWeb Project
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb/freecensus.html
>
>
Well guys,
I thought that over the years in my involvement with GenWeb I had contributed as
much or more than many other CC's in OH. I know have devoted many hours to the
expense of my own research & even my family, just ask them.
If I have no voice or say & have no vote, well, I'm not really sure how involved
I want to be............
from the heart,
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryl Lytton" <dlytton(a)mindspring.com>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN] Revised Amendment to current Elections Guideline
> David wrote:
>
> > This is a difficult issue to be sure but at least we are discussing.
>
> Yes...it is a difficult issue. I suppose the way to handle who can vote,
> would be the same way to handle other issues not everyone agreed upon. This
> was done while establishing the original guideline, by offering multiple
> choices to the voters. Following that established procedure, until there
> are more suggestions it would look like this:
>
How many assistance can a county have?
Does the size of the county determine what counties can have
co-coordinators and /or assistants?
Without a definite limit and definition of these things you could have a
county with 2 CC's and 4 assistants and then how would you decide how many
of them or which ones of them could vote?
I am not against anyone that is making a contribution to the project having
a say or vote. Maybe the answer is determining and defining what it takes
to be a voting member of the Ohio Genweb? This may include many that have
dedicated their time and resources to the project. This of course would
include the county CC's and their primary assistant, but there are any
number of others that may have vested considerable time to the
project. i.e. transcribers and look-up volunteers to name a few
I realize that determining what constitutes enough of a contribution to the
project to be allowed to vote is not any easier of a task than deciding how
many voting CC's or assistants a county can have, but there are likely some
volunteers out there that may donate as much time or even more time in some
cases than some us CC's. I would hate to lose any good dedicated volunteer
because of politics by refusing them a vote if they desired a say. As it
stands now many never get involved in the political voting. I have to
admit that I have rarely voted as it has not been an important issue to
me. It is different with a Genealogical Society, there you just have to be
a paid member to vote and never have to contribute anything.
I certainly do not have the answer to this voting issue and who should or
should not be allowed to vote. But I would much rather
have any of those that wish to have a vote as long as the keep working in
some capacity for the goal of the project of providing free
genealogy resources over the Internet. I have never been that interested
in the political end of the GenWeb project and can live with
what ever decision is made. I know their are others out there that are
concerned with the political side of the project, maybe the answer is as
simple as you just need to be registered to be allowed to vote just like
with our National, State and local government elections.
Sincerely,
Mark Lozer
Fulton County Ohio Genealogy Web Page Coordinator
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohfulton/
lozer(a)fulton-net.com
While reading about the voting I was thinking, how many counties is a
coordinator allowed to do in the OHGenWeb project? It is a person can do
say 5-6 counties or is there a limited number?
Sheila
,_,
(O,O)
( )
*~" " ~*``*~*``*~*``*~*``*~
www.sheilascorner.com/
Ann wrote:
> define "majority concensus"
The same thing as "simple majority" meaning the same way as Governors of
states are elected...no quorum, no 2/3 majority, just who ever gets the
most votes wins. I like to keep things simple :)
Daryl
Ann,
As to the local Gen Society -- if the local members are voting for a
president of their Society, I think they are voting as members of the
Society, not based on their individual assignment or contribution within the
Society. I just see that as being different.
If you don't buy the one person = one (or more) county = one vote or the
organizational accountability perspective -- then we just see it differently
Ann. And that's okay. I see your point of view - **especially** when you
come at it from the individual, not the county association. Others have
expressed similar to the same viewpoint.
I'm not lobbying for my point of view. I am lobbying for a resolution of
the subject by raising the issue. Even if we leave things as they are, then
at least it is resolved. And in that case ASC and Co-CC gets to vote. I'll
live with it.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Anderson" <ann.g.anderson(a)gmail.com>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN] Revised Amendment to current Elections Guideline
> Think of your local genealogical society.. One person may be the
> librarian, on the board of directors, and volunteers to give classes
> to newbies; another person might bake a batch of cookies for every
> meeting; while a third member sits on his hands and contributes
> nothing, but each gets one vote regardless of what (if anything)
> he/she contributes.
>
> I do not think counties has anything to do with voting status.
>
> On 8/14/05, David W. Koester <dwkoester(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ann said: > To allow one and not the other to have voting priviledges is
>> not
>> > right. Neither is splitting the vote. Is each of them any less a
>> > member of genweb than you are?<<
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> I did explain my perspective when I said in my original post re: this
>> topic:
>> >> Having said that, I do not wish to diminish the contribution ASC's
>> make
>> to the overall effort.<< At this point the original comments have been
>> appropriately snipped from this thread.
>>
>> I tend to have a structured view regarding this - "one person - one
>> accountability" (thus the required commitment statement). It's an
>> organizational structure and accountability bias that may or may not be
>> appropriate here. That's why I brought it up. In addition, I see an
>> issue
>> with 1 county = 2 votes versus what others may have like 3 counties = 1
>> vote. And then there is the so called "vote stacking" or "stuffing the
>> ballot box" issues that others have brought up.
>>
>> I can still remember the days when an 18 year old was old enough to give
>> his
>> life for his country but not old enough to vote. That wasn't fair either
>> and yes that issue was righted.
>>
>> This is a difficult issue to be sure but at least we are discussing.
>>
>>
>
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb
> Sandy's essay on Appalachian Language
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohathens/Appalachianlanguage.htm
>
>
Someone pointed out a potential flaw in the proposed Resolution, in that
"or when a majority consensus of the Local Coordinators decide an election
should be held" would be more coup-resistant if worded as below:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
"Resolution (passed _____): OHGenWeb State Coordinator (SC) Scheduled
Election shall be held every two years; or sooner if an SC resigns; an
OHGenWeb SC Special Election may be held after it has been established that
a majority consensus of all OHGenWeb Coordinators eligible to vote decide
an election should be held, in which case such election can be held no
sooner than three months after a Scheduled Election and no later than three
months before a Scheduled Election. OHGenWeb SC Elections shall also be
governed by any applicable USGenWeb Bylaws."
Daryl
David wrote:
> This is a difficult issue to be sure but at least we are discussing.
Yes...it is a difficult issue. I suppose the way to handle who can vote,
would be the same way to handle other issues not everyone agreed upon. This
was done while establishing the original guideline, by offering multiple
choices to the voters. Following that established procedure, until there
are more suggestions it would look like this:
Existing Guideline: http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Eohgenweb/elections.html
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Passed (_____). To Amend the original Resolution passed April 28, 1998: To
qualify to run for OHGenWeb State Coordinator the candidate must be a
OHGenWeb County or Special Project Coordinator or Assistant Coordinator
[Item #1]; nominations and debate of candidates for State Coordinator
Scheduled Elections shall be from April 15 to April 30; voting shall take
place from May 1 to May 10 and shall be conducted by the instant run-off
method; the term of office shall commence [Item #2]; there is no limit to
the number of terms someone may be elected; a Coordinator may cast no more
than one vote; there may not be more than [Item #3] vote(s) per County or
Special Project; the winner of the election shall be determined by
simple-majority (majority-consensus) of the voters."
Item #1:
[ ] That's all.
[ ] and a USGenWeb member in good standing
[ ] and a OHGenWeb member in good standing.
[ ] and a USGenWeb and OHGenWeb member in good standing.
Item #2:
[ ] Within 48 hours of announcement of election results.
[ ] Within 72 hours of announcement of election results.
[ ] On June 1st.
Item #3:
[ ] One.
[ ] Two.
[ ] An unlimited number of.
Daryl
Holly said:
> Whatever the end decision as to who can vote or how many per county or per
> person or whatever, please do not belittle the commitment and work where
> more than one individual has teamed up to do a county as a team, working
> together.
I totally agree Holly. That is why is said (snipped from below):
>> Having said that, I do not wish to diminish the contribution ASC's make
>> to the overall effort. It is just that they do not have the same level of
>> "required commitment" that the CC has.
I understand that there will be differing points of view on this, and I'm
only expressing my opinion and thoughts. This is a difficult issue to be
sure, for the very points that you have made. And take my word for it - I
can fully appreciate the contribution a "team" or "teamwork" can bring to
the table. I just have a problem getting past some Counties being able to
bring two (or more?) votes to the ballot box while others can not because
they have elected to work their County or County's by themselves. I can
live with however we decide, but I do feel it is an issue that should be
decided.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holly Timm" <htimm(a)comcast.net>
To: <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN] Revised Amendment to current Elections Guideline
> At 09:05 AM 8/12/2005 -0500, David W. Koester wrote:
>>Just want to express my opinion that only CC's and Special Project
>>Coordinators should be selected to vote. Aside from the potential "vote
>>stacking" issue, it is the CC that has the responsibility to assure their
>>site is in compliance and work with the SC, - not the ASC. Therefore the
>>CC should be the one to vote for who holds that position. Having said
>>that, I do not wish to diminish the contribution ASC's make to the overall
>>effort. It is just that they do not have the same level of "required
>>commitment" that the CC has.
>
> Dave, although the situation in some counties with more than one
> coordinator is very much that one is the CC and one [or more] is the
> assistant [an ACC if you will], there are many instances where this is not
> so. Tina Hursh has already described such a situation where she and Linda
> Boroom coordinate Hamilton County together as Co-CC's, equally sharing the
> responsibility and "required commitment" and such is also the case with
> Lorraine Newsome and myself with Cuyahoga County.
>
> Whatever the end decision as to who can vote or how many per county or per
> person or whatever, please do not belittle the commitment and work where
> more than one individual has teamed up to do a county as a team, working
> together. Teamwork is not an impossible objective and certainly if it were
> decided that one county one vote then Lorraine and I would discuss the
> vote, and to a) come to an agreement, b) one concede to the other's
> choice, c) flip a coin, or d) not vote at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb/CCList.html
> OHGenWeb Project
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohgenweb
>
>