Brian Leverich wrote:
Folks don't seem to clearly understand just how
much potential power the Board has but chooses not to use -- this is
sort of a Godzilla meets Bambi thing. -B
At 07:14 AM 6/25/98 -0400, Billie McNamara wrote:
I have been "Bambi" in this context. Our own Nate Zipfel is
on the table
right now with a big ole target on his back (as it were) over his requests
for supporters for his PA-Roots domain. The current "advisory board" can't
decide if it's okay for Nate -- while we're all but told to solicit
donations to RootsWeb.
Hi, Billie,
These situations do point out what I consider to be one of the major
advantages of the bylaws. Currently all that needs to happen to remove a
state coordinator is for the webmaster at the national site to change a link.
Under the new by-laws, this could not be done without the approval of both
2/3rds of the Advisory board and 2/3rds of the county coordinators in that
state. Thus if either 1/3 of the advisory board or 1/3 of the state's
county coordinators support the state coordinator, it can't be done.
Moreover, the county coordinators requires a quorum of 75 percent, so it's
not just 2/3rds of the cc's who happen to care to vote, it's got to be at
least 2/3rds of 75% (that is, 50%)
Personally, I don't find Nate's actions with the sponsors objectionable at
all. If somebody wants to donate money to defray the cost of server
expenses, I think it's certainly appropriate to display that information if
they desire. For what its' worth, I don't think Nate is making any money at
$12/ month. (In case anybody wants to check it out, the URL for this is
http://pa-roots.com/armstrong/volunteer.html)
I think you're correct that it's very similar to what many people do with
their sites on rootsweb. (Interestingly, one name that I recognized on the
list of sponsors has also mentioned contributions to rootsweb on her mailing
list. She's obviously someone who cares about supporting the facilities she
uses, and I think she should get credit for her support of both pa-roots and
rootsweb.)
The problem here is that the wording and location needs to be carefully
considered so that it doesn't look like the purpose of USGenWeb is to make
money by advertising. Personally I think Nate's choice of location and
language are good, appropriate choices.
For what it's worth it seems like Nate would also be in compliance with the
provisions on this issue in the new by-laws (Article 9, Section 2)
I don't think Nate's soliciting for funds for personal gain, and he's
certainly not doing it on the main page of his websites. (I think home page
in the second sentence means front page, doesn't it? That certainly seems
to be the meaning further along when it says that a website may list
resources for sale or services available by the coordinator or others but
not on the main web page.)
Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is
defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites
comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for
server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any
entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost)
or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer
research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link
to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials
and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a
genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web
page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be
appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb
Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the
expertise of any professional researchers.
I don't think Nate's soliciting for funds for personal gain, and he's
certainly not doing it on the main page of his websites. (I think home page
in the second sentence means front page, doesn't it? That certainly seems
to be the meaning further along when it says that a website may list
resources for sale or services available by the coordinator or others but
not on the main web page.)
(BTW, I happen to think the issues addressed in this section have a lot of
potential for conflicts of interest. If a county coordinator is involved in
providing research services to make a profit, then it's easy to see that if
too much information goes on-line, the researcher could be hurt financially.
This could lead to bizarre situations: CC's putting the names of people
buried in cemeteries online, but suggesting that folks buy their books to
find out what the dates are, etc. Fortunately I think most CC's are pretty
ethical and do this just because they like genealogy.)
This question about commercialism does raise the issue of what the by-laws
say about the mechanisms that might be involved in removing a county
coordinator for inappropriate conduct. There really doesn't seem to be
anything very specific in the by-laws about the mechanisms that might be
involved.
Right now, without by-laws a state coordinator can pretty easily replace
anybody they choose to replace just by changing the link on the state page.
Under these new by-laws presumbably a SC could still do the same but the CC
would have a right to appeal to the advisory board for mediation. (Article
14) The by-laws in Article 11, Section 2 state that Local Coordinators
should be 'appointed according to whatever rules/guidelines are appropriate
for their state' and in Article 12, Section 5 that 'State projects are
highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance
procedures within the state,' so these by-laws seem to indicate that such
issues should be decided on the state level, presumably with a significant
degree of input from the other county CC's in that state, while the national
level's role would be restricted to mediation if the CC desires it.
It really doesn't seem to me that these bylaws are designed to help Godzilla
try to kill Bambi. In fact, it seems like the bylaws make it awful
difficult for Godzilla to even get a hunting license.
Ed Book