Billie,
If I understand you right, you are suggesting all the SCs and ASCs be
impeached too :-)))))))) <Just kidding!>
The Iraqis support Hussein because they are kept ignorant. Hillary supports
Bill because she loves him. Some people support the board because they
feel the board is doing the best it can under very bad circumstances. I hope
that once the election is over and we have a full board, they will cut thru
this mess and we can all live in peace :-))
Regards, George
On 25 Jan 99 at 12:41, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
Thank you also, George. Your 1/2 southern gentleman occasionally
shines
through.
I have to ask, though, how anyone could support a group of people who do the
things I pointed out below. The Iraqis support Saddam Hussein. Hillary
Clinton supports her husband. That doesn't mitigate what the perpetrators
did/do, nor does it make it right with the people they lead.
At 11:06 AM 1/25/99 -0500, George Waller wrote:
>Thanks for your nice reply Billie.
>
>There are two sides to every story, of course. I happen to feel comfortable
>and trust the people on the board to be acting in the best interest of the
>project. They are good people and elected too.
>
>Also, I would point out that over on the STATE-COORDINATOR list which has
about
>100 or so members (the SCs and ASCs), there is overwhelming support for the
>board generally. This is not to say that the board doesn't make
mistakes... of
>course they do. But, they don't need to be whacked up side the head with
a two
>by four every single day of their lives... and anyone who has been on -ALL
can
>see that there are professional board whackers out there. The result of the
>whacking is board members resigning and the rest of them going into hiding.
>
>The ethics/standards idea which was proposed to the board (and recently
>withdrawn) was a good idea with some bad details.
>
>Again, thanks for your reasonable manner Billie, and your point of view is
not
>entirely wrong, but just wanted to say that there are other points of view
in
>favor of the board.
>
>Regards, George
>
>On 25 Jan 99 at 2:19, PAGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
>
>> Respectfully, George, I strongly support impeachment not just for this
>> action, but for the continued illegal and unethical practices of the
>> "advisory" board. This is just one more example of their wanton
disregard for
>> our interests. How can we determine if they're doing a "good" job
when
they
>> continue to meet in secret? How can we assume they are representing our
>> interests when they either fail to submit, or else blatantly ignore,
matters
>> that members bring to their attention (yep, I've got several examples from
>> various individuals)? How can we believe they have the project's
interests at
>> heart when they even consider an action that violates multiple
provisions of
>> the by-laws? How can we believe in them when they turn away from our peers
>> and support Brian Leverich's banning of 4 county coordinators and
preventing
>> them from full participation in this project because of his
interpretation of
>> statements they made on a PROJECT list?