APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2007-07 > 1183761872


From: "Kenyatta D. Berry" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Why do genealogists disenfranchise themselves? (long)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:44:32 -0700
References: <mailman.96301.1183752321.3852.apg@rootsweb.com><001901c7c01d$1193ec40$6501a8c0@JoansDell>
In-Reply-To: <001901c7c01d$1193ec40$6501a8c0@JoansDell>


For those who have donated to the NYG&B collections in the past, did they
sign an agreement describing how the item would be handled, displayed,
etc.? Do they have any rights or say in what happens to their donations?
Although, I have not personally donated any items to societies, I have heard
that the financial viability, collections procedures, storage facilities,
etc are things to consider. I am sure those who have passed on and donated
family papers could not have imagined the current situation. Any insight
would be appreciated.


On 7/6/07, Joan M Lowry <> wrote:
>
> I got my APG Digest this afternoon and discovered that I am missing at
> least
> two previous digests and missing an important discussion! I, too, was
> most
> distressed by the proxy mailing from the NYG&B - and was even more
> amazed/dismayed when I went to the website to read the actual proposed
> changes! Also disappointing is that the special meeting is called for
> noon
> on a weekday - which seems to me to be designed to discourage most people
> from even contemplating attending.
>
> As Joy pointed out - the By-laws change will completely do away with
> membership in the society - a place I do still view as "my society" even
> though I am a less-than-infrequent visitor at this point in time.
>
> Unfortunately, this change is more far reaching than even "just" doing
> away
> with the membership. It vests all authority for the society and its
> future
> in the hands of 15 people - with no oversight from any other governing
> body.
> Even the (unfortunate) changes to the HisGen's governance allowed for
> oversight of the board from a council of the corporation.
>
> The NYG&B board, however, will be the only power with say-so over what
> happens to the collections, the publications, and the society as a whole.
> They will be the only ones with power to appoint or remove each other -
> which can mean that the board can be stacked any way they want and any
> dissent easily squashed with no fear of reprisals - either from "wayward"
> board members or those pesky former-members. All checks and balances will
> be removed in what will become a "dictatorship of the few for the
> (supposed?) good of the many."
>
> If the problem they are trying to fix here was only the expense and timing
> of mailing proxies to members and the lack of response, why not change the
> by-laws to allow members to vote online as do many other organizations
> (including APG)? This would allow them to eliminate all that expensive
> postage - which they said was why they didn't bother to include copies of
> the proposed By-laws changes in the mailing... Would that it not, also,
> do
> away with all the nasty and time-consuming hand-tabulating of votes? They
> did say in their cover letter that most members log on to the website - so
> why not make use of that resource to encourage participation rather than
> taking away the possibility of participating?
>
> I know that they said they are hoping to do away with the members so that
> they can "act in a timely manner" and jump on opportunities as they arise.
> Do you suppose this means that if they get a good offer from someone
> willing
> to buy the collections that they can and will "jump on it"? Note that the
> proposed by-laws as presented do not include any reference to a
> brick-and-mortar facility and there is no mention of maintaining a
> collection of materials available to be used by members (excuse me,
> PATRONS)
> and/or the general public. So, having sold the building, are they now
> also
> setting themselves up to be able to dispose of the physical collections,
> which have been so lovingly and laboriously collected over the history of
> the society?
>
> As president of a neighboring state-level genealogical society - and this
> is
> my unofficial position here, not the society's - other board members and I
> are often frustrated by the lack of participation by our
> members. However,
> rather than seeking to disenfranchise our members so we can "do what we
> want" - we have been trying to find ways to increase member participation.
>
> I can't fathom what makes them think this is really the right way to go.
>
> Regards
> Joan
>
> Joan M. Lowry
> mailto:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: