APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1196884642
From: "Jake Gehring" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Ethical Membership
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:57:22 -0700
Elissa, Melinde, et. al.,
I'd like to share a related opinion, though I'm not sure it's directly linked to Melinde's concern.
Speaking for myself, I believe that as the organization has grown (more than doubled in membership in the last ten years), we've missed an opportunity to 'upgrade' communication and transparency too. I see this as much more of a challenge now than when the organization had 800 or 1,000 members.
I think the new APG "Gathering of the Chapters" meeting at NGS is an example of an attempt to catch up. I believe we can do more to help keep communication lines open and keep processes more transparent.
Examples of what I mean might include an APG annual report to members, better use of our Information Officer position for internal communication (via blog, member forum, etc.). I've had a chance to talk about this a little bit with the incoming EC in the last month, and hope to pick the brains of the 2008/9 board as well. Input from others, whether APG members or not, is certainly welcome--feel free to send me an e-mail with your thoughts.
As far as ethics issues are concerned, when formal complaints are received they are routed to our Professional Review Committee which reviews cases according to pretty strict policy guidlines and then makes recommendations to the EC (and the Board in more serious cases) for review.
2008-9 APG President
>>> "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG" <> 12/5/2007 12:02 PM >>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Daniels
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:06 PM
> Something has obviously triggered the questions. I was totally unaware
> that there was an Ethics Committee elected for the APG and that they were
> doing censorship of the types described above in secret. I knew that if
> someone had problems with a client, that there was a committee that could
> evaluate the situation and pass their opinion on that. Is this what you
> are referring to?
The EC that Melinde refers to is the common abbreviation in APG for the
Executive Committee made up of the officers who discuss the business affairs
of APG at least monthly and run the organization. The elected directors from
each region only get to have an opportunity for business meetings at the two
national conferences, if they can attend. Many directors are on the various
committees and committee work happens apart from the board meetings at the
conferences with reports of that work being given twice annually. The
Professional Review Committee (PRC) is one such committee whose duty it is
to review complaints brought to it about APG members but does not have
anything to do with the policies that Melinde is writing about.
Therefore the day-to-day decisions and direction are in the hands of the
Executive Committee of our four elected officers: President, V-P, Recording
Secretary and Treasurer. (For a full list of the board see
This is what I believe Melinde is saying: that the power of APG is vested in
the EC and do the over 1600 members realize the potential power of what the
EC could do with so little oversight and little communication?
APG board member for 6 years (1999-2005)
Elissa Scalise Powell, CG
CG and Certified Genealogist are Service Marks of the Board for
Certification of Genealogists used under license after periodic evaluations
by the Board. http://www.BCGcertification.org/
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
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.