BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2000-03 > 0952193211


From: Betsy Mills <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Census Project election
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:06:51 -0600


Very good points, Jim. I would just like to add that there were two parts to
that motion and neither side adhered to it.

1) The Census Project was to recruit and organize the transcribers and prepare
the data files.

2) The Archives Project was to store the data and NOT recruit the
transcribers.

However, the Census Project persisted in uploading the data into its OWN
directories that Kay Mason tricked Brian Leverich into setting up for her (yes,
I witnessed it). The Archives Project persisted in setting up its own pages to
recruit transcribers. Both are in the wrong.

Recently, a movement was working to bring these two projects back together.
The group (with members from BOTH CPs) was working together to intermesh the
volunteers and to set up separate directories where CP volunteers could upload
their files as they wished but that appeared under the archives directories and
would be searchable from the main pages -- a win-win situation for both CPs AND
the researcher. Ron Eason was CC'ed on all correspondence. However, when the
new pages were linked, Ron Eason immediately accused the other CP and RootsWeb
of "hi-jacking" HIS CP. All efforts were ceased and Ron has made no effort to
reopen the negotiations.

I originally volunteered to transcribe my county's 1850 census - Lamar County,
TX. I volunteered to Kay Mason. She kept promising to have SK Publications
send me the book that I could use for the transcribing. I finally gave up
after several months and contacted John who checked with Kay Mason and mailed
me the book. The transcription is completed. However, I find that my name is
no longer on Ron's list of transcribers and it has been replaced by someone
else. This has happened over and over and over to people who have complained
to me as State Coordinator of AR. I wrote to the previous AR SC for Ron's
project numerous times and never got an answer. So, now what do I do?? I have
a completed transcription, it will be welcomed by the Archives Census Project.
But someone else is laboring over the census a second time just for Ron's
project that I originally volunteered for? Folks, this makes absolutely no
sense and before I vote for Ron Eason for Census Project Representative, I
would appreciate some answers. Why was my name removed?

I am looking to appoint someone who will work to bring these projects together,
not drive them further apart and not sit back and not answer emails. We have
been there and done that with the previous CP Board Rep.

Thanks!
Betsy Mills

At 12:28 PM 3/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I would like to make a few comments...
>
>I was there when motion 99-4 was made and I voted for it. I was greatly
>disheartened when the Archives insisted on starting over when they were told
to
>be archivists and archive the records rather than recruiting transcribers. We
>were trying to be "nice" with that motion. If I could go back and do it
again,
>I would only vote for a motion that said the Archives "would cease and desist"
>from recruiting census transcribers and become Archivists of the records
>produced by the Census Project. Believe it or not that was the intent of the
>Board at that time. Being "nice" only confused the issue.
>But that was then and this is now. The tide has seemed to turn and we are
>looking at a totally different effort than what I felt the Bylaws outlined.
If
>the Census Project is a subset of the Archives and not a "National Project"
>(There is no doubt that the Archives Census Project is a subset of the
Archives
>Project) then there is no representative necessary. Anyone that believes that
>there should be a Census Project Representative, is in effect declaring the
>Census Project to be a separate "National Project". How can I say that? If
it
>deserves a representative along side the Archives Representative it must be
>separate and distinct. If it isn't, it should be represented within the
>Archives Project, and not at the National Level. If this is going to be the
>case the Archives Project should consider creating an Archives Board, where
the
>subset Archives Projects are represented.
>I personally suggest we have a referendum on the ballot this time around.
Give
>all of our volunteers the chance to voice their opinions. Then whatever comes
>out on top, we go with, no matter what. Now if the two projects work things
out
>in the meantime, we could drop the referendum from the ballot.
>Until then we should use the Census Project's choice as a replacement
>Representative. If after the election there is no separate and distinct
Census
>Project, there will be no representative. If there is a separate and distinct
>Census project we should hold a special election. The referendum should be
set
>up as a bylaws change or addition, but with several choices... not a mere "yes
>or no" question.
>
>This is just my opinion, it is not based on personalities or who I like or
don't
>like. It is not based on the way things were or might be done. I have
praised
>and will continue to praise the Archives Project for their openness and
>acceptance. I have also criticized and will continue to criticize the Census
>Project for the lack of the same. I take no sides, both projects are worthy.
>Both have hard working volunteers that only want to place census
transcriptions
>online. I have sent all of my transcriptions to both projects.
>
>Thanks for listening and have a great day,
>Jim
>Ancient Records Coordinator and Webmaster
>Alachua County Clerk of the Courts Office
>http://www.clerk-alachua-fl.org/index.html
>
>Shari Handley wrote:
>
>> I guess the question, Virginia, is just who is considered to be "The" Census
>> Project. The goal is *one* Census Project, the members of which will be
>> represented by the Census Project Rep, not the Archives rep. How do you
>> figure that ignoring half of the equation would be a better way to bring
>> about healing?
>>
>> Shari
>>
>> --
>

This thread: