BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2003-07 > 1058388507


From: "Don Kelly" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] DISCUSSION ITEM: CCS
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:48:27 -0700
References: <03c301c34bd1$108f9840$b956f842@JANA>


I can appreciate most of your points in your summary Jana.

Our USGW project has in general taken great strides since 1996 to bring
material on line.

This in spite of problems spotted hear and there, problems for various
reasons.

To condense your comments even further, I see one issue as SCs and CCs
who take the minimum requirement of the bylaws and make that their
highest standard, when better to get into the sprit of the guidelines
and set their state standards higher.

CCs have a right to use their creative instincts to build their pages,
and doing that produce great looking webpages.........and often produce
massive amounts of data.

If I had only one suggestion, it would be that SCs expect more of their
CCs, and set higher standards for them, and not accept barely squeak by
standards. This can show profound improvements in just six months.

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Black" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] DISCUSSION ITEM: CCS


> Hello all,
>
> Here is my "food for thought" regarding the "hiring" and "firing" of
> CCs....... I apologize in advance for what will likely be a long post
> explaining the reasoning behind my opinions.... For those who just
want
> my "short list" - here it is:
>
> I advocate:
>
> 1) regular periodic election/re-election of all SCs
> 2) mandatory requirement for participation by all SCs in mediation
where
> CC grievances are presented
> 3) development of a set of "across the board" guidelines for SCs
> regarding what to look for in accepting qualified CC volunteers
> 4) development of a set of "across the board" guidelines defining the
> fine line between what the CC is responsible for and what the SC is
> responsible for
> 5) development of support systems for new CCs who need "how to"
> direction (chat room, BBS, etc.)
> 6) development of a set of standards for volunteerism that include
> descriptions of necessary skills, expected time commitments, agreement
> that what is contributed to a county site will stay with the site even
> when a CC leaves and that sites may not be stripped. This paper needs
be
> signed before a new CC is accepted into a state project and to be
signed
> retroactively by existing CCs.
>
> Now for the reasoning behind my opinions:
>
> First of all, I need to say that my opinions are based in gleefully
> acclaiming that this Project overall has proven itself to be a roaring
> success in the genealogical world! Little did any of us know at the
> outset just how successful the idea of our collective goal to provide
a
> 24/7/365 virtual library of genealogical information based in location
> would catch on and come to be!!!! We all deserve to give ourselves a
big
> pat on the back for bringing the Project to the point where we are
known
> and used daily as an established, respectable nationally recognized
> entity providing free services for genealogists everywhere! Luckily,
> most folks in the general researching public have no idea of the
> conflicts that we wheedle our way thru behind the scenes and thank
> goodness for that! Having said this, I also believe that what worked
in
> the beginning when we were mostly concerned with simply getting the
> Project moving by establishing SCs to manage states and to seat CCs in
> every county in every state no longer fits the reality of what we have
> today.
>
> So what works and what does not work today?????
>
> Currently, according to the Bylaws, SCs essentially "hold all the
power"
> based on loopholes in the Bylaws. Article XII says that each state
will
> have an SC to "oversee" the state project. It also states that this SC
> will be elected except where grandfathering allows the SC to "rule"
for
> life. IMO, This grandfathering loophole has allowed some SCs to use
> their position for power rather than in the best interests of building
> the state projects. IMO, were all SCs subjected to regular elections,
> the balance this project needs would come into being naturally as SCs
> would be forced to periodically *look* at the status quo within their
> state from the POV of CCs. Now unfortunately, we have "good SCs" who
see
> themselves as "serving" their CCs and the project and "bad SCs" who
use
> their position to wield power and seem to think they are in a position
> of mini-despotism, not needing to pay attention to any across the
board
> standards.
>
> While I agree with what you say Isaiah, that in most situations, CCs
are
> replaced because they have disappeared, this Project has also seen
what
> can happen when SCs decide to use their position to "rid" themselves
of
> CCs who simply are contesting the status quo in their states rather
than
> to subject themselves and their state projects to periodic assessment
in
> the form of elections. Given that we are supposed to have a CC driven
> Project at a time where most of us have years of experience under our
> belts, clearly this does not work! As it stands, we have states where
> there has never been an election, where there is no "ASC or other
> support team" in place to manage things if the SC becomes unavailable
> and where whatever "rules" are in place are not rules that were worked
> on within the state, voted on and agreed to by CCs. There are states
> that have not adopted additional "rules/bylaws and guidelines" ... to
> "cover grievance procedures within the state." We have seen what can
> happen when these pieces of the puzzle are not in place - suffice it
to
> say, this is not in the best interests of the Project!!!
>
> As a result, the AB, instead of having what now seems to be a luxury -
> that being the ability to focus its time on improving and promoting
the
> Project at large, instead "gets" to spend its time addressing multiple
> grievances involving mostly the same situations in the same states
over
> and over again. I do not think this is in the best interests of the
> Project nor the way the Project was envisioned to function. Clearly,
> just as there are CCs with different skills levels in the project, we
> also have SCs whose may have excellent technical skills but whose
> experience and skills in managing people is just not up to par for a
> national volunteer project such as ours. Add to this the fact that SCs
> can and have thumbed their noses at the mediation process, we have
> another problem that allows "dis-ease" to continue in certain state
> projects. Our job is to make sure that the "dis-ease" cannot become
> contagious! The AB needs to be able to work to protect the Project
from
> those commercial entities that would just as likely find a way to wipe
> us off the map so they can profit from what we have offered freely and
> this is not an idle threat IMO as the entities that existed when we
> began get gobbled up into commercial conglomerates.
>
> How to fix this???? We have to begin *within* the Project. Regarding
> SCs, as Isaiah states, SCs need support in the guise of some kind of
> guidance policy developed to apply across the board regarding *how* to
> set up a state project that will stand the test of time and *why*
> certain check and balance systems are important. SCs need to feel
> appreciated as their skills and responsibilities are huge. As a
Project
> we need to make sure SCs get words of appreciation as well as words of
> constructive criticism. *ALL* SCs need to face a regular election
> process that will serve both as an acclamation of a "job well done"
and
> as a "wake-up call" that their approach is not working for the CCs in
> their state, so adjustments can be made. Given that SCs need to have a
> very different level of technical skills to manage a host of counties,
> IMO, this election process needs to build in stability for the state
> projects so that chaos will not reign with SCs coming and going too
> frequently. Therefore, the time between elections needs to offer SCs
> enough time to have the opportunity to establish a good working
> relationship with their CCs. IMO, state elections should not take
place
> more frequently than perhaps every 4-5 years. In the interim, if CCs
are
> not satisfied, they can apply Section 9 and mount a removal process,
> letting the chips fall where they may according to the word of the
> majority of CCs in their state. Mediation of grievances needs to be
made
> mandatory for both SCs and CCs, handled by the mediation committee
that
> will send its conclusions to the AB for approval.
>
> Turning to the role CCs play in making the Project a success, I think
> that states would do well to offer some kind of in-state appreciation
> process where different county pages are highlighted regularly to let
> CCs know that their work is both appreciated and seen. CCs need to
know
> that it is expected that they will add data regularly to their
counties
> and to expect that their county pages will be "checked" for vitality
> periodically. CCs need to come in understanding that this Project
> accepts they may only be "with us" for awhile as time and
circumstances
> permit, but that *what* they contribute while they are with us will be
> donated to and kept as an important part of the ongoing county project
> in perpetuity, giving them credit for their work. IMO, CCs need to
> understand that becoming a CC is an honored privilege, even as a
> volunteer position, in this particular Project. Personally, I find it
> entirely unacceptable that any SC would take on a CC who has no
> experience or skills in creating and maintaining websites. I think
this
> is a recipe for disaster that can easily be avoided! If any state
cannot
> find enough volunteers to manage each county who have the commensurate
> skills, it is a reflection of an overall problem within the state
> approach! SCs are not in their position to act as co-dependents who do
> the work *for* CCs. CCs need to be able to stand on their own in
> managing their county/ies website/s. As one who has worked with and
> coordinated volunteers for over 20 years, where volunteers are given a

> clear "position paper" that describes the goals of the Project and
what
> skills the Project needs from its volunteers, what kind of regular
> performance is expected of them, what timer commitment this requires
and
> what behavior is acceptable and what is not acceptable up front, the
> goals of volunteerism and the Project at large are best served. I
truly
> believe that once such standards are put in place the Project as a
whole
> will move forward inviting and enticing qualified interested folks who
> have the time to commit! Iowa has developed such a "sign-up paper" and
> California is currently using it as a model, amending it to suit that
> state's needs. I suggest the development of such a set of standards at
> the national level that can be amended to suit conditions in
particular
> states.
>
> I *AM_NOT* talking about "page police" any of the scary ideas that
seem
> to get associated with words like guidelines and standards!!! Frankly,
I
> am talking about an attitude shift within the Project that will take
us
> into a new era of excellence! We need to raise up the idea, as a
> Project, that the work we do is very specialized, very dedicated *and*
a
> hefty commitment. We need to stop trivializing the commitment and to
> stop allowing room for excuses that the commitment is "just a hobby"
to
> be taken up and put down at will. I know it sounds harsh, but frankly,
> those who do not have the time to make a regular commitment of time to
> their volunteerism in this Project might be better off offering their
> services elsewhere where they can "keep up." I believe this Project
has
> now survived to the point where we can communicate to the larger
> genealogical world that to be a member of this Project is quite a
> feather in one's cap! Genealogists are smart people - not everyone is
> willing to put the time and effort it takes into the research effort
and
> to see the larger vision of how by sharing we will all "win" is just
an
> extension of our insight regarding how knowing one's genealogical
> background builds self-esteem to make us all better people! I believe
> that reflecting such ideals by setting standards for volunteers can
only
> inspire others to take up the challenge and join our team and I look
> forward to being part of the effort.......
>
> Jana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard (Isaiah) Harrison [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: [BOARD-L] DISCUSSION ITEM
>
>
> Some time ago I told Jan we would hold a discussion regarding the
> "hiring"
> and "firing" of CCs by their SCs.
>
> SCs appoint CCs very often in those states with lots of counties or
> other
> divisions. They find it necessary to dismiss CCs much less frequently.
> Most
> CCs stary for a long time and do a good job. When CCs leave it's
usually
>
> because they quit or disappear--not because they've been "fired."
>
> Most times when dismissal does occur, that's that and the AB never
hears
>
> about it. In a few cases complaints or grievances are filed and the AB
> gets
> involved. But what is the AB to do? Every situation is different and
> State
> Projects are organized and administered in many different ways. SCs
have
>
> the responsibility for staffing their State Projects but they haven't
> been
> given any guidance. What kind of help can we give to increase the
> likelihood that a higher number of appointments will work out. What
> about
> CCs? How do we work to protect their rights. Is a "Bill of Rights" for
> CCs
> necessary. When things don't work out and the situation is brought to
> the
> AB for resolution, what kind of policies and procedures do we need o
> insure
> fair decisions?
>
> Your thoughts are wanted, but this Discussion on Board-L needs to be
in
> general terms only, with no mention of real people or events-keep it
> hypothetical, please.
>
> -Isaiah
>
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Standing Procedures for the Advisory Board are located at:
> http://www.usgenweb.com/official/standing-procedures.html
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
consent."
> Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
>

This thread: