BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2005-01 > 1107188593


From: "Don Kelly" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] MOTION 05-01: BYLAWS ARTICLE V. AMENDMENT
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:23:13 -0800
References: <200501311213.j0VCDjNr028694@ms-smtp-02.tampabay.rr.com>


I would rather see the state change their amendment from one rep to two.

But would that require a new round of sponsor approval?

Pitting regular proposals against state proposals does not set well with me
and I think we should not go there.

donkelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyndie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 4:13 AM
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MOTION 05-01: BYLAWS ARTICLE V. AMENDMENT


>I ask that this motion be pulled to address the concerns of the proposed
> amendment wording. If the submitter will not pull the motion, I urge the
> AB
> to vote NO, so that a fair and equitable amendment can be introduced as
> urgent as permitted in the by-laws:
>
> "Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of
> The
> USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and
> disseminate it to the membership without the required co-sponsorship. In
> this case, the proposed amendment shall be posted to the national website
> and disseminated to the membership within two (2) business days. The
> proposed amendment shall remain posted for a minimum of three (3) business
> days. A special ballot shall be prepared and voting shall be for a period
> of
> five (5) business days. A two-thirds (2/3) majority, of The USGenWeb
> Project
> membership, voting within that time frame, shall be required for the
> amendment to pass."
>
> Please strike my previous comment regarding tabling this motion.
>
> Respectfully,
> Cyndie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cyndie [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 5:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MOTION 05-01: BYLAWS ARTICLE V. AMENDMENT
>
> It has been stated that:
>
> "It would appear to me, if I read correctly, what has been said, that one
> can only get representation from ones own elected representative and not
> possibly the RAL or another Rep if our own is MIA. Am I basically without
> representation because my own Rep has been basically out of the loop for
> some time? Would it be against the rules to ask the RAL or another SC Rep
> to represent me, should I need representation? I really don't think that
> is
> what we are all about."
>
> So, why wouldn't a CC be able to go to an SC rep.? They get to vote on
> them. Why does this apply to SP and not the states? This still doesn't
> change that each region gets to vote on three reps and you are asking the
> SP
> to only get to vote on one. Each AB member gets a vote on motions
> regardless of how many are in their region, yet the entire region votes to
> put them there. SP also has the potential to grow. As new projects are
> added, they will be put into this group.
>
> May I motion to table this motion to give time to approach the states that
> submitted this and request them to modify the wording?
>
> I thought we were working to be fair and equitable? Yet every time I
> point
> out a valid reason why two reps for SP would be fair, it is knocked down
> as
> though valid reasons don't matter.
>
>
> Cyndie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Betsy [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] MOTION 05-01: BYLAWS ARTICLE V. AMENDMENT
>
> Cyndie,
>
> The motion is whether or not to make the amendment urgent. The AB can NOT
> modify the wording of the amendment. That can only be done by the states
> that submitted it. Read the bylaws:
>
> Section 2. Any state project may propose an amendment by sending their
> proposal to one or more of the Advisory board members representing their
> region and including the exact wording of the proposed amendment. Upon
> receipt of the proposed amendment, the Advisory Board representative(s)
> shall request the Webmaster to post the proposed change on the national
> website and the National Coordinator to post to the State-Coord-L List,
> and
> any other appropriate lists, for dissemination to the members.
>
> Section 3. The proposed amendment, with the sponsor's name and date of
> posting, shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) days
> prior to the annual voting period of July 1-July 31. Any proposed
> amendment
> shall require a minimum of five (5) states as co-sponsors to command that
> it be placed on the ballot. State projects wishing to co-sponsor the
> amendment shall notify the Advisory Board and make an announcement on the
> USGenWeb-All Mailing List.
>
> (Since the states don't have access to the USGenWeb-All Mailing List, I
> assume the AB will do that part also.)
>
> Also, using the numbers below, you will find that one CC rep represents an
> average of 287.75 CCs. That is still fairly equivalent of 1 SP rep for
> 314
> members. It has already been stated that there are too many SC reps on
> the
> AB, but that can be handled in a future amendment.
>
> Betsy
>
>
>
>
> At 08:24 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
>
>>Below is from the EC and forwarded with permission. It gives more detail
> on
>>the breakdown of membership within the project. The Special Projects
>>total
>>314. Considering three AB members are selected from the membership of
>>each
>>region (two CC reps and on SC rep) by the membership of that region,
>>modifying this motion to allow for two AB members from the SP membership
>>to
>>be selected by the SP membership is within reason. The current by-laws
> list
>>three reps from SP, so this would be technically reducing the total
>>representation by SP by one seat.
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Based on our membership list, I have tabulated the
>>following:
>>
>>Total (unduplicated/unique) USGenWeb Project members:
>>2,230. The breakdown is as follows:
>>
>>SPTP (Tombstone Project):
>> 37
>>SPKZ (Kidz Project):
>> 2
>>SPIP (Church, Maps, Marriages, Obits, Pensions):
>> 73
>>SPAR (State Archives):
>> 192
>>SPFG (Family Group Sheet Project):
>> 10
>>NENC (North East/North Central):
>> 650
>>NWPL (North West/Plains):
>> 433
>>SEMA (Southeast/Mid-Atlantic):
>> 646
>>SWSC: (Southwest/South Central):
>> 573
>> ____
>>
>> 2616
>> 2230
>> ____
>>
>> 386
>>
>>
>>The difference of 386 are volunteers that work within
>>more than one Region/Archives/National Special
>>Project.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Tina Vickery
>>Chair, USGenWeb Election Committee
>>http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/
>>
>>
>>
>>==== BOARD Mailing List ====
>>"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
>>consent."
>>Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
> consent."
> Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Archives for Board-L are located at:
> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board
>
>
> ==== BOARD Mailing List ====
> Check out the Awards and Recognition our project has received:
> http://www.usgenweb.org/about/index.shtml#awards
>
>
>


This thread: