BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2006-11 > 1163045979


From: "Mike Peterson" <>
Subject: [BOARD] Challenged NVGenWeb Election - Respondent NC Response
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:19:39 -0800


To the members of the USGenWeb Advisory Board:



Although not required at this point, my training advises that any allegation not answered in a responsive pleading can be assumed to be valid. This is not a legal arena, however the principle remains valid. I therefore make the following answer to Mr. Smoots allegations as to impropriety as to the NVGenWeb election and ask that it be made part of the record.




> 1. That procedures required for carrying out a fair

> election were not observed, that actions conducting

> the election were unauthorized, illegal, and possibly

> politically motivated,



This respondent denies the allegation above and requests specificity as to those articles or procedures required for a fair election which were not observed, which were unauthorized, which were illegal, or which were politically motivated.




> 2. Provisions in the USGenWeb Project bylaws

> were not correctly interpreted or followed and that

> these violations could cause changes with the results

> of this election, and if allowed to stand, future

> elections.



This respondent denies the allegation above and requests specificity as to those bylaws or violations alleged to be incorrectly interpreted or followed.



> 3. The USGenWeb Project bylaws do not allow

> direct participation by the Advisory Board in

> XXGenWeb elections.



This respondent acknowledges that the project bylaws neither allow nor disallow participation by the Advisory Board in XXGenWeb elections. The bylaws are mute as to the process for XXGenWeb elections other than to state they should be held.



> 4. The USGenWeb Project bylaws do not allow direct

> unilateral participation by any Advisory Board member

> in XXGenWeb elections.



This respondent acknowledges that the project bylaws do not allow nor disallow direct unilateral participation by any Advisory Board member in a state election process. This respondent denies that there has been any direct or indirect unilateral participation.



> 5. USGenWeb Project bylaws do not allow any

> Advisory Board member to personally count the

> votes XXGenWeb elections.



This respondent acknowledges that the project bylaws neither allow nor disallow an Advisory Board member to personally count votes in XXGenWeb elections. The bylaws are mute as to the process for XXGenWeb elections other than to state they should be held.



> 6. The USGenWeb Project bylaws allow the creation

> of a "Elections Subcommittee" (EC) however the

> bylaws do not designate the EC to conduct

> XXGenWeb elections.



This respondent admits the allegation above to be true.




> 7. The USGenWeb Project bylaws only require that

> State Coordinators be elected. The bylaws are silent

> as to how the XXGenWeb election should be

> conducted.



This respondent admits the allegation above to be true.



> 8. Even though some people believe that the

> Advisory Board should micro-manage XXGenWeb

> business, the bylaws do not indicate such.



This respondent is without sufficient knowledge to know the thoughts of 'some people' yet undefined, and has significant doubts that Mr. Smoot knows the thoughts of any individual other than himself. This respondent denies that any micro-management of XXGenWeb business has occurred in relation to the topic of the challenge to the election process.




> 9. NC Mr. Scott Burow and SWSC CC Rep Ms.

> Bettie Wood should recuse themselves from the

> challenge proceeding because their impartiality

> might reasonably be questioned because of their

> personal involvement in the NVGenWeb Project

> election.



This respondent has recused himself in accordance with propriety and ethics, but denies that volunteering to edit a single mailmerge text file to correspond with the NVGenWeb election dates and candidates names and allow it to run on a mailmerge active account qualifies for 'personal involvement' in the election.



> 10. The Advisory Board as a group (with the

> exception of Paul D. Buckley) should recuse

> themselves from the challenge proceeding because

> their impartiality might reasonably be questioned

> because Advisory Board member Bettie Wood has

> kept the Advisory Board personally informed via

> Board-Exec of her personal involvement in

> the NVGenWeb Project election.



Should the entire Advisory Board do as requested, there would be no one left to rule on Mr. Smoot's complaint and a single advisory board member could not constitute a quorum. The named parties should recuse themselves, however knowledge of the subject matter, from any source, does not create a conflict of interest sufficient to cause recusion of the entire board. Conflict of interest is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome - not mere knowledge of the situation or any relationship with the individuals involved.




In general response, this respondent states that Mr. Smoot provides no proof of his allegations nor any factual materials supporting any impropriety other than his own opinion of what is right in his personal view. His personal views do not make policy, over-ride the bylaws or Sturgis, nor do they override the decisions of the State Coordinator in the manner in which the election is conducted. This respondent asks that strict proof be required of Mr. Smoot to support the allegations he has made.



Respectfully Submitted:



Scott Burow

National Coordinator

USGenWeb Project



This thread: