NJ-GSNJ-L Archives

From: "Joe Klett" <>
Subject: [NJ-GSNJ] NYG&BS Situation
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:15:01 -0400

Fellow genealogists:



I wanted to add my two cents as a life member of the NYG&BS. Like Joan
Lowry, I am doing so as a private person with an interest in that
organization, and not in an official capacity on behalf of GSNJ (or the
State Archives for that matter).



I read the recent letter from Mr. Stillman relative to the proposed bylaws
changes, and was ready to believe that these measures really were to
streamline operations of the Society and thereby improve services, programs
and care of collections. Given my experience on the GSNJ board, I know that
trustees need flexibility and authority in order to carry forward the
mission established by the members and to perpetuate the work of the
organization. I also knew that there had been much controversy about the
sale of the NYG&BS building, and that several respected colleagues had
opposed it. However, from the cover letter for the proxy ballot, I had no
clue as to the true nature and gravity of the bylaws changes proposed.



I now see, and am frankly disgusted by, the way the board misrepresented and
sugar-coated what they have proposed. Yes, the trustees need to be able to
carry out the day-to-day business of the society without having to ask the
membership to approve every decision and expenditure. But the trustees are,
at present at least, ultimately accountable (as they should be) to a fully
enfranchised membership who have entrusted them with a stated mission and
whose dues fund the programs and services they are supposed to administer.
It seems to me the proposed changes undermine the very premise of a
"genealogical society" and undoubtedly would be repugnant to the society's
founding members as they are to so many of us who have supported the
organization through dues, through presenting at or attending programs, and
through contributing to their publications and collections.



As I see it, the board of trustees, unhappy with some of the members, thinks
"Hmmmm... How do we solve this problem? Oh--we silence the membership. But
we need the membership's permission to silence them... So we cover that with
a big FAT sugar-coated partial truth (if that) and hope the majority of
members won't go to the trouble of looking behind the curtain." Clearly, by
operating in this fashion, the board has already consciously (though
apparently without conscience) *betrayed the trust of the membership*. And
clearly, to permanently give such persons and their chosen successors even
greater control with lesser accountability is inadvisable.



Should even the most trustworthy of bodies or individuals be given such
absolute power? To my way of thinking, absolutely not.


I am voting "no" on the bylaws changes as proposed, without hesitation.


Joseph R. Klett

Princeton, NJ

This thread:

• [NJ-GSNJ] NYG&BS Situation by "Joe Klett" <>