USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2005-06 > 1118893722


From: John Schunk <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Bylaws amendment
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:48:42 -0500
References: <3.0.3.32.20050615160444.01b00bc0@skpub.com><Version.32.20050615123442.00ed6128@pop.central.cox.net><3.0.3.32.20050615122310.01affc68@skpub.com><20050615165656.OYEI18229.lakermmtao03.cox.net@DON>
In-Reply-To: <Version.32.20050615185030.00e89b10@pop.central.cox.net>


At 09:53 PM 6/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:04 PM 6/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 03:10 PM 6/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>>No, John, perhaps you misread my message. I didn't say the SP members were
>>>over represented, the amendment as presented implies that, I was merely
>>>building on the action they wished to take.
>>
>>Pardon me, DonT, if I misread your message, but you did begin it with these
>>words:
>>"The amendment to be voted on this election period addresses the present
>>over representation of the Archive members, but is silent on the over
>>representation of SC/ASC members."
>
>I believe the statement reads *the amendment* to be voted on *addresses*
>the present over representation.
>
>What I think has nothing to do with what the amendment addresses.


Ah, but if you didn't think the Archives members were overrepresented, you
could have opposed the amendment on that basis alone.

You wouldn't have had to come up with the argument that it's bad because of
its failure to address the overrepresentation of SC/ASC members. You could
have simply said it's bad because there is no present overrepresentation of
Archives members.

Are you seriously trying to claim that you don't think the Special Projects
are overrepresented?



>>
>>Referring to "the present over representation of the Archive members"
>>certainly sounds to me like you think there is a present over
>>representation of the Archive members.
>>>If you are not saying the groups are over represented, then what are you
>>>saying? If you believe them to be properly represented then this, too,
>>>would indicate the need for a No vote to reject the amendment.
>
>>I don't think there should be a Census Project representative because there
>>is no Census Project recognized by the AB. That's why I would vote YES for
>>the amendment even if it retained the Tombstone Project representative
>>position.
>
>John, I don't believe we have had a Census Project representative for the
>past five years.
>
>Tell me, John, how does that vacant seat, a seat vacant for the past five
>years, have anything to do with this amendment? How will it resolve the
>Census question? We will still have two census projects and that situations
>will not be resolved by this amendment.


OK, I must be missing something here. The current Bylaws require an AB
representative for the Census Project. The amendment does away with that.
There can no longer be an argument that the AB is in violation of the
Bylaws by failing to have a Census Project representative. In five years,
the AB has never found a satisfactory way to have a Census Project
representative on the AB, and I don't foresee any reason why this is ever
likely to change. Consequently, I think the Bylaws should be updated to
conform to reality.

And the Project won't still have two census projects. It will still have
no census projects.



>>>What I said was, if the amendment is designed to rectify a perceived over
>>>representation in one group why wasn't it designed to rectify over
>>>representation in all groups? The amendment should have been comprehensive
>>>and include all groups, it didn't, therefore it is faulty. It doesn't
>>>follow that an amendment is faultless if half of it is at fault.
>>>>
>>>>Clearly your argument necessitates the conclusion that the proposed
>>>>amendment is better than the current article. Then you're also saying
that
>>>>the proposed amendment could be even better (if it also reduced the
>>>>overrepresentation of the State Coordinators).
>>>
>>>The argument was that they had the opportunity to present an amendment that
>>>would equalize representation but they failed to do that.
>>>
>>>Why settle for half a loaf when we should have been given a whole loaf,
>>>with no assurance that the other half will ever be given. It has taken nine
>>>years for this one, it might well another nine years, if ever, before the
>>>rest of equalization took place.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In other words, you're saying that Y is better than X, but Z would even be
>>>>better than X or Y. Yet you conclude that Y should be rejected, so
that we
>>>>are stuck with X for at least another year until Z can be proposed and
>>>>voted on. I can't follow that logic.
>>>
>>>John, it has been my observation that the workings of the Project doesn't
>>>follow logic too closely, that shouldn't surprise you or I. As stated
>
>>>earlier, it may well be more than a year before your Z can be proposed and
>>>voted on. It may never be. The the SCs, that is your Z, control over 30% of
>>>the representation and are in a position to control every state.
>>>
>>>>The conclusion I would draw is that it's best to make what improvement can
>>>>be made now (the proposed amendment which received the necessary state
>>>>sponsors to appear on the 2005 ballot) and then spend the next year
getting
>>>>the necessary sponsors to allow voting on what might be even better.
>>>
>>>Conclude what you wish, John, and vote accordingly, many of us have waited
>>>quite some time for equality in representation, we can wait another year,
>>>or longer.
>>>
>>>I don't buy half spoiled bananas, I wait for the next shipment.
>>
>>Which, as you said, may never arrive. So in the meantime, you settle for
>>all-spoiled bananas?
>>
>>Still doesn't seem logical to me. And I certainly don't think one should
>>vote illogically just because, in your words, "the workings of the Project
>>doesn't follow logic too closely."
>
>I don't believe a NO vote is illogical. A yes vote would be the illogical
>vote.


I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.


>Speaking now of the ratios just between the SP and SC groups;
>Given the number of members in each group, the SC group now has a 4-1
>advantage in representation per member over the SP group. By voting for
>this amendment you increase an existing 4 to 1 advantage and turn it into a
>10 to 1 advantage.


Ah, but you decrease the 3-1 advantage in representation for the SP group
over the LC group to an even 1-1 ratio for the SP and LC groups (1 rep for
each 314
SP members, 1 rep for each 315 LC members, according to your figures).

But, as explained above, I'm in favor of this amendment quite irrespective
of representation ratios.



>That appears logical to you? Do you really think this is the best we can do
>with amendments?
>

The best we can do with amendments? Probably not. I'd like to see an
amendment, for example, which more clearly defines membership in the
USGenWeb Project, but I'm not going to vote against the current amendment
just because of all the good things it doesn't do.

Waiting for the best may be simply another name for stagnation.

John



>DonT
>
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>John Schunk
>>Coordinator, Sedgwick County KSGenWeb
>>http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/sedgwick
>>
>>
>>==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>>The Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/advisoryboard.shtml
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>The CC representatives for the SW-SC region are currently David Morgan
>& Bettie Wood. The SC representative is Larry Flescher.
>
>
>
>

This thread: