USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2005-06 > 1119235426


From: Don Tharp <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Question for the candidates
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:43:46 -0500
References: <Version.32.20050618151636.00e6f5b0@pop.central.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.9302281926280.15599-100000@nyx3.nyx.net>


At 07:30 PM 2/28/1993 -1000, you wrote:
>
>There are 5 SC members? Wow, I thought there were only four.

The statement was "there are five SC members that have responsibilities in
two states".
David, SCs are members like the rest of us. Perhaps you misread member for
representative? When I stated SC members I included the ASC in that
category since they, too, get to vote for the SC rep.
>
>Is there a SC that is an SC in two different regions?

Yes

Go to http://www.usgenweb.org/about/statecoordinators.shtml
and peruse that web page.

>may have happened in the past, but I am not sure it is
>true now.
See the URL above

Is Delaware in the SEMA region or the NENC region?

Go to URL
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgwelections/national-2005/nominee-index.html
that URL posts the states by region.

>If it is in the NENC region, then Shari is SC in two
>regions.

Shari is the SC for Delaware and Maryland, both in the SE/Mid Atlantic
region. She is one of those wearing two hats but getting only one vote for
a SC rep.

DonT

>
>David
>
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Don Tharp wrote:
>
>> We now vote each year for nine positions on the Advisory Board. Other than
>> the NC and RAL, which we all get to vote for, our present system of
>> qualifying voters, it is possible for a member to be certified by the EC to
>> vote for every one of the other seven positions yet many of us, 2230, are
>> certified to vote for only one of the other positions.
>>
>> If I am not misinterpreting the figures, 386 members have multiple votes
>> beyond the NC and RAL positions, leaving the vast majority of 2230 of us
>> with a single vote.
>>
>> To better illustrate my concerns let's examine just the SC members, they
>> are a smaller group and it is easier to visualize what can and does occur.
>>
>> There are five SC members that have responsibilities in two states. I
>> assume their responsibilities are relatively equal. While two of these five
>> SC members have responsibilities in two states, both of those states are
>> within one region. They get to vote only one time for a SC rep.
>>
>> The remaining three of these five SC members also have responsibilities in
>> two states, but the states are in different regions. They get to vote for
>> two SC reps. Two members with two states get to vote for 25% of the SC reps
>> and three members with two states get to vote for 50% of the SC reps. The
>> remaining SC members get to vote for only one rep.
>>
>> Keep in mind the efforts of those with multi responsibilities are
>> relatively equal, yet the three have the privilege of out voting the other
>> two simple due to geographical boundaries.
>>
>> The same applies to LC members and to SP members under our present system
>> of allocating voting privileges.
>>
>> I have asked the question more than once, but I have never received a
>> realistic answer concerning what difference there is between the values,
>> visions, efforts and ethics of one region vs that of another.
>>
>> The regions were set up originally as arbitrary boundaries, not to be in
>> competition with one another, but simple to furnish a reference to qualify
>> voters. That some members would eventually gain a superiority over other
>> members simple through geographical boundaries probably didn't enter into
>> the earlier equations.
>>
>> Now, one last comment. Keep in mind that the regions could change
>> boundaries at any time. You may have sites in two regions today and next
>> year they may be in one region.
>> You may have sites in one region today and next year they may be in two
>> regions.
>>
>> If the AB decides to reallocate the boundaries of the regions some could
>> gain voting privileges and some could lose voting privileges. You would
>> still be expending the same effort but with different voting privileges.
>> Why should this be?

>>
>> DonT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to me and others to have a numerical count of
>> voters having votes in the above categories.
>>
>> Now, we have heard from some that if they work in two different regions
>> they should be allowed to vote in two different regions for two different
>> reps. What if they now had the opportunity to vote not for two but for 12
>> different reps?
>>
>> Yes, we would have to forget about regions and think of ourselves as an
>> entire project, but we would have an equal vote for multiple reps with
>> every other member of this organization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 02:41 PM 6/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>> >SW/SC candidates; Alice, Bettie, Phyllis, Trey,
>> >
>> >RAL candidates; Betsy, Charles, Mike
>> >
>> >NC candidates; Angie, Don, Linda, Paulette, Sherri
>> >
>> >
>> >To assure an equal representative voice among all members of the Project,
>> >and given that the details could be agreed upon;
>> >
>> >Would you support and vote for an amendment that embraced the "one member
>> >one vote" concept?
>> >
>> >Don Tharp
>> >CC Chautauqua County, Kansas
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>> >The Advisory Board: http://www.usgenweb.com/about/advisoryboard.shtml
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>> To search the mail list archives, go to
>> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=USGENWEB-SW
>>
>
>David W. Morgan Honolulu Hawaii
>CC Representative, SWSC Region, USGenWeb Project
>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>with the one word, unsubscribe. If you are subbed to the digest,
>send it to
>


This thread: