WVMARSHA-L Archives

From: <>
Subject: National GenWeb Coordinator Resigns!
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:46:57 EST

Hi, Everyone:

As you know, I have the Pleasants, Marshall and Pleasants County WVGenWeb
pages.

I work on my pages and NO ONE directs me. I have absolutely NO interaction
with anyone from the GenWeb regarding my pages... I have no idea in the world
what the Board of Directors or all of these GenWeb Coordinators do..but it
has NOTHING to do with me. Rootsweb lets me store the pages in their space,
but I could just as easily store them in my own space....

Every time a get a message from the GenWeb it has the same theme. I am
sending this through my two Rootsweb Lists because the resignation letter of
the USGenWeb NATIONAL Coordinator has already surfaced in 3 of the other Lists
I am on...Rootsweb is NOT the USGenweb Project..They just allow us to store
our pages there if we choose to.

Here is the letter... Next I will forward my letter to the WVState Coordinator
and to this Nancy...

<Nancy writes>
I started to send this privately to the members of the board but after
thinking about it for several hours have decided to post it publicly. I ask
that all state coordinators forward it to their state lists, but I'm sure that
some of you won't. For the benefit of those CCs whose SCs doesn't forward it
as requested, it will also be posted at:
http://www.nlt.net/usgenweb/11-2-98.html

I'll start by reminding all of you that I have been part of this project for
longer than any of you, discussing the concept with Jeff Murphy in late Feb
and early March 1996 before KyGenWeb even started... before it was ever
announced on the KYROOTS list. I have loved it and worked my butt off for
over 2 1/2 years to help make it what it is today. I have been SC and
archivist, or file manager, for 3 states, handled several hundred orphan
counties, put up numerous pages to help the new CCs, and have
personally helped many of you. I have attempted to do what I think is best for
USGenWeb, as I was elected to do... as I have done for over 2 1/2 years...
and have been villafied and maligned for doing so.

Whether any of you realize it or not, I was put in a very awkward position
when the CCs elected me... I was against the bylaws as written... campaigned
against them... and am now in a position of having to work within them because
the consensus of opinion appeared to be that they are better than no bylaws...
vote them in and fix them later. Well, you've all seen now how really bad they
are and how they are open to different interpretations. It doesn't matter
what the intent was when they were written. They are very poorly written,
period!

The bylaws say that the National Coordinator is the chair of the Advisory
Board but gives no direction for the NC to follow except 'these Bylaws and by
accepted parliamentary procedure'. What is considered 'day-to-day
administration'? What is 'accepted parliamentary procedure'? Who is to
decide? This should have all been spelled out in the bylaws instead of
leaving it so ambiquous. Since it wasn't I have done my best to try to abide
by them anyway as best I could and have been shot down at every step.

The bylaws say that the Advisory Board '...shall address any problem issues
as they arise'... 'advising and mediating, if necessary, any grievances or
appeals...'.

Websters dictionary gives the definition of Advisory as:
adj. 1. Having power to adivse. 2. Containing or given as advice;
not mandatory.

To me, and to many other CCs, this says that the board are advisors
to the
NC and the project volunteers... not the project 'leaders'.

Article VI, Section 2 of the bylaws says that 'the National Coordinator
shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board'. Article VIII, Section 1
of the bylaws says that 'Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory Board shall
constitute a quorum'.

Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about how those meetings
are to
be held, including that they may be held on a general board
discussion list
and the quorum established because the board members are subbed to
that list.

I felt strongly (and still do) that board meetings should be held
in real
time in order to properly establish a quorum according to the
bylaws. I
also feel that the people who elected the board members expected
you to
attend those meetings. As a nominee, I would also have thought
that you
would expect there to be meetings that you would need to attend. It's
obvious that the majority of the board doesn't feel the way I do.

It was discussed on the board list that you needed a secretary to
keep up
with motions, votes, etc. I placed it on the Oct. 4 agenda where it
was
promptly tabled.

Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws states: The Advisory Board shall
also be
responsible for administering the domains, usgenweb.com,
usgenweb.net and
usgenweb.org, over which The USGenWeb Project membership has
control and
for which the members are the official lessees.

As the NC I wrote to Dale Schneider shortly after taking office to
inquire
as to his intentions with the usgenweb.com domain. To this date I
have
not received a response from him, even tho I sent a 2nd email a few
weeks
later. I placed this item on the agenda for the board to discuss
where it
was promptly tabled with a comment that he has said he won't turn
it over
to the Advisory Board at this time. Because I wrote to him I have
now been
accused of 'being obsessed with obtaining control of usgenweb.com'
by Linda
Lewis and Don Spidell, both of whom are positive I plan on getting my
grubby little hands on it so I can turn it over to Jerry and Lucy
Dill. If
anyone on the board that had 'spoken' with Dale had bothered to
inform me
that they had corresponded or chatted with him and what he had said, I
wouldn't have placed it on the agenda. Even after placing it on the
agenda, I could have been informed so it could be removed, but in my
opinion you deliberately chose not to. Today, the bylaws still say
that
the board controls that domain, and of course you do not... and
further
you have not indicated in any way how you intend to reconcile the
bylaws to
the reality.

The board needs to begin working on election procedures for next
year. I
placed this on the agenda for Oct. 4 and a committee chair was
elected. If
anything has been done about setting up the committee I am unaware
of it at
this time (4 weeks later).

It's obvious that the bylaws need to be amended in many places. I
put this
on the Oct. 4 agenda and a committee chair was elected. If
anything has
been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at this
time (4
weeks later).

Numerous project members have written me requesting that the board
address
the question of whether or not a member of Rootsweb staff [namely
Karen]
should even be on the board-l mail list, suggesting that if the board
needed her input on something she could be asked. I put it on the
agenda
where it was quickly tabled, and has not been addressed yet. I, and
others, do not feel that Karen should be on the board list since
she was
not elected by anyone [no offense meant to Karen].

On 11-1-98 Betsy wrote:
>And, Nancy, I am at a loss as to why you were offended that Trey
and I
decided to seek input into who our constituents would like to see
as their
next representative. It concerns me that you automatically assume
that we
wouldn't even consider your suggestion. Certainly it is one of the
suggestions that we were considering along with suggestions from our
constituents.

One of the suggestions you were considering? Who was considering? and
where? Certainly not on the board list. I was not necessarily
offended by
the fact that you took it to the CCs, and might even have agreed
with you
had there been any real discussion on it. What does offend me
however is
that I made a suggestion, 2 or 3 of you immediately shot it down
and with
no further discussion it's on the SC list... no discussion at all
as to how
we should proceed or whether we should take it to the CCs, try to have
another election, or whatever... it was just done. When I then
commented on
it on the SC list, Holly immediately asked why I was discussing it
there
instead of here. Funny... that's where the discussion was... not
here! I
think that we should have decided how to proceed as a group and not
just by
1 or 2 of you. Isn't this what you have all been saying to me for
the past
2 months? Whether right or wrong, I saw this action as just one
more slap
in the face to the NC by the Advisory Board.

Almost every one of you have shot me down in the past 2 months
because I
tried to lead us, as I was elected to do by the CCs, and the
majority of
you have all said, in actions if not by words, that you [the AB]
are the
project leader, and have effectively relegated the position of NC to a
motion numberer and vote counter.

[snip]

Betsy continued:
>At this point, everything is so public that we can't even discuss
anything
without being ripped to shreds on other lists. You don't know the
reasons
I have voted as I have on ANY of the issues as you have not asked.
I would
LOVE to discuss things with everyone (especially you), hear their
views,
express my views, maybe even change my views after hearing the
discussion,
etc.

Have you one time asked me why I feel as I do? Have you tried to
open a
dialogue? No... the board members just stated they were against
something
or for something and immediately pushed for a vote. Maureen
questioned the
board about this numerous times.

>But this can not happen as it now stands.

Not pointing any fingers here, but who did that? I said in Sept.
that I did
not think the board list should be opened. I said we should have our
discussions on the list, in private, then hold a meeting to vote.
Most of
you shot that down. I offered a very workable compromise which all
but 1
or 2 of you immediately shot down as not workable, and I believe
every one
of you voted to open the list archives and hold a continuous
meeting. I
don't know how any of you feel about it now, but I think that was a
terrible decision. I think the board has tied it's own hands, and
unless
you close the board list archives I don't think you'll ever get
anything
done.

I also know that as both a CC and a SC I would never bring any
problem I
might have to the board because there is no privacy anymore. I
think by
opening the list archives you have done a great injustice to any SC
or CC
that might want to seek your advise. I believe the board discussions
should be private, board meetings either open to the public or at
least a
log or minutes of the meeting posted.

[snip]

>Personally, I would like for us to back up and slow down on this
replacement issue. I don't understand the reason behind the rush to
immediately appoint someone. The only persons I have heard from in
support
of Kathy are all from KS which is only one of the states
represented in
this region. Everyone else I have heard from wishes that we could
poll the
constituents of our region. The answer might still be to appoint
Kathy,
but it might not. But at least we would know the wishes of the
CC's or our
region. Is there anything wrong with this???

What have I said that indicated I was in a rush to fill the
position Betsy?
Again, had there been discussion about it I might have changed my
original
position on the matter, but I wasn't given that opportunity. I
just think
the board should have decided as a body how to proceed instead of
some of
you taking it upon yourselves without a vote, in effect doing what
you have
all accused me of doing.

It's quite obvious to me that the AB does not interpret any of the
bylaws
the same way I do. It's also obvious that none of you have the same
concerns that I do. I have stated over and over that I am for a
bottom up
structure. That means the CCs should control the project. There
are 50
states, which means 100 people if none of them were SC in more than
1 state
and each state has an ASC, and there are 4 SC reps for them, and
only 8 to
represent in the neighborhood of 2000 CCs. To me that is top down,
not
bottom up. I am also completely against the special projects all
having a
voting board member. I think that is an open invitation for more
and more
special projects to be set up in order to get a board seat and
eventually
the special projects will control the USGW board. 4 of the 15 board
members
were elected by less than 100 people, all of whom are SCs, and 3 were
supposedly voted on, [but might have been appointed], by special
projects,
many of whom are not CCs. As a CC I don't like the numbers, and many
others I've talked with don't either.

I'm also concerned by the statements I see now that a CC that received
votes in the last election should not be appointed because their views
'might not be the best for USGW' or words to that effect. Frankly,
I think
the board should be comprised of people with differing view points and
different ideas, not by a group of people all with the same
philosophy or
agenda. I think for USGW to continue to grow all ideas must be
considered.
From what I have seen on the lists however, it appears that a certain
group of people want only people with their views on the board, and
anyone
that doesn't share their views is labeled a troublemaker and
quickly run
off the list.

I also feel that a process needs to be set up to insure that a 'fired'
volunteer gets a fair shake if they file an appeal. Yes, I'm
talking about
Kenny Thomas. That's over and done with now but it still leaves a
very
bitter taste in the mouths of many of the CCs, especially those in
Ks. This
board did nothing to mediate the problem or even try to find out what
really happened, automatically assuming that everything that Linda
Lewis
said was gospel and everything that Kenny Thomas, and Maureen Reed,
said
was a lie. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in the
middle. I
tried to set up a board list where it could be discussed by all
interested
parties but that didn't work either did it? Seems that the board [and
RootsWeb staff] apparently thought I wouldn't allow the right
people to be
subbed or something.

I've heard from numerous CCs that Linda refused to let them sub to the
Archives-L list because they were CCs and not state level. I asked
to be
subbed to that list when it looked like the Ks situation would be
discussed
there. Linda subbed me then immediately unsubbed me when I asked
everyone
to wait until the new list was obtained. Because of some of the
accusations I had heard I asked her to resub me. She did so, very
grudgingly, then immediately set up a new list for the archive CCs,
subbed
me to it and unsubbed me from the archives-l without so much as a
note.
That goes a long way toward giving credence to some of the problems
I have
heard about, to say nothing about giving the distinct impression
that she
feels that what goes on in the Archives is of no concern to the NC,
or the
USGenWeb project. At the very least it was very disrespectful to
the NC,
regardless of who the NC might be.

After re-reading this several times, and considering how the board
feels,
and how I feel about the bylaws, I think it's best if I just go
ahead and
resign. Maybe you can get someone as NC that holds your views.

You may consider this my resignation as National Coordinator.

nt

This thread:

• National GenWeb Coordinator Resigns! by <>