Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

Stalking The Truth

Stalking The Truth

August 26, 2010

Diane's Trail

The message from USGenWeb National Coordinator Sherri Bradley announcing the Disciplinary Hearing for Diane Siniard was in our "Grievance Committee Confessions" post at

Before we get to the continuation and results of this Hearing there are some items of note.

When we first heard of the Hearing it took us about two (2) minutes to verify the charge against Diane for violating the Grievance Committee oaths of confidentiality, was not valid. Quoting from the Grievance Procedures,

"Because grievances are considered personnel matters, all volunteers must state that they are willing to abide by strict confidentiality requirements. Volunteers must also state that they understand that violation of this confidentiality agreement will mean immediate expulsion from the Grievance Committee, and could result in determination of Member Not in Good Standing by the Advisory Board."

"Must state"? Where does that take place? The Grievance Committee has two lists, one archived for public business and one not archived for confidential business. "The confidential list may NOT be used for public business, or in an effort to avoid public disclosure," say the Procedures.

Advisory Board members must take a confidentiality oath if they want to be subscribed to the Board-Exec list (aka Sekrit Sandbox), their unarchived list for confidential business. They take the oath on the Board list, their archived list for public business.

Locating and examining the GC list for public business shows no evidence of any GC member having taken their oaths of confidentiality. This is something that Linda K Lewis should have done, before presenting her charge against Diane.

During the Hearing (link to that is below) NC Sherri admitted having no knowledge of Diane having taken the oaths because she was not the NC at the time the GC members should have taken the oaths. The previous NC, Tina Vickery, present during the Hearing, had no comments. At this point the hearing should have been halted until it was clearly established that Diane did, or did not, take the oath because the charge against her was for violating the oath.

But the hearing continued, and as you will see it is Diane who gets blamed for not taking the confidentiality oath, rather than the AB taking any responsibility for their sub-committee they are in charge of.

Diane became frustrated with the process and refused to continue. She was then unsubscribed from the hearing list. In the real world when a defendant refuses to participate in their hearing, they are not removed from the court room. Why not? Procedural Due Process gives defendants the right to be present during testimony. Diane did not request to be unsubscribed, her rights of Due Process were violated which in many legal cases has been grounds for dismissing the case and/or the charges.

A link to transcripts of Diane's hearing is at the end of this post.

Mary White

From: Diane Siniard
Date: 8/2/2010 10:47:36 AM
Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] A Little Note

Due to careful consideration, long conversations with JAG, information that has been passed to me and various other things I will not be continuing with this hearing. This hearing has been a farce since the beginning.

1. I never did sign a confidentiality agreement for the Grievance Committee.

2. Thereby this hearing is breaking the rules of the USGWP and Sturgis and my rights as a member of the Project.

3. The mailing list is supposed to be un archived but in fact it is archived and I do have screen shots to prove this and that is another violation of the rules.

4. Nothing has been done about the proof I gave about Sherri and Tina breaking the rules and bylaws of this project prior to me being brought into this hearing.

5. I asked for something to be done about Sherri breaking the rules about the notification of the hearing and nothing was done which again violates Sturgis.

6. Whistleblowers are protected by law, therefore if you wish to continue with this JAG is prepared to have their lawyers in each state file suits against each of you for violating my rights.

7. JAG is also working on the copyright violations as is the FBI that Sherri and the AB allowed the NCGenWeb to violate of the US Copyright Laws Title 17. So, you might want to be prepared for some Federal charges to come your way as well as to the NCGenWeb Project from that as well because the copyright violations are continuing. They are still continuing to copy my sites up to and including new information that I am adding to my sites.

8. I hereby resign as a member of the USGWP effective immediately. I want no part of an organization that is full of lies, deceit, cover ups, sweeping things under the rug and protecting those that are in positions of power that break the most rules.

I will be letting anyone and everyone know that asks everything they want to know about this farce of a hearing up to and including copies of the screen shots of the archives of the unarchived mailing list so that future hearings that are held the CC's are aware of how low down and dirty the AB actually is.

Y'all are a bunch of lying conniving power hungry punks that think everything belongs to you that is genealogical in nature. Well, I got another thing coming for you. It doesn't and mark my words. You will fail and this project will fail. You are not holier than thou, you are not all that and a bucket of peanuts, and each and every one of you with the exception of Colleen, David and Alice can kiss my Lilly white ass!

Diane Siniard
Now back to Trails to the Past where peace reigns supreme, friends have fun and genealogy is what it is supposed to be, fun and friends helping each other to provide the most genealogy possible for researchers!


From: Diane & Mike Siniard
To: USGenWeb.Us ALL List
Date: 8/2/2010 12:48:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ALL] (no subject)

The AB brought me up on charges fro exposing Sherri and Tina for breaking the bylaws and rules of the USGWP. Instead of filing charges against Sherri and Tina they came after me. I sat through the first part of the hearing and watched as they pulled emails from mailing lists that other people had sent in to use as information against me, even when I didn't even reply to them. They even used simple conversations as information against me. Then they pulled information from the Florida hearing, which by the way was held after the Florida members had already been removed from the project and were again dragged into a hearing to be made MNIGS, which is against the project rules and sturgis because they were no longer members, and used that material against me. 90% of that material had information in it of Sherri interfering in GC business.

The person that brought the charges against me, Linda K Lewis was allowed to be in the hearing which is against Sturgis, and common law procedures, Sherri and Tina were both involved and they were the ones I had accused of breaking the rules which is against common law procedures, and it was 13 against 1. All 13 of them asking questions and producing so called evidence and proof against me and myself and my advisor who is moderated and not allowed to speak on the list, against all of them. No one stands a fair chance. To top all of that off, it is announced in the beginning it is an un archived mailing list, well guess what? I have tons of screen shots to prove that it is archived.

They constantly break rules, lie about it, cheat, they allowed NCGenWeb to copy my sites and are continuing to allow them to copy my sites which breaks US Copyright Laws Title 17. I also found out today from a trusted member of the election committee that the election was rigged in favor of Sherri and her little clique.

So, you tell me, if the project is in trouble or not? I got the hell out, several other people are in the process of leaving and I know a lot more that will be leaving soon as well. Time to get out while the getting is good before the new commandants take over on September 1st. It is going to become a dictatorship. They are already taking over the states one at a time....and getting rid of the good CC's. Mark my is going to fail very soon.

_____________________________________ Mail List


From: Diane & Mike Siniard
To: Mary White
Date: 8/2/2010 8:19:10 PM
Subject: Re: Next Blog Post

Linda Blum Barton was my advisor but she was moderated and wasn't allowed to speak. They did all gang up on me and pounded me with questions and evidence all at once. Denise sent through a whole list I think it was like 13 or 14 questions, then Colleen sent in some and after that no one else sent any in besides Linda Lewis.

Sherri, AnnieG, Linda Lewis, Denise, etc all pounded the hell out of me with all this evidence of emails from mailing lists, hell they even sent in links to the blog...LOL they even stooped so low as to include my campaign page to use it against me. They pulled things from the Florida MNIGS hearings to use against me, and I wasn't even on the GC when that took place. It is just unreal the crap they tried to pull and use against me. Some of it I did manage to get thrown out and then Cyndie had this bright idea and told me if I had one more objection I would be violating the rules of the hearing. What a crock! So, then I was obviously screwed because I couldn't object to anything else they brought forth or said. I think she did that because I corrected her on an issue of Linda Lewis jumping all over David on the mailing list and her not saying or doing anything about it and it went on for 2 days and I was tired of seeing it in my inbox. So I quoted a bunch of sturgis rules about it to her and basically called her out on it with a point of order.

Then I demanded 15 days to prepare my defense after they were finished presenting their case because they had well over a month before they announced the hearing to prepare and she got all pissy about that. When I asked for it I quoted Sturgis and told her it was my right and common law procedures dictated that I be given the same amount of time to prepare my defense.


From: Cyndie
Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 7:23:17 AM
Subject: Disciplinary Hearing - Diane Siniard

The resolution of the disciplinary hearing against Diane Siniard.

This resolution is hereby adopted, effective August 22, 2010.

The USGenWeb Advisory Board issues this finding in response to the charges brought against Ms. Diane Siniard.

1) the sharing of private GC communications with parties involved in Grievance 2009-08-15 as demonstrated within the evidence submitted to the AB for the resulting disciplinary hearing against two FLGenWeb, Inc. members.
2) the posting of private GC communications to the archived SWSC list that included the name of a party to Grievance 2009-08-15.

The Advisory Board finds that Diane Siniard, during the incident in question, was responsible for sharing and publically posting private communications related to Grievance 2009-08-15. Grievance Committee members are tasked to operate within the Grievance Procedures, which specifically state: "All discussion regarding the issues during the grievance process is to be considered privileged and private, and shall not be disclosed during or after the process by either the team or either party, except as allowed by these procedures."

Despite Ms Sinard's protest that she did not take an oath of confidentiality, it was her duty as Chair of the Grievance Committee to insure that all members of the GC not only took the oath of confidentiality but that each understood the terms of it and to make sure that all members abided by this oath. Her failure to comply was a major disservice to the USGenWeb Project.

Resulting Decision:

1.) Ms. Siniard shall not be recognized as a USGenWeb Project member (whether recognized as a XXGenWeb Project member or not) for a minimum of two years retroactive to her resignation of August 2, 2010; after that mandatory period, she must publically admit her wrongdoing and apologize to the members of this Project prior to being reinstated as a member of the USGenWeb project.

2.) Beginning August 2, 2012, should Ms. Siniard return as a member of the USGenWeb Project, Ms. Siniard shall be considered "on probation" within the USGenWeb Project for a period of five years. Diane may not run for, serve, hold, be appointed or elected to any position higher than the Local Coordinator level in any state or special project, or the national project prior to August 2, 2017.

Members voting to accept:
Sherri Bradley
Larry Flesher
Ann Allen Geoghagen
Dale Grimm
Jeff Kemp
Bill Oliver
Les Shockey
Pauli Smith
Tina Vickery
Denise Wells

Members voting to reject.

Members abstaining.
Alice Allen
Colleen Pustola
W. David Samuelsen

Cyndie Enfinger, SP Rep., Disciplinary Hearing Chair


From: Diane Siniard
Cyndie;;;;;;;;;;;;David Samuelson;Colleen;Daryl Lytton;Charles Barnum;Diane Mason-Kelly

Sent: 8/22/2010 10:24:58 AM
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Hearing - Diane Siniard

In light of the AB continuing on with this Witch Hunt of a hearing in spite of many failures to follow Sturgis, no oaths being taken even when I was NOT the original chair when the oaths should have been taken, the mailing list being archived when it should have been an non-archived mailing list, etc. I have no alternative but to let the public know of these proceedings and how the AB handles their hearings. I will be providing the public with copies of the archived copies of the supposed non-archived mailing list, as well as the failure to follow Sturgis.

As for your supposed findings and discipline of me, y'all can all still kiss my lilly white ass, I wouldn't return to USGWP if it was the last genealogy project on earth even if you begged me to return! You are more interested in being power hungry, making a quick buck, and running the CC's into the ground as well as running the best ones off.

So, let's see just how long you can continue to do this before it all blows up in your faces!

Dale, libel me once more and you will regret your words! You are the one that asked for copies of everything in the beginning. Watch your back because they are going to come after you next. They are filing a disciplinary hearing against you next among other members of the AB. Mark my words. Facts are facts buddy.

Trails to the Past

August 01, 2010

2010 Elections

2010 Elections Results

I don't know if I need a bottle in front of me
or a frontal lobotomy

Eligible Voters overall 1466
# of voting members: 313 (21.351%)

National Coordinator:
Sherri Bradley: 142 (47.811%)
Bill Oliver: 59 (19.865%)
Diane Siniard: 46 (15.488%)
Billie Walsh: 50 (16.835%)
The EC declares a run-off between Sherri Bradley & Bill Oliver.

NENC CC 1 Year:

Alice Allen: 70 (100%)
The EC declares Alice Allen the winner.

NENC CC 2 Year:
Daryl Lytton: 28 (38.356%)
Paul Smith: 45 (61.644%)
The EC declares Pauli Smith the winner.

Sundee Anderson: 11 (13.415%)
Ann Allen Geoghegan: 48 (58.537%)
Don Kelly: 23 (28.049%)
The EC declares Ann Allen Geoghegan the winner.

Colleen Pustola: 9 (100.000%)
The EC declares Colleen Pustola the winner.

Sandra Smith: 37 (34.259%)
Denise Wells: 71 (65.741%)
The EC declares Denise Wells the winner.

Les Shockey: 11 (100%)
The EC declares Les Shockey the winner.

Pat Asher: 58 (69.880%)
W. David Samuelsen: 25 (30.120%)
The EC declares Pat Asher the winner.

Larry Flesher: 13 (100%)
The EC declares Larry Flesher the winner.

For: 239 (76.849%)
Against: 45 (14.469%)
Pass: 27 (8.682%)
The EC declares the amendment has Passed.

142 people voted for Sherri, 155 voted against her.

1466 eligible voters this year; 1516 in 2009; 1578 in 2008. We predict 1400 eligible voters in 2011, of which 300 will vote.

Mary White

June 22, 2010

GC Confessions

Grievance Committee Confessions

by Diane Siniard

[A bit of background first -- Sherri is the current National Coordinator and Diane is a candidate for NC in the upcoming election. Witch Hunt, Merriam-Webster, "2: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views." --Mary]

> [Original Message]

> From: Sherri
> To:
> Date: 6/15/2010 2:51:00 PM
> Subject: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing Convened -
> Diane Siniard
> For the record, a disciplinary hearing is being
> convened to hear the following charges:
> The Advisory Board has been requested to conduct
> a disciplinary hearing for Diane Siniard, member
> of COGenWeb and MOGenWeb, for the charge of
> breaching the confidentiality of Grievance
> 2009-08-15 for which Ms. Siniard served as the
> Chair of the Grievance Committee.
> This is evidenced by:
> 1) the sharing of private GC communications with
> parties involved in Grievance 2009-08-15 as
> demonstrated within the evidence submitted to the
> AB for the resulting disciplinary hearing against
> two FLGenWeb, Inc. members.
> 2) the posting of private GC communications to
> the archived SWSC list that included the name of
> a party to Grievance 2009-08-15. See
> This breach of confidentiality is in direct
> violation of Section A, Subsection Qualifications,
> Paragraph 3 of the Grievance Committee Procedures
> voted into effect by the membership
> "Because grievances are considered personnel
> matters, all volunteers must state that they are
> willing to abide by strict confidentiality
> requirements.
> Volunteers must also state that they understand
> that violation of this confidentiality agreement
> will mean immediate expulsion from the Grievance
> Committee, and could result in determination of
> Member Not in Good Standing by the Advisory
> Board."
> Ms. Siniard maintains the following USGenWeb
> member sites:
> - COGenWeb: La Plata Co
> - COGenWeb: San Miguel
> - MOGenWeb: MO in the Civil War
> Sherri Bradley
> National Coordinator
> For the Advisory Board

> [Original Message]
> From: Sherri
> To:
> Date: 6/15/2010 7:38:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing Convened
> - Diane Siniard
> A bit of additional information - the hearing will
> be chaired by Cyndie Enfinger at my request. There
> is a separate email list that has been set up that
> I will subscribe all members of the AB and Diane
> to so that they can participate if they choose to
> do so. Anyone that chooses not to participate
> and/or refuses to agree to follow the requirements
> that are set by the chair will be unsubscribed
> from the list. Cyndie will be sending out
> additional information to all involved, I'm sure.
> Sherri Bradley
> National Coordinator
> USGenWeb Project

Hi to all of the readers out there.

Below is a link to all of the emails that I have been promising you that I would reveal about Sherri and Tina and all of their corruption, breaking of bylaws, GC rules and procedures, etc.

I resigned from being the Grievance Committee Chair on March 5, 2009 at 4:01 EST. Since then I have become public enemy #1 as far as Tina and Sherri are concerned because I know too much about their violations of USGenWeb rules. I have also been bold enough to start letting the truth come out and they don’t like that one bit.

Even Nola Duffy went nuts about me releasing the truth and was threatening to sue Daryl and Charles for posting some of the information I sent to them. I tell you the USGenWeb is so full of corruption and dirty politics I don’t know if it will ever recover from it.

I hope this helps to explain a lot of things to you and opens your eyes about what really goes on in the world of the USGenWeb, the National Coordinator and the Grievance Committee, and helps to you to decide how to vote in the upcoming election!

We really need to bring Sherri and Tina up on charges of breaking confidentiality, the rules and bylaws of the Project, and find them both Member Not In Good Standing for life.

I am running to be the next National Coordinator and I promise you that if I am elected there will not be any of this stuff going on. The Grievance Committee will be left alone to handle their own business with no interference, comments, etc from me unless asked for and then I will CC it to another honest member of the Advisory Board so it can be put on the record. I will make sure that everything is done above board and not behind closed doors like Tina, Sherri and their little clique have done for the past several years.

I am involved in a Disciplinary Hearing for releasing 3 emails that were sent from Sherri to me that I posted on the SW Regional list as well as supposedly sending Florida all the emails while their grievance was ongoing. But as you will see from the emails, I sent them well over a month after I left the GC and their hearing was already over. Also, what can they do? I am blowing the whistle on their corruption. The law is on my side. If they do proceed with this railroading bogus hearing and I lose, I will post all of this all over the Internet for everyone to find and read.

So, what is it going to be? Are Sherri and Tina going to be removed? Or is this bogus hearing going to be allowed to move forward?

Grab a glass of sweet tea, sit back and relax and read the extensive listing of emails and yes, I do still have the originals if needed. Some of this might shock you, or it may not. Depending on how well you know the Almighty Tina and the Almighty Sherri.

Grievance Committee Confessions:

After you read everything, please feel free to come back here and add your comment below.

Diane Siniard

June 14, 2010

GC Corruption

Grievance Committee Corruption

Fact or Truth -- You Decide

The issue of Grievance Confidentiality may resume discussion by the Advisory Board shortly, having been postponed (Motion 2009/10-23) to take care of more urgent business, "Naming of the NWPL SC Representative, the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval of the CC/SC Guidelines document...." The Rep was named, the Secretary approved, and discussion of the Guidelines was postponed.

The central issue of grievance confidentiality appears to be some members of the AB, and others in positions of leadership, want to make the entire grievance process confidential thereby hiding issues of corruption within the USGenWeb from the membership. "Out of sight, out of mind" has been a long-standing policy of some leaders as the preferred method of dealing with USGenWeb corruption.

"We must protect the innocent!" is the cry of those who seek to hide corruption. But the sad reality is, "We must protect the guilty!"

Take a look at your local TV news and newspaper. Do they censor news of corruption in your community? Or do they report on it and expose it, to help stomp it out? Isn't doing so sending out a message, "If you're bad, we're going to tell your friends and neighbor's, so you better be good and follow the rules!"

Do members have the right to know of corruption? "Failure or refusal to disclose necessary information on matters of organizational business" is a valid cause for removal from office (Sturgis pg 174). What is "necessary"? One example is the necessity of member's running for positions on the AB to be "In good standing ... demonstrated by ... serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project" (USGenWeb Bylaw VI).

Do members have the right to report on corruption? From Sturgis page 2: "Parliamentary law is the procedural safeguard that protects the individual and the group in their exercise of the rights of free speech...." Our right of free speech is also guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

So yes, members have the right to know what's going on in the USGenWeb and members have the right to report what's going on.

The other element of corruption some wish to hide, is corruption of the Grievance Committee itself in the way grievances are handled. This included, but it not limited to; reports of denial of the right to have a Representative during a hearing, denial of the right to refuse a mediator who may be biased, and the denial of the right to a fair hearing.

Grievance Committee Scam

The GC has been caught many times pre-judging a grievance based upon the parties involved, instead of the rules alleged to have been broken. When the GC receives a grievance they are to "assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true, and the determination of the viability of the grievance made based upon the assumption that the complaint is true and a review of the by-laws, policies, or procedures alleged to have been violated." (USGenWeb Standard Rules, Grievance Procedures)

The GC Assistant Chair seems to provide an example of the GC discussing the merits of the person filing the grievance rather than of the grievance itself, in this message of his to the rest of the GC...

> [Original Message]
> From: Joel Newport
> To:
> Date: 1/6/2009 1:22:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGW-GC] Grievance 2008/09-02
> Group,
> I am standing by my original assessment that Daryl
> does have a legitimate claim. I realize that I am
> definitely in the minority here and that my opinion
> will more than likely not matter as a majority
> vote is all that is/was needed. I do just want to
> ask that everyone, especially those who know Daryl
> or have heard of him through reputation, make sure
> that you truly believe that he doesn't have a case
> here and that you are not just dismissing his claim
> because of personal feelings toward him. We really
> owe it to the process to be sure that we are fair
> in the assessment of this issue.
> Also, please understand that I am not accusing
> anyone on this list nor am I looking to create a
> problem. Just bringing it up to be sure that we all
> take a look at it honestly.
> So I guess I will officially make a motion to
> accept Grievance 2008/09-02. I should have done
> that for the record last time, but I did not.

Despite this the grievance was rejected, and upon appeal to the AB the AB upheld the GC decision, thereby the AB upholding the denial of the right to a fair hearing.

So your grievance gets accepted, now what? Does that mean you will receive a fair hearing based upon rules of the USGenWeb? One grievant reports their mediator, Dorman Holub, ignored the rules as written and confessed, "Mediation is a matter of opinion concerning whether the letter of the bylaws should be upheld or the spirit of the bylaws are upheld."

If all members are not treated in accordance with the rules as written, then how can there be fair hearings when different mediators interpret different rules differently? In the above case, Dorman also refused to honor the grievant's right to reject his mediation decisions and proceed to arbitration, hoping to be treated more fairly during that process. But instead, the grievant was railroaded into being forced to accept Dorman's decision, which led to the grievant being expelled from their state.

If the GC or mediator/arbitrator denies you your rights to a fair hearing procedure and you refuse to participate in a corrupt hearing, "Failure of either party to proceed with mediation in good faith is grounds for terminating the process," in which case it goes to arbitration and, "Failure of one party to participate in the arbitration process will result in the decision being made against the non-participating party in accordance with the information presented."

What of the right to appeal decisions of the GC to the AB?
According to the GC Status of Filed Grievances page every single appeal has resulted in the AB upholding the decision of the GC.

What if you decide to reveal what happened during your corrupt grievance process to the membership? You run the risk of being declared a Member Not In Good Standing by the AB, for breech of grievance confidentiality.

And so a goal of total grievance confidentiality is to hide corruption of the Grievance Committee itself, and via Appel the AB sanctioning a corrupt grievance process. It's a Catch-22 situation where if you are not a member of the proper USGenWeb political clique, you stand little chance if any of obtaining a fair hearing.


are supposed to be selected by the GC, not the AB nor the National Coordinator. The intent of this rule was to help ensure a fair hearing untainted by the AB or the NC. That is of course, if you happen to get your grievance accepted in the first place.

> [Original Message]
> From: Sherri
> To:
> Date: 5/15/2010 3:32:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW]
> The record - Ex-officio Member
> .... The AB does not approve the mediators or
> arbitrators. Those are selected by the GC. The only
> one on the AB that would know of them would be the
> NC as ex-officio of the committee.

> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To:
> Date: 6/7/2010 1:46:33 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Grievance Committee
> > From: Billie Walsh
> >
> > As I've said, the system needs an overhaul.
> > Disband the GC, rewrite and clarify the rules,
> > get them approved, then seat a new committee.
> To which I will add ...
> #1 There needs to be a way to make the GC follow
> and abide by their own rules.
> #2 The AB needs to be removed from the grievance
> process.
> The GC was formed to take the process out of the
> hands of the AB. But ... the AB appoints GC
> members; the NC has interfered with the GC
> selecting mediators; the AB hears Appeals which
> often results in the AB upholding the GC breaking
> their rules.
> I had thought that when the Grievance Bylaw was
> voted into place, it gave The People an additional
> right to a fair hearing besides such being a Rights
> of Members. I was wrong, some members are being
> denied their rights to fair hearings, and the AB
> has upheld those denials of rights.

> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To:
> Date: 6/8/2010 3:02:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Grievance Committee
> > From: Larry Flesher
> >
> > Daryl wrote, in part:
> > "the NC has interfered with the GC selecting
> > mediators"
> >
> > Daryl, how do you know this?
> From the message NC Sherri sent to one of the GC
> members in regards to me applying to be a mediator:

> "Yep, I think he'd applied before. I'm sure you know

> where I stand as to whether he's acceptable or not!
> I can't think of anyone in their right minds that
> would seat him! (

Sweeping corruption under the rug, censoring knowledge of it or trying to hide it, is doing the USGenWeb a great disservice and does nothing to help make the USGenWeb a better place for all.

Why is it proper to honor those who served our United States by "Fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way," but proper to do exactly the opposite to those in the United States GenWeb who fight for the same principals by exposing corruption?

Mary White

June 03, 2010

New Rules

Bylaw Amendment



A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state.

To be replaced by:

A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb National site. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site.

This has been a long-standing issue for Tina Vickery, the current USGenWeb Representative at Large, with Teresa Lindquist (a past RAL), who wrote about the USGenWeb in her The Daily Board Show (see link at bottom of our site), and at one time used the USGenWeb logo as a link to the DBS. Teresa's articles did not always make the Advisory Board look good, nor Tina who has been a members of the AB previously.

But at least the DBS spoke the truth and was oft times the only place to find out the truth about what was going on in the USGenWeb.

We believe it was Tina who twice tried to get the current AB to pass a motion, which included the logo-linking issue be added to the Guidelines as a new requirement. But alas, enough members of the AB were smart enough to know the new rule was actually a bylaw amendment (see below), and the motion was voted down twice.

So an effort was put forth to get enough states to co-sponsor the amendment. If passed by the membership, will it solve Tina's issue? No! The amendment does not make the new rule retroactive, it becomes effective the day the results of the voting are announced. If passed, the amendment actually gives protection for anyone using the logo as a link to anything other than the USGenWeb National site before the voting results are announced.

We expect the amendment to pass, and our hat is off to Tina who will have successfully defeated her own personal grudge against Teresa.


faux pas

Blunder; especially a social blunder (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

Paux Pas: Letting one's true nature show through by speaking without thinking. Often occurs after having too much alcohol (Urban Dictionary).

Meanwhile - The AB had created a Guidelines Committee to revamp and simplify the existing SC and CC Guidelines into one document. That was done, and National Coordinator Sherri opened the item for discussion on May 23.

The Guidelines Committee was to have operated in the open on a list all USGenWeb members could subscribe and watch the process, in read-only mode with comments and suggestions being sent directly to the Committee members.

The Committee was not charged with creating new requirements, but Daryl Lytton discovered that someone had indeed added a new requirement - County Coordinators, State File Managers and File Managers, must provide their home address and phone number to their State Coordinator (and Archives equivalent).

Daryl noted on the USGenWeb SW Regional list, that such a new rule constitutes a bylaw amendment. This sparked a lively debate between Daryl, and Pat Asher who is widely known to be a pet of Sherri and for sending a message to the Grievance Committee, "I think there are grounds for declaring him [Daryl] MNIGS," Member Not In Good Standing, for having a USGenWeb site not updated for a year. (See our Apr 29 2010 "Massacre Part 2/4" post)

Pat took the side of the AB (14 members) being allowed to vote into place a new requirement for all USGenWeb members (about 2,000) without letting the membership voting for it them selves. 'It's not an amendment, it's just a new rule' was Pat's position, to which Daryl replied:

> [Original Message]

> From: Daryl Lytton
> To:
> Date: 5/29/2010 1:25:36 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] It's a Bylaw Amendment
> > From: Pat Asher
> >
> > Since when does adding/changing a rule constitute
> > a Bylaw Amendment?
> When you take existing Bylaws and add something to
> it, change it, or add a new rule. Quoting from the
> proposed CC/SC Guidelines document:
> (Bylaws XII. D.) You must provide your full name,
> current home address, telephone number to the
> National Coordinator if you represent a state ....
> All coordinators must provide same to the State/Project
> coordinator to which she/he belongs."
> Amend - "To alter especially in phraseology; especially:
> to alter formally by modification, deletion, or
> addition." Amendment - "An alteration proposed or
> effected by this process." (Free Merriam-Webster)
> Amendment - "The process of formally altering or
> adding
to a document or record. An addition,
> alteration, or
improvement to a motion, document,
> etc."
> Amendment - "Change in a legal document made by
> adding,
altering, or omitting a certain part or term."
> (
> Amendment - "A change made to a previously adopted
> law
or motion." (Wikipedia) "An amendment is a
> formal or
official change made to a law, contract,
> constitution,
or other legal document." (Simple English
> Wikipedia)

> Amendment - "The modification of materials by the
> addition of supplemental information." (West's
> Encyclopedia of American Law)
> Amendment - "The addition, deletion, correction, or
> other changes proposed or made to a document."
> (Webster's New World Law Dictionary)
> Daryl

Daryl tried, and tried and tried and tried, to get Pat to follow a logical, step-by-step thought process on the SW list to show Pat why the new rule was an amendment; but Pat consistently refused the challenge. NC Sherri wants it, RAL Tina wants it, so Pat wants it.

By reading archives of the list the Guidelines Committee used, Daryl then discovered that the Committee never discussed in public adding that requirement. He checked all of the revisions of the Guidelines, and of the new rule reported:

The new requirement was NOT in "orig-version.htm" or "2-14-10-rev.htm" both last modified Feb 14 2010 at 17:54. IS in "17Feb-CCguidelines.htm" and "cc-copied.htm" both Feb 18 2010 at 20:32 and both are "NCGenWeb Procedures". NOT in the four documents Feb 18 2010 at 20:32. IS in "cc-20Feb2010.htm" Feb 21 at 14:38. NOT in "ccguidelines-new.htm" Feb 23 2010 at 18:29. IS in "ccguidelines-23Feb20.." Feb 23 2010 at 22:03 and all succeeding files.

This touched off another discussion between Pat and Daryl on the SW list. Of coure, Pat saw nothing wrong with an AB-appointed committee breaking their own rules. Pat didn't even see something wrong with one unknown person making a new requirement for nearly 2,000 members, without the membership being allowed to vote on it.

Having also sent his report to the AB, Daryl persisted pursuing it on the SW list, wanting to know who the person was that broke the Committee rules, added that new requirement behind the backs of the CCs; and why would someone feel the need to do it that way?

Poor Daryl - No one confessed. Not even the AB, and it was their sub-committee. It was beginning to look like no one added it, it just magically appeared, when finally NC Sherri (who as NC was a member of the Committee) came to Daryl's rescue and confessed that no one had added it:

> [Original Message]

> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: Sherri;
> Date: 6/2/2010 6:40:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Opinions on the
> merits?

> > From: Sherri
> > To: Daryl;
> > Date: 6/2/2010 5:41:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Opinions on the
> > merits?

> >
> > There was not any *one* person that made any changes
> > to the guidelines document. The committee reviewed
> > the
documents over and over and nothing was ever
> > brought
up as being an issue with the committee
> > members in
regards to the reqauirement for the CC's
> > providing
their address & phone numbers to their
> > CCs [sic: SCs].

> I don't know if the Committee reviewed the document.
> I
didn't review it, because the AB told the committee to
> conduct its business in the open on a public list. And
> because of that, I had no reason to check the revisions
> to see if someone had snuck in a new requirement
> without
the Committee discussing adding it, nor any
> reason to
suspect that that might happen. In hindsight
> I realize
my error, it was an AB-appointed committee.
> Why can't we trust a Committee charged with
> conducting
business in the open, to do so? Shouldn't
> we be able to?

> Since the Committee never discussed in public adding
> it,
are you saying that you don't know the name of the
> person who did add it? All I'm looking for is the Truth.
> Is there something wrong with Truth? Do you know the
> Truth about the incident? Do you know the names of the
> people who were able to edit the documents?
> Daryl

From comments posted by members of the AB, that rule will probably either be removed or re-worded. It should be the business of the States, not an unknown single person, to make that requirement, and only if the CCs vote to approve it.

But as of right now still no one has confessed, or admitted they know the truth. And they want us to trust them with our address and phone number?

Mary White

May 19, 2010

FLGenWeb: Charles

The Future of Florida, an Opinion

by Charles Barnum
FLGenWeb CC at the time of events
and eye witness to what transpired

May 14 2010

The sand is settling in the Sunshine State.

What is the future of Florida, FLGenWeb?

1--We currently have two FLGenWebs, the corporation and the legitimate XXGenWeb of Florida.

First, let us examine the future of the corporation. In a word, they are dead. They died when people forgot that the purpose of online genealogy was and is to put genealogical data online for the researching public. A struggle for control grew and got nasty. The problem with forming a corporation by amateurs is they are exactly that, amateurs. When one group starts taking advice from a so-called expert, they find themselves in jeopardy. Something is foreign about a state being a corporation in USGenWeb. It’s like crossing the border without a green card.

The corporation will exist a few more weeks or a few months. It’s essentially dead, but they do not know it yet. One problem IS “ceasing” to be a corporation. It costs money to un-incorporate. The Officers are liable for the corporation; they are accountable to the public and to the state of Florida. Some have already departed the corporation. They resigned and got the hell out. A couple of Officers is all that remain. I’m not sure they can even quit, legally.

A few CCs are hanging onto the corporation for now. I expect that to last no more than 30 days. A real question that the legitimate XXGenWeb of Florida has not asked out loud is this. “Are we going to allow dual affiliation?” Are they going to allow CCs to be members of the legitimate FLGenWeb who are at the same time members of the old, dead FLGenWeb, Inc?

If they make the tragic mistake of allowing dual membership, they will be plagued until the end of time. FLGenWeb should not admit anyone as CC who is a member of the defunct corporation. To do so would be extreme folly. You do remember GAGenWeb after the massacre. The perceived trouble makers from the old organization were not allowed into the new legitimate organization. To do so would have invited an endless civil war.

The way things are currently being done in Florida is to ask the existing CCs if they want to be part of the legitimate FLGenWeb. What they are not doing, unless I am ignorant of the facts, is requiring resignations from the old Corporation. That is why the CC list is changing daily. The CC list IS growing for the legitimate FLGenWeb. The Corporation’s list does not seem to be changing. Is it being maintained?

After Sherri and Tina are kicked out of FLGenWeb, the new SC should announce that dual membership will not be permitted. The SC has that administrative authority. She could take a vote on it to make it a bit more legitimate. This I promise you, if any of the defiant officers from the corporation’s group remain in the legitimate FLGenWeb organization, they will cause trouble.

2--The FLGenWeb’s future looks bright. Florida has some of the best and dedicated CCs in USGenWeb. I had searched for an ancestor for years. I contacted a number of counties of USGenWeb and was disappointed in the Non-help I got and the Non-data on the web sites. Some clues led me to Florida. I decided to check with FLGenWeb but expected to receive NO help as was usual for USGenWeb. I was wrong. I got more help than I could believe. They even researched other states to help me. Then they found the person I was looking for. A major brick wall, more like the Berlin wall had fallen.

FLGenWeb, after they dump Sherri and Tina, (and God forbid that they stay on as a CC!!), will grow in respect and stature in the genealogy community; deservedly so. They are a great group, the cream of the crop. They will put the distasteful episode of ill-corporation far-far behind them. They will do just fine. The empty counties will quickly fill with qualified representatives, as long as they can keep the trouble makers OUT and keep Sherri and Tina OUT. Florida DOES have one legitimate AB member as a CC. Being a member of the AB does not make one UnHoly. Several people on the AB are actual human beings. It is the misguided collective action of the group-- as in Barnum vs. NM SC, that taints the AB and anyone who is a party thereto.

3--The AB got this case right. I would have felt better if they had screwed it up beyond repair, but they did not. This result was made possible by a few brave ABers who stood up for what was right. They did not blindly support the SC believing she was the NM SC incarnated. No, this is a new day and a fair ruling.

4--But that brings us to another offshoot of this episode: The misbehavior of the GC. It would not surprise me if our former GC Chairperson had a grievance filed against her, or even a civil action. We shall see. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.


Some chatter from Florida #1
May 18 2010

[Here are edited snips from FLGenWeb Inc people. --cb]

Patrice still is subed to this group (the Inc side). Not sure why she would not resigned by now, the others have, Jeff, Jo, Denise, Tom, figured she would go, guess she will just linger. They just moved every person listed in this group over to that [new FLGenWeb] site, then made them state they did not want to be there. Their motto is "do first then make them ask to leave". Think she is just busy stripping all the list, placing what she wishes to leave in files, archived-, copying list for her own use, whatever, but dual membership and she is an ASC for both sites - DUH. You know that site of theirs is looking pretty sad with Lavernes name all over it. I would not sign up for a county with that group - Patrice running things with Laverne pushing and Denise barking - and all of them pushing the bylaws they all broke - double DUH. A CC would have to be nuts to enter that cave without an escape hatch.

Some chatter from Florida #2

I have been frustrated with you .... I think the first time was the thing about Laverne .... I could not figure how you got sucked into their ploy, since you or the others were not privy to everything.

If the members could not read everything those 2 women did, then just how were they to know that we were right and Laverne and Patrice were in fact very wrong in what they continued doing .... was as one sided what the AB got from the GC [Grievance Committee], and the NC, very one sided .... Laverne and Stan held this entire group hostage over a server they hid secrets.

Fran found those secrets as Ray found a few more she held, thus the fight began, and now basically we are free of the 2 except for Patrice hanging out.

I figure she is not yet through stripping what she can. She is moving and reusing the list she made up for this group to the pirate group....

I am waiting to see if Laverne puts material back on her sites she had before. I did find she did not have permission for some of it, she puts her name on the work of others....
figure (they) will start their smear campaign soon....


Put it to Rest
May 18 2010
(blind copy)

Here is -I hope- my last email about Florida. It is a snipped copy of an email to one of the [above] players.

I guess this will wrap up our conversation about this matter.

The people in Florida got their personal feelings mixed up with reality.

I do not see where Laverne did anything wrong or illegal or unethical. She did not steal, she did conceal some things, but they were her things to conceal. The Corporation does not have a right to access every facet of her life.

Not-being-liked is not a legitimate reason to de-link someone much less kick them out of the project. That is why I stood up for Laverne. The corporation overstepped. They had a lapse of judgment.

I stood up for the corporation because the grievance process had been compromised. But the corporation misstepped again. They were getting bad advice from you-know-who.

If the corporation wanted to avoid the grievance process, they should have just said that they chose not to participate in the grievance process. What they did was make frivolous statements, like we are not part of USGenWeb. The corporation relied on BAD advice.

I stood against Tina and the AB because Tina is a rotten, back-stabbing person, and I happen to hate the AB. I have been true to my beliefs. I have stood up for people based on principals not because they are good or bad except in the case of Tina who is part of the AB whom I hate. She is the AB. If you think Sherri is running the show you are wrong. Scott (in the background) and Tina are running the show. The AB is helpless against them, because Tina and company have the support when it comes to elections. Again, just my opinions.

I never supported the alleged hacker. What he did was illegal and unethical in my opinion. He went digging around in accounts that did not belong to him. I suspect he did this with the pre-knowledge of the Corporation.

If Patrice is stripping anything from the corporation, then it should be stated clearly and openly. Again, I think the corporation is getting their personal feelings mixed up with reality. If the corporation is going to fight, they need to fight with Bylaws, laws and facts, not with feelings.

If Laverne is taking data that is not hers, then that should be addressed in an cross-project grievance. It must be based on facts and copyright law, not on feelings.

I do not believe the FLGenWeb Project will start a smear campaign against anyone. That would be foolish. What Florida GenWeb should be worrying about is getting Tina and Sherri to hell out of their state. They will turn it into another arm of the Archives Project.

That probably kills this subject. The corporation lost to the AB. I lost to a corrupt AB in my grievance against Karen Mitchell. I suggest that the corporation go its own way and never mention the FLGenWeb Project again. The decision of Mitchel over Barnum has been costly to the USGenWeb Project in the public eye, but the corporation is in a different class. Best for them to let this subject go. They can not fight the AB like I do.

Do as I say, not as I do, ya' hear?

Charles Barnum

May 16, 2010


USGenWeb vs. FLGenWeb

From: Sherri
Subject: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:23:29 -0400

The Advisory Board has been in executive session discussing the resolution of grievance 2009-08-15. This discussion was based on the final determination report that the Grievance Committee submitted. Normally the Advisory Board does not receive any information or a final report about a grievance, but in this case because of the problems encountered during the grievance process, they did.

In regards to grievance 2009-08-15, filed by a FLGenWeb County Coordinator against six members of the FLGenWeb board, and the report that the Advisory Board received from the Grievance Committee dealing with problems encountered during handling of the grievance, a formal hearing will be held to determine if disciplinary action should be taken against two of the FLGenWeb board members named in the grievance.

Charges against Fran Smith:

1 - Refusal to participate in good faith in the mediation and arbitration phases of grievance 2009-08-15, filed by Ms. Laverne Tornow against six individual FLGenWeb board members, as demonstrated by attempts to introduce issues outside of the scope of the mediation and arbitration portions of the grievance, raising repeated objections to questions posed by both the mediator and the arbitrators and refusing to answer specific questions posed by the grievance committee team and the insistence that the USGenWeb Project's Grievance Process was not the proper venue to handle a grievance, that all grievances must be filed in a court of law in the state of Florida.

2 - Repeated breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, despite repeated warnings during both the mediation and arbitration phases of the grievance process by contacting those outside of the mediator, the arbitrators and the GC representative handling the grievance.

3 - Failure to reinstate Ms. Laverne Tornow to all previous positions as County Coordinator for the counties of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Citrus, Hamilton, Laayette, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole and Union counties that she held immediately prior to her removal from the project as directed in the final determination of the Grievance Committee's report. The USGenWeb Project bylaws and the Grievance Committee Procedures clearly state that the decision of the Grievance Committee is binding upon all members of the USGeWeb Project, therefore Ms. Smith is not in compliance with the bylaws since Ms. Tornow has not been reinstated.

Charges against Dennis Gries:

1 - Refusal to participate in good faith in the mediation and arbitration phases of grievance 2009-08-15, filed by Ms. Laverne Tornow against six individual FLGenWeb board members, as demonstrated by attempts to introduce issues outside of the scope of the mediation and arbitration portions of the grievance, raising repeated objections to questions posed by both the mediator and the arbitrators and refusing to answer specific questions posed by the grievance committee team and the insistence that the USGenWeb Project's Grievance Process was not the proper venue to handle a grievance, that all grievances must be filed in a court of law in the state of Florida.

2 - Repeated breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, despite repeated warnings during both the mediation and arbitration phases of the grievance process by contacting those outside of the mediator, the arbitrators and the GC representative handling the grievance. The breaching of the confidentiality continues to this day.

3 - Mr. Gries' insistence during the grievance process that he was not a member of the USGenWeb Project, despite being a member of the FLGenWeb Project, and as such, the USGenWeb Project's bylaws did not apply to him, and that the grievance process was an illegal attempt to circumvent the FL Corporate laws.

Sturgis states that " . . . every organization has the inherent right to discipline, suspend or expel a member for valid cause, even if provisions for doing so are not included in the bylaws" and "A membership can be terminated and a member expelled because of violation of an important duty to the organization, a breach of a fundamental rule or principle of the organization, or for any violation stated in the bylaws as a ground for expulsion. In general, termination of membership is justified if a member fails or refuses to work within the framework of the organization."

If a State Coordinator (or the managing board of a XXGenWeb Project has engaged in removal of dissenting CCs, thereby taking away the state project's ability to take advantage of the protections our bylaws provide, we must fall back on the protections and disciplinary procedures outlined in our parliamentary authority, Sturgis.

Therefore, to protect the rights of the County Coordinators in Florida, the provisions for redress outlined in Sturgis must take precedence. Because I received many of the emails that were a part of the breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, I will not be participating in the disciplinary hearing. Tina Vickery, as RAL will be handling the investigation and hearing.

I will be subscribing the members of the AB, Fran Smith and Dennis Gries to the USGWCONF mail list, which is unarchived. which is where the hearing on the charges will be discussed. In addition, the option for subbing the Grievance Team (the moderator, arbitrators and the GC representative that chaired the grievance) to the list if it is determined that their input is required.

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project


From: Sherri

Date: 5/12/2010 8:34:18 PM

For the record:

Per Section XIV, E of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the resolution of a grievance is binding upon the membership. Due to the failure of some of FLGenWeb Inc's board members to abide by the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the Advisory Board was contacted to enforce the ruling. FLGenWeb Inc. was put on notice that they had until 11 May 2010 to implement the resolution of the grievance, or the state project would be delinked and a new state site would be created and linked to from the USGenWeb Project's National site.

FLGenWeb Inc.'s site has been delinked and a newly created FLGenWeb site has been set up and the CCs, unless they've chosen not to remain with USGenWeb, have had their sites linked to the new site.

This action is not something that the Advisory Board has taken lightly, or without a lot of thought. The FLGenWeb membership was contacted with the options laid out for them, so this is not something that will take any of them by surprise (at least if they've kept appraised of what's going on in their state).

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project


From: Anonymous
Sent: 5/14/2010 12:09:04 PM

Questions: In regards to the emails released earlier from the grievance process, what is being done about this by the AB? If in fact, the process rules were broken, what is being done about those who broke the grievance process rules? What effect would AB interference have on any grievance outcomes - past, present or future? If the process rules were broken, how will this affect the legality of the recent FLGenWeb delinking by the AB? When was the vote taken pertaining to the FLGenWeb delinking? Where was the vote taken? Was the vote recorded on the public AB list for the membership to see? Lots of volunteers deserve answers rather than secrecy.

May 10, 2010

Tina vs. Daryl

Tina vs. Daryl

From the Sekrit GenWebStalkers Archives:

> Date: 29 Jan 2009

> I am tired of all of this. I am going to file a
> grievance on to ban from it's membership Charles
> Barnum and Daryl Lytton. I refuse to be a party to
> any of this any longer. I will not condone these
> narcissistic members of the project to continue to
> provide such trash as
> any longer nor will I allow them to incessantly
> harass our project members. The remedy I will
> request is delinking of any state project that has
> these individuals as a member. Enough is enough.
> Both of them are in their sick and destructive ways
> using our trademarked USGenWeb Project name to
> defame and exploit the Project. We are derelict in
> our duties if we let this behavior continue.
> Sincerely,
> Tina Vickery
> National Coordinator
> USGenWeb Project

Speaking of "narcissistic members" this is the same Tima who, before becomming NC, petitioned the entire Advisory Board to force Daryl to remove the word "Wisconsin" from one of his USGenWeb pages because she was the WIGenWeb State Coordinator. Tina's demand resulted in no action by the AB, they did not even notify Daryl of it.

That incident, plus her above message advocating USGenWeb states be delinked because of what their County Coordinator's do in their private, non-USGenWeb lives reminds us of Nola's "obsessive delusions" in our precious Blog post. Tina apparently believes she can personally deny the rights of United States citizens to report facts, and express observations and opinions.

In a seemingly radical turn-about, a mere 15 months later, Tina in her below message indicates a deep respect, admiration, and support of Daryl. It's not ofter enough that a member of the AB, much less the RAL, gives proper credit to a mere CC for proposing a way to "solve a lot of the problems" in the USGenWeb.

Mary White

> [Original Message]

> From: Daryl Lytton
> To:
> Date: 4/28/2010 7:47:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] GC
> > From: Tina S. Vickery
> >
> > Well, I have to admit Daryl, if you were on the
> > committee or even chair that would solve a lot of
> > the problems .. the most prominent being that we
> > could repeal the Grievance Procedures, with you on
> > the committee or as chair 99.9999 percent of
> > grievances would not exist!
> Well, yes, that is true. I estimate that within 2-3
> months of spreading the word around the Project that
> Daryl Lytton is the Chair, at least 95% of the
> grievances would stop. That's how it worked in those
> old Western movies, too ... "The Law is here! The
> Law is here!" and finally after years of terror by
> outlaw gangs, the residents feel at peace and
> harmony.
> > Now that's a concept that I might be able to
> > support.
> As being in the best interests of The People, it's
> only logical that the RAL support the concept...but
> I do appreciate the warm fuzzy feelings, also.
> > With you as chair, no need for the committee
> Well, I wouldn't go quite as far as saying that.
> With me as Chair, the GC would be swamped with
> volunteers. Luckily, Sturgis lets us create our
> own sub-committee without the interference from
> the AB. We would create a USGenWeb-House Ethics
> Committee, and see what other areas of the USGenWeb
> we could help to improve.
> Daryl