Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

Stalking The Truth

Stalking The Truth

June 03, 2010

New Rules


Bylaw Amendment



IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS


CURRENT/OLD:

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:

REVISED/NEW:
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: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> 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:
>
> "REQUIRED
> (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."
(TheFreeDictionary)
>
> Amendment - "Change in a legal document made by
> adding,
altering, or omitting a certain part or term."
> (BusinessDictionary.com)
>
> 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; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 6/2/2010 6:40:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Opinions on the
> merits?

>
> > From: Sherri
> > To: Daryl; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> > 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

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

ANY NEW rule or regulation that is not already in the bylaws that affects each and every volunteer in the project should be approved by each and every volunteer in the project via a project-wide vote, and no one else. What's so hard to comprehend about this?

Anonymous said...

Adding a new rule that is NOT in the bylaws that local coordinators must supply personal contact information is simply wrong for the AB to do. The mandate of the committee was NOT to make new rules, but clarify the rules already in place. Hello? This isn't rocket science people. Let the state projects and their volunteers run themselves and the AB butt out of their business.

Anonymous said...

I figure by now, even if a report is put forth for the members to view, there has been ample time to make said report look good in the eyes of the members,you know "to shut them up". When changes are made to bylaws or rules during any type of process, one should stop and think, just who is this new bylaw or rule protecting and why Now do they feel the need to have it at this moment?

As I see it, the present board members and members who hold seats in the AB or GC and the NC all figure they will get another free ride because not near enough members will even show for a vote, so again the same people who change the rules to suit themselves will rule for another (now how many years have they voted for themselves to sit in those seats?) and you will be stuck again.

And for the record, I would not vote for anyonw who has anything to do with the new FL site, they most likely had a lot to do with the real FL site being delinked. I know I will not vote for any such low lying standards, especially since they have yet to prove beyond a doubt that they even had the right to do such a thing, and proof now would be a real joke, a onesided report to the AB is never proof of a proper proceding, we never got the real story from both sides and nothing showing in the report or what was investigated to even show the grievant had to show proof of her charges against those she made charges against. They delinked an entire state with no proof at all of any real wrong doing. One or 2 AB members do not hold a candle against the many. Think about it. No proof and yet they delinked.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the attitude of some on the AB...like why are all you volunteers so upset over this? And even asking what type of items should be brought before the membership for a vote. Hello? ANY NEW rule that affects the volunteers of the organization should be approved by those it affects...the volunteers, through a vote up or down. This ain't rocket science, folks. And the weak excuses some make for wanting to require telephone numbers, addresses and the like are really quite laughable.

Anonymous said...

Pat Asher has a very 'convenient' way of twisting people's words to put a different spin on them. She's extremely good at it, too. If you aren't careful around her, she'll have you selling the Brooklyn Bridge when all you really wanted to do was drive over it. Good on Daryl for nailing Pat with her own game.

Sherri, Tina, Annie and Dale play their games behind the scenes. But election time is coming up. Sherri's running for re-election as NC. Don't like the AB? VOTE THEM OUT!

Anonymous said...

The weakest excuse I have heard is how you did not have the time to make your voting mark,what was your last excuse for not voting? any of you,maybe instead of just sitting there and crying get up and vote when the time comes,vote them out or sit back and cry for (how long have they voted themselves in for now? life?)one bylaw change after another and how many behind closed doors? secret mail list where material dissappears? AB members who turn the other way,GC members who are in league with the NC and GC chair and vote the way they are told,get rid of the lot of them or just sit back and cry for another year or when they finally come for your state.Run for a seat yourself,or are we afraid we might have to do a tad more then we wished for so we would rather sit back and cry for another round of this kind of trash and dishonesty from our leaders? people who are suppose to be for the members but are really just out for themselves and what ever high they get off with the treatment they dish out to the lot of you.And remember,those who work on the new state site are in on the whole process of the delinking,I would not touch one of them with a 10 foot genealogy book, or a voting ballott.But this is also just another post one will read and then just talk about,action is required.not talk.

Anonymous said...

I have to say Daryl OWNED them on the SW list. However I feel he had the upper hand because RIGHT was on his side. And he persisted, not letting up. Nothing his detractors had to say didn't stop the one simple fact at hand - a NEW rule had been inserted into the document when the explicit mandate was only to clarify EXISTING rules. I am sharing the archive link of the SW list during this discussion with many of my usually quiet project friends. More and more members need to read this spectacle on the SW list.

Anonymous said...

After reading various project list archives I found it amusing where it looked as if some were desperately trying to make Daryl look like the bad guy in all this, as if he were insulting the committee. I guess they didn't have any valid points to support the new rule, so fell back to the old "attack the messenger" game. But you know what? That desperate game didn't work and folks see right through it. Was quite sad really.

Anonymous said...

Here are some simple open questions for any of the current board members running for office: (1)Was a board vote taken to delink FLGenWeb (2) If so, where was the vote taken (3) If a vote was taken, why was the vote not taken on board-l and duly recorded for the membership to see? (4)If a vote was taken, what is the voting record of the AB members in regards to the delinking of FLGenWeb? (5)Do you think it is ok for an elective board to have secret votes affecting members of the project hidden from the membership? Five simple questions. Let see how many answers are forthcoming. I think these questions need to be asked until answers are forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

It seems as if Daryl is the true USGenWeb Representative at Large.

Anonymous said...

The volunteers of the project must work to get qualified people on the AB who understand correct procedure, respect volunteers with new ideas and suggestions, and simply have a desire to do the right thing. The project does not need board members who have long-standing bad feelings toward some members, who try to hide behind secrecy walls hiding material project business from the volunteers and above all else, acting as puppets for long-term control lovers who simply can't pry their fingers away from trying to control every aspect of this organization. They need to go back to working their counties, quit trying to control people and let fresh new blood try to save what remains of the national part of the project before it's too late when there's nothing left to salvage.

Anonymous said...

The "attack the messenger" has been used quite a bit in the project during the past. It usually happens when answers to a pointed question are not forthcoming. That playbook is worn and tattered, and most observers are a lot more savvy and jaded than given credit for. Attack the messenger and maybe folks will forget about the issue. That doesn't work as well now days though.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all of these comments. Pat will twist your words, Sherri will try to talk circles around you and Tina will be a smarta** to anyone and everyone when she thinks she can get away with it. It is about time for Sherri, Tina, Pauli, Suzanne, Les, and the rest of that clique to be voted out of office. Sherri runs the GC and tells them what to do, the EC is al screwed up and the elections are rigged, the entire AB is corrupt with all of their sekret sandbox meetings and leaving various AB members out of various discussions. The whole project is doomed if they don't get them out of office. Hell, go look at Tina's sites in Wisconsin, they haven't been updated in 5 years! She is the SC there and supposedly the RAL of the Project, looks like she would be on top of her sites better than that doesn't it? They are all slackers who don't deserve to be in any official capacity in the USGWP let alone in real life. I can only imagine how screwed up their real lives are if they are this greedy and power hungry over an online project. Better yet maybe we should all walk and let them have at it. The states and county sites don't need them, there are other projects out there. I was looking at that Trails to the Past project today, they have some pretty good sites over there...maybe I should think about moving mine. Would serve Tina and Sherri right for all of us to walk and join Daryl at Trails to the Past...boy wouldn't that really piss them off!
Something we should all think seriously about, we don't stand a chance at USGW, especially with rigged elections and the power hungry corrupt AB members and Tina and Sherri at the helm. I predict the USGW Project will die a slow horrible death and the delinking of Florida was only the beginning of the story...stay tuned for more.....

Anonymous said...

Some excellent observations have been made on the state-coord list. The AB better start listening to those volunteers' concerns, regardless of how blunt they are. The worth of the project is in its local volunteers and local projects. With today's search engine technology, local or state projects have absolutely no need for national. They could easily be stand-alone projects with the easy and simple removal of one logo. With some of the AB trying to come up with more rules, delinking states, arguing with volunteers on public lists, etc. they better keep this in mind. I dare say, it has come to the point that we will start seeing state projects and local projects delinking national and becoming stand-alone projects. The AB better wake up, smell the coffee and start treating the volunteers with the respect they deserve, by being open with their dealings, putting away personal grudges, and carrying on business in a professional manner respecting the ideas of ALL the volunteers. Volunteers are hard to come by, and the project is losing way too many. Dozens of counties in many states are vacant and it will only get worse.

Anonymous said...

The talk of local projects leaving is very real. If some persist in trying to shove new rules upon the volunteers without the volunteers' approval, the AB may very well learn they are not the only ones who can delink. Delinking can be a two-sided proposition.

Anonymous said...

I noticed National Coordinator Sherri posted on the ALL and State-Coord lists a message from Judy Florian, a member of the guidelines committee, directly addressed to Daryl and highly critical of him having revealed the truth about someone on the committee adding that new rule, but the email was sent only to Sherri.

It must have taken a lot of courage for Sherri to have done that, knowing Daryl can not post replies on those lists. According to a message Daryl posted on another list, he did reply to the lists and it was not allowed to be posted.

So it is no wonder someone felt they could add a new rule behind the backs of the CCs, the NC allows attacks on the CCs behind their backs.

Anonymous said...

LOTS of folks have noticed that! When you think you've seen it all, you haven't.

Anonymous said...

The delinking was the worse thing I have even seen the USGW AB do,,how could they do such a thing just to gain a project that was or seemed to be doing just fine,gosip is,the grievant breached her own grievance,if so,this only shows us their is no one left on our board that has any integrity left,bad enough they do not follow our own bylaws,but to delink a whole state is unthinkable.What is the board going to do about this? Are they to sit and do nothing? and I hear it was all done in secret, that one of the GC members or someone like that owned the secret list and Tina convinced the GC members on how to act and what to say. How do we find our for sure? and the poster also said the AB would alter their report to keep the members quiet.

Anonymous said...

Pertaining to all those emails posted here and elsewhere that showed the NC taking part in GC business (FLGenWeb grievance issue I believe)....has the AB done anything about this? Has this even been addressed by them? If not, are they just going to let this slide and pretend everything is fine and dandy with the GC even when everyone has seen those emails and more and more are seeing them as word spreads? - and word IS spreading.

Is there not even a simple majority left on the AB who is willing to step up to the plate, making sure project business is carried out in the open according to correct procedure and the AB following the project and committee rules, as they obviously expect all other members to do? Please show a little respect for the volunteers - who ARE what's left of the project.

Anonymous said...

I thought the EC was checking local sites for compliance of folks registered? If so, seems they missed several, according to the sw mail list.

Anonymous said...

The saddest thing of all is, the GC was THE place where volunteers were promised they would get a fair shake - totally independent of the AB. It was a promise to the membership through the passage of the GC rules. Now that those emails have been released it looks as if some on the AB have been taking part in this committee's work and in fact, the GC work is NOT all that independent of AB interference. And all this was hidden under the cloak of secrecy. If it had not been for the release of those emails, no one would have been wiser and this practice would probably have continued (and may still be). Now no one can fault anyone for wondering what else is going on in secret that is being hidden from the membership through the guise of "confidentality." Isn't it past the time that transparency be brought into the organization's business? It's all up to the AB. Let's see if they are up to the task.

Anonymous said...

All one has to do is look at any state in the USGenWeb and you will see violations everywhere. The EC is suppose to check those sites and make sure they are in check but someone is dropping the ball somewhere. Instead of the AB and others wanting to change this or that they need to do some housework first on all the CC's who are not in compliance and then look at guidelines because the guidelines that are in place right now are not being enforced. And yes, take a look at Tina, Sherri and the gang and you will see they haven't done anything - no updates and their copyright is out of date. They try to throw these rules down our throats but yet they think they don't apply to themselves and that's not right!

Anonymous said...

That's what gets me. Some seem so enthusiastic on going after folks with sites not recently updated, etc. And now I seriously wonder if it's not what condition your site is in, but WHO you are. I remember reading in those released emails from the GC, some silly laughable excuse submitted by someone to go after a member because the site in their care hadn't been updated in a couple of years. Well hells bells, if that's the case, a good portion of the project would be a MNIGS including project officers! One of the best comments I've read recently was basically "don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house." Wise words there to remember when trying to dish out yet more rules, regulations and punishments.

Anonymous said...

And do you think for one minute that Pat Asher really cares? I think not, she is in league with the others who sit and rule,she has their ok,just as Sherri,Tina,Denise,Patrice,Laverne and others have full run of breaking the rules,always pays to have friends in high places,just look at those guys and how they run a grievance,with one of their own running a private list,others being Ccd by a grievant who right our breached her own grievance and they hid the fact this was done,and yet they this group was allowed to railroad an entire state into being delinked.So who thinks this group cares about its members or anyting else and seems the whole of the USGW says it is ok because it happened.

Anonymous said...

Well I for one think the delinking of FLGenWeb running off valuable volunteers was a travesty. Especially after seeing how the GC has been operating from seeing all those emails from the GC. And what about the vote to delink FLGenWeb? I haven't even seen a vote by the AB on this (are not votes for official actions required to be taken on the public AB list? If so, is this not in DIRECT violation of correct parliamentary procedure if this is not done?). The whole affair from beginning to end lacks a lot to be desired. Especially since the end result was many volunteers leaving the project - and there certainly is no waiting line of potential volunteers beating at the door ready and willing to take their place. So how many folks have left the project over this, and now harbor bad feelings towards USGW, simply because of this delinking? The project cannot afford to have many more episodes like this.

Anonymous said...

What good is it for the AB to discuss GC rules and clarification of the same, when it seems some are challenged to begin with to follow what rules there are. If simple rules can't be followed in the first place, what good is further discussion of those rules? It looks as if the problem is not with the rules, but a simple desire to follow the rules in the first place. And if rules are not followed by some, and the fact hidden from the members due to "secrecy orders," what good is any of this talk? It's simply a waste of time. Talk is cheap. It's time for actions in seeing that project business is not hidden away from the members, rules and bylaws are followed by ALL and everyone treated the same - in a fair and equitable manner. Why is this simple fact so difficult for some to see?

Anonymous said...

After reading some of this stuff, I can not believe that after what you have read here that Sherri would once again be allowed to be in control of another grievance or process meeting list of any kind.As for the AB, most have their heads stuck in the sand,or simply turn a blind eye.when an EC member,a AB member, the RAL, and the NC, can all stick their face into a grievance that is suppose to be contidential,it is no longer confidential,When a grievant is allowed to CC her grievance to 5 other people,have an arguement with GC members and CC the same 5 people when she does it and no one stops the process because of all those breaches,who gets to pull all those heads out of the sand,How is it even close to being legal for Sherri to run those list when she is already in favor of one or the other party? Why is that someone outside that group is not in charge of setting up those list, and Who in the heck even thought Pat Asher would make a good mediator?Someone really needs to turn on a light for those poor AM members who can not read in the dark,to pass up good info that clearly shows Sherri,Tina,Denise(SEMA Rep),Jeff,and how many others did that woman CC during her grievance?Enough that it should have been called a sham.Rigged,a set up from the start,anything but a real grievance.And Daryl,another person taken to the cleaners by this group as did Charles. How is it they let Sherri and her bunch off on any of this
Well get your butts out and vote them out,it is the only way to even begin to clean up the Bad rep the USGW is gaining from all of this,CC's jumping ship to just get away from them,and yet it still goes on.I also wonder what this Joel person has to say about those e-mails posted on this site about what clearly was a sham type of grievance ran by the GC-AB and the NC and let us not forget the Sema Rep who had her face stuck in it,she told the other AB members she recused herself from the vote,but she sure argued every point of the letters posted here by Diane or whoever aent them in.Some word that word Recused,seems someone does not know the full meaning of that word.HA!run your mouth,but not vote HA! again,This Joel did seem to try his best for Daryl,but what happened in Florida? He is not speaking or maybe it is yet another case of who owned that list,maybe he just got cut out as others did.