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