tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post1283966659077055939..comments2012-08-03T20:32:25.494-07:00Comments on GenWebStalkers.com: FLGenWebJokerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10945150053000496609noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-34090231282024190722010-06-06T22:06:46.116-07:002010-06-06T22:06:46.116-07:00I hear they did not even go as far as to ask even ...I hear they did not even go as far as to ask even one Fl. CC if they choose to stay or go,the Board just took every county and made them ask for them back,and it was made to look like those people did not respond,from what I hear Sherri Bradley had charge of the mail list and she would also have been able to edit those pages to make it look as if that group was not in compliance.Sherri and Tina removed important data from that list from what I hear,and turned a false report into the AB.So how do they get as far as to delink a state over that kind of action, and looks like they did it to just take their state project.and that woman is on it,the one who runs everyone down,I would not take a county in that project with her in there.She will turn on you like bad beer. What kind of people do we have sitting in our AB group? a bunch of thieves?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-73895920156662222772010-06-04T18:29:31.115-07:002010-06-04T18:29:31.115-07:00For most of us,not knowing what goes on in Fl. how...For most of us,not knowing what goes on in Fl. how can we honestly speak of what went on?And from what I have read from this site,all the e-mails posted here,the comments, all I see is that the list owner may have made the entire grievance process a very onesided adventure,Who set up the list used for that meeting? it is listed as Sherri Bradley set it up. What one would say, is it that she is allowed to not only set up the list used for that Not so private grievance meeting,but she could edit its contents as well,makes one now thing just who was no coorporating with whom,I have seen several names mentioned Fran and Dennis-both charged with various charges of either not being in compliance or e-mailing members of the GC during the process, Well what of Laverne and her several breaches even before the dates of the charges against the others-seems this Laverne breached her own grievance and then the GC-NC and the AB turned around and handed her that site made up for Fl.a real joke if I have ever seen one,and most of the cc setting up house on it are former members who turned tail on Fl.another joke on the USGW,turntails,one of which is the grievant herself,maybe this is what the entire grievance secrets are all about,list editing,cutting GC members out of the details,not allowing material to come through that list so it would look like one side was not following orders, Real big joke this has turned out to be and from what I have read,the USGW did not have the first right to have done what they did in the delinking of that state,not one right,nothing legal or honest about it,Not when the list owner also sat in one the grievance and seems also spoke to the other side,then turns around and charges one of the other members with breaching,Oh come on now people, does something not smell real bad here?the stinch is choaking the life out of the USGW.A real joke,allowing a grievant who from what I have seen, never even produced any material or items of proof for her case and Yet they hand her a new state project. Really smelling the place up now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-42925253630932460492010-05-19T14:42:08.146-07:002010-05-19T14:42:08.146-07:00I am not a member of FLGenWeb and have never been,...I am not a member of FLGenWeb and have never been, but the end result as mentioned above in a comment looks as if it is now a state project with 35 counties gone and unlinked, and the majority of the remainder of the counties look as if they are coordinated by a sum total of only two people. So who ended up with the short stick? It looks like the USGenWeb project to me. With state projects begging for new coordinators and counties sitting vacant in many states (as many as a dozen and upwards to 20 in some states), this wholesale departure of valuable counties is not good for the project. And where was the vote taken by the board for this massive delinking? I thought advisory board votes, according to not only parliamentary procedure but past procedure as well, must be made on the public board list?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-9833312319340617552010-05-19T13:10:53.602-07:002010-05-19T13:10:53.602-07:00My earlier comment was based on what I know. Sinc...My earlier comment was based on what I know. Since this matter was in private how do you know you have the all the facts as well? I'm not part of the AB or GC but from what it looks like the FLGenWeb board can not give the run-around on a grievance, it just makes a mockery of everything. The AB and GC did what they thought was best because they were not getting anywhere, from what I have read. I have no other knowledge other than what has been brought forth on this matter via this blog. There could have been another way of doing things but when someone is blocking a grievance just because they think they can and have bylaws for their own state that contradicts the USGenWeb, it shows that these board members of FLGenWeb didn't want to be part of the national network nor abide by national rules. And I understand that when someone owns a list they can put what they want or delete what they want as well, who knows if all the facts where brought forth to begin with, I'm not sure on this matter. As far as false statements, I do not know the origin of the original grievance only those involved know for sure or what was brought forth as evidence. It is very sad that the whole FLGenWeb got delinked and I'm sure a lot of good CC's got caught up in the mix which is wrong but its not their fault, its the SC of FLGenWeb and their incorporation. But just because the original FLGenWeb got delinked doesn't mean that the new folks on the FLGenWeb site are not going to be corrupt either and no I am nor have I ever been part of the FLGenWeb Project.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-39449065733651726892010-05-19T09:29:32.537-07:002010-05-19T09:29:32.537-07:00Having ownership of a private list during a proces...Having ownership of a private list during a process is in no way a proper way to run anything,Diane clearly made note of the fact a person of the process themselves set up the list used-so anything turned into the AB would look like someone wanted it to look,not how it may have happened.And right off I would say you would,you were more than biased from what you read from this site, This site clearly shows in Diane's e-mails that the grievant breached their own grievance,and more than once,even to the point it shows an arguement between GC members and the grievant herself and she CCd others while doing it.If said process was on the up and up it should have been stoped at that point per USGW bylaws,or are you just plain biased???And are you a member of the state of Fl.? if not,then what makes you an authority on how things went,or what was done,Did you also make note of the fact the grievant never had to prove even one point they made in their statement or grievance? not one,I did not see where in the bylaws it states a grievant may make false statements and not have to back them up with proof,not just words,but proof.So in my book and what is all over the net nothing was ever shown that Fl. did anything wrong but govern an unruly and disturbed member.Or are you one of those GC or AB menbers who was duped into believing the person who set up the list would do the right thing and not edit the list used??This can be done can it not?? People can be cut out of conversations or not ?? Things can be omited or not? when one ownes a list or not??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-75214276170922235142010-05-19T04:46:35.349-07:002010-05-19T04:46:35.349-07:00Well, the point is, votes of a governing board sho...Well, the point is, votes of a governing board should not be held in private at all. Discussion on some issues maybe. But the actual resulting vote - no. Votes by a governing board should be a matter of public record for the membership according to parliamentary procedure. As far as the remark "if you can't, go somewhere else" it looks like the vast majority of FLGenWeb has done just that - gone somewhere else. 35 counties listed on the state site now with no links and the majority of the others coordinated by basically two or three people. So, in the end result, who won? Could there not have been a better way to solve this issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-34729866511767708902010-05-18T09:14:28.817-07:002010-05-18T09:14:28.817-07:00If the FLGenWeb has bylaws that contradict the USG...If the FLGenWeb has bylaws that contradict the USGenWeb, they should have been delinked. They were trying to give the GC the run-a-around, I applaud the GC and AB for standing up and not taking the BS anymore of the FLGenWeb Board. Of course, I am basing my opinion from the emails I have read on this site, but for the FLGenWeb Board to act the way they were acting, they got what they deserved. I'm sure that the vote was in private and eventually the AB will notify the rest of the USGenWeb but we shouldn't all get bent out of shape because we can't see what was on a private list. This will be a lesson and anything learned from it will happen in the future, but state projects can not oust folks just because they can and are "incorporated", we are part of a national project with our own state projects and we need to abide by the rules, if you can't, go somewhere else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077744183602445791.post-69276538971179526962010-05-17T10:55:13.578-07:002010-05-17T10:55:13.578-07:00The whole things stinks of dishonesty on part of t...The whole things stinks of dishonesty on part of the GC -nothing turned in or a onesided view is not a proper ruling,One may condemn Diane for putting those e-mails all over this site,but she stood up or at least tried to correct something rotten in the GC- and the NC-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com