Daryl's Status

Knight of the Living Dead

We have some sad news regarding Daryl.

On June 5, 2011 he was engaging Larry Flesher, Chair of the Disciplinary Hearing for Mr. Lytton, of a point that the Evidentiary Phase of Charge #1 was based upon false evidence. This caused an anxiety attack which Daryl was not able to control with his usual medication, so he called 911.

911 said he might have pneumonia and so was taken to the hospital where not only was that confirmed, but they also found cancer in such an advanced stage it can not be operated on.

June 10, 2011 he was moved to the new Solari Hospice, a very fancy place exclusive to 12 patients at a time each with their own private suite. Medications for Daryl were determined, his conditions stabilized as best as possible, and on June 18, 2011 he was taken home. The hospital said he has about 60 days to live; the hospice said 90.

Herd of the Hearing

Unrelentingly, the core corrupt group of the Advisory Board pushing to have Daryl slaughtered by what ever means possible, insisted the hearing be resumed immediately. Charge #1 against Daryl:

"Mr. Lytton has violated the USGenWeb Grievance Procedures by publishing both redacted and unredacted versions of confidential emails exchanged during the grievance process. He has also published on mailing lists confidential information regarding issues, decisions, and the identities of participants in the grievance process. His breaches of confidentiality are in violation of the Grievance Procedures, Section E:
http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html"

Thanks to a brave member of the AB with a conscious, we now have the facts of what happened. The USGenWeb Advisory Board (AB) had no proof of Daryl breaking the grievance procedures confidentiality rules, although proof of the charges being true was required before Daryl was notified of the charges and of the hearing.

Here is the proof the AB offered for Charge #1 being true; this was the cause of Daryl's anxiety attack. Pat Asher posted the message, Daryl added the numbering system when he replied (below):

1a -- http://www.mindspring.com/~dlytton/2010/
(OHGenWeb grievance)

1b -- http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/
(many -- for example

1c -- http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=78620917&map=0&page=0&ics=1
(See all 3 pages of site map)

1d -- http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/home/new-site/gcc
(Diane's files)

1d -- http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/home/new-site/diane-disciplinary-hearing

1e -- http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/usgenweb-sw/2010-06/1277061236
(identifies Nola)

1f -- http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/USGENWEB-SW/2011-04/1302905553
(identifies the mediator and claims denial of right to representation)

1g -- http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/usgenweb-sw/2011-04/1301958776
(identifies Nola and claims conspiracy to declare MNIGS)

1h -- http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/usgenweb-sw/2010-06/1276997691
(states he is playing a game with confidentiality)


Now then, Tina had already stated the only confidentiality rules of the grievance process in place at the time Daryl allegedly broke them were:

"Because grievances are considered personnel matters, all [GC] 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."

"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."

"The mediation process is confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless ALL parties agree to the contrary."

"The arbitration process is considered confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless ALL parties (including volunteer arbitrators and witnesses) agree to the contrary."

Daryl's Response to the Charges

as told to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee June 27:

"1a -- Not valid. Refers to my OHGenWeb Grievance #1 which was BEFORE there was a GC and GC Procedures with confidentiality rules (Cyndie can verify that). The pages even come right out and state "my OHGenWeb Grievance #1" ... which seens to verify what I have been claiming for years, that the AB is clueless as to the differences between my OHGenWeb Grievance #1, and #2 which was wrongfully rejected after being accepted twice by two separate GCs."

"1b -- Not valid. http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/ includes hundreds of pages. Without listing particular URLs this charge is not valid, as it does not list pages I can refer to in order to defend myself. It should also be noted that I was NOT the author of any of the pages at that URL and thus impossible for me to have broken any confidentiality rules, as the rules apply only to members of the GC and parties in grievances."

"1c -- Not valid. ibid."

"1d & 1d -- Not valid. As the [items at] the URLs states, it is authored by Diane Siniard not me."

"1e -- Nola's grievance against me was declared to be invalid. i.e., her "complaint" wasn't a valid complaint. Complaints that aren't vaalid, are not confidential as they are not complaints, they are no more than simply people complaining, which is a Rights of Members protected by Sturgis. Adding to that, Nola gave me permission to talk about her complaint, although not being valid I needed no permission as no confidentiality was broken. Nola's complaint was not valid because after 42 pages of complaining, she couldn't find any rules I had broken. That's because I don't break rules."

"1f -- Not valid. Does not pertain to me, as the Confidentiality Rules pertain only to the GC members and parties in a grievance. However ... I very stribgky protest the AB knowing the GC has broken rules and has refused to do anything about it, but the AB wants to punish me for doing my duty by reporting the GC has broken the rules."

"1g -- ibid 1e."

"1h -- This charge is not valid as it does not pertain to breaking confidentiality. And it does NOT say I am "playing a game with confidentiality" as claimed ... it says, "Nope, it's confidential. See? I can play confidentiality game also," and was in reference to Pat Asher using confidentiality to hide her corruption in the grievance where she willfully went along with parties in the grievance being denied their Grievance Bylaw & Procedures rules, then being elected to the AB, despite the Bylaws not allowing a person who acts that way towards the membership being a candidate for the AB." [A Member Not In Good Standing can't be nominated for office --mary]

Daryl continued:

"I just want to make sure the records show that as of right now, I have not received a reply from Tina. My line of questioning is in a logical order, and I cannot make a final statement about Charge #1 without Tina's answers because what I say depends upon what she says.

"To make sure witnesses don't try to intentionally use delaying tactics, please consider telling the folks when we resume the hearing, that the length of time they take to reply to my questions will in no way interfere with the time frame I have to ask and/or reply to questions."

The next questions for Tina were:

"[ ] Yes, those are the 'proofs' for Charge #1 against Daryl."
"[ ] No those are not the 'proofs' for Charge #1 against Daryl.
"As for the GC Procedures:
"[ ] Yes the AB is happy with the wording of the Procedures and approved the wording."

Of which Tina never answered, and the next message posted to the hearing list was from Larry Flesher:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Flesher
> To: Board
> Date: 6/28/2011 7:29:52 AM
> Subject: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing findings re:
> Charge #1
>
> The Disciplinary Hearing, now in session to consider
> charges levied against Mr.. Daryl Lytton, has completed
> deliberations regarding Charge #1:
>
> [repeat of charge omitted --mary]
>
> Mr. Lytton has requested that the Charges against him
> be disposed of one at a time, and in compliance with
> that request, the following is submitted:
>
> In the matter of Charge #1, it is the finding of the
> Disciplinary Hearing members that Mr. Lytton is guilty
> of the charge.
>
> Following the finding, it was the duty of the
> Disciplinary Hearing members to determine penalty /
> punishment. Early this morning, the members returned
> the following:
>
> "Mr. Daryl Lytton, having been found guilty of Charge
> #1 [listed above] by the Disciplinary Hearing members,
> is declared Member Not In Good Standing (MNIGS) of
> the USGenWeb Project for a period of two years, to
> commence immediately (29 June 2011). As a Member
> Not In Good Standing, Mr. Lytton is declared not
> eligible to run for nor to serve in any office in the
> USGenWeb Project.
>
> The USGenWeb Election Committee is hereby
> directed to remove Mr. Lytton's name from the list
> of candidates for the forthcoming USGenWeb
> Project Election Ballot, and is further directed to
> omit from count any ballots cast for Mr. Lytton."
>
> Mr. Lytton will be re-subscribed to the hearing list
> so he can participate in the Evidentiary Phase of
> Charge #2.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
> Larry Flesher
> Chair

Respectfully? What is there to be respected when USGenWeb leadership goes out of its way to break the rules? The AB created and voted into place revisions of the grievance procedures on May 9, 2011 and Daryl would still not be guilty of breaking the new confidentiality rules!

Daryl has posted a few messages on the SW, NW and State-Coord lists, all indicating he is not being treated in accordance with the rules of a disciplinary hearing nor the USGenWeb rights of members, or some of his legal rights such as his right to reject members of the AB serving on his disciplinary hearing as judges and jurors who have had personal grudges against him for years.

One person on the State-Coord list came right out and told what was happening to Daryl -- he is being railroaded by the AB. An AB so afraid of the truth getting out, they must hold Daryl's trial in secret.

As for the brave Daryl -- he told the AB on June 27, "But *I* am the one who showed up for this hearing on my deathbed, trying to get you guys to act respectably and expediently.

I predict we will hear more about this issue from our new friend on the AB. Daryl remains very ill and for the most part is out of contact with us.

Mary White

Beat Goes On

"The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain"

Since Sherri Bradley, USGenWeb National Coordianator, posted the below message to a public USGenWeb list with the charges against Daryl as statements of facts, we have done some investigating into the matters.

With that posting to Board, the USGenWeb Advisory Board list for official USGenWeb business, Sherri has turned the issue and the charges against Daryl into matters of organizational business. In accordance with Sturgis (the AB's rule book) we will expect full public disclose of the hearing against Daryl, including the testimony. (Sturgis, "Failure or refusal to disclose matters of organizational business, are grounds for removal from office.")

The message Daryl received from Sherri containing the charges against him is signed "For the USGenWeb Advisory Board." It has been brought to our attention that Daryl, being the gentleman he is, has sent the AB a message offering each member of the AB the chance to absolve them selves of any or all of the charges made against him. There has been no response so far, but it is Sunday and we suspect the members of the AB are attending church seeking forgiveness for their sins.

Our research shows Sturgis requires the AB to have the authority to hold a disciplinary hearing for each of the charges, and proof of the charges against Daryl has to be established before he was notified of the hearing and the charges. When asked for comments we were disappointed Daryl's only reply was, "You are correct."

We have also been informed by a member of the AB that Daryl said he will have an attorney assisting him. Rumor is it's an Assistant D.A.

Mary White


> [Original Message]
> From: Sherri
> To: board@rootsweb.com
> Date: 5/19/2011 6:32:40 PM
> Subject: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing Being
> Convened - Daryl Lytton
>
> For the record, a disciplinary hearing is being
> convened to hear the following charges:
>
> A disciplinary hearing is being convened with the
> following as the charges:
>
> 1) Mr. Lytton has violated the USGenWeb Grievance
> Procedures by publishing both redacted and unredacted
> versions of confidential emails exchanged during the
> grievance process. He has also published on mailing
> lists confidential information regarding issues,
> decisions, and the identities of participants in the
> grievance process. His breaches of confidentiality
> are in violation of the Grievance Procedures, Section
> E. (http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html)
>
> 2) Since the establishment of the Grievance Committee
> in August 2007, Mr. Lytton has filed multiple
> grievances with the Committee and Appeals to the
> Advisory Board regarding his dismissal as Coordinator
> of OHGenWeb Adams County in December 2005. These
> grievances ask the Committee to retroactively apply
> Bylaw Amendment XIV.E. which made their decisions
> binding, to the non-binding recommendations of the
> Advisory Board rendered in January 2006. His refusal
> to accept the decisions to reject these subsequent
> grievances and appeals as invalid and punitive to
> the current SC and CC who were not parties to the
> original grievance, is a violation of both the
> spirit and the letter of the law.
>
> 3) Mr. Lytton promotes the demise of the USGenWeb
> Project and maligns the Project and its members on
> public websites, causing internal dissension and
> the discouragement of genealogical researchers. These
> actions are in violation of the fundamental principle
> of the organization, i.e. to provide and promote free
> genealogical sites and resources to the general
> public and violates Section II and Section IV,
> Subsection A of the Bylaws; and the adopted
> parliamentary authority (Sturgis), authorized by
> Section XV of the Bylaws
> (http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml)
>
> 4) Since 15 May 2003, Mr. Lytton has defrauded the
> genealogical community the USGenWeb Project was
> created to serve, by soliciting financial
> contributions via PayPal to webroots.org/WebRoots,
> Inc. while falsely claiming it is a "nonprofit public
> benefit corporation" (a public charity). Such
> solicitation is in violation of Nevada Revised
> Statute NRS 598.1305, prohibited deceptive trade
> practices, where Mr. Lytton currently resides, and
> the California Corporation Code, where he registered
> the corporation.
>
> 5) Mr. Lytton represented himself as a spokesperson
> for the USGenWeb Project and implied his personal
> project, usgenweb-search.us, was an officially
> endorsed USGenWeb project in a promotional
> announcement to Dick Eastman. Mr. Lytton was not,
> nor ever has been, an elected or appointed
> spokesperson, nor was his personal project an
> official or sanctioned project of USGenWeb
> (http://www.usgenweb.org/projects/index.shtml)
>
> 6) Mr. Lytton displays the USGenWeb logo on his
> personal project USGenWeb-Search.Us without
> permission, in violation of the USGenWeb Standard
> Rules, Section IV. Permission to Use a USGenWeb Logo.
> (http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/standard-ules.shtml)
>
> 7) Mr. Lytton has used false names (aliases) on
> multiple occasions to represent himself as someone
> else in order to gain access to State projects where
> he had been removed or rejected for membership.
>
> 8) Mr. Lytton harasses individual members of the
> USGenWeb Project and duly elected representatives to
> the Advisory Board, makes libelous statements
> targeted at individual members, and threatens law
> suits against members and the USGenWeb organization,
> by private mail and on USGenWeb mail lists, causing
> a hostile working environment for USGenWeb project
> volunteers.
>
> Mr. Lytton maintains the following USGenWeb Project
> sites:
>
> LaPlata County COGenWeb; COGenWeb Assistant
> State Coordinator
>
> Derby City (CTGenWeb, New Haven County)
>
> Hawaii County HIGenWeb
>
> KSGenweb
>
> Larry Flesher will chair the hearing. A private mail
> list will be set up for the hearing; more information
> will be forthcoming.
>
> Sherri Bradley
> National Coordinator
> USGenWeb Project

AB Resignation

From: Colleen
To: board@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/28/2011 12:10:51 PM
Subject: [BOARD] RESIGNATION

Sherri,

Please consider this my resignation from the Advisory Board. For several months I've no longer felt I could make a difference in the USGenWeb. It seems lately, that the only thing on the AB's agenda is to go after people and bring them down, or lay out more rules. The *_Advisory_* Board no longer functions as its name says, but has become more or less a dictatorial group. This isn't the USGenWeb I joined back in 1998.

Sadly, I feel you are one of the people that is helping to destroy the project. You are two-faced, saying things out of one side of your mouth, then turning and saying or implying something else. As NC, your dabbling in the grievances is reprehensible. Your micro-management of everything is totally unwarranted. Your tenacity to show favoritism is contemptible.

I would also warn others that if they should ever file a grievance, to expect your hand right in the middle of it, something that is totally against procedure.

I am no longer interested in serving on a Board whose sole purpose has become self-satisfaction instead of encouraging a quality project. To the members of the NWPL, please accept my humble apology for leaving my post before the end of my term. I hope my replacement can achieve on the AB what I couldn't.

Colleen Pustola
NWPL SC Representative

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
http://genwebstalkers.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html

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
To: usgwconf-2@usgenweb.org
Cc: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
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 all@usgenweb.us
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 words...it is going to fail very soon.

Diane
_____________________________________
ALL@usgenweb.us Mail List
http://usgenweb.us/mailman/listinfo/all_usgenweb.us

=========================

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
To: ncgeniehunter@yahoo.com
Cc: board-exec@rootsweb.com
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.

Charges:
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.

Finding:
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.
None

Members abstaining.
Alice Allen
Colleen Pustola
W. David Samuelsen

Sincerely,
Cyndie Enfinger, SP Rep., Disciplinary Hearing Chair

=========================

From: Diane Siniard
To:
Cyndie;dcaallen@pacifier.com;anniegms@gmail.com;lflesher@yahoo.com;pauli1028@msn.com;SEMACCrep@gmail.com;tsvickery@gmail.com;usgenwebnc@windstream.net;usgwsema@gmail.com;webmaster@cottonhills.com;wnoliver@sbcglobal.net;wvgenweb@wildblue.net;David Samuelson;Colleen;Daryl Lytton;Charles Barnum;Diane Mason-Kelly
Cc: board-exec@rootsweb.com
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.

Diane
http://trailstothepast.org/
Trails to the Past

Diane's Hearing Transcripts

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment:
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

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: board@rootsweb.com
> 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
> http://gc.usgenweb.org/procedures.html
> "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
> http://cogenweb.com/laplata
>
> - COGenWeb: San Miguel
> http://cogenweb.com/sanmiguel
>
> - MOGenWeb: MO in the Civil War
> http://www.mogenweb.org/mocivwar/
>
> Sherri Bradley
> National Coordinator
> For the Advisory Board


> [Original Message]
> From: Sherri
> To: board@rootsweb.com
> 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:
http://sites.google.com/site/genwebstalkers/home/new-site/gcc

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

Diane Siniard

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: usgw-gc@rootsweb.com
> 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.

Mediators/Arbitrators

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: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> 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: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> 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: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> 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! (shudder)"

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

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