APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1197412587


From: "Sandy Johansen" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Ethical Membership Response
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:36:27 -0700 (MST)
References: <BCA34864-267A-46A1-B49D-453F2C5DBE0D@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <BCA34864-267A-46A1-B49D-453F2C5DBE0D@mac.com>


Sharon, I'm very pleased to read your thoughtful response to the recent
string of mail and the resulting mis-information, guesses, and replies to
hypotheticals.
Thank you for taking the time to write out such a comprehensive reply.
People get out of an organization what they are willing to put into it.
You and the other APG board memebers both nationally and locally put your
time and talent into the organization and I applaud all of you. Its very
easy to judge, and much harder be part of the improvements.
Thank you for your service to the organization,
Sandy Johansen
CAPG

> I sailed out of the country on November 30 on an exciting trip to
> South and Central America with my husband. I returned last night and
> was shocked and appalled at the confusion rained upon the APG list by
> a posting that was both misleading and inflammatory. I tell you of my
> travels only so you’ll understand that the problem grew and festered
> from my lack of presidential response to the questions and concerns
> because I was unaware of them.
>
> I waited until today to respond because in my absence Vice President
> Jake Gehring had arranged for a telephonic board meeting today to
> discuss one of the issues of concern: the article that the EC had
> pulled from the December issue of the APGQ.
>
> It was obvious from reading some of the responses to Melinde Sanborn’s
> posting that some of our members are not aware of how APG is
> structured. Since that structure is important to several of the
> issues in question, I will take the time and space to explain it.
>
> The Board is the policy-making body for APG and its main concern is to
> establish policy and exercise powers not specifically vested in any
> specific office.
>
> The Executive Committee (EC) is the managerial and operating body of
> the association. As such the EC makes decisions on the day-to-day
> operation of the organization and reports its activities to the board
> on a regular basis. The president, vice president, secretary, and
> treasurer sit as the EC.
>
> We also have an Executive Director (ED) who handles administrative
> duties for the organization.
>
> We have five standing committees established in the bylaws. Two of
> those committees have played a part in activities questioned in
> Melinde’s posting. The Professional Review Committee (PRC) reviews
> and mediates allegations of member violations of the Code of Ethics.
> They do their job in accordance with the guidelines as outlined in the
> Policy Manual (approved by the board) and the Procedures Manual
> (approved by the EC).
>
> The Publications Advisory Committee (PAC) reviews all materials that
> are published under the name of the association and all of its
> chapters to ensure that printed and electronic materials best
> represent the standards and policies of the organization. One of the
> publications that the PAC reviews on a regular basis is the APGQ.
>
> Now that you have the big picture of all the parties involved in the
> general running of the association, let me address the issues:
>
> First is the matter of pulling of an article by a well-respected
> member of the genealogical community. Melinde posed the question “if
> a well respected author wrote an article for the APGQ and it was
> pulled after months of work - after typesetting -because the EC didn't
> like it, what would you think?” She didn’t give you any background or
> details on the matter and asked you to make a judgment call. Many of
> you began speculating and judging from a variety of “what if’s.”
> For the sake of time and space, I won’t give you every small detail on
> what happened and who said what and when. Here is a very abbreviated
> but factual account of this matter.
>
> Tom Jones submitted the unsolicited article in question to editor Matt
> Wright in late July. Tom’s article was a very strong opinion piece
> that addressed our organization and our profession. Matt immediately
> sent a copy of the article to the ED with the question “what do you
> think?” Since the ED is not a decision-maker in the organization
> (except on administrative matters), it was her responsibility to seek
> input on this question. She immediately sent the article and same
> query to Jake and me as president and vice president and asked if we
> wanted to discuss it at our regular monthly EC meeting in two days.
> Several persons expressed concern on the APG list that the EC had
> crossed that sacrosanct line into editorial independence by pulling
> this article. Hopefully this will relieve those concerns: we were
> asked our opinion on the matter and were brought into the picture
> indirectly by the editor.
>
> Matt rightfully was concerned about the matter. He is an excellent
> editor and consistently gives us a product of which we are very proud.
> He knows, however, that the traditional focus of our quarterly has
> been educational materials and member news and activities. With the
> exception of occasional opinions expressed in the president’s column,
> the APGQ has never published opinion pieces. And the one that Tom
> submitted was very strong and uncomplimentary of our organization.
>
> After some discussion and deliberation the EC suggested the article
> proceed to the PAC for review to see if the committee shared our
> concerns. The PAC shared the EC concerns about the article.
>
>
> The PAC suggested modification and clarification to some materials and
> suggested that the article might then run as with a notation that it
> was opinion piece, perhaps with a counterpoint piece in the same
> issue. The EC continued to have concerns about the appropriateness of
> what we considered derogatory article about the organization running
> in our own publication. Since the FGS conference was drawing near, we
> asked Matt and Jake as the EC representative to meet with Tom to
> discuss our concerns and see if an agreement could be reached and
> whether or not Tom would be amenable to modifying some of his
> comments. At that conference in mid-August Matt and Jake had
> conversations with Tom and he agreed to make some changes in his
> article.
>
> When he submitted his revised piece it went through routine channels
> to the PAC for review. The PAC pointed out that it was a “thought-
> provoking piece, worthy of discussion” but felt it should not be
> showcased in the APGQ. The PAC suggested that perhaps the article
> could be used as an internal document as a guide for the board and EC
> to improve the organization and the profession of genealogy.
>
> The EC studied this recommendation and the newly submitted article. In
> the meantime Tom had been elected to serve a two-year term on the
> board. We viewed this as an exciting opportunity for someone of his
> professional caliber and experience to bring his article to the board
> so it could be used to improve the organization and where a balanced
> discussion would include all board members. We hoped that Tom would
> see this as an opportunity to work on changes within the organization
> rather than air to the general public what he saw as our flaws.
>
> Bear with me here as I give you a little background critical to
> understanding how the EC was viewing this article. Early this year I
> announced to the membership that the Board at its May meeting (at the
> NGS Conference, Richmond) would be reviewing its objectives and how
> well we were meeting them. We conducted an online survey, focused the
> Roundtable at the NGS conference on these topics so members could give
> us opinions and thoughts from which to work. Issues of “what is a
> professional” and concerns about low membership requirements rose to
> the top.
>
> At the Richmond board meeting we focused on those concerns and quickly
> saw there were no quick fixes. Several committees were tasked with
> gathering information and making recommendations on these topics.
>
> Tom discussed these very topics in his opinion piece and did so in
> what we felt was a less than constructive tone. The EC feared that it
> would be inappropriate to print his article in the APGQ at the same
> time our committees and the board were struggling to improve the
> organization. It was a tough call but after a unanimous EC vote I
> wrote Tom of our concerns. “Since you shortly will be a member of the
> APG board we believe that body’s deliberations will be the appropriate
> venue for addressing issues you have with the organization’s
> membership, structure, and management. Focusing your experience,
> energy and concern for APG internally will be a positive corrective
> step; projecting the critical and mostly unflattering statements made
> in the article undermine the hard work being tackled by the current
> and future boards and provide fodder to the individuals who frequently
> attack our organization.”
>
> Reading the responses to Melinde’s posting was a painful process for
> me. It was painful to see suggestion that the EC had acted
> unethically or that we had moved to censure Tom and silence his
> opinions. We directed that the article be pulled from the December
> issue and then we offered Tom what we honestly felt was an opportunity
> to use his talents, his experience, and his strong feelings internally
> to improve APG. We did not want to silence him – we simply suggested
> another venue for his work.
>
> One of our concerns was that our organization has many “subscriber”
> members. These mainly are libraries and organizations that want our
> publication for their facilities. It is through our publication on a
> library shelf that many learn about us and from us. Tom’s article (and
> I paraphrase) points out that our membership criteria resembling those
> of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers and that such organizations as
> the Association of Professional Piercers have stronger membership
> requirements than APG. We were not concerned about our own members
> reading the article, but feared that potential clients and potential
> members would read Tom’s criticism of our organization and write us
> off as unsavory.
>
> Many of you have judged the EC harshly for the decision to pull this
> article from the December issue. I hope that this explanation helps
> you to understand how we viewed the matter and how we reached our
> decision. Whether it was a wise or foolish decision, I at least hope
> that you understand we did not try to silence Tom or keep his thoughts
> under wraps. We simply asked that he work with us in what we thought
> would be a more positive way in the efforts as we continue to approach
> the problems.
>
> I have never written anything more sincere than when I wrote to Tom
> “The EC and the PAC believe that your article would be an excellent
> internal document for discussion by the APG board rather than a public
> article that would forever remain in print and circulation. Your
> credentials, experience, and willingness to analyze APG’s problems
> will make you an excellent board member working toward positive
> changes in the organization and making the organization a stronger one.”
>
> The EC and the board met today and agreed that in light of the
> unfortunate way it came into a public discussion on this list, it is
> best that the article be printed in the December issue. The issue
> won’t get into your hands this month because Matt now has to shift to
> accommodate the article. Each of you will have the chance to judge for
> yourself the value of Tom’s assessments. I hope you will then share
> your thoughts and opinions on what you read. I ask only that you
> believe me when I say this was not a matter of censorship as you were
> initially led to believe.
>
> Melinde also asked readers of her post “is it proper for a member of
> my chapter who has participated materially and constructively in APG
> to be accused, tried, convicted, and suspended in absentia behind
> closed doors?” She also called this a hypothetical situation. A member
> of her chapter recently was suspended as a member of this
> organization. To say that she was “tried, convicted and suspended in
> absentia behind closed doors,” however, is very misleading.
>
> When a member is accused of violating the Code of Ethics, as I
> explained earlier, the matter goes through an administrative process
> and is given to the PRC. These matters are kept behind closed doors
> for the protection of the accused member. We are very strict that no
> board, EC or committee member is allowed to discuss the details of the
> matter outside the confines of committee or board meetings. The
> procedure calls for the member to be notified immediately of the
> complaint and all allegations. The member can respond with as much
> evidence and information as he/she desires. The PRC reviews all the
> materials, makes a decision and recommends action to the EC. If the
> recommendation is for suspension of membership, the matter then goes
> to the full board for approval. The member is then notified of the
> suspension and has an appeals process, which includes a hearing before
> the board.
>
> APG does provide full due process to any accused member. The matter as
> Melinde described it did not happen. The complaint against the member
> in her chapter was investigated and the EC and Board all approved the
> recommendation of suspension. The member was given the right to
> appeal; she did not.
>
> Melinde’s post asked “If a nationally known speaker was pulled out of
> a banquet talk - after the publicity and syllabus was out - because
> something s/he was expected to say was "unapproved" by the APG EC,
> what would you think?” This has never happened and I do not understand
> Melinde’s motive in making such a suggestion.
>
> Melinde’s raised other issues in her posting. She asked “what if your
> APG EC took an email sent to this list and censored it so that it
> never appeared, what would you think?” First of all, I am not aware
> that this can be done. Once something is aired on this list, it is
> archived and remains there. Only the person who made the post can
> remove it. Last year a member posted comments that were extremely
> unprofessional and were defamatory about other members. Several
> complaints were received. The EC asked him to remove those from the
> archives, which he agreed to do, and we placed him into a monitoring
> status so that our Rootweb coordinator saw each of his posts before
> they became public. (This is the procedure set forth by Rootsweb
> which hosts our list.) This action was our way of protecting the
> bashing of other members. That offending member attempted no
> inappropriate posts during the monitoring period, so nothing he said
> was ever censured. The monitoring has been removed and his posts go
> online without review just as all of yours do.
>
> The bottom line of Melinde’s post was that the EC micromanages the
> operation of APG. Her final question was “should we accept invisible
> micromanagement from the APG EC?” My answer is that you should not. I
> am confident that I speak for the entire EC when I say that we welcome
> input from members. We have asked for it on a number of occasions. The
> EC meets monthly for a telephone conference that usually lasts two-
> three hours. We exchange emails regularly. None of this is “secret.”
> Our secretary John Wylie takes minutes and these are sent to each
> board member. Recently a chapter representative asked if minutes
> could be sent to the chapters. When the ED passed the question to me,
> I immediately told her to send them and was glad that a chapter asked
> for them. At the next EC meeting we discussed and agreed that the
> minutes, as of that November meeting, will be posted in the Members
> Only section of the website so that any member can see what happened
> at each meeting. If you have questions when you read the minutes,
> please ask.
>
> Barring some other controversial eruption on this list during the next
> 20 days, this probably will be my last communication to you as
> president. My term expires 31 December, and Jake Gehring will assume
> the reigns of leadership on 1 January. Contrary to some insinuations
> that have been made the members of the EC have not tried to suppress,
> silently direct or keep anything from the membership. We have worked
> within policy and procedure to make the wisest decisions we could for
> the organization. We have been a cohesive team—Jake Gehring, John
> Wylie, Beverly Rice and me. We have been willing to disagree, discuss,
> and then reach a consensus for the organization. We haven’t always
> agreed, and we have had some mighty interesting discussions. There is
> no doubt in my mind, however, that we all four respect each other.
> We’ve been willing to make the calls we sincerely believed policy and
> procedure had tasked us to make. No organization could function if a
> full board was consulted on every decision; no organization could
> function if the members were democratically asked to vote on every
> issue.
>
> We took our offices because we believe in the objectives of APG and in
> improving the profession. I don’t believe any of us expected accolades
> for our work; it would, however, be rewarding to know that at least
> the membership knows we gave it our best and for the right reasons,
> not for any power or self-promotion.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to have served as the president of APG.
> I hope you all have a wonderful and safe holiday season.
>
>
>
> Sharon Moody, APG President
>
>
>
> Sharon Moody, CG
> Moody Genealogical Services
> 2019 Grantham Greens Drive
> Sun City Center, FL 33573
>
> 813-642-8635
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>


Sandy Johansen

cell 303-324-5245

This thread: