Originally Posted by
franklin_m
No. The issue is the use of those single words to limit transparency. What is so difficult about posting something like this as an agenda:
"Meeting called under Article VIII, Section 2, of the AMA Bylaws to select new Executive Director."
Some see things like this as proof that the AMA HQ/EC resist transparency. Other examples include refusal to share demographic data WRT members. Another example would be the refusal to share data about usage of the "Taj-Muncie" facility. Yet another example would be over $1 million in "expenses" that are uncategorized. And the one before this, not responding to a question about whether members paid for Hanson's Australia boondoggle.
You have quite a unique way of looking at things. " Members paid for " , I don't see where I paid for anything other then my insurance and access to AMA sites. As far as I know that didn't change recently. I'm much more concerned with where my 400.00 per week in taxes goes. If I use your mentality my taxes gives me the right to have an exact accounting of where my money goes right? We both quickly realize how silly that sounds.
I am amused that you criticize the AMA's choice of words yet play the word game yourself. I realize that you play by a different set of rules based on your perceived level of entitlement. A good example of this is when you recently misquoted me on RGG. I used the phrase " to discuss a waiver to fly over 400" and you quoted me as to say " to share news of a waiver ". Completely different meanings. Have you corrected that error over there yet? Sounds a bit hippo critical to me that you demand a certain level of transparency/correctness from the AMA but seem not willing to do so yourself.