KidEpoxy

???????
lemme read that info again, cause I dont think they told Hoss it was going to be 3 on the ballot.

yeah.... I really dont see where you are getting the '3' from outta the info Hoss was given.
Sure, I understand why you want to add your own '3' to change what the leaked info said,
but then that is just your speculation rather than info leaked from muncie by a whistleblower.

I can interpret that too:
The text, it seems in my interpretation,
is very clear that they will be having Tuna Sandwiches at the nomcom meeting.
Interpretation of 'five names will be on the ballot', right?

If we learned anything from the Lawnmower Thread,
its that all leaks from muncie are supposed to be taken as gospel, right?
Or is it that propaganda leaks are gospel while whistleblowers are just making stuff up

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

My interpretation is as follows. The Nominating Committee has not yet met, therefore there is no ballot yet. Perhaps the person sending the email to Hoss erroneously called the slate of proposed candidates before the Nominating Committee a "ballot". Should that be the case, no harm, no foul, and the committee will trim two names off the list in accordance with the Standing Rules.

Possible interpretation 2 is that the committee members, in advance of the meeting, are discussing incluing all 5 proposed candidates on the national ballot, and by the emailers assessment, there is general support for that among the committee. This would appear to be contrary to the Standing Rules, but might be considered to be in the best interest of the AMA membership by giving us a broader choice of candidates. The way the rule is worded could be considered ambiguous, since it says (d) Ballot is limited to three (3) nominees, but not required, per office. Since the Standing Rules say "but not required", that could be loosely interpreted as giving the committee authority to include more than 3 nominees if there are more than three qualified candidates. I admit its a stretch.

Third interpretation is that there is a nefarious plot to make sure Hoss is on the ballot this time, but make sure the vote is so splintered that he won't recieve sufficient votes to be elected. I would prefer my elected leaders at least give equal consideration to each of the possible interpretations.

Brad

Hossfly

So this reply says to BK. In all reality it replies to the thread as a whole.

My DVP did respond. He says in so many words that the Bylaws and the Standing Rules would be applied to the letter of the law.
I did mention that the EC could at the last minute vote for a change to the standing rule. I really would not object to such. I would very probably have a better chance, with 5 candidates. The Bylaws require a Leader Member vote to change. So no run-off elections for the candidates., just the majority.
Now to all of you that like to say I am not nice enough, well maybe so. I told my DVP that I don't trust anyone in the election crowd at AMA. WHY NOT?

Here are a few reasons;
Jim, that sounds great for your side. Now on my side, I've been subjected to a Hall-of-Famer, exDVP, going in at midnight, with his buddy and changing scoresheets so his bud wins a contest dropping me down to 2nd from 1st.

I experienced being dropped from the reelection ballot by the nominating committee, then having the write-in ballots hidden by the AMA Ex. Director, then being found by AMA Pres. Earl Witt who required they be counted. I was reelected by write-in. That resulted = sometime later = in the ballots going to the auditor. Same thing can happen there, so what's the deal? Had I not been elected for 1981, it might have been a different outcome for the final FCC release of the 72 MHz frequencies. The minutes of the Nov. 11 1981 EC minutes are not exactly correct but look better than the actual. HA! (I was NOT a Freq. Comm. member) BTW the Freq. Chairman of that time is still very active. Later, I nominated him for Hall of Fame. Took 2 tries but he made it after some things got explained to the "good ol boys."

BTW, an AMA employee also told me the run-off for Sec. Treas. in 1981 was well seeded. I won but back then the winner had to have 51%. I had 49% with 3 nominees. I LOST the run-off to city hall. I have a number of other such items.

SO JIM, If you think for one minute that I do not trust anyone in this AMA political machine, thenYOU are thinking CORRECTLY.

So do I trust the original information provider? Actually yes. He has no ax to grind with, for, against me one way or another.
We can disagree and go on from there. He does have a penchant for being truthful. If he has a fault it's simply that he is one devil of a better toy airplane builder and flier than me.

Silent-AV8R

Horrace, your grievances go back 30 years. I am curious if you feel that nothing has happened in 30 years to change your mind. How many of those who slighted you are still around? How many are on the EC?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

One thing is for sure, after learning of such egregious actions it is truly amazing how anyone can just blindly follow along... no matter how things appear to them.

KidEpoxy

Hoss

I guess I was right:
'Or is it that propaganda leaks are gospel while whistleblowers are just making stuff up'.
Pro-muncie leaks are to be posted and endorsed (lawnmower thread),
while whistleblowers are to be called liars disputed by folks without facts contrary to the claim

KidEpoxy

Silent
30years?
The whistleblower talked about stuff happening just DAYS/weeks ago, not 30 years ago.
You want to say the AMA election shameful junk was 30years ago,
yet it is this month we see leaked info on yet more shameful election junk going on.

Why bring up the election garbage from 30 yearts ago?
Because it shows that what the leak claims is NOT a far stretch
considering election monkey business has happened before long ago,
and possibly happened a few years ago,
and now again there is a leak saying it is happening now

Silent-AV8R

Thanks KE and LCS, but I was looking for Horrace to answer. I am curious how he has sustained such distrust for so long and if nothing has happened since to allow him to lessen that distrust. As to the alleged recent actions, it is not clear that in fact anything happened. What we have seen is a second hand report of someone who may or may not poses the actual facts.

So again, I am curious Horrace if there has been anything in the last 30 years that has reduced your elvel of mistrust of the AMA leadership, their motives, or objectives?

Hossfly

Yes there have been a few items that sustain my mistrust. BTW, by nature I much rather listen to what is NOT said, read between the lines, than most rhetoric thrown my way.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Would the results of the 2008 election have sustained your mistrust of the membership at large as well as the EC?

AMA Executive Vice President
Horrace Cain 5,709
Mark Smith 10,106
Other 932

What does this tell you, reading between the lines?

Should you make it on the ballot this time would you expect things to change?

bradpaul

I believe Albert Einstein had something to say about that............

Brad

rt3232

My Feedback: (6)

Red

I have never met you Mark Smith or Horrace, But having read articals /post etc by all of you, I will say this, if all three of you were judging the hifgt of a pile of B&*S I would go with Horrace, just my opionion. and way back in the late 40's I saw score cards changed during a U-control contest to get the local guy in first so I know it's out there.

One outher thing if just 10 % of the stories about ballets being misplaced or not counted with in the AMA I would ? the 2008 vote big time.

Cheers Bob T
Ama 13377

Hossfly

There are those that just keep trying. Besides I think there just may be some future AMA Officers that have enough guts to take up the flag and keep the AMA going. Here they may have learned from me just how well the entrenched can remain entrenched as long as so many are afraid of standing up and being counted.

Think on this one.
Abraham Lincoln was mostly self-educated yet he became a country lawyer, an Illinois state legislator, and a one-term member of the United States House of Representatives but failed in two attempts at a seat in the United States Senate.

1832 Abe Lincoln fails election to IL General Assembly

1834 Abe is elected to General Assembly, reelected in 1836

1843 - Lincoln is unsuccessful in his try for the Whig nomination for U.S. Congress

1846 - On May 1st, Abe is nominated to be the Whig candidate for U.S. Congress. On August 3rd, Abraham Lincoln is elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

1849 - March 7th and 8th, Lincoln makes an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Illinois statute of limitations, but is unsuccessful

1854 - Lincoln re-enters politics, opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He is elected to the Illinois legislature but declines the seat, hoping instead to become a U.S. Senator (appointed by the legislature).

1855 - Lincoln does not get chosen by the Illinois legislature to be U.S. Senator.

1858 On June 16th, he is nominated to be the Republican Senator from Illinois, opposing Democrat Stephen A. Douglas

1859 - The Illinois legislature chooses Douglas for the U.S. Senate over Lincoln by a vote of 54 to 46
FINAL:

November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln is elected as 16th President of the United States, and is the first Republican.

Without that good ol' "Stay Longer" where would Abe have been? Where would the USA be, not considering the present situation.

KidEpoxy

>>Should you make it on the ballot this time would you expect things to change?

I believe Albert Einstein had something to say about that.....


oh snap, the ole Einstein 'expect different' line
Lemme do one, them are fun:
... see how fun them Einstein diff result lines are[8D]

Longbaskt

My Feedback: (5)

Wow, I read this thread at first to get information... now I see that no matter what the AMA does, people won't believe them... they are "Secret", it's the GOB's, they cheat in counting...  And you continue to post about all this?  REALLY?  If you don't believe them and you think your votes being thrown away... is there a point to your posting other than just *****ing?  Stand Up! Turn around. Pick up a plane and go fly.  Just be sure to keep the tin-foil on your head so the aliens don't read your thoughts.  Some people are just too funny!

KidEpoxy

it would be real hard to find things being too secret
if they did them without closed door meeting.
Ever consider what the justification is to have the nomination committee meeting be closed doors
rather than allowing AMA members to silently sit in to watch the process?
Heck, they might even actually read the resumes of the applicants before judging, if we were watching them.


The LMs can change the bylaws
and those folks were not voted in by the members.
Now we hear guys saying the membership shouldnt even be allowed
to know what the LMs are talking about doing with the org.
Take that TermLimit vote for example: How exactly were the membership suppose to let the LMs know what the membership wants to happen, if we cant even know who the LMs are to ask them to vote one way or the other. The org is at the hands of closed-door appointed-for-life guys that never had to be elected, and now we cant even hear what they are planning to do with our org

phlpsfrnk

If you are an AMA member please take this Poll.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/tm.aspx?m=13555

Regards
Frank