View Poll Results: Should folks on the EC Nominating Committee be able to self nominate
Yes they should be allowed to Self Nominate
9
47.37%
No they should not be allowed to Self Nominate
10
52.63%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll
The Self Nominating Candidate for AMA President , Good idea or bad idea ?
08-11-2016, 04:52 AM
#51
Andy, I don't want to put words in your mouth but your statement would imply that anyone who is nominated is placed on the ballot, as long as the number of people nominated is equal to or less than 3.
I don't think that is the case. Am I wrong? The committee still approves anyone before they go on the ballot.
And in that balloting (nominating) process you could vote on yourself, or vote out someone that might run against you. Is that right?
I don't think that is the case. Am I wrong? The committee still approves anyone before they go on the ballot.
And in that balloting (nominating) process you could vote on yourself, or vote out someone that might run against you. Is that right?
As for the last line that is potentially correct but remember that is only one vote out of 12.
Also, if the incumbent runs, they are automatically placed on the ballot unless 3/4 of the committee votes them off (though Bob didn't re-run so that wasn't the case this year)
08-11-2016, 05:02 AM
#52
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The committee approves who goes on the ballot. In my short tenure I haven't seen a case where less than 3 names were submitted but I assume (my personal interpretation without knowing everything that historically has taken place) that with less than 3 people the committee would review that they meet the qualifications and they met the deadlines and if both were the case they would be on the ballot.
As for the last line that is potentially correct but remember that is only one vote out of 12.
Also, if the incumbent runs, they are automatically placed on the ballot unless 3/4 of the committee votes them off (though Bob didn't re-run so that wasn't the case this year)
As for the last line that is potentially correct but remember that is only one vote out of 12.
Also, if the incumbent runs, they are automatically placed on the ballot unless 3/4 of the committee votes them off (though Bob didn't re-run so that wasn't the case this year)
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Qualified per the By-laws
Section 4.
To be eligible to discharge the duties of AMA President or Executive Vice President, the nominee must be a Leader Member of the AMA, and must previously have served as a member of the Executive Council or as Associate Vice President or as a Contest Board member for at least one year. To be eligible for the position of any AMA elected or appointed office, including Associate Vice President, the individual must be recorded in the Membership department as a Leader Member before the date of application or nomination.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-11-2016 at 05:32 AM. Reason: Forgot to attach By-Laws diffention of "qualified"
08-11-2016, 05:13 AM
#53
Correct on all counts. Now that's why I suggested that maybe we need to look at the 3 on the ballot limit in the by-laws. Since we had a qualified "outsider" ( for lack of a better word) this election cycle who did not get on the ballot due to the nominating committee it limited the memberships ability to select from a larger pool of candidates.
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Mike
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Mike
Last edited by RCKen; 08-16-2016 at 12:46 PM.
08-11-2016, 05:22 AM
#54
Since we had a qualified "outsider" ( for lack of a better word) this election cycle who did not get on the ballot due to the nominating committee
The reason he didn't get on the ballot in the first place is because he did not qualify. That's how the process works. Your use of "qualified" is based on personal preference rather than the technical merit of the terms and conditions of the by-laws.
it limited the memberships ability to select from a larger pool of candidates.
It hasn't done that at all. That's why the write-in option is available.
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Mike
The reason he didn't get on the ballot in the first place is because he did not qualify. That's how the process works. Your use of "qualified" is based on personal preference rather than the technical merit of the terms and conditions of the by-laws.
it limited the memberships ability to select from a larger pool of candidates.
It hasn't done that at all. That's why the write-in option is available.
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Mike
08-11-2016, 05:42 AM
#55
Correct on all counts. Now that's why I suggested that maybe we need to look at the 3 on the ballot limit in the by-laws. Since we had a qualified "outsider" ( for lack of a better word) this election cycle who did not get on the ballot due to the nominating committee it limited the memberships ability to select from a larger pool of candidates.
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Qualified per the By-laws
Section 4.
To be eligible to discharge the duties of AMA President or Executive Vice President, the nominee must be a Leader Member of the AMA, and must previously have served as a member of the Executive Council or as Associate Vice President or as a Contest Board member for at least one year. To be eligible for the position of any AMA elected or appointed office, including Associate Vice President, the individual must be recorded in the Membership department as a Leader Member before the date of application or nomination.
Mike
Like I said just think aloud and outside the box and no I don't want to burn the AMA to the ground and start over..
Qualified per the By-laws
Section 4.
To be eligible to discharge the duties of AMA President or Executive Vice President, the nominee must be a Leader Member of the AMA, and must previously have served as a member of the Executive Council or as Associate Vice President or as a Contest Board member for at least one year. To be eligible for the position of any AMA elected or appointed office, including Associate Vice President, the individual must be recorded in the Membership department as a Leader Member before the date of application or nomination.
Mike
Last edited by RCKen; 08-16-2016 at 12:47 PM.
08-11-2016, 12:49 PM
#56
Ok gentlemen, time for me to step in here. You will notice that a huge chuck of this thread has just disappeared from thread. That is because there has been a lot of OFF TOPIC childish arguing and bickering from members that is totally out of line here. And before any of you start pointing fingers and say it was the "AMA-haters", "trolls", "pro-AMA" people, or whatever I will tell you that it was coming from BOTH SIDES of the arguments.
I'm going to address one issue here that somebody has sent me in a PM so that it's out in the open. They address why I don't get into these AMA threads "sooner" and stop all the "haters" and "trolls" from causing problems. Well first of all, I'm not a babysitter and I shouldn't have to come in here every minute of every day to make sure you all play nice with each other. Second of all, if I did that these threads would be worthless for actual discussions. I try to stay out of the threads because for the most part a lot of the members that want to be here and see what's going with the AMA are mature adults who can carry on a civil conversation without it turning into a mud slinging competition. It's sad that a few people that act so childish can ruin this forum for everybody. And before some of you stand up and pound your chest and say I told you so, let me say that there are people on both sides of this that are causing the problem.
So here's the deal. I'm going to issue an open warning. There are going to be some bannings coming down if you all don't learn to work and play together. I don't care you guys hate each others guts, you WILL learn to get along in these forums. PERIOD. If not you will be gone. I am sick of seeing this crap. I'm not going to give any more warnings to those that are causing these issues, and for those that are doing you know who you are. So take my message to heart as when the ban comes it will come quick and hard. Do you act this way in the real world??? When you are at the flying field to you get into a wild rage against people that you don't agree with?? If you do then I truly feel sorry for you. But I doubt that you, so why do you do it here? I know why. It's be cause you are behind a computer screen. If you all acted like this in the real world the other guy would more than likely punch you in the nose. But since you are behind a computer screen you think you can act like a total jerk without anything happening to you. Well you had better figure out how to get along with all the people that are in the these forums discussing these issues, because if you can't you will be gone. And before anybody sends me a PM, or posts here, saying that they are trying to get rid of the "bad guys" I don't care. EVERYBODY will behave here. PERIOD.
For those of you that aren't getting out of line I do apologize that you had to read this. But it needed to be done.
Ken
I'm going to address one issue here that somebody has sent me in a PM so that it's out in the open. They address why I don't get into these AMA threads "sooner" and stop all the "haters" and "trolls" from causing problems. Well first of all, I'm not a babysitter and I shouldn't have to come in here every minute of every day to make sure you all play nice with each other. Second of all, if I did that these threads would be worthless for actual discussions. I try to stay out of the threads because for the most part a lot of the members that want to be here and see what's going with the AMA are mature adults who can carry on a civil conversation without it turning into a mud slinging competition. It's sad that a few people that act so childish can ruin this forum for everybody. And before some of you stand up and pound your chest and say I told you so, let me say that there are people on both sides of this that are causing the problem.
So here's the deal. I'm going to issue an open warning. There are going to be some bannings coming down if you all don't learn to work and play together. I don't care you guys hate each others guts, you WILL learn to get along in these forums. PERIOD. If not you will be gone. I am sick of seeing this crap. I'm not going to give any more warnings to those that are causing these issues, and for those that are doing you know who you are. So take my message to heart as when the ban comes it will come quick and hard. Do you act this way in the real world??? When you are at the flying field to you get into a wild rage against people that you don't agree with?? If you do then I truly feel sorry for you. But I doubt that you, so why do you do it here? I know why. It's be cause you are behind a computer screen. If you all acted like this in the real world the other guy would more than likely punch you in the nose. But since you are behind a computer screen you think you can act like a total jerk without anything happening to you. Well you had better figure out how to get along with all the people that are in the these forums discussing these issues, because if you can't you will be gone. And before anybody sends me a PM, or posts here, saying that they are trying to get rid of the "bad guys" I don't care. EVERYBODY will behave here. PERIOD.
For those of you that aren't getting out of line I do apologize that you had to read this. But it needed to be done.
Ken
08-11-2016, 02:02 PM
#57
Hi Tim , Ok , for real , it's "olive branch" time for this thread , ya ready ? You say my poll wording does not accurately reflect the question as it should be . My question was formed by what I read in these following posts I've quoted here . Can you , reading the below posts , suggest wording that you feel will most accurately portray the question taken from these posts ? Now I am 100% serious here , if you can present to me better , more accurate wording of the question I will modify the original post to use your description , of this you have my word . I really want to know how you feel this should be worded because this poll was never intended to deceive anyone , it was a quickly worded question based on what I read below .....
How about if two of the four candidates recused themselves from the nominating committee because their hats were in the ring? Weren't there enough committee members to arrive at a decision without them? Maybe it would make no difference on candidate selection, but it might appear less 'fixed' to interested onlookers than it does now. One prominent (by post count) poster's stock answer to anyone that has quibble with AMA is to question "why don't you step up to the plate and do something about it" usually along with some derogatory ad hom crap. Now we are seeing his reaction when someone does just that.
With a situation where you have 4 more than qualified candidates for the same position and the By Laws say you can only have 3 on the ballot and those making the decision on who are it are voting for themselves maybe a bit of outside input would be a good idea. In this case involving the AMA Leader Members.
Just thinking outside the box here.
Mike
Just thinking outside the box here.
Mike
Yep. LM's can submit changes to the By-Laws to be voted on but I'm not sure they can vote on said change. While EC members can vote for themselves to be put on the ballot it does look rather "fishy" ( for lack of a better word) when a qualified "outsider" is left off, does it not?
Why put themselves in this position and because they can isn't a explanation.
Mike
Why put themselves in this position and because they can isn't a explanation.
Mike
Last edited by RCKen; 08-16-2016 at 12:47 PM.
08-11-2016, 07:10 PM
#58
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Hi Tim , Ok , for real , it's "olive branch" time for this thread , ya ready ? You say my poll wording does not accurately reflect the question as it should be . My question was formed by what I read in these following posts I've quoted here . Can you , reading the below posts , suggest wording that you feel will most accurately portray the question taken from these posts ? Now I am 100% serious here , if you can present to me better , more accurate wording of the question I will modify the original post to use your description , of this you have my word . I really want to know how you feel this should be worded because this poll was never intended to deceive anyone , it was a quickly worded question based on what I read below .....
As for the poll question, not sure if a change now is needed, or could even be done. It seemed like it was asked under the impression that a member could nominate themselves, when this wasn't the case. And honestly, based on how the results from the last poll you did were sort of used as an eexampleto justify a position (and it's been done again here even after pointing out the flaw in the question, perhaps that's where things went south, at least for me. Perhaps a more generic question like " are changes needed in the nominating process", or something like that could/would be better. At the end of the day though, you would probably see the same responses we see here. Folks just seem to be content with the way things go, until they are not. Then they want change, but it's impossible to get a 100 percent consensus on what that change should be.
08-12-2016, 07:56 AM
#60
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Asked and answered...and ignored.
Lol...by all means keep it as is. It's a testament to the ignorance of the nominating process, and the stubbornness and refusal to accept same. Like I said before... we've seen how these self fulfilling polls work andhow the numbers become soooo meaningful in one context or another, you've already done that once here. I'm not hearing much on the current 50/50 split....of 18 responses. I'll check back when it hits 25, at that point the results will officially be scientific.
Lol...by all means keep it as is. It's a testament to the ignorance of the nominating process, and the stubbornness and refusal to accept same. Like I said before... we've seen how these self fulfilling polls work andhow the numbers become soooo meaningful in one context or another, you've already done that once here. I'm not hearing much on the current 50/50 split....of 18 responses. I'll check back when it hits 25, at that point the results will officially be scientific.
08-12-2016, 08:29 AM
#61
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tim , Ok , for real , it's "olive branch" time for this thread , ya ready ? You say my poll wording does not accurately reflect the question as it should be . My question was formed by what I read in these following posts I've quoted here . Can you , reading the below posts , suggest wording that you feel will most accurately portray the question taken from these posts ? Now I am 100% serious here , if you can present to me better , more accurate wording of the question I will modify the original post to use your description , of this you have my word . I really want to know how you feel this should be worded because this poll was never intended to deceive anyone , it was a quickly worded question based on what I read below .....
Yes, committee members should be allowed to nominate other committee members.
No, committee members shouldn't be allowed to nominate other committee members.
I'm not an English major, but I feel this may be less confusing? Right, wrong or indifferent, I feel that my wording may ask the question with less confusion and does not insinuate that shenanigans are happening within the Nomination Committee. But rather asks the question while being in line to the bylaws, committee nomination guidelines and Robert's Rules of Order.
If you feel anything that I've typed above has made you angry, stop. That is not the intent of the post. The intent of the post is to help and not be rude, mean or any other negative thing. No agenda. Nothing.
Just pure honesty to help keep that olive branch virgin.
