Serial Numbers on AMA Ballots ????
09-20-2016, 10:28 AM
#76
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Fair enough, I guess I just don't see the logic in not trusting the AMA (the staff really) to count ballots, but trusting them to hire someone else to do it for a fee.
Odd when 95% of the EC works for free, and get no benefits other than expense reimbursement for their Alamo car rental and lunch at Chilis. They do get adorned shirts, but no lapel pins. Perhaps it's those admin and clerical folks who deserve to have their integrity questioned.
Odd when 95% of the EC works for free, and get no benefits other than expense reimbursement for their Alamo car rental and lunch at Chilis. They do get adorned shirts, but no lapel pins. Perhaps it's those admin and clerical folks who deserve to have their integrity questioned.
09-20-2016, 10:45 AM
#78
09-20-2016, 11:12 AM
#79
Hi Franklin , That's an interesting choice of a word there ; naive ........
It's what I was called when I tried to assert a few months ago that my fellow AMA members are honest enough to not go filing false insurance claims if there were no police report or proof of signs of forced entry required . And yet I'm supposed to unflinchingly accept that each and every one of the entire AMA EC and all staff are incapable of having an all too human moment and giving in to the temptation of skewing results in their favor ? So I guess I gotta ask , what do you Franklin think is the cutoff point whereby us untrustworthy basic members suddenly become infallible robots , incapable of ever making a human mistake and taking advantage , is it just above basic member ? Maybe ya gotta be a leader member before your infallible ? Life member perhaps ? Or does it take appointment to the EC staff to reach such elevated superhuman status as to never be able to even consider giving in to temptation ? Jesus said ; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" because he in his divinity knew that ALL humans are likely at one time or another to have given in to temptation , and that far more have than would ever publicly admit it . Checks & balances work . They were created with good reason , to keep temptation in check . And I believe the integrity of our election does deserve the check & balance of an outside count .
09-20-2016, 11:31 AM
#81
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-20-2016, 11:39 AM
#82
"Trust , But Verify"
09-20-2016, 12:12 PM
#83
Hi RG , Yes I do believe the AMA does a good job of representing aeromodeling and I am happy to be a part of our organization because of things like the scholarships given to the young members . I really wouldn't change much except maybe I'd put less into the magazine and more into the scholarships and of course the outside counting of the ballots but I can't really think of much else , maybe a 5 year renewal option or something like that but I don't know of any other changes I'd make . I do think having a national organization gives the hobby a bit of "Hobby Cred" in the same way many other hobbies have their own organizations .
09-20-2016, 12:26 PM
#85
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-20-2016, 01:49 PM
#87
Hi Franklin , That's an interesting choice of a word there ; naive ........
It's what I was called when I tried to assert a few months ago that my fellow AMA members are honest enough to not go filing false insurance claims if there were no police report or proof of signs of forced entry required . And yet I'm supposed to unflinchingly accept that each and every one of the entire AMA EC and all staff are incapable of having an all too human moment and giving in to the temptation of skewing results in their favor ? So I guess I gotta ask , what do you Franklin think is the cutoff point whereby us untrustworthy basic members suddenly become infallible robots , incapable of ever making a human mistake and taking advantage , is it just above basic member ? Maybe ya gotta be a leader member before your infallible ? Life member perhaps ? Or does it take appointment to the EC staff to reach such elevated superhuman status as to never be able to even consider giving in to temptation ? Jesus said ; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" because he in his divinity knew that ALL humans are likely at one time or another to have given in to temptation , and that far more have than would ever publicly admit it . Checks & balances work . They were created with good reason , to keep temptation in check . And I believe the integrity of our election does deserve the check & balance of an outside count .
It's common to see stories of embezzlement and ballot stuffing in something as minor as little league chapters, or high school booster clubs (have had both in my immediate area). When you're talking about someone leading a group that deals with millions of dollars annually, then there's millions of reasons to ... "Trust but verify."
So I guess the answer has nothing to do with size of the organization, it is really whether or not humans are involved -- especially if those humans stand to be affected in some way depending upon how the results come out (almost always).
09-20-2016, 02:40 PM
#88
I gotta say, you guys are making me a little mad.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
09-20-2016, 05:11 PM
#90
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gotta say, you guys are making me a little mad.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
Mike.
Last edited by rcmiket; 09-20-2016 at 05:13 PM.
09-20-2016, 05:29 PM
#91
I gotta say, you guys are making me a little mad.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
several yeas ago, one group of staff/ec folks got caught rigging a DVP election, so, we went to out of house counting. now, what has occurred once can occur again.
that is the real point here.
remember, "those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."
09-20-2016, 06:01 PM
#92
well,,
several yeas ago, one group of staff/ec folks got caught rigging a DVP election, so, we went to out of house counting. now, what has occurred once can occur again.
that is the real point here.
remember, "those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."
several yeas ago, one group of staff/ec folks got caught rigging a DVP election, so, we went to out of house counting. now, what has occurred once can occur again.
that is the real point here.
remember, "those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."
Last edited by init4fun; 09-25-2016 at 01:15 PM. Reason: not typos this time , got a name wrong I had to fix instead
09-20-2016, 06:15 PM
#93
I truly hope folks realize that my call for an outside count is by no means a direct accusation of anyone , and intended only to preserve the integrity of the election . Yes I do believe a good 95 to 98 % of all folks to be honest , maybe even more , maybe 99% , but with the belief I have that in any given population there could be 1 to 5 % of the folks who might take advantage , an outside count would assure that a weak moment by someone wouldn't falsely skew the results . That's all , no direct accusations or saying that I think there is some patent dishonesty running rampant through the EC , cause I don't think that at all , just the desire to have the purest results possible by removing one variable , that of temptation .....
09-20-2016, 10:06 PM
#94
I gotta say, you guys are making me a little mad.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
The folks at HQ work hard and have very little invested in who wins the presidential election. They work for the Executive Director, not the AMA President.
I disagree with you on many counts but until now have always respected your opinions and your service Frank, but quite honestly this is a new low, to accuse the HQ staff of rigging an election or trashing your ballot.
Poor taste.
Hardly fitting of someone who is trying to say that I should trust the process, and trust the people in it. Why should we trust the process when there's been vote rigging at the district level? Seems that if the Muncie royalty was interested in removing all doubt about the integrity of the process, and never give members ANY reason to doubt, they'd avoid counting the votes themselves - but they did not.
As Mike said above, people are honest and trustworthy until "they think it serves them ( or think it's best for us) to be dishonest." I've been vocal in my criticism of the ED, their boss as you pointed out, so that alone is incentive to trash a ballot. Or perhaps some of those counting are long time friends of one candidate? That might serve as incentive to trash a ballot or two. Or lastly the ones counting are some who are involved more heavily in MR stuff, and who's jobs might be at risk if someone was elected that didn't support MRs. That might be incentive. If someone is themselves a member, as small as that might seem, that too could be an incentive to slide a vote or two here and there toward the trash - especially when the voting numbers are small - and a few votes either way can influence the outcome.
Despite your personal attack, there's nothing wrong with anyone questioning the integrity of a process by which the votes are counted by people who are part of staff.
09-20-2016, 10:11 PM
#95
The fact that folks are retired service members or were Viet Nam pilots guarantees nothing. The process itself is flawed. These folks of which you speak had the opportunity to remove all doubt, but did not. That alone is enough reason to question the outcome.
09-21-2016, 02:41 AM
#96
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Randy Cunningham was a "pilot in Viet Nam," earned the Navy Cross in fact - and it didn't stop him from accepting bribes.
The fact that folks are retired service members or were Viet Nam pilots guarantees nothing. The process itself is flawed. These folks of which you speak had the opportunity to remove all doubt, but did not. That alone is enough reason to question the outcome.
The fact that folks are retired service members or were Viet Nam pilots guarantees nothing. The process itself is flawed. These folks of which you speak had the opportunity to remove all doubt, but did not. That alone is enough reason to question the outcome.
09-21-2016, 02:44 AM
#97
"You guys.." but then turning it into a personal attack by calling me out by name?
Hardly fitting of someone who is trying to say that I should trust the process, and trust the people in it. Why should we trust the process when there's been vote rigging at the district level? Seems that if the Muncie royalty was interested in removing all doubt about the integrity of the process, and never give members ANY reason to doubt, they'd avoid counting the votes themselves - but they did not.
As Mike said above, people are honest and trustworthy until "they think it serves them ( or think it's best for us) to be dishonest." I've been vocal in my criticism of the ED, their boss as you pointed out, so that alone is incentive to trash a ballot. Or perhaps some of those counting are long time friends of one candidate? That might serve as incentive to trash a ballot or two. Or lastly the ones counting are some who are involved more heavily in MR stuff, and who's jobs might be at risk if someone was elected that didn't support MRs. That might be incentive. If someone is themselves a member, as small as that might seem, that too could be an incentive to slide a vote or two here and there toward the trash - especially when the voting numbers are small - and a few votes either way can influence the outcome.
Despite your personal attack, there's nothing wrong with anyone questioning the integrity of a process by which the votes are counted by people who are part of staff.
Hardly fitting of someone who is trying to say that I should trust the process, and trust the people in it. Why should we trust the process when there's been vote rigging at the district level? Seems that if the Muncie royalty was interested in removing all doubt about the integrity of the process, and never give members ANY reason to doubt, they'd avoid counting the votes themselves - but they did not.
As Mike said above, people are honest and trustworthy until "they think it serves them ( or think it's best for us) to be dishonest." I've been vocal in my criticism of the ED, their boss as you pointed out, so that alone is incentive to trash a ballot. Or perhaps some of those counting are long time friends of one candidate? That might serve as incentive to trash a ballot or two. Or lastly the ones counting are some who are involved more heavily in MR stuff, and who's jobs might be at risk if someone was elected that didn't support MRs. That might be incentive. If someone is themselves a member, as small as that might seem, that too could be an incentive to slide a vote or two here and there toward the trash - especially when the voting numbers are small - and a few votes either way can influence the outcome.
Despite your personal attack, there's nothing wrong with anyone questioning the integrity of a process by which the votes are counted by people who are part of staff.
Randy Cunningham was a "pilot in Viet Nam," earned the Navy Cross in fact - and it didn't stop him from accepting bribes.
The fact that folks are retired service members or were Viet Nam pilots guarantees nothing. The process itself is flawed. These folks of which you speak had the opportunity to remove all doubt, but did not. That alone is enough reason to question the outcome.
The fact that folks are retired service members or were Viet Nam pilots guarantees nothing. The process itself is flawed. These folks of which you speak had the opportunity to remove all doubt, but did not. That alone is enough reason to question the outcome.
Andy , if you don't agree with Franklin's viewpoint that's all well and fine , tell him so ! But to do so in the way you did , by attacking his personal integrity like that , greatly diminishes YOUR image here , as far as I'm concerned . Personal attacks ? From a moderator ? Sorry buddy , but there IS a line of decency and decorum expected of ALL RCU posters , and your post has very clearly stepped over that line !
Edited to add ;
As to Humans being Human , and making bad decisions at times no matter what station of life they hail from , I'd like to relate here the case of a different , highly decorated helicopter pilot who served in Viet Nam ....
Please google , if you will , the case of a Mr. Alfred Hunter , a Viet Nam veteran and (now) former postal worker . Mr. Hunter , during a conflict with his wife , shot her dead in front of their young child and then stole a Cessna aircraft from a local small airport and flew by and strafed the Post office in Boston , Massachusetts he worked at with the same semiautomatic rifle he used to kill his wife with . Several passes were made and the building was hit multiple times by the rounds he fired . The area this happened in was SO congested with buildings & such that it was said that only an expert pilot could have flown the route he did without hitting something , during his multiple strafing passes of the building . Folks inside were naturally diving for cover and several were injured in the chaos . This is public record , available to anyone who cares to look it up , and is yet another proof of the fact that people , no matter where they come from , can "have their moments" and that there really IS no "Litmus test" of who could snap at a moment's notice as Mr. Hunter did .
Last edited by init4fun; 09-21-2016 at 03:13 AM.
09-21-2016, 03:29 AM
#98
Perhaps the EC heard the complaints or concerns of the membership regarding expenses, and decided to cut them where they could. The same folks complaining about expenses are the same ones looking to have more money spent on an election for a non paid position. This process didn't seem to be an issue for DVP positions until now. Should they use an outside vendor for every decision involving membership voting, including DVP races, as well as Leader Member Bylaw changes? That could get expensive.
09-21-2016, 03:32 AM
#99
Those kinds of posts , especially from someone whose supposed to be a moderator , have no place in a conversation such as this where a simple matter of election policy is being discussed .
Andy , if you don't agree with Franklin's viewpoint that's all well and fine , tell him so ! But to do so in the way you did , by attacking his personal integrity like that , greatly diminishes YOUR image here , as far as I'm concerned.
Andy , if you don't agree with Franklin's viewpoint that's all well and fine , tell him so ! But to do so in the way you did , by attacking his personal integrity like that , greatly diminishes YOUR image here , as far as I'm concerned.
On both counts, it appears to be "Do as I say, not as I do."
09-21-2016, 03:38 AM
#100
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts