init4fun

I have received a private message from a member here I usually respect asking me to prove to him evidence of past fraud in the AMA elections . Now , lets get something out of the way right here , I DO NOT do things in private out of the rest of the board's eyes , anything I have to say in private I'm more than willing to share with the group , and thus I have now disabled my account's PM function as I have no use for it . Now , to the member who asked me that question I will provide my answer here : I , just like Mongo , well remember not only the Hoss election , where yes indeed one could claim the box of missing ballots was an oops , but then again maybe it wasn't , so I do not consider that fraud because It cannot be proven whether it was a deliberate omission or simple carelessness on the part (s) of whoever's responsibility it was that ALL ballots be counted . Some could say it seemed fishy , some will have no problem with it . So we can't really call that one fraud ...... I also remember the second incident Mongo mentions of the rigging of a DVP election and buddy , if that WASN'T fraud I'd really like to hear YOUR idea of what is ! The bottom line here is that all of this info and more is freely available to anyone who cares to search for it and since my beliefs of the integrity of an outside count spurred by the rigged DVP election are NOT on "trial" here , I have no good reason to do the research and spoon feed the info to someone who will not accept my position no matter how much "proof" I provide . Now , since I have promised Ken I will NOT add to his workload by being combative myself and will walk away from any conversation that turns combative , and since that's exactly how I see this conversation going , I will step out of this thread I started for a bit and watch from a distance . I will close with saying it's a real shame , almost a crime really , that topics can't seem to be discussed here without folks making things personal , like the mention of Franklin's military service did . I read the stickies at the top of the page last night , posts dated from before I was even a member here , and saw Ken battling with the same stuff back in 2007 and the guy DOES deserve a break from folks not being able to discuss anything negative about the AMA without the same old BS rearing it's ugly head . The man said it himself , the AMA is NOT PERFECT , and it's not against the RCU rules to talk about negative things about the AMA . In my opinion , despite how many personal attacks seem to come to anyone who sees it as sometimes less than perfect and has the nerve to post about it , it is fair game to ask negative questions just as the man said . Yes , I DO believe we would be better served by an outside count , and that seems to have made me a target for the "AMA is perfect" crowd , as the post that will invariably show up right under mine will attest to . sorry guys NOTHING man made is perfect , no matter how hard you try to browbeat me otherwise .

Trust , but Verify

Later .......

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

There sure has been lots of talk of fraud, and yet not a single conclusive case if it has been proven here. Second hand stories, rumors, and allegations. There's nothing combative about asking for specific and actual proof of these allegations. Leaving the discussion after starting it, or not participating in the discussion is a personal choice, and I'm not saying it's incumbent in you to provide links etc, but so far it's just ruminations about the past. I suspect there will not be any actual proof forthcoming and the reason given will be something along the lines of "well it was a cover up"...but it would be nice to be able to look at all the information to arrive at the best conclusion. Having folks who were actually involved, not just I heard from a friend etc ..would be even better.

I don't think we should trust that these things happened in the past without trying to verify if they did. Seems only fair.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Even though we disagree on some stuff I'm with porcia83 on this one. If there was fraud show us the evidence and not in the form of rumor, innuendo, or secondhand gossip. Otherwise you will be counted as just another rumor monger with little or no credibility. This is not a personal attack and don't try to distract the conversation from the facts by calling so, this is a simple reasonable request for factual information. If there is fraud shows us, we want to see credible evidence so we might call for accountability from the AMA and/or those involved if applicable.

init4fun

My Friend , look , read my above post where I said if folks want proof to do their own research , and because I do not like the tenor of this thread it's my intention to step away from it as I promised Ken I'd do a few weeks ago with any thread that I feel is becoming combative . Now , you , porcia , and anyone else who wants to can keep posting "SHOW ME THE PROOF !" all you want to but I won't repeat myself again , the research is yours and yours alone to do if proof , rather than conflict , is really what you desire here , as no amount of any "proof" I'd be likely to post would be deemed "acceptable" by those that I truly believe ARE here for conflict and not a discussion of why there are serial numbers on the AMA ballots .

Good Bye .

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

As I suspected when pressed for proof he runs away because no proof exists.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I just wondered what you were talking about so I asked you for some details, it wasn't an attempt to subvert anything.

I heard something about a box of ballots that was found later (on here, nothing official) but that's about it other than someone that lost an election claiming it was rigged, but hey I'm from the state of hanging chads so that's nothing unusual

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You started a conversation about the ballots and numbers being on them and why that was the case, and intimated there was something wrong with that. Answers were given as to why that was the case. You continued to conversation about trusting, and verifying, and also about fraud, and how this has happened in the past. Not in any way surprising, folks are asking for some proof of the specific allegations of fraud on the part of the AMA. That isn't confrontational, it's a simple request that ultimately will not be answered because there was no fraud. I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong if there is something, anything out there that proves otherwise. A misplaced ballot box isn't fraud, and by the way, could just as easily happen with an outside vendor. Someone who lost an election complained about the election being rigged is hardly proof either.

Continuing rumors and innuendos like this seems patently unfair, that's the way I see it.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If there was something out there in the distant past that happened and was verified, we would have heard about that. So far, no specific details, most importantly the names of those involved. If that did happen, those involved should have been fired. If it can't be verified, it shouldn't continue to be a discussion point at every election cycle. Again, this wasn't an issue in any way last year when the DVP elections were held. Not a single complaint about validating the election, or the cost involved. If you recall, the D8 election was decided by 50 votes...50! No complaints about that elections, the fact that the votes were counted in house, no complaints about validating those results, at least not here.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blo...ction-results/

We should be able to trust the process, and if needed, it can be verified via the control numbers on the ballots.

init4fun

Wow guys , really ? At the end of my last post I said good bye , and yet still you hammer on ?

Now , to Andy , as you'll notice I wasn't going to say who PMed me , just that I wanted any and all discussion to happen in the public side of the forum . Of course I have no "Area 51" type photos of someone wearing an adorned shirt and lapel pins reaching into a ballot box , NOBODY DOES !!! and I'm sure nothing short of that would be considered as "acceptable" proof here anyway . What I do have is a good memory and even better search skills and I spent the last 3 nights reading threads over 4 different forums as well as the minutes of the meeting where the outside count was called for , and no I did not bother to bookmark the dozens of threads I read or the meeting minutes because I knew that without that "Area 51" photograph that don't exist , anything I DO post that I read would be discounted , just as surely as the one guy around here keeps discounting any poll that says something he don't like . And that's why I say for folks to do their own searches , been there , done that , wasn't too impressed with what I read , and didn't save it . Now , the only reason I came back here after saying good bye is because I DO respect the 99.9% of your posts and felt you do deserve the best answer that I can give , and that's that what I read didn't look all that like heresay to me , more like discussion of actual fact .

And now really and truly , as far as this thread is concerned ,

Over & Out .............

franklin_m

In the name of cost reductions they won't spend $20K to enhance confidence in the election process, but they'll spend money on things like this?

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...february-2017/

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...er-11-13-2016/

Another poster said it's about priorities. Yep, it is. And integrity of the election process clearly isn't one of them. There's an inherent conflict of interest when members of an organizational staff, many of whom have relationships with the candidates, are the ones counting the votes for leadership of that very same organization. And when us lowly general members dare to ask about that obvious conflict, it's met with personal attacks by an EC member and rationalization of that attack by a Leader Member.

At this point, I would say to these two individuals that if the AMA College of Cardinals is unwilling to spend money to give us confidence in the integrity of the election process, then why continue the charade? Save even more money and just have the EC hold it's own little conclave and appoint the new AMA Pope!

Although in this day and age, I don't know that white smoke from burning paper is a way to signal the end of the conclave. Perhaps they could intentionally overcharge a lipo and let the smoke from that signal a decision.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Perhaps our leaders, and fellow members, don't see a need to enhance a process that is working just fine. And by enhance, I mean spend a lot of money for no good reason other than to satisfy 4 or 5 people. If you could put forth a good case for doing that, as in show where the process isn't working, by all means either document that here, or directly to the AMA. I didn't note any complaints from you previously about elections, certainly not last years elections of 5 DVPs. If you recall, the DVP in Mike's district won against an incumbent by 50 votes. 50. Even the incumbent in that race didn't ask for a different process, or even for a recount. Why didn't you or anyone else have an issue with those elections last year?

As for the money the AMA is spending, I would have thought it's a good thing that they are spending money to broaden the horizons of the hobby, and also promoting the hobby as well. Should they not do that, or only do that for traditional aircraft? Would you still be critical of the AMA Expo East if they had accepted your article and asked you to lead a round table discussion on safety, or the different ways to communicate with towers prior to flying, etc etc.

If they suddenly cancelled the expo, never promoted another FPV event, paid 5 figured to a vendor to count ballots, and started dished out money to every club that asked, would everything go back to good for the AMA. Or was there ever a "good"?

franklin_m

First, I think the five figure expense for election integrity is a must do. I see a fundamental conflict of interest in the method by which it's done today. Whether or not folks ultimately agree, that's up to the College of Cardinals. If they decide not to do it, then I maintain to just end the charade and let them pick the president for us and save even more money.

Whether or not AMA accepted the article is immaterial. It actually worked out better, as it was published in a venue that's #1 in integrated media, #1 in newsstand penetration, #1 in circulation, #1 in distribution, and on sale in military exchanges.

The AMA Expo East is intriguing. If it was a genuine EC leadership supported effort to enhance a safety culture at a time when there's a lot of attention on the hobby, that would be interesting. It would also show that the EC is coming around to recognizing the fact that "the way we've always done it" isn't necessarily a formula for success in this new media / operational environment. Based on the last EC minutes, it's clear there's already a problem in the turbine community. To think there aren't variations of that same problem in other operational areas is naive. Details of the event would matter, but conceptually I'm not opposed - again, if it's genuine and not just a setup.

So the final question. Which is would these or other changes help someone like me change my opinion of the organization and some of its leadership? Actually it would be a start. A good start to be honest. I'm convinced that if the organization doesn't evolve with respect to it's safety culture, in the mass media environment it's only going to take one newsworthy event to bring massive changes - changes none of us want.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I was/am 100 percent behind Expo East and I'm excited.

I need to check out that article, for whatever reason my electronic subscription isn't working on that issue but is the issue prior.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I am too Andy, I think it's a fantastic move and the great location too. There is a huge concentration of current and prospective members in this area. The event has tradition and a rich history behind it. I hope you are able to attend, Id love to chat with another person who volunteers their time for the love of the hobby. I'd love to pick your brain and see if what you guys are doing in your district could be done in ours. Exciting times!

franklin_m

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

- George S. Patton

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I wouldn't think quoting a well know racist and anti-Semitic general would be on point, but oh well.

franklin_m

I gave MA first crack at it. Ultimately two issues prevented it from running. First, they were extremely slow to make a decision. Submitted early June, got an initial acknowledgement of receipt then nothing for a week. Sent another email to check on status, then nothing at all for four more days. Secondly, MA wanted three changes:

"Per FAA’s 91-57A and the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, we are not required to notify the airport each time we fly if the pilot is flying from a permanent location. One notification is sufficient." (WRONG - the cited AC & law say nothing about one notification being sufficient. That may be what AMA wants it to say, but the fact is that neither document says that.)

"91-57A and the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act do not specify how to notify airports. A phone call is not necessary. We at the AMA encourage clubs to use the mail since as Frank experienced a phone call can be cumbersome." (WRONG - The cited AC and law do not say how or how not to notify airports. Only the airport can say a phone call is not necessary. The airport, not the AMA, decides what is and is not cumbersome.)

"91-57A and the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act do not require number of models, operators, etc… to be provided when notifying an airport. A pilot may want to volunteer this information if near an airport in Class B space or the airport requests it, but it is not mandated." (While neither of the cited documents mention this information, this statement ignored the existence of the "Guidance for UAS ACTC Notifications," which is what the FAA told their facilities to collect. A copy of is attached for your convenience.)

I sent to three other venues, two provided a definite yes / no in less than 24 hours. Neither asked for changes.

franklin_m

Well, then how about the well recognized dangers of group think. Often happens when dissenting voices are discouraged - for example when individuals are personally attacked or trivialized by leaders for questioning the status quo.

https://hbr.org/2014/12/making-dumb-groups-smarter

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

An ironic comment considering the group think we see in these very threads no? there appears to a pervasive and consistent group think in almost every AMA thread here. You can keep trying to twist getting legitimate push back on your complaints as personal attacks, or being trivialized , and throw in the references to unwashed masses...but it just isn't the case. Folks are allowed to disagree with you, even people who are part of the AMA (then again, we all are). I would think every question is fair and reasonable to ask, but it's clear that all the answers given will be accepted.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That is a great read!

Astro

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's a good read, but pay attention to the part about polarization..it's key.

The thing is, these type of discussions will always happen when there is a small group of folks feeling disaffected, or not getting their way. Between the comments lately about feeling old, useless, not relevant, and part of the unwashed masses, its understandable where yhis is coming from. The thing though is, that the AMA is ultimately run by ALL of us. We can vote with our wallets and also by getting more involved in many many ways. We also elect our dvp's to rep us, and ultimately the president too. No group of this size, be it the EC or the membership as a whole will be 100 content.

The article makes reference to "red teaming" which I will agree with, it's a great way to get the most comprehensive understanding of some issues. I actually used this technique when gearing up for a fight to reintroduce helis to our club after being kicked out by a select group of modelers who felt they were not "traditional" aircraft. They're an active part of the club...

franklin_m

The pushback is coming almost exclusively from the College of Cardinals and/or nobles (Leader Members like you). And the personalization of that pushback is also overwhelmingly coming from members of those same two groups.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

College of Cardinals? Really? And you get on to me....

franklin_m

And where is that "red teaming" at the EC level? Not only is it not happening, members are actively advocating ignorance of an issue as a strategy! EVP brought up concern over safety, and his suggestion to use quantifiable methods to control risk was met with another EC member saying "we don’t want to call attention to numbers; there could be unintended consequences [emphasis added]."

It seems those operations would be a good place to start red teaming efforts. But the key to success of red teaming (and I've done a ton of it at NWC, combat planning, etc.) is to have someone running the red team that thinks as differently as possible from those on the blue team.

franklin_m

Perhaps you didn't notice the absence of any names, and perhaps you also missed the reference to a collective group vs. your very specific reference to me as an individual.