J_R

While talking to a friend on the EC, and getting some information for another post, something was said that he never intended to be shared. We were talking about the Nominating Committee. He said “We did the right thing. We’ll still get a black eye. It comes with the territory”. It was not a complaint, just something one friend would say to another. It has been bugging me every since. So.. what I propose is this: if you feel the NC did the right thing, write to them, or call them, and let them know. Write to your VP, or another VP, or to Dave Brown, or to all of them. A two or three line e-mail, or a two page one… whatever you need to send the message. These are the people that don’t need a book to know what’s right and what is wrong. They are the ones that understand the intent of rules. They are the ones with moral and ethical values that we need and want as our leaders.

Their e-mail addresses are on the AMA web site at http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...BD65CDD1087E4E

Just a thought..

JR

the troll

So you shared that which your friend did not intend to be shared.
Defying your friend’s intent...you should be ashamed.


I propose that you write to your VP, or another VP, or to Dave Brown, or to all of them if feel the NC did the wrong thing.


I guess only the subservient membership is the only ones that that need rules huh?

We don't be knowing write from rong.

BTW don't bother with an answer.

J_R

It's about time. You have finally shown that you know exactly what went on, that you were not trying to learn a darn thing, that you were trying to cover it up, and that you are not nearly as stupid as your name would lead readers to believe. End of discussion.

JR

the troll

JR you are losing it bud. Relating my intelligence and its relevance to a screen name that I selected... get real. I guess the inverse applies to you as well then... Since JR is such an intelligent screen name then I guess you are a d..b..s.

I am not trying to cover up anything at all...just trying to learn and considering that maybe your perspective may not be the only one.

JR you have trashed my credibility on this forum and I have NEVER asserted any statements about the facts... period... PROOF that I am learning and exploring some other possibilities only...but I guess you can't see that.


JR I have been involved in other nominating committees, in a different organization, in which the appointments were made with the INTENT to preserve the current agenda and preclude an opposing agenda…so from that vantage point I have the questions I have.

Maybe it just boils down to a basic philosophical view in which you and I are 180 degrees apart. I perceive that the AMA should be subservient and operate at the will of the membership and it would seem that you believe that the membership should be subservient and operate at the will of the AMA.


BTW get it straight, it is not the end of the discussion until you decide you are not going to post a reply…not because you post a reply and proclaim… END OF DISCUSSION. That is childish and unbecoming to us all.

I you do not care to read or respond to my posts simply block them by utilizing the block function. It seems you haven't any need to reply to my questions or consider any other's points of views unless they concur with yours.

rw Guinn

I'll answer part of your query, "bill"...

This will work!
ROSWELL AIRCRAFT FLYERS

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i am still trying to figgure out why we even need a nominating process in the firsdt place.
set a closing date, and allow any member that meets the qualifications for an office, to announce for that office.

the troll

Thanks guys.

I really don't understand why the process couldn't be more conducive to allow those that wish to run their chance.

It seems that if Jim Brananum or anyone else that decided he/she would like to run and has met the prerequisite qualifications and has proclaimed such before the printing of the ballet, he/she should be allowed a place on the ballet instead of a write in only.

Why just three officially recognized candidates since this election is not a party relevant such as government type election? I just does not seem fair to me… Why handicap an otherwise viable candidate.

Hossfly

A rather long story and there may be contention of what is / is not 'fair'.

Back in the '30s when AMA was founded, the leaders that wrote the Bylaws were very smart to retain all the real power within their Executive Council.

In the period of the '70s, the Powers in force found that they could circumnavigate most Bylaws Changes simply by the use of "Standing Rules" The Bylaws authorize the use of standing rules to set procedures for the Nominating Committee.
To preclude the expense of run-off elections the Standing Rules were established for a 3-person ballot with a plurality election. This was set by the EC sometimes in the early to mid '80s. (I don't remember exactly but the info can easily be researched if you want it.) The plurality/ 3-person ballot came after a run-off election where there was considerable evidence linking certain Staff to a very improper distribution of ballots for the run-off. Nothing ever came of the alleged improper election other than ballot-counting was established with an auditor rather than AMA Staff.

The EC has considerable control over the elections, through the NC operation, making it very difficult to unseat an incumbent, yet it does happen.

It is now very difficult to obtain people to even oppose an incumbent. As time passes, and fewer and fewer persons have any knowledge of AMA politics, much less any interest, the EC will totally control THEIR AMA. After all, the very few that try to light a candle now and then are looked at as immoral, have all kinds of twisted and false stories passed around by the "seagulls" that do nothing more than squawk and crap and produce nothing.
Of course that is what the public drools over, like we hear of now happening in CA on every news station. Don't expect any release of the EC's control as you vote based on emotion rather than honest, open, working, leadership.

ProfLooney

I agree anyone qualified should be allowed to run but why would EC or anyone want to allow anyone when they can get who they want to run against set up and guarantee their remaining in office.

Joe

the troll

Thanks for the info.

That really shines some more light on the INTENT of the rules.

It seems that according to some pm that I have, some of those here think that I am in fact Bill Lee. That is very funny!

Also other pm that I have received has put a big spotlight on the apparent questionable tactics of certain prolific posters (the dynamic duo) here in this particular forum. It seems they (the dynamic duo) have made every effort to construe that Horrace and Sandy have utilized some improper and unethical tactics in regard to the nomination process...
Well the unethical and immoral tactics seem to be of those of the prolific posters (the dynamic duo) instead….

How ironic!

For a discussion that was deemed to have come to an end it seems to be going strong. HMMM… maybe it was just another misrepresentation of the facts again…

rw Guinn

I think I need to see evidence to back up that assertion...The "dynamic Duo" have posted facts. You have made an unsubstantiated assertion. Sounds like the tactics of certain Dist. VIII leadership.
So you're the Chief, not Bill?

zxcv11

[:-]....and the plot thickens.....

--<cue music>--

the troll

Simple.

The fact IS what has been labeled IMORAL and UNETHICAL, by the Dynamic Duo, has been within the rules…Therefore the actions were just as moral and ethical as the rules that allow such actions.

So when the Dynamic Duo spew unethical and immoral that is not FACT but opinion. (the representation)

The fact is the rules need bashing not the candidates that operate legally within them.

Jim’s platform could have focused more on changing the rules but instead he proclaims that the "ONLY" reason he chooses to run is because of the ethics and immoralities of…well you know the rest of the story…….

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

as some nazi fellas learned a few years back, we all have diferent definitions of moral, ethetical, and integrity.
the only ones that count are those of the winners. this time.

the troll

Me thinks JR is spooling up to continue the discussion. HMMM...

Semantics as usual.

You know JR wishy is not good…washy is worse… but wishy washy is pathetic!

rsallen13

My Feedback: (1)

Just because it is a rule does not make it ethical in my eye or in the view of others. Just as abortion in this country is legal does not mean that everyone agrees that it is or is not morally ethical. Euthanasia is legal in a couple of countries and (I think) one state. Does that make it ethical for a doctor to assist just because the rules say so?

What SF and HC did was with the full intent to manipulate the process and to me that is un-ethical. You may think it is okay. That is your opinion. But if SF and HC had a real platform to run on and real integrety then they would not have had to lower themselves to manipulate the ballot.

If SF was so good for D8 then why is he being challenged unlike other districts? If HC was good for the district then why did he feel the need to nominate others to run against him if not to just stuff the ballot with someone who would hopefully take votes away from the incumbent?

HC has not tried to hide his intent and has on several occasions has stated that he in not above "bending the rules" and "greasing a few palms" to get the job done. Does that sound like someone who has high integrity and ethical standards?

Think about what has been posted by SF(very little) and HC(more than we care for) since the election began. If you feel that these are the types of individuals that you wish to represent you then vote for them. Otherwise you have Mike Moss and the write in Jim Branaum. I prefer Jim but either one would have be better that SF or HC.

I can't vote in D8 but the representation by the elected representive will effect all of us in AMA.

But this is just my opinion!

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Gentlemen and ladies.

SF did not invent the manipulation of the nomination process.
HC did not invent the manipulation of the nomination process.

It was the standard procedure used by the District V VP to retain his seat on the EC.

In the 1998 election Jim McNeill arranged for two of his friends to be nominated, Mr. Jim Weems and Mr. Russell Mobley in order to dilute the vote and keep a viable Norm Deputy from winning. He later appointed both of these friends as AVP while blasting Norm Deputy by threatening to set up a swap shop to compete with the highly successful Perry Swap Meet that Norm is a key player in. The EC ignored this.

In the 2000 election McNeill repeated his arranged nomination and set up Manny Sousa to draw votes away from a very viable candidate, Tony Stillman (strange that Stillman and Sousa were even in the same club). McNeill won again by a very narrow (87 votes) plurality having previously fired Tony Stillman as frequency coordinator for running against him and later appointing Manny Sousa as AVP. The EC ignored this.

When a VP retaliates against some that run against him and rewards others. It shouldn't be difficult to figure what is going on.

When I say the EC ignored this, they allowed the same game to be played in District VIII when it was patently obvious what was going on.

Will the EC continue to ignore this? We will see next year.

Red Scholefield
AMA 951 Leader Member/CD
District V

abel_pranger

Red-
The EC won't ignore it if the gameplayers both lose in DVIII.

Abel

ps: You guys in Dist V need a new game plan next year. Can you work out a way to get Cain running against Tony Stillman?

J_R

Red

This year, for the first time, the nominations were made over the signatures of the D8VP and prior D6VP. That had not happened before. Give the D5 VP credit for common sense.

The NC did not let it happen this year.

D5 may well be the recipient of fallout from the results of this year’s happenings. I believe it will.

You, above all others, may owe the NC a debt of gratitude. It is obvious that you condemn the tactic.

I also support your effort to get Tony Stillman elected and replace your current VP.

JR

the troll

OK guys. Just who was Sandy trying to preclude from serious consideration as a candidate?

rsallen13

My Feedback: (1)

HC?

the troll

It sure is quite out there

zxcv11

<hand waving in air>...oooo....oooo...I know...I know.....
Wouldn't the answer to this be anyone? Didn't he nominate his friends to preclude anyone else being put on? At least that seems to have been the goal as I've seen it laid out.[]

Brian

abel_pranger

Aw heck, Brian,
The guy has been amusing himself for several hours puzzling over this conumdrum, and now you've spoiled it for him.
Bad dog!!!
Pleeeeeze.......... don't post the solution to today's NY Times Crossword Puzzle. I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Abel

the troll

Sorry but not the right answer boys. Try again.