jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

"I have little doubt that Don will be up to anything that is presented to him."

From the President's Perspective, january 2005

I saw the heading and was kind of confused. I know that according to the article Dave is for Don but I keep reading the heading which to me implies that he doesn't think Don is capable? I guess I'm just suprised that the editor didn't make it clearer?

jester125

I noticed that also and thought it was a little odd.

[sm=confused.gif]Chris

J_R

Hi Jon

Some questions for you.

Who do you think has the right/ability/wherewithall to edit anything Dave Brown writes?

Why do you think Koranda was hired? What can he do differently than Joyce was doing?

Since Dave Brown clearly says he was not involved in the hiring, who was? Clearly, this did not take place in a couple of hours. Do you really believe that DB was not in the loop? If not, why not?

What do you think might be thrown at Koranda that he might have to handle and who do you think would be doing the throwing?

Bounus question. Joyce said in her column "I will be stepping down to a less stressful job.". What does that mean? What was the source of the stress?

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I would assume the magazine editor... the final proof reader?

lol, I don't know JR. I really didn't mean to read anything into it. I just thought that the statement for the heading was apparently not proofread and a little confusing? Is he building Don up or.... But then again, maybe I'm misreading this. To me the quote means that he doesn't believe Don will be up to the challenges presented him.

I don't really know anything about the position or why Joyce stepped down etc. Just thought that whoever error checks the magazine may have missed this one, but then again, maybe this quote was intentional.

J_R

Trying to edit a Dave Brown column could be hazzzzardous to your health, according to the State of California.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

lol, I tend to believe that you are right on that one <VBG>

Hossfly

While the above is addressed to "Jon" I would like to make a few comments.

No one should have any right to edit any AMA ELECTED OFFICER's writings!! NO ONE!

Koranda was hired to give AMA "....top level Executive Experience..." as per one Doug Holland, Jan. '05 MA pg. 173. IMO it is just an addition to the DH SNOB appeal.
Koranda will strut about and blame Joyce for whatever is wrong. He will most likely collect more money than Joyce has been collecting. JR since you have all the inside roads into the EC, maybe you can find out that item.

Where in _ell can do you get such an idea that DB was not involved in the hiring processes? While he denies "credit' he says that he was "....in the background...' and he also says that he spoke with DK about AMA possibilities. From Holland's articles I get that of course Holland may well have been the prime negotiator, but so what? Many company negotiators do the face-to face-chores but run to the CEO for decisions with each give and take. "The timing was right for us to take advantage..." NOTE the term "us" which IMO says very well that DB was the man making the drive during the hunt although someone else may well do the shooting. Of course the negotiating team would be made up by someone able to talk money, the #1 subject a "top level executive" will listen to.

Any organization having an Executive Director will have problems that come up. The ED should be able to handle any thing within the guidelines as prescribed Ex. Council. Will he handle it with modelers in mind or in the fashion of Business Executives where the only concerns are screwing the employees and getting bigger bonuses from and for the Directors?

Holland says Joyce will be Koranda's executive assistant and she has "....excellent administrative experience..."

In any case things may be even more interesting as we get another Ex. Director from the Ex. Director ranks rather than one with AMA/modeling political experience and probably one that will court the EC, especially the President and CFO with the utmost charm and politics. Of course that is all just my opinion based on a _ell of a lot of experiences with businesses, unions, and other association politics.

J_R

No fair Horrace. I have yet to recieve my 14th issue of MA this year and have not seen the EVP's column.

Mike in DC

Is this the sentence you think is confusing? If so, I don't think it's the greatest prose ever written, and double negatives are always tricky, but I think it parses fairly well. The phrase "I have little doubt" is synonymous with "I have great confidence". The rest seems OK to me. In other words, the sentence means: "I have confidence that Don will be able to accomplish anything he is asked to accomplish." Perhaps "little doubt" is a colloquialism not used much in your part of the country?

Like many people who are not trained writers, Dave Brown tends to use phrases that work better in spoken English than in written English, but overall, I think his "President's Perspective" columns are pretty literate.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I know what you are saying. It's just a little confusing, doesn't seem very clear or well spoken for a presenting statement. Let's do what you suggest and substitute, no for little which makes it, I have no doubt, which is a positive statement. Together it's still a little confusing, I have no doubt that Don will be up to anything that is presented to him. No doubt that he will, or not doubt that he wont? It just sounds to me the meaning could go either way, either that he is able to accomplish it or he's not, kind of sounds like a statement riding the fence. Why not just say, I have little Doubt that Don can't accomplish anything that's put up to him, or, I know that Don can accomplish anything that's put to him. That's a double negative to me which is meaning that he can accomplish anything... Just the other way sounds opposite. I guess little doubt implies to me that there is some doubt also. Just surprised that with a negative sounding connotation it wasn't resubmitted to the author for reinterpretation....

Crash90

My Feedback: (17)

You guys have too much time on your hands. LOL (kidding)
I see nothing confusing about his statement.

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

You're right, lol. Should be out flying!!!!! The weather's great out, 60 degrees!!!

J_R

Horrace, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the fact is that the Publications Committee has the right, from a motion voted on, and passed by the EC.

I suggest you use your mole if you want to know.

Suffice to say the magnifying glass you use to read between the lines is severely cracked.

Sorry, I must have missed a motion where the Directors receive any bonus, regardless of performance. As a matter of fact, the concept of a bonus implies remuneration for services rendered, and other than a small expense account, I am unaware of any such remuneration. I guess I missed it. Maybe it was done in a discussion and not by motion and vote. Of course, if I did not miss such a motion, that leaves only the other possibilty you mention.

non sequitur

Please expound, I was under the impression that your experience ran from being a member of the military, to an employee of an airline, owning a hobby shop, as well as having been a previous EC member. Other than being a member of those other organizations you mentioned, what, specifically, is your experience?

SSRCCPREZ

WOW this is really weird, because I read DB's column and read it as the following:

Dear Members, please remain fully bent over a barrell because here comes my friend DK to cram it up your muffler as I have done for several terms now. JH is no longer able to fulfill the duty of Har Schliekmeister. We appreciate your patience during this transition and look forward to bending you over a few more barrrels in the future.


Well that's what I read the first time I read it....I think I may need to read it again.