Hossfly

As some of you are aware, I was a nominee for AMA Executive Vice President this past year. I got well stomped in the election.
I stopped active campaigning when the incumbent, Mr. D. Holland, had his attorney notify me of an impending lawsuit, reference defamation of his character.
My attorney advised me that the early information was of no real significance, yet the cost of litigation could be rather large in just self-defense. Not having a budget to include large superficial cursory legal expenses, I decided to back off using discretion to be the better part of valor, for my reasoning.
Now, I have taken advantage of the invitation to call and obtain information, as Mr. Holland so designated in his article in the new March 2003 issue of "Model Aviation."
The good news is that Mr. Holland says the lawsuit is dead, and past history. Happy New Year to me.

The bad news -- to me and IMO -- is that when I asked Mr. Holland why he did not use his monthly article to advise the membership of his plans to divide AMA into several corporations, he replied that his methods included getting his plan all complete, then to get it approved by the Executive Council, and then to tell the membership what was done. (*What WAS done*) In discussion, I asked Mr. Holland why he never used his column to inform the membership and seek their inputs about his plans. Mr. Holland advised me that he rather keep his research among knowledgeable persons, accountants and lawyers.
There you have the discussion. Mr. Holland, if you read this, I followed your instructions. I called a Council Member for information. I am exercising the right -- that you stated -- to say so elsewhere and I am not stating anything negative as I am simply stating true and correct facts as we discussed.
Oh Well, maybe I did do one thing wrong, as you said to call a Council Member that I could trust. I am rather late to do that as that animal is long extinct. Sorry 'bout that.

Horrace Cain

J_R

Horrace

I am glad you are reverting to the form that intrigued many of us to vote for you. You still have the ability to talk to more people and get answers than anyone I know.

I had the opportunity to talk to Dave Brown at the IMS show about the split of the AMA into three corporations. As I understand it, the idea is to place the museum in one, another would hold the membership and another would hold most of the assets of the AMA. The EC would still have oversight authority. The three would have different boards of directors. The details have not been worked out yet. Dave expressed his opinion, based on the advice he is getting from the AMA lawyers, that a change in the bylaws of the AMA would be necessary to make such a transformation. If this information is accurate, we will not awake one day to find the AMA has already been split.

The captive insurance corporation is another matter entirely and the corporation is in place for that. If I recall correctly, Dave Brown, Doug Holland and Carl Maroney are the Board Members of the captive.

Both Dave and Joyce Hager seemed to have high hopes that the captive would languish in disuse. The insurance for other AMA policies has been renewed, giving hope that the liability policy that all of us rely on will also be renewed.

JR

dennis1943

My Feedback: (12)

way to go j_r you are my hero

dennis

Hossfly

>>>>>>>>>
Horrace

I am glad you are reverting to the form that intrigued many of us to vote for you. You still have the ability to talk to more people and get answers than anyone I know.

smokingcrater

Just my $.02...

3 corporations = 3 boards + 3 CEO's + 3* as many management people.

This obviously is going to raise costs...

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Gotta agree with that. So now it's worth $0.03.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hossfly
[B]>>>>>>>>>
Horrace

I am glad you are reverting to the form that intrigued many of us to vote for you. You still have the ability to talk to more people and get answers than anyone I know.

Taildrager-inactive

My Feedback: (11)

There sure is some serious misunderstanding when some elected officials in the AMA decide to do business behind closed doors, so to speak, instead of out in the open with the membership being informed. We all know there is something not quite right going on with AMA, when dues are increased it seems because of bad stewardship by the elected officials of AMA. Horrace seems to be looking out for the best interest of the members of AMA, and if his rough attitude, and corn cob approach bothers some people they probally should be bothered. As members of RCU dig deeper into the inner workings of AMA I am sure they will find what is stinking. Keep up the good work Horrace

J_R

It's more like what is taking place behind open doors. This was discussed in the EC minutes. And... Let us not forget those EC meetings are open to any AMA member. If it were not for those minutes, most of us would not know enough to ask the questions of our elected leaders. If you want to be spoon fed the information... information that may or may not be accurate... just wait for it to be posted on a discussion forum, then speculate and complain.

If you want to know first hand, do what Horrace did and ask our elected leaders. Obviously, they are not quite so secretive as you believe.

JR

Taildrager-inactive

My Feedback: (11)

I would guess this AMA forum would have not been created at RCU if AMA was doing what the membership thought was right. I have and am serving on a couple of boards of different organizations and contrary to what is written in the minutes of a meeting there is a lot of discussion behind closed doors and executive decisions made that never are reported in the minutes of some organizations, and I believe AMA is one of those organizations. If someone believes that elected official's will tell the truth, and all the truth they are sadly mistaken.

J_R

Taildragger

That is exactly the reason that questions need to be asked. That is exactly the reason that I supported Horrace. He asks the right questions. At the same time, I disagree with some of his deductions and commentary based on the answers.

His assertion that the split is a conspiracy does not seem to hold water. Here you have a group that can not agree on how to do anything. How in the world can they get together to bilk the AMA? I can go along with opinions that present the EC, or it's individual members, as many things that are less than perfect. However.... it stops with suggesting that they are dishonest.

That's my opinion

JR

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

Could someone please explain to me why the AMA should split into 3? How exactly would this benefit the AMA and its membership? Please make it plain and simple......no legaleze or Enron accounting. Thanks.

J_R

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning.

The museum already is treated as a separate entity. It would make donations to the museum easier to deal with.

The members would be split from the assets so that if there was a large legal action against a member, that it would not wipe out the assets of the whole.

Hossfly

>Horrace,
>The tangent *I* choose to take (until proven otherwise in a court of law) is
>that the AMA EC members are doing the best job they can to provide for the
>future. //SNIP//
>
>While your concerns ARE valid and shared by many of us, for you to loudly
>and publicly assume that the EC is in it for nefarious reasons is as immoral
>as you charge them with being. That sir is MY opinion.
The captive is NOT a new thing, as a similar action was taken in the 980's
>when the AMA could not even find a carrier to cover us. In fact, that
>mechanism is one of the things that turned the organizations finances around
>in the mid 1980's. So if is works, why the constant railing against it?

Well, I admit that back in the mid-'80s (I presume that the "980's" is the same) I took somewhat of a sabbatical from model airplanes to go Bass Fishing for a few years. I am not aware that AMA established a "Captive".

Was it a Single Parent Captive or was it a Group Captive?
If a Group Captive which was the domiciliary state, or did it operate under the Federal Risk Retention Act? AMA was in DCA and VA during those years.
If a Group Captive, did that Captive operate under stock, reciprocal or mutual form and what other organization did it serve?
I knew that AMA went Self-insured, as they are now to $250,000.00, but you really caught me napping if AMA formed a Captive back then. I was totally unaware. BTW, how and when did they dissolve the corporation?
Now Jim, I need some help here. Your use of the double negative confuses me -- easy to do -- so please explain: "I don't think Doug Holland is not out of order."
Is that what you meant? It reads to me that you DO think Mr. Holland is out of order. Please help?

>>>>>>
>Sorry, I perceive that as counterproductive.
>
>I don't think Doug Holland is not out of order, just less than willing to be
>painted as a target. Rightfully so since what he is dealing with is more
>complicated than bolting a wing on a fuselage. That is not to say that the
>communications channel is good because as you and I agree it is very poor.
>However putting road apples out will not help the speech of those we wish to
>hear from.
>
>As for your assumption that ALL the AMA EC members are less than open and
>honest in their communications, I think there is a serious misunderstanding.
>I also have noted the various answers from various folks about the same
>subject and finally come to realize that what we get is THEIR PERCEPTION! It
>is sort of like your understanding of accounting. Rough, inaccurate, and
>sometimes just plain wrong.
However when an AMA EC member gives a specially tailored answer to each
>different listener and the responses sometimes are in direct conflict, there
>clearly is a problem but it is with THAT DVP not the entire EC. I know of
>some research into the subject that has shown that DVP's of that ilk do
>exist on the EC today. I strongly suspect that has something to do with your
>rough attitude and corncob approach.
>
>Oh well,
>
>
>--
>Jim Branaum
>AMA 1428
>Six_O'clock_High
>[email protected]
>

Good luck with your buddying up to the EC Jim. Sounds like Ol' Sandy just got himself some competition this year. Just another one of my ideas about what COULD happen.
Hang in there.
__________

And to JR: JR perhaps you should also broaden your horizons.
Conspiracy, the result of to conspire, is also defined as: to act in harmony toward a common end. Even a like word. scheme, is not all bad, such as: a plan or program of action; and also: a systematic or organized framework.

You love to use that cliche, yet IMO you think/imply of a conspiracy as something bad.
In fact anytime two or more persons plan something, by definition, that action constitutes a conspiracy.
Heck, Man, my club is planning a Warbird Race in early April. Good Ol' Sandy just got us our waiver for spectator distance reference the 2-pylon course. Guess that makes us all conspirators including Sandy. Are we jeopardizing the AMA by a conspiracy or simply documenting -- the plan that was submitted -- to provide an enjoyable, safe and fun event for model aviation?

OTOH, yes, I always survey all the potential tangents that I can think of prior to engaging in some unexplored activity. After a day's flying with an airplane, I go over it looking for potential problem areas. I cycle my batteries fairly often and monitor the flight times. I ask all my buddies to yell at me if I screw up a club rule. I do the same for them. Maybe that is why my barn is getting so many old models hanging up in there. I'm bad!!
When I go to an event and everything runs smoothly or even close to, I always try to thank the CD and club members. Maybe I have been wrong because those *Bad Guys* must have CONSPIRED to do that good job. Oh, How Bad I am!!!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Horrible,
Are you TRYING to irritate me? Buddying up to the EC? No, I just treat them like most other modelers I fly with. That happens to include noticing how informative their answers seem to be and making decisions about the next set of questions. It is easy to tell when they are giving out the stock answer because the question is beyond their specialty and it is really pleasant when you hit one with a question he knows all about. After a while
you know who to ask what. Getting answers is not that hard, but getting good answers does require some work as frequently you have to ask many times to find out who really knows about the subject.

All that does NOT mean I think they are all neat and would make good long term house guests. But I do think they are mostly all housebroken! Jeez you are hard headed! <G> You say your writings are about what COULD happen and I very strongly suggest you make that distinction much more explicit and
figure out a way to stop offending hard working VOLUNTEERS. I think your brush is to broad and too black.

By the way, except for a mailbox full from one unhappy EC member, I almost never hear from them unless I am asking a question based on other knowledge. So don't feel left out or shortchanged. I just ask questions and forward thoughts when I notice something important that has been dropped or missed.
I have seen the evidence that reasonable input is appreciated if not acknowledged and recognized. It works out for the better of the AMA so I am a happy camper. Stupid, but happy.

As for your questions, I am sorry because I don't recall any of the specific answers. I really was not paying that much attention to AMA detail then as I was trying to keep my people working and my business growing. However I do remember the one important piece of information that came as a result of that effort. The end result was the was how and where the AMA developed the assets that needed to be hidden in Muncie.

Double negatives pass the spell checker but the logic checker seems to be on the fritz again. <VBG>

J_R

Hi Horrace

We are talking about semantics. Each word has a definition. Some words have a connotation. Words such as conspiracy and monopoly have connotations that are more powerful than their definitions.... and you know that, and take advantage of it.

I went looking for a conspiracy of the EC. You see, that is one of the word games you play. You imply the entire EC, knowing that any action by all of them is extremely unlikely, but, implying all, none the less. I have now met many of the EC in person, talked to others on the phone and corresponded with the rest by e-mail. It's my opinion that this EC is incapable of forming a conspiracy in the normal context. After talking to them, it is surprising to me that they can form enough of a conspiracy to adjourn an EC meeting with a majority vote.

To play on your words, I do not believe you have surveyed all potential tangents on any issue. You see, there are an infinite number of tangents, by definition. Although I realize you claim advanced age, you are not that old.

Horrace, you make great points, on occasion. Don't diminish your image by less than straight talk.

JR

PS S. I. Hiakawa may have been a lousy Senator, but, he and his minions were great teachers.

JR

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

Its simply a way for them to transfer money from one company to another company to another company to what ever they want to transfer it to without the members consent. If they keep control and bury enough money, they can say AMA isn't making any money and raise dues and have the members corperation paying for all their special interests without knowing it. If this actually happens, it would be a good time for the mass majority of the membership to start asking questions and get these people out of office. I would hope it would not happen. Then I would know without a doubt that AMA has lost total focus on why it is there.

J_R

Wow. Now my curiosity is really up. Where did you find the information on this? Is it on the AMA web site or in a discussion group? Do you have e-mails from someone on the EC showing what you have stated is true? Are you a Leader Member who has been contacted by the EC to make the changes? I am really feeling out of the loop. I am ready to start a real campaign against all of those that are involved.... just show me the proof... whoever you are

JR

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

I did not mean for that to sound like they are hiding money. Guess I should have read that a bit more carefully before I hit enter. It does bring questions when the AMA starts talking about setting up 3 different companies to do what they are currently doing and having 3 full set of staff to run what is now being done by one. Enron type of accounting comes to mind. Why would they consider doing something like this without consulting the members and giving them a say? Just makes people wonder what is going on. AMA tends to spend money pretty like it is water, and I know you have 100% trust in what they do, but a lot of members don't and I would hate to see it all tumble down because they do something like this behind everyones back. I didn't mean any offence to you or any others J_R. It just seems that AMA has different goals than they are telling us, and although I don't always agree, I am still a member and contest director and don't plan on changing that. It just seems strange to all of a sudden hear of them suggesting this and seeing it stated that they plan on doing it behind the memberships back and giving them no say.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I DON'T THINK SO!

You have gone way further than I in making assumptions without sharing a shred of evidence in support of your comments. My DVP would suggest that you need professional help <g>, but I won't go that far.

Rather I will attempt to explain what I understand which happens to disagree with your thesis pretty strongly.

The museum is already being tracked in the accounting package as a separate entity. Splitting it off to another corporation makes lots of sense if you think about it for a bit. If it is another entity, we might have the CHOICE to fund it or not. That is a significant improvement over today's funding of it from our dues.

The insurance portion is similar to what was done in the past that generated the funds necessary to purchase the Muncie site. Seems to me to make sense as we should be able to put more funds into flying site improvements around the nation if our dues are not all spent trying to by a shrinking resource - insurance coverage.

That sort of leaves the membership and the real assets out there needing to be maintained under the current organization.

Now I don't really KNOW if the above is right or not. What I do KNOW is that it makes more sense than your thesis because there is some evidence to support it. My DVP will probably STILL insist that I need professional help for making up stories.

In my opinion the alternative IS to raise dues AGAIN and soon. I guess you might have the chance to choose, but I don't really know if the EC will bring a plan to the membership that is shouted down even before it is investigated with the data available. In short, they are looking for solutions so please do not throw rocks.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

When it is explained like that, parts of it make sence and I would have to agree with your thinking, but the way it was explained up front was that they wanted to do this, they were not going to tell us till it was done and we didn't have a choice. No big deal, but why not explain it like this in the first place if this is the intention. It makes sence and would make a lot of people say "good idea" instead of "what are they thinking". A little info goes a long way. Thanks Jim.

J_R

I guess I jump too high and shout too much when I think anyone seems to imply that the EC is dishonest. No one has ever shown me one shrewd of evidence that would suggest that of any EC member.

The concept of splitting the assets into three corporations appeared in the July, 2002 EC minutes, so it is not exactly new, nor a surprise now. When I saw that item I started asking questions. To say that I have "100% trust in what they do" couldn't be further from the truth. Ask Bill Lee. This issue happens to be one I see as a futile effort to protect the assets, but, the lawyers see it otherwise.

When I asked Dave Brown the current status of the effort, at the IMS show, we were surrounded by a dozen or so other modelers. He was being open, anyone there heard what he was saying. I think he would have given anyone the same answers he did me. He told me that the lawyers were telling him that it would require a bylaw change. That means that the EC can not do this without the consent of the Leader Members. The AMA bylaws call for the Leader Members to approve any change to the bylaws. Although input from any member is usually listened to by a member of the EC, it is not required anywhere in the bylaws that the membership be consulted about anything. By the same token, any AMA member can apply for Leader Member status. It is NOT a political position. Most Leader Members will tell you that it is a useless title. A year ago there were over 3000 Leader Members.

My personal opinion is that we will not see a call for a bylaws change this year. I could be wrong about that, but, you certainly have time to become a Leader Member, if you desire.

I will tell you this, too. If the EC finds a way to divide the AMA without a bylaw change and does it covertly, and tells us after the fact, I will be in the front of the pack to have Dave Brown's head.

JR

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if they do suceed in splitting into 3, they will probably find, that as long as membership dues go to finance all 3, the courts will view all 3 as one anyway, so the project is probably an exersise in futility anyway.

Diablo-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

Dividing money into 3 little piles doesn't make the total amount change, and doesn't provide any more money to do anything. At least that's what they taught me in school. If they want to spin off operations like the museum and let it sink or swim on its own, that's a different story. IF the museum sucks money from the general funds now and in the future it will have to generate its own revenue from either donations or other sources, that will free up money for other AMA activities.

Hossfly

>>>>>>>>>
"but the way it was explained up front was that they wanted to do this, they were not going to tell us till it was done and we didn't have a choice. No big deal, but why not explain it like this in the first place if this is the intention. It makes sence and would make a lot of people say "good idea" instead of "what are they thinking". A little info goes a long way. Thanks Jim."