Hossfly

AMA has always been very good about placing the "Unofficial Minutes" on the Web site within several weeks of the last EC meeting.
The one time that I remember (and I am getting a few *senior moments*) in the past few years that they did not do this was when they bought a Trade Show.
Well, boys and girls, it's been about 6 weeks since the last EC mtg. and the "Unofficial Minutes" are NOT YET Posted. The previous minutes, Feb. 09, have not yet been designated "Official".

Has something else secretive transpired?

Horrace D. Cain
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them
but to inform their discretion."
— THOMAS JEFFERSON

sladerwilson

My Feedback: (1)

My sources tell me they are working out a secret alliance with Great Planes. Something about total world domination (read MONOPOLIZATION) of the hobby industry... probably nothing to worry about.

mvigod

I wouldn't worry about any of that with RCU on the block There is strength in number fellas and this site is about giving the consumer the power they deserve.

J_R

Horrace

The minutes are up, the previous meeting minutes are now listed as official. There is even a note on the new minutes that they are not official until approved by the EC at the next board meeting.

The only thing that I saw that would have been a surprise, had you not published an e-mail from D. Mathewson, is that you were named to an ad-hoc insurance committee.

I wish you luck in your new position.

JR

abel_pranger

Hoss on an insurance committee? I like it! Hoss, I hope your forceful bearing will come to fore on the issue of separating exclusions from liability insurance coverage from the Safety Code. If somebody were to do a lobotomy on you with a 55 lb half-scale Tomahawk LAM, you wouldn't want your widow's insurance claim denied because the owners's name and AMA number weren't to be found on the airframe debris, would you?

Abel

Hossfly

Not to get excited!!!

Here in this forum around April 21st you can find a thread titled "Request forwarded to AMA EC members".
That thread was a copy of a real letter directed to AMA's policies reference insuring PAID FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS.

After the last EC meeting, I was asked if I would serve on a committee reference that subject. I replied "Yes, providing that it would not be as the service I performed for another ad hoc committee reference Contest Directors, where after intensive research by none, except myself, my report was immediately filed in the circular file 13."

After that answer, I've heard nothing of the committee, I expect to hear even less and I expect no future action thereof.
Any real insurance directions will, in my predictions, be totally directed by those elite three that have begun funding sub-corporations known as "Captive Insurance Corporations" using AMA funds and so far have appointed themselves the Board of Directors with the remainder of the EC's blessing.

Hey JR, do you face East when the EC is in session?

Hossfly

OK JR since nothing is there that surprises you, perhaps you could enlighten us to this one:

From the minutes: >>>>>>>>>

"Executive Session

To accommodate an individual who had to leave, the President addressed a NEW BUSINESS item at this time."

J_R

Horrace,

First, it is not a very difficult parliamentary procedure to suspend an Executive Session and to consider an issue in regular session out of order.

I think it is not to great a leap in logic, based on the following sections, to say that the EC is empowered to define the requirements of all offices at the nominating level. You can whine all you like, but the authority appears to be in the Bylaws.

I added the emphasis on bold.

JR

excerpt: AMA Bylaws
ARTICLE IX
Nominations and Elections
Section 1.

AMA officers shall be nominated by a Nominating
Committee composed of the District Vice Presidents (or an Open
member from the district of the absent Vice President as designated by
the absent Vice President), and the Executive Vice President (or an Open
member as designated by the absent Executive Vice President). The
Nominating Committee shall operate annually and under procedures
defined in the Standing Rules attached to these Bylaws . The Nominating
Committee shall be responsible for nominating the candidates for each
office to be vacated at the end of the year.

Current Standing Rule 6

6. Candidate’s Acceptance:
a. A letter of acceptance by the candidate must be on file at AMA
Headquarters fifteen (15) prior to the meeting;
b. along with a resume of professional qualifications and model
aviation experience Resume should include, but not be limited to, the
following areas of consideration . (Note all candidates must have their
campaign statement ready to be delivered to AMA HQ no later than the
1st of August.)
1. Statement of Leader Member status and date on which it was
conferred
2. Management experience
3. Financial Background
4. Insurance employment and/or expertise
5. Legal background
6. Technical background, including areas of aeronautics,
electronics (especially in radio frequency propagation and usage)
acoustics (as related to noise studies and analysis), and other areas of
engineering.
7. Aeromodeling background must be noted. The individual will
be required, if elected to national office, to deal with questions related to
all areas of aero modeling and should have a broad based background.
c. It is strongly recommended that these documents be mailed
certified, receipt requested

Msaint

My Feedback: (5)

Ok after reading the standing rules above. Explain district 5 to us in the peanut gallery pfft!

J_R

1. He predates the current Bylaws, if my memory is correct.

2. Dist 5 keeps re-electing him

3. Standing rule 4 states in part:

c. "incumbent is automatically placed on the ballot, provided that
he/she has been properly nominated and accepted, except that a 3/4 vote
against may withhold the incumbent’s name from the ballot (see Bylaws,
Article IX, Section 2)."

JR

The Bylaws and standing rules are contained in the Membership Manual on the AMA Site http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...memanual03.pdf

Msaint

My Feedback: (5)

Ahh thanks for the heads up. Didnt see that in the PDF.
In my opinon lines 4 and 5 should be totally removed.

4. Insurance employment and/or expertise
5. Legal background


Heh JR and Hoss my not see eye to eye on some things but they sure do teach us alot. Ahh the wealth of knowlege that pours out from simple debates is always good reading in my book.


Gotta Love it


M

J_R

Msaint

To the best of my knowledge, the criteria the EC set forth in the Standing Rules has never been used to keep anyone off the ballot when there are less than three nominees. The guidelines are set forth to help when more than three nominations are made. It has always seemed to me that some written standard is better than a "gut feeling" when the decision has to be made as to who goes on the ballot and who is left off. I suppose that the Nominating Committee could leave someone off regardless of there being less than three, but, I don't think that has ever happened. I could stand corrected.

The standards for the EVP position take a new avenue. Anyone being nominated will need to fulfill the requirements, regardless of how many nominees there are. The position of the EC is that the EVP office has grown and become something that is different than it once was. If you note in the EC minutes the number of times the EVP must do research on financial issues, such as taxes, there seems to be only one other option. That would be to pay a professional CFO and that won't come cheap. There seem to be enough qualified modelers that are willing to serve with no compensation that the logical move is to take advantage of that.

The last EVP election, Horrace was relying on his kin for that type of information, should he have been elected. In the Campaign Statement he issued, he basically said that he personally could not perform the duties himself. I think that was his downfall. Since then, "sour grapes" does not begin to describe his attitude about the position or the EVP, in my opinion. I have been personally disappointed in that. I nominated him the last time.

JR

Msaint

My Feedback: (5)

Heh well in some districts we are lucky to even have one running unoposed much less more than one. I still say something is wrong with that picture!

Me Im back at the getting my leader membership app together stages.

Hah that makes me feel so young


M

J_R

Horrace

With reference to the item of new business, this is what happened:

There was no new business discussed in Executive Session. The minutes merely indicate when, at what point during the meeting went into Exec. Session.

AFTER COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION the president moved an item of new business ahead of old business. This item was item B under new business.

Rich Hanson had to leave. It was Rich's agenda item re: historical recognition of Torry Pines that was discussed. After this item was disposed of they returned to the original agenda outline for the meeting. You can refer to the posted agenda for that meeting on the AMA Website to confirm this.

Once again paranoia rears its ugly head.

J_R

Horrace,

While I am thinking about it, I hope you will be forthright enough to post this information on all the other sites you raised the questions in. I have seen them on at least four sites and I know you did not stop there.

JR

Hossfly

>>>>>>>>>>The standards for the EVP position take a new avenue. Anyone being nominated will need to fulfill the requirements, regardless of how many nominees there are. The position of the EC is that the EVP office has grown and become something that is different than it once was. If you note in the EC minutes the number of times the EVP must do research on financial issues, such as taxes, there seems to be only one other option.

J_R

Well, Horrace, someone does not have a clue. I just don't see the black helicopters that you do. I think you are wrong, have been wrong and owe the EC an apology. It absolutely amazes me that Dave Brown and Dave Mathewson would even consider you for a committee, must less actually appoint you to one.

And you are right, I was not the only one to nominate you. It just happened that mine was the one read to the Nominating Committee.

You really should change your signature on your posts. I truly believe that putting "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" describes you to a tee.

JR

J_R

I take it all back. I nominated you. I do not have a clue.