Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al.  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


North American F-86 Sabre EDF
Seller:  EASYTIGER
Details:   $199.00   |  11/5/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al.
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/12/2003 8:22:06 AM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3925
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Taken from the minutes of the AMA Executive Council, Apr. 26, '03

>>>>>>>>>>>
"OLD BUSINESS

EVP Position Paper

The basic concept is to better define the expected qualifications of the EVP position. A draft will be sent to Council for their review, and it will be discussed at the July meeting. When finalized, the description will be added to the standing rules."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


This is in direct violation of the AMA's Bylaws which state that Nominating Committee PROCEDURES are directed by Standing Rules, but gives NO AUTHORITY to change the Bylaws' stated qualifications for the potential nominee.

Again we see an EC that simply stands by and does nothing to preserve the few rights of the membership -- Leader Members -- relative to those Bylaws.

Without any opposition, these Standing Rules will eventually be regarded in the same venue as if they were/are Bylaws.

A subject that should well be remembered come this next election cycle.

Horrace Cain
AMA Leader 539

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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
       Post #: 1

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/12/2003 11:32:49 AM   
J_R


 

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline 		With respect to nominations , Standing Rules are authorized by the Bylaws. Since the nominating committee has set standards for nominated individuals in the past, the one with reference to the EVP is just an extension. The Standing Rules charge the EC with considering nominations.

I don't believe anyone has ever been rejected when there were less than three nominees, but, the way I read the Standing Rules, they do have the authority to reject a nomination for cause.

Horrace, you may not like it, but, it is authorized in the Bylaws. You can be certain that an attorney has determined that the EC is taking a correct stance.

JR

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 2

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/12/2003 4:32:55 PM   
Msaint



Posts: 154
Joined: 4/18/2003
From: N/A
Status: offline 		If I'm reading it right, what Horrace is stating is that standing rules cannot over ride bylaws. Which I believe also is the case in this matter.

If a standing rule does attempt to over ride a bylaw in any way, it would make the standing rule null and void and basically not worth the paper the rule was wrote on.

As for an attorneys opinion. That generally depends on who's paying them and what side of the table they are sitting on.


M

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 3

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/12/2003 7:43:26 PM   
J_R


 

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Msaint
If I'm reading it right, what Horrace is stating is that standing rules cannot over ride bylaws. Which I believe also is the case in this matter.

If a standing rule does attempt to over ride a bylaw in any way, it would make the standing rule null and void and basically not worth the paper the rule was wrote on.

As for an attorneys opinion. That generally depends on who's paying them and what side of the table they are sitting on.


M [/QUOTE]

It appears that you see the logic in the other thread:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/tm.asp?m=837072

JRR

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 4

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/12/2003 10:40:58 PM   
Jim Branaum


 

Posts: 1669
Joined: 10/22/2002
From: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by J_R
With respect to nominations , Standing Rules are authorized by the Bylaws. Since the nominating committee has set standards for nominated individuals in the past, the one with reference to the EVP is just an extension. The Standing Rules charge the EC with considering nominations.

I don't believe anyone has ever been rejected when there were less than three nominees, but, the way I read the Standing Rules, they do have the authority to reject a nomination for cause.

Horrace, you may not like it, but, it is authorized in the Bylaws. You can be certain that an attorney has determined that the EC is taking a correct stance.

JR [/QUOTE]

JR,

I have put a lot of thought into this issue and am appalled at the error we (AMA) are making. This is a similar path to that followed by the IMAA into oblivion. Standing Rules are created by the EC without member input.

The IMAA allows the IMAA Board of Directors to make whatever by-laws changes they wish with NO input from the membership. This means that there are modelers and there are managers, but the two are NOT the same. I know, I got grief for leaving an IMAA BOD meeting to go fly. I left because the issue I had interest in had been discussed and I like to fly and I was not a member of that BOD.

That is also one reason I think we (AMA) have problems recruiting better people to run for the VP slots. Most of us are modelers and becoming a VP means we would have to travel extensively and probably not fly very much. Do the math for your own district and see what the number of flying weekends your VP might get are.

I find that number objectionable, so I let others play the management games to their hearts content. Some are good, and some just like to play political games to show how all powerful they are.

The organization looses when the manglers we call AMA VP's play their political management games, but unless we can convince the good ones to change things (like our structure, the Standing Rules and their impact on us, and the flow of ideas and responsibility), we are stuck with it. Few I know wish to stoop to the level of intelligence and integrity shown by some of our elected "leaders" because it would mean that they would no longer be modelers.

There were no shots taken at any specific individuals here, however the paranoid may make any assumptions they wish.

_____________________________

Jim Branaum AMA 1428

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 5

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/13/2003 8:52:06 AM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3925
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by J_R
With respect to nominations , Standing Rules are authorized by the Bylaws. Since the nominating committee has set standards for nominated individuals in the past, the one with reference to the EVP is just an extension. The Standing Rules charge the EC with considering nominations.

I don't believe anyone has ever been rejected when there were less than three nominees, but, the way I read the Standing Rules, they do have the authority to reject a nomination for cause.

Horrace, you may not like it, but, it is authorized in the Bylaws. You can be certain that an attorney has determined that the EC is taking a correct stance.

JR [/QUOTE]

Par. 1 JR, What's your point? I said SRs for PROCEDURES. Considering the nominations for selection of 3 persons is a procedure. No argument there.

Par. 2 Again what's your point?

Par. 3 What / Which "it" is authorized by the Bylaws. As I SAID, the current SRs are procedures which are plainly authorized by the Bylaws. Once again the minutes state "QUALIFICATIONS". That JR is a *whole 'nother story.*
THE BYLAWS STATE EC MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS AND DO NOT RELEGATE THOSE QUALIFICATIONS TO THE EC'S STANDING RULES.

In case your comprehension of PROCEDURES versus QUALIFICATIONS is a bit rusty, you will find Procedures listed first in the dictionary before Qualifications. OTOH Qualification has to do with a restriction in meaning or application or a condition or standard that must be complied with whereas Procedure is related to a particular way of accomplishing something or of acting and even a traditional or established way of doing things.

When a governing body establishes procedures that violates its own law without any challenge, those procedures soon become law as the "traditional" way of doing.

JR, I'm sorry to say you are very confused and have absolutely no comprehension of my plainly stated post and/or the AMA Bylaws / Standing Rule relationship.

_____________________________

Horrace Cain. AMA Life L-93, Leader and CD for 45 years
Christian TEXAN American Heterosexual PRO-GUN Conservative: Any Questions?

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 6

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/13/2003 10:26:48 AM   
J_R


 

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline 		Horrace

I understand what you are saying and what you posted. It's simple. My opinion is that you are wrong.

JR

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 7

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/15/2003 1:22:32 AM   
simitar1



Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2003
From: Fairfield Glade, TN,
Status: offline 		Horrace, you and J_R are close enough, perhaps the two of you should meet somewhere and settle this over coffee

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 8

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/15/2003 7:04:29 AM   
abel_pranger


 

Posts: 2361
Joined: 5/7/2003
From: St Augustine, FL,
Status: offline 		Scimitar1-
Meeting is out of the question. It's too damned hot in Tx for a SoCal boy like JR, and it would be just plain unpatriotic for Hoss to come to the 'Left' coast.
I'm not unsympathetic with Hoss, but I think the real burr in his saddle is the generally cavalier posture apparent in the EC's MO (as a group, not necessarily the nature of all of the individuals) when it comes to including AMA members in making the policy of what, according to the lip service paid to the notion, is "their" organization.
The standing rules vs. bylaws thing is picking nits off Bandini Mountain. The broader issue is that Leader Members have not had any say in matters that are supposed to be within their purview for a heck of long time, and that's the issue that ought to be stumped for. LM's are small segment of the total membership-at-large, but they are presumed to be representative and are the only ones that can vote on policy issues directly as opposed to voting only for an EC member to make policy. The only other group that is representative is those that vote, also a small percentage of the whole, and pragmatically, one would have to conclude not very effective. Look to D5 for a prime example of that lacking in effect.
I used to vote and tried to take an active role, chairing a committee for for a while, and such. I've pretty much backed off from that active interest now - fruitless, mostly wasted effort and a source of frustration that I just don't need. I know I'm not alone. That's obvious - how many able people do you see running for office of AMA VP, or for that matter even club office? AMA is not a democratic org by any stretch; it's more a benevolent despotism. Okay by me, it cannot and will not change, so let the despots do as they will, as long they can get some to pay the dues in return for the benevolence bestowed on them.

Abel

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 9

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/15/2003 8:50:55 AM   
simitar1



Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2003
From: Fairfield Glade, TN,
Status: offline 		Abel_pranger, I'd like to disagree with your comment about getting participation but after being a club officer in three different Clubs for a total of 13 of my 15 years, I must say you are correct.

I'm not certain of the figures but I think it was less than 25% of AMA members voted in the last election. I brought it up at our monthly meeting and even though every member had recieved a ballot, over two weeks before that meeting, only myself and one other of those present had voted. Most of the members didn't even know who our VP, Jim McNeill was or that he was being challenged. None, other than myself, had read the position statements.

It might be helpful if every AMA officer had to put a CURRENT PICTURE in there header versus a shot from 10 years ago. I was surprized to see how much Jim aged in just one month. Doug looks like time has stopped dead in it's tracks for him. Charlie Bauer hasn't changed since he visited our field in 1990. It ain't just the men either.

Joe Beshar on the other hand is aging gracefully, like the rest of us, it's probably all that fresh air and sun shine we see in all his great articles.

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 10

Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al. - 6/15/2003 9:10:48 AM   
J_R


 

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline 		Be careful of what you wish for. The Dist 5 VP wanted to spend an additional $80,000 a year to put the VP pictures in their columns in color. (check back in the Minutes of the EC meetings a few months ago). It was referred to the Publications committee and died a deserved death.

Your desire could re-ignite the flame.

JR

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 11

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Open letter to AMA leader members, membership, EC, et. al.
Page: [1]





Jump to: