Originally Posted by franklin_m

"If one individual did the filtering it wasn't a "we" thing. I suspected some control issues were at play, but didn't want speculate until they were confirmed." - The feedback (email) came to me as the head of the organization. Nobody in between. No filtering except that done by me and me alone. I wanted unfiltered raw input from constituents.

It's good to receive unfiltered input, but when one person filters it it's cause for concern.

"So there was transparency in the decision, but filtering of the input data?" - Per above, no filtering of the feedback on decisions. Transparency in decision making? Yes. Except for cases that were law enforcement or national security sensitive, I was more than happy to have my decision making challenged and justify the actions. I felt that if it couldn't stand up to the scruitiny, it was likely a position that needed to be re-examined.

Having one person filter the data allows one justify the decisions they wish to make.

"When organizations make these decisions it should be based on their mission statement. What part of the AMA's mission statement would lead you to believe embracing drones is inconsistent with their mission statement?" - Yes, but as I learned from a Harvard prof at war college, most organization's mission statements are great - as doorstops (literally). They're so full of ambiguous and flowerly language that they can be interpreted any number of ways that they're meaningless. For example, when a mission statement says that we're "going to be the best." What does that mean? Do we all have a shared vision of best? Is that best in service, best in margin, best in our region, best nationally, internationally, etc.? Good mission statements generally fall into the "word picture" category...descriptions in practical terms what the world likes when you've accomplished your mission. To be effective, they have to define clearly what you will do, and in something missing form most, language that helps you decide what you won't do. Lest they become "do everything" missions. I have some readings on it that I would give to my students, HBR and others, but I don't have that drive with me at the moment.

That's a nice piece on mission statements, but doesn't answer the specific question I asked on how the AMA's mission statement is inconsistent with their support of drones? Did you have any specifics you can share regarding the AMA's mission statement?

"I'd probably consider a small group on the order of several hundred. Maybe < 250." - Ok, we had 14,000. Talked to all 14K directly each year through regular meetings, publications, speaking engagements, walkabouts, safety stand downs, quarters, captain's calls, etc. I maintained a policy of being very approachable, had people even come to my door at 0700 on a Saturday morning to provide feedback on housing assignment decisions I'd made. Did I turn them away? Nope. I listened - because it was my job and it was the right thing to do.

That's a lot of people. Certainly too many to engage with on a personal basis in any given year.

"Principle centered leadership ...." - Principled leadership is a good thing. But I'm not leading the AMA. I'm leading myself and my family.

Principle centered leadership is about how individuals lead themselves, if leaders we can't lead themselves how can we expect them to lead organizations?

I will let time measure what's the result of those arguments.

How much time is enough time? 1,500+ posts over a decade isn't enough time?

I argue the results have not been zero as you've contended. A discussion of turbine risk ranking based on kinetic energy came up at last EC meeting - that came from phoncon I had with EVP several months ago. Wildly out of date safety of flight information on the website has been updated.

Seems that came out of the FAA registration team that the FAA put together this past Fall.

We have a definitive statement from Chad B that AMA will not consider membership as a requirement to be in compliance with the AMA safety code.

Who would be validating the compliance? Seems like a voluntary thing that has always existed. Any individual could read the AMA safety code and claim self-compliance.

I submitted a comment to FAA on registration, one statement was quoted verbatim in FAA's defense of their position, two other statements were paraphrased in defense of their position. I received a callback from a DC Senate staffer in response to comments made on Senate bill and ammendments. While not all of these are directly based on these RCU posts, many result from back and forth and ideas fleshed out here.

Did they result in any change by the AMA? If so, what?

"Is the AMA engaging in any illegal activity? If so, what?" - Didn't say that nor did I (think) I implied it. Merely stating that we pay the bills and AMA exists as a non-profit at the permission of the taxpayers. I merely stated that accountability looks very different for them than my accountability to myself.

Is their accountability in conflict with the permmssion of the taxpayers?

"Did you pay the $58 or the $75 rate? It's not about justifying it me, it's about justifying it against the principles." - I paid the $58 during my last renewal and I did so on the last possible day. If I renew, I'll do the same with the $75.

"As individuals, we need to be accountable to ourselves before we can be accountable to others. If we can't establish our own KPI's and follow them how can we hold others accountable for doing the same?" - I'm plenty accountable to myself, and regardless, I'm the sole arbitrator of that. If I choose to establish personal KPIs or not, that's my business.

It is, but if we beleive in KPI's for everone else why would we not beleive in them for ourselves?