I would like to share an exchange between myself and Dave Brown - primarily on the subject of the interim VP assigned for the next 6 months for District V. Hopefully it will give you some insight as to how things really work (forget the by-laws etc.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Brown" <[email protected]>
To: "Red Scholefield" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: interim VP 5

Red:

You are, probably, not going to like this, but here it is

I finally found the "rules" in regards to LM status.

First, the Bylaws, Article IX section 3 require that an appointee as CC, or AVP be a LM.

Second, the Bylaws, Article III, section 1, paragraph d, gives the EC the authority to determine the qualifications for LM status.

Third, Researching the EC minutes, we found that the minutes of the EC meeting on 10/27/90 contain the following:

"By concensus, it was ordered that Leader Member requirements be consistent with that of Contest Directors, I.E., that a minimum of three years of continuous current AMA membership be required prior to application for Leader Member status. The Vice President of each district may waive this requirement for extraordinary situations and/or conditions."

We, further looked up the application filled out by Judi Dunlap, for LM status, and written on it, and signed by Jim McNeill was a statement that he was waiving the 3 yr requirement.
[Comment-1] He obviously knew she didn't meet the requirements otherwise why waive them!

[Comment-2] 18 AVPs and he couldn't find one that already met the requirements?

I suppose one could argue that this did not constitute an "extraordinary situation", but that would be impossible to define. It is, obviously the VP's call, and Jim made it.

I feel that this puts this subject to bed.

Ironically, part of this problem was created by relying on the "origin date" in the membership records, and a casual review of these, reveals that they are NOT reliable. As an example, The origin date for my own membership comes up in 1981, and I was elected to the EC before that! Reviewing, randomly, other people I know, revealed numerous problems. Obviously, we need to look into what has happened in this area (I, for example, moved in, about, 1981....could that be the problem?) (FYI, your record has you joining in 83, and I know you were a member before that). In part, my looking into this aspect was brought about as a result of a Hq's handwritten, note on the LM application of Judi Dunlap, which indicated some time as a member when she was in Maryland, which MAY have made this whole subject moot.
[Comment-3] See comment-1 above.

Dave Brown
AMA President

And my response:

Dave,

We researched the rules (as published in the Membership Manual) quite
thoroughly. Based on these rules and not knowing that this requirement could
be waived by the VP (but it is not a surprise) we were challenging the
appointment of Judi Dunlap.

Some AMA members are rapidly coming to the conclusion that our By-Laws are a
joke enabling a "creative" VP to do just about whatever serves his agenda.
Which in McNeill's case was to appoint a back-up that wouldn't have a
snowball's chance in hell of ever running against him and winning and yet
garner lots of votes from one of the largest clubs in his District.

His legacy lives on in Judi Dunlap (about as unqualified as one can get and
most people know it) who has stated that she doesn't plan on changing
anything. I expect by the time an elected VP takes office the Frequency Monitoring
equipment disbursed (read permanently assigned) by McNeill will be
untraceable. I guess District V can live with another 6 months of business
as usual, we have survived the last 12 years of it. The circumstances (with
full credit to the EC) whereby Dunlap can serve for another 6 months, sans
any election, as VP and then run as an incumbent ??? will cause a few
eyebrows to be raised never the less.

You stated, " I suppose one could argue that this did not constitute an
"extraordinary situation", but that would be impossible to define. It is,
obviously the VP's call, and Jim made it." Yes, and it is obvious that it be
incumbent on the EC to make sure the VP defined the "extraordinary
situation".
Seriously, are these things ever challenged by the EC as a
body?

What will it take to define the rules under which a VP operates his
district and make sure they adhere to them or at the very least follow the
intent? The impression, at least from our experience in District V, is that
the guidelines in the Membership Manual as to how AVPs were assigned and
used could be ignored by the VP if it didn't fit his personal agenda. Yes,
I know, the membership voted for him as you like to quote. The 10,000
members also couldn't read where to send in their ballots in the last
election also - so much for depending on them to make a knowledgeable
selection of our leadership. Even more to support the argument that the
By-Laws need to honed to effectively reduce manipulation and creative
interpretation.

In the meantime I hope there is an active program to clean up the By-Laws
and get all of the "gotchas" out on the table and in writing.

I guess the Dunlap issue is put to bed as the chances of us getting stuck
with another McNeill in our lifetime is quite remote.

Red Scholefield
Leader Member (and still trying to give a damn about our AMA)

PS
OK you guardhouse lawyers - have a ball!