I’m sure it is no secret to anyone who has been reading messages in this forum that my EVP vote has been cast for Mark Smith. Both candidates, IMO, are qualified for the position. Both have a long history of involvement in AMA and RC flying. There are, however, major differences between the two which leads me to conclude that one is fit to serve and the other is not.

Both have made themselves available to members of RCU to ask questions and learn why they should or should not be supported. Mark has answered questions put to him in a professional and adult manner. Most of the questions put to him were answered completely, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. The primary exception to this is the cost of PPP so far. His response was disappointing to me. As the head of the Marketing Committee those numbers should be available to him, and to us. His failure to supply a complete answer may be due in part to accounting practices that don’t break the numbers out specifically for PPP. If so, that in itself is a problem that should be addressed. Horrace, on the other hand, has played silly games with his answers, requiring one’s AMA number to get a response, to save him time, he claims. It’s interesting that he has responded too many of these questions, merely to taunt the user that he’s not going to answer. So much for his time savings.

In addition, many of his answers are peppered with childish personal attacks, meant merely to ridicule and embarrass. It surprises me that many of these messages were allowed to stand. Most of these comments were in response to questions that either put Horrace on the defensive, or challenged his statements and positions. Such childish tactics gives the reader some insight into how he will react on the EC when people disagree with him or challenge his positions. It bodes ill that he will have the ability to function with any effectiveness at all should he be elected.

Horrace has insinuated that Mark has used his position on the marketing committee for personal gain. When questioned about this he has refused to either support his claim, or to retract it. Politics by innuendo is one of the lowest forms of campaigning. It’s nothing but an unsupported cheap shot. OTHO, when asked Mark declined to make any comments regarding Horrace. Quite a contrast in class.

Horrace has contradicted himself more than a few times in regards to his positions. He claims to reserve judgment on the PPP program, but his comments indicate otherwise. The use of such terms as “Joe Parkee Flyer”, and IMO one of the most telling: "……….I have no real interest in the individual that has no interest in the real model aviation world. If one cannot afford full AMA dues, and an annual club dues of $150.00 per year which may have to increase soon, then I will do whatever I can to send these persons to another place to play with their toys.” Interestingly enough, in his campaign statement Horrace tries to reach out to all aspects of the hobby: “We need to recognize our fellow modeler, no matter his/her interest or station within the activity.” Which are his real sentiments? I think it’s rather clear, and it’s not what is contained in his campaign statement.

Horrace has also contradicted himself very badly concerning First Person Video flying, where a video downlink allows the pilot to fly from a cockpit perspective, rather than line of sight. In a response to one of my original questions Horrace was adamant that he would never support such. Then, just yesterday when asked by someone whose vote he might actually get, he turns 100% and talks about what a great idea it is and how he will support such. He even talks about how he needs some advisors so he can learn more about it. When questioned about the glaring contradiction he explains that he’s already learned about it, and thinks it’s a great idea. How convenient. I don’t believe it for an instant.

He also tends to embellish his actual accomplishments. In his campaign statement he lists as a “significant accomplishment” his involvement in gaining the release of additional RC frequencies while he was DVP some 27 years ago. Turns out his involvement was to discuss the issue with the EC, and then make a motion to provide additional funds to the committee. That’s it. Nothing else. Yet in his campaign statement he makes it appear that it couldn’t have been done without him. Interestingly enough, he has indicated that his involvement led in part to his resignation as DVP. Yep, he quit mid-term the last time he was elected.

And now he wants us to elect him again.

Horrace has little, if any, respect for those that disagree with him. In the recent vote to change the bylaws on the duties of EVP/CFO, over 50% of AMA Leader Members voted. Leader members are those recognized for above normal involvement/knowledge and leadership within AMA. Of those 50%, over 96% voted in favor of the bylaw change. Horrace didn’t support the change, and was quick to characterize that 96% as “naive and uninformed”. 96% folks. And now he wants us to elect him to a leadership position. By the way, he has characterized the position he seeks as nothing more than a “flunky to the EC”. Well, he’s campaigning awfully hard to become that flunky.

IMO, though, the most compelling reason to support Mark Smith and not Horrace Cain is his inability to “play well with others”. If you question this, just read through his messages. If you disagree with him, or even worse, challenge him on a position he becomes abusive and condescending with his messages. You become the enemy, who can’t understand, can’t comprehend, and his messages become littered with childish insults and personal remarks.
He has an ax to grind with the AMA or anyone who challenges him, and IMO that is his motive for wanting to become EVP. IMO he has a personal agenda here, and that, above all else, is his motivation for seeking election.

At best he will be ineffective and alienate those on the EC and AMA staff that he hasn’t already alienated. At worst he will be a disruptive influence on the AMA EC and make it difficult for them to accomplish anything that isn’t his idea or part of his personal agenda.

If that is what you want for the AMA, then vote for him. If not, then vote for Mark Smith.