The term "prorate policy" is mine. The correct title is "dues policy". Sorry

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-Files/912.pdf

Now this is strange.
You opinion seems to be out of step with reality and somewhat inconsistent with the purpose of the exercize.

Look at some simple numbers and facts. The AMA has about 150,000 members (for a good conservative round number) and our turnover seems to be around 30% so in keeping with our first classification let us use 1/3. That means there should be something around 50,000 modelers who are QUALIFIED to be Leader Members. That seems to indicate that by the second term ALL club presidents (or all club officers) would qualify under the current rules AND have demonstrated a willingness to contribute to the community.

We WANT folks interested in the long term health of the hobby as Leader Members and yet you want to discriminate against those who have demonstrated a willingness to contribute - even the chair warmers do that. Any particular reason to keep the control to a chosen few who chose their replacements and select those that may even be in the pool?

J_R,

Just how does my recommendations make it harder to be eligable to run for office?

I recommended no more leader requirment, none of the BS reviews to be elligible to be President, and I broadened the scope of personnel eligible and reduce the length a time it would take to be eligible.

Notice that nobody is required to "approve you"

My "how to do the voting" might be allittle more involved but it has a way for the local clubs to be involved and a way to include non-club members in the process (either via caucus or the internet).

Is it perfect, nothing is, but it is more inclusive and easier for those who wish to run to be able to run.

Right now in order to get involved and effect change you need the "okay" of those in power. It is almost like Kerry having to get Bush and his cabinet to approve and qualify him to run for President.


The present system is favored to the insiders and incumbents and severly restricts the ability of willing members to run for higher office. First you must be in for three years then find three current Leader Members or three members and you DVP. The current leader members and the current DVP are what is trying to be changed in some of the districts. So order to run you have to in effect get their approval to make you a leader member. Does any one else see something wrong with this. And lets not even go over what is require to run for President and who decides who is qualified to run for that office.

J_R, Convince us that the current system should not be changed! What are your arguements that the current system does not need to be "tweeked"?

Hi Jamie

On the face of it, it would seem a good idea. Looking a little deeper, it may present some issues.

Of course, I have no idea of your modeling background, but, if you were confronted with a questionnaire that required your opinion on autogyros or indoor rubber, do you feel you can give an accurate assessment of the AMA’s performance in those areas. Some would simply ignore questions were they hold no expertise, while others would attempt to rate something they have no knowledge of. That would lead to unknown value for the input.

There is currently a system in place that allows for input. The Special Interest Groups (SIGs) represent different phases of the hobby to the AMA. As a good example, the Jet Pilots Organization (JPO) was recently able to influence the waiver process and rules for turbines.

Educated input into areas of the AMA’s performance is a good thing. Having said that, many AMA members appear to have a very limited understanding of AMA operations. Witness a statement, today, by a modeler, in this forum, implying that the insurance has no value because it is secondary... not realizing that the landlord insurance alone justifies it’s existence.

If some way could be devised to get only informed input, such a survey could be useful, but, as it is, the input might very well be skewed in a way as to make it have less value.

My arguement is not that the system should not be tweeked. My arugement is that your suggestion is much more restrictive than the current system. With the exception of President, the requirment now is 3 years membership and fill out a form that will be rubberstamped. The proof of that statement is the fact that Sandy Frank made sure that Mike Moss's Leader Membership application was processed so that Mike might run against him. Show me just one case where someone with three years of membership has been denied leader membership and I will fold my cards on this one. Just one.

Edited to add your list of restrictions, that are not currently in place. This would limit the number of potential candidates severly. I can show you many people that have been denied club leadership positions, while I doubt that you can show me one leader membership application that has ever been turned down

Your list of restrictions:
"I would change it to be; if you wish to run for an EC or higher you must have been a sitting club officer(Pres,VP, Sec Treasurer or Safety Officer), a Hall of Fame Member, a Contest Director, a Leader Member, a Life Member, or a National AMA Event Title Holder (excluding Junior Divisions). If you meet one of those criteria you qualify."

I guess you didn't read my post.

I should not have to get ANYONES signature to run. My requirements are minimal if that. Basically it is asking for you to show in some way that you are or have been active in the adminstration of the hobby. Or in the case of Life Members, have finacially invested in the organization. I would guess that my requirements would probablyincrease the number of eligible members who could run for office ten fold. (Just a guess but 2500 clubs X 4 officers equals 10000 members eligable) plus 1000 National title Holders past and present, Leader Members (1500?), Life Memebers (2000?), and Others (500) for a total of around 13,000 to 15000 members who could run for national office versus the several thousand right now.

As for finding someone who has been denied lead member status, do not know of anyone and really do not wish to spend the time chasing one down. A better way to state it is how many people have not run because they have not wished to go through the hassle of this process? I'm sure there are several, of which I am one of them at the present time. If in the future I have the time and wish to go through the effort to seek out three Leader Members in the Chicago Area (currently I am not aware of any) and mail my application to out DVP who doesn't know me from a hole in the ground, then I will.

Under my system I would already qualify, would not have to "find" anyone, and I would just need someone to nominate me to be place on the ballot as I have held the post of Secretary and VP at a club.

Can't you see all of the holes, road blocks and issues in the current system?

rsallen,

"Hassle of the Process....?

The only obstacle in obtaining a Leader Member status is the experience and EFFORT it takes to obtain it. A Leader Member has demonstrated that he/she has the knowledge to LEAD in one of the following three categories:

Administrative—requiring administrative model club experience and ability.
Scientific—requiring a model aviation background of a scientific nature.
Industrial—for those with principal income from the model aviation industry

Would you really want someone running for a major office in the AMA that has no experience at all or, or does not have any leadership ability? Leaders lead by example, not by saying what they can do or change. If someone will not make the effort to fill out a simple application for themselves, do you really expect them to make the effort to support their membership? Seems to me that there is enough of that going on already, as J_R has pointed out many times. In most cases, being a member for three years does not give you the experience to be a DVP or President. It is very easy to criticize something without having the knowledge of the subject. If you are not part of the solution, then you may be part of the problem.

This is not a popularity contest, and the only way to make changes is to get involved. Granted, there are many problems that need to be looked at and addressed, but it is not going to happen overnight. It will take the efforts of the entire membership, to make changes, not just one thread or post complaining about everything that is wrong with the AMA in one members mind. The solutions sound very easy on the surface, but trying to implement them and keeping everyone happy is a major task. Someone made the statement that Leader Members were "the good ole boys", I can assure you that I am not one and I am a Leader Member.

If you refer to this application: http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-Files/907.pdf

You will notice that you can be signed off by an Associate Vice President not just the District VP.

This is purely MY opinion....

DO NOT bother chasing down leader members. Simply find three OPEN members to sign you off. If you have to chase down three open members, you do have a problem. You should be able to find them at a club meeting or whereever you fly. Test me. Try it.

I'm not complaining I am making sugjestion on how to improve the process. Are you saying that Club Officers, Current Leader and Life Members, Hall of Fame Members, and National Event Winners are not active in the hobby, would be just out to win a popularity contest, and that these members are not involved?

But because I think the current system is broken or do not wish to run at this time I am some one less than qualified?

And because I do not have extensive experince in theses areas:

.

I am some how less than qualified to run?

Quite honestly I have the management background and in the past managed and run divisions within companies that make the AMA look small in comparison, but I do not have a scientific degree and I do not own a model related business so again I am some how less than qualified to run the AMA?

Will I get involved in the future? I am already involved and this forum is one of the ways I chose to be involved. Will I run for National Office in the future? Maybe? Am I less than qualified? I my opinion, No, but based upon the by-laws and the seclection process, Yes.

I know of several professional organizations that I belong to that are international in scope that ony require you to be a member to run for National/International Office. They have 300000 to 400000 members and significatly more monetary resources than the AMA. I qualify to run for the President of that organization the day I signed up. Would I win, NO, but I could run which I cannot do in the AMA unless I go through this convoluted process which is controlled by the EC.

Also, I do not expect to change the mind of J_R or based his post heli001, but I am looking to open a dialog to improving the current system to benifit all modelers. There are parts of the AMA I like (insurance, Nat's to name a couple) but are there changes that need to be made(even in these areas), Yes. As an organization we must continue to evolve to meet the needs of our membership. With a few exceptions the AMA has not changed to keep up with the times or to some extent the needs of its membership. In my opinion!

Not necessarily a true litmus test...Maybe they endure the "hassle" for vanity reasons...too often the true motivator of some.


When it comes to a vote...yes it is.

As mod here you should refrain from subjective qualifications IMO...Until your complaints about complaints I had no complaints and seen no complaints about this thread...[X(] This thread seemed to be illuminating the intent of the originator fairly well…You know expounding on Small changes in the AMA as opposed to maintaining AMA's bureaucratic red tape.

Wow, What have I started. I have the Troll defending me in one forum and HossFly agreeing with me in another. I have traveled to the DARK SIDE!!!!!!!!

Another sad soul who mistakes the Internet for reality. This forum is mostly entertainment, some knowledge sharing, a little venting and a little brainstorming. It is NOT involvement. Involvement is meeting with the folks who live next to the field, and addressing their concerns. Involvement is meeting with the County Council to get the road to the field paved. Involvement is talking to the beligerent club member who is flying unsafely. Involvement means building people's trust in repeated face-to-face contact over many years.

Here's how I look at it. The AMA is a bureaucracy. That's what makes it long lasting and stable. Its rules are designed so that it can only change slowly. Your personality may be such that you don't like bureaucracies, but most people do, for the very reason that they stay around for a long time. For the organizations that they support and depend upon, most people don't want to see some hothead take over and make drastic changes. I really don't know much more than I read here, but it sounds like the AMA rules are designed so that it can't be taken over from the outside. In order to gain power in the organization, you need to work together with the people in the organization. I suspect that a lot of members like it just that way.

Instead of insulting people whom you do not know, try to ADD something to this discussion. I have only listed this as one way of being involved. And as for all of your other points they are not the topic of discussion. Election requirements are. New ideas ARE!

I am not looking to blindly open the AMA to a take over. There are still requirements to eligible to run they are just broader. So you imply that Club Officers, Leader and Life Members and Title Holders are outsiders looking to TAKE OVER the AMA. The naysayers and doomsdayers need to take a little time to look at the larger scope of my proposal instead of shooting it down with out making recommendations yourself.

All I have asked in this thread it that people come forth with Ideas. I have not seen any idea from J_R, helioo1 or from you Mike in DC. Do you have any orginal ideas on how to improve the AMA, Anything? Any Part?

rsallen13

I have put my thoughts on the subject up in this forum so often that all of the regular members are sick of looking at them. At this point, I can type, or you can go back and start at the beginning of this forum and read them. I choose not to type.

The problems are not with who may run, IMHO. If you think restricting those that may run improves the process... well, I disagree. If you are not willing to try the current process... so be it, it's your decision.

Edit:

You may want to read the AMA by-laws. You, nor anyone else in this world can change them without the leader members. If you want ANY change to the AMA of any consequence, become one.

Changing the system and whether I run under the current system have nothing to do with each other. In order to change the system I and others will have to run under the current system. With that said I again ask for input form anyone on what "SMALL CHANGES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MADE IN THE AMA".

I'm looking for input and discussion and not people to dismiss any idea without discussion. I have responded back to all of the posts directed at me so far and have asked the same question.

"What changes would you (if you could) make in the AMA and how it operates?

If you do not wish to add positive input into this thread then move on. I have been trying to start a dialog here, if you have nothing to add other that the AMA should not change then start another thread for it.

Myself and others are looking to honestly discuss these idea (the good and the bad) and to just come in and say "NO NEED FOR CHANGE" does not add anything. We have no authority to inact these changes, but lets discuss them anyway. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but maybe some day some of the ideas discussed here will move forward and effect positive change. It has to start somewhere.

It starts with becoming a leader member. Then the EC has to put forth the changes so they can be voted on by the leader members. Are you going to sit on the sidelines if that time arrives and whine that you do not get a vote? I wonder.

Okay J_R you complain about everyone who never listens to you and never bothers to read. Please try reading not only the topic of this thread but what has been written.

My idea would make it easier for others to become eligible, not harder. Leader Memebers are just one small portion of my proposal. It would increase the number of ACITVE and INVOLVED members by 10 fold (from a few thousand to over 10000 members) while at the same time making it easier to run for District Office.

It would make it a lot easier to run for President. Maybe we keep a requirement that you serve on the EC first, but we need to find away to get a broader base of the membership involved with the management of this organization.

The when and if I personnaly decide to run for higher office is governed more by my family life than a desire to be involved. Family always comes first! You have made it very clear that I need to become a Leader Member in order to run now. DUHHHHHHHHHH.............. That is not the point.

I am looking for honest an forthwrite ways to improve. You like the Status Quo. Enough said on that, but I know that there are things within the current structure of the AMA that you would like to see change. What I want to know is what are they, how do you propose it to work, and why you feel this way. I this thread we are assuming that we can effect change and not be handcuffed by the current system. I'm not trying to start a fight I just would like to see a thread in this forum move forward and stay on topic for once!

Where the heck does anything you said here have anything to do with what you quoted? There's somethig wrong with my opinion because I KNOW for certain that 2 people Iknow are LMs with cards (because thier names apper in Model aviation in a position that would need that qualification..) and AT LEAST 2 more SHOULD be LM's? (because they easilly exceed the requirements... but I'm not sure they sent in the form...) Does knowing people that meet the current LM requirements invalidate my opinions for some reason?

What a crock.

What is the purpose of this exercise?..... Comming up with ideas on some alternatives that could be workable? Or just slashing and burning the system simply because it is the system?

If its the former... then work toward formulating good ideas.

If its the latter... then this thread is 100% without any merit.

******************

You want it blunt? It'll upset some local club members.... Because they won't like part of what it says about our club at this time.

Our current club president has been an AMA member for 11 months at this date. (and he was elected in Dec... that means he was elected when he'd been in the AMA, and the club for under 9 months!) He was simply the only guy WILLING to be on the ballot. The person who had served as club president for a few years got worn out... another stepped up for a couple of years, but he'd served other offices and was already worn out.

As I've posted... it would be a bad idea for ME to be in a club office... (If you haven't figured out why... you're not ignorant... you're stupid.)

I had hope that his thread would be about hearing and formulating new ideas, but right now the pro-establishment group refuses to stay out of the mix.

I have spent the better part of two days responding to "We allready have a system in place" comments which come without any ideas or sugjestions. They only continue to say "How About the current way, use the current system, it ain't broken"

So far out of of 43 posts only 10 have ideas, there are 16 comments for or against, 7 toe the AMA line, and 10 rebutals to comments made. So all in al 26 posts discussing the AMA out of 43 is a pretty good average in this Forum.

Another idea I had would be to move toward internet voting to increase participation. You could still mail it in but during the month of the elections you could log on and vote also. A cool thing about this would be that a lot of clubs have their meetings at libraries and if you discuss this with the Librarian you might be able to use one of the public PC's as a mini voting booth.

J R you base on the amount of risk of a mishap or injury. the bigger or faster or more hazardous the craft the higher the membership rate. someone fly a rubber band powered indoor FF is not going to have the same risk as someone flying a large multi-engine or a turbine craft "this is just an example I know there are craft that fly faster then a turbine or are heavier then a multi-engine craft."
As far as slip and fall accidents you deny claims that do not directly involve aircraft. for the clubs that are leasing land the landowner will not be held responsible for any mishaps that happen on the leased property it is that simple. post a sign that anyone that sets foot on the a club field is responsible for there own safety! the Landowner and the club are not liable for any accidents not envolving R/C aircraft. Enter at you own risk.

Soar Dude

Because some parts of the way things are work... and might not need changing... its pro-establishment?

LM status is so easy... I could get it now... (I have been a club officer... and would find it easy to get 2 LM sigs, probably a 3rd... and the district VP would almost certainly sign me off without blinking...) Anyone that's flown models for 3 or 4 years would either meet the quals already... or could volunteer for a club office such as Field Marshal and finish getting the quals... so no one has to fudge to sign you off.

The LM qual system just ain't broke. Don't fix that.
Modifying the election process (especially the EC nominating system) Is a GREAT idea. THAT is broke. Fix that one.

*************
Tornado... turning off....

Lets look at Fred's assertion and see if it is correct.

The AMA membership rate it running right around 150,000 to 170,000. In most other organizations the mid level folks represent at least 10% of the average membership. That would tend to indicate that the AMA SHOULD have around 15,000 Leader Members. The last time I checked the number was just over 3,000, or about 20% of what it SHOULD be. Worse, the majority of those folks are old guys who are leaving the hobby (one way or another).

IF the claim "The LM qual system just ain't broke." was on target, we should be having a significant growth of that class of membership since there are clearly at least 50,000 AMA members who qualify under the current requirements. Not only do we not see the growth in that class of membership, but we are seeing it decline and the rate WILL increase. That seems to mean the 'system' IS broken and we do need to fix it.

IF you want to correct the electoral process problems, we MUST fix the Leader Member problems OR throw all Leader Memberships away and just open the election up to anyone who wants to run whenever they make that decision.

In my opinion, THIS is THE place to start making small changes for the better. We NEED a class of involved modelers who have proven they are willing to invest in the modeling community. Club officers do that. I am not comfortable electing an individual to the AMA EC who has never contributed to the modeling community, are you?

Fred, no matter what your personal problems with your club and its president, I challenge you to PROVE that ANY club officer is NOT contributing to the modeling community. In the past I have employed and highly paid folks who were not as motivated as club officers are while the sit there playing target for all the other idiots in the club. Go have a couple of cups of coffee and reconsider you positon as it does not really appear to be productive. Not a slash and burn but a simple observation rather than a stupid remark.

We don't have the LM to "average" member ratio for one reason... people don't apply for it.

And the reason they don't apply...they aren't aware such a position even exists... Sort of like an honorary recognition title to those that do know. No real need such as a CD or other officer of the club.

May the force be with you