FATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

small changes:
#1, and most important, dull but important nonetheless.
there should be a maximum lifetime for "standing rules". 2 years sounds good to me.
for those that feel that the AMA cannot opperate without "standing rules" lasting longer, if they are that important to operation, they should be incorporated into the bylaws.

The purpose of Standing rules VS bylaws... Bylaws are difficult to change... like the US Constitiution it takes a fiar effort to change the bylaws. Standing rules are much easier to modify, just as the Tax code gets modified every year. (hopefully the standing rule gets handled better than the mess they keep making of the tax code...)

A GOOD standing rule sill sit unchanged for a LONG time. A bad one should get wiped out rather quickly. (however... you can compare this to some of the "Blue Laws" still on the books.... Whereis it you are supposed to have someone walk infront of a car swinging a lamp to warn the guys horses? They never did pull that from the books.)

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

Can't actually find the dumb law i referenced... (I forgot where it is..)

From www.dumblaws.com Texas page:

FHHuber, you just made the salient point about standing rules. They are easier to implement and circumvent the normal process. They are a mechanism to bypass the process when it is not thought they would fly otherwise. For that reason there should be a time limit on standing rules. If by the end of that period enough people are not convinced of their value to make a change in the bylaws, then they are probably bad and should be dropped.
And in my opinion, the Leader Member idea is broken. Why should I have to fill out another form or get several people to vouch for me in order to vote on the governing rules of the organization or to run for office. I've already filled out a form when I joined. The Leader Member designation just seems to create another class of membership.

Yes... demonstrated that you can easilly make a dumb one....

You can also easilly make good ones... such as making DUI illegal is not in the constitution... but you won't find anyone but a stupid drunk that will support driving while drunk. I really doubt they will ever add DUI being illegal to the constitution... I am CERTAIN they will not drop having it be illegal.

Mongo-
You got right to the meat of it (that doesn't surprise me). LM's must be included in the bylaws process. The big kahunas discovered 'standing rules' are a convenient means to circumvent unwieldy bylaws changes. Ergo no need for LM's input, and in turn little interest in becoming a LM. Who volunteers to be a eunuch? Hope some LM will enlighten us as to when was the last time his input on how things should be run was solicited.

Abe

July 2003 re: earned memberships

OK, I thought about it. The title of the thread is "SMALL changes in the AMA" and the first thing you come up with is a change to the by-laws. Hardly a SMALL change. Does the term oxymoron mean anything to you?

Many of the ideas that have been expressed in this thread do fit the title and deserve some discussion, IMHO... but not ones that necessitate a complete restructure of the organization.

I got a good one... [>:]
**********
How about everyone who thinks they can qualify for LM, apply.

Then post the results. (no idea how long it takes to get those results...)

THEN all that have made LM status... make your porposals to the EC. (hopefully after you reaserach {darn... can't just be willy-nilly making demands with no concept of what's going on....} the subject you are trying to deal with... and how to properly make the proposals withing the bylaws..)

THEN post the results of your havng made your proposals.
********

And... anyone on the EC reading this... Sorry... but I think I just made some work for you. (as if I didn't think people were e-mailing you ideas every day anyway....)

Boy do you ever...Just how did you get them all wadded up like that any how?[X(] Lighten up some and don't use all the emoticons up!

And before that was in 1992 (or 93) when Vince Manakowsky (sp?) sent out that survey. Anyone remember what happened to the results of that? I do.

the last time i remember voting on a by-laws change, was mid 80s or so.

BY -- Laws Changes:

Why woould any incumbent want them. They are only for upsetting the apple-cart.

02 / 7/8 EC meeting.>>>>>>>>>>(B old Added)


The President indicated that there would not be time to discuss bylaws revisions at this meeting. The Executive Director was provided a disk that includes the bylaws revisions to date. The ED will make copies of disk and provide one to each Council member. Hanson reminded Council of the make up of the Bylaws Committee as determined by the Executive Council and related how the committee worked in the past. What has been done since February 2001 includes systematically going through the bylaws and making innate changes, but what has not been addressed are real issues such as organization structure, Executive Council vs. B.O.D., adding foundations to the organization in terms of a resource development foundation or a foundation to support the museum, among others. In his opinion before Council can address these areas, a strategic planning meeting is paramount.

The President is of the opinion that in the future Council would be better off discussing what they would like to do with the bylaws as opposed to editing the specific words; that should be left to the committee. All Council members were in agreement with this.
<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<


3 years and NOT yet out of committee. Yup, it takes some time. Seems like a lot of items still in the thinking stage, but why cannot the current be done and those great structural changes, yet pending, be done when they are so needed?

It may require a by-laws change but I do not see it as a restructuring of the organization. The only thing I would look to change is HOW people are elected. Nothing more. No changes to the district make up, no changes to the EC make up, no changes anywhere but in the way individuals can qualify to be elected and maybe how the election is held, but the base and structure of the AMA as well as its mission would not change. To me this qualifies as a small change though it would require a change in the by-laws,

Perhaps you should read Horrace's post, above, on the effort to change the by-laws. In three years only the wording of the by-laws has been reviewed... without changes to the basic content. Many of us have been carping for a nominating procedural change for a couple of years that will only require a change in the standing rules. There are old threads in this forum discussing those. A few months ago Bill Lee was named to a committee to present some changes to the nominating process. While you may believe a change to the by-laws is small or easy, the facts, as evidenced by Horrace's post, prove otherwise.

Okay J_R I bow to your ultimate wisdom. We should all just sit back and not even discuss any of this. Its to hard to change.

Right.

The point of this thread is to discuss what we would like to see changed. Once some agrement can be made on what we would like to see changed THEN you look to see how you can go about effecting change. As for the fact that the current EC and Dave Brown have FAILED to make any changes just shows me that they are not doing their jobs.

I have been on a club board that had to do a re-write of their by-laws. Our by-laws required three consecutive meetings in which a quorum was present at each meeting. Fail to have a quorum at one meeting and you started over. We hit the phones, got the word out, made the changes, and had the changes voted on in 4 MONTHS. I have been on two other professional organizations that required major changes to their by-laws and we were able to do it in 7 and 11 months respectively. All of these boards were volunteer boards.

It can be done. You just need people who are serious about making the changes and making those changes in a timely fashion, not a group that forms committees to look into it. How much you want to make a bet that the changes they are working on now are done just as the AMA President is up for election?

Legal review for word changes takes all of a days work by a corporate attorney, fax out copies for review. Another month to make other additions and changes that the EC feels is needed. Second draft goes out for review and final changes are made. In two months this document can be ready and I'd give it two more months for public comment, another month to arrange a vote and then vote on it in 6 months minimum 10 months tops, but the length they have been at it is insane!

But that all of this is irrelevant to that fact that we are only discussing what we would like to see changed. How we go about changing it is a thread for another day. Baby steps, first lets figure out what people would like to see changed then we can go about seeing how we can change it.

Join the discussion J_R, what would you like to see changed, even if it is a re-hash of the past. RCU has changed a lot and grown quite a bit in the last year and there are quite a few people who missed all the fun when this forum was started and RCAdmin was even involved.

They've been working on revising the US income tax system since 1928... They haven't gotten it right yet.

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

OK... I couln't resist saying that.

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

Where we need change...

Lots of people are unhappy with the District VP and AMA president election system. About the only people that seem happy with the nomination process is the current EC.

I can see good reason for the "good old boy" system comments... The simple APPERANCE that its easy to handle it in an improper and unfair manner is an open invitation to accusations that it IS actually being handled in an unfair manner.

I have no knowledge of if they are or are not being fair in how they pick people to be on the ballots.

In the Navy we said... "I can neither confirm nor deny the absence or presence of nuclear weapons on board the USS _________" The joke in the reactor room was to add... "But we take the radiac over by the reactor shield at full power... it reads 2% of full scale low band... take it to this bulkhead with a weapons locker on the other side and its 1/2 scale... you guess." (wasn't true... it was just the running joke inside the group I worked with.)

Give an open invitation to complain and you will get complaints... If for no other reason... the nomination process needs review.

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

BTW... any ordinary BANANA will read up to 10% scale low band on those radiacs... Potasium is radioactive.

RSA, your comments above are all well and good. However they omit one BEEEG FACTOR, AMIGO! You seem to make the assumption that the current incumbents WANT a change. They got where they are with things as they are. THEY HAVE NO NEED FOR ANY CHANGE.

We can suggest and discuss AMA small changes up through Bylaws changes until the end of time and that is OK as we each get some feel for different ideas around the country. However when reality sets in, those suggestions are just that -- 'those suggestions'.

Now here is an example of just how non-bylaw changes can be made when changes are wanted.
Back, I seem to recall ( From 1985 - 1994 or so, I was bass fishing and mostly caring for an ill father when not working, so those are faded years.) in the early '90s when Don Lowe was President and Bob Underwood was either acting ED or TD as he served around there for a few times, I got a letter from AMA asking if I wished to continue as a Leader Member. If so, please explain how, when, where and so forth I ever received a leader member appointment. (From being a CD in 1963)

I called Underwood and in our discussion, he was out to stop the Contest Directors from being appointed Leader status. Bob said that He and Lowe were unable to determine why such practice was in force and they were unable to figure out how it ever got started.
I asked Bob if he had a "rule-book" handy. He got one and I guided him to a page in the General Section -- responsibility of the Executive Council -- and there it was that after a first contest with proper reporting, the Contest Director would be appointed tp Leader Member. Here are two main people at AMA and they could not determine such a simple answer. Yet, they did continue the purge of Leader members, and at the next EC meeting that Rule-Book statement was effectively withdrawn.

From the AMA Web Documents 907 and 303:
>>>>>>>>>>
LEADER PLEDGE:I pledge and agree that if granted LEADER MEMBERSHIP, I will, at all times, conduct myself as befits a Leader, will do all in my power to advance model aviation as a science and a sport, and will stress safe flying of model aircraft under the official regulations and Safety Code of the Academy of Model Aeronautics.

CONTEST DIRECTOR PLEDGE: I pledge and agree that if granted Contest Director status I will: At all times conduct myself as befits a leader, do all in my power to advance model aviation as a science and a sport, and stress the safe flying of model aircraft under
the official AMA regulations and Safety Code. I certify that I have already had actual experience in organizing and
conducting modeling events. I have read the section entitled Contest Directors in the current Competition Regulations,......

AMA Bylaws: III, 1. (c) Defines Leader Member as one having demonstrated above average interest and/or participation in AMA matters.
<<<<<<<<<

2 Points: (1)The CD pledges the SAME and MORE than the leader applicant. He definitely is ABOVE INTEREST when he organizes and manages sanctioned events. So why WAS HE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND REMOVED FROM BEING AN AUTOMATIC LEADER?
Quite elementary my Dear Watson: To eliminate the growth of Leader Members from the populace outside the ranks of the chosen few, as very few CDs bother to continue and do more paperwork for Leader. As Karl Marx said, "Three steps forward, two steps back, three steps forward," ... on and on. IT WORKS!

(2) Both Lowe and Underwood had at sometime pledged their reading of the Competition Regulations as I assume each is a CD.
They were not aware of all in it which is OK, but in the job of purging the Leader Members they should have reviewed
the book's General section.


Yes, a change can be made when THEY want it. Hell, look at the recent administrative change deleting the instant member thing and that was done without any council action. While administrative changes should NOT require EC micro-management, any change that effects the total operation among the Charter Clubs and the way we down here at grass roots do business then IMO that should at least have some warning.
So, IMO, any small change has to in some way benefit the bureaucracy which, regardless of the DC Kid's love, will not benefit the general membership.

Therefore, while I think the idea of gathering information is excellent, one must really have some general knowledge of the history of the unit to really do more than spit into the wind. In addition when there are logs across the road, it helps to have some tools to construct a path around the road block or better still remove the road block -- like use of the ballot box. [>:]


Edit: editorial change.

Well another thread down the tubes. Instead of making recommendations for change all I see is why we can't make them from J_R and Hoss. That wasn't the point of the thread.

Now you see why people are frustrated with the AMA. If people who profess to be in the know have given up hope of change and continue to repeat the negative-ism that is being put forth then you can understand why there is such a low turn out for elections. It has been beaten into them for so long that it can not be changed that they stopped trying to change it and just go flying.

Have you noticed that this thread started out with several good ideas but as soon as the ney sayers came in people stopped their input.

I had hoped that this thread would be allowed to run its course so that good ideas could be expressed and discussed, but some cannot allow that to happen. They have this inside desire to see the status quo continue regardless of what they may sometimes profess.

On another day such a topic as this will come up and I hope that on that day that these people will allow that thread to run its course without the "It can't be changed" input.

I for one think it can be changed, FOR THE BETTER, and in a reasonable time period and will support any canidate that I see is trully looking to make those changes. At some point in the future I will probably be one of those canidates, when time and family allow it. Until that point I will continue to argue on behalf of those who feel change is nessary for the good of the AMA and will not be swayed by the establishment guard who say it can't. I removed can't from my vocabulary along time a go. To me can't means you just gave up. There is always a way.

The very first word a baby learns is "NO!" and a great many learn it so well that it is the most used word in any language. Keep trying.

Perhaps, the next time you won't be so combative. Be more careful of the challenges you issue and what you wish for.

You prefer to ignore the facts and the history of the AMA. Horrace and I have both told you the facts. If you ignore history, your doomed to the same mistakes again. If Horrace and I agree on anything, you can fairly well be assured that there is a reason.

Some things can be changed, but, you choose to try to defend a position that has no merit.

The AMA is not a democratic organization and was never designed to be. The single right that a member has is to vote. About 15% of the membership votes. How many of those are informed votes? There is no mechanism to change anything... except the members of the EC... by voting. That's it.

Your attitude is much like the 9th grader running for class president that promises Coke in the drinking fountains if elected.

If you don't want a fight and you don't want input, do not issue challenges.

RSA, IMO you are the one saying "CAN"T". You call me a "naysayer". In post #3, I listed several items, all just administrative changes.
Of course the thread goes on into deeper stuff as any discussion will. Of course some will disagree with others as any problem solving session will. That is the purpose of an exploratory and/or fact-finding discussion.

Example: In post #3, I suggested a change to the nominee selection that would allow a potential candidate for office to SECURE a place on the ballot with a large number of signatures. Immediately the Huber comes in with a need for a smaller number. What Huber fails to recognize is that such an avenue to the ballot says: If someone REALLY wants to be an officer, then that one has the opportunity to go among the membership, and obtain approval of the membership adequate to SECURE a place on the ballot.

In such a case, the potential candidate could not only do a significant political trip early in the election year, he could also make it worthwhile because he would know that he would be on the ballot. Just because someone signs the petition doesn't mean that someone will vote such in the election. In any case it is the CHOICE of the potential candidate to get acquainted while knowing he will be a nominee.
Do I expect such a change to the EC's Standing Rules? Of course not as a potential candidate COULD do this and the incumbent would definitely be THREATNED by the opponent's previous get-acquainted trip. Therefore the incumbents will not change their SR.

Now in my last post above, RSA, May I request that you re-read my first and last paragraphs. I do not say that changes cannot be made. I do in the text point out how changes must benefit the bureaucracy. Their desired changes come quickly, but those that they do not want, well, that takes some time and time is on their side.
EXAMPLE: The last EC meeting finally gave the OK for my requested approval of casual PAID INSTRUCTORS at AMA Chartered Club facilities. That change is beneficial to the Bureaucracy in that it will help secure more members from the vast numbers of "I wanna' do that" crowd as hopefully more people will be willing to instruct. In addition, no threat to the powers -that-be can come from the program.

Now when real changes are needed, I still say that only through much dissatisfaction from the membership can they be realized. The numbers on this forum do not support such dissatisfaction, albeit the forum is a darn good place to start. I can list a number of items where such changes resulted in a quick About-Face of the EC. One was years ago when member-to-member liability was dropped, and whamo, that got some action. Then there was the RC Combat restrictions and they were changed to livable conditions. Look at the recent JPO and tail-touch situations. The EC can listen when a large number of voices threatens their position.

Since the changes you seek here are going to be slow, and probably forgotten without any real action, then YOU, RSA, are the one that needs some patience and frustration with your results indicate a lack of such patience. As it has been written: "Persistence and Determination alone are omnipotent." Hang in there, and for now steer your buds to the ballot box to specify their desire for CHANGES.[>:]

Hey, MAN, no one knows the feelings of frustration better than myself in my endeavors to get to where I can institute SIGNIFICANT change in AMA direction. BTDT![:@]

edited to add some stuff.

Jim,

I will keep trying.


J_R and Hoss,

BLAH BLAH BLAH, Like a broken record. Change come from new ideas. New ideas spur involement. Involvement leads to change. You two need to get new shovels you've worn out the ones you have constantly shoveling the same AMA........... line.

Change will come from people like me and others who refuse to be told what they can and can't do and will look for ways to get things done. I feel I am trying to do just that and I have only been combatant with those who I feel are fighting new ideas and change.

So do what you may with this thread I'm moving on.