Plucked from the Dist 2 discussion list, posted by Red Scholefield:

Note to all AMA members:

I received the following this morning.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim McNeill" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:13 AM
Subject: Leader Members

Red, we are in the process of changing several items in the AMA by-laws.
One proposal under consideration is using the Leader Members in each
District to pick the candidates for District VP instead of the current
Nominating Committee. I don't know where this got started. Are you the one
who first proposed this?

Jim McNeill, Dist V VP

While I did not originate the idea I think it is an excellent idea and
commend the originator. It is time the Leader Members of the AMA were
recognized and employed as originally intended. If you are not a Leader
Member, become one.

I urge all who read this to respond to their respective AMA VPs regarding
this the proposal.

For your convenience they are listed below.

Pres - Dave Brown <[email protected]>;
Exc. VP-Doug Holland <[email protected]>;
Dist I-Don Krafft (no e-mail listed - phone 781-934-6248)
Dist II-Dave Mathewson <[email protected]>;
Dist III Bob Brown [email protected]
Dist IV-Bliss Teague <[email protected]>;
Dist V-Jim McNeill <[email protected]>;
Dist VI-Charlie Bauer <[email protected]>;
Dist VII-Bill Oberdieck <[email protected]>;
Dist VIII-Sandy Frank <[email protected]>;
Dist IX-Russ Miller <[email protected]>;
Dist X- Richard Hanson <[email protected]>;
Dist XI- Bruce Nelson <[email protected]>

--
Red Scholefield
AMA 951 Dist. V
Leader Member/CD

Hey JR, I think you would be a perfect Candidate for Dist X VP!

I think I wll nominate you when the appropriate time comes

BV

Thanks Bill, but, NO THANKS. I have absolutely ZERO interest.

JR

JR, You Mean to tell me,,, after all that you post,,, Your saying NO?

BV

Bill

Your comprehension skills are coming right along.

JR

LOL

JR, I am sure that by the next election time rolls around, Your AMA mindset will have done the same,,, even Horace has seen the turnaround in you! Don t let it go to waste!

With these new election policies coming, Your gonna WIN hands down for District X VP for sure!

JR
District X VP
(candidate)


BV

Bill,

Your lack of knowledge of AMA history and politics is showing. That's surprising for a moderator in an AMA discussion group. These are the same basic by-law proposals that were submitted by Rich Hanson, D 10 VP, about 1996. That's one of the reasons I would support Rich for Dist X VP again.

Jim McNeill has made it clear that he thinks Red is the "savage" behind an effort to unseat him as the Dist V VP. I think Jim's memory is failing him. IF I recall correctly, Rich is the Chairman of a committee currently looking into by-law changes and election reforms. I'm guessing, but, I would bet that the idea was generated in Rich's committee. Only McNeill would look to Red as the source.

The election process has been a problem for the AMA for a number of years.

Sometime, ask Horrace Cain about the elections around 1980. Earl Witt (the AMA President) and Horrace, both the incumbents at the time, were left off the ballot, by EC vote, and ran a write-in campaign. Horrace won. Witt came close. In that same era, ballots went directly to HQ, instead of the auditor's, as they do now. Surprisingly, quite a few ballots were, uh...... "misplaced". Witt stumbled over them, literally, or the election might have come out very differently. That was when the change was made, to send the ballots to the AMA auditors. (Not the same elections, if I recall correctly). Horrace probably has a better recollection of this era than I do.

In more recent years, after changes were made to the election process, allegations of abuse of the nomination procedures have been made.
The nomination process is within the power of the EC, as granted in the AMA by-laws. The
Standing Rules are written by the EC and only they can change them, unless the by-laws are changed.

The Standing Rules that exist require that the Nominating Committee (the AMA VP's and EVP) accept any bona fide nomination and place the candidate on the ballot if three or less candidates are nominated, including the incumbent. The Nominating Committee has no leeway in this process. There is no
mechanism to determine the validity of a nominee. If the nomination is received, and accepted by the nominee, within the protocols of the Standing
Rules, there is no choice.

If more than three nominees are nominated, then
the Nominating Committee must make a decision as to which will be on the
ballot. The rule for the incumbent is that 3/4 of the Committee must vote
against putting him/her on the ballot to withhold his/her name.

This process leaves room for abuse. For instance, if an AMA member wants to
block a legitimate candidate, he has only to submit a nomination for a
shill. If two such shills are nominated, the EC must make the decision as to
who is left off the ballot. The Committee has only the nomination acceptance
statement/resume from the candidate to rely on in making their judgement.

On the one hand, you have a situation where it is extremely difficult to
encourage legitimate candidates to run for office, and on the other, a very
simple mechanism to block those same candidates from being placed on the
ballot. Even the placement of one candidate-shill would dilute the votes for
legitimate candidates.

The incumbent has a huge advantage going into the
election by way of the simple fact that he is the incumbent. The word
'Incumbent' goes next to his name on the campaign statements and the ballot.
Unfortunately, it appears that a substantial number of ballots are cast on
that information alone. The fact that the incumbent may also have as much as
three years of writing a column in MA certainly does not hurt his cause.

If anyone has ideas on how to eliminate the potential problems, post 'em.

JR

JR, Its my job here to Moderate the forums,,, I never admited to knowing all about AMA or to post opinions about AMA like you have done in the past.

A person such as you and your wealth of Opinions about AMA and How it should work, You should really consider it is all I am saying,, since there's a posibility that the rules are gonna change.

I just sort of figured if you can Talk the Talk,,, you should be able to Walk the Walk! You were even given the chance to be on the Board at the club we both fly at,,, but you turned that down too,,, and yet you complain the loudest here and there at the field we both fly at.

So Since you have Zero intrest, why do you even Bother or is it that you just like stirring the pot?


BV

Ok, Bill, I had suggested several times, privately, that we leave the personal stuff off RCU, but, you insist, so here we go.

First, I spent 7 years on the Board of a club. The Pasadena Soaring Society. That was enough.

I don't see you doing anything for the club except breaking it's rules and endangering others with your bad field manners. YOU, as a National Competitor should know what the Safety Code is an obey it. You should be the role model. Is it that you don't think the rules apply to National Competitors? Building a $5000 plane for a newbie, for pay, and then letting it crash due to incorrectly charged batteries is unforgivable, in my opinion. Suggesting to a pilot at our field that he try to knock my plane out of the air with his is not just dangerous, it's juvenile. When you clearly libel a modeler the way you did in our newsletter and accuse him in no uncertain terms of being a thief, without documentation to back it up, you bet I am going to complain and insist you apologize. Why don't YOU do something for the hobby that gives you so much and quit just taking? Tell me your not a moderator here, just for the money.

I try to do several things on here. The most important to me is to correct misconceptions that others have about the AMA with facts, which I try to give sources for. I also voice my opinion from time to time. I try to give reasons why someone else should see things as I do. Occasionally, facts come to me that are so obnoxious that I do complain. Unless someone throws me off here, I will have my say about those issues. If you see that all as complaining, so be it.

Don't accuse me of attacking you, you started this and refused to keep our differences private. Even at our field, you can not keep your mouth shut. I have not bad mouthed you there, as you have done to me. Think about it, Bill.

JR

JR, Did you get Kicked out of that other club because you are a POT Stirrer?

Some AMA Leader you are.

That other guy said to me "I charged the bateries" and I took his word for it,,, Maybe if you were to spend any money on a real Plane you would take it seriously too!

The Reason I fly so late in the afternoons is to avoid flyers like you,,, who do Nothing but make complaints. Its funny too, because your the only one there who complains the Most. Alot of people have left that club because of you JR.

BV

BV

Bill Vargas

The guy was a newbie. He had never seen or used NiMh batteries that YOU installed and had no idea how to use the charger he bought. YOU were his mentor. Don't YOU ever check the plane of a newbie before he flies? YOU have never seen a plane with "charged" batteries crash before, huh? That's not what I would consider taking it seriously.

Your AMA license says that you will follow the Safety Code. You agreed to do so, not just when it suits you. Your actions put the landlord, the club and any spectators at risk. If you can justify that in your mind, wonderful.

The fact is that the club has grown every year that I have been a member. YOU are the only one that seems to have a problem.

JR

Bill Vargas

One last thought, then I am done with this. If I am such a rotten person, why in the world would anyone want me on the Borad?

I don't seem to recall ANYONE bring up your name for a position on the Board.

Enough of this, this is below me and not useful to RCU.

JR

JR

1) I use those Bateries all the time in my Racers. The charger he bought was that of the other person because he uses it not me.

2) I asked permission to fly my Racers and the club President said no problem and I said i'll only fly in the late afternoons so as not to disturb the morning flyers and you,,, and everyone there knows that!

3) You, initially started and created the problems with flying Quickees there,,, that is why no one else flies quickees there anymore to include that kid. I fly in the late afternoon when no one else is around,,, that should mean to you that I avoid you when I can because you are the Trouble maker, not me.

4) Flying is inherently risky,,, not matter what you fly and where you fly.

5) When ever you think that you are ready for a friendly flyoff,,, and we'll let our thumbs do the talking and the walking,,, You Just Say When! The Looser packs his trash and goes home.

BV

JR may I respectfully submit that your statement above could not be further from the truth. Now I have only known Bill for a little over a year but it has been obvious to me that he has been giving back in a very strong way and yes primarily in a minority venue of pylon racing. Now let me give you a minor example: The very first time I met him we were in a heat together and after the flag during the normal landing kaos I managed to clobber his plane on landing putting him out for the day and it was obviously my error, a fact I would never admit to him. Now on the very next heat I ended up short a caller and guess who ended up doing the honors for me the rest of the day. That is not 'just taking'.

Bill has made a huge effort to keep our 'little venue' going and his commercial efforts i.e. kit production to support the venue I can assure you makes no money. The top quality race proven equipment he sells (something there has been a dearth of in the entry level) at rediculous low prices to support the sport. That is 'not taking'.

Now on a more personal basis. I have been flying RC for fortysix years and Ukie somewhat before that and its been a wonderful ride indeed. Eight months ago I lost my wife and shortly after the ability to walk without this wheelchair, Pylon was of course out. After getting over of feeling sorry for myself Bill and a few others were instumental getting me to give it a go and with bills considerable investment in time and money. You know what with some training it worked and I have one race under my belt now and two more in a few weeks. To Bill and those few others (you know who you are) I will be forever grateful. That is 'not taking'. JR I got a great idea How about taking a break from the keyboard, come to a race and you can call for me, I assure you it will be fun and I promise I,ll try not to run over your toes with my wheels.

OK now for you JR and no I am not going to flame you. Actually you have said some things I quite agree with and I have followed some of your post with interest but it does get quite irratating when you use a line as above "I try to give reasons why someone 'should' see things as I do" A bit arrogant, don,t you think?

So JR relax, fly, come to a race as my guest and Bill watch your six at the Winterfest for that Naked Racer 11 with the winged wheelchair emblem.

John

Ok guys we will have a cease fire here and I mean like right now. The post has drifted way off course and even though much more latitude is allowed here in this forum I feel that it has crossed over the line and is very close to being shut down. I will at the present time leave it open to see if we can get back on course, it's up to you guys. Now believe me when I say I will be watching very close here.

My apologies to all. I lost my temper.

I hope this thread can lead to some useful thoughts on election procedures.

JR

That you guy's could make up and move on ?

I have been following this and I reflect on how we all got started in this hobby.

It was all about the first plane that we built and the time that plane went skyward. Isn't that when the bug bit ?

It is such a shame to see all this politicking come into play and especially between two club members who share the same space that brings each other the same escape.

What would you tell your kids to do at this point ?

Happy Holidays guys.

The Edge

LOL. You might actually be able to help out here. Do you know either myself or Bill Vargas? If so, how so, and if so, what has been said to you by either about the other? (the good, the bad and the ugly )

JR

Let's get this thread back on track and let's do it now!!! If it doesn't I will lock it down.

(Hopefully getting the thread back on track...:-)

While it may have been somebody else's idea in the history of AMA, the current incarnation came out of an effort I lead about a year ago. As some may recall, I established an "electronic petition" on my home web site asking the EC to consider modifying the current election procedures and get away from the "plurality" as the means of electing.

While that suggestion was not accepted, out of the discussion came the idea of the nomination procedure invloving a vote of the District's Leader members to pare the nominations down to just two for the actual ballot. Below is a part of a note I posted on the AMA D2 e-mail list.

Regards,

Bill Lee

==================
If AMA history is any guide, very few elections carried out with a "primary" and a "runoff" format would ever lead to a second election. And several alternatives have been proposed that would even make that unnecessary, such as allowing the nominating process be carried out by the Leader Members of AMA, leading to a final vote of the membership with only two candidates for a position. We, AMA, made good use of the Leader Members just recently with the request for support of the Free Flight site in New York. This may have been the first use AMA has made of the Leader Members in many, many years. Perhaps now it is time to expand their involvement by letting them select their candidates for their Districts and for the national AMA offices.

Thank you Bill!!!!

Bill Lee

Are the procedural changes now "set in granite" or are they still being discussed?

Can you shed more light on what is set/being discussed?

JR

JR;

Unfortunately, no, I cannot.

I was at the last EC meeting and Sunday was spent by the entire EC working on the Bylaws, but there was no discussion at that time concerning election procedures. (The discussion was in another part of the Bylaws.) I do not think anything is so firm as to be "set in granite" at this time. (My opinion.)

However, also in my opinion, a discussion of election procedures is likely to yet occur. I think a healthy discussion here of possible alternatives would be desirable and possibly fruitful.

To get it started:

Up until the early 80's, AMA Bylaws required that an elected official receive a majority of the ballots cast. In a couple of well-known races, that was not achieved in the initial ballot and a run-off had to be performed, with the correspondent cost to the organization. Shortly after that, a Bylaws amendment was passed by the Leader Members to change an election to winning only with a plurality requirement. Coupled with the requirement that there be no more than three candidates on a ballot, it is easily conceivable that an election could be won with 1/3rd of the votes plus one.

In addition to the Bylaws, the AMA has a series of "Standing Rules" under which the organization is run. It is an unfortunate aspect of Standing Rules that they are simply voted into existence by the EC and are not subject to ratification by the membership (i.e., the Leader Members) as are the Bylaws. It is in the Standing Rules where the operation of the Nominating Committee is found. The actual definition of the Nominating Committee is found in the Bylaws, Article IX. The limit of three on a ballot is found in the Standing Rules.

The real question is: "Is the current mechanism resulting in a fair election of our AMA officers?"

The current mechanism for electing AMA officers in the By-Laws (and Standing Rules) has several inherent characteristics that guarantee second-guessing and inhibit the fair and proper election of our officers.

Currently, the procedures give the Nominating Committee (NC) the authority to include and exclude candidates as they see fit. The procedures limit the ballot to only three nominees, and if more than three nominations are received for a position, the NC must decide who to put on the ballot and who not to.

Since the NC is comprised of the current set of AMA VPs and the EVP, this procedure opens the AMA to criticism since it is quite conceivable that a viable candidate will be left off the ballot simply due to bias from the existing VPs. Similarly, this procedure can allow a ballot to be structured to favor a particular candidate simply by the choice of the opponents.

This procedure is a common source of the "smoke-filled-rooms" and "Good Ol' Boy" accusations that abound within the membership.

I have proposed that the following be instituted in place of the existing Standing Rules for selecting candidates for a ballot.

For an elected position within AMA, a "primary" ballot be held where every QUALIFIED candidate's name is listed. This ballot would be an "Order of preference" ballot, not a "vote for one of" ballot. The primary ballot would be voted on by the Leader Members only. Using voting techniques such as the "Hare" technique (do a Google search on that one!) the voting of the primary would yield the two candidates that would then placed on the final ballot for the entire membership.

I propose that the primary vote be strictly electronic: it IS the 21st century, it IS the age of computers! This would provide a mechanism of very little cost to AMA. (I have most of the mechanisms in place already to do this.) The final ballot would be carried out as it currently is, unless experience shows that electronic balloting is suitable.

O.k., there's a start. Any comments?

Regards,

Bill Lee

Any scheme that is this fair, and straight forward is suspect! However if the majority of the EC members are fairly secure in their positions they might go along with it. There maybe some that know they could not possibly make it through another election cycle under these changes that will fight it to the bitter end.

Red Scholefield AMA 951
Leader Member/CD
District V

Trying not too be so pessimistic....:-)

I think that most of the current EC members would be as secure with this mechanism as with the current arrangement. Notice I said "most", not all. My opinion. And I propose that we try and portray this as a "real good thing" instead of as a doomed cause. I would not want this to become a case of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bill