F-102 Perrin AFB, Texas 67-68

OK Mitchell, you made the choice. "Let's not tip-toe through the tulips here, OK?"

You called the title, "AMA Corruption??"

You failed to notice that my post ref. "....word on the street..." was made AFTER Smith posted in his sub-forum just who was on his marketing committee. I used my little phrases to keep from repeating and referring to Smith directly, therefore '...word on the street..." Any nincompoop could have understood that. How come you failed the test?

Mitchell, you say, "The make-up of the AMA Marketing Committee is public kinowledge." Where is it so stated other than in Smith's words? Sure one can go and ask, and maybe the Comm. Chairman would reveal the names. I see no reason to keep such secret.
As far as AMA posting those names, it is no longer done. It used to be but when the new incoming Pres. revised all the committees it became policy to only include the chairman on the comm. listing as posted in the AMA Members Only Web site.
Marketing (formally Membership Development) Committee (P) (4/05): Chair: Mark Smith; Mission Statement: “Will advise the president and Executive Council on programs to attract and retain AMA Members.�

I recently requested info. on this item. The ED stated that actual members other than the chairperson, who is responsible for procuring his comm. members, will not be listed.
Two strikes, no balls.

Notice the name of the committee has changed: (formally Membership Development) now "Marketing".
Mitch. you like definitions;
Main Entry: mar·ket·ing
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of selling or purchasing in a market b : the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service
2 : an aggregate of functions involved in moving goods from producer to consumer

development
1 : the act, process, or result of developing
2 : the state of being developed
>> 4 a : to cause to unfold gradually <developed his argument> b : to expand by a process of growth <developed a strong organization> c : to cause to grow and differentiate along lines natural to its kind <rain and sun develop the grain> d : to have unfold or differentiate within one <developed pneumonia>

Therefore the Member Development is no longer as important as SELLING SOMEONE SOMETHING and the PPP is definitely the object being sold by Smith while the CEOs of competing companies are right in there making money with the dealings.

MITCHELL, YOU may consider this AMA Corruption, however I don't. I have been the target for real AMA corruption, and I dare say that what I did in Nov. 1981 to secure the release of the new frequencies trading 7 shared-use channels for 50 channels of our own just might have been considered criminal, however it was a small scale criminal thing compared to the stuff that goes on in DC. No regrets here, and I think the statute of limitations is long past.
OTOH, if I were to chair such a committee where two competing companies are the committee members, then I would have TWO additional experts, one in the field of daily usage of the item in question, and another that is an expert in the same item, yet not depending on such for livelihood.

As the Ex. V.P. I would bring this current situation before the EC for their consideration.

B.M. you are far too inexperienced in the historical operations of the AMA to understand just what can and does transpire within those halls.
Three strikes no balls, no balls, no balls.
So, as you want no tip toing in the tulips, B.M. you don't have a clue about that which you try to speak of. [>:]

Oh, good grief, Horrace. I don't, and anyone who bothered to really read what I posted understands the QUESTION that I used to name the thread. It's a direct question to you, regarding your not so subtle charge that Mark Smith used his position on the Marketing Committee to his personal gain.

And no, you certainly didtn't "tip-toe" through the tulips in your response, you bypassed the patch completely. Instead of answering the question you posted some unrelated nonsense concerning the name of the commitee, and never bothered to respond to the primary issue that I asked you about. You seem to do that a lot. You post a lot of obfuscating, non-related information to make it appear that you have responded with substance when you've ducked the issue totally. I mentioned as much in my question to you, and you certainly came through with bells on.

So, lets try again:

You are insinuating (in your original comments) that the Marketing Committe (or perhaps the EC as a whole, it's not really clear) have personally benefited from the decisions made to formulate and promote PPP.

Direct question here: Do you believe that Mark Smith (in particular), or any member of the Marketing Committee or the EC has personally benefited from their decisions on implementation of PPP? Do you believe that PPP was established to benefit Mark or anyone else on the EC and not as a program to improve AMA membership numbers? Do you think there is money being exchanged under the table? What exactly do you mean by "feathering their own nests"?

Will you answer this time, or or just tip-toe around it again?

Horrace, do you even HAVE the ability to disagree with someone without resorting to such childish and juvenile personal attacks? I think not.

What a fine AMA officer you will make, dealing with disagreement and conflict in such a mature manner. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

I dang sure know somebody else that stands to benefit in it big time, but I can't really say here.

Sonny boy, this is not a court case. If you do not like my discussion answers, then you have a problem, not me. You can interpret my discussion as you wish. It makes not a small rodent's posterior to me. Go ahead, stomp your feet, and demand more, however you have all you will get from me. Bye Bye, now. [sm=47_47.gif]

Horrace,

Having served on AMA Committees, I agree with the current leadership that committee members should not be public knowledge. All communication should go through the Chairman, so the chairman knows everything that's going on and the temptation to try to influence committee members is just too great when they can be easily found and contacted. Sounds like that one's outta the park to me!

"All communication should go through the Chairman, so the chairman knows everything that's going on" <snip>


The marketing committee chair doesnt know what the promotional expenses for a project are?
The marketing committee chair doesnt know what the exepenses for a concept project (PPP) are?

Looking at the thread title,
the marketing committee developed a project that they dont know how much it costs, and just happen to not keep track of its costs by lumping all promotional expenses together. Who does Marketing ask for marketing expenses? When you dont add all the expenses into a project cost, the project is very cheap on the budget... lets say by just not counting the promotional and labor costs to make a project look good.

Is the term 'cooking the books' a specific kind of erroneous reporting,
or does leaving obvious expenses out count as Cooking?
I really dont know, and I dont want to say they are cooking the PPP books if they are not.

I'll bet ya they know right to the penny

I knew you wouldn't answer. That's the way you operate. You make unsupported statements insinuating that senior AMA officials have used their office for personal gain, and then run and hide when calIled on it. I dare say that were the shoe on the other foot you would be hollering defamation of character and slander.

It's nothing short of irresponsible to make such claims of a political opponent and then refuse to discuss or provide any supporting information. Politicians who resort to such tactics (and you are a politician here, no matter how much you deny it) deserve neither our vote nor our respect.

May I suggest, s3nfo, you are taking my 'two strikes no balls" wrongly? The count was for Mitchell's statement of public knowledge which is now false. Mitchell had, at the time of writing, two wrongfull statements. AMA was A-OK.

Ref. the committee publications thing, I really have no problem either way. I can argue either way. I accept either way.
However they wish to do that is at this time just fine with me. I have a preference but not so strong as to be of any heartburn at all.

Horrace,

You're right, I did misunderstand. I stand corrected. Thanks.

BM
Who are you? You have only been posting from 3/ 08 and all you do
is start flameing Hoss! I think you had better find a life! Or get a job.[>:]

Asking one of the EVP candidates to support or withdraw his accusation of his opponent's alleged mis-use of office is not flaming. And I'm not the one who continually resorts to juvenile and imature personal comments.

How do you, or we know that that is not his job? It's hard for me to believe that someone can show up here as a brand newbie, and immediately start pounding on the ole timers, and have what looks to be a reasonable grasp on what goes on with the E.C. It would be interesting to see who has his allegiencies. I'm pretty sure it's not the rank and file member.

Bill, AMA 4720

You make a very good point.[:-]

Come on now Bill! It isn't all that hard to get a grasp of the players here and gain insight to their egos that precede them.

I figure Bob as an above average free thinking, new to the hobby/sport member with some serious interest into how our antiquated organization works...especially sensitive to blind mice and the piper scenarios that is all too often the essences of the good ole boy system …

I just love a good conspiracy theory. They just let the imagination run wild, don't they?

Yep, I joind back in March, anticipating that Horrace would be nominated and that RCU would offer up sub-forums for the candidates where I could earn my $2K retainer pointing out that he can't disagree with anyone without posting immature personal comments unworthy of a 10 year old. And in addition, went to the trouble of posting numerous messages in the beginners forum asking newbie questions about radios, servos, trainers, etc, etc. Even posted a fake message about my solo. Ya got me!!

Sarcasm mode off now.

Stick, my join date and AMA number should demonstrate that I am in fact new to the hobby. As far as "immediately start pounding on the old timers", a quick review of my postings will show that I had little to say to or about Horrace until his nomination was made public. I did exchange a few messages with him and a couple of others concerning the Greg Hahn column, somthing that became a bone of contention shortly after my join date. In terms of coming up to speed on AMA/EC issues; it's not difficult for someone with a reasonable degree of intelligence, some time to spend reading on this board, and some time in the MA archives. I think you'll also find that most (if not all) of my questions and issues with the candidate(s) have been prompted by what they've posted in their campaign statements and in their messages here.

I'll admit that I do find it interesting that it's relatively common that some sort of conspiracy is suspected when someone questions Horrace's motives or leadership abilities. I think this is about the third one that's had my name on it, starting with my supposedly trying to muster a write-in campaign for EVP. I guess the fact that I don't meet the AMA's criteria for a leadership postion (length of membership, not a leader member) just sorta got lost in the speculation.

The bottom line is that I just don't think someone with such an obvious ax to grind, a long and well known inability to work effectively in a position where one must actually convince others to follow them rather than (figuratively) beat them over the head, and a bad case of resorting to attack, innuendo, personal attacks and immature comments worthy of a 10 year old, doesn't belong in an AMA senior leadership position. The sad thing is that his experience, dedication and knowledge put him in a position where he could have been an asset to the EC. I don't think the EC needs another "yes man" either. A bit of healthy skepticism, the ability to ask pointed questions and to constructively express one's opinion and one's disagreement is a good thing. It's difficult to be constructive when one berates and belittles those who disagree with him.

Bob-
Not around here, that will get you labled AntiAMA, Hater, & Basher.
Along with suggestions/requests to get out of AMA (their My Way Or Hiway aspect).

Again, around here folks are happy to berate & belittle guys like me that have Skepticism, Ask pointed questions, and express disagreement (or even make independant ideas).

If those here that are so quick to berate & lable others as AntiAMA are anything like the rest of AMA,
perhaps the qualities you attribute to Hoss wouldnt be so out of place.

I suppose that only time will tell. You just need to look at it from my perspective. You just seem to be a yes man for Mark, and a Horrace hater. At least you don't seem to miss an opportunity to try and nail him on whatever tangent you are on at the time. Oh, and one other thing, tossing insults around like you seem to enjoy doing ( the ten year old thing), does not endear you to most of us here. How about taking a couple of grow up pills, and getting off your high horse. If you want to vote for Mark, then fine. Do so. Just be aware of one thing. I will negate your vote. I'm voting for Horrace. I personally feel that the Executive Committee needs a watch dog, and not a tame lapdog. Don't play the martyr card here. You knew the rules going in. You can't stir crap without getting splattered with some of it.

Bill, AMA 4720

edited to keep from insulting and flaming you.

BM why don't you as RED. He will give you information on anyone. He uses his position to freely post and e-mail anyones AMA # and information to just about anyone that wants it. How he gets away with it is beyond me. That information should and I think is private info. So therefore he is being corrupt in doing as he does with our personall information. And he has done this to several RCU members that I know of. He is not a good AMA person at all. IMO.
IF you would got to the Mark Smith forum and ask him what perks or other benifits he recieves from his position. I will bet his answer would be NONE. Does that surprise you. Those companies are nothing but lobbyist using the AMA for there own benifit. You tell me what other reason they would have to be on a committe at all. They should not be involved at all. That is a direct conflict of interest clearly. Mark Smith helps them do this. That is no secret. Also if the committe members of any committe are not supposed to be revealed so they can be approached by AMA members, to hear complaints, or ideas, and then present them to the entire committe what good is haveing one to begin with. That is how things are supposed to be done. You don't start at the top and disregard the members of the committes. You talk to a member and give them your suggestions and have them present it to the head Chair person and other members, then they ALL decide wether it is a good idea or complaint or whatever. IF you have to go straight to the Chair and he decides on his own that something is not worth the time or effort then the members have no idea of what could or should have happened. This is giving ONE person the power and only ONE. This is a democracy here in the US. or so i thought. But by your posts you would rather it be a dictatorship style AMA. IF you think Mark does not get anything out of this then your blind. I don't know what he gets but even if it is a free plane or a battery then he is being persuaded by them. Same as the guys that do reviews of planes. You don't ever see one say a plane is junk don't bother with it. The give is a good review and maybe a couple I would change this if I were doing it. Get a clue. This is politics same as any other. I will do this for you but what can you do for me that looks legal or that won't look to bad. The two main dealers on a committe that they directly benifit from is going to do what is best for them and only them. They would not say hey this is not working AMA save your dollars now would they? ON the other hand say hey YOU keep losing you will get it back someday but right now we are raking it in off this program and we are the ones that benifit, We think it is working good cause we don't do anything but gain from it. And Mark is right there beside them while they do it. But Mark is for us. Give me a break he is for himself and only himself. You said that Hoss dances around questions. You go to Marks forum and see how many questions he answers NONE he will talk though, just not really about the questions he is asked.

I've asked Mark the same questions that I've asked Horrace. Made it a point to do so. Yes man? I don't think so. You haven't seen me post to Mark as I have to Horrace because Mark has been professional, direct, hasn't played silly games with who he will answer and who he will not, and certainly hasn't posted the immature personal comments that Horrace has. And I think if you'll bother to look, you'll find that this is the probably the first message I've posted where I've actively promoted him. I've also avoided trying to play one off the other, with the single exception of directly asking Mark about Horraces plans to promote a restructuring of AMA. You should also note that Mark, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't posted a single negative comment concerniing Horrace.....in fact hasn't really mentioned him at all. Horrace, on the other hand has posted more than a few negative comments about Mark, even insinuating that Mark has mis-used his position for personal gain. (And then, in typical fashion, refuses to either support or withdraw it.)

Excuse me, but other than reacting to the numerous and almost constant insulting personal comments that Horrace has made to me, I've made no such comments to him, outside of the context of this election. After some of the things he's said to me you're jumping on ME for pointing out immature his insults are? Good grief, man. Talk about ignoring the obvious......

Is that something that you DIDN'T think I was aware of?

What makes you think that I don't? In fact I said as much in my reply to you. As I've been pointing out, however, there are effective and ineffective ways to be a watchdog.

I've got a pretty thick skin, Stick. I don't think your conspiracy comments are something that got "splattered", I think it's just silly.

That kinda sounds like someone saying "It can be left unsaid.....", right before saying it. Or "I don't care who gets the credit" right after pointing out that they should get the credit.

You posted this to Stick, but I think you meant it for me.

I think if you'll look back I've pointed out to Red several times where I believe he's crossed the line.

That has been discussed here, and addressed fairly well, I think. I don't see conflict unless those committee members are actively promoting issues which they believe will help them but not AMA. Who better to help promote and market aeromodling and the AMA than those whose expertise lies with knowing and predicting where the hobby is going to be growing and where the opportunities are.

By the way, don't lose sight of the fact that it's a bit contradictory to claim what a failure the PPP is, and at the same time express concern that the committee members or their companies are benefiting from the program in a significant way. At this point the number of PPP members is but a drop in the bucket when compared to the volume of product that the major hobby companies need to move to show a profit. And if PPP does take off, don't also lose sight of the fact that it then becomes a win/win for both the AMA and the hobby companies.

First, the EC sets the list of standing AMA committees. This committee isn't something that Mark Smith set up. If you think the make-up of the committee is wrong, then it's an issue for the entire EC, not just one member.

Second, I agree with you that the make up of all the committees should be posted as part of the list of AMA staff and officers. Did you think I thought this was a good thing?

Where on earth did you gat THAT idea? Because I don't think Horrace will be good for the EC? Because I think PPP should be given a chance to work before it's trashed? Because I don't se the conflict of interest that you see? What??

That's funny.

Does that mean you think folks like RCKen and Minnflyer spend hour after hour putting together reviews on kits/ARF's etc because they get free stuff? Would you hazard a guess as to how much effort one must put into a detailed review? I suspect that on an hourly basis, reviews such as the one recently done on RCU on a well known P51 ARF don't "pay" very much.

I suspect you know little more about Mark Smith than you do any other member of AMA's elected leadership. Are they ALL that way?

Mitchell,

You are very quick to accuse others of what you, yourself are guilty of. Just what are you attempting to gain credit for, or what are you leaving unsaid. If you want to vote for Mark, then just do so. If you are not going to vote for Horrace, then fine, don't. You are becoming just a little shrill, and are starting to repeat yourself. Actually, Mitchell, no one here cares who you vote for, or why. We don't know you, and in all fairness, probably don't want to. I have had the displeasure of having a few club members in my life who you remind me of. I'm glad that you are about 750 miles away, and are someone elses problem. You are not going to gain much ground with what ever you are wanting to do. The row is played out. It's time to cut your losses, and move on to something else. Sorry you didn't get what you wanted, but that's life.

Bill, AMA 4720

Bob-
It is not difficult to see how that is not a contradiction,
just as saying an object is hot and it is painted blue.
PPP could cost the AMA while raising sales for the committee involved industry players. IF Muncie is spending more on marketing PPP than PPP takes in (&combined with PPP's that upgrade yearend) then that it is one way it could be costing the AMA. But at the same time it could be driving more sales for the distributers. Players could proffit while the AMA loses, and while the players would call that a success, it would be a failure for AMA.

Bob, I dont think folks are jumping too much on the 'PPP is now a failure' bandwagon.
What you are seeing is the concerns and fears about PPP from 9-12 months ago getting realized and still being asked for data. We cant rightly call it a success or failure without looking at the marketing costs of the program & Renew/Upgrade numbers... someone should ask the Marketing guys for that cost, or even budgeted cost.