Bob Mitchell

OK, so you think it was a fiasco. How would you set it up differently?

Would you be OK with the current procedure as long as the outcome includes who you want it to include, or is the process itself flawed. I wasn't a member here last year and haven't read that/those specific threads but it seems to me that you don't like the process as it now exists.

Are you interested in making it better?

I don't think that a significant percentage of unopposed elections is good for the long term health of ANY organization. I'm not sure just how to address that specific issue, but I don't think that allowing things go downhill until enough people get upset that somone steps up is the way to address it either. I do know that a number of people posting here are unhappy with Muncie leadership, and that not much is going to change with half of those elected running unopposed.

KidEpoxy

According to many here, since I chose to not be a voter
I shouldnt even say the system that has member nominated guys kept off the ballot by folks that dont even know what his qualifications are (they didnt read the material given)... I shouldnt even say that aint right because I chose to not vote this year.

So maybe one of you guys that DO vote
can say it ait right
to keep a guy off the ballot and then hear the nomcom guy didnt even know about previous AMA seats held by they guy they kicked off.

What would I do differently?
Does it matter what we say should be done
if the procedure we have now can have such an appalling failure of not being well followed?
Do we really need to have a bylaw change to mandate the nomcom guys actually have to read the qualifications of the guys being nominated/kicked?

If folks bend the rules or skip obvious steps (like READ the material given on nominees),
does it matter what the rules say if they play outside the rules?

One obvious change I would like
would be to open up the closed door selection... I would love to see a transcript of the oh-so-thourough selection process that didnt even know what AMA positions Hoss held. But the nomination meeting was behind closed doors, and we are left wondering if they thru darts or just tossed Hoss' file in the trash without opening it. Dunno, all we see is a closed door and guys not knowing anything about Hoss after they determined he should not be on the ballot.

Bob Mitchell

So should the ballot include all bonafide nominees? If it remains as it is now, with a limit of three on the ballot, anytime there are more than three nominees someone who is qualified per the bylaws will be left out. Under those circumstances those that support the 4th nominee will always cry "foul". I personally don't think the EC should be selecting and culling candidates if they meet the minimum qualifications for the position.

I think it's going to be nigh on to impossible to "clean house" with the current procedures, and with the number of DVP's who run unopposed. How about something like this:
1. All nominees who meet the minimum qualifications for the job, as defined by the bylaws, appear on the ballot.
2. On-line voting to speed up the process and minimize costs.
3. Candidate to be elected by majority of votes cast.
4. In the event a run-off is required, the number going through to the run-off to be determined by adding up the votes of the top votegetters required to total a majority of votes cast. IOW, if the top three total 53% then it's a 3 way run-off, if it takes the top 4 to get a total of 50.1% minimum then it's a 4 way run-off, etc.
5. If the first run-off doesn't result in a majority votegetter, then repeat, again with the same selection process. Doing so will (for all intents and purposes) always reduce the number of remaining candidates by at least 1.

Such a process would absolutely require on-line voting, otherwise there is no way it could happen in a reasonable amount of time.

Obviously there are some issues/holes with the above, and it's meant more as a talking point than an absolute solution.

No problem. The rant itself may be a bit off-topic , but the issue you raise in inextricably intertwined with election procedures, IMO. I don't think it's POSSIBLE to clean house the way things are set up now.

Stickbuilder

I can't say that I know what process was used to decide who would be on the ballot. I do know that Horrace was nominated prior to anyone else receiving the nomination. He was nominated on the first day that they were supposed to be accepted. If you go back and look at who was on the ballot, you should be able to see what happened. You are either an old boy, or you are not.

Bill, AMA 4720

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

That is water over the dam. He made the ballot this time and there are no 3rd party spoilers. Now we are down to the nitty gritty - One on One vote. He was tied on this forum poll and way behind on RCG (albeit the numbers voting are insignificant on both). If he wins so be it, if he loses I hope he can finally accept it and quit whining.

The Toolman

Whining?..... Boy, talk about the pot callin' the kettle black

Since your so fond of RCG, why don't ya go over there an apply for a mod job an quit stirring things up here. People like you are why I don't care much about getting involved in the ama politics, an probably a lot of other people feel the same way...

Bob Mitchell

OK, so you would like to see the meeting be more "open".

I agree with that. I see no reason why the votes taken to approve or reject any specific nominee shouldn't be public information to the membership. In any situation where a qualified (per the bylaws) nominee is kept off the ballot, we should know how the votes were cast.

My basic question goes beyond that, though. Should the Nominating Committee (really it's the EC less the President) have the power to keep a qualified nominee off the ballot? A "no" is going to require some significant changes in procedures. A "yes" I think, is essentially agreeing that the EC should have the power to control (to a large extent) it's own makeup.

To be honest, given the events leading up to the 2007 election, I'm surprised that a few of you don't have very strong opinions and ideas on this. I don't want to turn this into a thread about the specific decision to withhold Horrace's name from the ballot last year, just mentioning it as a prime example of what the current procedure can lead to.

Bob Mitchell

The section of the bylaws dealing with this isn't as detailed as I think it should be. Based on my reading of the rules, if there are 3 or less candidates that meet all of the qualifications the chairman may move to accept the nominees by acclimation, perhaps with no specific discussions.

If there are more than 3 it gets even less specific. If there is a question about not including an incumbant, that is dealt with first. The rest appears unclear to me. It isn't clear that the committee votes on who to leave off the ballot, or if the committee votes on a motion to include a specific 3. There is no mention of whether the order of receipt of the nominations is a factor as you make reference to. I suspect it isn't, and it shouldn't be. If there are 4 or more nominations in receipt, then IMO the rules should spell out exactly how the committee should proceeed. ie, discuss the qualifications of all, then either vote one or more name(s) to be withheld or vote on a slate of 3.

As I've said, though, I'm not sure that the EC should select the nominees if more than 3 are received for a specific office.

What do you think?

Bob Mitchell

Guys....can we keep this one on track and not make it just about last years election?

Thanks.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

As last years election is all about the nomination process it is open for this discussion. If you don't want to discuss last year's election then I will close this thread down. The thread was opened up to discuss the nomination process for AMA elections, and that includes ALL elections.

Ken

Bob Mitchell

Good grief Ken. The comment was made to try to keep the discussion about the procedures and not about one specific personality/nominee. Nothing more, nothing less. If we go that road this is going to degenerate into a discussion of one specific nominee instead of the procedures. I'd like to see some ideas about what folks don't like about the procedures and what suggestions they may have for alternatives. That's why I titled the thread "AMA Nominating Procedures" and not "Should Horrace Cain Have Been Included on the 2007 Ballot". Perhaps I should have worded the comment you quoted a bit more specifically so that would have been clear. Comments about who may and who may not "whine" or who should/shouldn't just go somewhere else to post are just going to take this down the usual road.

It should be obvious by my comments that I'm not comfortable with the procedures and how a qualified candidate can be left holding the bag. In fact I responded to one individual specifically about the 2007 ballot......but about the procedure, not the personality. I think it's wrong to withhold the name of any qualified and properly nominated individual from the ballot regardless of who that person might be. But I want to talk about the procedures, not the personality. I want to talk about whether the EC should have the power to keep a qualified person off the ballot, not whether one specific use of that power was wrong or right.

I started the thread to do just that, and the comment to which you take exception was meant to help do that and to keep the thread from deteriorating to one of personality rather than substance. If you think that is an attempt on my part to prevent discussion of something that is fair game based on the thread topic, then by all means shut it down. I think you would be amiss to do so.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Bob,
I am perfectly aware as to what you want to discuss here, but I am laying out RCU's policies in a matter like this. In fact, I'm a bit shocked that you DON'T want to discuss the issue of the last election as it's a perfect case study in to the nomination process that the AMA uses and you can discuss facts that have happened instead of having a hypothetical discussion filled with "what if's". But regardless of that fact, I am pointing out the discussion of the previous election is within the context of this thread topic and would not be excluded from the discussion, and that if you didn't want to discuss the previous discussion there was no longer any reason to keep the thread open.

Ken

Bob Mitchell

As I said, I have no objection to discussing the 2007 nominations and have done so. I guess I need to make that more clear. Certainly I agree 100% that last years nominations are a prime example of exactly what I want to discuss here, as long as we can discuss the procedure and not get into an arguement over who should have been left off of the ballot rather than Horrace. I don't think that anyone should have been left off. That IS water under the bridge and isn't going to add anything to this other than "yes he should have", "no he shouldn't have". That is the only thing I want to avoid.

I don't want this to deteriorate into a discussion of whether someone is/should whine about last year's or this year's election, and who should or shouldn't go elsewhere to post. I see two things I should have done differently to avoid the misunderstanding. I should have replied directly to Red/Ron rather than use quick reply and should have specifically mentioned why I thought they were going off topic, rather than using the wording I did. As OP I just want to keep it on topic and not go down the usual road here.

I hope that you understand now and I'm sorry if I approached it in a manner that made it less than clear.

KidEpoxy

I agree with both RCKen & Bob here
Last year is a perfect example of the procedeures in question by Bob,
but lets not look into more than procedural example
... we cant change what has happened, but we can look at wht has happened to keep what we like & change what we dont.

704hank

My Feedback: (1)

RED
Why Don't you go someplace else and play!!!!!
Bob has made some good points here!
I want to here the rest[>:]

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Bob,
Fair enough.

Ken

Stickbuilder

Bob,

It is virtually impossible to open a thread on the proceedure that the AMA has used, and misused without opening a virtual Pandora's box. You like to be up to speed on what is going on, and has gone one within the AMA. Do a little digging. It's not hard, thay are not smart enough to hide the bodies well. Just don't be dismayed by what you find.

If you ask a question concerning a certain proceedure, or process, you can't just turn off the spigot when you start getting specific information that you may not wish to hear. You asked about the process of nominating, and you got just that. The history is not so old that we have forgotten it. Red Schofield wants that fiasco to go away. It won't. It was not well handled, and was strongarmed through. I'd like to assure that something like it won't happen again, but that's not possible.

In the current election for EVP, the lines were drawn early. The entire E.C. wants Mark to win. That alone should be a warning to every member of the AMA. I'll bet that his replacement has already been selected to take over the DVP job. Any takers?

Bill, AMA 4720

Bill, AMA 4720
WACO Brotherhood #1

Bob Mitchell

That's probably the one an only time I'll ever take a shortcut and use the quick reply option.

Bob Mitchell

That's exactly what I meant, and you certainly said it more succinctly than I've managed.

The Toolman

I'd bet money that this election is just being held to look good. I bet the winner was chosen a long time ago, no matter who gets the most votes. Like I have always said, when a org gets this big and a lot of $$ is involved, things seem to always go the way a few at the top want them to go.

Bob, if you think things are any different from what I am saying here, you are naive or have been in the woods to long.....no insult intended Bob.

Bob Mitchell

I have no objection to the history at all, actually that's exactly what I want. The only thing I wanted to avoid is the kind of deterioration that usually follows comments like Red's and responses like your's. Didn't express it very well.

I don't like the nominating procedure as it's written, and that seems to be resonating with the regulars here that have typically supported Horrace. The way I see it, anytime more than 4 qualified nominations are received for a specific office anyone who supports the odd man out is going to feel like it was fiasco. That's going to happen no matter how deliberate, honest and above board the Nominating Committee is in their deliberations and decisions. It's going to have the appearance of manipulating the election. Now couple that with a group of folks that don't trust the EC to begin with, a candidate that is not very popular with the EC and nothing good will come of it.

What I hope is that those who may agree with me do so not only as a result of the 2007 nominations, but because the procedure itself is just not good.

The question is......what to replace it with? That's what I'm hoping to generate some comments on. So far, not much.

Well, if Mark thinks he's going to win, it's something he should be thinking about. Per the bylaws he names two candidates, one of whom must be one of his AVP's. Then there is an election. No nominating committe with this one. I'm not real fond of this procedure, either, for most of the same reasons. Why not just appoint an interim, solicit nominations from the membrship and treat it just like a regular DVP election? Of course with the EC controlling the ballot, it's probably not much different, is it?

God....I'm starting to sound like you guys. [X(]

Stickbuilder

Bob,

Have you ever shot craps with someone elses loaded dice?

Bill, AMA 4720

Bob Mitchell

None taken. It's your opinion of the process and you're welcome to it. I'm just not that cynical.

Bob Mitchell

Nope. I'm a poker player.

Hossfly

Mitchell, if you want this topic to be discussed in an intelligent manner, then you need to learn a few things:

1.) The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is a corporation and its management polices are set by a Board of Directors specified as the Executive Council (EC) with specified requirements for those belonging to that EC.
a. The Corporation has Bylaws defining the EC's authorities over the corporation.
b. The Bylaws contain the requirements for being an officer and the methods for becoming an officer.

2.) The corporation has additional restrictions because it has a designation from the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501, Part (c) paragraph (3) (IRC 501 (c) (3).

3.) All changes to the operation start with a change to the Bylaws, such change/s as procedurally defined in those Bylaws. You will notice the AMA Bylaws PROTECTS the EC with total power over any and all circumstances relative any changes from enacting, discharging, either Officers and/or members to all methods of change of said Bylaws. The EC is dictatorial in its authorized function/s. These protections of EC powers were established by the founders and will always be protected by those in power.

4.) Actual changes, simply from discussions of any operations, management and/or functions which allow greater individual members more involvement within the powers now held by the EC, will never be authorized. You can take that statement to the Bank!

5.) The only source of ever getting any change/s to the dictatorial powers maintained by the EC as the EC is now constituted, is to strongly pursue and win, within each district, additional individuals who have no fear of the incumbents plus a strong distaste of the business-as-usual day-to-day operation. Then and only then, with a majority of the EC being member-oriented individuals, can the change to a member oriented C-Corp with IRC 501 (c) (3) member and museum foundations, become a reality, with all directors being elected by all AMA Open Members.

6.) Unfortunately, as "The Toolman" so states, it is very easy to predetermine election results. I was previously a large supporter- much more so than just dues - of an organization much more professional than AMA. I predicted each election to be within 2 points of 70% - 30% the way the management wanted. It never failed for the 28 years I was there, except for one big one. That was 90% plus for the GO which I strongly favored as well as the entire association and there was no doubt about that.


So discuss whatever you wish, however without using the discussion to enact support for a change to the Bylaws, and/or to elect those willing to take their case to the membership through their columns in MA, you are simply passing water into a strong wind blowing back at yourself. [sm=pirate.gif] BM, you don't now seem to be able to do such. OTOH, if you get your priorities straight and follow Calvin Coolidge's points on "Persistence," for the right cause, well, you just may be able to accomplish a great deal.


Edited; bad wording.