Again, Horrace.....thanks for your thoughtful and productive contribution to the discussion. I'm truely amazed at the way you always seem to add so much to a discussion and never take the low road of just trying to belittle and pass judgement on the poster. It's a character trait that surely should be admired.

Now, back to reality.

As I said before, if you want to rant and rave about what you think I know or don't know then do it in a thread set up for that purpose. You could title it "What Bob Mitchell Does and Doesn't Know About the AMA Corporate Structure and Why He's Just Wasting His Time Discussing Nominating Procedures". That way everyone would know exactly what you want to talk about, could join in if they choose to, and wouldn't have to waste their time reading through a topic that actually address silly things like the procedures themselves.

Now, do you or do you not have anything to add to THIS discussion? I'm sure you have opinions on the nominating procedures now in place, and what YOU would like the system to look like so it's more than just a way for the EC to perpetuate itself.

Pretend for a minute that King Horrace Cain I has taken over the AMA and has free reign to establish nominating and election procedures. What would you do? Don't just complain about 'em.....suggest something to take their place. As a prospective EVP I'm sure you have some thoughts.

Bob
The fairly obvious answer is
Remove the EC from deciding which qualified candidates get to be on the ballot.
(read: Dont let the EC decide who lost before the ballots get printed and members get to vote)

Make it an Election committee rather than a nomination commitee, just check that they meet the requirements and dont do that behind closed doors... the requirements are pretty much public info, right? Tell us why guys were cut in the candidate anouncement: "Nominee JoeBlow did not meet XXX requirement to be on the ballot."


The fix is simple.
Getting the guys in charge to accept, endorse, and implement the fix is hard.
By the conspiracy theory,
the ones that have the power to stop the Good Ole Boy system are part of that alleged system,
and even if 2 or 3 "outsiders" or "guys that are hard to work with" are elected, that will just be 3 vs 10 or so in any EC vote to fix anything.

Bob, you like MarkS
will he help you "fix" the nomination process to get the EC's fingers out of controlling the names on the ballot?

Member Input appears to have taken a backseat to Muncie Steering recently
in both the Nominations and the 60k email poll that came back negative on PPP.
Maybe Muncie dont care what the members want or who the members want.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'll let each of ou think that one over and draw your own theories on if Muncie wants to "fix"(oops, that sounds bad) "repair" the nominations/elections

That may be an over simplification, KE.

If you change the nominating process so that all qualified candidates appear on the ballot, then I think the election process also has to change to accomodate that.

As you said, the qualifications to be a nominee (let's just focus on DVP for now) are fairly simple and are public knowledge. You must be a Leader Member. You must live in the District. You must be nominated by a member who lives in the district. That's all the basic bylaws state, and nothing there is debatable. You either are or aren't. The EC can't determine who is and who isn't qualified. It's set out in black and white. Let's calll this "Part 1"

The "Standing Rules" add additional requirements, but those deal with convincing the nominating committee that you are able to to the job, not just meeting the minimum qualifications as set out in the bylaws themselves. You must submit certain paperwork to the nominating committee by the established deadline. (acceptance statement, resume, etc). This is where the judgement (or control) of the EC comes into play. It's also where the ballot is limited to 3 nominees. Let's call this "Part 2".

If you determine the make up of the ballot by Part 1 only, eliminating Part 2, you eliminate, or at least certianly inhibit, the ability of the EC to control the election. Once they lose the ability to control the ballot, the only way they can control the election is by out and out election fraud. I'm not yet cynical enough to go there.

Once you eliminate the song and dance requirements of Part 2, I suspect that multiple candidates for a given position would be more common. We already know of one election for President that woud have had at least 4 candidates. I know you disagree, but with multiple candidates a possibility, then I think the best election process would be one of election by majority, not plurality. That introduces the very high liklihood of the need for run-off's, and the need for a system to handle them easily and relatively inexpensively. That makes the "fix" a bit more complicated than just a redefinition or elimination of the nominating committee as it now exists. (And as an aside, for all intents and purposes the EC IS the nominating committee, and is why I've use the terms interchangably at times.

Witlhout a doubt. It would be interesting to push the point, though, and see who would object to taking a well thought out and workable proposal to the Leader Members for a decision. But it has to be well thought out, structured with possible issues considered and handled, or it would simply be a non-starter. Contrary to what another poster here has expressed, discussion and frank back and forth is the only way I know to come up with such a proposal.

Gaining support for a proposal that may not be popular would be difficult for anyone, outsider, insider, whoever. Someone who is "hard to work with", as you say, would almost certainly be doomed to failure. Having new ideas and proposals is not synonymous with "hard to work with". But I've made myself pretty clear on that one more than a few times.

Don't know. I wish I'd asked the question of both candidates while both were posting. Horrace has had a couple of opportunities to respond in this thread with specific suggestions about the nominating procedures and has gone off on a tangent rather than respond directly. I think I'll email Mark and see what he has to say about it, and ask to post his reply here as I have with comments from DM. I'm sure several of you have strong opinions about that, but the only way to know for sure is to ask.

That's funny.

A related question that I haven't heard an definitive answer to yet. Has there ever been an instance where the nominating committee kept a name off the ballot, even though there were 3 or fewer qualified nominees? Has there ever been a situation similar to last year where the nominating committee was forced to hold a name off the ballot due to the limitation of 3 candidates?

Horrace....I suspect that if anyone here knows the answers it would be you.

Another question for those of you that may agree with me that the current ability of the EC to control who appears on the ballot is not in the best interests fo the AMA: Is that agreement a result of the fact that the EC DID keep Horrace off the ballot last year, or because they CAN keep a name off the ballot, be it Horrace or anyone else? Two distinctly differrent things.

Bob, tell me why you don't think this kind of thing doesn't go on in a more or less closed enviroment, when an out in the open election like the prez it goes on almost every cycle.

Ron, I've never been an overly cynical person. Maybe I just haven't lived long enough. (And I don't mean that as an insult...either comment. )

My wife may not agree with me, but I've always been or at least think I've been an "innocent until proven guilty", "glass half full", trusting person, until given reason not to be. Granted, I've only been involved with AMA for 8 months or so, and not been through an AMA election cycle. The only story I've heard alleging AMA election fraud is from a single individual, with a dog in the hunt and an ax to grind. Given that, I take the information with a very large grain of salt. If that makes me naive in your opinion, then so be it. I can live with that. And again, I don't mean that in a particularly negative way.

Let me turn the question around. I gather that you believe the elections have been manipulated (other than by the nominating committee in the manner we've been talking about.) Why do you believe that it has happened? Is there evidence that convinces you of that? Are you taking the word of any particular individual? What? I'm not trying to put you on the spot with the question, just trying to understand why you feel the way you do.

When discussing if there is a problem with the nomination proceedure, here is something to chew on, election results from 1989 though 2007. Sorry, I didn't save the 2005 and 2006 tabulation. If anyone has those please add to this list.

Note how many elections had 3 nominees (these are the only ones where possibly all the nominees didn't make the ballot.)
Notice how many listed Horrace Cain, so these could be eliminated as keeping him from appearing on the ballot.

Election Results 1989 through 2007

1989
President
Howard Crispin, Jr ................ 3,216
Don Lowe ....................... 11,947
Write-in candidates .................... 48
Total ......................... 15,211

District I
Don Krafft .......................... 990
Write-in candidates .................. 22
Total .......................... 1,012

District V
Jim McNeill ....................... 1,476
Russell Timmons, Jr ................. 715
Write-in candidates ................... 3
Total .......................... 2,194

District IX
Travis McGinnis .................... 624
Write-in candidates .................. 23
Total ........................... 647

1990
Executive Vice President
Dave Brown ...................... 9,744
Write-in candidates ................ 96
Total ............. …............. 9,840

District 3
Bob Brown ....................... 1,205
Write-in candidates ............... 28
Total .......................... 1,233

District 7
Peter Waters ...................... 1,256
Write-in candidates ............... 21
Total .............. ............ 1,277

District II
Ed McCollough ................ 733
Damian Rhodes .............. 329
Write-in candidates ... ............. 5
Total .......................... 1,067

1991
District 2
Joe Beshar 918
John Grigg 898
George Myers 903
Write-in candidates. 9
Total 2728

District 4 (special election to replace McGinnis who resigned)
Russ Miller 287
Torn Boyd 273
Write-in candidates 4
Total 564

District 6
Jim Sears 1348
Write-in candidates 80
Total 1428

District 8
Gene Hempel 1841
Charles Stevens 1205
Write-in candidates 12
Total 3031

District 9
Russ Miller 287
Tom Boyd 273
Writ-in Candidates 4
Total 564

District 10
Reginald Keyawa 2,439
Bev Wisniewski 1,979
Write-in candidates 20
Total 4438

1992
President
Down Lowe 14213
Dave Brown 7119
Write-in candidates 221
Total 21633

District 1
Don Krafft 1162
Write-in candidates 44
Total 1206

District V
Jim McNeill 1905
Jerry Festa 1234
Write-in candidates 7
Total 3146

District 9
Russ Miller 788
Write-in candidates 12
Total 800

1993
Executive Vice President
Dave Brown 10496
Jim McNeill 5371
Write-in candidates 1347
Total 17214

District III
Bob Brown 1168
Al Myers 963
Write-in candidates 7
Total 2138

District VII
Bill Oberdieck 513
Peter Waters 1286
Write-in candidates 4
Total 1803

District XI
Ed McCollough 918
Write-in candates 61
Total 979

1994

Distrcit II
John Grigg 1285
Joe Beshar 1008
Robert Aberle 11

District IV
Howard Crispin 584
Chuck Forman 569
Brad Booth 350

District VI
Charlie Bauer 1007
Gary Bussel 892

District VIII
George Aldrich 1170
Gene Hempel 854

District X
Richard Hanson 1637
Clyde Pannier 1074

1995
President
Dave Brown 7701
Richard Hanson 5270
Howard Crispin 2619
Others 33
Invalid 271


District I
Don Krafft 729 (incumbent)
Others 18
Invalid 80

District V
Jim McNeill 1640 (incumbent)
Others 49
Invalid 288

District VII
Joe Hass 878
Don Bentfield 761
Others 7
Invalid 64

District IX
Russ Miller 511 (incumbent)
Others 26
Invalid 70

1996
Executive Vice President

Doug Holland 8625 (incumbent)
Brian Nelson 6063
Others 33

District III
Bob Brown 1304 (incumbent)
Others 19

District VII
Don Bentfield 1119
Shaun Ettinger 612
Others 1

District XI
Ed McCollough 867 (incumbent)
Gill Horstman 648

1997
Dist II
De Cou 1517
Beshar 875
Juschkus 361
Other 61

Dist IV
Foreman 751
Other 12

Dist VI
Bauer 1867
Sears 1400
Others 77

Dist VIII
Frank 1305
Others 85

Dist X
Hanson 1891
Others 122

1998

President *Dave Brown 12,145
Rich Hanson 5,991
Total votes cast 18,485

District I *Don Krafft 857
Total votes cast 981

District V *Jim McNeill 1,819 J
Jim Weems 343
Norm Deputy 754
Total votes cast 2,993

1999
Vice President – Doug Holland – incumbent 8278

District III – Bob Brown – incumbent 1075

District VII – Gish – incumbent - 1548
Oberdieck - 1196

District XI – Bruce Nelson –703
Al Culver – 299

2000
District II

Dave Mathewson 1943
Joe Beshar 5
Sal Calvagna 3
Ray Juschkus 3
Howard Clark 2
Invalid 51
Others w/one vote 25
Total 2032

District IV
Chuck Foreman 1572
Bliss Teague 5
George Abbott 2
Invalid 44
Others w/one vote 27
Total 1650

District VI
Charlie Bauer 2309
Jim Sears 8
Paul Blanchard 2
Gary Bussell 2
Paul Imel 2
W C McDaniel 2
Dave McDonald 2
Invalid 64
Others w/one vote 41
Total 2432


District VIII
Dr. Sandy Frank 2333
George Aldrich 5
Horrace Cain 3
Bill Laboyteaux 3
Gary Baker 2
Max Blose 2
Alan Durel 2
Otis Everts 2
Bill Lee 2
Charles Stevens 2
Invalid 50
Others w/one vote 45
Total 2451

District X
Rich Hanson 3535
Dr. Sandy Frank 5
David Mathewson 3
Tony Kameen 2
Vic Westland 2
Invalid 87
Others w/one vote 49
Total 3683

2001
President
Dave Brown 16,339
Rich Hanson 4,710
Frank Tiano 6,739
Total 27,842


District I
Don Kraft 1,231

District V
Jim McNeill 2065
Manny Sousa 804
Ton Stillman 1985
Total 4854

District IX
Russ Miller 673
P M McGuigan 568

2002
Executive Vice President
Doug Holland 12,585 (incumbent)
Doug Barry 3,689
Horrace Cain 3,155
Total 19,429

District III
Bob Brown 1,866 (incumbent)

District IV
Bliss Teague 1,099 (incumbent)
Randy Elliot 459

District VII
Bill Oberdieck 1,437 (incumbent)
Dave Gish 827

District XI
Bruce Nelson 1,112 (incumbent)

2003
District II
Dave Mathewson 1717

District IV
Bliss Teague 1233

District VI
Charlie Bauer 1918

District VIII
Sandy Frank 1931
Horrace Cain 553
Michael Moss 471

District X
Rich Hanson 3097

2004
President:
Dave Brown 15,090
Dave Mathewson 7,925
Bill Oberdieck 3,066

Dist 1 VP
Andy Argenio 890
Don Krafft 748

Dist 5 VP
Tony Stillman 2,038
Judi Dunlap 1,275
Manny Sousa 898

Dist 9 VP
Mark Smith 866

2007

AMA President Results

Dave Mathewson 5,217
Rich Hanson 3,722
Bill Oberdieck 2,144
Other 70

Total Votes: 11,153

Thanks for posting the historical numbers, Red. I can't pull up any results from 2005 or 2006 on the PC I'm using right now, but have summarized your numbers below:

Total number of elections listed: 62

Total with 2 or 1 on ballot: 51 (82%)
Total with 3 on ballot 11 (18%) 6 decided by majority, 5 by plurality

Note that by "on ballot" I mean those that were actually listed on the ballot, not those receiving votes. There were many cases of individuals receiving single digit or low double digit vote totals and the above summry assumes they were write in candidates, not actually on the ballot. That may not be accurate, but seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Also, for historical perspective, using Red's numbers above Horrace received votes in 3 of the listed elections: (Don't know if any of the 70 "other" votes in 2007 may have been write-in's for Horrace.)
2000 D8, write in, single digit total
2002 EVP, 3 on ballot, election won by D. Holland, 65% majority
2003 D8, 3 on ballot, election won by S. Frank, 65% majority

So, same question again. Of the 11 listed elections with 3 candidates on the ballot, was the 2007 ballot the only instance of someone being held off to meet the max 3 limit?

Now, to play devil's advocate. Lacking any information to the contrary, is it reasonable to assume that for the 82% of the elections with less than 3 on the ballot, all nominations of qualified individuals received by the nominating committee passed through with only the formal vote required to place them on the ballot? Also
lacking any information to the contrary, (at least so far) we know of only 1 instance out of 11 where the limit of 3 actually resulted in qualified nominee being held off the ballot.

If that is true, (big if) then I'm beginning to wonder if my concern about the nominating procedures isn't becoming one of "it's the principal of the thing" than one of real substance and validity. I'm beginning to wonder that even if the nominating procedures as written were NOT in place, would the make up of the EC be appreciably different than it is now? Gotta think about that a bit.

Comments?

Red
Once again we get a partial partisan skewed set of data.
To say that this set of results demonstrates that Hoss hasnt been keep off the ballot kinda misses the mark... in that both last year that was very much the case and it has been discussed here already: We KNOW he was kept off last year, so your list doesnt show he hasnt been kept off time & time again. As well as you neglecting to list the year he was AN INCUMBANT KEPT OFF THE BALLOT! Spin that one as you want, but iirc as the non-balloted incumbant he won BY WRITE-IN.

Red, if you think I am misrepresenting the points in the year Hoss won by write-in (& that preceding election), please explian the details of just what happened those years as you see it.... what were the circumstances that led to Hoss wining by Write-in.

Now, when the incumbant is kept off, with so much member support that he won by write-in,
were the Good Ole Boys working against Hoss,
or were the good ole boys working against the membership?
Hey, who cares who the members want, the EC controls the ballot printing.







BOB
Digest what I just said to Red.
Then ask Hoss for the name of the guy that found the uncounted Hoss votes back in the day.

I find many things folk declare about Muncie need to be appended with ", again."
MA will never become Optional ", again."
Muncie could never rig elections ", again."
etc

You should schedule some time for a trip there in the near future.



Hoss' write-in a Dead Horse?
This thread is discussing the nomination process, and this in particular
is an example of something about the election process we should change.
It is supposedly just a series of coincidences that a lot of the examples of stuff that just aint right involve the cheifs slamming Hoss.

You're right that the data is partial, since it only goes back to 1989. If someone takes the time to cut and paste that much data, I'm not inclined to P&M for not going back further. The only way I know to get data back that old is to hunt and peck through the archived issues of MA.

KE, in Red's defense he didn't say Hoss hasn't been kept off the ballot. Re-read what he said and you'll see that your comment "To say that this set of results demonstrates that Hoss hasnt been keep off the ballot kinda misses the mark.....". What Red said was "Notice how many listed Horrace Cain, so these could be eliminated as keeping him from appearing on the ballot." (Emphasis mine) It's a small but important difference. When you call someone on something you need to make sure you're calling him on what he actually said.

I don't think he was trying to indicate that Horrace hadn't been kept off the ballot. At least I didn't read it that way. If I had I'd have called him on it in my own reply.

It's unclear to me when the bylaws/standing rules pertaining to nominations were put into play, exactly. There is a date of 1982 listed under one of the sections, but it's not the specific section that deals with nominations. It's in the section immediately following. It's possible that the date refers to the entire section of "standing rules" since that's the first date listed, but I'm just speculating. Take a look and you'll see what I mean.

I'm glad you brought up the story of Horrace's successful write-in campaign. I've heard a version of the story, but can't remember the specifics about the ballot. To me, this makes it look like the nominating procedures as listed now date at least back to that incident, if not even earlier. I think the write-in campaign was 1981, but I'm not sure.

Do you know if the circumstances were the same at that point? Max of 3 on the ballot, more than 3 qualified nominations, so someone is odd man out. Assuming that's the case, we now know of at least 2 incidents where the current procedures eliminated a qualified individual from the ballot. As you point out, he was the incumbant, which requires a 3/4 majority, not just a simple majority. It's interesting to note that in both of these cases it was the same individual. I'd still like to know if those are the only two cases, or if the procedure has ever been applied to keep a qualified individual off the ballot when it wasn't necessary to cull someone to meet the max 3 limit. I think that's an important piece of information, but have NO idea how to retrieve it.

The other thing that occurs to me here is that the EC in this case removed a qualified candidate from the ballot that the district membership felt strongly enough about to elect anyway. That's another indication to me that the procedure is fatally flawed.

I've heard the story, KE, and I'm not willing to take it as gospel based on the word of one person who had a huge dog in the fight. If it's true, though, then any number of individuals should have been strung up by their thumbs. I've also got to speculate that if it could have been proven then there would have been legal action undertaken. I believe that such fraud would have been a criminal act, not just liable for civil action. And before anyone jumps in here and accuses me of esssentially calling someone a liar, I'm not. there's just not enough information available to convince me to buy into it.

So....again....back to the beginning. I've made a suggestion of a framework for some possible changes in the procedures. I've seen little comment on that, and no alternative suggestions.

How should things be changed? That's what this thread is about.

For someone who didn't want this thread to become a Horrace vs Mark thread, you sure have a strang way of steering it.

Bill, AMA 4720

The election data I submitted for the years 1989 through 2007 (excluding 05 and 06) which is all I had, was intended to give those wanting to "fix" the election process something to go on, nothing more. If it far better to know exactly what is broken before you try to fix it. I am not convinced that the present system is broken to the extent where any significant difference would occur at the EC level. Horrace has told us that the system can't be fixed as long as there are stupid open and leader members voting for the status quo.

As far as going further back in history has anyone verified if Horrace was even nominated for the election he won by a write in. Or did he, knowing that he could jack the system where participation is sparse, launch an independent write in campaign. How many names actually appeared on the ballot at that time? Remember, the ballots were counted by AMA staff, as I recall HC stating, at that time so some hanky panky could have occurred. Using an independent auditor has taken care of that problem.

So the fix then could be that all present and future voting members go through a screening to make sure they meet Horrace's standards of intelligence (agree with him on all points) before membership is renewed or accepted.

Bob,
Here, I will cede the point to Red for your semantics:
Red did list that there was at least one time Hoss wasnt kept off the ballot.

However
looks clear enough to me that the reason Red would even mention Hoss being there
would be to illustrate that Hoss is not kept off ballots.
No duh he hasnt been kept off all ballots, he is on one now [&:]

But why try to sell it like he hasnt been, when we know he has - something that wasnt mentioned by Red,
along with his data not getting into the OFF BALLOT INCUMBANT nor highlighting the other year (last year, which is in his data) he was indeed kept off.

Red wasnt selling it that only once in a while Hoss has been kept off,
it was packaged as ignoring the times he has along with showing he hasnt to paint a tinted picture.
Just as the other Reds List that showed Hoss as unelectable, but Red somehow dropped Hoss' wins from his list but include elections he wasnt even running in.

Bob, as long as you are looking at the some/all semantics,
I didnt say he was kept off "all" ballots just as Red didnt say all either.
When I said he was kept off the ballot, that doesnt make refernce to the count, frequency, nor totality of it.

. .

I doubt they would even try to pull something that obviously wrong.... even with a closed door meeting the candidate would scream bloody murder. But horrific events seem to get back burnered into a Muncie Myth, that folks later choose to treat as just a myth or lacking in fact.... such as uncounted ballots you should ask Hoss about. But stories get adjusted it seems, like Red dragging in testimonials that Hoss had nothing to do with the 81 Freq Deal... plenty of old guys around that will protect Muncie & slam Hoss by playing loose with interpreting the facts.

I disagree, Bill.

KE asked what I thought Mark would support any move to change the procedures. I responded to that. Horrace is a participant in the thread, and given that both were here taking answers I don't think the reference should be taken as an effort to play them against each other. That certainly wasn't the intent. In any event, although he hasn't said so, given the overall experiences don't you think that the question of whether he would support a change in the procedures is rather obvious? My guess is that he would support my basic premise here. My only complaint in this specific context is that rather than actually participate all he's done is take potshots. Maybe he just can't bring himself to agree with me.

That makes the comment about this thread, not the current election. And in any event, given where we are in the balloting period, the election is essentially a done deal at this point. That's why I haven't been talking much about it, if at all. Not much point this late in the game.

Now, the question about supporting a change because it held one candidate off the ballot or because it could hold any candidate off the ballot is also right on the money, I think. It's boils down to whether one thinks the procedure is bad because of one (or two) specific instances, or if they think the procedure is just bad period. If the former then the individual doesn't really agree with me. If the latter then we are in agreement. Although the question obviously involved Horrace, it's not ABOUT Horrace, it's about one's reasoning concerning the procedure.

I hope that answers your concerns. If not let me know. I'll be glad to discuss it further.

Bob
This is for everyone on this Forum! I have been here for
a few years I do not post very much, but I do come here
to see what is going on. I am Not the only one you can bet
on that!!!! As for you Bob! I don't know you and I Do not
want to. I know you do not like Hoss, but he is from the
old school as I am. We have a bad habit of calling things
as we see them. I know that alot of you out there do not
like that! Well thats to bad! The truth is hard to take for
some out there, and I for one am tired of haveing to sit
back and say not a word about what is going on around
me. I can't talk for all the baby boomer's out there, but
I think they feel the same way as I do. I lost two feet of
my small intestons for my USA and I would do it again!!!
As for the rest of you Wake Up Look out your door and
see whats going on!!!!!! This is last time you will ever here
Me!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's exactly the way I took it, Red. I agree.

I was headed that way until I was reminded of Horrace's write-in victory. That's a very specific example of one situation where the election outcome would absolutely have been different, had Horrace not scored an improbable write-in victory. The EC should not be in a position to keep someone off the ballot that the district voters obviously want representing them. IMO that single incident is enough to demonstrate to me that the procedure is not appropriate.

And you always take everything he says as gospel, right?

I don't remember all of the details, but it's my understanding that he was left off the ballot. Rremember, he was the incumbant. Hopefully he will confirm. Based on what I have heard and remember, I'd take his word for it.

Get back to me when you have something substantive to add.

I really didn't read it as anything else than providing multiple years which gave a reasonable history of the typical frequency of 1, 2, or 3 on the ballot. And I can't imagine anyone who has been following the thread would have missed that one of the qualified candidates was left off of the ballot in 2007.

IMO it's more of can they or can't they. The way I read the bylaws, it looks like they could if they chose to. Take a look and see what you think. If my understanding is correct, it's a loophole that should not be there.

Are you considering the story of uncounted votes as 'fact'? From where I sit I don't think either one of us has enough information to conclude that it's fact or not.

Interesting that you've appointed yourself spokesman for the whole forum. Congratulations!

I too call things as I see them.

If this is about the election, then you are posting in the wrong thread. That's not what this is about. To be honest it's difficult to know just what it is about. But since we're never going to hear from you again, I guess it really doesn't matter, does it?

Really? Do you know how old I am? Do you know how old anyone posting here might be?

Red Said:
Lets see,
... the system can't be fixed as long as there <folks> voting for the status quo
I cant really understand how one could oppose this concept: As long as folks vote for non-fixers it wont get fixed.


Bob Said:
Story? What story?
I didnt tell any stories.
I gave you a question to ask Hoss that you might be interested in the answer.


Speaking of good questions for you to ask...
Have you gotten any defense of the old EC keeping the incumbant off the ballot from our friends that love to blindly defend Muncie. Wouldnt that be a great question to get the answer to,
Why was the incumbant not on the ballot the Nominating Committee produced?
If there is a perfectly good reason I'm sure the MDL <Muncie Defense League> would be happy to share it with us.


Dont let folks smoke you with garbage about how infrequent the corruption might be.
I think we agree that even Infrequent Corruption is too much corruption,
if the system can be adjusted to put an end to what looks like corruption, then the system should be adjusted.

Which, as Hoss pointed out, aint gonna happen
with, what has been called by some, "lazy" or "complacent" or "stupid" voting membership,
and an HQ that sends out a member poll on a program and then ignores the negative membership response... and a membership that has many believers that "complaining" should be flat out forbidden

Mitchell, that's just too bad you don't buy into it. Unfortunately, the late Earl Witt, AMA President at the time, is not available to substantiate the information. John Worth is, however I seriously doubt that he will attest to it. Dave Brown was there, and he knows the story. Will he tell it? D_mn if I know. The AMA Staff Director, Joyce Hager, was there. Will she admit to the story? Since if she did, her lifetime job would probably evaporate like Carl Maroney's job did, and not long ago. I am sure she can evade that part of her memory.

BTW, Earl Witt was in the same situation. The INCUMBENT PRESIDENT was also left off the ballot when I was. Since then a change was made to the Bylaws to make it more difficult for such to happen again. Don't forget I was on that nominating committee, but the 3/4 requirement was not in effect then. I did NOT vote to keep either myself off or Earl Witt off. Earl and I were together on 99% of the issues. The Ex. director despised the both of us.

The next year, 1981, I was very much pressured to vote to keep McNeil off the ballot. I refused to do so. Yep, another of those "hard to work with situations." It had been done to me and I was NOT going to do it to someone else. IMO, that is the duty and responsibility of the membership to vote Out and In, not the EC.

John Worth used AMA funds to send Michelene Madison to a school for Parliamentary Procedure. That is where the use of Standing Rules came from. Bylaws take time and effort to change. The EC can change a Standing Rule at a meeting or between meetings by telephone or mail vote. So Easy!

While YOU, Mitchell, want this to be a discussion about suggested changes, I am not so naive as to think that anything could ever come of such items. Only an EC person, not afraid to stand up, be counted, and report back to the membership concerning the problem areas, will ever be able to just possibly effect some changes that may give the membership some small bit of say in how the EC operates and controls things.
Now that recent events indicate the Staff seems to be calling all the shots, well Mitchell, I think your big venture with this thread is simply a diversion from the main subject of this year's election. In all my AMA years, this EVP election has created more attention to AMA election processes than any election I can remember, including Pres. [>:]

Sorry, red but you LIE. That is neither a quote or a paraphrase of my statement.

Nominated by an AMA Open member...YES! Nominated by the nominating committee ... NO!
Can you, red, determine which you are speaking of?

Are you positively certain of that statement, red. Can you verify that statement? Usually the person hiring the builder determines how the house gets built.
Red, your age is showing. Rather juvenile Ol' Chap!

Horrace, if someone else came into the forum with such a story, listing people who were there but can't or won't talk about it, would YOU take it at face value? I don't think so.

Good for you! I agree with that 100%. It's the right and honorable thing to do. So why are you responding to me the way you are on this?

So what are you saying here, Horrace? That talking about changes that need to be made is a waste of time? That the only needed discussion is about electing somone who may try to make those changes that we're wasting our time talking about? That's what it sounds like. (But before you start your next likely rant that I'm putting words in your mouth please note that I'm ASKING if that is what you're saying.)

Oh good grief, Horrace. That's just silly. As of this writing the last posting in your election forum was 9 days ago. The last posting to a thread relating directly to this specific election was 7 days ago. Yep, I'm diverting discussion away from hot election topics that haven't been posted to in a week or more. That's out in left field even for you.

Why are you so bound and determined to not offer anything substantive about what you think should be done about the current nominating procedures? Are you so ticked off at me that you can't bring yourself to say "I agree with you?" If you are elected, is this an example of how you're going to work with people you traditionally disagree with, even on a subject where you share the same basic opinions? (And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the whole purpose of this thread was to make this point, the thread is three days and 70 posts old, I've made every attempt I can to keep it on topic, and I'm not the one that insisted on interjecting this year's EVP election into the mix)

Then why the little frownie thingie? Isn't this a good thing? I think it's a good thing.

Now, one last attempt to move this back to topic:

OK, so assume you are elected. That you're not afraid to stand up and be counted. Not afraid to report back to the membership concerning problems. That you're trying to make some changes to put the membership back into control of things. What changes would you make to the nominating and election procedures? I know that you agree with me and others that changes should be made. What would you do?

If Hoss gets elected we oughta make sure he has one of these to get back an forth to the comittee meetings.

http://www.hossflyinc.com/home.html

Bob
again
One or two guys that want to do the right thing will just get outvoted by the rest of the EC,
just like the couple EC votes AGAINST ppp
as an example of having a well meaning minority is a lot like not having them.
..... unless that minority has an iron fist "hard to work with" guy that forces the right things to be done with threats of exposure to the membership.... then a minority with Mr Unanimous Or Else can get stuff done.

That is how to make changes that take away power from the potential changers,
such as cutting the EC's subjective control of who gets on the ballot.

The EC is not unaware of this subject
as we were pretty dorn vocal last year abot the Nominations procedure for reasons well known.
Do EC members see that this needs to be fixed like we screamed it does?
Dunno. Did any EC's do anything to fix it in the past year? (including any EVP candidates)



. .

But other than getting the corrections implemented,
If I recall from last years discussions:

Incumbant DVPs that are trying to get reelected can stay in the closed door nomination>ballot (who gets on ballot) while the other candidates for that seat have to step out. Home field advantage?

Bob,
Whatcha think of that bit of election procedure?

Better stated "What would try to do?"

Personally I'm not yet certain I would try to change anything EXCEPT that through the "Standing Rules" I would try to get the EC to allow anyone, in the running for Nominating Committee (NC) nomination, to attend the NC meeting and be allowed to state and/or debate the issue prior to the NC vote. Anyone from the outside running against an incumbent has the deck stacked against himself, the outsider.

I think that any member-nominated individual willing to attend the NC meeting at his/her own expense, should be allowed to attend and speak at the NC meeting, but NOT vote. In addition, I would be for those EC members also nominated for a renewal or other EC position to not be allowed to vote for those position/s they are are running for.

The fact that in 2007, I was at the EC meeting when the meeting recessed for the NC to select the 3 for the ballot. I was NOT allowed to attend that meeting, yet said meeting lasted only some 15 minutes while the EC/NC selected 3 of their own for the ballot.

Nothing is going to stop EC members from seeding the ballots to ensure outsiders get a split up vote. With the very low interest of the overall membership, I doubt that to try anything in that problem is going to do any good. Red conveniently lost the 2nd time I ran against Holland results where I received over 40% of the vote. That showed some dissatisfaction in the ranks. When I ran against Sandy Frank, Moss, a well known and respected RCer was, at the last minute, inducted and provided a quick Leader Membership so as to fill the ballot. SHOT happens and it always will.

WHAT is the reluctance to make any suggestions here for changes? You won't make any. Horrace just does his usual rant and won't make any. I don't think anyone else has either.

Why?

If it's wrong to talk about this with the current EC in place, then it's just as wrong (or just as much a waste of time) to talk about anything else the AMA leadership may be doing wrong......until the "new order" EC is in place.

I don't get it. What's wrong with talking about what you WOULD like to see? What's wrong with talking about what should be changed?

Is that why 90% of what is posted here is little more than P'ing & M'ing about how bad AMA leadership is, but without any suggestions of what to do to change that other than "throw the bums out"? If that's the case then why bother? Why even have an AMA forum?

Once we get one of your "has an iron fist "hard to work with" guy that forces the right things to be done with threats of exposure to the membership" fellows on the EC THEN can we talk about it? Or do we not talk about what we want until we get two of 'em? Three? Four? How many?

Do you come here just to complain?

No one has to step out, KE. The only DVP candidate that could be there is the incumbant. If you're talking about a national office, I see nothing that says that the incumbant can stay but a non-incombant must leave.

What I think of THAT procedure is that it doesn't exist. What I think of the nomination and election procedures in general is well known to anyone who's been reading this thread. You know what I think. You know what I've suggested in it's place.

What we don't know is what anyone else suggests.

Is it just so much fun to complain about what is, that you don't have any energy left to suggest something different? Or do you just like to complain and don't really care about anything else?