Really nothing however if you wish to change something then do so with demonstrating the actual rules that you wish to be changed.
Demonstrate some knowledge of the reasons that things are being done which are not to your liking. Demonstrate what rule/s has/have to be changed to make things different. Demonstrate HOW things might get changed. I remember that you came on to me very strongly all about HOW I plan to go about my stated objectives as DVP. Well, Mr. Mitchell, it's your turn to tell me! [>:] BTW, To me this symbol is more of a "Gotcha" than any other within the selections.

When you demonstrate that you really know the applicable current rules, understand their use in at least some recent history, and you know what is required to make changes, Bylaws, Standing Rules, other, etc., then maybe you just MIGHT gain some credibility reference your subject other than creating a diversion.

Bob,

I know that you didn't want this thread to become another Horrace vs Mark thread, but you are asking what we could do to get the EC to listen to us, right?

How do you expect the Executive Committee to do things differently, when you personally are advocating keeping the same people on the Committee itself? By trying to keep Mark on the Committee, but in a different job than he has had, and replacing him with a new DVP who either has been, or will be hand picked, just tell me how you expect to see anything change at all?

I don't know about you, but I wholeheartedly agree with whoever first said that Insanity is doing the same thing the same way, and expecting a different outcome.

Bill, AMA 4720

Bob, if you have only been in the rc flying biz for the few months you claim, why are you so interested an spending so much time at this forum, or any of them for that matter? When I first soloed I spent every waking minute that I wasn't working at the airfield flying for the first 1 1/2-2 years, rather than questioning everything that everybody here does concerning the ama.

Until Hoss and a few more like him get in the ama higher ups to get things changed, I'm just acting like it's another insurance company with a (free?) magazine. Also, don't ask me for any ideas, as I feel Hoss can take care of whatever needs to be done. If I do come up with something though, I'll let Hoss know instead of blabbing it all over the world here on the internet.

Bob you an KE spend entirely to much time here IMO....LOL

Thank you for a substantive reply.

Short of just allowing all qualified nominees on the ballot, that would be a good step. Allowing an incumbant to be present, but not someone else vying for the same spot is just plain wrong. If the incumbant can speak for him/herself then all other potential candidates should be afforded the same opportunity.

Again, I agree completely. I would certainly define THAT as a conflict of interest.

Horrace, if you should be elected, and attempt to move things in that direction I would support it 100%, and would petition my DVP to support it as well.

Am I correct that a change to the bylaws requires ony a majority vote by the EC to then be put to the Leader Members for a 2/3rds approval? If this is the case, then mustering enough support to change the standing rules might also give you enought support to change the bylaws themselves

If you could muster the support within the EC, would you support changing the procedure altogether to eliminate the NC as it now exists, and having all qualified nominees appear on the ballot? As I've said in an earlier message I think that would require other changes as well, but would be the only way to prevent what happend to you the year you were able to mount your write-in campaign, or for last year's election for president. To me that is the underlying problem. The EC/NC should not be able to keep someone off the ballot that has enough support from the district to be be elected anyway.

Do you see a problem with that which I may not be taking into consideration?

They could do that even without the mechanism of the NC. Moss would have been nominated and appeared on the ballot anyway if all qualified candidates just passed on through. That might not be the best example of them trying to change the election by adding a 3rd candidate, though. He got fewer votes than you did. Sandy Frank won with 65% of the vote. (Per Red's numbers posted earlier)

That's a valid point, Bill.

I've never voted for someone with whom I agreed 100% of the time, nor voted against someone with whom I disagreed 100% of the time. I've made my reasons for not supporting Horrace fairly clear, and I'm not going to re-hash any of that here. However, I do happen to be in fairly close agreement with him on this specific issue. And as I've told him, should be be elected I'd support any efforts as he describes in his latest message to me. I'd encourage him to do so.

Time will tell if I've made a mistake with my first vote here. And I can honestly say that if Horrace is elected I hope that he is succsessful in his plan to improve AMA overall, and especially in those areas where we agree on things.

I certainly can't sit here and say that a year from now that I'm sure I'll be happy with my vote choice, regardless of who wins.

Edit: fix quote marks

Don't know that I can answer that, Ron. I'm interested in flying. I'm interested in AMA. I'm interested in how things work....why one servo type may be better for one application than another, even though neither may apply to anything I'm flying. I like to learn stuff, I guess. You might as well ask me why I like chedder on my cheeseburgers rather than swiss, or coke rather than pepsi. I'm just interested.

Nothing sinister about it. I promise.

My wife would probably agree with you.

Bob
Perhaps you should be a Jr High English teacher, this fixation on semantics would serve you well.
You are so right, I was WAAAAYY off base saying 'Step Out'
the non-EC candidate is never admited to the closed door part of that days EC hootenanny in the first place.
At least thats what the word on the street is,
and by Word On The Street I mean Hoss very clearly has said time & time again here how he and DM were member nominated last year... well, Hoss can explain it well:

"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."

Now, another member nominated candidate was allowed in that closed door dealie, but not Hoss,
because he was on the EC while was running for AMA office
that other candidate could be in the SECRET selection of who wont be on the ballot .... turns out the candidate that wasnt admitted to the closed door was held off the ballot while the candidate that was in the closed door was on the ballot.

Perhaps if all candidates could attend in a non-voting fashion
a nominating committe guy might not mention not even knowing what AMA seats the booted candidate held.
Hard to know for sure, since the candidates only see a closed door
... well, what some of the candidates see, cause other candidates for that seat are inside that closed door.

KE, I'm not picking on you about this, honest. It's just that when you're talking about something like bylaws, or a contract, or whatever, the devil is in the details.

My concern with the detailed wording is probably less related to high school than it is my years negotiating/interpreting/dealing with union contracts. Or maybe from buying and selling houses and the contracts involved. Don't know. But the wording is important. It's the details that count.

That's all.

And yes....Horrace made it perfectly clear exactly what happened. And I think we all agree that it's wrong. IMO either everyone on the ballot or no one on the ballot should be in the nominating committee meetings, and especailly should not be voting on the make up of the ballot for a spot for which they are a candidate.

No if's and's or but's about it.

You're an enigma, Horrace. Thirty minutes before posting this message to me you posted a reply that was actually responsive about some of the questions I've asked and included some of your concerns with the problems. Specific concerns. We even found a couple of things to agree on.

Then you post this mess in response to a question I asked someone else. Interesting to say the least.

So, one has to be an expert before asking questions and making comments about what may be wrong with a particular process or procedure? Is that what you're saying? I don't think that's the case.

Horrace, I don't claim to be an expert or know it all on the bylaws and rules of the AMA. I do think that I know WAY more than the typical member, and more than most that have been posting here. Most....not all. Interestingly enough more than one indivdual here has acccused me of being a "plant" because I knew too MUCH. I think I know enough to ask reasonable questions, and to suggest POSSIBLE solutions. You'll note that when I talk about the bylaws it's typically with a "my understanding is"........and a .........."correct me if I'm wrong" comment. What I'm trying to do is make sure that my understanding is correct, and utilize the knowledge of others where it's not. That's not a flaw.

My questions here have been credible. My responses have been credible.

The only thing here that ISN'T credible is your continuing claim that this is just a diversion of some sort. Diversion from WHAT? Election related threads that haven't been active in a week or more? None have been. Besides this thread, the only active threads in the past week are "AMA CD Deal", KE's "Is it OkeyDokey to Not Vote in an AMA Election" and "EC Meeting Sat 10-25-08" Are you claiming I'm creating a diversion from those? If not then just what? You're comment really makes no sense whatsoever.

So now you're playing "gotcha" because I haven't posted what I plan to do to correct issues I see with AMA's nominating procedures? I've indicated what I think is wrong, and why (something you actually agree with me about), and a suggestion as to what should replace it. A suggestion, Horrace...and invited comments. Personally, I can't see you inviting comments from much of anyone, particularly an audience that may not agree with you.

Horrace, I'm not running for EVP. You are. (EVP, not DVP)[>:] Gotcha. Gee that was fun!

If I was a candidate for EVP then you'd be right to expect some detailed plans on what I might want to accomplish if elected. But I'm not. All I wanted to do was bring up something that I think is a issue and discuss it in a rational manner. That doesn't seem to be something that you're able to do. Certainly not on a consistent basis.