AMA Nominating Procedures
10-20-2008, 12:25 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMA Nominating Procedures
In all of the discussions going on concerning the current AMA elections, especially that for EVP, one topic that has been brought up several times is that of the AMA Nominating Committee procedures. Most of the comments I've seen have been negative, or at the least questioned the wisdom of the current procedures.
My understanding of those procedures is that only Leader Members may nominate, that only Leader Members may serve as elected officers, there is a limitation of 3 nominees on the ballot per office, each of whom must meet the guidelines set out in the bylaws for that particular office, and that the nominating committee will select those 3. The nominees are selected by majority vote of the committee, with the exception that it requires a 3/4's majority to keep an incumbant off the ballot if he or she has been re-nominated. Election to office is by plurality of votes cast by the membership, not majority.
My questions and comments below are based on these, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
My understanding of those procedures is that only Leader Members may nominate, that only Leader Members may serve as elected officers, there is a limitation of 3 nominees on the ballot per office, each of whom must meet the guidelines set out in the bylaws for that particular office, and that the nominating committee will select those 3. The nominees are selected by majority vote of the committee, with the exception that it requires a 3/4's majority to keep an incumbant off the ballot if he or she has been re-nominated. Election to office is by plurality of votes cast by the membership, not majority.
My questions and comments below are based on these, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
10-20-2008, 01:32 PM
#2
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Let's see......Gee, Bob, It was only last year. Horrace Cain was nominated for President by several members. His name was not allowed to appear on the ballot.
Bill, AMA 4720
Bill, AMA 4720
10-20-2008, 01:34 PM
#3
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
In all of the discussions going on concerning the current AMA elections, especially that for EVP, one topic that has been brought up several times is that of the AMA Nominating Committee procedures. Most of the comments I've seen have been negative, or at the least questioned the wisdom of the current procedures.
My understanding of those procedures is that only Leader Members may nominate, that only Leader Members may serve as elected officers, there is a limitation of 3 nominees on the ballot per office, each of whom must meet the guidelines set out in the bylaws for that particular office, and that the nominating committee will select those 3. The nominees are selected by majority vote of the committee, with the exception that it requires a 3/4's majority to keep an incumbant off the ballot if he or she has been re-nominated. Election to office is by plurality of votes cast by the membership, not majority.
My questions and comments below are based on these, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
In all of the discussions going on concerning the current AMA elections, especially that for EVP, one topic that has been brought up several times is that of the AMA Nominating Committee procedures. Most of the comments I've seen have been negative, or at the least questioned the wisdom of the current procedures.
My understanding of those procedures is that only Leader Members may nominate, that only Leader Members may serve as elected officers, there is a limitation of 3 nominees on the ballot per office, each of whom must meet the guidelines set out in the bylaws for that particular office, and that the nominating committee will select those 3. The nominees are selected by majority vote of the committee, with the exception that it requires a 3/4's majority to keep an incumbant off the ballot if he or she has been re-nominated. Election to office is by plurality of votes cast by the membership, not majority.
My questions and comments below are based on these, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
Bill, AMA 4720
10-20-2008, 01:59 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Let's see......Gee, Bob, It was only last year. Horrace Cain was nominated for President by several members. His name was not allowed to appear on the ballot.
Bill, AMA 4720
Let's see......Gee, Bob, It was only last year. Horrace Cain was nominated for President by several members. His name was not allowed to appear on the ballot.
Bill, AMA 4720
Was it a #1 or a #2? (Less than 3 on the ballot or 3 on the ballot? And understand I'm not wanting to get into a discussion of that election specifically, but of the nominating committee procedures in general.
10-20-2008, 02:17 PM
#5
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
Well, like I said, I wasn't around last year to know the specifics.
Was it a #1 or a #2? (Less than 3 on the ballot or 3 on the ballot? And understand I'm not wanting to get into a discussion of that election specifically, but of the nominating committee procedures in general.
ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder
Let's see......Gee, Bob, It was only last year. Horrace Cain was nominated for President by several members. His name was not allowed to appear on the ballot.
Bill, AMA 4720
Let's see......Gee, Bob, It was only last year. Horrace Cain was nominated for President by several members. His name was not allowed to appear on the ballot.
Bill, AMA 4720
Was it a #1 or a #2? (Less than 3 on the ballot or 3 on the ballot? And understand I'm not wanting to get into a discussion of that election specifically, but of the nominating committee procedures in general.
Bill, AMA 4720
10-20-2008, 02:28 PM
#6
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Bob, the only way to get a slight increase in member involvement would be to have a scandal at Muncie big enough to cause a financial meltdown there.....enough to where the insurance bill can no longer be paid. Until things get real dire, the average guy just wants to fly.
I think the safe quards for nominations are there to prevent a leader of a special interest group [with a unified mass of votes] from taking over at Muncie. Even with those safe guards in place, they can be breached.
I think the safe quards for nominations are there to prevent a leader of a special interest group [with a unified mass of votes] from taking over at Muncie. Even with those safe guards in place, they can be breached.
10-20-2008, 02:31 PM
#7
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
Not that we know of.
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
We know of at least one, Horrace Cain
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
They will be if they meet the qualifications.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
Run offs could be conducted with on line voteing at a fairly low cost.
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?
Not that we know of.
2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?
We know of at least one, Horrace Cain
Comments:
1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.
They will be if they meet the qualifications.
2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?
Run offs could be conducted with on line voteing at a fairly low cost.
3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.
In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.
So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.
Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?
My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.
10-20-2008, 03:03 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Why bother having a run off? Just elect by simple majority.
Bill, AMA 4720
And look at it this way, if you've got 4 candidates (which sound like it could have been the case last year, without the restriction to 3 on the ballot), and you elect by plurality, you could end up electing someone with 26% of the vote. IOW ~75% wanted someone else. Even with just 3 on the ballot you could end up electing someone that ~65% didn't support. We've got that possibility now, with the way the nominating and elections are set up. Would you be comfortable with that? I don't think I am.
Break
I just came back from looking up the results from last year. With 3 on the ballot DM won with 47% of the votes cast.
Now, we could get into a discussion of whether the three on the ballot were the most qualified/capable of the four (or more nominated), but that's really not what I want to have this thread develop into.
10-20-2008, 03:19 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
Not that we know of.
Not that we know of.
We know of at least one, Horrace Cain
So are you satisfied with things as they are now? If not, what would you suggest?
Run offs could be conducted with on line voteing at a fairly low cost.
10-20-2008, 07:36 PM
#10
My Feedback: (14)
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
<<snip>>
Yes, they could. But that means some open members would not be able to participate. I can't imagine that all ~135K members have internet access. I would hazard a quess that of the ~11K that voted last year there is a reasonable percentage that don't have access. How would that be fairly dealt with?
<<snip>>
Yes, they could. But that means some open members would not be able to participate. I can't imagine that all ~135K members have internet access. I would hazard a quess that of the ~11K that voted last year there is a reasonable percentage that don't have access. How would that be fairly dealt with?
10-20-2008, 08:03 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Plurality vs Majority
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
10-20-2008, 09:17 PM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: s3nfo
If you have a library in town, you have internet access. I grew up in a very small town and even we had a library, which today provides internet access to any who want it........
If you have a library in town, you have internet access. I grew up in a very small town and even we had a library, which today provides internet access to any who want it........
10-20-2008, 09:20 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Plurality vs Majority
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
Plurality vs Majority
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
Any comments on the nominating procedures themselves?
10-20-2008, 09:43 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
What you are saying is not without merit. I'm still not comfortable with putting someone in office, be it AMA or whatever, with with such a small percentage of votes cast. (Going back to my example of just 4 candidates)
Any comments on the nominating procedures themselves?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Plurality vs Majority
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
Plurality vs Majority
realli seems less important when only 7% of members return votes.
Consider someone getting just 34% of the vote of a 10% return... 3.4% of members
vs
someone getting 51% of a 7% return... 3.5+% of members
either way you look at it, hardly anyone of the membership wanted them enough to vote for them.
Any comments on the nominating procedures themselves?
Abel
10-20-2008, 10:09 PM
#15
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
The fact remains, the Executive Committee (or the Election Committee) chose to exclude Horrace, a bona-fide nominee from the ballot. Yes, there was some, "Home Cooking," going on. just like most everything that happens in Muncie.
Bob, Last year (I think, in February) I received an e-mail from Joyce Hager, giving me a basic outline of what was to become the PPP. She asked my opinion of the proposed progran, and I e-mailed her back that I was opposed, and the reason for the opposition (the voting thing). Next thing we know, we have the PPP rammed down our throats. I was not the only member who received this e-mail, and the overwhelming majority of the responders were not in favor of any tiered membership. We got it anyway.
The biggest problem that we have with the AMA at this time is not what the Executive Committee does, but rather what the Staff tells the Executive Committee what it must do, and whether or not they can tell the Membership what they did, and why. This is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. It's time that the staff of the AMA comes to understand that they are only paid employees, and that they don't make policy, but rather carry out the policy that is made by the Executive Committee. Some examples need to be made, and some department heads need to be in the unemployment line.
It's time to take back our AMA. If it requires a wholesale housecleaning of the Executive Committee, then so be it. They don't solicit your input, prior to enacting the rules that govern us, but rather what a priviliged few whisper in their ears. In our district (District V) we have toadys who suck up to the DVP, and think that their ideas are the only important ones. They do things such as manage the message boards, and I do have saved, copies of this little dweeb trying to get the DVP to agree to pull my ability to post in the District web site.
Sorry for the drift away from the topic, but you won't ever cure one problem without uncovering others. I had high hopes for the AMA with the changes that have occurred over the last couple of years, but It's the same song, next verse. The faces change, but the bull goes on and on.
Bill, AMA 4720
Bob, Last year (I think, in February) I received an e-mail from Joyce Hager, giving me a basic outline of what was to become the PPP. She asked my opinion of the proposed progran, and I e-mailed her back that I was opposed, and the reason for the opposition (the voting thing). Next thing we know, we have the PPP rammed down our throats. I was not the only member who received this e-mail, and the overwhelming majority of the responders were not in favor of any tiered membership. We got it anyway.
The biggest problem that we have with the AMA at this time is not what the Executive Committee does, but rather what the Staff tells the Executive Committee what it must do, and whether or not they can tell the Membership what they did, and why. This is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. It's time that the staff of the AMA comes to understand that they are only paid employees, and that they don't make policy, but rather carry out the policy that is made by the Executive Committee. Some examples need to be made, and some department heads need to be in the unemployment line.
It's time to take back our AMA. If it requires a wholesale housecleaning of the Executive Committee, then so be it. They don't solicit your input, prior to enacting the rules that govern us, but rather what a priviliged few whisper in their ears. In our district (District V) we have toadys who suck up to the DVP, and think that their ideas are the only important ones. They do things such as manage the message boards, and I do have saved, copies of this little dweeb trying to get the DVP to agree to pull my ability to post in the District web site.
Sorry for the drift away from the topic, but you won't ever cure one problem without uncovering others. I had high hopes for the AMA with the changes that have occurred over the last couple of years, but It's the same song, next verse. The faces change, but the bull goes on and on.
Bill, AMA 4720
10-20-2008, 10:12 PM
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
What KE is saying is the way it is, whether or not you are comfortable with it. AMA elections are determined by a plurality, not majority vote. I don't know how long it has been that way, but I'm pretty certain there has not been a run off election in the past four decades.
Abel
What KE is saying is the way it is, whether or not you are comfortable with it. AMA elections are determined by a plurality, not majority vote. I don't know how long it has been that way, but I'm pretty certain there has not been a run off election in the past four decades.
Abel
And I understand that is the way it is. The whole point of the thread was to discuss current election/nomination policy and address some of the concerns I've seen raised here.
Any comments about them?
10-21-2008, 02:07 AM
#17
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell
I'd have to do some digging, but I believe at some point I read about run-offs, and the current procedures being put in place to prevent the need for run off's. I'm suspect that Horrace or some of the other long timers will recall.
And I understand that is the way it is. The whole point of the thread was to discuss current election/nomination policy and address some of the concerns I've seen raised here.
Any comments about them?
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
What KE is saying is the way it is, whether or not you are comfortable with it. AMA elections are determined by a plurality, not majority vote. I don't know how long it has been that way, but I'm pretty certain there has not been a run off election in the past four decades.
Abel
What KE is saying is the way it is, whether or not you are comfortable with it. AMA elections are determined by a plurality, not majority vote. I don't know how long it has been that way, but I'm pretty certain there has not been a run off election in the past four decades.
Abel
And I understand that is the way it is. The whole point of the thread was to discuss current election/nomination policy and address some of the concerns I've seen raised here.
Any comments about them?
Read Bylaws Articles IX, X, and XI plus Standing Rule: GUIDELINES FOR NOMINATING COMMITTEE OPERATIONS. Everything is right there.
In the above quoted post, you also lend evidence to the fact you don't read replies to your own posts or you have a very short memory. For example, this one concerning run-offs.
Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168 Hossfly to Bob Mitchell
>>>>>>
"Anyone that uses the term "cut and run" for my RESIGNATION has strong excuses (excuse, not reason) for using such statement. I did not "cut and run". I had very good reasons for resigning my positions.
PERSONAL:
1.) The #1 main reason that I resigned was because in 1981 I ran for the EVP position. The ballot had 3 persons. McNeil, Thompson and myself. Thompson was a filler, McNeil was John Worth's chosen, and I was the membership's favorite. Back then one had to win by a 50% + margin. I received 49%. Back then that required a run-off.
The run-off resulted in 13,000+ votes returned, which appeared to be reasonable for an AMA then about 70,000 strong. McNeil won with a 2:1 margin over myself. I received less than 1/2 the original votes.
SO, just HOW in _ell did that happen? Easy: The election was seeded and I had already been advised of that fact by one Mr. Carl Maroney, relatively new in AMA staff, but a honest person that did not favor JW so very much. Outside my own Dist. VI, only those individuals voting for McNeil or Thompson received ballots, plus a light sprinkling. In Dist. VI, about half of those voting for me received ballots, with the majority being Chicago area voters so as to not attract too much attention.
<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>
"Anyone that uses the term "cut and run" for my RESIGNATION has strong excuses (excuse, not reason) for using such statement. I did not "cut and run". I had very good reasons for resigning my positions.
PERSONAL:
1.) The #1 main reason that I resigned was because in 1981 I ran for the EVP position. The ballot had 3 persons. McNeil, Thompson and myself. Thompson was a filler, McNeil was John Worth's chosen, and I was the membership's favorite. Back then one had to win by a 50% + margin. I received 49%. Back then that required a run-off.
The run-off resulted in 13,000+ votes returned, which appeared to be reasonable for an AMA then about 70,000 strong. McNeil won with a 2:1 margin over myself. I received less than 1/2 the original votes.
SO, just HOW in _ell did that happen? Easy: The election was seeded and I had already been advised of that fact by one Mr. Carl Maroney, relatively new in AMA staff, but a honest person that did not favor JW so very much. Outside my own Dist. VI, only those individuals voting for McNeil or Thompson received ballots, plus a light sprinkling. In Dist. VI, about half of those voting for me received ballots, with the majority being Chicago area voters so as to not attract too much attention.
<<<<<<<<
So why don't you send in some formal requests for Bylaws chnages? Then you will find out why the AMA member outside the chosen-selects run up against a brick wall.
>>>>>
ARTICLE XV
Amendments
Recommendations for Bylaws changes may be proposed in writing by any
member of the Executive Council, any member of the Bylaws Committee,
or any 20 members of the Academy. The Executive Council shall direct
proposed amendments to the Bylaws Committee for recommendations
prior to deliberation by the Executive Council. If the recommended
amendment(s) are accepted by a majority vote of the Executive Council,
the amendment(s) must be ratified before adoption by a mail ballot to
Leader members. An affirmative vote of 2/3 of Leader members responding
within 45 days of issuance of a mail ballot shall adopt the amendment(s).
NOTE: Article IX—Nominations and Elections—Section 4. A “bona
fide legal resident†has been defined by the AMA Executive Council to be
in accordance with the current address in the membership file at AMA
Headquarters.
<<<<<<
OK, so you get your DVP, or 19 other members to accept your proposed changes and you submit them to the EC. Then they go to "committee" which is just another Black Hole out in Outer Space. If you don't believe it, then try it. [>:]
Now I will reveal another little known fact. If there is irony in the world this is it. A joke on me done by me! [
]In early '81, John Worth, the ED, then a voting member of the EC, was fighting to get the plurality vice the then majority changed. I kept that from happening. In the first vote for EVP in '81, I won by plurality. Had I supported JW and that Bylaws change passed, in '82 I would have been the AMA EVP.
Such is life. 
Now, Mitchell, if you wish to lead a discussion in a regulated topic, may I suggest you just might be somewhat more effective if you knew those regulations concerning your chosen topic.
10-21-2008, 08:39 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
WOW, I learned more from your post in 5 minutes than all of the reading I have done on here so far.....Keep up the good work Hoss....
10-21-2008, 08:48 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
quote:
Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168 Hossfly to Bob Mitchell
>>>>>>
"Anyone that uses the term "cut and run" for my RESIGNATION has strong excuses (excuse, not reason) for using such statement. I did not "cut and run". I had very good reasons for resigning my positions.
PERSONAL:
1.) The #1 main reason that I resigned was because in 1981 I ran for the EVP position. The ballot had 3 persons. McNeil, Thompson and myself. Thompson was a filler, McNeil was John Worth's chosen, and I was the membership's favorite. Back then one had to win by a 50% + margin. I received 49%. Back then that required a run-off.
The run-off resulted in 13,000+ votes returned, which appeared to be reasonable for an AMA then about 70,000 strong. McNeil won with a 2:1 margin over myself. I received less than 1/2 the original votes.
SO, just HOW in _ell did that happen? Easy: The election was seeded and I had already been advised of that fact by one Mr. Carl Maroney, relatively new in AMA staff, but a honest person that did not favor JW so very much. Outside my own Dist. VI, only those individuals voting for McNeil or Thompson received ballots, plus a light sprinkling. In Dist. VI, about half of those voting for me received ballots, with the majority being Chicago area voters so as to not attract too much attention.
Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168 Hossfly to Bob Mitchell
>>>>>>
"Anyone that uses the term "cut and run" for my RESIGNATION has strong excuses (excuse, not reason) for using such statement. I did not "cut and run". I had very good reasons for resigning my positions.
PERSONAL:
1.) The #1 main reason that I resigned was because in 1981 I ran for the EVP position. The ballot had 3 persons. McNeil, Thompson and myself. Thompson was a filler, McNeil was John Worth's chosen, and I was the membership's favorite. Back then one had to win by a 50% + margin. I received 49%. Back then that required a run-off.
The run-off resulted in 13,000+ votes returned, which appeared to be reasonable for an AMA then about 70,000 strong. McNeil won with a 2:1 margin over myself. I received less than 1/2 the original votes.
SO, just HOW in _ell did that happen? Easy: The election was seeded and I had already been advised of that fact by one Mr. Carl Maroney, relatively new in AMA staff, but a honest person that did not favor JW so very much. Outside my own Dist. VI, only those individuals voting for McNeil or Thompson received ballots, plus a light sprinkling. In Dist. VI, about half of those voting for me received ballots, with the majority being Chicago area voters so as to not attract too much attention.
Bob, after going back an reading this above an letting it soak in, I could easily see how the election could be fixed. Look whats happening to the Prez election right now....I wouldn't put it past any small org to do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it. They even did it with the HOA here, an there ain't much we can do about it without getting an expensive lawyer an a lot of time involved.
10-21-2008, 09:42 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Bob
Are you saying three & a half percent is not a small percentage one way vs another?
Its just 3.5% of ballots sent out.... that is a margin of error in some polls for cryin out loud.
Its gonna get down to just about 200 members returning ballots soon,
and then you'd be happy if it was a 110count vs 90count
... just 110 AMA Members make the president of a 100k member org would be ok while 80-60-60 would be bad?
Or is a vote broken down 25% - 26% - 49% just too close for you to be comfortable with what they really wanted.
Bob, when only 7% of the ballot getters send them back
the difference between Plurality & Majority is just a minor fraction of one percent of the AMA:
Aint Nobody voted for "A", and "B" got even less[:@]
Here is how the last vote broke down:
The winner got around 3% of the ballots sent out,
and the other guys got about 2% & 1% of the ballots sent out.
THAT is the problem that dwarfs plurality vs Majority: Aint nobody votin at all
Bob, go back & read the threads where we "complained" about a guy on the nom-com that didnt even read Hoss' resume and didnt know what AMA seats he held after they kicked his Member Nomination off the ballot last year.
What you are saying is not without merit. I'm still not comfortable with putting someone in office, be it AMA or whatever, with with such a small percentage of votes cast.
Its just 3.5% of ballots sent out.... that is a margin of error in some polls for cryin out loud.
Its gonna get down to just about 200 members returning ballots soon,
and then you'd be happy if it was a 110count vs 90count
... just 110 AMA Members make the president of a 100k member org would be ok while 80-60-60 would be bad?
Or is a vote broken down 25% - 26% - 49% just too close for you to be comfortable with what they really wanted.
Bob, when only 7% of the ballot getters send them back
the difference between Plurality & Majority is just a minor fraction of one percent of the AMA:
Aint Nobody voted for "A", and "B" got even less[:@]
Here is how the last vote broke down:
The winner got around 3% of the ballots sent out,
and the other guys got about 2% & 1% of the ballots sent out.
THAT is the problem that dwarfs plurality vs Majority: Aint nobody votin at all
Bob, go back & read the threads where we "complained" about a guy on the nom-com that didnt even read Hoss' resume and didnt know what AMA seats he held after they kicked his Member Nomination off the ballot last year.
10-21-2008, 11:45 AM
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Mitchell, have you ever tried reading the AMA Bylaws? Your first post in this thread evidences you don't have a clue about them. In addition you obviously have not read or comprehended what I answered to you in "Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168"
{break}
In the above quoted post, you also lend evidence to the fact you don't read replies to your own posts or you have a very short memory. For example, this one concerning run-offs.
Mitchell, have you ever tried reading the AMA Bylaws? Your first post in this thread evidences you don't have a clue about them. In addition you obviously have not read or comprehended what I answered to you in "Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168"
{break}
In the above quoted post, you also lend evidence to the fact you don't read replies to your own posts or you have a very short memory. For example, this one concerning run-offs.
Do you have any comments about changes that you think would be appropriate in the nominating and election process? If so, then I think you could add to this discussion. I suspect that we share some concerns here, particularly about the nominating process. You've been personally affected by the current nominating process, and while I don't want this to degenerate into a rant about one particular instance, I'd honestly like to hear what you think could be done to improve the way nominations are handled, and the way the ballot is produced. The fact that I probably would have agreed with the final result of the 2007 Nominating Committee re the Presidential ballot doesn't mean that I think the process is appropriate. To the contrary, as I've stated.
Now, if you prefer to just rant about what you think I may or may not know or understand or remember then perhaps you could start a thread for that discussion so this one can remain on topic. I'm sure you could get a few others to join you.
Now, Mitchell, if you wish to lead a discussion in a regulated topic, may I suggest you just might be somewhat more effective if you knew those regulations concerning your chosen topic.
10-21-2008, 12:02 PM
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Bob, the only way to get a slight increase in member involvement would be to have a scandal at Muncie big enough to cause a financial meltdown there.....enough to where the insurance bill can no longer be paid. Until things get real dire, the average guy just wants to fly.
I think the safe quards for nominations are there to prevent a leader of a special interest group [with a unified mass of votes] from taking over at Muncie. Even with those safe guards in place, they can be breached.
Bob, the only way to get a slight increase in member involvement would be to have a scandal at Muncie big enough to cause a financial meltdown there.....enough to where the insurance bill can no longer be paid. Until things get real dire, the average guy just wants to fly.
I think the safe quards for nominations are there to prevent a leader of a special interest group [with a unified mass of votes] from taking over at Muncie. Even with those safe guards in place, they can be breached.
And are you saying that you're comfortable with the current nominating procedure? It gives the EC a huge amount of influence in determining who is actually on the ballot, whether existing DVP's will be returned, or who will replace one who has chosen not to stand again. Given my perception of your general discontent of Muncie leaders and leadership I thought this is something you'd have strong feelings about. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or get something started here....just a bit surprised is all.
10-21-2008, 12:07 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
Timely?
Last years fiasco with the guy after the nom commitee not even knowing what AMA seats Hoss has held,
yet 'evaluated' him as to not be on the ballot after member nominations
... then would have been a timely thread for this.
Bob,
If you are interested in making nominations/elections better,
another thing you might want to address is the One Name Ballot so common here.
Last years fiasco with the guy after the nom commitee not even knowing what AMA seats Hoss has held,
yet 'evaluated' him as to not be on the ballot after member nominations
... then would have been a timely thread for this.
Bob,
If you are interested in making nominations/elections better,
another thing you might want to address is the One Name Ballot so common here.
10-21-2008, 12:08 PM
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Bob, go back & read the threads where we "complained" about a guy on the nom-com that didnt even read Hoss' resume and didnt know what AMA seats he held after they kicked his Member Nomination off the ballot last year.
Bob, go back & read the threads where we "complained" about a guy on the nom-com that didnt even read Hoss' resume and didnt know what AMA seats he held after they kicked his Member Nomination off the ballot last year.
Again.......what do you think should be changed. Pretend for a minute that KE has been selected to set up a new nomination and election process for the AMA. What would you do?
10-21-2008, 12:13 PM
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lexington,
KY
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Nominating Procedures
ORIGINAL: The Toolman
Bob, after going back an reading this above an letting it soak in, I could easily see how the election could be fixed. Look whats happening to the Prez election right now....I wouldn't put it past any small org to do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it. They even did it with the HOA here, an there ain't much we can do about it without getting an expensive lawyer an a lot of time involved.
Bob, after going back an reading this above an letting it soak in, I could easily see how the election could be fixed. Look whats happening to the Prez election right now....I wouldn't put it past any small org to do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it. They even did it with the HOA here, an there ain't much we can do about it without getting an expensive lawyer an a lot of time involved.