I'm surprised this isnt posted here yet. I saw this on another forum I visit.

Frank

- Original Message -
From: Tony Stillman AMA D-V VP
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 9:11 AM
Subject: TERM LIMITS



All:
I am very happy to report that the EC has passed a provision to have the AMA Leader Members vote on Term Limits for AMA officers. The Term Limits are 3 consecutive 3-year terms. After that time, the Officer must step down for a full term, at which time he or she will be able to run for that office for another 3 consecutive 3-year terms.

This is something that has come up every year since I have been on the EC, but has always failed. I have voted in favor of it each time, but this is the first time (because of the new blood on the council) that we have actually been able to pass it.

The next step is for the Leader Members of AMA to vote and approve it.

In a few days, all AMA Leader Members will receive an E-mail from AMA HQ about this issue. I would hope that everyone will understand how difficult it is to get a body of elected officers to vote to approve limiting their terms! Most want to protect their turf and are unwilling to step down as they feel that “AMA can’t operate without me”. This is one of the last strongholds of the “good ‘ol boy” barrier that some EC members have been trying to break down. Well, that time may have finally come, with the help of the Leader Members.

Please pass this info to all AMA clubs and especially to the Leader Members. We need their support to make this happen!


Tony Stillman, President
Radio South, Inc.
139 Altama Connector, Box 322
Brunswick, GA 31525
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com

Based on comments there, it appears that the original poster doesn't have access to post here. Thanks for posting the letter.

As with most things, the "devil is in the details". I'm assuming that this will require an ammendment to the bylaws, which is why it will go to Leader Members. I'm sure someone here will correct me if this is not correct.

It will be interesting to see just how the change (assuming that is what it takes) will be worded. Will it affect those that are currently serving their third terms (or more) or will the count start once it's in place, if it should pass?

I'm more than a bit interested to see how the voting went among current EC members. When I saw the posting at RCG I checked to see if the minutes from this month's meeting had been posted yet, and they have not. I believe it takes a simple majority to move such a motion out of the EC and put it to the Leader Members.

I have mixed feelings about term limits. It certainly forces a turnover of leadership, but can also result in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It will be interesting to watch how this unfolds, and how the discussion here plays out.

Bob
But some times! it makes a person think they can not be replaced. Whooo it can be done For better or worse it can be done.

it is a double edged sword.
as a LM, i will probably vote for the limits, but , i will have to think about it for a while.
the wording will matter, a lot.

I will vote for this gladly, I am glad to see that progress is being made in bringing new blood to the mix.

Marc

OP could readily have access to post here if he wanted to. He doesn't. Heck, as a DVP he doesn't even post to his own Dist V website. AFAIK, he only releases AMA and district related news and info to the Yahoo amadist5 group that has its subscribers screened by Red Scholefield.

Anyway, nine years in office and return for another nine after a recess is term limits? Even Shrub didn't have that long to screw up and look at the havoc he was able to wreak. The Emperor Brown must be getting a chuckle out of that, along with his departed (maybe/maybe not, depending on how liberal other AMA office term limit conditions may be) buddy Jim McSnuze.

Abel

yeah, able, i would be happier with a lifetime limit of 2-3 terms in each elected office level for each person.

Honestly, outside of worries about some guy needing X amount of terms to figure out how to get his fingers "in the till", what is there to worry about?

<snip>
<snip>

Oh, the original poster does have access to post here, but there is a very good reason why he won't. Think back a couple of months, and unless you are more dense than I think, you should be able to come up with the reason.

Bill, AMA 4720

It aint so much the kind of term limits we are used to hearing about.
From readingthe OP it looks like it is more just a Term Break,
that an aspiring young EC member could still sit for 30+years,
as long as we get a new face in for 1 term every couple terms.

So we dont have to worry about the Baby & Bathwater situation,
any EC that was put out by term limits can come right back in next time for another couple terms after a term of a fresh face.

Three 3-year terms. After 9 years people should move along. They can still be involved but cannot be on the EC. Most 501 c3 organizations I know of are set up with term limits. The board works to develop new talent to take their place as they rotate off. Hopefully this give the incentive for that. In addition, since it is now not a job for life people can actually mount meaningful challenges. While I'll still need to see the actual wording I am inclined right now to vote for it.

Actually, I was referring to the original post on the other forum where Muroc indicated he picked up the message. That posting wasn't made by Mr. Stillman, and I wasn't speaking of him.

I do find it interesting that you just seem unable to refrain from dropping little personal insults in many of your messages here. Does doing so make you feel better about yourself?

Do you have an opinion about the issue itself, or are you just here to take childish potshots at others?

It was Red who made the original posting on RCG where Muroc picked up Mr. Stillman's letter.

I'm not a Leader Member, so it's not up to me anyway, but it will be interesting to see exactly how the change is worded, and how soon it will go into effect if it's approved.

Mr. Mitchell,

I'll be very careful about how I word this, since the previous post was deleted as being insulting. I would be very careful about posting information that is passed along to you from a third party. There is a very good reason that some people are not allowed to post here any longer. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into their misery. Some are banned on other sites due to the influence of these persons.

Be very aware that anytime an incumbent appears to be in favor of term limits, that there may be more to it than would first appear. If I have to explain this, then there is no hope.

Bill, AMA 4720

Well, at least this comment is on topic, anyway, and by all means, please feel free to explain what it is you are trying to say.

Are you indicating that there are incumbants on the EC who perhaps may not be affected immediately by term limits, but whose influence might be increased by the forced removal of others currently serving? If not, what are you indicating?

I know that there are several regulars here who have been highly critical of AMA leadership and would love to see a change in direction, either through their own election to leadership positions, or through the election of others to replace current members. My impression (and I certainly could be wrong) is that you would probably be among this group, and would have strong opinions and feeling about term limits and their effect on AMA leadership.

Message boards such as this are here for the purpose of expressing one's opinion and pointing out potential problems and issues. If you've got one, let's hear it.

Ok guys, let's look at the topic here. Ther's has been enough discussion on the source of this information. While it may have had a small bearing on the discussion I think enough time has been spent discussing this issue. Let's move the discussion forward focusing on the issue at hand now.

Thanks

Ken

Bob
Term limits dont address or concern the orientation of the ejected or replacement.
Good, a nice neutral rule.

If an incumbant of a particular orientation or political clique is removed by term limits,
there is nothing even considering what orientation or clique the elected replacement will be.
Any incumbent orientation or clique may continue control of the EC by replacing one Partyliner with another,
or the replacement might be from some opposition party. The basic term limits we saw in the OP dont have anything to to with changing the activities of the seat in question, just who is sitting in it for a while.

It acts against Entrenchment,
not over what direction the AMA takes.

No, they don't, but depending upon the timing/implementation, they can be used to shift the balance, at least for a few years, by those who may not be immediately affected. I think it will be interesting to see what is actually proposed to the Leader Members, and what the EC voting results were.

That is exactly what they dont do.
VOTERS during elections can change the direction of that seat, or keep the direction the same.
Just having more elections doesnt shift power if the same party keeps winning the elections.

And yes, it will lead to more elections,
because it will put an end to at least a few 1Name Ballot elections, which are hardly elections at all.

Some more words from AMA DV-VP Tony Stillman via [email protected]

Because members don’t think they have a change to win when they have to defeat an incumbent, the incumbent will not be on the ticket (after 3 terms), as long as a qualified person is nominated.

However, if no qualified person is nominated within 30 days of the close of nominations, the incumbent will be allowed to run again for one more term.

oh jeez
its the No Term Limits kind of Term Limit.
I guess I stand corrected:
Seems is not going to put a dent the One Name Ballot frequency

yeah,
i would prefer that they had just left the spot blank until after the election closes, to see if any last minute write-in effort occurs, and then allow the ec to appoint someone, other than the past incumbent, to fill the term.

Oh man, that would be a sight to see:

'And the new DVP, recieving 37 Votes to make 20%of the return,
is the popularly elected and seated: Jimmy'

Perhaps the Term Limited incumbant should be allowed to be written in
on the Zero Name ballot, just like all the other write ins.
Fair is fair, after all.
He can have as many write in votes as he can attract, just like Jimmy.

If the 'outgoing' incumbent aint popular enough to win the write-in ballot,
maybe he shouldnt get a free pass as the only name on the ballot.

These guys are supposed to name two successors to fill in for them in the event they are unable to carry out the duties of the office. IMHO, any person in a position with any measure of responsibility should do this, and failure to do so is a strong indicator that he is poorly suited to be a manager.
IOW, there should be no legitimate reason for an empty slate.

Abel

You are right on target with this. Assuming the term limits pass the Leader Members, there is no valid reason for a district with an outgoing VP to not have a qualified candidate nominated to take their place. Shame on that VP or the AVP's for not making it happen.