DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

OK, guys my ballot came in the mail yesterday. I have mixed felling about the subject and want to hear what the members say. Give me your pro's or con's on the subject. I don't want personal opinions. I want facts as you see them. If this thread gets nasty I will shut it down. I want to vote for you all.
This will give the other LM a chance to follow or chime in as they choose.
I hope Ken follows this one and keeps it down to a dull roar. Dennis

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I follow all of them Dennis!!!!


Ken

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Like Dadstoys, I'm setting here staring at my ballot wondering what is best for the AMA. I was first against it for the simple reason it takes away the ability of the membership to keep people in office that they might want for longer than 3 terms. If the members are not interested in voting and knowing who they are voting for and why, then they deserve what they get. But after reading the discussion that came from Andy Argenio and discussing with my DVP I can see the other side of the argument. Now I'm not sure which way to vote. Reading the comments from the bottom feeders brotherhood will probably make my choice easier. Until then I guess more study and contemplation is in order.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

Not that what I have to say matters, but...

As an AMA member, I don't feel particularly connected to AMA leadership. The few times I have contacted my DVP, I've gotten an attitude of suspicion rather than one of helpfulness. I say this not to complain, but just to relate my experience and give some idea of where I am coming from.

To me, AMA leadership seems stagnant. For years, I pick up the magazine and see the same faces and read the same names. This concerns me. In general, I'm opposed to term limits. I think they take power away from people in an artificial manner, and I think they force good, experienced people from office. That's in the broad sense. When I look at the AMA, I see so little turnover. So little new blood. The questions I have about term limits in general change when I look at the AMA. I'm more concerned about what is being done to develop leadership within the organization. Where will our new leaders come from? Why should anyone put forth the effort and personal sacrifice required to run for an office when the incumbents are entrenched? Most of the membership doesn't vote, for various reasons. Most of the membership sees the AMA as a necessity, rather than a resource.

The AMA should be concerned about how disconnected most of the membership is. I think this directly relates to leadership. Those in office appear to be very comfortable there, and have little reason to personally change or grow. There doesn't seem to be a plan in place to develop new leadership, nor does there seem to be a "good" conduit available for ideas to flow through the organization. Those working for the AMA seem both in-touch and responsive (I've dealt with the flying site coordinators and some others), but the elected leadership does not.

How do we change that, as regular AMA members? How do see the organization grow? How do we better connect the membership to the organization? I think part of answer to those questions is to open up the leadership to new blood. You're not going to get the best and brightest people volunteering their time and effort if they don't see that they can personally succeed within an organization. Some might be motivated by recognition, or feel that they have something to offer to an organization in terms of leadership. The stagnant nature of the AMA's offices likely channels those high achievers away from the AMA, to organizations they feel will either reward or make use of their talents and contributions.

How do you move an organization forward when the leadership is stagnant?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

How many well qualified eager beaver types are waiting to rush in and serve the AMA if we boot the ol' boys out?

Term limits are generally used to control favoritism, good ol' boyism and other things in general that just aren't fair.

Give some solid examples of recent infractions that warrant limiting terms.

What specifically is it about seeing those same old faces that is wrong? Clarify.

Finally, what makes you think that force feeding the system with fresh blood will make things better?

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

MikeL,

Please look at the present makeup of the EC. Six of the 13 are in their first term. How can you say there is no turn over? Those that are over 3 terms usually ran unopposed as Oberdieck did in the 2008 election.

Hossfly

FIRST: NOTICE how the letter accompanying the ballot is structured: (Even though both proposals were made at the Jan. 11, '09 meeting)

While the Ballot Card is properly structured, first vote for ballot II, then next vote is for Ballot VII, in numerical order, the letter containing the wording changes/additions/deletions is in reverse order, number VII being first and II being second, out of numerical order.

This could easily cause someone to vote exactly backwards to their extended vote. Intended or just poor clerical structure???

Ballot II: Allow the Chairman of a Contest Board to be selected by the CB members. YES, YES, Way too late in its implementation. Presidential appointment has resulted in nothing but a good-ol-boy syndrome from day 1. [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
I am in support of this change because the CB members are aware of 'who is and who ain't' reference the event. The AMA Pres is not always alert to all the different situations. etc. Fact or opinion, here doesn't matter, however there are still some rules in the RB that I was responsible for. As Chairman of the Scale Board for many years one person killed a lot of good programs. The Pres. would not take action to change. PM if you want specifics.
A number of years ago certain "Boys" of NMPRA (I am a member) allowed the Pylon Rules be deferred to a select few and a number of good sport events were deleted. Would election of the Pylon CB have made any difference? I don't know, but, for me, it's worth the try.

Ballot VII: I vote NO. It is good in principle however far too liberal. I do not personally like "term limits" as the voting members have that option themselves, and as much as I hate to agree with Red, I think the people deserve what they elect, or fail to elect, even though their suffering also effects so many that voted differently.
In this situation, it gives the paid staff an excellent method to "divide and conquer". Evaluating the reasons pro and con as presented, and with my own experiences of being involved in AMA politics since being Manpower Director at the 1972-73 NATs, the last "Navy" NATS, '72 where AMA provided all manpower, and the first non-Navy NATS, Oshkosh, '73, and both elected and appointed positions, I think this item, as worded, is simply bureaucratic and needless. I voted NO. As in another large election I voted AGAINST the winner, not just FOR the loser.

So DTBG, sorry if not enough facts, more opinion, however my experience in this hobby/sport defines its own "facts".


Horrace Cain

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry, Red, but that's my perception. I think it's the perception of a lot of AMA members, too. I may be wrong when I call the EC stagnant, but in my many years of membership it's what I've come to see. My main point was the development and encouragement of new leadership is hampered by this perception.

I'm not here to argue about what I believe to be the right decision. I just wanted to say what I think and why I think it.

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

Thank you Hoss, Your opinion is based of the facts as you see them. This is want I wanted, an open discussion on the merits of the vote. Even tho only LM can vote this is the place for any AMA member to share his opinion and have some input. I hope more will post on this subject. As Red said about 50% of the DVP's are in their first term. To me this appears to run against the term limits vote. If such a turn over can be done with the general election, term limits may not be necessary. Dennis

Stickbuilder

Dennis,

Rather than just note that about half of the current DVP's are in their first term, you would have to consider how that came to be. In at least 2 instances it happened simply because the old DVP moved up into the Big House.

Bill, AMA 4720
Bottom Feeder Brother #1

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

OK, Still they are new. For the two we can live without that type of term limits. Dennis

warningshot

I know of at least one state that has term limits and it seems to work well.
Got rid of a lot of "Good ol Boy" crap. Now the whole state can enjoy a return on their tax money.

Bob Mitchell

As a couple of others have said here, I'm generally against term limits and believe the members should have the say in who does and doesn't sit on the EC, and agree that if you don't vote, you get what you deserve.

Unless there is a compelling and specific reason that AMA needs term limits more than other institutions with such elected leadership, then I think the vote should be NO. I don't have enough history with the organization or the individuals involved to be able to make an informed decision as to whether such a situation exists within AMA. The fact that half the DVP's are first timers does give me at least some indication that such is not the case.

I am interested to know, though, whether the Leader Members have ever rejected a change to the bylaws as proposed and forwarded to them by the EC.

Hossfly

Rather misleading statements, Red.

2 of that 6 are now on interim appointment. Wallen (IX) because Smith (IX) moved up to EVP. Giffin (X) because Hanson (X) took a paying job with AMA.

1 of 6 although voted in by membership was there as appointed to fill Mathewson's (II) position when Mathewson became Pres.

2 of that 6, Mathewson and Smith vacated their positions to move up a notch, Pres and EVP.

1 of the 6 in first term, Rice, was voted in to fill retiring DVP. No serious contenders. Won't be this year.

I really don't see any serious contentions for those now occupying the 13 EC seats, although maybe 1 seat had some folks really running scared last year. These term limits as proposed will change very little in who gets elected and who doesn't.

Horrace Cain

KidEpoxy

Hmm,
13 Seats
5 First Termers not voted in
1 First Termer Voted in
4 Seated for three or more terms

"Those that are over 3 terms usually ran unopposed as Oberdieck did in the 2008 election."


In regards to the nominal Term Limit proposal,
vote whatever way, it dont really matter with this TOOTHLESS term limit text.

As presented, the term limits only apply to when there is nobody else nominated,
and even doesnt wait till the end of nominations to put the incumbent on the ballot, but 30days prior to the end of nominations the would be Term Limited incumbent is allowed back into the race. That is not a term limit, and it certainly is toothless in the AMA where we have had copious One Name Ballots of incumbent only.

The discussion of whether limiting terms is right or wrong really doesnt apply,
cause this proposal really doesnt limit the terms.

"Those that are over 3 terms usually ran unopposed as Oberdieck did in the 2008 election."
Toothless term limits wouldnt apply to what really is happening in AMA elections.

Kemosobie

Gotta go with Hoss on this one. No for VII Yes for II

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i voted yes on both.
not because i think that the term limits thing is well thought out or even workable, but because i don't want folks to be able to say, "we gave you the chance to vote in term limits, and yall put it down, so it seems that the leader members don't really want term limits."
if it gets approved, it can be fine tuned to what we want later.

804

My Feedback: (1)

While I applaud you for taking the time to think it through, I wouldn't agonize over it too much. Pin the ballot to the wall and throw darts at it, or flip a coin.In the grand scheme of things, voting either way on the term limits probably won't make any difference.

Just my jaded opinion.

Blue_Sky

This debate goes back to Ancient Rome. Obviously, there is no right or wrong answer. And even if there was a right answer, the AMA forum is the last place on earth this issue would be resolved lol.

You should vote on your basic core beliefs of term limits regardless of your knowledge of AMA politics.

You should not vote to determine a particular outcome, i.e. giving a particular person the boot etc.

Having served on a board for eleven years I’m in favor of term limits.

Edited for typo.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Blue Sky, no disrespect intended, but that almost sounds like a "Yogi-Berra-ism"

Blue_Sky

LOL, I resemble that remark! Totally accurate assessment CP.


Edited to put in the right smiley.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

.....the Yankee equipment manager comes up to Yogi on the first day of spring training and asks him, "Yogi, what size hat do you wear"?
Yogi answers, " I don't know.......I'm not in shape yet".

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

I would like to know your BEST SINGLE reason to vote FOR Term Limits and BEST SINGLE reason NOT to vote for Term Limits - I get to vote and can see both sides of the situation; so can someone say yea or nay in such a manner as to sway me one way or the other?

Jim Thomerson

The pool of prospective VP members is very small. I can see term limits resulting in no nominees for a particular position. I think I would vote against them as I see no usual positive result of term limits.

KidEpoxy

Jim,
How many Leader members are there,
and where can a member get a list of Leaders in their district to look thru for folks to nominate?
I dont know any Leader tier folks in Texas other than JRice & HCain,
so how could I nominate anyone other than those two guys.