Another Example: Lack of Transparency
 

AMA has ample opportunities to be transparent, but for some reason they choose not to do that. Here's another example. Notice lack of information other than the here's who won ...

a.k.a. ... "Trust Us!"

No numbers on ballots sent per position
No numbers on ballots returned per position
No counts for ALL candidates (winners AND non-winners)
No details....

From their public facing web page (appended below):
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...af259a0a8d.png


https://www.modelaircraft.org/ama-or...ection-results

This is not unusual at a corporate level. I get several reports from different corporations I hold shares in. I don't get the kind of details you list the only thing I get are the results like those posted by the AMA. Are you accusing/insinuating wrong doing by the AMA re these elections?

Another example of sensationalism.

Only one of those districts, X in this case, was an actual election, Eric, Jay, Lawrence and Gary all ran unopposed

In 2020 they posted more detailed results:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/execut...ection-results

In 2019 they posted more detailed results:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/execut...ection-results

In 2018 they posted more detailed results:
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/bl...ction-results/

In 2017 they posted more detailed results:
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/2017/11/

In 2016 they posted more detailed results:
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/bl...ction-results/

But again, when given the opportunity to be fully open and transparent, and despite posting more detailed each time prior, they decided to go the opposite direction.

When past practice for last several years has been to include full results, it is hardly sensational to note when they suddenly stop doing it.

So what? Reporting actual vote numbers would be transparent. But alas, each time the AMA has a chance to be transparent, they choose otherwise.

Since you asked nicely

The only contested result was
GREG STONE 1363
BARRY MATTISON 758
Several with 1 write in vote

The unopposed received around 750 to 800 with a smattering of single vote write-in's including Donald Trump getting a vote here and there.

:) Hi Franklin,

I'm left wondering if SO few of our fellow members actually bothered to vote that reporting the numbers would be an embarrassment to our organization for lack of participation? Of course, unopposed elections seldom bring the voters out in droves.

Yet another reason I'd like to see the vote tabulation handled by an independent firm VS in house, if participation is as dismal as I believe it may have been perhaps reporting the results may encourage more to vote*

* Yeah,yeah, I know, right about when Hell begins serving iced tea....... :o

And Andy beat me to the post by seconds........ ;)

I appreciate that, but why do they just refuse to publish info in the first place? Why not just be open and transparent without being asked? Is it that difficult? Hint: It shouldn't be.

So assume 800 for each of the four unopposed elections, plus a shade over 2,000 for the one contested election, and you have 5,200 out of 100,000 members casting votes. Hardly a model of engagement. So perhaps you're right.

Yep. And the smaller the numbers, the easier it is to "influence" the outcome. Hence greater reason for OUTSIDE tabulation.

Also, AMA structures the requirements to run for office in a way that virtually ensures you get homogeneous thinking even when they're contested. And as noted in another thread, even IF someone slips through that dares to question the prevailing views of the sitting cabal, then the President and the EVP will use their columns in the organization's official publication to drive encourage votes against you (in favor of views that align with theirs). I still cannot believe the remaining EC members have not sanctioned them for doing that. But then again, if the other EC members were also stakeholders in preserving status quo, then that explains a lot. All carefully structured and operated to keep the unwashed masses at bay. "How can we dare even contemplate alternative views? Those are dangerous to our control!"

I think most of us just want to play with our toy airplanes not so much interested in the politics.

I’ve followed AMA elections for quite a while now and 6% voter turnout is about the norm, unfortunately.

This also aligns with Speedy’s comment that the majority of the membership doesn’t care.

The way Speedy presented that though, presumed that, “Nobody cares, so Franklin should just let it go” (paraphrasing due to the vague but suggestive nature of speedy’s posts), which couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s another logical fallacy. Just because the majority of members are not engaged, does not mean that the AMA should be held accountable and still do what’s best for the majority. It does not give them free reign to dictate however they see fit.

Astro

Again nothing will satisfy this group short of a hostile take over. Something has put a burr under Franky's saddle and it just seems he's out to get even. One day they will get fed up and just refuse to take his membership?

Your right that is why this will never come to pass as none of them have the intestinal fortitude to learn how to do something as simple as getting on the agenda for consideration. A letter to the board means nothing and could not even be considered (that is what is meant by unsolicited suggestions}

Andy do the meetings operate under Roberts Rules For Meetings? Your organization is quite large do you actually meet? How many times a year? If so how do recommendations and amendments make it on the agenda?

Funny. You are the only person who mentioned hostile takeover, yet you claim that is what would satisfy Franklin.

I find it disgusting that you are able to make statements like that out one side of your mouth, all while claiming Franklin is guilty of slander?

Are you even aware how deep your hypocrisy runs?

Again never mentioned anyone's name re hostile take over more cherry picking and creative editing on your part LOL

And again point out where I claim he slandered anyone exact wording now no cherry picking or creative editing which seems to be your forte.

Everybody here knows what you said, who you were talking about and what you meant. You may think you are crafty and cute, but you fool nobody.

your lack of accountability for the crap you type here is despicable as well.

Astro

Well maybe not everybody and I really wasn't trying to fool you either. Dithpicable new word of the day?????

Yes, Roberts Rules
Yes, quarterly though they are now virtual or hybrid where we can chose to attend. The President can call a special meeting if there's something time sensitive to deal with.

Wouldn't it be nice if lowly members were allowed to attend virtually?

By attend do you mean observe only? I dont know how it could work if large numbers insisted on participation as well.

Well, my lowly HOA managed to figure it out. My former employer had thousands of people on a monthly all hands meeting. So it's possible. If they must, limit it to the first 1000 who sign up or something like that.

But I forget, opening up meetings for lowly unwashed masses to attend would mean a willingness to be transparent. And we can see how AMA recoils at virtually every opportunity to be transparent.

Are members allowed to attend?

Yes, members can attend

I don't know why you just can't give a normal answer without throwing your perverbial dig at the AMA. You wonder why you are ignored.

Are members observers only or can they participate from the floor?