FYI. The rules according to Dave Brown - AMA President.
OK, there is the membership manual - seemingly a worthless document to lean on. Who knows what "exceptions" lie in the dusty archives of EC minutes of a decade or more ago. Then there are a number of official AMA publications, such as the application for Leader Member, time as an AMA member prior to applying to be a leader member is a requirement. I guess there is no tie-in between the membership manual, what is implied and any other "requirements" spelled out in other AMA documents, meeting minutes, application forms etc.. Now we know why Muncie maintains a legal staff.
Red S.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Brown" To: "Red Scholefield" Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:36 PM Subject: Re: interim VP 5
Where in the membership manual did you find the "requirement" itself??? >
> The policy of allowing a VP to waive the requirement, is in the same place
> as the requirement, itself, is established (EC minutes).
>
> As to the EC reviewing each appointment to LM status, that, simply could not
> happen, and a staff member is unlikely to challenge an elected officer. The
> members elect their VP, and I do not expect the members would be very happy
> if that VP was told, exactly how he should conduct the business of his > district.
>
> You say the EC should have "reviewed", and approved, this (perhaps any)
> decision that Jim makes, yet, I'm sure you would have a real problem with
> the EC "over-riding" something Tony (Stillman - candidate for Dist V VP)
did, using his judgement,
.......wouldn't you???
>
> In the end, the members elect the VP's, those VP's establish rules which
> they are governed by, and it becomes up to each VP to make good decisions,
> within the framework of those rules. If a VP makes bad decisions, The EC
> will make more rules, or the members will elect someone else as their VP.
> In Jim's case, he kept getting re-elected, so the majority of members
> (perhaps it's a plurality, but, in any case, more voted for him, than for
> any other candidate) must be content with his performance. If the EC was to
> "micromanage" everything the VP's did, it would yield chaos.
>
> Dave Brown
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Red Scholefield"
> To: "Dave Brown"
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: interim VP 5
>
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > We researched the rules (as published in the Membership Manual) quite
> > thoroughly. Based on these rules and not knowing that this requirement > could
> > be waived by the VP (but it is not a surprise) we were challenging the
> > appointment of Judi Dunlap.
> >
> > Some AMA members are rapidly coming to the conclusion that our By-Laws are
> a
> > joke enabling a "creative" VP to do just about whatever serves his agenda.
> > Which in McNeill's case was to appoint a back-up that wouldn't have a
> > snowball's chance in hell of ever running against him and winning and yet
> > garner lots of votes from one of the largest clubs in his District. > >
> > His legacy lives on in Judi Dunlap (about as unqualified as one can get > and
> > most people know it) who has stated that she doesn't plan on changing
> > anything. I expect by the time Tony takes office the Frequency Monitoring
> > equipment disbursed (read permanently assigned) by McNeill will be
> > untraceable. I guess District V can live with another 6 months of > business
> > as usual, we have survived the last 12 years of it. The circumstances > (will
> > full credit to the EC) whereby Dunlap can serve for another 6 months, sans
> > any election, as VP and then run as an incumbent ??? will cause a few
> > eyebrows to be raised never the less.
> >
> > You stated, " I suppose one could argue that this did not constitute an
> > "extraordinary situation", but that would be impossible to define. It is,
> > obviously the VP's call, and Jim made it." Yes, and it is obvious that it
> be
> > incumbent on the EC to make sure the VP defined the "extraordinary
> > situation". Seriously, are these things ever challenged by the EC as a
> > body? What will it take to define the rules under which a VP operates his
> > district and make sure they adhere to them or at the very least follow the
> > intent? The impression, at least from our experience in District V, is > that
> > the guidelines in the Membership Manual as to how AVPs were assigned and
> > used could be ignored by the VP if it didn't fit his personal agenda. > Yes,
> > I know, the membership voted for him as you like to quote. The 10,000
> > members also couldn't read where to send in their ballots in the last
> > election also - so much for depending on them to make a knowledgeable
> > selection of our leadership. Even more to support the argument that the
> > By-Laws need to honed to effectively reduce manipulation and creative
> > interpretation.
> >
> > In the meantime I hope there is an active program to clean up the By-Laws
> > and get all of the "gotchas" out on the table and in writing.
> >
> > I guess the Dunlap issue is put to bed as the chances of us getting stuck
> > with another McNeill in our lifetime is quite remote.
> >
> > Red Scholefield
> > Leader Member (and still trying to give a damn about our AMA)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Brown"
> > To: "Red Scholefield"
> > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:44 PM
> > Subject: interim VP 5
> >
> >
> > > Red:
> > >
> > > You are, probably, not going to like this, but here it is
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I finally found the "rules" in regards to LM status.
> > >
> > > First, the Bylaws, Article IX section 3 require that an appointee as CC,
> > or
> > > AVP be a LM.
> > >
> > > Second, the Bylaws, Article III, section 1, paragraph d, gives the EC > the
> > > authority to determine the qualifications for LM status.
> > >
> > > Third, Researching the EC minutes, we found that the minutes of the EC
> > > meeting on 10/27/90 contain the following:
> > >
> > > "By concensus, it was ordered that Leader Member requirements be > > consistent
> > > with that of Contest Directors, I.E., that a minimum of three years of
> > > continuous current AMA membership be required prior to application for
> > > Leader Member status. The Vice President of each district may waive this
> > > requirement for extraordinary situations and/or conditions." > > >
> > > We, further looked up the application filled out by Judi Dunlap, for LM
> > > status, and written on it, and signed by Jim McNeill was a statement > that
> > he
> > > was waiving the 3 yr requirement.
> > >
> > > I suppose one could argue that this did not constitute an
"extraordinary
> > situation", but that would be impossible to define. It is, obviously > the
> > > VP's call, and Jim made it.
> > >
> > > I feel that this puts this subject to bed.
> > >
> > > Ironically, part of this problem was created by relying on the "origin > > date"
> > > in the membership records, and a casual review of these, reveals that > they
> > > are NOT reliable. As an example, The origin date for my own membership
> > > comes up in 1981, and I was elected to the EC before that! Reviewing,
> > > randomly, other people I know, revealed numerous problems. Obviously, > we
> > > need to look into what has happened in this area (I, for example, moved
> > in,
> > > about, 1981....could that be the problem?) (FYI, your record has you > > joining
> > > in 83, and I know you were a member before that). In part, my looking > > into
> > > this aspect was brought about as a result of a Hq's handwritten, note on
> > the
> > > LM application of Judi Dunlap, which indicated some time as a member > when
> > > she was in Maryland, which MAY have made this whole subject moot. > > >
> > > Dave Brown
> > > AMA President
> > >