It is AMA Election time.

Got mine today (South Louisiana). I find it hard to believe people screw up the mailing of the ballot. Warnings are all over it. Don't blame AMA if we have a repeat. Blame Darwin.
I sat back and thought about what I knew about the candidates. If I didn't follow this newsgroup, I think my only method of learning about the candidates is the Mag. We don't ever seem to talk about D8 at the field or club meetings (note: this is probably a good thing). I can't think of anything else I've ever been involved in where the incumbent has such an advantage.
I'm also surprised how little thinking seemed to go into the campaign statements. All seemed like shoot from the hip statements, and weren't really thought out well. I think for the majority of voters, this one statement is the most important thing you can do to get elected. None were very convincing, though for different reasons.

Hi John, Perhaps the campaign statements are just attempts by ordinary, honest, ethical, guys trying to explain their qualifications. No political spins or polish applied by professional campaign managers. I find it refreshing :)

Ed, I have to disagree with your assessment. If you read the following will explain my position. In February I told Bill Lee that I was not going to run because I was having too much fun being a modeler. That seems to have allowed some legal but immoral activity surrounding the nominations in District VIII. Those actions did not and should not have happened because they clearly indicate that those candidates are more interested in their own power than the future of the AMA.
The AMA ballot process starts with nominations and ends when the Nominating Committee selects no more than the three best qualified candidates for the ballot. What has happened in District VIII is that two candidates tried to provide nominees to fill the ballot slots to force the Nominating Committee to make choices. The incumbent is assured a slot unless 3/4 of the Committee (which EXCLUDES the President and the ED) vote to refuse, however the incumbent does have a vote.
Now what happened.
HC provided enough nominees to allow someone to force voting SF off the ballot since there would be more nominees than slots on the ballot. SF provided enough nominees to prevent many lesser qualified but well known folks from getting on the ballot. using the same mechanism. Unfortunately for both (but NOT us) their nominees had higher moral standards than they did and all 'tainted' candidates withdrew in one manner or another. The time it took for the addendum to be adopted was a big wave in the process because the Nominating Committee wanted to be fair to all who really wanted to be on the ballot. Some of Mike's paperwork was almost not timely enough.
Would either have taken that action had they been aware of an additional strong candidate? Your guess is as good as mine, but I don't want folks who demonstrate low ethics trying to tell us what to do.
I feel that the leadership of a $10 million dollar organization should have significantly higher ethics than was demonstrated by two of the candidates who are on the ballot have shown. I made that opinion known to more than one person on the Nominating Committee before the meeting on 12 July. I was embarrassed for the AMA EC who were among the victims of this low moral activity when the ballot was set and took action accordingly. The Nominating Committee hands were tied and they acted within the confines and scope of the rules in place now. I suspect that those rules may change based on the actions of most of the candidates in District VIII.
My write in campaign is an attempt to move the AMA from a few who seem to feel they own the organization to something more resembling a democracy. One of the two folks who has tried to corrupt the nomination process hides from the public and has yet to even try to explain his action and it is clear he expects to be elected since he is the incumbent. Meanwhile the other brags about how he tried to use the system to improve HIS situation rather than discuss how his immoral action would have helped the AMA.
Sorry folks, neither individual represents the morality we need running the AMA. I have expressed this opinion everywhere I can and have yet to find other AMA members who disagree with me on that point.
If you agree, please write my name and AMA number in on your District VIII AMA ballot.
Jim Branaum AMA 1428
-- Jim Branaum AMA 1428 A.K.A. Six_O'clock_High Target snipped-for-privacy@Guns.com

For those that are interested in an in depth look at the candidates, RCU has an AMA discussion forum where there has been substantial discussion and participation by three of the candidates in D8.
You need not be a member, nor sign up with RCU to view the threads there:

NC Minutes:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Oberdieck at 8:02 AM. Positions to be considered for the upcoming election include Vice Presidents in Districts 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The Chairman appointed Dave Mathewson as recording secretary and Russ Miller as teller. The members are all in possession of, and have reviewed, all the documents pertaining to each The Chairman informed the committee of inquires he had received over the nominees' involved in the District 8 election, A discussion ensued involving the entire nominating process. The Committee will suggest to the AMA president that a committee be appointed to review the election process. The Committee suggests that any information regarding nominees be held confidential to all until the close of the nomination process. District 2 - Charlie Bauer moved that Dave Mathewson, the one nominee, be placed on the ballot. The motion was seconded by Bliss Teague. The motion carried. District 4 - Russ Miller moved that the one nominee, Bliss Teague, be placed on the ballot. Doug Holland seconded the motion. The motion carried. District 6 - Bob Brown moved that the one nominee, Charlie Bauer, be placed on the ballot. Russ Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried. District 10 - Bob Brown moved that the one nominee, Rich Hanson, be placed on the ballot. The motion was seconded by Doug Holland. The motion carried. District 8- There was seven nominees presented for consideration. Three nominees did not meet the criteria to hold office. Rich Hanson moved that candidate Moss not be considered because he did not meet the requirements of Leader Membership by the required date. Bliss Teague seconded the motion. The motion carried. Two nominees presented letters withdrawing their name from consideration. Charlie Bauer then moved that both remaining nominees, Sandy Frank and Horrace Cain, be placed on the ballot. Sandy Frank seconded the motion. The motion passed 10 for, 1 against. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 AM.
Addendum:
During presentation of the Nominating Committee report at the July 12, 2003 Executive Council meeting it became apparent that there was a considerable amount of ambiguity in both the Standing Rules and the AMA By-Laws regarding nominating procedures. After a review of all the documents, and on advise of council who also reviewed all the documents, Committee Chairman, Bill Oberdieck, called for reconsideration of the decision to disqualify Mike Moss for failing to meet all of the requirements necessary to be on the ballot. A revote on the issue resulted in Mike Moss being added to the ballot for election to the office of Vice President in District VIII.