The ballots are being seen in South Texas.
Has anyone else in District VIII gotten theirs?
Vote for one of the "official" candidates, or write my name and AMA number
in on the provided line.
Please read the instructions and send your ballot in correctly. No stamp or
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.
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 :)
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
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:
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.
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.