I'm not sure if you approve or disapprove of the move being proposed, but on first reading - it seems like a reasonable attempt to solve some of the complaints. Incidentally, I'd not heard of this letter yet, our club president may have just received it, but possibly after our last meeting. Next time I talk with him, I'll inquire.
Olin McDaniel, AMA 30932
>Here is the text of a letter sent by AMA Vice President - District V, Jim
>McNeill to some club Presidents regarding proposed changes to the nomination >procedure.
> Page one of two pages was a letter from JM on AMA letterhead. It read: >
>TO: Some of the AMA Chartered Club Presidents in District V
>FROM: Jim McNeill, District V Vice President
>SUBJECT: Your involvement in our election process
> Our Board of Directors is constantly seeking new ways to improve
>our election process. specifically, how to place qualified
>applicants on the ballot. Currently we use a "NOMINATING COMMITTEE"
>for this purpose. The Nominating Committee is constantly accused of
>using "The good old boy" system when selecting applicants. This is
>not true but the criticism never ends.
> A new idea is to use AMA Chartered Club Presidents to select who
>shall be placed on the ballot at election time. The process would be
>simple. AMA Hd'qrs will mail you the qualified candidates at the
>appropriate time and you pick who will go on the ballot for
>elections. You mail you selections back to AMA Hd'qrs.
> My purpose in writing you is to see if you would be willing to
>take the time to study the enclosed qualifications of prospective
>candidates, pick the ones you think best, and return the ballot to
>AMA. To see if you would take the time to get involved.
> I'd like to hear from you. My address is at the top; my E-mail
>address is: snipped-for-privacy@SCOTT.NET; my phone # is 205 322-2127 >
> I know many of you personally. What do you think???
> All due best wishes, Jim McNeill
>Page two of the letter was a copy of an email from JM to the
>executive council dated Sep 24, 2004. It read:
>Subject: nominating committee procedures
>Our Nominating Commettee procedures have come under fire lately from
>some members accusing the Committee of using "Good Old Boy" tactics,
>where friendship and favoritism manifest partiality. We know this is
>not true but the criticism continues. Suggestions to change our
>method of placing candidates on the final ballot include: Using
>Leader Members to pick the candidates that go on the ballot. It is
>possible for a candidate to juggle the Leader Member process
>slightly by getting some of his friends to become Leader Members. >
>An alternate method under consideration might be to use the AMA
>chartered Club PRESIDNETS to decide who will go on the ballot. A
>Club President has been voted into his office by his members, it
>would be impossible for anyone to juggle Club Presidents. Advantages
>using this method might include getting the Club Presidents involved
>in our voting process and we might also get many more voters to
>respond at election time.
>This suggestion is a brilliant idea, I cannot take the credit for
>it. Dave Brown suggested it to me. I am placing it on the Nov agenda >for discussion.
>Jim McNeil Dist V VP
>AMA 951 Dist. V
To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
----------------------------------------------------- "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
First off, in my opinion, the proposal is jumping the gun, by JM, for appearances, rather than substance.
There is a by-laws committee and a committee on nominations in place already, so you figure out why JM is floating this around.
The proposal, as Dave Brown outlined it to me some time back, is to allow AMA members to continue to nominate the candidates. The EC or HQ or whatever subgroup would make sure that the qualifications are met. At the moment, that means they are an AMA member and a Leader Member for VP, and other qualifications for President and Executive VP (see AMA By-Laws). The names of all qualified nominees would be submitted to the Club Presidents. It was not clear if the club members would tell their President how to cast his vote, or the Club President would have total authority, or it would be determined from club to club. Since, as has been pointed out here, there could be a large number of nominees, there are alternate suggestions as to how to weight the count to make it as fair as possible. Bill Lee, a D8 AVP has advanced a plan that I would support for the counting of ballots. Just taking the highest three would not be a great idea. It is also possible that the incumbent would have an automatic place or some minimal count might be necessary to confirm his place on the ballot (currently an incumbent can be kept off with a 3/4 vote against his placement on the ballot).
After the process is approved by the EC, it must be approved by a vote of the Leader Members, because a change to the by-laws would be necessary.
JM appears to ignore all of these "details". I wish some D V member would write him and ask him EXACTLY what he has in mind putting on the agenda. It would, of course, be really nice if JM posted it on here as well. Somehow, I think all the details in his proposal have not been.... hmmm.... fleshed out. Just proposing that the club Presidents make the selection without any mechanism is headed for sure defeat by the EC. It is also very likely that the EC will want to make more changes to the By-Laws before submitting any changes to the LM's. My guess is that JM will withdraw his proposal before it ever is presented to the EC. Putting it on the agenda is all he needs to do to generate a few votes for re-election. The same move he just made with the fuel for jets. He can then say "Hey guys, look what I tired to do for you".
"Our Board of Directors is constantly seeking new ways to improve our election process."
"A new idea is to use AMA Chartered Club Presidents"
"My purpose in writing you is to see if you would be willing"
"I'd like to hear from you."
Yep! Sounds like an end run to me! Imagine that sneaky SoB! Trying to find out if an idea will even have the membership support it needs before taking it to the next step. Of course if he didn't do this, who would be the first to claim he was wasting AMA money? Or trying some other scheme like doing nothing?
I have little doubt that JM's time is long past. But the hate and bigotry displayed here towards him shows the true colors of his enemies. And it's not a segment of the hobby I'd like to see take his place. We wouldn't gain a thing by it.
What's wrong with consulting the Leader Members, as provided for in the By-Laws ?
Why invent a new wheel, unless the old wheel is broken because McNeill broke that wheel ?
How many Leader Members have to resign from McNeill's appointments before you begin to wonder if it's all sweetness and light in the management of District V ?
How many persons who were not AMA members have to be handed a free membership along with a Leader Member appointment and an appointment to district office before you figure out that McNeill uses those appointments solely for political gain ? When a person not a member of AMA becomes a Leader Member and a district office appointee in less than a week's time, what's wrong with that picture ?
Aren't Leader Members supposed to have been AMA members and have made some sort of contribution to AMA as a member of the organization
Not in District V they're not. Find out for yourself, if you dare.
What would it take for you to realize that McNeill himself has broken the Leader Member 'wheel' ?
How 'bout an internationally-acclaimed modeler resigning from an AVP appointment because he realized the appointment was solely for McNeill's political gain, by having a highly-recognizable name on 'his team'.
Ask Frank Tiano whether he thinks McNeill is interested in hearing real input from the members of District V, or is interested in hearing from 'yes men' merely because their picture showed up in MA and their club got a free first aid kit or a free copy of Robert's Rules Of Order or a free copy of a medical dictionary or a free fire extinguisher.
Don't take my word for it because you don't know a damn thing about me.
Go ask someone whom you should at least recognize as one of the major movers and shakers in international aeromodeling.
Go ask Frank Tiano what he thinks McNeill is up to.
Unless of course you believe Frank Tiano belongs to a 'segment of the hobby' you wouldn't care to see leading AMA.
Compare the contributions of Jim McNeill and Frank Tiano to American aeromodeling, and figure out which one is a valued asset to the hobby and which one is an obstacle.
Or would you rather just sit back and take cheap shots at all the people _working to get McNeill out of office_ ?
What we 'wouldn't gain a thing by' is having McNeill short-circuit the AMA Constitution, Standing Rules, and By-Laws _again_ and _again_ and AGAIN !
Wake up and smell the odor of fresh fertilizer emanating from Birmingham.
You have little doubt JM's time is long past but take cheap shots at those who actively oppose him ?
What have _you_ done to help put McNeill out to pasture ?
No hate or bigotry here. JM simply doesn't do the job. District V has a DVP who doesn't fly ANYTHING! What a noxymoron. When I lived in Dist. V, I voted aganst him every time. Evidently there are enough in that district who are happy with the way things are. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"
Fred, I really hate to say this, but I am afraid you have misspoken in your post. Read it again and note that first you question the reason for creating a new wheel (not Leader Members but club presidents) and then clearly demonstrate the very reason!
Like I said (had you actually read it) "I have little doubt that JM's time is long past".
But at the same time I see little in your tantrum to make me think you or those you support would be a better choice. Different yes! But better? I've yet to see evidence of that. Especially in your latest rant.
Letter to the EC? I missed something, I guess. But anyway, so what? It still would require a bylaw change if it got thru the EC and that means that we LMs would have to vote on it. I'm sorry but I just don't see what the fuss is about?