stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: david beazley on November 13, 2015, 07:57:48 AM
-
Any leader members out there? I just received an on line voting ballot to change the AMA bylaws. Looks like AMA wants to "simplify" things like membership categories, an add someone from NAA on the Executive Council and change the election and nomination process. I am voting against all three proposals, smells too much like drone appeasement to me.
-
more
-
last
-
Yes please vote against. It seems a way to justify what they already did with Best Buy and provides a way to steer the AMA away from its original purposes with legitimacy. Head this one off at the pass.
Dave
-
It also appears to eliminate the Junior/Senior/Open categories, replacing them with Adult and Youth.
Brett
-
It also appears to eliminate the Junior/Senior/Open categories, replacing them with Adult and Youth.
Brett
Brett,
Look at article 3 section B of the bylaws you will see they are not replacing jr sr open for competition purposes.
-
Brett,
Look at article 3 section B of the bylaws you will see they are not replacing jr sr open for competition purposes.
Indeed it does, disregard.
Brett
-
Hello,
How is this drone appeasement? Please be specific.
I have read what they are doing and it all makes perfect sense. They are covering their asses and in a sense ours too.
As far as the membership now youth and adult goes they are doing that for ease of administration.
My daughters card looks like this,
Youth-Jr
Youth-Sr 2021
Expires 12/31/2014
Going forward I would think it would look like the following,
Youth
Expires 12/31/2024
Not much of a change but much easier to track.
As it states in Article 3 Section B competition jr sr open ages still apply. I know how old my daughter is so I would correctly enter her into an event by age. Pretty simple.
The changes to the nomination process actually open it up and more clearly explain the vetting process of the nominated person. I would think you would like this. It also clearly lays out who will be doing the vetting of the nominated person in article 9 section 2.
I would also think that you would really like Article 11. This very clearly states in writing the executive council’s responsibilities. This is a good thing. We now know exactly what they are can and are supposed to do. If you look at the current Section 3 its pretty darn wide open as to what they can do. Manage affairs and establish policies. That’s it. That’s all it says. They can do whatever they want as it stands now. With it clearly laid out they are protected and we know what they are supposed to be doing.
There are already is an ex-officio member of the EC that is a an officer of the NAA. The new definition of the EC removes the word “eleven” from the definition. The old one says eleven district vice presidents and the new just says vice president from each district. They just cleaned up the sentence.
Changes are NOT ALWAYS BAD. Sometimes they are clearly needed.
It appears to me and to several others that no matter what the AMA does the majority on this board and in CL in general see it as some kind of a scheme or a ploy or a way to hurt CL or other small niche interests. The AMA can never win in our eyes and I think that is total CRAP. It wouldnt surprise me one bit if the AMA saw us a bunch of whiny cry babies. If the AMA really wanted us out they would just say "Bye, have fun old timers. See you on the flip side." But they haven't and they won't be any time soon. Let's say there are 2000 CL dues paying members. Math tells me at $75.00 a year that is $150,000.00 That is nothing to sneeze at. It's not huge in the grand scheme of things no, but it is enough money to cover some real expenses.
The bottom line is we cost them more in payout per member than our RC brethren by a country mile! If they can pull in some drone people for revenue more power to them. And yes if the drone people do stuff outside of the AMA coverage limits they aren’t covered. Just like we would not be covered if we did the same thing. More members only helps cover the costs so the rest of us can stay covered. You push all the drone ads out of MA and the current and potential drone fliers out of the AMA you can bet on another dues increase.
CL has been around since, well pretty much forever, and we are a tiny fraction of the machine. Drones have been around a few years and they have outgrown us 10x over or more. If the AMA can get a piece of that pie. Go for it. The last thing we need is the AMA membership to shrink.....think about it....
-
I mostly agree with Doug, I don't see anything too consequential here.
Brett
-
While I mostly agree with what Doug and Brett said that we should embrace growth. However I think we the conventional modeling community should distance them self's from Drones. Give them there own section apart from the rest.
-
Well guys get ready to tar and feather the old DOC. How many years have we argued Jr-Sr-Op classes. Look at how many Jr's and Sr's we have out there. This should bring us more in line with the FAI classification of Jr and Sr. Any way I voted to except the proposals.
-
I have been a leader member for 30+ years. I have not received any information from the AMA on this. On the other hand I did get some information to ask my opinions on about 2 years ago and since I answered that I seem to be left out of the info gathering group. Puzzlement's never end.
-
Leader Member for 20+ years, yet nothing rec'd here, either. But then, they probably already know how I feel about them. (Either that, or since I don't fly RC, my opinion doesn't count.)
-
Me also!
Leader member for many years, have heard nothing.
I have read all that I received in the past (and the number has decreased rapidly) and did vote when it was applicable to CL.
-
I am the Dist IV Racing Contest Board Rep. and I have not received any thing on the above either.
I opened up the articles and I can agree with Doug Moon on it.
Maybe they forgot about me................... LL~
-
I happen to be an AMA Fellow yet I have not received anything from them regarding this. As stated by many above I do not see anything to be concerned about in these proposed changes.
-
What really bothers me is the fact that there are numbers of us that just wont get the chance to vote one way or the other. If ALL leader members don't have that opportunity and the new rules either win or loose the failure of a person not have the chance should invalidate what ever the vote turns out to be. However, I wont be hanging by my thumbs waiting to get the email from headquarters.
Joe
-
Maybe there isn't anything to be too concerned about in these proposals, but I find the timing suspect. Also the fact I recieved no official notification from AMA about the government registration issue. Now we get notice that AMA was involved and "argued strongly" in behalf of the membership about us not registering our models, but they can't talk about the negotiations. And other LM's are saying they didn't get the ballot email.
-
My packet of possible Bylaw changes just came in the mail Now at least I can read and decide how to vote. For the others that have yet to get their package I hope you will get it soon.
Joe
-
Yep, got mine today too. Apparently it's all done by snail mail, not email.
-
Got mine today via snail mail.
Looks pretty benign.
Submittal not required until 31 Dec, 2015
Jim Hoffman
-
Didn't you gentlemen give the AMA your E-Mail address??
-
Me also!
Leader member for many years, have heard nothing.
I have read all that I received in the past (and the number has decreased rapidly) and did vote when it was applicable to CL.
My "Voting Package" came today! Will review in detail before voting.
-
My packet arrived Saturday. I read all of the information provided and then laid it aside for 2 days. Reread the information again and marked my ballots and mailed them back to AMA Monday.
Clancy
-
Got mine yesterday by e-mail.
Keith