When Do We Get PAMPA Election Results?

I know that mail in ballots were due back to Shareen Fancher by Sept.30. Anyone know when to expect the results?

I would imagine that with a postmark deadline of 9/30/2004 it will be a couple of weeks.

Actually they needed to be postmarked no later than the 30 Sept. I don't know what they will do but remember we have members from other countries than the USA. If it were just USA 10 days might be safe.

>Actually they needed to be postmarked no later than the 30
>Sept. I don't know what they will do but remember we have
>members from other countries than the USA. If it were just
>USA 10 days might be safe.
>

I think it is sooner than that. Usually, it takes about 3 days for domestic mail. And Shareen is required to report the results in the next SN, whose deadline is already passed. Tom will obviously hold it for her, of course.

So I think, based on my understanding, that she normally waits until Oct 3 or 4 to finish counting, and presumably, if it's real close, she may hold off for a while longer to ensure no stragglers get left out. I think she may count as they come in, so it's not like the whole thing happens in one fell swoop. Although it's usually only 6-700 legal votes.

I talked to her the other day, and she didn't mention anything about significant numbers of invalid ballots (unsigned, copied and returned with new memberships, etc), which is refreshing.

I can't recall, but I think that there are only two contested positions - one of the director's spots, and of course, the vice-president spot. So there aren't a whole lot of surprises possible.

It always amazes me how much Shareen does for PAMPA. With the renewals, voting and tracking the finances, she wears more hats than anyone. Just amazing!

Steven Yampolsky

LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-04 AT 03:11 PM (CDT)
 
>It always amazes me how much Shareen does for PAMPA. With
>the renewals, voting and tracking the finances, she wears
>more hats than anyone. Just amazing!

It's very, very close to a full-time job. And it's done expertly. Woe be the day she decided to retire.

She's also at the very front lines of the hate mail. Most of it goes to her.

>>It always amazes me how much Shareen does for PAMPA. With
>>the renewals, voting and tracking the finances, she wears
>>more hats than anyone. Just amazing!
>
> It's very, very close to a full-time job. And it's done
>expertly. Woe be the day she decided to retire.
>
> She's also at the very front lines of the hate mail. Most
>of it goes to her.
>
> Brett

And I'm betting some of the snottiest hate mail is mysteriously missing a return address.

I rarely get excited over personal confrontations, especially those on SSW and like forums.

But attacks on Shareen are the lowest, most vile forms of personal expression imaginable.

A singe example--there are plenty more--of true integrity: At the nation's biggest CL Stunt contest, this year the world's biggest CL Stunt contest as well, Shareen was head of tabulation, knew the scores well in advance of anyone. Her husband, Ted Fancher, was much more than mildly interested in said scores. How and when did Ted get news of his scores? At the exact same point in time when it became public knowledge.

Y'all think about that for a moment or two.

Shareen's the best. No doubt about it. She's done me a favor or two and has always acted with the utmost professionalism.

Besides, she's really quite funny.

And my mail across the big pond—the Pacific—is that she still gets bagged for possible conflict of interest.

I guess there are just some people who, for whatever reason, just have to make a career of being lower that the snake's belly.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 02:13 PM (CDT)
 
>And my mail across the big pond—the Pacific—is that she
>still gets bagged for possible conflict of interest.

Sometimes, yes. But if we decide to have a conflict of interest policy for trustees, Shareen will still be OK, as her participation doesn't qualify under the generally-accepted definition as applied to non-profit or not-for-profit corporations. Neither she or nor anyone close to her has an economic interest in modeling.

But it makes some people happy to bash her, anyway. And don't expect it to end after the election.

Brett

p.s. I would also point out that the people who work the hardest are those who receive the majority of the hate mail and hostility. Shareen is clearly first in line, and Tom Morris has, in the past, been a major target as well. Frank McMillan, now positioned as the Prince of Darkness in some people's minds, naturally. And of course Warren Tiahrt and Gary McClellan were subject to a threatening letter campaign resulting in an armed guard at the 1997 Team Trials, and an FBI investigation. This was not about model airplanes - it's about commission of a federal felony!

All this because they had the unimitigated gall to make it so that a bunch of prima donnas like myself can maybe get a plaque, and 2000 or so of us can get a pretty airplane magazine in a professional and efficient manner.

Do I get defensive about these people? You better beleive it!

Shareen Fancher is married to Ted Fancher who just ran for vp. She counts the vote. This raises obvious procedural questions. PAMPA is made up of 2000 members with a right to vote, most do not know the individuals involved. An independent body counting votes is an obvious way to insure objectivity as well as the appearance of objectivity. Why all the nail biting and gnashing of teeth? It's not rocket science. It's a procedural issue that lifts the basic democratic process out of the context of personality and partisanship. It makes the rest of us who haven't had the pleasure of knowing everyone involved sure no hanky panky's afoot. It's almost a matter of good manners, more than anything else. WE DON'T KNOW YOU. Look at it from our perspective.

I guess PAMPA was a smaller organization years past where almost everyone could look each other in the eye and meet and greet. Be friends and rivals or not. Well PAMPA got bigger. Needs to grow up.

It's amazing to me that almost none of these debates proposed by a few old line PAMPA members have anything to do with the quality of contests. Everyone seems fine with that.

It seems to me that a few people would do well to pat each other on the back, give each other congratulations for being very successful in creating and running PAMPA, more successful than they ever expected. Then they can help this organization take into account all these people who they do not personally know-- people who joined the group they founded and put it on the line, forking over real money.

If you think STUNT News is too much about sport flying. Write something esoteric that totally confuses us. That's fine. I'm sure most of us would LOVE it. Don't denigrate the mag and call it irrelevant to you, because of your superior abilities and knowledge. That's insulting your membership! Many of whom joined to get the magazine.

If you have a personality issue with someone please handle it in private in the various ways we gown ups do. Messy or not messy. Yelling in e-mail or face to face. Then there is the o so cold shoulder.

What is good for PAMPA? How about all of us thinking on that before we snipe. Remembering that PAMPA is a lot bigger than it was, involving all these other people who won't win the big one any time soon. We sure get a kick out of the sport anyway.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 02:36 PM (CDT)
 
>Shareen Fancher is married to Ted Fancher who just ran for
>vp. She counts the vote. This raises obvious procedural
>questions. PAMPA is made up of 2000 members with a right to
>vote, most do not know the individuals involved. An
>independent body counting votes is an obvious way to insure
>objectivity as well as the appearance of objectivity. Why
>all the nail biting and gnashing of teeth? It's not rocket
>science. It's a procedural issue that lifts the basic
>democratic process out of the context of personality and
>partisanship.

Exactly correct. Its a procedural issue laid out by the bylaws. Changing it is another procedural issue that no one has performed. It's not even a bad idea - but if something is going to change, follow the procedure.

It's simple and will take 5 minutes of your time, and has every chance of changing if that's what people want.

>It seems to me that a few people would do well to pat each
>other on the back, give each other congratulations for being
>very successful in creating and running PAMPA, more
>successful than they ever expected. Then they can help this
>organization take into account all these people who they do
>not personally know-- people who joined the group they
>founded and put it on the line, forking over real money.
>
>If you think STUNT News is too much about sport flying.
>Write something esoteric that totally confuses us. That's
>fine. I'm sure most of us would LOVE it. Don't denigrate the
>mag and call it irrelevant to you, because of your superior
>abilities and knowledge. That's insulting your membership!
>Many of whom joined to get the magazine.

Who is denigrating the magazine? I;ll defend that, too. It's the best mag in modeling. Heck, I spent the last 6 years *writing* for it. Of course, maybe that's the problem...

>If you have a personality issue with someone please handle
>it in private in the various ways we gown ups do. Messy or
>not messy. Yelling in e-mail or face to face. Then there is
>the o so cold shoulder.

Or, in other words:

"A mutual apology and a private meeting followed by a handshake between two hardworking volunteers should have resolved this unfortunate matter."

Brett, I thought you said in posts past that you don't read the mag. That it's not relevant to the competition flyer. That it's slanted to the sport flyer. Did someone say a few competition flyers were even thinking of doing their own xerox mail out. Have I undergone a senior moment. Perhaps. But you have put a lot out there. Who hires the army of research nerds...

Why not write an article about how you made it to 3rd. Plane etc. What you ate for breakfast. Meditation techniques. I'm interested. Hard year to do what you did.

Think how great Stunt News would be, if every time a top flyer got pissed off, he wrote a technical article for the dear ole rag.

(Well, since John and Warren have both decided to be silent on their issue, can't we drop it too. Must say however things have calmed down compared to years past. No FBI call up in 2004. Even though we hosted an international event. Sounds like Warren doesn't scare real easy. Probably can face down anyone he needs too, certainly anyone unarmed and over fifty.)

LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 03:29 PM (CDT)
 
Dennis...

I'm not sure where you're going with these posts.

He have procedures in place to handle 99% of the issues that come up within our organization. I would think, at this point, that the membership (or at least the ones with their thinking Caps on!) Are more aware of this fact than ever.

It appears to me as if this horse has been beaten to the point where it is unrideable.

Chill out!

>Brett, I thought you said in posts past that you don't read
>the mag. That it's not relevant to the competition flyer.
>That it's slanted to the sport flyer. Did someone say a few
>competition flyers were even thinking of doing their own
>xerox mail out. Have I undergone a senior moment. Perhaps.
>But you have put a lot out there. Who hires the army of
>research nerds...

Well, I think I have been pretty consistent. It's the hobgoblin of small minds, you know.

There have been a few wistful whinings about the lack of technical content. But Will/Ken/Tom print what they get - it's exactly what everyone makes it. I did mention that if someone doesn't like the content, they should change it. That applies to me just as much as anyone. I did my part for SN, but I certainly could have done more.

We also have discussed the discouraging factors, too - Wild Bill wrote some very interesting articles that resulted in some mild nasty-grams about how "we didn't get PAMPA so we could have a math lecture". Bill could (and I sure hope, will) submit more of the same. But it's up to the authors to decide whether they want to undergo such criticism.

That doesn't make it bad - that makes it good for the majority. We used to have a xeroxed newsletter, but I don't think anyone is considering asking Wynn Paul to fire up the UK Swim Team mimeograph machine to do it again!

I do get a little irritated when we here talk about making PAMPA "for the sport flier" - when I simply don't see, nor have I seen any proposals of. what more could be done in support of that.

I might also point out that I have more-or-less chosen to use SSW as a forum for such exchanges. I think it's superior in some ways to print, as it's more immediate, and it can be triggered by questions and comments. Sometimes people complain about "thread drift" but that's one of the *positive* aspects of it. A post about where to get a 20FP can drift into a (what I thought was, anyway) a very interesting discussion about what engine/propellor/airplane combinations actually do.

And, for me anyway, it's easy to just post the stuff and let the distribution take care of itself.

It's my considered opinion that the SSW forum has done more to advance the cause of Stunt than most of the things any of the rest of us have done in the last 10 years or so. It opened up a whole new world where literally anyone with a computer can discuss issues *directly* and *immediately* with the biggest stars of this event - PW, Ted, Al, etc. I would have given my eye teeth for that opportunity when I was out in a parking lot with a stooge, baching in 30 flights a day, with not guidance. I also think that opportunity is worth tolerating an awful lot of "cruft" or extraneous information.

>
>Why not write an article about how you made it to 3rd. Plane
>etc. What you ate for breakfast. Meditation techniques. I'm
>interested. Hard year to do what you did.

Well, thank you! I was very fortunate to be able to even participate in such a contest, much less do fairly well. It was harder than a Team Trials, which is something I thought I would never see.

Actually, that reminds me of another post I want to make...

>Think how great Stunt News would be, if every time a top
>flyer got pissed off, he wrote a technical article for the
>dear ole rag.

No one is getting mad about the content of Stunt News. We have the capability to change it. But there are other outlets

>(Well, since John and Warren have both decided to be silent
>on their issue, can't we drop it too. Must say however
>things have calmed down compared to years past.

I certainly think that issue is as dropped as it could be. In fact, my opinion was stated in print and I'm done talking about it when I signed that letter in late July.

But it did seem to bring up other issues, some legit, some not, that also are interesting and important in some ways to discuss. Public discourse is good and healthy as long as it remains about issues - and not about loony conspiracy theories that have grown from one minor controversy 11-12 years ago. Which, to my assessment, is the underlying crux of the entire problem.

For instance, I see several perfectly good topics - the nature of corporate bylaws, how you go about changing them, the how and why of election procedures, and several more.

>No FBI call
>up in 2004. Even though we hosted an international event.
>Sounds like Warren doesn't scare real easy. Probably can
>face down anyone he needs too, certainly anyone unarmed and
>over fifty.)

Actually, when Warren got his (second) threatening letter, he xeroxed it and handed it out to all the attendees at the NATs pilot's meeting! Someone told me he used to run or administer Dodge Racing in NASCAR in the Richard Petty era. Some pretty tough characters in that arena at the time. So I think he can handle pretty much anything model airplanes might be able to dish out.

Although why he should have to is completely beyond me.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 06:12 PM (CDT)
 
(Responding to Tom about ID-- message 14.)

And where are you from and who do you know and what cereal do you eat in the morning? I live in Philadelphia and NY City. I am a proud crash and learn competitive beginner pilot under the wing of smiling Philly Flyers who probably rather not be named and associated with my bumpy learning curve. In the last year or so I've built three flite streaks and a Twisted and Strange Fancherised Twister. (Finally a plane equivalent to all those doodles I made in Second Grade.) Also am flying an ARF Streak with an LA 25. Various foamies given to me have suffered at my hand. I'm 57 years old too young to work my day job any longer. Just retired as a teacher in the Philadelphia School District no fly zone (after almost 35 years, loved it and miss it a lot). I owned a theatre wrote a lot of plays that got put on professionally in little theatres in NY, Philadelphia and elsewhere. Been published and reviewed, can look me up on the web. Most I earned from writing was $4000, sigh. Actually wouldn't mind a pay day like that again. I am married and have one son long gone from the nest.

What Warren got only one mash note.

Whatever the procedure the vote should be counted by some neutral organization. PAMPAs a big place now.

>Whatever the procedure the vote should be counted by some
>neutral organization. PAMPAs a big place now.
>

Which is why PAMPA became incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation about 6-7 years ago, thus making the bylaws and following them necessary.

I take it that you will be writing a bylaws change proposal to the effect of requiring external vote counting. You have plenty of time before the next possible vote, which will be counted by the secretary/treasurer.

It simply can't happen any other way.

>
>>Whatever the procedure the vote should be counted by some
>>neutral organization. PAMPAs a big place now.
>>
>
> Which is why PAMPA became incorporated as a
>not-for-profit corporation about 6-7 years ago, thus making
>the bylaws and following them necessary.
>
> I take it that you will be writing a bylaws change
>proposal to the effect of requiring external vote counting.
>You have plenty of time before the next possible vote, which
>will be counted by the secretary/treasurer.
>
> It simply can't happen any other way.
>
> Brett

The bylaws DO NOT SAY that the Secretary/Treasurer will COUNT the votes, only collect the ballots.

From the bylaws:

"Ballots are to be returned to the Secretary/Treasurer postmarked not later than the 30th of September or such later date as may be fixed by the President. Final tabulation of all ballots shall be completed 15 days from the required postmark date."

To request that the votes be COUNTED by an outside party is completely reasonable and not outside the Bylaws. If the Secretary/Treasurer has been ASSIGNED to count the votes it is outside the Bylaws.

Guess some of us will have to look up the bylaws.

My point is that if some of you old head long time participants took care of business this whole controversy would have been laid to rest. Isn't that after all in everyone's best interest. Especially those who have given the most and have the most at stake. Such a change in voting procedure is appropriate to an international organization of 2000 members. If you want the new guys to lead the way. It's up to you.

>Guess some of us will have to look up the bylaws.
>
>My point is that if some of you old head long time
>participants took care of business this whole controversy
>would have been laid to rest. Isn't that after all in
>everyone's best interest. Especially those who have given
>the most and have the most at stake. Such a change in voting
>procedure is appropriate to an international organization of
>2000 members. If you want the new guys to lead the way. It's
>up to you.

And changing the rules can be *up to you*.

I don't know how many different ways to say it. There's a process to change things, and the one and only thing needed to start such a process is *someone who cares about it to sit down and propose the change*. Whether it changes, or not, is up to *everyone*, not just the people who have strong feelings about it. If it gets defeated in a vote, then you pretty much have to live with it. But I guarantee it won't change if it's never proposed.

I emphasize once again that you have a potentially good point that could easily be argued and won (assuming you depersonalize it).

So get with your district director (Windy or Phil SPillman, I believe). and write it up. 10 minutes of energy expended to write the proposal will be more effective than dozens of posts on SSW complaining about it.

Brett,

I am somewhat confused. Dennis raises a good point and you seem to concur that it may be a good idea but should be put forward in a manner consistent with the Bylaws and procedures. I totally agree.

Months before the Annual meeting held at this year's NATs I proposed that PAMPA elections be done by "blind ballot". The reason I did this is because there is a difference in "Standing up and being counted" and one's right to vote privately. An example would be at the local club meeting if your two best flying buddies were nominated for club president and you really thought (for whatever reason) that one would do a better job than the other, It would put most of us in an uncomfortable position to have them watching you vote. In all the local clubs that I have been associated with, this was handled by passing out pieces of paper (Ballots) members wrote down their preference and then the Secretary counted them and announced the results.

These thoughts and the reasoning behind them were submitted to my District Director - Don Hutchinson. I did not propose a Bylaws change. There is no reason to believe the Secretary can't count. I did recognize that the form of the PAMPA ballot made it possible for the ballot to be copied and that left the door open for non-members to vote or even members being able to vote as many time as they wanted. Evidently this has happened in the past although I can't believe it would be a significant percentage.

I proposed that the ballots be numbered (easily done and minimal cost to PAMPA) and they not be on the renewal form (which of course requires your name). Then I thought about a third party such as a CPA firm but realized that would entail some costs. AMA was/is willing to count the ballots at no charge. Third party counting does require a Bylaws change and I see no need for that at all. Who is counting is not the point IMHO. Blind Ballot is a big point for all the reasons Dennis mentioned and I agree with him.

Now we have a situation where Ted is a candidate and Shareen is counting the votes. I would "Bet the Farm" that even if this VP election were to be decided by one vote, it would be accurate. I know Shareen will verify the accuracy and probably count them more than once to make sure it is correct. I've worked with Shareen at the VSC, lauded her dedication and effort in my SN columns on several occasions and absolutely feel there is no way PAMPA could repay her for her years of work.

Perhaps I've gotten a little off track here but I tend to give the background and reasoning behind my thoughts. (character flaw I guess)

OK! (Deep breath, pause) Brett, I did exactly what you told Dennis to do and Don presented this at the meeting. I wasn't in attendance so can't speak to what happened but I do wonder why a proposal submitted through the proper channels, as you suggest, apparently wasn't even considered.

>Months before the Annual meeting held at this year's NATs I
>proposed that PAMPA elections be done by "blind ballot". The
>reason I did this is because there is a difference in
>"Standing up and being counted" and one's right to vote
>privately. An example would be at the local club meeting if
>your two best flying buddies were nominated for club
>president and you really thought (for whatever reason) that
>one would do a better job than the other, It would put most
>of us in an uncomfortable position to have them watching you
>vote. In all the local clubs that I have been associated
>with, this was handled by passing out pieces of paper
>(Ballots) members wrote down their preference and then the
>Secretary counted them and announced the results.
>
>These thoughts and the reasoning behind them were submitted
>to my District Director - Don Hutchinson. I did not propose
>a Bylaws change. There is no reason to believe the Secretary
>can't count. I did recognize that the form of the PAMPA
>ballot made it possible for the ballot to be copied and that
>left the door open for non-members to vote or even members
>being able to vote as many time as they wanted. Evidently
>this has happened in the past although I can't believe it
>would be a significant percentage.
>
>I proposed that the ballots be numbered (easily done and
>minimal cost to PAMPA) and they not be on the renewal form
>(which of course requires your name). Then I thought about a
>third party such as a CPA firm but realized that would
>entail some costs. AMA was/is willing to count the ballots
>at no charge. Third party counting does require a Bylaws
>change and I see no need for that at all. Who is counting
>is not the point IMHO. Blind Ballot is a big point for all
>the reasons Dennis mentioned and I agree with him.

I don't think anyone is significantly disagreeing with the idea. I don't think that a blind ballot is particularly important,but it wouldn't bother me, either. But note well Shareen's point from the meeting. We have to have some way of validating that the votes come from members. Last year, there were a fairly large number of invalid ballots submitted, where someone xeroxed them, and then sent in a membership application and ballot at the same time. If you didn't get a ballot mailed to you, you don't get to vote, or join just to vote. Last time it came up, I guess I understood that there were only a few instances of this, this time around.

I empahsize that "invalid" and "cheater" are not the same in any sense. I expect that these incidents were innocent misunderstandings, not willful attempts to circumvent the democratic process. At least I choose to believe it.

I would have absolutely no problem with the idea of some sort of code. But there also needs to be some way of relating the code to a member, which defeats the purpose. If Shareen had to go back through and look for the membership associated with the number. Never mind that now we have to keep track of who gets which ballot.

This is a *far* bigger potential problem than Shareen (or whoever) knowing an individual's vote.

>OK! (Deep breath, pause) Brett, I did exactly what you told
>Dennis to do and Don presented this at the meeting. I wasn't
>in attendance so can't speak to what happened but I do
>wonder why a proposal submitted through the proper channels,
>as you suggest, apparently wasn't even considered.

We discussed it. It's mentioned in the minutes as not accepted, at least without further thought as to how to solve the invalid ballot problem mentioned above. As long as the PAMPA secretary/treasurer is going to do it, he/she is effectively the only one who knows who you vote for. I certainly thought that was sufficiently "blind", and no one else had any strong feelings about it

Dennis,
We might not all agree on the "politics" but one thing that is for sure is that you can trust Shareen. To suggest anything else is a slap at all of us who have been PAMPA members for a long or short time. NOTHING gets in the way of Shreen doing her job. I am just amazed that she has taken the guff for so long...

Thankyou Shareen!

Dennis, there is another thread concerning ID of people on the forum. Please tell us where you are from.

Tom Niebuhr

My SN only arrived a couple days ago. In it, I read a campaign statement for PAMPA V-P by Mr. Fancher. I didn't even know that a PAMPA V-P slot was vacant. I ALWAYS vote in PAMPA, and any ballot sent to me gets filled out and mailed. But this one is new to me. Should I expect a ballot for PAMPA V-P?

Now, it seems that the job of AMA president is becoming hotly contested. But that is another game...

Dr. Spark...your ballot was with your renewal, as usual. The only thing that puzzles me, is that I've heard of a few renewing for two years, when that is not a stated option, and would therefore muck up the system for Shareen. There is no 2 year option on the form, so don't ask!

PAMPA VP is Larry Barickman. It has been a long time since I recall seeing anything in SN with his name attached, indicating a possible loss of interest. Too bad, but people's lives change, for various reasons. When I joined PAMPA in the mid-'90's, I read every word of every District Report...newguy enthusiasm. I recall Dale Barry's picture with "no report submitted" (or words to that effect), and felt cheated, issue after issue. People's lives and situations change, but I have to wonder if the same won't happen again, if Barry wins. Made it easy to decide my vote.

I for one, would not have a problem with having the ballots counted by a CPA firm, but it would cost money, and we have had some problems with adequate $ supplies in recent past. I'm sure Shareen would be happy to give up the task of ballot counting. In fact, I could see her giving a big sigh of relief if Ted lost the election. Except, that I've never met her. How about bringing Shareen along to the NW CL Regionals next year, Ted? No, she doesn't have to work!
Steve

Steve. My latest SN contained some flyers for renewal and for ordering "stuff". In that issue, I read a VP statement from Mr. Fancher, but I could find nothing in the mail to vote for anyone for VP. Earlier editions of SN contained a ballot for District VP, and our District Eleven didn't seem to require a vote. But I don't remember voting for PAMPA VP, and especially after reading Mr. Fancher's statement, I might have some thoughts about voting.

>Steve. My latest SN contained some flyers for renewal and
>for ordering "stuff". In that issue, I read a VP statement
>from Mr. Fancher, but I could find nothing in the mail to
>vote for anyone for VP. Earlier editions of SN contained a
>ballot for District VP, and our District Eleven didn't seem
>to require a vote.

The ballots do not come in SN. They come with the membership renewal form. District 11 *director* is not up for a vote, but the VP and Membership secretary are still something you can vote for. If you saw something that indicated "no vote required" it meant District director. The VP race was on the same ballot. These were all mailed on September 1st.

Last I heard, our VP Larry B. was having a uphill battle with health problems (emphizema?) and I beleive he passed his latest shunt ship, a GEO XL on to Tom Morris, meaning he is pretty much on the sidelines for now.

Too bad, Larry is a cool dude and a good builder/flyer. Hope he makes a come back some day. Ya know, in defense of our current president, now that I think about it, having an in-active VP could have a lot to do with some of the frustration and over sights. All things considered, he may not be doing as bad a job as some may think.
Eric V.

>Last I heard, our VP Larry B. was having a uphill battle
>with health problems (emphizema?) and I beleive he passed
>his latest shunt ship, a GEO XL on to Tom Morris, meaning he
>is pretty much on the sidelines for now.
>
>Too bad, Larry is a cool dude and a good builder/flyer. Hope
>he makes a come back some day.

Well, I hope he has good health. That's the first I heard of health problems.

I don't know him all that well, but he always seemed like a fine man and an excellent trustee. Really helped a lot when president Uncle Mikey was in Kuwait.