Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

There is something that still bother me...

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 53 of 53 known posts recovered

dirtydan · Oct 01, 2004 02:29 PM

#0 source

There is something that still bothers me...

During last week's mild to heated discussions concerning PAMPA, leadership current and future, Mr. Bob Reeves made what is, from his perspective, an accurate and honest comment: "...As I don't hear everything that goes on I may be a good example of average Joe wanna-be stunt pilot and it sure seems to me that most of the wind is blowing from the left coast."

Bob was responding to my statement, "...this *is not* a West Coast versus East Coast issue."

To place above quotes in context, refer to: http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=10560&forum=DCForumID1

For a little more of the picture, refer to: http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=5576&forum=DCForumID1#20

Again, Bob made an honest comment. I am quite certain that if he and I lived next door to each other--primarily so I could use his private CL field!--lived parallel lives in CL Stunt, I would be in agreement.

The comment is still incorrect. And not by a small margin.

The apparent, but totally false, East Coast/West Coast thing stems from one basic fact: A great many of us, regardless of geography, believe in playing by the rules and an important component is speaking out publicly, truthfully and without a hidden agenda.

Not everybody sees this as being an effective tactic, resorting to behind-the-scenes manipulation, part and parcel of this being making some of the most scurrilous and outrageous accusations against our most trustworthy volunteers, various whispering campaigns, and even writing petitions designed to affect Stunt News editorial policy.

Just to beat this to death, one way of dealing with various challenges facing our hobby and our favorite special interest group, PAMPA, is public, consistently put forth in reasonable terms, may lead to actual written proposals which can be voted on, in other cases challenges proponents of a differing point of view to submit a proposal.

Above is the way a great many of us operate. *And it has nothing to do with where we live.*

Most unfortunately, a very small group--the core of which is only four to six people, from what I can see--tends to operate under the radar, so to speak. By definition, this means there will always be the appearance of a wind blowing from a certain direction, but it is not related to the coasts of the U.S., it is directly related to how certain individuals choose to conduct business.

While it appears as if close proximity of these folk one to the other has resulted in a band-of-brothers approach, it is just as true that outside of B-O-B factor, geographic location of individuals is not of much significance.

In other words, that a great deal of the under-handed machinations come from New Jersey and Pennsylvania amounts to a mostly unfair characterization of a great many of my friends in these states. It does serve to nicely pinpoint the genesis of quite a number of character-building experiences for the rest of us, however. And thanks to thread referenced above, one of these individuals has clearly identified himself and certain of his tactics. My sincere thanks are extended.

Thus it is that this and quite a number of other issues **are not** a battle between the two coasts. It does serve NJ/PA-based antagonists well to perpetuate this myth, smoke and mirrors is part of their approach after all, but this only underlines my position, in no way refutes said position.

But what about those eeevvillll "West Coast Guys?" *I freely acknowledge that from afar there appears to be some collusion.* Unfortunately for the grassy-knoll theorists, this is most definitely not the case.

To limit this particular discussion somewhat, there is no coordination--as in *none*--between myself, Brett Buck and Ted Fancher. Yes, hard to believe from what one sees here on SSW. But it is true.

I see Ted exactly once each year, at the NW Regionals on Memorial Day. It's a contest; we are competitors, albeit on different ends of the scale as to skill levels. I cannot remember a single PAMPA Politics Discussion, although there may well have been some sidebar comments only moments in length.

In fact, Ted has spent more time admonishing me over certain SSW-related comments I have made (2003 NW Regionals) than all topics outside immediate competition at hand, and this over a period of many years.

Ted and I might talk on the phone once or twice a year, never more. The call is generally initiated here, there may well be talk of "the latest" in PAMPA, but the emphasis is on competition-oriented model aircraft. There has *never* resulted a plan of action intended to forward a particular, or even general, point of view.

As more recent proof of the lack of coordination between Ted and myself, never would I have been in favor of wording used in his recently published campaign statement. I might--in fact do, and quite well indeed--understand why statement worded as it was, and sure enough he laid out his heartfelt views. There is no confusion possible as to his position on various issues. However, presentation was in fact over the top, I have admonishment of my own to deliver at 2005 NW Regionals.

Much the same thing when it comes to Brett and me. With a twist. Shortly before '04 Regionals we had a blow-up, a result of a now-gone thread on SSW, the one dealing with ARF Survey in a recent SN. Details are private (read: none of your business), but Brett and I spoke very briefly at 2004 Regionals, this without any resolution to the issue. We were there to compete and have fun, after all. Which we both did.

We have not spoken since. Several polite, to the point, "Private Service" and e-mail messages have been passed between us. I asked, for example, if current BBS column could include a post-Nationals quote from him, this put forth on SSW. Brett said that was fine, although he admonished me (Is there a theme here? I see a *conspiracy,* Ted and Brett against Da Dirt! It's a District 10 against District 11 thing! Get ready for a whispering campaign designed to undermine these two known consorts of the devil!) as "overselling" the 20FP and its applications in CL Stunt. A statement of the obvious, in my view, but everything to excess I say...

Still, and I want to put this forth in the strongest terms possible, **there is not, there never has been, any coordination, on any matter, for any purpose whatsoever,** between Brett and myself. We are never shy about putting forth our views, we both believe strongly in personal integrity and playing by the rules, see the world in much the same way.

All of that is true. But it does not equate to a particular vision for PAMPA, strategies to put in place, projects designed to cut opposition off at the legs, tactics which result in realization of a mutual agreed upon vision.

Nor does above mean there is a CA/WA clash between NJ/PA. And it is laughable to think there is West Coast/East Coast head-butting going on here.

Closer to home, by Roundup 2004 the public attack on Warren Tiahrt was still on my mind. When I asked a good friend, one who not only knew of the open letter in current Stunt News, but would have signed it had he not been unavailable at the time, what was going on, the response was merely, “Watch for the next Stunt News.” When I pressed for details, he waved it off, literally and figuratively. The most I got was an oblique mention of a letter that would address the situation. And we went back to the flying of model aircraft. Simple as that.

Of the people signing this open letter, I do not personally know only four, although all of them are known to me as people of good will and good character. The rest I do know personally, some for a great many years. One in particular, PTG, is not only a long-time friend, he is a highly trusted friend. The point here is that I heard from not a single one of my friends in advance of this letter being published.

When it came out, you knew what I knew; in some cases knew a lot more.

A left coast conspiracy??!! No way…

Tell ya what: **All of us have to keep our eye on the ball.** It only serves the interests of those attempting to divide and conquer our lovely little organization, this having been the result of so much hard work and of obvious benefit to one and all, regardless of the level of active participation, the chosen type of participation, in CL Stunt.

I beg you, do not let a very small, very vocal, highly localized group succeed in splitting us apart.

Dan

P.S. Apologies are extended to Bob Reeves for keying off his honestly put forth comment. Nothing personal, my friend.


Dick Fowler · Oct 01, 2004 02:53 PM

#1 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-04 AT 02:58 PM (CDT)
 
In the words of the immortal Pogo:

SRiese5283 · Oct 01, 2004 03:51 PM

#2 source
SNIP>>>>We have not spoken since. Several polite, to the point, "Private Service" and e-mail messages have been passed between us. I asked, for example, if current BBS column could include a post-Nationals quote from him, this put forth on SSW. Brett said that was fine, although he admonished me (Is there a theme here? I see a *conspiracy,* Ted and Brett against Da Dirt! It's a District 10 against District 11 thing! Get ready for a whispering campaign designed to undermine these two known consorts of the devil!) as "overselling" the 20FP and its applications in CL Stunt. A statement of the obvious, in my view, but everything to excess I say...

MR.DIRT,

Let it go. Because of the Internet we all have up to the minute information. I’m one that loves it.
If District 11 and District 10 are at odds…it looks to be only three to four people. I’m not one of them. I love to fly with all of you guy’s. So when I hear or read crap like this I’m wondering how shallow people are. I had a great time at the NW Regionals and NEVER herd anything about an invasion from District 10, 9, 8, and so on. SO with that I guess I’m out of the loop with the politics with stunt flying. Almost make me want to vomit.
I enjoy Flying and Teaching. IT’S fun. I’ll stay with the basics and continue to stay out of the Grade School click talk behind your back BS.

Scott (not a happy camper) Riese


PS see ya at FF in Salem


Scott Riese

dirtydan · Oct 01, 2004 04:47 PM

#6 source
>>MR.DIRT,
>
>Let it go. Because of the Internet we all have up to the
>minute information. I’m one that loves it.
>If District 11 and District 10 are at odds…it looks to be
>only three to four people. I’m not one of them. I love to
>fly with all of you guy’s. So when I hear or read crap like
>this I’m wondering how shallow people are. I had a great
>time at the NW Regionals and NEVER herd anything about an
>invasion from District 10, 9, 8, and so on. SO with that I
>guess I’m out of the loop with the politics with stunt
>flying. Almost make me want to vomit.
>I enjoy Flying and Teaching. IT’S fun. I’ll stay with the
>basics and continue to stay out of the Grade School click
>talk behind your back BS.
>
>Scott (not a happy camper) Riese

Good Lord! Does anybody wonder how it is that sometimes folk--not just Scott, although this is a low-water mark even for him--get confused when reading comprehension is apparently not their strong suit?

**Scott, it was **satire.****

If you cannot read a posting accurately, you may want to consider not responding to said posting. This is very nearly unbelievable.

>
>
>PS see ya at FF in Salem

Yes indeed. Where between rounds we can work on some character assassination plots. Where are all those satire icons when I really, really need them so badly?

Dan

F4FGuy · Oct 01, 2004 05:43 PM

#10 source
snip-snip-snip
>Good Lord! Does anybody wonder how it is that sometimes
>folk get confused when reading comprehension is
>apparently not their strong suit?
>If you cannot read a posting accurately, you may want to
>consider not responding to said posting.

This is very nearly
unbelievable.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Unfortunately not!

Ron B.

SRiese5283 · Oct 01, 2004 06:37 PM

#13 source
Good Lord! Does anybody wonder how it is that sometimes folk--not just Scott, although this is a low-water mark even for him--get confused when reading comprehension is apparently not their strong suit?

**Scott, it was **satire.****

THEN PUT A FRIGEN * on your post.
Sorry Comprehension is easy it's understanding what the HELL your talking about.
If I missed the bus I still have a ticket...if I can find it.

OH BTW I speakem American not English.

Scott (shipyard langue is good) Riese


Scott Riese

godzilla · Oct 01, 2004 04:09 PM

#3 source
>>I beg you, do not let a very small, very vocal, highly
>localized group succeed in splitting us apart.
>
>Dan

Which one?

I get so confused at who is advocating the splitting...

The City Smasher

catdaddy · Oct 01, 2004 04:34 PM

#4 source
>Which one?
>
>I get so confused at who is advocating the splitting...

ROTFLMAO
That's exactly what I thought!

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

DMoon · Oct 01, 2004 08:55 PM

#18 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-04 AT 09:29 PM (CDT)
 
>>>I beg you, do not let a very small, very vocal, highly
>>localized group succeed in splitting us apart.
>>
>>Dan
>
>Which one?
>
>I get so confused at who is advocating the splitting...

Funny how this question was never addressed.......What gives?

It is also funny how if PAMPA changes from its current form of running things there is talk of "Splitting our beloved organization..." Blah Blah Blah....What a bunch of crap!

If it can't be run by the people running it now you will just take your ball and go home...??? Oh Please...

As Scott said "Let it go"

You say sattire, But I read planty of truth in every sentence of that LONG WINDED rant....

Probably be best if PAMPA were run by just 8 or 10 people and that was that. Cuts out alot of the crap...NOT!

So you got the self proclaimed "stunt anti-christ" and few others on the East side running around spouting off half truths and blowing emails all over the country side, with no evidence to back anything up and never providing any when asked.

Then you have a small group on west coast puffing up their chests in the pages of SN and calling everyone on it. Getting a list of sigs to actually try to show some division or support for the other which ever way you choose to see it. Then telling everyone how they know best to run the thing, AND the "any other way is wrong attitude" gleasoning from every sentence.

And you are going to sit there and try tell us that it is not a battle between two "sides". That is actually funny. Just so happens they come from opposite sides of the country. That makes it an East vs West thing. Yeah you dont talk to Ted or Brett but you think alot alike. That is very apparant on these boards. About 99% of the time you all agree so why would they need to talk to you. Besides what significance to any of this is held by you? Probably about as much as I have...NONE!

These are actual lines from an upcoming movie

"The hostile take over of PAMPA"

***Stunt Anti-Christ***

"Getting the all powerful position of running the most powerful organization in the world. That is our goal and we must attain it before we are confined to wheelchairs and endless amounts of Lipitor."

***Mindless Gnomes****

"The UN? The US Govt.?"

***Stunt Anti-Christ***

"No you morons, PAMPA! What are you thinking? Get on board here, keep up!"

Is it really E. vs. W.? I dont know but it sure as H-E-L-L looks like it! And these threads are so amusing. I just cant stay away any more than you can.

Keep ranting Dan, Keep ranting....

Doug Moon

alfadawg · Oct 01, 2004 04:35 PM

#5 source
Hey Dirt, It really gets me when I agree with you 100% on anything! However, your comments on this thread are right on. PAMPA has surpassed our highest expectations all due to hard work of a relatively few incredible individuals who ask for nothing and will do anything it takes to continue to make PAMPA the great SIG that it is. It seems to be the nature of some people to try and change something/anything just to get some recognition. Must have something to do with their upbringing. PAMPA was and is a competition oriented entity and WILL remain so and will not wilt because someone can't have it their way. One day we'll get together and have a good discussion on all the "underhanded" stuff that doesn't really go on! Bob Whitely

alfadawg

Bob Reeves · Oct 01, 2004 05:14 PM

#7 source
Hey Dan, no offence taken and you are correct in that it was an honest upfront comment.. Sometimes I feel kinda out of the loop, hear a juicy tail but only get part of the story because I am not in the thick of things... but then, like now, I realize most of the BS doesn't matter anyway so why even waste the time.

I am going to spend my efforts becoming a better pilot, better builder and better judge, let the rest fall where it may, just follow the rules while supporting the hobby and PAMPA as best I can..

dirtydan · Oct 01, 2004 05:20 PM

#8 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-04 AT 05:46 PM (CDT)
 
Bob,

Please check SSW "private message" service.

And I am relieved there was no offense taken. It was just too good a comment to let lie.

Dan

Steve Fitton · Oct 01, 2004 05:28 PM

#9 source
"Thus it is that this and quite a number of other issues **are not** a battle between the two coasts. It does serve NJ/PA-based antagonists well to perpetuate this myth, smoke and mirrors is part of their approach after all, but this only underlines my position, in no way refutes said position."

....did it not occur to you that some entities in NJ or PA might indeed consider this a battle? One in which you yourself fired the opening salvo with you BBS column not too many years ago- the "colorful" missive regarding four strokes?

Steve

dirtydan · Oct 01, 2004 05:45 PM

#11 source
>....did it not occur to you that some entities in NJ or PA
>might indeed consider this a battle? One in which you
>yourself fired the opening salvo with you BBS column not too
>many years ago- the "colorful" missive regarding four
>strokes?
>
>
>Steve


Steve, my man! Your time line is off. By decades!

It's "a battle" a lot like the time a friend bought his first car. He was bragging in the halls at school about how fast was his straight-six, and stock, '53 Chivvy. At the time I was riding a fairly serious street bike and our 1947 Jeep was already on its second small-block V-8, a 283.

I didn't believe him, and told him so.

We went for a ride. It turned out he was racing people from stoplights, usually well into second gear. And sure enough he was generally beating them.

The problem was the occupants of the other cars did not know they were "racing," as he *always* neglected to inform them of this. In one case it was a mother with two children in a 300-series Chrysler. I looked back after we had soundly trounced this innocent woman, and she turned into a grocery store. Hardly your typical street racer.

While not a perfect analogy to many things out of the usual suspects in NJ and PA, and over a period of many years, it's pretty good. And was fun to tell.

Dan

Big Country Joe · Oct 01, 2004 05:53 PM

#12 source
DAN LIES!!

There really is a secret kabel working here on the Eastern side of the Cascade Curtain. As a former New Yorker, I and other members of the Kabel from the East Coast intend to bring the AMA Nats to Waitsburg,WA in 2006. The PA events will be off limits to anyone East of Spokane ,WA and PA Expert flyers from dist 10 will be charged $1000 entry fee and will have to prove they did NOT build their planes.Write for your entry form.Judges will be recruited from the ranks of RC Combat flyers. Appearence judging will be done by recent dismissees from Eastern WA State Hospital.
Joe

ps engine displacement limited to under .21 cid

Humor..God's gift to us to keep us from making sausage out of each other daily.

wcrane · Oct 01, 2004 06:51 PM

#14 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-04 AT 06:51 PM (CDT)
 
East Coast/West Coast?

Both y'all coasts don't add up to a dried ball of nose snot compared to those of us here in God's country!


Deal with it!

From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
William Crane
AMA 6733

Randy Powell · Oct 01, 2004 08:01 PM

#15 source
Clean,

God's Country? Here's the view out my front window.

OK, it's not the view out my front window. It's Hurricane Ridge, about 45 minutes from here. The view out my front window is a bunch of fir trees and a creek, but it's close.

God's Country indeed.

Crash2much · Oct 01, 2004 08:19 PM

#16 source
Nothing like a view of the Olympics! Used to live in Sequim many years ago and had that view everyday.

Bill

I build more planes than I fly, collect more kits than I build. That about says it, right?

F4FGuy · Oct 01, 2004 08:20 PM

#17 source
>Clean,
>
>God's Country? Here's the view out my front window.
>
>OK, it's not the view out my front window. It's Hurricane
>Ridge, about 45 minutes from here. The view out my front
>window is a bunch of fir trees and a creek, but it's close.
>:)
>
>God's Country indeed.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

YOU WIN!!!!!

Ron B.

gcb · Oct 01, 2004 09:12 PM

#19 source
The NE may not be God's country...but he vacations here!

Actually, I guess everywhere is God's country...

George

mcm · Oct 02, 2004 08:51 AM

#30 source
Whoa. Sure would look better with a big, messy oil well there.

Heavy Stunt · Oct 03, 2004 06:53 PM

#43 source
Randy,

Now let's be truthfull with everyone. It never looks like that on Hurricane ridge. I've been there, I know it's always cloudy and drizzling. I recognize those deer though. The Park service puts them there so people have something to take a picture of.

Make sure everyone east of the Cascades knows that it rains here all the time!

Bruce Hunt
Salem, OR

Broken Wings · Oct 01, 2004 09:39 PM

#20 source
>I beg you, do not let a very small, very vocal, highly
>localized group succeed in splitting us apart.
>
>Dan
>

Dan...are you crying again? The Ronald Regan post was bad enough but I think I'm going to hurl, Good Grief Man "SNAP OUT OF IT"!

If they're very small, very vocal and highly localized they're probably just squirrels and nothing to be afraid of.

Knife Fights, Red Mist and Begging? Take a couple Advil and go lay down for awhile, Grow a Flippin Spine while your at it. What the heck are "we" supposed to do for "you"? Who are the Bad Guys? Who's splitting "us" apart?

Regards,

John (I'm really worried about Dan) Jolley

Serge Krauss · Oct 01, 2004 10:05 PM

#21 source
What I know of this thing comes simply from reading Ted Fancher's campaign statement, the PAMPA President's column, the minutes, the open letter in Stunt News, AND a nasty piece of hate mail forwarded to me yesterday and originating with able and probably otherwise good-willed people in NJ and PA. As a hobby builder and flyer, I have no vested interest, other than a desire for fairness and civility.

From what I've read, it is pretty obvious which side stuck to the issues and which side completely ignored them and that includes a few SSW posts. It is also clear which side was completely open in expressing its position publically and which side was not. I am VERY disappointed that this kind of e-mail character assasination would originate in the EAST, close to my home. While I admire Mr. Brodak (and LIKE him) and appreciate his efforts to promote the hobby, it is clear that some mistakes were made in unilateral decisions not consistent with by-laws. Still, he does not need the kind of "support" written into the e-mail I received from people who should know better. I'm sure he can rise to the occasion of his own accord.

Any organization must be operated according to its own constitution and/or by-laws, and I find the by-laws cited to be entirely consistent with those of non-related organizations of which I have been President or board member. In particular, executive committee meetings preceding general or board meetings are advisable, even necessary, and not "open". For the originators of this spurious e-mail to completely ignore this and other fundamental issues while denigrating those who simply express a desire to follow the rules and keep the founding purpose of PAMPA is truly distressing. One can argue positions on the issues, but I see no reason to attack the character or intelligence of those who expressed issue-oriented opinions. Apologies are due to the "left coast", unless someone can substantiate these ugly characterizations of people with histories of service and accomplishment and who seem only to have dealt honestly with facts.

This is truly shameful, and no amount of posturing by those professing aloofness to these issues can change that. This has been just sickening.

SK

Serge Krauss

DMoon · Oct 01, 2004 10:14 PM

#22 source
SK

Are you referring to the "Gang of 14" email?

I got that email and I have half a mind to post that thing out here juts so everyone can see the pure nonsense that floats around. And for that matter is swallowed up by some very smart people.

That email has ZERO evidence to back up its claims. It is vague letters like that one that keep this whole stupid thing alive and kicking.

Somewhere along the way I thought we were supposed to act like grown men. Oh well I guess if you play with toys you get to act like boys...

Doug Moon

Serge Krauss · Oct 01, 2004 11:09 PM

#23 source
Doug-

Yep, that's the one.

Serge

Serge Krauss

LNeumann · Oct 01, 2004 11:11 PM

RE: Something that bother me.#24 source
OK, guys, we are starting to snipe at one another again. From the point of view that we are back to attacking each other again, and not debating the issues, plus the fact that the election deadline has now passed, there are two good people nominated for VP, and what we need to do now is to wait for the results, let's go back to cooling it. We don't need to be at each other's throats, and the issues can be resolved if we just let the parties sit down and talk.

May we close this discussion, please.

Leonard Neumann

tomB · Oct 02, 2004 09:47 AM

RE: Something that bother me.#32 source
I wouldn't worry about it. At this point, the subject is so obscured that I bet most people could care less.

Tom B

Randy Powell · Oct 01, 2004 11:37 PM

#25 source
Wow! I didn't get an email. I feel left out.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe not.

Brett Buck · Oct 01, 2004 11:45 PM

#26 source

>Are you referring to the "Gang of 14" email?
>
>I got that email and I have half a mind to post that thing
>out here juts so everyone can see the pure nonsense that
>floats around.

Please don't. I had the same impulse, but it doesn't help anything nor advance any legitimate cause. And it's pretty mild by PAMPA "criticism" standards in any case.

But I think you can see how 15+ years of this sort of thing might wear someone's patience a little thin.

Brett

bigseminole · Oct 02, 2004 12:09 AM

#27 source
Hi Brett,

I had he same thought, that I would post the GOF email. At this point, I'm glad that I refrained from doing so.

I agree with you 100% and the source speaks for itself.

BIGS

DennisM · Oct 02, 2004 02:10 AM

#28 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 02:15 AM (CDT)
 
A friend of mine once wrote a play called, " Tempest in Turdybah."

D

Dick Fowler · Oct 02, 2004 07:12 AM

#29 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 07:29 AM (CDT)
 
From Serge's post #21


>What I know of this thing comes simply from reading Ted
>Fancher's campaign statement, the PAMPA President's column,
>the minutes, the open letter in Stunt News, AND a nasty
>piece of hate mail forwarded to me yesterday and originating
>with able and probably otherwise good-willed people in NJ
>and PA. As a hobby builder and flyer, I have no vested
>interest, other than a desire for fairness and civility.
>
>From what I've read, it is pretty obvious which side stuck
>to the issues and which side completely ignored them and
>that includes a few SSW posts. It is also clear which side
>was completely open in expressing its position publically
>and which side was not. I am VERY disappointed that this
>kind of e-mail character assasination would originate in the
>EAST, close to my home. While I admire Mr. Brodak (and LIKE
>him) and appreciate his efforts to promote the hobby, it is
>clear that some mistakes were made in unilateral decisions
>not consistent with by-laws. Still, he does not need the
>kind of "support" written into the e-mail I received from
>people who should know better. I'm sure he can rise to the
>occasion of his own accord.

I too am disappointed with the conduct of some of the participants.

>
>Any organization must be operated according to its own
>constitution and/or by-laws, and I find the by-laws cited to
>be entirely consistent with those of non-related
>organizations of which I have been President or board
>member. In particular, executive committee meetings
>preceding general or board meetings are advisable, even
>necessary, and not "open". For the originators of this
>spurious e-mail to completely ignore this and other
>fundamental issues while denigrating those who simply
>express a desire to follow the rules and keep the founding
>purpose of PAMPA is truly distressing. One can argue
>positions on the issues, but I see no reason to attack the
>character or intelligence of those who expressed
>issue-oriented opinions. Apologies are due to the "left
>coast", unless someone can substantiate these ugly
>characterizations of people with histories of service and
>accomplishment and who seem only to have dealt honestly with
>facts.

This is where I need clarification. I've read and re-read the bylaws regarding mandatory meetings. The only mention of meetings is Article VI which reads:

Article VI – Meetings:
An annual meeting of the corporation, open to all members, shall be held during the annual National Model Airplane Championships or in the absence of same, such event at which the national champion CLPA is determined. Additional meetings shall be held as determined by the Trustees. Thirty days notice of all meetings shall be provided to all active members by publication in Stunt News. No quorum shall be required.

I see no mention of an obligatory Executive Committee (EC) meeting. It seems to me that if the trustees requested an EC meeting and followed proceedure and were denied this meeting by Mr. Brodak, he has violated the bylaws. If this EC meeting is traditional and not obligatory, then Mr. Brodak has not violated the bylaws. I can't get an answer to this question which I feel is important.

I too have served on various boards but how others conduct their affairs is not the issue here. The issue is - did John Brodak violated the PAMPA by-laws. He may be guilty of trampling on tradition but unless someone can shed some light on this... I can't see where he failed to uphold the by-laws.


>
>This is truly shameful, and no amount of posturing by those
>professing aloofness to these issues can change that. This
>has been just sickening.
>
>SK

AMEN

Serge Krauss · Oct 02, 2004 09:15 AM

#31 source
LAST EDITED ON Oct-02-04 AT 09:22 AM (CDT)
 
E.C. meetings are generally not required. I would not expect them to be required in PAMPA. They are, however, advisable - often advantageous or even necessary. The by-laws you quoted understandably do not address this. The officers among the trustees of any organization, PAMPA included, can elect to meet among themselves whenever they wish. In my own group, the C.P.O., our by-laws even require an E.C. to be established and for it to be convened whenever any officer requests it, a luxury afforded us due to our common locale. Although PAMPA cannot do this, its E.C. should probably convene before any general meeting, when the officers are together.

Regardless of how talented and good willed a chief executive is, he/she cannot foresee all difficulties that might crop up in an annual meeting, among the membership, or as outside challenges to the organization. Other input is needed. Regardless, it is not up to the President to decide whether such a meeting will take place - nor where it will occur. In PAMPA, as elsewhere, these are matters for the trustees to decide - obviously ahead of time ('kind of hard to ask them to meet in order to decide whether they should meet!). Any number of trustees can meet, since - unless charged by the Board or organization to do so - they will not vote on policy nor transact business for the organization. As CPO President, I chaired E.C. meetings, but my presence was not required. We all just tried to be available so that we could work together, something that seems to be true of most PAMPA officers. Our meetings typically required 2-3 hours of work together, but were well worth the effort, sometimes in avoiding just such public conflicts as have occurred here in PAMPA.

SK

Edit: just grammar above.

Serge Krauss

Dick Fowler · Oct 02, 2004 10:11 AM

#33 source
Hi Serge,

While I might agree that an EC meeting maybe be helpful,prudent or serve any number of useful purposes, my point is that John Brodak has been accused of denying PAMPA trustees their right to this meeting and violation of PAMPA by-laws. I would like to hear from the trustees as to what really happened. So far, most of what I read has been second hand and suspect. As Joe Friday said "Just the facts mam".


Dick

DennisM · Oct 02, 2004 01:14 PM

#34 source
What's the problem? Shareen Fancher counts the votes. Her husband is a candidate for vp. He's a man who has a lot of bones to pick with president John Brodak. A PAMPA member asked why doesn't the AMA count the votes. They are willing to do this. Wouldn't that cool things out a bit. Isn't that an obvious procedural adjustment. This makes the voting process itself clearly non partisan. To those us who are in good standing as PAMPA members and who have no affiliation this makes good sense. Not rocket science.

As for the cancellation of the Executive Committee meeting at the NATS, it was not cancelled! It was opened for all PAMPA members to observe so that the democratic process could be seen and heard by all members present. Makes sense to me. (I am not opening a debate here, please). What's the beef? Certainly not cause for stoning.

If the old line leadership could step back for a minute and look at things perhaps they would feel more secure and find less reason to be so snippy in public. The competition situation seems intact to me. The best will win out I'm sure. Public bickering does not help any of us.

Dennis Moritz

Brett Buck · Oct 02, 2004 01:47 PM

#35 source
>What's the problem? Shareen Fancher counts the votes. Her
>husband is a candidate for vp. He's a man who has a lot of
>bones to pick with president John Brodak. A PAMPA member
>asked why doesn't the AMA count the votes. They are willing
>to do this. Wouldn't that cool things out a bit. Isn't that
>an obvious procedural adjustment. This makes the voting
>process itself clearly non partisan. To those us who are in
>good standing as PAMPA members and who have no affiliation
>this makes good sense. Not rocket science.

That violates the bylaws, as pointed out and cofirmed by the trustees many times. Since no one has bothered to date to even make a proposal to change them, they remain. I would note that this has come up before, and the people who demanded it be changed immediately were told exactly how to go about it. They chose not to, thus it remains as it was.

As I mentioned at Peabody's favorite EC meeting in 2003, I don't think that external agency vote counting is a bad idea, all in all. Not because there are any improprieties in the current process of course. Mostly to avoid arguments like this.

But there are some details to be worked out in order to ensure that the ballots go to the external agency, are from legitimate PAMPA members (we apparently have had a few invalid ballots this time, although not as many as last year), and do not result in disruption of the other business. For instance, it means you need to send the renewals back to a different address than the votes. None of it is insurmountable, but it needs some though.

As we are incorporated, the bylaws of PAMPA are *legally binding* on the trustees, and they *will* be followed. Changing them requires a procedure, which *will* also be followed. There's just no argument possible. If there is a membership demand for change, it can happen, but there are rules about changing things and they will be followed.

And, once again, Shareen is a PAMPA trustee and does not conduct her business in a partisan way, and none of the people in contested races have expressed any concern over this situation.

>
>As for the cancellation of the Executive Committee meeting
>at the NATS, it was not cancelled! It was opened for all
>PAMPA members to observe so that the democratic process
>could be seen and heard by all members present.

This is not correct, as previously noted. At least, John doesn't think there was a EC meeting, as he said exactly that in his most recent president's column. And it was discussed at some length in the PAMPA business meeting.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I know that there is an effort afoot to apply revisionist principles to this entire incident, but that's just not going to work. That 2-month SN lead time can sometimes come in useful, huh?

I would also note that the EC meeting, or not, is not a relevant part of the Open Letter aside from being part of the back-story.

Since you probably have access to the video-tapes of the meeting (probably parsing it on a frame by frame basis) you might note John's reasoning for eliminating the meeting, and my expression of concern over that reasoning.

Not having the meeting, per se, or having it with an audience (as was suggested late in the meeting) is an arguable point with up and down sides.

Brett

Larry Cunningham · Oct 02, 2004 02:44 PM

Idea for a Claus Maikis cartoon#36 source
How about a little walking Energizer Frankenstein, labeled PAMPA Squabbles, with the caption:

"It keeps going.. and going.. and going.."

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"I admit the deed!
Tear up the planks!
It is the beating of his hideous heart!"
-Edgar Allen Poe, The Telltale Heart

DennisM · Oct 02, 2004 06:40 PM

RE: Idea for a Claus Maikis cartoon#37 source
I nominate the last two for best joke awards. (In the last three hours or so anyway).

D

LNeumann · Oct 02, 2004 07:10 PM

RE: Time to close this down.#38 source
And I think it is time to close this down. Let's do.

Leonard Neumann

godzilla · Oct 03, 2004 03:31 PM

#40 source
>>What's the problem? Shareen Fancher counts the votes. Her
>>husband is a candidate for vp. He's a man who has a lot of
>>bones to pick with president John Brodak. A PAMPA member
>>asked why doesn't the AMA count the votes. They are willing
>>to do this. Wouldn't that cool things out a bit. Isn't that
>>an obvious procedural adjustment. This makes the voting
>>process itself clearly non partisan. To those us who are in
>>good standing as PAMPA members and who have no affiliation
>>this makes good sense. Not rocket science.
>
> That violates the bylaws, as pointed out and cofirmed by
>the trustees many times.

You said that twice on two different threads. It is not true, however.

"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."

Nowhere does it say that the secretary will count the votes.

Considering that you are such a stickler for the "letter" of the Bylaws I am surprised you keep saying that the the Secretary is REQUIRED by the Bylaws to count the votes when he/she clearly is not.

The way I read it, the secreary need not even open the envelopes to fulfill the letter of the Bylaws.

The City Smasher

Brett Buck · Oct 03, 2004 04:59 PM

#41 source

>
>Nowhere does it say that the secretary will count the votes.
>
>Considering that you are such a stickler for the "letter" of
>the Bylaws I am surprised you keep saying that the the
>Secretary is REQUIRED by the Bylaws to count the votes when
>he/she clearly is not.
>
>The way I read it, the secreary need not even open the
>envelopes to fulfill the letter of the Bylaws.

I say that based on the repeated EC determinations that this is *exactly* what this means.
I would also note, once again, that this was all pointed out many times in the past, and the people super-hot to change it couldn't be bothered to follow through.


Brett

godzilla · Oct 03, 2004 06:13 PM

#42 source
> I say that based on the repeated EC determinations that
>this is *exactly* what this means.
> I would also note, once again, that this was all pointed
>out many times in the past, and the people super-hot to
>change it couldn't be bothered to follow through.
>
>
> Brett

I know the EC has ASSIGNED the task of counting the votes to the Secretary.

I know there has been precidence to do this.

I also know it IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BYLAWS. To say that it is would be misleading or simply false. Also, to tell people that there is some obligation to use this procedure based on the fact that it is mandatory because it IS WRITTEN IN THE BYLAWS is false.

To use the Bylaws to argue not using a nuetral counter has no basis in actual fact.


The City Smasher

DennisM · Oct 04, 2004 01:43 AM

#44 source
You mean Brett's been fibben. Sounds as though the EC can decide on a neutral counter. Why wouldn't they?

D

peabody · Oct 04, 2004 06:29 AM

#45 source
Dennis:
Please don't go there....Brett and I may seem diametric to all, but we actually agree on about half of the issues that are presented, and I really respect his opinions on almost anything airmodeling, ranging from aircratf design (his is a mighty good one), to flying skill (I feel that he is underated, even with his 3rd place finish this year), to contributions to the betterment of PAMPA. I always read his stuff, and enjoy his articles and views.
I know that Brett is every bit as passionate about PAMPA and CLPA as anyone, myself included.
My conflicts with Brett have NEVER challanged his integrity....I would NEVER do that!

See Ya

Peabody

DennisM · Oct 04, 2004 11:11 AM

#46 source
Just joking around Rich. I enjoy reading Brett, do not in any way doubt his integrity. Wish he would write an article or two in Stunt News -- along with many others who've done a lot in the sport over the years.

The bylaws reminds me of reading legal briefs. Easy to zone out trying to figure out who gets what. Think it's the nature of the beast. In this case a close reading of the LAWS seems to indicate that the secretary collects the votes but does not need to be the person who counts and validates the election. In the future it would probably be a good idea for the secretary to turn the ballots over to an independent. Just good business. Sounds like there's an opening for a quick fix.

I apologize Brett for calling you a fibber. Merely tweaking.

Dennis

Dick Fowler · Oct 04, 2004 11:39 AM

#47 source
This whole thing is reminiscent of "hanging chad"!

Brett Buck · Oct 04, 2004 01:01 PM

#50 source
>Just joking around Rich. I enjoy reading Brett, do not in
>any way doubt his integrity. Wish he would write an article
>or two in Stunt News -- along with many others who've done a
>lot in the sport over the years.

Now that I am relieved of the crushing burden of District 10 leadership, maybe I can.


>The bylaws reminds me of reading legal briefs. Easy to zone
>out trying to figure out who gets what. Think it's the
>nature of the beast. In this case a close reading of the
>LAWS seems to indicate that the secretary collects the votes
>but does not need to be the person who counts and validates
>the election. In the future it would probably be a good idea
>for the secretary to turn the ballots over to an
>independent. Just good business. Sounds like there's an
>opening for a quick fix.

It's a lot more complex than you might think. Note well the difficulties of validating ballots - a far bigger problem than potential miscounting, in my mind. Not to mention having to send it to a different place than the membership renewal. If the secretary/treasurer receives the mail, he/she must open it and see of membership renewals or other PAMPA business is contained. It's not possible to tell whether it's a ballot, or something else, or both. If he/she is to open the mail to find out, any idea that we are eliminating the potential for tampering is lost. If we are not concerned about tampering, then why bother having an outside agency count the ballots?

Make no mistake, that's what we are talking about - the potential for tampering or altering the results of the PAMPA elections. Either you are concerned about tampering and thus require external agencies (implying a sort of "chain of evidence" control), or you are nor concerned with tampering, in which case what we currently do is fine.

If it's just for show, or making it "look better", then I vote to leave everything alone, since I don't think we ought to base the actions of the organization on conspiracy theories.

But that doesn't meant that there can't be a "fix" emplaced for the future. Several of us, Shareen, me, John Brodak, and several other trustees have had the opportunity to discuss the topic recently That it requires a bylaws change is accepted all around, I think. I beleive that John is working on a bylaws change proposal to clarify the whole issue, which is a wise move, and good leadership that provides an excellent example when it the next issue comes up.

Note that this will change it *independent* of "who", which is an unfortunate undercurrent in this entire situation going back 15 years or so.


>I apologize Brett for calling you a fibber. Merely tweaking.

Accepted - but that's quite a way to go about tweaking someone. I take honesty very seriously.

I really wish we could have discussions about issues, and not have it degenerate into playing gotcha games and snide commentary. I have gotten obviously irritated, but I really am trying to answer questions straight-up to the best of my knowledge, and I don't appreciate getting snide and wise-guy comments (or nastygrams - although my mail is running about 100:1 positive) as a result.

Besides, if anyone want to determine who is the biggest wise-guy, I can almost guarantee I can win that. too. Not that this is a challenge.

I also note once again, that all traffic between the trustees on these issue has been cordial, productive, and polite. Not necessarily without disagreement, of course. But people can disagree, even disagree passionately, without degenerating into a shouting match.

And - please, please, get the *facts* straight. Everyone has the right to their opinions, but not to their own facts.

Brett

DennisM · Oct 04, 2004 06:50 PM

#51 source
As long as a polite conversation is going on with the leadership over these issues, great. Sounds like progress is on the way.

Brett, I honestly believe the organization is going through a process of change due to its success and inclusion of a larger constituency. I don't see a divergence in aims much of the time. Rather a resistance of some to evolving. And an ignorance of the newly involved about the whys and wherefores of how things are done. Sometimes the evolution can be as simple as a clarification of process, a process understood by the familiar but a mystery to the new.

For the most part I'm sure we sport flyers and lower echelon competitors are fans and supporters of the most accomplished. Structures that suited a group that knew each other over years could probably use some tweaking (as I think you agree) now that the rest of us are more active and along for the ride.

We have not put in the sweat equity that serious competitors have and probably never will, but we can offer insights into what makes the hobby valuable to Joe and Jean Bellcrank. Any way you look at it, this is important to the future of Controline Stunt. Also, I don't see a dichotomy between those who ply the hobby on a given weekend in a local contest or fly strictly for fun and those who compete on the national and international level.

Dennis

Brett Buck · Oct 04, 2004 12:32 PM

#49 source
>Dennis:
>Please don't go there....Brett and I may seem diametric to
>all, but we actually agree on about half of the issues that
>are presented, and I really respect his opinions on almost
>anything airmodeling, ranging from aircratf design (his is a
>mighty good one), to flying skill (I feel that he is
>underated, even with his 3rd place finish this year), to
>contributions to the betterment of PAMPA. I always read his
>stuff, and enjoy his articles and views.
>I know that Brett is every bit as passionate about PAMPA and
>CLPA as anyone, myself included.
>My conflicts with Brett have NEVER challanged his
>integrity....I would NEVER do that!


Thanks, Rich, bear that in mind for the remainder of my term.

Brett

Baron · Oct 04, 2004 07:02 PM

#52 source
The EC is charged with determining POLICY, within the scope of by-law requirements. The EC has set a policy (repeatedly) of assigning the vote counting to Shareen. Therefore, the EC is acting EXACTLY within the scope of the by-laws. Same goes for the meeting. the prez is charged ONLY with following the directives of the EC. NO ONE directed him to make ANY changes in the EC meeting. By his own statement in his column, he saw no reason to have a meeting. It was obviously his desire to cancel the meeting. In that desire, yes, he overstepped his authority, which by definition, violates the by-laws. How could this be any clearer????? In another thread, it was stated that the EC did not have to follow his actions. True, but when confronted to this extent on such short notice, it is no wonder that a lot of confusion resulted. Something tells me that the EC will not act quite so passively next time. At least, I hope not. They, after all, are HIS BOSSES. Again, read the by-laws.

Craig Beskow

Serge Krauss · Oct 02, 2004 10:56 PM

#39 source
>As for the cancellation of the Executive Committee meeting at the NATS, it
>was not cancelled! It was opened for all PAMPA members to observe so that the democratic
>process could be seen and heard by all members present. Makes sense to me.

Where do you GET these ideas?? The meeting held was obviously NOT an E.C. meeting. E.C. meetings are, by definition, private meetings of the officers (the E.C.!) to plan for open meetings (items for agendas, feasibilities, etc.) and related courses of action. Business would not be transacted in any E.C. meeting held immediately prior to an open meeting, where debate could be heard. No organization with which I have ever been affiliated (several) would ever consider executive committee or executive board meetings to be open.

>Public bickering does not help any of us.

Generally true. What I recall from SN and SSWF though, indicates no public E.C. member reaction prior to airings in the President's SN and a related column. They should not be criticized for publicizing these issues. Am I wrong?

SK

Serge Krauss

OS32 · Oct 04, 2004 12:11 PM

#48 source

This thing is looking painfully familiar............
did any of you fine gentlemen star in the 1990's play called "White Water" staring Bill Clinton?

John Leidle