PAMPA bylaws--Some review

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 10:08 AM (CDT)
 
Some friends and I have had several discussions concerning PAMPA recently. You might have seen Doug's post concerning including more Nats, Team Trials, judging, membership, etc information in the Stunt News.

I have been told several things in concern to the functions of PAMPA. Many discussions have been on this forum concerning the same. Recently, there have been discussions that the new Prez had indeed, VIOLATED the Bylaws. So just for discussion I am including some review of the Bylaws as written.

1. "PAMPA's main function is to run the Nats and Team Trials".

Actually the Bylaws make no mention of the Nats or Team Trials except to say that the yearly trustee meeting will be held at the contest where the National Champion is determined.

Article I – Name and Purpose:
The name of the corporation shall be the Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots’ Association, Inc. The corporation shall be abbreviated hereinafter as PAMPA. The Purpose of the corporation shall be to promote and improve the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event.

Actually, the primary function of PAMPA is to "promote and improve".

2. "PAMPA represents the interests of competition fliers not sport fliers"

Actually, PAMPA represents the members (whoever pays the dues). There is no criteria in the Bylaws that members should fly competitively or even fly at all (or even model for that matter).

Article III – Members:
Active members shall be persons who are current in dues paid to PAMPA. Associate members may be such persons as may be designated by the Trustees. Membership is open to all nationalities.

PAMPA does represent the competitive fliers to the AMA however, which is a second function.

Article II – Affiliation: PAMPA is recognized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as the Special Interest Group (SIG) representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA) enthusiasts on a national and international basis.

In point of fact, since the majority of the trustees are elected by simple majority, it is possible that at some point not one single competitive flier could preside as a trustee.

Article IV – Trustees:
The Trustees shall be elected officers who include: President, Vice President,Secretary/Treasurer, Membership Secretary, and one District Director for each of the eleven AMA Districts.

3. "I thought PAMPA was the magazine".

In truth, the magazine publication is a primary function of PAMPA outlined in the bylaws.

Article V – Newsletter:
A periodic newsletter known as Stunt News shall be mailed to every active member as permitted by available funds. In no event shall any issue of the newsletter be mailed at any one time to less than all of the active members. The newsletter editor shall be appointed by a majority of the Trustees.

4. "John Brodak violated the bylaws by cancelling the EC meeting"

Per the Bylaws, it is NOT POSSIBLE for the Prez to cancel any trustee meetings. If the trustees want to have a meeting they can, they do not need the Prez present at all. If the Prez does not wish to attend, he is free to do so. John Brodak is misinforming his constituents when he announced in the newsletter that HE cancelled the follow up EC meeting. If the trustees accepted John's suggestion to cancell the meeting (which is all it really could be anyway) it was purely voluntary.

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.

Article VIII – Duties of Trustees:
The Trustees are responsible for establishing policy and objectives of the corporation.

5. "John Brodak is operating outside of the scope of his power by suggesting that competitions (such as the Nats) should be run by committee".

I see nothing in the Bylaws that say that the Nats should be run any particular way. I do, however, see that the Prez is empowered to appoint committees.

The President shall preside al all meetings and shall execute the policies established by the Trustees. He shall appoint committee members and chairmen as he deems appropriate.
The District Directors shall be responsible to provide counsel to the President, advise as to the opinions of constituent members, and carry out such responsibilities as may be assigned to them by the President.
The Trustees as a whole shall serve as a Rules Committee, the chairman to be appointed by the President. The trustees may also constitute the Precision Aerobatics Advisory Committee serving at the request of the chairman of the AMA Control Line Contest Board.

6. "The PAMPA bylaws require that the Secretary/Treasurer count the votes in PAMPA elections"

There is zero verbage in the bylaws to this fact. It appears that the Bylaws require that the ballots be collected by the Secretary. There is no procedural outline that REQUIRES that the Secretary count the votes. It has been stated that an amendment to the Bylaws would be required to allow an outside party to count the votes. As the article reads, no amendment would be required. If a trustee feels that the votes should be counted elsewhere, it could be brought to a vote of the trustees.

Article IX – Nominations and Elections:
Candidates....,skipping.... ballots. 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.

7. "THEY have more say than I have".

A nominee must receive a simple majority to be elected

Every trustee has an equal vote on all matters. YOU elect your trustees (except for the SN editor). Make sure to elect trustees that represent YOU if you want a voice.

Thanks for putting the time in to clarify the issues. Puts a light on quite a few things. Useful work there.

You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not written in stone? They are just an interpetation?

>You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not
>written in stone? They are just an interpetation?

You guys ask, I answered because I thought it was my duty to clear up the many misconceptions.

If you mean vote-counting, the interpretation was confirmed, and that it requires a bylaws modification to change, by a majority of responding EC members as recently as a couple of weeks ago. That's going to have to be good enough. Or do you want to follow trustee determinations only when they happen to follow your current whimsy, or come from you selected heros?

Like it or not, this is a representative democracy, and it's just not going to come out the way you want every time. Nor are random snide comments ( or nasty-grams sent out of the 4-stroke LISTSERV) going to change that.

> If you mean vote-counting, the interpretation was
>confirmed, and that it requires a bylaws modification to
>change, by a majority of responding EC members as recently
>as a couple of weeks ago.

How many responded?

Article VII – Official Business:
The Trustees shall determine official business to be considered at meetings or voted on by mail. All decisions on official business shall be made by publication of ballots in the newsletter and return mail of the same. A simple majority of responding active members is required for passage. Results of any mail ballot shall be reported in the next issue of the newsletter.

I do not understand the wording of the "all decisions on official business shall be made by publication of ballots in the newsletter and return mail of the same". Does that mean that EC votes must be published in SN? I can't find it in the SN.

Also, are you saying that an "interpretation" by the current EC will be handed down infinitum? It would not be possible now for the EC, say after the election (or subsequent elections) to resend this "interpretation"? How excatly is that covered in the Bylaws. I see no Bylaws Articles governing "handing down" decisions from a previous EC. How will this be handled?

>You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not
>written in stone? They are just an interpretation?

Frankly, I am not sure what the heck is going on, one way or another.

All I know is that several people (not just Brett) have used the Bylaws as the reason for particular actions or statements. In almost every case, the Bylaws do not directly support these actions.

There has been a lot of puffed up talk about John Brodak's actions in particular, and I see nothing in the Bylaws to show that he has acted inappropriately.

On the other side I see that the Bylaws have been sited as the reason the election procedure was not changed. I do know that it was mentioned in the meeting of the trustees more than once (secondhand of course).

One other thing I noticed from doing a little PAMPA research is that there is no Membership Secretary separate from the Secretary/Treasurer as Shareen holds both titles. I am not sure how this came to be, maybe no one simply wanted the job, but the Membership Secretary holds an important role outlined specifically in the Bylaws.

The Membership Secretary shall be responsible to foster increases in membership in PAMPA.

By holding duel titles one of the votes in the trustees is nullified (or does Shareen get two votes?). The Trustees are responsible for voting on everything including rules changes.

The Trustees as a whole shall serve as a Rules Committee, the chairman to be appointed by the President. The trustees may also constitute the Precision Aerobatics Advisory Committee serving at the request of the chairman of the AMA Control Line Contest Board.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 12:28 PM (CDT)
 
>>You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not
>>written in stone? They are just an interpretation?
>
>Frankly, I am not sure what the heck is going on, one way or
>another.
>
>All I know is that several people (not just Brett) have used
>the Bylaws as the reason for particular actions or
>statements. In almost every case, the Bylaws do not
>directly support these actions.

Of course, most of the quoted passages were not posted by me, nor any PAMPA official. The one that did appear to relate to something I said about vote-counting was indeed determined to mean exactly what I said it did, a few weeks ago, by an EC vote from the majority of responding members. Not to mention every time it came up for the last 20 years.

Sorry, nice try though.

>There has been a lot of puffed up talk about John Brodak's
>actions in particular, and I see nothing in the Bylaws to
>show that he has acted inappropriately.
>
>On the other side I see that the Bylaws have been sited as
>the reason the election procedure was not changed. I do
>know that it was mentioned in the meeting of the trustees
>more than once (secondhand of course).

See above. Plus, by "secondhand" I assume you mean "in the official meeting minutes". And I presume you are not suggesting that these minutes do not represent the activities, since that would imply that the recording secretary is lying, and the rest of the trustees present (who could correct the minutes with a single phone call) are covering up? And thus accusing the trustees of violating the law? I'm sure you don't mean that.

>One other thing I noticed from doing a little PAMPA research
>is that there is no Membership Secretary separate from the
>Secretary/Treasurer as Shareen holds both titles. I am not
>sure how this came to be, maybe no one simply wanted the
>job, but the Membership Secretary holds an important role
>outlined specifically in the Bylaws.
>
> The Membership Secretary shall be responsible to foster
>increases in membership in PAMPA.
>
>By holding duel titles one of the votes in the trustees is
>nullified (or does Shareen get two votes?). The Trustees
>are responsible for voting on everything including rules
>changes.

Good research job. Now read this slowly:

Shareen Fancher is the Secretary/Treasurer.

Jim Renkar is the Membership secretary (having been appointed to fill Mike Keville's vacated position)

The ballot you presumably filled out had that information on it, not to mention every single Stunt News (once again, right *below* the Articles of formation mentioned in the other post.

p.s. I also note that we do have a vacated position - VP - that does indeed result in a trustee vote being "nullified" (actually not existing). Note that "a quorum is not required", so this is no particular problem. And no, before you get all excited, that doesn't mean that a vote of *one trustee* represents a "quorum"

> The Trustees as a whole shall serve as a Rules
>Committee, the chairman to be appointed by the President.
>The trustees may also constitute the Precision Aerobatics
>Advisory Committee serving at the request of the chairman of
>the AMA Control Line Contest Board.

And this is quoted for some reason? This arrangement is intact. The "rules committee" formed by the trustees is in direct charge of the PAMPA rules. In fact, I get to vote on Jim Thomersons "5 point diesel bonus" for OTS.

As far as the relationship of the Trustees to the CLPA contest board. Frank formed a competition committee to act in this area, and this is also intact. In fact Gary McClellan is in charge of both this committee, and the CLPA contest board. If this advisory committee were disbanded, it would return to the trustees. And it would still remain as an advisory committee, whose input is only one of many that may be considered.

I don't see anything that remotely relates to any current issue in this situation.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 01:15 PM (CDT)
 
>>>You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not
>>>written in stone? They are just an interpretation?
> Of course, most of the quoted passages were not posted by
>me, nor any PAMPA official. The one that did appear to
>relate to something I said about vote-counting was indeed
>determined to mean exactly what I said it did, a few weeks
>ago, by an EC vote from the majority of responding members.
>Not to mention every time it came up for the last 20 years.

How many times was that? Once, twice?

> Sorry, nice try though.

I never said any "PAMPA official" said anything (except for you of course, you get more time at the podium than anyone on the EC). These were some of the issues ***my friends and I*** were discussing at a contest in Dallas.

> See above. Plus, by "secondhand" I assume you mean "in
>the official meeting minutes". And I presume you are not
>suggesting that these minutes do not represent the
>activities, since that would imply that the recording
>secretary is lying, and the rest of the trustees present
>(who could correct the minutes with a single phone call) are
>covering up? And thus accusing the trustees of violating the
>law? I'm sure you don't mean that.

No, in fact, that is not what I meant. Take a friggin pill already!!!

>Good research job. Now read this slowly:
>
> Shareen Fancher is the Secretary/Treasurer.
>
>Jim Renkar is the Membership secretary (having been
>appointed to fill Mike Keville's vacated position)

Ahhh yes. Apparently the PAMPA WEBSITE is wrong, as it clearly shows Shareen holding both titles. No offense meant to anyone. In fact, I thought it would be perfectly reasonable that Shareen could hold duel titles, as she seems to be one of the hardest working volunteers.

It was just something I noticed, I did not do any *research*.

Do you just assume everyone who makes mistakes is simply stupid? Must be nice to be you...

>>>>You mean that all the things that Brett has told us are not
>>>>written in stone? They are just an interpretation?
>> Of course, most of the quoted passages were not posted by
>>me, nor any PAMPA official. The one that did appear to
>>relate to something I said about vote-counting was indeed
>>determined to mean exactly what I said it did, a few weeks
>>ago, by an EC vote from the majority of responding members.
>>Not to mention every time it came up for the last 20 years.
>
>How many times was that? Once, twice?

Not that any answer >1 matters, but I would guess, 5 or 6. Ask Mr. Peabody, I believe he has been the initiator of the last 3, at least.

Note that this WAS directly addressed to me.

>> See above. Plus, by "secondhand" I assume you mean "in
>>the official meeting minutes". And I presume you are not
>>suggesting that these minutes do not represent the
>>activities, since that would imply that the recording
>>secretary is lying, and the rest of the trustees present
>>(who could correct the minutes with a single phone call) are
>>covering up? And thus accusing the trustees of violating the
>>law? I'm sure you don't mean that.
>
>No, in fact, that is not what I meant. Take a friggin pill
>already!!!

Listen, I know that it's all fun and everything. But THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL TO ME and others and your "gotcha" treatment of the entire issue doesn't seem to serve a very productive purpose. Just my opinion of course - or is hoping for rational and civil discourse based on facts still the equivalent of "netcop"?

>
>>Good research job. Now read this slowly:
>>
>> Shareen Fancher is the Secretary/Treasurer.
>>
>>Jim Renkar is the Membership secretary (having been
>>appointed to fill Mike Keville's vacated position)
>
>Ahhh yes. Apparently the PAMPA WEBSITE is wrong, as it
>clearly shows Shareen holding both titles. No offense meant
>to anyone. In fact, I thought it would be perfectly
>reasonable that Shareen could hold duel titles, as she seems
>to be one of the hardest working volunteers.
>
>It was just something I noticed, I did not do any
>*research*.
>

No - but I know for a fact that had papers (actually, a single paper, which you put your name on) in your hand in the last 30 days that effectively laid out the exactly what the situation was.

I'll make sure Steve Y. notes the change for the website.

I get very, very tired of having to argue the *facts* of the situation. Particularly when they have been in black and white every other month for the last 6-7 years, including your ballot from about two weeks ago. There can't be rational discussion of facts in error.

If there are facts incorrectly represented, then I have a perfect right to post corrections. It's all written down and documentable if you take the time.

As an aside - of course, the need for or value of a separate membership secretary (without demeaning or denigrating the efforts of Pyatt/Keville/Renkar in any way) is an arguable matter. That's completely separate from the issue of who it currently is. It appeared in the first bylaws as somewhat of a surprise to me but wasn't enough to make me challenge it. That's a separate thread.

> Listen, I know that it's all fun and everything. But THIS
>IS A VERY BIG DEAL TO ME and others and your "gotcha"
>treatment of the entire issue doesn't seem to serve a very
>productive purpose. Just my opinion of course - or is hoping
>for rational and civil discourse based on facts still the
>equivalent of "netcop"?

I have as much right as YOU OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF PAMPA to discuss the recent events. I have tried to address some of the questions that came up *among my circle of friends* and some that have appeared on this forum by going straight to the source, the document onwhich the organization PAMPA is based on.

I addressed you persoanlly in regards to the Article in question, because you were the one who sited the Bylaws specifically on this forum.

Who is not being civil? When every word in your replies are laced with disdane? So far you have allied me with everyone from Bob Baron to Rich Peabody (that covers about a decade). Maybe you have lost the ability to look at people at face value. Too much water under the bridge.

Regardless of what you might think Brett, this thread was not started for YOU or to attack anyone. I had no intention of ARGUING with you or anyone else.

I also notice you have backpedalled ZERO. I admit when I am wrong. I notice you never do.

As far as whether this is serious business to YOU and ONLY YOU and OTHERS seems to reflect the focal length of your myopia. I take these issues very seriously. So far, I have heard one pilot suggest he would call for a split of PAMPA. Can you imagine how unacceptable this is to me and my friends? That's all we need, A NEW SIG RUNNING THE NATS!

All in all though, your replies are no real shock. I have tried more than once to find out how PAMPA works. More than once on this site. Each time I was met with accusitions of different sorts (pot stirrer, spreader of BS, etc). I even made a few phone calls which yielded zero.

I read the BYlaws and applied them to several points, that is all I have done.

>
>> Listen, I know that it's all fun and everything. But THIS
>>IS A VERY BIG DEAL TO ME and others and your "gotcha"
>>treatment of the entire issue doesn't seem to serve a very
>>productive purpose. Just my opinion of course - or is hoping
>>for rational and civil discourse based on facts still the
>>equivalent of "netcop"?
>
>I have as much right as YOU OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF PAMPA to
>discuss the recent events. I have tried to address some of
>the questions that came up *among my circle of friends* and
>some that have appeared on this forum by going straight to
>the source, the document onwhich the organization PAMPA is
>based on.
>
>I addressed you persoanlly in regards to the Article in
>question, because you were the one who sited the Bylaws
>specifically on this forum.
>
>Who is not being civil? When every word in your replies are
>laced with disdane? So far you have allied me with everyone
>from Bob Baron to Rich Peabody (that covers about a decade).
> Maybe you have lost the ability to look at people at face
>value. Too much water under the bridge.
>
>Regardless of what you might think Brett, this thread was
>not started for YOU or to attack anyone. I had no intention
>of ARGUING with you or anyone else.
>
>I also notice you have backpedalled ZERO. I admit when I am
>wrong. I notice you never do.
>
>As far as whether this is serious business to YOU and ONLY
>YOU and OTHERS seems to reflect the focal length of your
>myopia. I take these issues very seriously. So far, I have
>heard one pilot suggest he would call for a split of PAMPA.
>Can you imagine how unacceptable this is to me and my
>friends? That's all we need, A NEW SIG RUNNING THE NATS!
>
>All in all though, your replies are no real shock. I have
>tried more than once to find out how PAMPA works. More than
>once on this site. Each time I was met with accusitions of
>different sorts (pot stirrer, spreader of BS, etc). I even
>made a few phone calls which yielded zero.
>
>I read the BYlaws and applied them to several points, that
>is all I have done.

Are the Articles of incorperation the same as the by laws? I am in a motorcycle club and there not. SO if not you need to look up the PAMPA charter and see. Just a thought.

>Are the Articles of incorperation the same as the by laws? I
>am in a motorcycle club and there not. SO if not you need to
>look up the PAMPA charter and see. Just a thought.

Where is the PAMPA charter? It is not on the website.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 04:02 PM (CDT)
 
They are in the state records where it was incorperated.

How do you incorporate a national orginazation? DOC

All corporations that I have seen are incorporated in some individual state, even though they may operate on a national or international basis. I'm sure you've seen many incorporated in Delaware, especially for-profit ones, due to the various advantages given under Delaware law.

>All corporations that I have seen are incorporated in some
>individual state, even though they may operate on a national
>or international basis. I'm sure you've seen many
>incorporated in Delaware, especially for-profit ones, due to
>the various advantages given under Delaware law.

That one, I don't know. Shareen or Tom Hampshire certainly would.

>Who is not being civil? When every word in your replies are
>laced with disdane? So far you have allied me with everyone
>from Bob Baron to Rich Peabody (that covers about a decade).
> Maybe you have lost the ability to look at people at face
>value. Too much water under the bridge.
>
>Regardless of what you might think Brett, this thread was
>not started for YOU or to attack anyone. I had no intention
>of ARGUING with you or anyone else.

Every single point was an attempt at a "gotcha" or "A Ha!" for someone or something. Or a mistatement or misunderstanding.
That's why I tend to view it with disdain. But I am still answering.

>I also notice you have backpedalled ZERO. I admit when I am
>wrong. I notice you never do.

I have admitted this when it is true.

>>Regardless of what you might think Brett, this thread was
>>not started for YOU or to attack anyone. I had no intention
>>of ARGUING with you or anyone else.
>
> Every single point was an attempt at a "gotcha" or "A
>Ha!" for someone or something. Or a mistatement or
>misunderstanding.

Actually it was an explanation (I had hoped) some misstatements and misunderstandings. That was exactly it.

The "gotcha" is only in your head. As far as I was concerned you had misspoke. The other points had nothing to do with you or "gotcha-ing".

The points I addressed came from Doug Moon, Craig Beskow, Mike Scott, yourself, and I believe Tom McClain. They are all very real views and concerns, and come from both camps on the issues.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 03:18 PM (CDT)
 
>Some friends and I have had several discussions concerning
>PAMPA recently. You might have seen Doug's post concerning
>including more Nats, Team Trials, judging, membership, etc
>information in the Stunt News.
>
>I have been told several things in concern to the functions
>of PAMPA. Many discussions have been on this forum
>concerning the same. Recently, there have been discussions
>that the new Prez had indeed, VIOLATED the Bylaws. So just
>for discussion I am including some review of the Bylaws as
>written.

Replace "discussion" with "rancorous debate that will continue flogging a dead horse", and you are correct.

>
>1. "PAMPA's main function is to run the Nats and Team
>Trials".
>
>Actually the Bylaws make no mention of the Nats or Team
>Trials except to say that the yearly trustee meeting will be
>held at the contest where the National Champion is
>determined.

Correct. The Articles of formation, not the bylaws, state this purpose. These are printed in every SN. In the latest issue it's on page 126.

> Article I – Name and Purpose:
>The name of the corporation shall be the Precision
>Aerobatics Model Pilots’ Association, Inc. The corporation
>shall be abbreviated hereinafter as PAMPA. The Purpose of
>the corporation shall be to promote and improve the Control
>Line Precision Aerobatics event.
>
>Actually, the primary function of PAMPA is to "promote and
>improve".

The "Control Line Precision Aerobatics Event", i.e. CPLA, AMA Events 32X.

>2. "PAMPA represents the interests of competition fliers
>not sport fliers"
>
>Actually, PAMPA represents the members (whoever pays the
>dues). There is no criteria in the Bylaws that members
>should fly competitively or even fly at all (or even model
>for that matter).

Correct - to the extent listed above. We're not charged, for instance, with promoting and inproving C/L Carrier, RTP flying, etc.

And of course, no one has really said your point #2 above in any official way. Much to the contrary, in fact.

> Article III – Members:
>Active members shall be persons who are current in dues paid
>to PAMPA. Associate members may be such persons as may be
>designated by the Trustees. Membership is open to all
>nationalities.
>
>PAMPA does represent the competitive fliers to the AMA
>however, which is a second function.
>
> Article II – Affiliation: PAMPA is recognized by the
>Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as the Special Interest
>Group (SIG) representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics
>(CLPA) enthusiasts on a national and international basis.
>
>
>In point of fact, since the majority of the trustees are
>elected by simple majority, it is possible that at some
>point not one single competitive flier could preside as a
>trustee.

Correct. Whether that serves the goals of the organization, or not, is dependent not on *who*, but *what they do*. "Who" it is doesn't change the purpose of the organization.

> Article IV – Trustees:
>The Trustees shall be elected officers who include:
>President, Vice President,Secretary/Treasurer, Membership
>Secretary, and one District Director for each of the eleven
>AMA Districts.
>
>3. "I thought PAMPA was the magazine".
>
>In truth, the magazine publication is a primary function of
>PAMPA outlined in the bylaws.

Once again, correct, for the majority of the membership. I defy anyone to say it's not a valuable member benefit that is not only good, but fantastic.

>
> Article V – Newsletter:
>A periodic newsletter known as Stunt News shall be mailed to
>every active member as permitted by available funds. In no
>event shall any issue of the newsletter be mailed at any one
>time to less than all of the active members. The newsletter
>editor shall be appointed by a majority of the Trustees.
>
>
>4. "John Brodak violated the bylaws by cancelling the EC
>meeting"
>
>Per the Bylaws, it is NOT POSSIBLE for the Prez to cancel
>any trustee meetings. If the trustees want to have a
>meeting they can, they do not need the Prez present at all.
>If the Prez does not wish to attend, he is free to do so.
>John Brodak is misinforming his constituents when he
>announced in the newsletter that HE cancelled the follow up
>EC meeting. If the trustees accepted John's suggestion to
>cancell the meeting (which is all it really could be anyway)
>it was purely voluntary.

Wrong. No bylaws were violated by not having an EC meeting, per se (and I even agreed that this was the case, at the business meeting). And that's not the point of contention, at least not in the open letter.

As far as the "opposing position" goes, I can't exactly tell whether the claim, as of Oct 4, 9:14 AM, is that there was no EC meeting, there was an EC meeting held "open", there was an EC meeting but it didn't count because it was a mob scene (ironically the result of using the AMA boardroom vice roon at Signature- where no one ever had much problem hearing what was going on), or what. Seems to change too quickly. I prefer John's consistent intepretation that no such meeting occurred.

>
> 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.
>
>Article VIII – Duties of Trustees:
>The Trustees are responsible for establishing policy and
>objectives of the corporation.

Bingo! The Trustees - or as referred to in the Gang of 14 letter, an "electoral college" of representatives. Not the president in unilateral actions, nor direct membership vote on every issue. That's *legally binding* on the trustees.

Your representation is your District Director. It's his/her job to ensure your issues get a hearing.

The EC meeting was cancelled *without* trustee input. We discussed the merits of this one way or the other at the PAMPA business meeting. That IS a point of contention - not that we are required to have a meeting, but that we are required to operate on *trustee input*.

>5. "John Brodak is operating outside of the scope of his
>power by suggesting that competitions (such as the Nats)
>should be run by committee".
>
>I see nothing in the Bylaws that say that the Nats should be
>run any particular way. I do, however, see that the Prez is
>empowered to appoint committees.

This is moot, as John, or any other AMA member can make all the suggestions they want as to how the NATs are run. That doesn't mean that the AMA is bound in any way to listen or care about the suggestion. They are in *no way* required to follow SIG suggestions, although they frequently rely on this to decide who they want as ED. I guarantee there are poeple in PAMPA who they would reject out of hand as a suggested NATs ED. This has been confirmed many time over the years - for instance, the year a noted PAMPA critic went directly to the AMA and "volunteered" to run the NATs that year. They do appreciate SIG help, and it's a primary function of PAMPA to ensure that competitors have a say in the way the competition runs. But they can easily just decide who they want.

Fortunately, Warren has been asked by the AMA to run the NATs for as long as he wants, and that pretty much closes the issue indefinitely in any case.

> The President shall preside al all meetings and shall
>execute the policies established by the Trustees. He shall
>appoint committee members and chairmen as he deems
>appropriate.
>The District Directors shall be responsible to provide
>counsel to the President, advise as to the opinions of
>constituent members, and carry out such responsibilities as
>may be assigned to them by the President.
>The Trustees as a whole shall serve as a Rules Committee,
>the chairman to be appointed by the President. The trustees
>may also constitute the Precision Aerobatics Advisory
>Committee serving at the request of the chairman of the AMA
>Control Line Contest Board.
>
>6. "The PAMPA bylaws require that the Secretary/Treasurer
>count the votes in PAMPA elections"
>
>There is zero verbage in the bylaws to this fact. It
>appears that the Bylaws require that the ballots be
>collected by the Secretary. There is no procedural outline
>that REQUIRES that the Secretary count the votes. It has
>been stated that an amendment to the Bylaws would be
>required to allow an outside party to count the votes. As
>the article reads, no amendment would be required. If a
>trustee feels that the votes should be counted elsewhere, it
>could be brought to a vote of the trustees.

Correct, The interpretation of this as meaning "secretary counts the votes" is an EC determination with probably 20 years of precedent, and predating incorporation.

This was confirmed by the majority of responding trustees (*no quorum shall be required...") as recently as a few weeks ago. Including this years Pampa Business meeting, last year's PAMPA EC meeting, 2001 PAMPA EC meeting, and on and on.

Several trustees have suggested that they are in the process of developing a bylaws change to clarify and define this area. That's the way to proceed forward.

>
> Article IX – Nominations and Elections:
>Candidates....,skipping.... ballots. 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.
>
>
>7. "THEY have more say than I have".
>
> A nominee must receive a simple majority to be elected
>
>
>Every trustee has an equal vote on all matters. YOU elect
>your trustees (except for the SN editor). Make sure to
>elect trustees that represent YOU if you want a voice.

Once again, correct. Everyone gets a say, any notion, suggestion, etc. to the effect that competition fliers have more input to PAMPA business than sport fliers is simply incorrect. That's been proposed in some of the "split" talk, but that's generally so far over the edge as far as any current problem goes that it's not worth a lot of thought. It certainly has nothing to do with PAMPA as currently contituted. Everybody* has an EC representative, and thus they get an input.

Every member *does not* have equal representation. The EC is divided by district, and the membership of each district is not remotely equal. I never bothered looking it up, but some districts have maybe 20-30 members, and District 10 has something like 10 times that. District 8 has very large numbers of members, as well. I'd have to go check, but I would guess that District 8 and 10 are roughly 35% of the entire PAMPA membership. Yet they get only 13% of the EC members.

The representation is thus *grossly disproportionate* in it's skew in favor of the smaller districts. Which, as an aside, and to no one's surprise, is also grossly misrepresented in the Gang of 14 letter.

Each trustee does have an equal vote, but it's not exactly true that every member is equally represented. I don't think this is a problem requiring a solution. But note well that any move towards "member direct vote" might not work out the way those proposing it might expect!

Now, can we please move on to, at least, flogging horses that are *still alive".

Brett

* oops, forgot the footnote. Foreign members to not have an explicit representative. I proposed an "at large" representative somewhere around 99 but it was not accepted. I offered at the time, in leiu of an real representative, to act as an access point for that. I have gotten a few things from foreign members since then, but they haven't required any more than information.

I still think it's a good idea, BTW.

Now that I haave read all the preceding threads, lets really give Warren his do. I will personally than him for work done in person if the CRS doesn't take over the next time I see him. Has anybody ever done a better job? Later, DOC

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-04 AT 01:08 PM (CDT)
 
> Now, can we please move on to, at least, flogging horses
>that are *still alive".
>
> Brett

*NO*.

This thread was not for you Brett, let some of the other kids talk. I am sure you know the Bylaws pretty well...and whether you believe it or not I did this research for MYSELF because I felt it was warranted. I thought you would be happy that I am reviewing the Bylaws.

I also get the impression that you are aligning me with others, that would be your mistake (thats OK though, as you seem to only see these issues in two colors).

This thread was simply meant to show the Bylaws and how they related to some of the minutia that has been flying around.

As to whether I was *wrong* about whether the Prez can cancel any EC meetings, there is no way I am ****WRONG****. The Prez does not call these meetings, so he cannot cancel them. The Prez is just one representative of the EC, and he simply presides over these meetings. If the trustees went along with Mr. Brodak when they felt they should not have, maybe they should themselves review the Bylaws, because Mr. Brodak was in error and should have been corrected right on the spot. If any of the EC wanted to have meetings, no matter how few attended they certainly could have (and probably did) as no quorum is required. Even though some kind of minutes should have been made public.

Nothing stopped anyone in the EC from saying "Bye" to Mr. Brodak, closing the doors and having their meeting. If he did not like it, tough, it is not his personal meeting.

OTHER PEOPLE (not you Brett) said Mr. Brodak violated the Bylaws. We agree this is incorrect.

As to the interpretation of the "who counts the votes" that is fine with me---but it is JUST THAT an interpretation. However, originally you pretty much stated on this forum that the Bylaws DICTATED that the Secretary counts the votes, which it clearly does not, and it would take an amendment to the Bylaws to change the procedure. Now you are saying that there is action being taken to change the Bylaws so they clearly state the current procedure?

So, in actuality it appears that the only changes required in the Bylaws are to ensure that the current system CONTINUES, not the other way around.

>> Now, can we please move on to, at least, flogging horses
>>that are *still alive".
>>
>> Brett
>
>*NO*.
>
>This thread was not for you Brett, let some of the other
>kids talk. I am sure you know the Bylaws pretty well...and
>whether you believe it or not I did this research for MYSELF
>because I felt it was warranted. I thought you would be
>happy that I am reviewing the Bylaws.

I am glad - and for the most part, you got it right. I think there was some "slanting" and misquoting going on, which I rebutted.

>I also get the impression that you are aligning me with
>others, that would be your mistake (thats OK though, as you
>seem to only see these issues in two colors).

I assume this is a joke - I haven't ever given the slightest credence to the obvious "camp" mentality at work here.

>This thread was simply meant to show the Bylaws and how they
>related to some of the minutia that has been flying around.
>
>As to whether I was *wrong* about whether the Prez can
>cancel any EC meetings, there is no way I am ****WRONG****.
>The Prez does not call these meetings, so he cannot cancel
>them. The Prez is just one representative of the EC, and he
>simply presides over these meetings. If the trustees went
>along with Mr. Brodak when they felt they should not have,
>maybe they should themselves review the Bylaws, because Mr.
>Brodak was in error and should have been corrected right on
>the spot. If any of the EC wanted to have meetings, no
>matter how few attended they certainly could have (and
>probably did) as no quorum is required. Even though some
>kind of minutes should have been made public.
>
>Nothing stopped anyone in the EC from saying "Bye" to Mr.
>Brodak, closing the doors and having their meeting. If he
>did not like it, tough, it is not his personal meeting.
>
>OTHER PEOPLE (not you Brett) said Mr. Brodak violated the
>Bylaws. We agree this is incorrect.

Not by "cancelling" the EC meeting. Your are correct that it doesn't require the president's permission to have a meeting, or do anything else. In fact, the presidents duties are to act as directed by the EC. For instance, the Warren Plaque was approved by the EC and John was directed to make sure it happened. The issue of the vote (or not) appears to have been clarified adequately.

I don't want to overstate the actuality of the problem, but I think I can feel on safe ground when I say that one concern is that there is not a fully interactive process going on in the EC - instead it's being done, in some cases, by "edict". Clearly that's what the "Gang of 14" letter celebrates, and what I think Ted's campaign letter expresses concern over. There hasn't been a lot of this done officially - but it's not zero, either.

>As to the interpretation of the "who counts the votes" that
>is fine with me---but it is JUST THAT an interpretation.
>However, originally you pretty much stated on this forum
>that the Bylaws DICTATED that the Secretary counts the
>votes, which it clearly does not, and it would take an
>amendment to the Bylaws to change the procedure. Now you
>are saying that there is action being taken to change the
>Bylaws so they clearly state the current procedure?

No, a change so the bylaws clearly state whatever procedure we are going to use. I believe the proposal will include an external agency to handle and count the votes. There is an ambiguity in the current bylaws, which has been clarified by EC decisions. Any change would need to include sufficient clarity to make clarifications moot.

In any case, external vote counting or not, I think it might be a good idea to spell this out, if nothing else to end discussions like this.

>So, in actuality it appears that the only changes required
>in the Bylaws are to ensure that the current system
>CONTINUES, not the other way around.

No, see above.

OK, Brett you got me.

Where was I wrong after all?

Now you are saying that there is a Proposal in the works to change the Bylaws to include a neutral vote count? This was being done because the BYLAWS WERE AMBIGUOUS?

I am so tired of this.

"I am so tired of this."

A lot of the readers here are with you on that one, G. However, I notice that your fatigue did not prevent your revisiting the subject once again!

Paul

>"I am so tired of this."
>
>A lot of the readers here are with you on that one, G.
>However, I notice that your fatigue did not prevent your
>revisiting the subject once again!
>
>
>
>Paul

What subject is that? The Bylaws? I am not sure I have ever seen a post specifically addressing the Bylaws. I know I have seen a lot of people on this forum post in regards to not understanding or being privy to the Bylaws. Before the Internet I could not have told you where to find them.

I re-read the original starting post 5-6 times. There is no attack stance in it. No sarcasm, no sly comments. Just my interpretation of the letter of the Bylaws.

Someone else flipped the thread, not me.

>OK, Brett you got me.
>
>Where was I wrong after all?
>
>Now you are saying that there is a Proposal in the works to
>change the Bylaws to include a neutral vote count? This was
>being done because the BYLAWS WERE AMBIGUOUS?

The bylaws are not entirely clear in and of themselves. They were clarified by previous EC action and this is still in effect. It all in the records.

The change is that so the next time this comes up, it doesn't require any more than the 2 seconds of research that seems to the be the limit of most people's interest.

>I am so tired of this.

Not tired enough, apparently.

Well, you aren't the only one. Trying to answer/correct various tortured attempts to interpret things to the desired end result is, apparently, a full-time job.

I repeat, this "problem" could have been solved years ago when first uncovered with 5 minutes of work on the part of the proposers.

>>1. "PAMPA's main function is to run the Nats and Team
>>Trials".
>>
>>Actually the Bylaws make no mention of the Nats or Team
>>Trials except to say that the yearly trustee meeting will be
>>held at the contest where the National Champion is
>>determined.
>
> Correct. The Articles of formation, not the bylaws, state
>this purpose. These are printed in every SN. In the latest
>issue it's on page 126.

Yes, I saw that little blurb in the back of the SN years ago.

What are the Articles of Formation? When were they written? Were they written at the same time as the Bylaws? The Bylaws make no mention of these Articles.

I was simply responding the statement that PAMPA's main function was to oversee the Nats and Team trials. Clearly this is not PAMPA's "main function" from what I read. It is a secondary function at best.

>>But note well that any move towards "member direct vote" might not work out the way those proposing it might expect!<<

And history tends to bear this out. Direct democracies are seldom effective and often quite destructive. PAMPA, I'm happy to say, is a representitive democracy.

As has been happening with increasing frequency, Godzilla has been letting his Eddy Haskell inner self out to play more and more.

>As has been happening with increasing frequency, Godzilla
>has been letting his Eddy Haskell inner self out to play
>more and more.
>
>Dan

I know your input is always appreciated. I know your views have always born fruit.

As much as it pains me, got to go with the dirt on this, You just keep going on & on & on.

>As has been happening with increasing frequency, Godzilla
>has been letting his Eddy Haskell inner self out to play
>more and more.
>
>Dan

Coming from you Dirty Dan, that statement is hilarious!

>>As has been happening with increasing frequency, Godzilla
>>has been letting his Eddy Haskell inner self out to play
>>more and more.
>>
>>Dan
>
>
>Coming from you Dirty Dan, that statement is hilarious!

That does entail a certain irony.

Dan,

I seem to remember a pot and kettle analogy.....

Children, I believe it is now time to go to bed!
All the points, counterpoints, and clarifications, etc., have been stated.
It's gettting very boring.
What about toy airplanes?
Bill <><

I thought Leonard N put a stop to this stuff. DOC

Ok, my name was mentioned, so I gotta weigh in on this...again.

>Some friends and I have had several discussions concerning
>PAMPA recently. You might have seen Doug's post concerning
>including more Nats, Team Trials, judging, membership, etc
>information in the Stunt News.
>
>I have been told several things in concern to the functions
>of PAMPA. Many discussions have been on this forum
>concerning the same. Recently, there have been discussions
>that the new Prez had indeed, VIOLATED the Bylaws. So just
>for discussion I am including some review of the Bylaws as
>written.
>
>1. "PAMPA's main function is to run the Nats and Team
>Trials".
>
>Actually the Bylaws make no mention of the Nats or Team
>Trials except to say that the yearly trustee meeting will be
>held at the contest where the National Champion is
>determined.
>
> Article I – Name and Purpose:
>The name of the corporation shall be the Precision
>Aerobatics Model Pilots’ Association, Inc. The corporation
>shall be abbreviated hereinafter as PAMPA. The Purpose of
>the corporation shall be to promote and improve the Control
>Line Precision Aerobatics event.
>
>Actually, the primary function of PAMPA is to "promote and
>improve".

You can't stop in mid-sentence. Promote and improve WHAT? THE CONTROL LINE PRECISION AEROBATICS EVENT. Whether it be the Nats, Team Trials, or local contests.

>2. "PAMPA represents the interests of competition fliers
>not sport fliers"
>
>Actually, PAMPA represents the members (whoever pays the
>dues). There is no criteria in the Bylaws that members
>should fly competitively or even fly at all (or even model
>for that matter).
>

True, but remember the defined purpose of the organization.

> Article III – Members:
>Active members shall be persons who are current in dues paid
>to PAMPA. Associate members may be such persons as may be
>designated by the Trustees. Membership is open to all
>nationalities.
>
>PAMPA does represent the competitive fliers to the AMA
>however, which is a second function.

I struggle with this statement somewhat, given the stated purpose of the organization. I think you would have to raise this to a primary level, even though membership is open to all. It's kind of like joining the Sheriffs Association. It doesn't change the purpose of the sherrif, just because a whole lot of non-law enforcement people join.

> Article II – Affiliation: PAMPA is recognized by the
>Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as the Special Interest
>Group (SIG) representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics
>(CLPA) enthusiasts on a national and international basis.
>
>
>In point of fact, since the majority of the trustees are
>elected by simple majority, it is possible that at some
>point not one single competitive flier could preside as a
>trustee.

True, but it doesn't seem to happen that way. Go figure. I guess the competitive flyers are more deeply bitten by the CL bug.

> Article IV – Trustees:
>The Trustees shall be elected officers who include:
>President, Vice President,Secretary/Treasurer, Membership
>Secretary, and one District Director for each of the eleven
>AMA Districts.
>
>3. "I thought PAMPA was the magazine".
>
>In truth, the magazine publication is a primary function of
>PAMPA outlined in the bylaws.

> Article V – Newsletter:
>A periodic newsletter known as Stunt News shall be mailed to
>every active member as permitted by available funds. In no
>event shall any issue of the newsletter be mailed at any one
>time to less than all of the active members. The newsletter
>editor shall be appointed by a majority of the Trustees.
>

Kinda hard to call it a "newsletter" any longer. Given its content, I think we serve the sport flyers through it MUCH more than we serve the competitive flyers.

>4. "John Brodak violated the bylaws by cancelling the EC
>meeting"
>
>Per the Bylaws, it is NOT POSSIBLE for the Prez to cancel
>any trustee meetings. If the trustees want to have a
>meeting they can, they do not need the Prez present at all.
>If the Prez does not wish to attend, he is free to do so.
>John Brodak is misinforming his constituents when he
>announced in the newsletter that HE cancelled the follow up
>EC meeting. If the trustees accepted John's suggestion to
>cancell the meeting (which is all it really could be anyway)
>it was purely voluntary.

The EC is charged with determining POLICY, within the scope of by-law requirements. The EC has set a policy (repeatedly) of having the meeting that John by his own words chose to cancel. 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????? Yes, it is true that the EC did not have to follow his actions. 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.

> 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.
>
>Article VIII – Duties of Trustees:
>The Trustees are responsible for establishing policy and
>objectives of the corporation.
>
>5. "John Brodak is operating outside of the scope of his
>power by suggesting that competitions (such as the Nats)
>should be run by committee".
>
>I see nothing in the Bylaws that say that the Nats should be
>run any particular way. I do, however, see that the Prez is
>empowered to appoint committees.

Agreed. He can make that suggestion in the form of a motion to the EC, just like any other Trustee. Then they can vote on it.

> The President shall preside al all meetings and shall
>execute the policies established by the Trustees. He shall
>appoint committee members and chairmen as he deems
>appropriate.
>The District Directors shall be responsible to provide
>counsel to the President, advise as to the opinions of
>constituent members, and carry out such responsibilities as
>may be assigned to them by the President.
>The Trustees as a whole shall serve as a Rules Committee,
>the chairman to be appointed by the President. The trustees
>may also constitute the Precision Aerobatics Advisory
>Committee serving at the request of the chairman of the AMA
>Control Line Contest Board.
>
>6. "The PAMPA bylaws require that the Secretary/Treasurer
>count the votes in PAMPA elections"
>
>There is zero verbage in the bylaws to this fact. It
>appears that the Bylaws require that the ballots be
>collected by the Secretary. There is no procedural outline
>that REQUIRES that the Secretary count the votes. It has
>been stated that an amendment to the Bylaws would be
>required to allow an outside party to count the votes. As
>the article reads, no amendment would be required. If a
>trustee feels that the votes should be counted elsewhere, it
>could be brought to a vote of the trustees.

Absolutely. And I understand per earlier posts that it has been. Repeatedly.

> Article IX – Nominations and Elections:
>Candidates....,skipping.... ballots. 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.
>
>
>7. "THEY have more say than I have".
>
> A nominee must receive a simple majority to be elected
>
>
>Every trustee has an equal vote on all matters. YOU elect
>your trustees (except for the SN editor). Make sure to
>elect trustees that represent YOU if you want a voice.

Total agreement. If these people are being elected and re-elected, SOMEBODY must not think there is a secrit kabul going on! But, to correct your last sentence, all you can do is VOTE for the candidate that best represents you. The MAJORITY will ELECT the candidate that they feel best represents them.

I appreciate your reply Craig, as I think you take it in the spirit it was meant.

I agree that Mr. Brodak overstepped his bounds by CLAIMING that he cancelled the EC meeting. He has no power to do so. The Trustees should have informed him as such at the meeting. I have a hard time accepting that this is a true violation of the Bylaws, rather an oversight by the Trustees. I do agree on your point, however that he has no business thinking he has the power to cancel any EC meetings.

Actually, if you remember you were concerned about the proposed Brodak "competition committee". I thought that was a reasonable concern and thought of you immediately when I read the Bylaws. That is where your name came up.

Normally I would not name drop, but I felt that I was being accused of being in a "camp", whose promotion would have been the sole purpose of starting this thread. Most of the issues discussed here came from flying field discussions.

>I appreciate your reply Craig, as I think you take it in the
>spirit it was meant.
>
>I agree that Mr. Brodak overstepped his bounds by CLAIMING
>that he cancelled the EC meeting. He has no power to do so.
> The Trustees should have informed him as such at the
>meeting. I have a hard time accepting that this is a true
>violation of the Bylaws, rather an oversight by the
>Trustees. I do agree on your point, however that he has no
>business thinking he has the power to cancel any EC
>meetings.

I was a little concerned about it, but I didn't think it was really much of a problem in and of itself. The unilateral nature of cancelling it bothered me far more than not having it, but I was willing at the time to cut a new guy some slack. And, to be honest, I didn't think the back story associated with it was something that needed a public airing.

Aside from a few issues like this, there really isn't a whole lot that has really happened this way so far. I am concerned a bit with the *direction* we seem to be headed, but the actual issues have been fairly well-dealt with the rest of the trustees. But let's say everyone seems to be much more keenly aware of how we are actually doing things.

>
>Actually, if you remember you were concerned about the
>proposed Brodak "competition committee". I thought that was
>a reasonable concern and thought of you immediately when I
>read the Bylaws. That is where your name came up.

That, too was a little bit of a surprise. I definitely didn't hear about it until it appeared in SN - and then I misunderstood it, and posted some erroneous information about it here. Which I later retracted.

In fact, I still don't exactly know what the charter of the new group might be - as opposed to the pre-existing group. I asked but the explanation was pretty, well, vague. But it's perfectly within John's purview to form such a committee, and the members are above reproach as far as I am concerned.

I believe they are currently considering the possibility of the use of the L-pad for Beginner and Intermediate per Peabody's suggestion. For which, I might add, he had a pretty sound argument WRT OTS and Classic. If it comes back to the EC before I get the PAMPA gold watch, I would be quite inclined to acccept it.