Presidents message

Dale,

Steve knows all about it. he will be acting 8 rep by the time this happens. David F will be X and I am sure he knows all about this.

I'm told Dave didn't know until SN came out. Bruce (XI) didn't know either.

Hmmm...

Can you tell us who was notified of these possible changes? Or more importantly, who was not? Do you know what the proposals are? What gives?

Also. Is there a problem with the president (Or anyone else.) confering with a portion of the board members concerning PAMPA business but not all? I thought that we were all free to talk to whomever we want to about whatever is on our minds.

Remember, whatever changes are proposed, they cannot be put in effect without preview, review and voting.

Lastly... Most of us havn't even SEEN the new issue of SN and can't possibly know what you are refering to!

Before you start an argument, come up with the facts. You'll be doing us all a favor.

Now I'm awaiting my SM with GREAT anticipation!

Now I'm awaiting my SM with GREAT anticipation!

BIGS"
=========================
BIGS,

That would be the current issue of Sado-Masochist? I haven't received mine yet either.

You read the Sado-masochist Newsletter too?! My favorite!

So are you into modeling pins or used flying wire? Got any good tricks for using old Hot Rocks?

Come on! Spill the beans!!

LOL!!!

What is going on? So he wants to make some changes to the By-Laws. have you ever thought they could be GOOD changes? Why is it that changes will automatically be BAD? Why is that?

I know of one of the changes and it will PROTECT PAMPA in the future and I for one cannot believe it isnt that way now.

Before the flamethrowers come out let's give this stuff a real look.

Also By-Law changes are voted on by the membership. SO no matter what a small group of guys say or advise him on it cant go through without membership vote. So cool the jets you will get your chance to knock it down. Nothing is going to be taken away. There is no need to go start a new group. PAMPA is still the SIG for CLPA to the AMA no matter what John B changes in some sentence in the By-Laws. Makes sense? I hope so.

I happen to think John B is an honest guy trying to better this org as he sees fit. He has the rules in his hands. He has hawks who know those rules and wont let him do it otherwise. So why would we think he would?

I dont get it. It is OK to bash on him for President stuff but one bad word about the B-40 and here come the Hammers. What gives?

I'm with you Doug-I'm sure things will turn out just fine. Thanks for putting out some rational comments here instead of flames.

This is not quite correct.

The information about bylaws changes, or that there was a committee appointed, or that there was a significant effort in this are HAS NOT been distributed to the EC through official means. We were notified that something was afoot only after seeing it in Stunt News and inquiring. Full information has not been received to date, and only cursory and inadequate responses to requests for information have been received. There is no good excuse for this that I can see.

Thus, the comments in the president's column suggesting that has been submitted to the EC are undeniably false, as I know for certain fact that at least 7 of the trustees and EC-elects had received no information on this topic as of a week ago. Not a month-and-a-half ago as would be required for these statements to be true.

I do have a rumor-mill copy and the changes themselves appear to be INCENDIARY, which may explain why there has been no attempt to work the issue with the trustees. Because they would be rejected summarily if submitted as a package. If you go back and read the "Gang of 14" letter, it's generally accurate in describing the change (i.e. removing the trustees from direct control and giving the president all the control over the actions of the organization, trustees remaining as the president's "little minions" to do his bidding. And of course changing the purpose of the organization).

I had dimissed the "Gang of 14" letter as typical "rantings of lunatics" PAMPA hate-mail, but it appears to be basically accurate in describing the desired changes. The gloating nature of "you have already lost the war", you just don't realize it yet" tone is also fully reflected in the changes and the most recent EC postings.

Any fair-minded person would recognize that several of it have been bending over backwards to give John the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of matters. We kept our concerns private when these improper unilateral actions have gone on. And there have been at least 4-5, several of which have been countermanded by the trustees.

However, with it now once again public knowledge, and once again, became public knowledge as the result of John's unilateral actions, any attempt at secrecy (which now, all of a sudden, become vital to PAMPA actions - as opposed to 3 months ago when it was the biggest flaw with the organization) has been defeated. Thus it's perfectly fair game for public discussion.

I also note that no one, still, is mentioning the "elephant in the room". But it's becoming harder and harder to ignore.

For those of you previously expressing concern over the future of our organization, you were correct to be concerned. Events appear to be unfolding along the worst-case predictions, and the future of our organization as we have know it and enjoyed it for the last 30 years is definitely and profoundly threatened by these events. Hysteria and panic is never warranted, and I don't think there is a snowball's change in Hades that there will be a 2/3 majority vote to change the bylaws along the line apparently being (apparently) proposed, but the attempt is in progress, so act accordingly - but as adults with legitimate concerns, please!

None of us wanted a war or political fight, we went out of our way to accomodate John's strange notion of what the organization should be about, but there is no way to accomodate the current situation and still do what many of us think is in the best interests of the organization. I'm not against John (in fact, hardly know the guy) but I am entirely opposed to what he is doing and trying to do, to PAMPA.

I stand corrected. JOhn B please get on board. Make proposals or whatever you want to do but by all means do it by the By-Laws as currently written. Otherwise we as a group have no choice but not to accept your actions as legitimate.

>
> Thus, the comments in the president's column suggesting
>that has been submitted to the EC are undeniably false, as I
>know for certain fact that at least 7 of the trustees and
>EC-elects had received no information on this topic as of a
>week ago. Not a month-and-a-half ago as would be required
>for these statements to be true.
>

I keep trying to think of a reason why he would do this.

>
> I had dimissed the "Gang of 14" letter as typical
>"rantings of lunatics" PAMPA hate-mail,

That's funny.

> I also note that no one, still, is mentioning the
>"elephant in the room". But it's becoming harder and harder
>to ignore.

Please enlighten us to the Elephant in the room.

> None of us wanted a war or political fight, we went out
>of our way to accomodate John's strange notion of what the
>organization should be about, but there is no way to
>accomodate the current situation and still do what many of
>us think is in the best interests of the organization. I'm
>not against John (in fact, hardly know the guy) but I am
>entirely opposed to what he is doing and trying to do, to
>PAMPA.
>
> Brett
>
>

So I guess the fight is "On" Ted's campaign statement pretty much said that. But the VP really has NO power at all unless the president is absent, just one vote. And you are on the out bound train for civilian duty as a competitor and just general "haver of fun" But the line of fighters is long and they are ready.

I still dont see why there has to be a fight. Why is it that John B cant do it by the book and why is that no matter what he wants to do it will be preceived as the wrong thing to do?

First should of course be directed to John.

Second. It's not a matter of perception that "everything john does is wrong". I think most of us have taken PAINS to address items on their merits, not who it comes from. But I do think many of his positions are indeed wrong for the organization. He obviously believes otherwise.

But I know most of the people I represent, and I know what they think about things. And I can assure you that most people in District 10 DO NOT want to change PAMPA to a general C/L organization. Most people in district 10 DO NOT want to vest all the decision power in a single president (wasn't that why people had a problem with Frank?). In fact, I have had my hands full for the last year trying to keep people from overreacting to what at the time was only a hypothetical concern. Of course, now it's no longer hypothetical. I DO NOT personally want these things, either. So I act accordingly.

It's my DUTY (and that of all trustees) to make sure everything is done properly, and that the constituency that I (and other trustees) represent has their FULL IMPACT on the way the organization runs. If it's a minority position, I'll accept the results, but I WILL get my points made in the proper way to the proper people. I fully expect that other trustees will do the same, and if they have a differing position, then by all means they have a full and complete right to expect me to listen to it and consider it.

And, as you say, it's David's problem in two months, but I would be willing to bet that you will hardly be able to tell the difference as far as things like this go.

Additionally, THE VERY LAST THING I wanted to do is discuss these topics in public. I've known about this for about 2 weeks now (and the lead-up for a few months), and note that I did not say a word about it. The ideal solution would have been to discuss it in EC traffic, then when we had something clear and coordinated to say, THEN discuss it in SN. Sort of like it says in the bylaws. But that option was effectively removed by John mentioning this in SN before he told the EC anything about it. It the therefore now a public issue, and legitimately subject to public debate.

Brett

Article XII – Amendments to Bylaws:
Any active member or any Trustee may submit a proposed bylaw amendment to the Trustees at any time. Upon such a submission, the Trustees shall determine if the proposed amendment should be presented to the membership, and if so, the exact wording thereof and the time of presentation. All proposed amendments and action taken thereon shall be reported to the membership in the next issue of the newsletter following receipt of the proposal. Presentation of a proposed amendment to the membership shall be made in the newsletter, and adoption thereof shall occur only on a favorable vote of a two thirds majority of those members responding.

As far as I can tell, John is following the bylaws to the letter. The trustees will be informed and a vote taken to release the changes to the general membership. As there is a *no quorum* clause in the bylaws in regards to official business, it could be argued that since Article 12 does not outline a required quorum, that the *no quorum* rule could be applied to Article 12.

*****I believe John is addressing this no quorum "hole" in his bylaws changes*****

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 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.

Since John will be publishing all of his proposals in SN as dictated by the Bylaws (something I have never seen done in SN), it is apparent that the process is in its infancy, especially since we are in the process of changing EC members.

Dale,

Did you ask Don how much correspondence he has received in his tenor? When I talked to him, he said he had never really received any correspondence in his term. Steve has been contacted several times by John, as the changes proposed will take place in his term.

I can assure you there no "exclusion" clause. He cannot pick and choose who he sends this to. All trustees have a right to participate in this vote. Not all may choose to, however. Don't make the mistake of confusing bylaw changes with run-of-the-mill business. The U.S. Constitution works much the same way.

>
> 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 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.
>
>Since John will be publishing all of his proposals in SN as
>dictated by the Bylaws (something I have never seen done in
>SN), it is apparent that the process is in its infancy,
>especially since we are in the process of changing EC
>members.

Keep in mind, all bylaw changes ARE REQUIRED to pass scrutiny of the Trustees, and that's where they get their final wording, if in fact it is decided to present them at all.

>
>Dale,
>
>Did you ask Don how much correspondence he has received in
>his tenor? When I talked to him, he said he had never
>really received any correspondence in his term. Steve has
>been contacted several times by John, as the changes
>proposed will take place in his term.

I think this is a question to be asked of ALL outgoing, current, and incoming district directors and officers who have, are, or will serve during John's tenure. Why am I suspicious that there really may be a non-existent "exclusion clause" at work here. As I have stated before, I was one of the recipients Gang of 14 (or however many) e-mail that went out in response to the letter published in SN. I am PERFECTLY clear as to the agenda of certain folks, and I can tell you, it's bylaws be %$#^@, full speed ahead.

Not during JOHN's term!!! During Frank's terms!!!! You are missing my point.

Ask Don how many "mail votes" he recieved. ZERO! Thats how many!!! How long was he the rep? Four years at least? Ask him yourself. I know Brett spoke more than once about taking part in EC "votes". If this were true, Don was NEVER part of any of them. What you are seeing now is the FIRST real communication with the District 8 rep in some time.

You need to take a little less leading perspective....and please do not correspond with Bob Z. on any matter you wish to have an actual resolution to.

As to your last sentence, don't worry, I don't.

Hey Craig, stick to the bylaws, I think that this is a good tact. They are the rules. Don't be afraid to scrutinize, I think that it is great that we are all trying to embrace what they say. I think that John will be tremendous DEFENDER of the bylaws, and I think you will see that most of the changes he is advocating will improve the wording, and not the intent. At least this was the case the last time I spoke with him. Of course, things change over time, so I will not predict what will be proposed.

One of the main issues was insuring that a MAJORITY vote on issues in the EC would be adopted. This would require that a minimum numbers of EC members vote on issues. Today, this is not the case, as the bylaws are worded very nearly to the contrary.

Keep in mind, everything that John has spoken of are simply proposals at this point. They are simply that, ideas for the scrutiny of the membership. This is great, as long as the proper procedures are followed. Give the guy a little time to adhere to the procedures! Everything is just spit-balling at this point.

Since John is obviously in the communications stage of the process (simple phone calls) and no ballot has been proposed or published in the SN (something I have never seen in a single SN), no "official means" in communicating with the EC has been deemed necessary at this stage.

There are no "official" channels for communicating with the EC before a ballot is distributed. When the time comes, the Bylaws will be followed to the letter, I am sure.

As far as committees,

Article VIII – Duties of Trustees: 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.

As I read it the EC has no role in the appointment of committees. This is left to sole discretion of the President. John can make all the committees he wants, and does not need consult anyone.

Except for the fact that it says the diametric opposite in SN this month, claiming that it in fact HAS been presented, you are correct. He is not under the obligation to do anything aside from presenting the proposed change to the EC. And he has the perfect right to submit changes to the board, just like you or me or anyone else who paid their dues this year. However, common courtesy would certainly suggest he do so, before it shows up as a 2-month-old SN article.

>As I read it the EC has no role in the appointment of
>committees. This is left to sole discretion of the
>President. John can make all the committees he wants, and
>does not need consult anyone.

That's right - but once again, there's that common courtesy thing. Whatever problems one might have had with Frank, he DID pretty well keep us up to date on this sort of thing.

Despite what anyone might think, I believe we are all more than willing to facilitate the process (which is not to say we are all going to fall over backwards for the proposals themselves). That's what the EC is for. But this "springing surprises" in public business it not making it very easy, and certainly does nothing to keep down the level of controversy, in fact, it greatly exacerbates it.

Yes he blew it there.

And while we're here, I'm thinking this is not merely
>making a few amendments, we're talking a complete re-write
>of the whole thing. We have in place a representative form
>of governance that has worked well and still does so. The
>pres has decided a membership vote system is in order.
>That's not his perogative. It is the Trustees', though. I
>better refer you to Craig's post on this area- dale g

Dale,

Just like Craig you are jumping the gun. He has never said anywhere that he would put anything to a membership vote WITHOUT the trustees giving the 2/3 go ahead. His column was simply some of his views on how he thinks PAMPA should move in the future. That is all. He cant get this stuff out without the 2/3. He just cant and the people wont let him and neither will the Trustees. Like I told Craig at least let him break the rules before you hang him.

Committees. Who cares? They dont do much but talk, no power.

PS to Don H. Call his A-S-S up and ask him what the heck is going and why he inst in on this stuff.

He seems to be saying (again) in the next paragraph that a simple majority vote should suffice on each and every subject. Maybe so, if you want to possibly TOTALLY NEGATE any particular district's or group of districts' influence on issues, given that some areas are more populated than others. It is possible for a relatively small geographic area to wield all the power, to the detriment of the rest of the country. This is the very reason our founding fathers created both the house and senate as they did (and the electoral college), to prevent just this sort of thing.

Tough to tell. Based on his record thusfar, it doesn't look good. But hey, you never know.

I think it's the push to make PAMPA into some sort of general interest control line orgianization that has people worried. He states this is his aim pretty clearly in his column this month (at least by my reading).

If Brodak is successful in convincing enough of the membership into voting to turn PAMPA into something that doesn't serve the competition pilot, the competition pilot will likely just quit. Then Brodak will have his general interest CL organization.

I always find it strange when people find something that clearly works and still feel the need to "improve" it.

This is where the Trustees must step in. See my posts below. Remember, THE PRES CANNOT WORK IN A VACCUUM. Per the bylaws, he has no power, other than that specifically delegated by the Trustees.

I dont know about everyone knowingthe By-Laws. I am printing a copy now so I can brush up on my PAMPA stuff.

Also please show me where he has not adhered to them.

This seems a bit odd. It clearly states in Article 12 that the board must determine if the changes are to go out to the masses. What it DOESNT say is how they come to the conclusion on wether it should be sent or not, majority or 2/3 or no quorum. That it is not clear on.

He further states a "core group" consisting of
>only a portion of the board, not all of it, has been asked
>to "voice suggestions for bylaws changes".

Article 8 says he can appoint committee members and chairman as he deems appropriate. So what's the problem? Still has to go through all trustees before membership vote.

Also anyone in the membership can propose By-Law changes. It comes from anyone anywhere in the membership.

What in the Sam
>Hill is going on here? With all the rhetoric that has flowed
>through this Forum and SN, I think it's safe to say that
>most PAMPA members are pretty well versed in the
>organization's Bylaws- the question I have is just how are
>we going to get this one individual to adhere to them?
>Thankyou, dale gleason

Article XII – Amendments to Bylaws:

Any active member or any Trustee may submit a proposed bylaw amendment to the Trustees at any time. Upon such a submission, the Trustees shall determine if the proposed amendment should be presented to the membership, and if so, the exact wording thereof and the time of presentation. All proposed amendments and action taken thereon shall be reported to the membership in the next issue of the newsletter following receipt of the proposal. Presentation of a proposed amendment to the membership shall be made in the newsletter, and adoption thereof shall occur only on a favorable vote of a two thirds majority of those members responding.

How do they determine if it should go to the masses?

Remember, the bylaws are clear as to the President's authority. His authority only extends as far as the directives of the trustees, just like every corporate board in America! The trustees set all policy and direction within the guidelines of the bylaws, and the President's ONLY authority and purpose is to execute the policy and directions of the Trustees.

As to committees, that was another troubling statement in his monthly rant. He is completely wrong to state there is no provision for committees in the bylaws. The bylaws are very clear. In his execution of policy and direction given him by the Trustees, he is given authority to appoint committees to make that happen. It is pretty obvious that the two committees he claims exist without authority were created in just this way, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS! If not, I think the Trustees would have been saying something before now. Just their continued existence speaks to the obvious approval of the Trustees.

I have concluded that either:

1. John can't read

2. John doesn't care what the bylaws say and has no concern with the statutory authority the Trustees hold over his position, and refuses to consider anything that conflicts with his way of thinking

3. He is living in La-La Land

I think maybe #2 fits. I'm sick of this. The more John and company try to imprint their revisionist thinking on the bylaws and organization, the more I, and I am sure MANY others, am prepared to voice the very illegitimacy of their actions. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Dale, you brought up a subject on this forum that I have intended to but haven't had time to do. Thanks for taking the lead and starting this thread. For those of you who have not yet received your SN, maybe I can find time later to put the pertinent quotes here for you to read.

Turns my stomach!

On another forum, a former AMA Dist. 6 VP had this to say,
and I couldn't agree more:

>While I am not familiar with the current PAMPA situation, I would
>like to say this:

>I was a fairly decent CL competitor back in the '60s and early '70s
>so I am familiar with CL Stunt a bit. I joined PAMPA for a few
>years when it was first organized, then let it go. Also I was
>a member for several years up until 2 years ago when I again
>let it go.

>You say that you don't know Mr. Brodak. Well neither do I
>face to face, however I definitely would consider it a real
>honor to be allowed to shake hands with the gentleman.
>Mr. Brodak has, in the past 10 years or so, done more for
>Control-Line model aviation than any 100 PAMPA members
>that I can think of. Mr. Brodak through his work with ALL
>of CL model aviation has brought to the new generation
>both CL and model products that all disciplines can
>benefit from. He does not follow the theory that only
>stunters have a right to walk in this world, but promotes
>all phases of CL modeling.

I've got that, an issue of Flying Models and a Model Builder somewhere that I just can't find. I could really go without the Model ADD Builder, but I'm kinda missing the other two.

I've gone over the East Coast West Coast thing before, but if you missed. Until you guys get to confering OR just take your queues from 'God's Country', well you can all go jump.

Ahhhhh Everybody just grab your earlobes, rub and say Whooosahhhhh!

I would imagine that an immediate release of any proposal was not possible because there turned out to be more issues and than originally thought?

There is a lot of "that's the way it's always been done" within the PAMPA infrastructure that really need to be addressed.

See Ya

I have been very suspicious as to the intentions of certain individuals living in the NJ/PA area. I mean, what do you think Peabody is talking about when referring to the Precision Aerobatics event at our U.S. Nationals as a "coronation," and blabbing about a wish to see it instead be a "celebration of CL," whatever that means.

Remember that conversation? I was being flippant in describing multiple classes of "Bi-Slob Stunt." Peabody thought it a good idea.

More specifically, I have been willing to assume that Mr. Brodak was merely, and temporarily, under the undue influence of Peabody, Zambelli and that crowd.

I no longer will be so gracious. I think our Mr. Brodak is a huge problem. Again, regardless of how this all turns out.

I have also been quite willing to take Brett's lead in these matters, assuming the best, waiting to see how things shake out, keeping at arm's length some of the more rabid conspiracy theories.

While I think Brett's advice was good, and I am happy to have taken it, those days are over. No, I will not put forth any conspiracy theories, they are all too easy to formulate, explain very little.

But I do expect, at the end of the day, to see everybody playing by the rules. Anything less simply cannot be tolerated, and I refer you to Craig's posting above. The man knows of which he speaks...

As for myself, I will participate in any effort which sees the interests of competition-oriented CL Stunt fliers as being paramount to the very existence of the organization. I will prefer that organization be the one we already have built, PAMPA.

But if it's a new group, I am, like, so there.

A tip: We can do all we want here on SSW, but it will mean very little. Peabody and Zambelli are known to have ridiculed a lot of pertinent input on this subject in the past, and Brodak has never, to my knowledge, bothered to avail himself of this site in alleviating the concerns some of us have.

They really don't care what is said here.

Instead, y'all best be contacting your District Director. I have, and Bruce knows exactly how I feel, what I see coming.

**Do it now, while you're thinking about it.**

This is a REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNANCE. If you don't like how your district director votes, vote against him or her next time, BUT HAVE THE COMMON DECENCY TO LET THE MAJORITY RULE! These are the men YOU collectively elected in each district to represent you. LET IT HAPPEN!

Suggestion to the EC. If any ballots for anything which has not been approved by the Trustees per the bylaws, begin showing up at peoples' doors, they should immediately be followed by a letter from the Trustees AS A WHOLE, repudiating such ballots as unauthorized. I don't think there is money in the budget for such a mailout, but I feel sure lots of folks would gladly pony up with me to underwrite such a mailing. Yup, we may have to put our money where our mouths are.

In a nutshell, if our elected officers, or just a single officer, choose to ignore PAMPA by-laws, the organization as a whole will simply fail. Not today, not tomorrow. But it would not be an institution in which you invest time or money, an area where Craig has a lot expertise.

In going through thread referenced in my previous post, I had forgotten that Peabody sees the election of Mr. Brodak as president of PAMPA as indicating some sort of mandate. Stunning.

I take nothing at all away from Brodak. He won the election. But factored in there someplace has to be consideration as to how many PAMPA members of today know the name Keith Trostle and how many know the name John Brodak.

Yeah, yeah, vote on qualifications for the office and all that. Which I did, voting for a founder of PAMPA, Mr. Trostle.

I do not want to go over the election again. Other than to say I didn't see a mandate issued then, certainly don't see one today.

Finally, I have been willing to let most of this stuff go by, trusting my good friend Bruce Hunt to represent me properly on the EC. Which he does, thank you very much. The big issue to me has been the letter in previous SN--signed by 14 of our most illustrious and credible members--and how this issue might be handled by Brodak.

It's a matter of character and principle to me. I have been told this issue was not addressed in current Stunt News.

Ooops. Big mistake, methinks.

I really thought the purpose of a hobby is to get away from this kind of discussions and just have fun.

My opinion!

Buhbye now. Don't let the door hit you
in the butt on the way out.

That's fine. But that isn't what PAMPA is about. If Mr. Brodak wants an organization that promotes and supports all forms of CL flying, he has every right to form one.

Obviously. I suppose I have hopes that the membership of PAMPA is astute enough to "just say no".

I hope anyway.

And once again, in spite of the comments in John's column in the new issue, the bylaws are very clear as to the creation and appointment of committees. The president does that, AS HE IS CARRYING OUT THE DIRECTIVES OF HIS BOSSES, THE TRUSTEES. He cannot, either by committee or by direct action, do anything out of the will of the Trustees. He is the executor of the Trustees' collective decisions and policies. At the same time, the Trustees must abide by the bylaws. Cases in point: 1) The bylaws are specific as to the trustees responsibility in amending those bylaws. 2) The bylaws clearly state the ways a rules committee can be formed. Here's your homework. Read it for yourself, and figure it out. This organization belonges to the members. When we joined we were given a copy of the bylaws. I bet a lot of folks chucked them in the trash without reading them. That does not absolve anyone of the responsibility of knowing how their organization works. It gives no one license to violate the bylaws just because they either have not, or choose not to read them, or especially choose not to abide by them.

Very close to half of the American voting public do not like the recent presidential election result. I don't see people breaking the law and joining riots in the streets by the minority because they didn't get their way. Why? Because they understand that anything else reduces our great democracy to anarchy. Same with PAMPA. We have our "laws", the bylaws. Things can be changed. But only by following the established methods. If they don't pass, they don't pass. One or two districts cannot impose their will on the rest any more than one or two states can impose their will on the entire country. Again, why is this so hard? And if John thinks he has a mandate in this area, as someone mentioned, I would suggest he consider Ted's recent 2 to 1 election results. I really believe that this vote was in NO WAY a vote against Dale, but a vote for Ted's support of the established rules and authority of this organization, the bylaws, and the duly elected Trustees.

No one has done anything except make a few phone calls, send out some e-mails, and start to get some feedback.

Not one of the processes that you are yelling about has been started.

No trustee has been left out of any vote, no one has been violated.

John has made ZERO decisions apart from the EC. No one can say otherwise.

In fact Craig, you should call Steve, he is contact with John nearly weekly.

This whole idea that John wants to make PAMPA into a "general control line organization" is laughable in the extreme. In fact, he wants to see PAMPA be a *universally represented" CLPA organization. John has no ideas to run PAMPA as a dictatorship, just the opposite, he wishes to see ****MORE DECISIONS (including competitions)**** pushed down to the EC, who are the direct VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP.

Sounds good to me.

Don't read the ending of the book before the prologue.

Why are you so amped up? I just read the article in question. He never said ANYWHERE in there that he would send out the By-law changes without having the full 2/3 needed from the trustees. Never once did he say that. Obviously he feels he will get the support needed to put it to the membership or he would have never put that in his column in the first place. BUT he never said he would do it with or without their support. So he has not failed you as president in that regard.

However you are assuming he will and so starts up all the talk of mailers and so on. Let him at least break the rules before you hang him.

There is no By-Law that says you cant talk about possible By-Law changes in your column. He never listed specifics. Just alerted the membership as to what could possibly be coming up.

He did blow it on one part. All the reps had not seen the proposals at the point of the SN mailing and now he looks like he doesnt care. BUT that still does not mean he has violated any By-Law what so ever.

Appointing committees. He is well within his right to do so. The By Laws say it is so. He could appoint a committee to advise on just about anything he wants. That has nothing to do with how much power he has. Absolutely nothing.

First, no one's managed to even come up with any of the ideas being discussed for possible proposal. Where is the substance of this discussion?

At Brodak 2004 there were hundreds of flights done in PAMPA competition. There were hundred of enthusiasts there including many families and kids. This is an event that was in every way a CREDIT to the entire stunt community. A contest put on by John Brodak on his property . Many accomplished and less accomplished competition PAMPA flyers assisted all along the way. Sorry, it's just plain insulting to say John Brodak doesn't care about competition stunt.

Going on and on about ##### little phrases pulled out of context proves nothing to me. Some of you are real insulated and out of touch.

Yah, guys, good luck with that.

He insinuated that we have two committees which are, in effect, not authorized, since they are not mentioned in the bylaws. To quote from his article:

"Our current By-Laws have gaps in them. For example, the present By-Laws do not provide for the establishment of committees, including the Advisory Committee and the Hall of Fame Committee. We have both, and both are very important to our organization."

The part about establishment of committees is patently untrue. There is a clear method for the President to establish committes in the execution of policies and directive established by the Trustees. Read the above posts. I agree that those two committees are very important. I feel sure that, if the EC minutes are searched, we will find that at some point the EC directed the then-current president to establish them.

He stated that the changes had already been sent out to the Trustees. Again, I quote:

"The first step, presenting the proposed changes to the Board, has already been taken."

The truth of that has been made apparrent in the above posts. It seems to have been sent selectively.

I think by now, the bylaws have been discussed to the extreme (probably my fault, as much as anyone's). Let's see who lives within that framework and who doesn't.

My continued concern is John's tendency to misunderstand, or willfully disregard the bylaws.

Case in point: HE decided the EC should not meet, even though the bylaws are quite specific as to the EC's responsibility to decide the agenda of the annual meeting.

Case in point: HE decided to verbally attach Warren concerning the arrangements for the meeting, not caring that Warren may have been working within an established framework agreed upon by the Trustees, and asked of him by possibly more than one former president.

After all that's been said since, not a word from John to the membership as to his actions.

In his column John states: "I believe that every dues-paying member of our organization has a right to fully participate in the decision-making process."

He states that as if that is not already true. Again, we have REPRESENTATIVE governance. Your district director represents you. Talk to them. They vote for you. But don't try to imprint your way of thinking on other districts. They also have voting members and directors. If you don't like how your district director votes on your behalf, vote him out. If you are in the minority and lose that battle, live with it. If you don't like how other districts feel, or how their directors vote, tough.

Again, I quote: "Bringing issues to the full membership for a vote - rather than making important key decisions in a closed Executive Committee meeting - is another giant step."

Except it violates our bylaws, would would cause prohibitive postage expense, would prove impossible to implement for each and every issue currently acted upon by the EC, and again seems to indict our district directors, both yours and mine, whom WE elected! John, if we didn't want them in those positions, we would not have elected them! And who would decide which issues were "key" issues. That would certainly result in more turmoil.

He speaks of walls of separation. There seems to be a conspiracy under every rock. I just don't see that. What I see is, that our magazine, according to my simple estimate, allots between 65% and 80% of its content to non-competitive information. I see an organization that has absolutely flourished, helping to bring back our sport from the brink by way of the information contained in our newsletter pages, structured the way it has been since its inception. To quote an old commercial, as I read John's column each issue, I wonder "Where's the Beef?"

>
>In his column John states: "I believe that every
>dues-paying member of our organization has a right to fully
>participate in the decision-making process."
>
>He states that as if that is not already true. Again, we
>have REPRESENTATIVE governance. Your district director
>represents you. Talk to them. They vote for you. But
>don't try to imprint your way of thinking on other
>districts. They also have voting members and directors. If
>you don't like how your district director votes on your
>behalf, vote him out. If you are in the minority and lose
>that battle, live with it. If you don't like how other
>districts feel, or how their directors vote, tough.

I agree with you here!

>
>Again, I quote: "Bringing issues to the full membership for
>a vote - rather than making important key decisions in a
>closed Executive Committee meeting - is another giant step."
>
>Except it violates our bylaws, would would cause prohibitive
>postage expense, would prove impossible to implement for
>each and every issue currently acted upon by the EC, and
>again seems to indict our district directors, both yours and
>mine, whom WE elected! John, if we didn't want them in
>those positions, we would not have elected them! And who
>would decide which issues were "key" issues. That would
>certainly result in more turmoil.

AND again here!!!

Full membership vote on all stuff would be chaos!

Doug, this is just the kind of stuff we are talking about. I hope folks begin to see the hand that is being played here.

I feel John is doing the right thing by staying off this board. IMHO it would be like answering the famous question: " When did you stop beating your wife?"

You have very accurately pointed out that no one person can take control of this organization. Many here have voiced the opinion that there are some changes/additions/clarifications that perhaps should be made in the PAMPA bylaws. When these go through the proper channels and are finally submitted, I will cast my one vote. I can't say what that will be right now as I have not seen any of these. I would rather wait until I do before I decide I know what they will be and voice an opinion on some hypothetical issue.

I don't know this for a fact but I'll bet John fell into a trap that the lead time for SN presents all who contribute. He was probably under the impression that the committee would have their work completed and that the Trustees would have the results of their effort by the time his column was printed. This didn't happen and he was caught in the time trap. I do this all the time in my articles because even though it is November 10th, my first line for the Jan/Feb issue is Happy New Year. I also said "Baby it's cold outside". When I wrote that, it was 73 degrees and a nice day. BUT, I have every confidence it will be cold in January when you actually read those lines. If Mother Nature decides that it should be 73 degrees on 1-10-05 ---- I will in fact be lying and misleading my readership. It won't be intentionally.

It reminds me of idiotic academic disputes, which
nobody but the participants could even care about, which as
someone put it: "The arguments are so bitter because
the stakes are so trivial."

Couldn't agree with you more. This is a hobby.

Let's look at another point lightly touched on. John is trying to do his communicating to the members through the proper, primary channel: SN! The problem is that there's that 2 month delay so all he can really do is project what will be correct when you read the mag. Should he phrase things better so we all know what is accomplished fact and what is honest projection? Probably. IF ANYONE OUT THERE HAS NEVER UNINTENTIONALLY GOTTEN THERE FOOT IN THEIR MOUTH, they can throw the first stone.

If John were to use this or other forums as his main line of communication of presidential business there would be more screams of improper communication, and they would be justified. I think it reflects integrity when you stick to proper channels and live with the handicap of time delay while those that disagree can shoot at you in real time.

I'm 59. I find myself resisting change WAY too often today simply because it is change or it isn't what I grew up with, or prospered with in my prime. Competitive PA requires coordination and specific physical ability which diminishes with age. It is amazing to me how well many of those in my age group and even older, are able to fly. One point of inevitable fact though: That will not last forever.

Most contests I fly in I'm comfortably at home because a large part (Not all!) of the contestants are around my age, give or take a few years. Great for me but not healthy for the sport. If we do not bring in more and younger blood, in a decade we'll have banquets followed by a few people trying to prove they can still fly instead of vibrant competition. So the real question may be "Does promoting PA simply mean tending to the competition side for those already in, until there's no one left to compete, or does it mean finding ways to assure the survival of the event beyond us?"

Change is NOT an automatic insult to those who came before. More often it is the greatest compliment. Let's not tear apart a great organization over Percieved differences or an unwillingness to even consider change. So what if John occasionally gets a "D" in diplomacy! Many who prove to be great leaders do. He may also get an "A" for dragging us (kicking and screaming) where we need to go to survive well and prosper.

ARF's, electrics, composits and who knows what else provide wonderful opportunities for PA. Let's not look at them through narrow blinders.

That John Brodak has done far more towards the "revival"
of C/L in the last decade than anyone else I can
think of. And not for the exclusive benefit of a
handful of NATS competitors, which is a small, specialized
market, but for the far greater number of "casual"
hobbyists which are essential to the continued
survival & growth of the hobby.

DUH.

You wouldn't perhaps be THE Jerry Irvine of USR, uh, fame, would you?

[photo not recovered: 41930faa029a02b2.gif]

(Might we have that option now to subscribe to Stunt News without having to be a member of this petty little PAMPA organization? It would be tempting.)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Associate with men of good quality, if you esteem your own reputation; it is better to be alone than in bad company." -George Washington

Huh??????

I guess not, then. And thats a VERY GOOD thing!!!

I must have missed how you made that connection, but for someone who knows a little bit about that stuff, your comment is about to get me fired for laughing my head off at work!!!
But it couldn't be the one of USR infamy-fate isn't that kind....

(Wish there were an emoticon for holding your stomach while laughing...)

No one has questioned John Brodak's contributions to C/L. They are not relevant to the topic being discussed.

There are a lot of people in the general membership that think they are disenfranchized by the "Elitist" experts. If a popular membership vote could be taken, then possibly Brodak could take complete control, and show those "Elitists" who this SIG is for(gr). They don't realize that those "Elitists" have been responsible for what PAMPA is today. Also they don't realize it won't be for them either, it will all be for John Brodak.

PAMPA is to John Brodak the start of a huge database of consumers for his c/l fun fly products. Wake up people, don't be so gullible.

See Ya

Funny, if I page through the new Brodak catalog, I see things like Stregas and Vectors as some of the new products. Are serious stunt models somehow now tainted by being in the Brodak fold?

I doubt seriously that this is some giant marketing gimmick. Even if it was, I wouldn't feel threatened by "fun fly" products like a Vector. I sure wasn't thinking of fun flying when I bought my Vector and Strega kits.

But when the Strega RTF comes out with R/C Pattern-like graphics, coupled with the demise of the BOM rule, there won't be a demand for any balsa construction kits. (I hope there is a test-flown, fully trimmed option too).

Let's see. A push to move to a general control line organization that, as it turns out, will most benefit Mr. Brodak's company, generating new sales from new general interest control line fliers. Now, I have absolutely no evidence that such a thing is true, this being the purest form of speculation. But it is a concern that the appearance of impropriety is certainly there.

Let's take that a step farther then: at least a few of the people seem to be saying that if John's actions in promoting the sport also end up being good for business, then that, by definition is a conflict of interest.

If everyone who generate's a profit from our sport is barred from leadership for fear of conflict of interest, it's going to be mighty scarce out there.

The numbers of people who buy a competition product for fun dwarf the number of competitors in any field - whether it's a golf club, a running shoe, a fishing rod, or even a gun.

Experts help newcomers and there is no real widespread anymosity(sp) between "groups". It is assumed or manufactured. Certain individuals on this forum seek to spread a false sense of an "Elitist" attitude that doesn't exist. It is well known that SN is for the new comer and helps the beginner more than any other group. The SIG is fine the way it operates now, for it is doing exactly what it was meant to do, and that is help those that desire to compete be able to get closer to that goal. It is not meant to help the other events in any way.

It is only about Precision Aerobatics. To do something else is to destroy one thing to start another. That is negative, and for our president to approach his changes in the way that he has is having a negative effect on this SIG. What good this can do is not apparent.

Truth is, I don't give a rat's behind how the thing comes out in the end. If PAMPA is converted to a sport fliers organization, I'll simply quit. No big deal. I doubt they will much miss me with the huge influx of new sport fliers some believe will suddenly flock to the organization. For all the talk about PAMPA and Nats formats and such, in the end, it makes little difference to me. I'll not likely ever attend a Nats. Maybe, but not likely. If I do, I'll have to follow whatever rules are then in place (I'm sure flying dual Bi-Slobs in a synchronized pattern that includes a baloon bust will be the hot ticket then). So whether PAMPA exists or not is ultimately of little consequence to me. I know folks that it will effect directly or in-directly, but I suppose if it is important to them, they will leave Mr. Brodak to his vision and start a new, competition only SIG to handle PA relations with the AMA and competition flying.

It will however, in my view, be a shame. But apparently not the way others see it.

but
>I suppose if it is important to them, they will leave Mr.
>Brodak to his vision and start a new, competition only SIG
>to handle PA relations with the AMA and competition flying.

Randy,

I truly do respect your view. You appear to be a truly open minded individual, and open to more views than your own. You also build super cool models.

I must protest a bit here though. Where did John Brodak say he wanted to turn PAMPA into a sport fliers' organization? Please tell me, as it has being stated several times on this forum, and I believe it is simply facts in error (I am willing to admit I never read it, but I have a poor memory). In fact, I believe that John said he wished to involve MORE of the membership in the decision making process of the organization. This was, I believe TWISTED by a few folks, and the "sport flyer" monacher adopted. I believe that PAMPA is a group of CL stunt fliers, and John wants to make sure ALL are represented in some way.

As to competitions, I think John has made the Nats and Team Trials highest priority (this will again make him a target). Would this be the sign of a man who wants to see PAMPA turned into a "sport flying" organization? I believe John eluded to organizing a committee to oversee the Nats in his campaign statement. As per the Bylaws, this is what the Prez is supposed to do. Maybe people do not realize there have already been Nats Competitions committees in the past. John did not invent the idea. Do you know who has been on these committees? Most likely not, as the members lists were never broadcast to the membership, or they were deemed informal.

It seems John is being punished for trying to be open about what he is doing. He is allowing his efforts to be scrutinized (and boy, are they). An admirable stance I think. I can't say scrutiny has always been allowed unilaterally in our little circle.

I think that is what the entire thread is about, that he is alluding to his plans in SN.

Am I wrong guys?

The vision for now is to take measures on the inadequacies of the Bylaws.

As far as not contacting you in direct regard to this, I suppose this is my fault. I spoke to John about my interest in the Nats Comittee and how I felt we would like a District 8 rep for this committee. John volunteered to send me some stuff, I said please contact Steve as he would be the Rep in the future, not to mention I talk to Steve a lot.

I guess you not being contacted in the last few weeks was really my fault. Do not blame John, I am sure he would be happy to forward you all the info he currently has. I am sure he would welcome the input.

None of the communication problems with Don have anything to do with you.

John should know who the active reps are and have them on EVERYONE of his mailings/e-mailings. I dont see how a simple conversation with you just a plain old memeber relieves him of knowing who the proper people are on the list of reps.

Well, remember John is replacing a guy who was in office, what six years? He is trying to learn his business. It would seem to me that the EC members would have been polite to contact John, and not insist it be the other way around.

I do not think Frank contacted Don at all either. No complaints.

Should it be between beginner and intermediate? How about 100 or some number of patterns a year? Maybe a minimum number of contests or miles driven to contests. How about some of the greats when they can no longer compete?

If it's such a terrible plague, we need to define it so help me out, please.

Not my intention at all. Just that It appears (and I emphasize appears) that Mr. Brodak is intending to change the direction of PAMPA away from the competitive flyer and in favor of the sport flyer and CL in general. No big deal except that PAMPA was designed to support the competitive flyer. Sport flyers and others are obviously welcome to join, but the primary reason for the existance of PAMPA remains. My only real point (apart from my obviously contrary and grouchy attitude about it) was that if the direction and focus of PAMPA is changed from the competitive flyer to the sport flyer and general CL, competitive flyers will likely just leave.

It would be the same if I joined any organization that suddenly decided to support some other interest. If I wasn't interested, I just leave. Not a big deal.

I don't know Mr. Brodak and have absolutely nothing against the guy. And like many situations, I'm sure he acting in what he sees as the organization's (and possibly his own) best interest. Cool.

OK, I'm done. Already lipped off more than I intended. What will happen will happen and sending off ranging shots here isn't likely to solve anything.

Chris.
A test flown fully trimmed option---I want one too, so I can enter it in ballon bust, and add a second wing for the bi-slob circuit...Just kidden, trying to have some fun.....David

I'm not sure I would consider myself an elitist, but you have a point regarding the ARFs and demise of the BOM rule. Funny thing, I was talking to my district director last night about just that: my hope that pampa stunt does not turn into the Strega ARF one-design event. Just one lone voice to my representative, but I suppose thats how democracy works. Plus, he was able to bring me up to speed on whats really going on, so I don't have to get totally spun up on all the latest flame threads on here.

Chris: Are you in another world? Go read your bylaws. I also think this is getting out of hand.DOC:(

POGO

Bad Pate! trying to stir things up some more!

As usual,we've created a huge bruhaha in which fewer than half the correspondents show ANY understanding of the problem,but merely respond emotionally to their own interpretation of half the facts.They have thier own axe to grind,and use any excuse to grind it.

To those who think there's no problem,think again,and READ the president's "message" again.

To those who think it might be a good thing to change the aims of PAMPA,think again,and consider the NAME of our SIG.It's PURPOSE is to promote precision aerobatics.

To those who think the individual members should have a vote on everything,think again. READ the U.S. constitution,on which our method of governance is modeled. Then READ our(PAMPA) constitution and bylaws.

It is NOT,and never was intended to be a "democracy". It is a representative form of governance. The population elect representatives(the BOARD), who in turn legislate the rules and direct the business of the organization.The duty of the president is to Execute the business and laws(rules) of the organization.

The reasons for this structure are many, but the main one was to

Edit: For some reason this post didn't print in it's entirety.Here's the rest.

ensure that the minority was protected against the tyranny of the majority by diluting the effect of the direct vote. Our founders knew that the majority was not always right,Often it's just a mob.
A secondary ,but no less important reason was to curb the ability of any executive to unduly influence the government, by making him responsible to the legislators,as well as the voters.

The president can appoint as many or few as he wants to a committee to examine a problem, but the findings must be deliberated and approved by the entire board before being submitted to a membership vote. The president can propose rules and bylaws, but only the board can promulgate them.

The real point of all this is that the president may be a great guy,he may even be right, but he has violated the bylaws in taking the course he has without the consent of the board. In my opinion, he has also ethically violated his office in advocating shifting the entire purpose of the organization.

The foundation of PAMPA is in competition CLPA. It's specific,it doesen't include carrier, or combat, or (much to my regret)scale, or any other discipline. It does NOT limit the scope to "NATS" level. It does limit it to CLPA.It always has and does welcome and encourage sport flyers and all others with an interest in CLPA,thats where CLPA flyers start. But that's a far cry from changing PAMPA to a "general" CL SIG. If there are any who still have the notion that that isn't Mr. Brodak's aim, I urge you to re-read not only this latest , but all the statements he's made in SN, including the one he made as a candidate. If I'm misinterpreting his statements, I urge him to clarify them.

I will gladly join a "general CL" SIG, but,if PAMPA becomes one,I will join any new CLPA SIG that takes it's place. I say this as one who is,due to age and health,fast becoming a "sport" flyer.

That said, the ongoing question is HOW to continue doing that! We have many views and feelings so now let's give the governing structure a chance to actually work!

For the record, I do not have any information on Mr. Brodak's agenda or proposed by-law changes. I found out through the SN article as did most of you. I have asked for the information, I got a repsonse, but none of the requested information.

I am a bit disappointed in this, no I have not officially taken office, but I will most definitately be the district 10 rep when this is decided. I pointed this out to Mr. Brodak, and still no information. I also pointed out to him that better communication will be required in the future.

This may still be a work in progress, but he did not say that either. I renewed my request for information, and am waiting for a reply.

First, congratulations on beating that nefarious dude, Mr. Write-in for District 11 Director.

I have always been pleased with the way Brett handled these responsibilities. Your posting above indicates there will be no slacking off from doing the right thing.

Not that I was concerned; just good to see your statements.

I am working on a new model for 2005 NW Regionals. I *really, really* want to hear you again say to me, "Make ya feel good to beat a Ringmaster?"

My best,

Myself and another member here in NV discussed this last night at our club meeting. The EC is responsible for deciding how and when issues should be presented to the general membership and the final wording. Then and only then can a ballot be taken. It seems to me that John is attempting to end run the entire EC's responsibilities by providing information to only those on the EC whom he believe favors what he wants. Then since there is an ambiguous statement about a quorum not being required get the necessary 2/3 vote from those on the EC that favor his position. If I am wrong about this I appologize, however, that's what seems is happening to me!

Bingo! We've got a winner here! No apologies appear to be required.

Indeed, and a good piece of input it is as well. Really hard to get anything of substance past him, ya know. I keep trying, it just never works out.

Ah, that reminds me: Ron, you and I have for years used boiling water and dishwasher detergent (Cascade, in my case) to clean gunk and grunge from our engines.

I finally tried the crock pot with anti-freeze trick. Other than the disappearance of several neighborhood kitties, and the fact the engines no longer taste right to me, this really works quite well. And is a lot more convenient. Who knew...?

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Try a little salt, cilantro, and some habeneros or jalapenos, improves the flavor tremendously.

Always willing to help ,

Some posters on this forum have made the argument that the two-month lead time for submissions to Stunt News makes it difficult for John Brodak to write what is actually true at the time of publishing. The argument seems to be that this works against him.

I submit to you that it works exactly the opposite. Brodak's statement in the current issue of SN that members of the EC had been presented with his proposed changes was quite obviously not true at the time it was written. We know this from statements of EC members who have seen nothing of these proposals. In the event, Brodak had two months to make his statement true. It still isn't.

In his President's Column Brodak also states that he has "four major goals" that he is "working diligently toward." He goes on to delineate three. What is the fourth?

If I *were* inclined to support Brodak's proposed changes I'd find it difficult due to the basic dishonesty I see in his actions. If that sounds petty, so be it. If you want my co-operation, don't insult me with half-truths or end runs around established procedure.

While I'm at it, I'm going to take violent exception to the letter from Rich Peabody appearing in Bob Brookins' column, stating that AMA "has confirmed that they will receive and count votes from SIGs." I resent the implications of this where Shareen Fancher is concerned and I'd like to know just who raised the question and why. I'd also like to ask why Peabody's letter appears in Brookins' column. Last I knew, Peabody lived in New Jersey. That would make Windy Urtnowski his rep, not Brookins. Am I missing something here?

One other item of note from the current SN is the list of committee members Brodak has appointed "to server as a core group to voice suggestions for By-Laws changes." The last name is "Tom Hampshire, Legal Advisor."

Legal Advisor?!?! For crying out loud! Is this where we're headed?

Randi Gifford

The elected officials of PAMPA among other things, have a fiduciary responsibility to the members. They could be subject to lawsuits in the event that they are negligent in the performance of their duties.

For example ... it's my understanding some current practices regarding disbursement of funds needs to be tightened.

I'm not throwing stones with my comments or accusing anyone of wrong doing. It's just not prudent to continue some practices. So a complete review of current business practices from a legal stand point makes sense.

Again I think some are practicing the old...it's a case of first we hang 'em them we try 'em !

John has shown a certain lack of planning in several statements appearing in his column, beginning back with the very first. I could easily pass this off as being due to lack of experience in working with a lead time. Except he was highly experienced, due to his District Director reports.

Having said that, lead times sometimes cause all of us angst at times. For example, I have announced contests as upcoming on a date certain in District 11 column. By the time that issue hit our mailboxes, things had changed. A lie? Nope.

Still, there are things amiss here, things which just don't add up. And if one is going to write something in SN, best be sure one can actually deliver, especially when it is in your control to do so. That others have been made aware of proposed changes doesn't seem to help, by the way. What changed between the time all Directors were to be notified and only notifying a few?

>
>In his President's Column Brodak also states that he has
>"four major goals" that he is "working diligently toward."
>He goes on to delineate three. What is the fourth?
>
>If I *were* inclined to support Brodak's proposed changes
>I'd find it difficult due to the basic dishonesty I see in
>his actions. If that sounds petty, so be it. If you want
>my co-operation, don't insult me with half-truths or end
>runs around established procedure.
>
>While I'm at it, I'm going to take violent exception to the
>letter from Rich Peabody appearing in Bob Brookins' column,
>stating that AMA "has confirmed that they will receive and
>count votes from SIGs." I resent the implications of this
>where Shareen Fancher is concerned and I'd like to know just
>who raised the question and why. I'd also like to ask why
>Peabody's letter appears in Brookins' column. Last I knew,
>Peabody lived in New Jersey. That would make Windy
>Urtnowski his rep, not Brookins. Am I missing something
>here?
>
Saw that myself. Quite unremarkable. Why? Peabody has been making that claim for years. Yep, makes me mad as all get out every time. Doesn't bother Rich in the least. He's low, really low...

>One other item of note from the current SN is the list of
>committee members Brodak has appointed "to server as a core
>group to voice suggestions for By-Laws changes." The last
>name is "Tom Hampshire, Legal Advisor."
>
>Legal Advisor?!?! For crying out loud! Is this where we're
>headed?
>
>Randi Gifford

As mentioned in an adjacent post, there are legal issues involved. As just one example--and I do not know the current status of things--Frank was *constantly* after our ad guy to, you know, actually document what money came from whom when there was payment made for advertising.

The legally responsible party should PAMPA be audited? Shareen Fancher.

The party responsible for keeping good records on advertising monies submitted to PAMPA, in essence backing up Shareen who is (potentially) on the hook? Rich Peabody.

Now you think about *that one* for a moment or two.

**Incidentally, never, not once, have I heard any discussion at all concerning PAMPA money--our money--gone missing. But back then Shareen was reverse engineering the advertising accounts by going through each issue of Stunt News, calculating the revenue, comparing it to what was sent in.**

It would have made far more sense for Shareen to call out Peabody than the other way around. And she never did. Probably never will.

Don't *anybody* give me grief when I call Peabody on stuff here on SSW. He deserves a lot more than I'll waste my time in doing, and he deserves to get it from someone much more skilled than I.

Dan

Edit for stupid spelling mistake. Dan

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It's the difference between a class act(Shareen),and a crass act.

HE should have added, "if need be". He actually took the time to find out if the AMA was available to count votes if the need arose. The EC decided, in this case, no outside group would be used.

I think it is interesting that the "conflict of interest" tact only seems to apply to John Brodak.

The EC decided to go by both the rules and established procedure. Two things completely alien to Mr. Peabody.

>
>I think it is interesting that the "conflict of interest"
>tact only seems to apply to John Brodak.

Yes, I am sure you do. Your analytical skills have gone away almost completely of late. I suggest you quit glancing at the tabloids while in check-out line at Local Grocery. For every four-second peek, one's IQ drops by 10 points.

My only concern over having Shareen count votes for or against her husband was that if she were inclined to "fix" things one way or the other she would make certain Ted lost, so as to prevent him from once again getting deeply involved. The man doesn't do things halfway, ya know...

When it comes to conflict of interest issues, John's got a huge target on his back. So huge one would think he would be exceedingly careful when acting as president of PAMPA. Instead, he appears to be almost reckless, to have a shoot-from-the-hip approach.

The first thing he needed to do was to establish some sort of credibility. Attacking someone like Warren Tiahrt did his cause no good whatsoever. Then 14 of our most repected members put together and sign a letter outlining the facts and a suggested resolution.

John just blows it off.

Game over, I am sorry to say...

I actually agree with most of what you said (that IQ thing is funny), yelling at Warren was a waste of time.

As I read the incident, I suppose Warren did not yell back either, and was a helpless puppy in the wake of the John Brodak wrath. I am sure that is true.

The letter, however, I do not feel was meant as a resolution, but instead a magnification of the problem. In that sense, it was wholly successful.

As far as the facts surrounding the incident, I believe they are all hearsay, since I do not believe any of the signers were present for the conflict in question. In fact, I do not believe any of the signers said they were, if some were, I doubt all were. I do not have the letter in front of me.

Maybe, in fact, Warren should apoligize to John. Maybe I should write a letter for SN demanding that very thing. Oh, I would never do that, as I was not there and it is not my place to demand apoligies by proxy.

I do not believe that Shareen would do anything to an election. I think the best thing would have been to volunteer to bow out of the count (but that is just how I was raised). What difference would it make? Why the big pissing contest? Because it came from Peabody? It would have seemed the organization would have been better served to DIFFUSE the situation instead of elevating it, since it would have ultimately not had any effect on the outcome of the election.

Hey, that's OK. I am sure all this posturing, bickering, accusations, name calling, insinuating, projecting, etc are best for the ORGANIZATION as a whole. I know everyone involved is just doing this for the member's benefit and to preserve the longevity of the organization.

Wanna buy some swampland?

Well, that's approximately right.

As a result of this, Shareen asked that I count them, too, separately. Correct in every case, naturally, and every time I thought she had missed on, it was ME that miscounted. Highly irritating.
Of course, I could be assumed to be part of the same dark conspiracy, so it doesn't really prove anything, if you are prone to beleiving it in the first place.

>I think it is interesting that the "conflict of interest"
>tact only seems to apply to John Brodak.

No, there is no conflict of interest policy in PAMPA. If there were, it wouldn't have any effect on Shareen counting the votes, as she has no economic interests that could be furthered by participating in PAMPA leadership.

Odd that you should mention it, I just had a lovely letter from a fellow trustee on a similar bent.

Conflict of interest has more catagories than economic.

What about post Shareen? There will be day when Shareen will no longer be the Treasurer.

I suppose it would be impossible for the AMA to verify membership, or anyone else for that matter. I never heard of any cost involved, at least concerning Rich's proposal about having the AMA count the votes.

I am sure that the concern was NOT Shareen's integrity (corrected typo---no one questions Shareen's integrity--at least I do not). I think the concern was that Shareen would be aware who voted for Ted and who voted against him. In this way, the vote would not be as secret as it should be. I know people who did not vote for this very reason. I think this concern is pretty obvious, though apparently not to everyone.

I suppose in the end, it will make little, if any difference.

Shareen should NEVER take this as an attack on her. This is all about the future there will be a day when she no longer wants to deal with old men who cry about toy airplanes.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

In other words, they're afraid to "stand up and be counted". Not too surprising, given the general tenor of this thread!I have no problem ,as,I'm sure,is true of many others, have no problem with MY vote being public. I've no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed by voting the way I believe.

As it stands now, then the next secretary treasurer will count the votes. People shouldn't vote for a secretary/treasurer that they don't trust and have absolute confidence in.

>
>I suppose it would be impossible for the AMA to verify
>membership, or anyone else for that matter. I never heard
>of any cost involved, at least concerning Rich's proposal
>about having the AMA count the votes.

Huh?

>I am sure that the concern was Shareen's integrity. I think
>the concern was that Shareen would be aware who voted for
>Ted and who voted against him. In this way, the vote would
>not be as secret as it should be. I know people who did not
>vote for this very reason. I think this concern is pretty
>obvious, though apparently not to everyone.

OH! I wondered how a 3:1 victory for Ted was going to be interpreted as somehow invalid or suspect. While at the same time a 2:1 victory for John (counted in exactly the same way by the exact same person) was a sweeping mandate that renders any criticism superfluous. Very creative, B+ for you today.

Actually, I am well and truly amazed that grown men would be frightened off by the remote possibility of someone knowing their opinion on a close-to-irrelevant topic No wonder we can't debate issues, if everybody is afraid of what someone will think. So I guess you could count me among those slow boats that don't get the concern.

And I remind you once again, if someone wants to change the voting to an external count, there's a way to do that, and it's very likely to come to pass. But I guarantee that internet posts complaining about it won't get the job done.

And it STILL can't be anonymous entirely - as the repeated incidence of fraudulent ballots indicates. Any proposal that requires this needs to include a requirement to validate the ballots. That means someone, somewhere, has to be able to match the ballots to members. Someone, for instance, like the secretary/treasurer. Hey, how about that! That's what we ALREADY do! What a fortunate coincidence!

And in any case, if, say, Joyce Hager did the count, then we'd just change the conspiracy game to playing "six degrees of separation" . Let's see, Joyce rode a motorcycle driven by Hunt, Hunt launched Billy's airplane at the W/C, Bob McDonald knows Billy, I talked to Bob McDonald at the NATs, and I counted the votes with Shareen, and Shareen lives with Ted. Oh MY GOD! It's so obvious now!

BTW, Shareen is essentially sworn to secrecy and won't tell Ted. I ALSO counted the very same votes, and I am also sworn to secrecy. Nor do I care, or even remember, who voted for who.

But she knows, right?

>Actually, I am well and truly amazed that grown men would be >frightened off by the remote possibility of someone knowing their >opinion on a close-to-irrelevant topic No wonder we can't debate >issues, if everybody is afraid of what someone will think. So I guess >you could count me among those slow boats that don't get the concern.

I think the best tact for an EC member would be empathy for the membership not doubt and ridicule. People DO care what the Fancher's think, even if they do not agree with their views. I think having a more neutral party was a good idea and should have been met with a more open minded attitude.

The idea that the Fancher's themselves do not take this very personally would be a hard sell, brother.

BTW, I accidently left off NOT in my sentence regarding Shareen (I fixed it, sorry Shareen). The point was that no one felt that Shareen would lie or doubted her integrity that I have spoken too. Sorry about that.

Are you secretly Dan Brown?

Ron B.
F4Fguy

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm not on crutches any more. I've got a bit of a hitch in my gitalong but it's getting better every day.

My very best to you and Linda.

"I think the concern was that Shareen would be aware who voted for Ted and who voted against him. In this way, the vote would not be as secret as it should be. I know people who did not vote for this very reason. I think this concern is pretty obvious, though apparently not to everyone.

I suppose in the end, it will make little, if any difference."

The City Smasher

Truly, this is silly. And it is so painfully transparent.

Godzilla, in the past I have known to whom you have been talking, just by phrases used, issues of concern, all repeated by you.

And when it comes to this issue, I know *exactly* to whom you have been talking of late.

This is so lame. Didn't vote because Shareen's encyclopedic mind would catalog votes, who voted for/against someone? And this information was to be used how? Talk about grassy-knoll thinking, this just does not pass the laugh test.

Shareen works very nearly full-time for us, her life is thousands of names and adresses and phone numbers and e-mail addresses, huge long columns of dollar figures, on and on. And you--plus at least the one guy who started all this--thinks she can pull selected voting records up at will? Not only that, but she can do it when absolutely swamped with work, you know, like at the Nationals, the only place where this information would be of any value whatsoever, assuming she would actually take action against this person.

You are asking us to believe quite a lot of the totally improbable in order to make the case for someone else. I have to seriously wonder if you believe it, although you put it out there as being plausible.

On the other hand, it surely is a mighty compliment to what some perceive as Shareen's mental agility. So there is that, I suppose...

David,

And you are welcome.

But how about another? Shareen heads up the tabulation efforts at our Nationals every year, has for years. Ted competes at the Nationals.

How does Ted get his scores? The same exact way everybody else gets their scores. When does he see these scores? When they are posted. Just as with all other competitors.

Steve,

I get it, and it's a well-made point.

Should Buzz decide to run for the office now held by Shareen, and we elect her to that office, not a peep would be heard from me.

Especially if she were to develop the absolutely sterling record we have seen over many years in Shareen's work, impeccable honesty, incredible attention to detail. (Even if the altered PAMPA ad in FM somehow escaped her notice!)

Get that motor going yet?

Having said that, I do understand how people who don't know Shareen and aren't familiar with her decades of dedicated service (all volunteer) to the stunt flyers of the world could paint themselves a picture with lots of dark undertones. It is unfortunate that no good deed goes unpunished and the occassional abuse she receives from those not familiar with her considerable virtues vis a vis the stunt community is fortunately rare (but often from predictable directions)

Such occassional recrimination frankly comes with the territory of doing important work for others. Nobody walks away from doing so unscathed simply because it is so much easier to take shots at people that actually do the work than it is of those who merely participate in the product of that labor.

Over the 30+ years of Shareen's service to the community she has received many accolades, a few public and many private. She especially appreciates the private words of thanks that accompany so many of the communications she receives regarding PAMPA membership, finances, late issues, address changes, mis-sent requests for PAMPA products or other services, etc. To those that have done so I offer my thanks for your generous good spirit. Makes my life at home a lot easier, too!

Shareen (and me, too) knows that the appreciation far outweighs the vituperation and for that reason she has continued to serve and take the occassional slings and arrows. It is unfortunate that now, for the first time in those several decades, a lot of the slings and arrows are coming from elected officers of the organization. Because stuff from such sources is new and foreign to her association with PAMPA leadership in the past, it has been somewhat harder to dismiss so casually.

I urge everyone involved to take a deep breaths, think twice and count to ten before casting stones at someone who has done -- and continuous to do -- so much for the stunt flyers of the world. Shareen has proven over and over that she is completely honest, ethical and willing to do the hard work that such dedication requires. Does so because of the pay grade, I guess.

Such people are not easy to replace and it is a wise membership that recognizes that.

Thanks for listening.

You bet. I think Shareen is the best. And you can tell her I said so.

I sent you a couple of emails this week. Did you get them?

I'll check when I get home. Still at work. Didn't get to my office at all yesterday so if that was when you sent them I haven't seen them yet.

Doug and Awfuldog.

Yeah, I quit my day job flying people around. Got bored sitting around the house picking up my feet when Shareen vacuumed under them so I went out and got a part time thing at NASA. Sort of a senior astronaut thing (not)!

I work for an organization known as the Aviation Safety Reporting Sytem (ASRS). I'm a so called "expert" analyst. Guess I've got them fooled so far. We receive reports of anomalies and mistakes made by pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers (yes, they do make a mistake once in a while) flight attendants and so forth. We analyze the reports and enter the info into data bases that can be searched to garner and flesh out recurring problems. When we do so we alert appropriate agencies to try to resolve the problems before any of that headline producing stuff happens.

Not as exciting as Shanghai or Sydney layovers but better then playing golf every day of the week!

I certainly did not mean to reply in a manner meant to demean what Shareen has done or currently does as PAMPA secretary/Treasurer. I simply meant to report what I heard. Regardless of how I am being labeled, it did not effect me one bit either way.

Dan is so smart, he knows who I talk to now from about 2000 miles away. Not like Dan to label people like that.

Originally, I heard that the motion to replace Shareen in this vote, (or previous votes) was Peabody's if that what Dan means. I have no problem with the source of any issue or concern coming from Rich Peabody. I submit that Rich has done many good things in PAMPA that go unnoticed due to his obvious lack of popularity *with some people* (including building the Nats Intermediate event to a level as large as Advanced and Open---but I am sure Dan never hears about that).

Rich has always been open and honest with me, and frankly, very consistent in his goals. While I do not always approve of his methods (and we have spoken about alternate methods, and I believe Rich has listened). I applaud his enthusiasm and concern, and his ability to reference the rulebook on occassion, which is better than some people. I frankly think Rich has gotten a bad rap, because sometimes he has a tendency to "poke a bear with a stick". I don't know, maybe sometimes the bear won't wake up unless you poke him a few times.

As far as whether I know some people did not vote due to the fact that they felt their vote was *too out in the open*, I will stand by what I said. I do know *other* people besides Rich who said the same thing, and as a result abstained from voting. Hey, I voted, it didn't bother me any. Some people are less likely to expose themselves, as it is the nature of being in an event that is partially a popularity contest, or an exposure contest (I am sure I will get ripped for saying that too)---these are the same people who "lurk" on this forum and never reply.

The sad reality is that the predictions of these few people, who were afraid of being labeled "on a side" have fully come to light in recent times. People HAVE taken sides, and a lot of critiszms have been bantered about by BOTH SIDES trying to gain ground. I think everyone knows who these *sides* are also, so I will not say anymore about that. It would seem the correct thing to do would be to let both sides have concessions, and come to a compromise. I believe that "counting the votes" would have been a good oportunity to do this without it truly affecting the outcome. Alas, I see very little compromise here. Like I said, it would have has ZERO effect on the outcome, most likely.

I think it is sad, but not really all that surprising how things are turning out.

Hey, all this slapping each other around is the best thing in the end, right? PAMPA will surely be a better SIG due to everyone's effort in this mud slinging festival.

In the end, one side will blame the other for all the bad things, crown itself the winner, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GOOD WILL COME IT.

Bravo...

I think it is more like 2500 miles.

>As far as whether I know some people did not vote due to the
>fact that they felt their vote was *too out in the open*, I
>will stand by what I said.

I know a few of my own. And they are not who Dan thinks they are.

Imagine all this energy spent about whether the vice president's wife should tally the vote in an organization of 2000. I just don't believe Shareen's ego is that fragile or that her commitment to the organization is so short sighted. Simple. It's bad business to have a vote looked at and counted by someone who may be perceived by members of the organization to have a conflict of interest. Especially when the AMA is available to act as a neutral arbiter. This has nothing to do with Shareen's character or exemplary service. Brett, Ted, Dan vouching for Shareen's character is besides the point. There's a principal here which has implications for all of us in PAMPA. I venture to guess that the vast majority of us have not had the pleasure of Shareen's or Ted or Dan's or Brett's acquaintance. This is why we have rules to insure a due process which is neutral and fair. This makes our organization stronger. The voting process itself is removed from issues of personality. Definitely I'll be discussing this with my District Rep.

Is it possible to switch the focus of our discussion a few millimeters? Can we think about what's best for PAMPA? Remembering that PAMPA now involves a range of people interested in Competition Stunt. People of different abilities, experience and levels of commitment. It seems to me we're not really dealing with a conflict of interest. I think the heavy duty competitors benefit from the rest of us being there doing our thing and respecting their work. There's a mutuality here. How about some respect for what the less accomplished add to PAMPA. I think it's obvious. Our enthusiasm and involvement with flying stunt type airplanes widens the hobby and helps insure that there will be a contest somewhere sometime to go to. How are we a threat? I just don't see it.

(Guess I'll get my head handed to me for these remarks. Feeling in an idealistic mood at the moment.)

Unless you can show or prove factually where the sport flyers have been dissed by the competition flyers, then your point is moot and without merit. Innuendo and "someone who wishes to remain anonymous" does not wash. Facts are the only currency in this discussion with discussing. And your hit on Shareen is without honor, decency and is not gentlemanly. Shareen is above reproach and that is easy to prove because of her years of devoted, honest, and impeccable service to PAMPA since its inception. Can you say the same?

With all due respect, Tom - you may need to re-read Dennis's post. Everything in it was professionally and diplomatically presented. He was trying to make the point that "character or exemplary service" has nothing to do with avoiding conflicts of interest, and it doesn't.

As for the innuendo, there's enough of it flying back and forth from both sides. If you carefully read all of these posts and those on other threads, you'll find it. There's no point being specific about it and digressing into individual quotes with dates and times. That would result in more hard feelings all the way around.

I am a student of words and ideas. I make it a rigid practice to carefully read in context and word for word. I stand by all I said to Dennis. I do not deal in innuendo or implication. I have read all of the posts in this thread and there have been allegations of alleged disrespect without proof or context. Therefore when these accusations are made I will demand conclusive proof or I will challenge the individual that made them. Furthermore anonymous missives are without merit. And yes, exemplary character and service has everything to do with it. Shareen is above reproach and her service record justifies the trust put in her.

>With all due respect, Tom - you may need to re-read Dennis's
>post. Everything in it was professionally and
>diplomatically presented. He was trying to make the point
>that "character or exemplary service" has nothing to do with
>avoiding conflicts of interest, and it doesn't.
>
>As for the innuendo, there's enough of it flying back and
>forth from both sides. If you carefully read all of these
>posts and those on other threads, you'll find it. There's
>no point being specific about it and digressing into
>individual quotes with dates and times. That would result
>in more hard feelings all the way around.

There was never any question about Shareen's integrity and honesty in counting the votes, as called for in her job description in the PAMPA bylaws, until Rich Peabody said that PAMPA should get AMA to do such and remove her from her responsibilities. His call for this had to do with the election of 2003 between Keith Trostle and John Brodak where again it was alleged that she could not be trusted in a close election to honestly certify that John had won. What tripe. This has continued to today through another election cycle and she again performed her constitutional duties impeccably and without any proof of fraud. Her integrity is above reproach and all calls for her removal are without merit. When will it end Dennis? Every time you and others bring this up, you insult her. That is a fact that you must deal with.

>No Tom, I write pretty clearly. You are not understanding
>what I wrote and intended to say. No dis of Shareen or Ted
>or Dan or Brett. I'm stating a principle that is obvious.
>Think of how your statements sound to those of us who do not
>personally know the people you mention. PAMPA now contains
>2000 members. Most of whom do not know each other
>personally. Therefore the structure of how votes are counted
>should be changed. Put in the hands of an independent
>arbiter.
>
>Dennis Moritz

You may misunderstand the concept of Conflict of Interest. No facts are required, not even innuendo. If the mere appearance of a conflict exists, then there is one. Conflicts of Interest are defined by relationships - not character, service, or trust.

Conflict of Interest policies were put in place for corporations, organizations, and the Government to serve the "invested" stockholders, members, and taxpayers, respectively. The policies promote trust among those who can never personally experience that assurance.

In my humble opinion, these discussions appear to be growing pains for PAMPA. Things work well when everyone knows everyone else - personally. As an organization expands, that may not be sufficient anymore.

My comments are also not an attack against you or anyone else. Please accept my apology if you view them differently.

"Mere appearance" is the refuge of those that have nothing else to hide behind. If you or others have proof that Shareen and others that you disagree with have acted in a dishonorable manner, than provide the proof. If you do not have it, then refrain from your scurilious accusations and innuendo. Those that resort to these lowly tactics are more guilty of what they allege of others.

>You may misunderstand the concept of Conflict of Interest.
>No facts are required, not even innuendo. If the mere
>appearance of a conflict exists, then there is one.
>Conflicts of Interest are defined by relationships - not
>character, service, or trust.
>
>Conflict of Interest policies were put in place for
>corporations, organizations, and the Government to serve the
>"invested" stockholders, members, and taxpayers,
>respectively. The policies promote trust among those who
>can never personally experience that assurance.
>
>In my humble opinion, these discussions appear to be growing
>pains for PAMPA. Things work well when everyone knows
>everyone else - personally. As an organization expands,
>that may not be sufficient anymore.
>
>My comments are also not an attack against you or anyone
>else. Please accept my apology if you view them
>differently.

Let's return to the subject at hand.

How on earth will he have more power if has ALL of the membership voting on the issues? Did you read the column. Anyway the reps wont vote for the amendments that take them out of power. have you ALL totaly forgotten how this works. Please come back to earth.

I have read a rough copy of these changes and I for one do not see how these changes will help Brodak make more money. Also the rough copy I saw said nothing about taking anything away from the reps. NOT ONE WORD! I just dont see how adding two words to the statement of PAMPA will all of sudden make hime money. It just wont happen. I wont vote for the change in the company statement but not because of this "Perceived" conflict. There is no way to prove that this would actually be a conflict according to Tom McClain so you should be quiet about it. Right Tom?

Let's get the actual By-Law amendment changes in our hands before we think John is trying to steal PAMPA. REMEMBER what he wrote in his column about all membership voting on key issues, that will never come to pass. What ditrict rep will vote himself out of power? Give the guys some credit would you. Trust our reps to do the right thing and the only amendments that are for the good of PAMPA will get to our hands.

Then the grand announcement in his Stunt News column that he did something that he obvioiusly didn't. (Even though he may have wanted to before publication, you don't state it happened before it actually did.) Then Shareen and later Ted proposed a motion to the EC to restore the Flying Models ad to its original intent (not the misleading general purpose CL organization which the new wording in the ad makes PAMPA out to be) and John blocked the vote (it was 7 to 3 in favor of going back to the original ad at that point, with John being one of the dissenters). In that e-mail John stated there was no provision in the By-Laws to take such a vote.

This is a direct quote from the November 17 e-mail that John wrote to Ted and which John, himself, sent out to me. I am therefore not divulging private conversation, but something that John, himself, wanted others to see. After all, he sent it to me without my asking for it.

And I quote John: "as I’m reading the by-laws, I can’t seem to locate the article that gives the Secretary/Treasurer or an individual member the authority to conduct business (i.e., present a resolution, request a vote) outside the confines of a regularly called and scheduled meeting."

John himself, has repeatedly said, including this e-mail, that he is proposing the changes to the By-Laws as an individual member "as any other member has a right to do." Then how does he have the authority to do so outside of a regularly called and scheduled meeting as he now interprets the By-Laws to say? He, himself, says it cannot be done (Or at least he says it can't when another member of the EC calls for a simple resolution to restore the original wording in the Flying Models advertising stating that PAMPA is "precision aerobatics.")

When a member of the EC can't even make a resolution to restore a magazine ad to reflect the true purpose of PAMPA without it becoming a crisis, and such action being blocked by the President, then I, among others, do get very nervous about the honesty and intent of our president President, and wonder what he will be up to next.

If John uses his "authority" to block the voting on that ad which only serves to reflect the true intent and purpose of the organization, then I have to feel that he wants to change it which is the reason the ad was changed in the first place...and, let's face it, the true reason for these proposed changes to the By-Laws.

The logo may say it, but the copy says that "Stunt News covers all skill levels and C/L intersts..." All skill levels of precision aerobatics, yes. All C/L intersts, a resounding NO! As I have said, I do not want to see Stunt News covering the speed, racing, combat, carrier, scale, etc. aspects of C/L. It was bad enough that the coverage of the Brodak contest covered everything. We don't put coverage in Stunt News about the other events from the Nats or any other contest. Why did the Brodak contest get coverage of all of the events?

There is more, (That's the way the second to the last paragraph in the ad begins.) "There's more! PAMPA District Directors and Officers are always eager to "talk airplanes" and help you connect with other C/L enthusiasts." That doesn't sound like Precision Aerobatics to me.

And who changed the ad? According to John no one has the authority to change it. So who changed it?

"Your friend in C/L" my foot! He's the president of PAMPA. Why can't he say to PAMPA members at least, "Your friend in Precision Aerobatics"? That is what PAMPA is all about. Not the rest.

All good points.

>
>And who changed the ad? According to John no one has the
>authority to change it. So who changed it?

This is the part that concerns me as well. There were complaints that past presidents acted this way. Changing things on the fly. Now I guess this one or someone nearby is doing the same. Funny how it never changes. Actually it isnt funny at all.

>
>"Your friend in C/L" my foot! He's the president of PAMPA.
>Why can't he say to PAMPA members at least, "Your friend in
>Precision Aerobatics"? That is what PAMPA is all about.
>Not the rest.

SSSHHHHHH someone might think you are an "elitist"....

I have read that stuff a few times. I get it.

You've seen more than
>I apparently, on the proposals. The thing I was concerned
>about was bypassing the EC. Many times. Not going to argue
>that- it's fact. Now, the proposal I did see had a portion
>making the EC subordinate to the President.

I did not see this portion at all. I know what I did see was not a full finished copy. This is a HUGE part of the problem. John should have never opened his BIG MOUTH before he had it all in stone and a 2/3 on his side. Maybe he will think twice next time. There is no need in my mind to start a fire storm over sutff that will never come to pass. I am sure you agree. reps wont vote themselves as subordinates to the pres.. I mean would you so that if you were the rep.? I wouldnt.

Recall in SN he
>cancelled the Executive Board meeting-"..because I saw no
>reason for it."(SN Sept/Oct p7)

The By-Laws says he can do this. There is a No Quorum clause in there. So this is within his right to do so. Not very becoming or the nice thing to do but he can do it if he wants. It says it right there in by-laws, kind of in a round about way.

I have heard he want to rid the by-laws of the no quorum clause thus removing some of his own power. Imagine that.

He moved the meeting place
>to AMA vs Signature (both were free), he just wanted to
>overrule Warren, perhaps.

Or use the facilities provided for us with our money that we pay to the AMA. Seems very logical to use the AMA headquaters for the meeting. But it would have been more PC to have done it Warren's way, the already scheduled way, this past year and then stated his intentions to move the meeting to AMA headquarters for there on out.

These actions, and others, tell me
>he is capable of bypassing the EC already. So- did the
>proposal you see have provisions for making the EC answer to
>the Pres? If it did, then I'm surprised you would take it
>lightly. If it didn't, then the concerns evidenced by this
>post may have caused a change in his tactics.

I did not see this. More of the ever elusive by-law amendments.

The scenario I
>would hate to see would be where the president ran a
>proposal by/past/around the EC and was put to a
>popular/membership vote.

OK let's get this straight. If he spends thousands of dollars and sends out a vote to the membership without EC approval he will be in direct violation of the by-laws and probably get himself kicked right out. He wont do this Dale. And even if he did, for some stupd reason, it would never stand do to the fact that the EC didnt vote on it. They will let us know what he by-passed them and we will tell him to hit the road. Pretty simple. He just cant by pass the EC on something as large as a by-law amendment change. It just cant happen.

The scenario I
>would hate to see would be where the president ran a
>proposal by/past/around the EC and was put to a
>popular/membership vote. Districts with high membership
>populations would pass it to the detriment of the low
>density districts. The representative governance, like we
>presently have, precludes this. As I said before, check
>Ron's and Baron's thread- they're better at explaining than
>I. Best regards, Dale Gleason (Never won Advanced)

OK....Here we go. If 2/3 of the EC say that the proposed Amendments should be passed. Then they are submitted to the membership as a whole. On an amendment vote the entire membership votes. So your situation is giong to happen if they pass the EC. The EC is an advisory role in the by-law amendment phase. This is stated so in Article XII. They are our reps on smaller lesser issues. That is when the larger populated stunt areas have less say than the smaller ones. Like dist 10 has a lot less say per member than a dist 3 member since it is only 1 rep per district. But on the smaller issues it really doesnt mean much. We trust them.

Are you following me here. The changes will need 2/3 of all members that vote to pass. Not just the EC. But they must go through the EC first with a 2/3 majority. So as it is written in the current By-Laws the the above situtation,excluding the part about going around the EC of course, will occur if and only if the EC let happen.

>>>Best regards, Dale Gleason (Never won Advanced)

This is true but you did win the Trophy!!! Looks good doesnt it? sorry I missed the fish fry. I had to work.

If he does attempt to do it without going to a regularly scheduled meeting with all present, then he is the biggest fake out there.

You actually expect these guys to take vacation time to discuss amendment changes to a model airplane club.

I think a conference call would suffice. Or written correspondence with positive or negative reasons. Hence the word "Official" communication.

But to be honest you are to vote the way you think your constituents would want you to vote. So the people you need to discuss this with is your district and not the other reps. The other reps should have no bearing on your vote what so ever. This is NOT a collective agreement amongst the reps. You would or should need to do some calling around in your dist and get a feel and go at it from there. That is how I would do it. I have unlimited Long Distance from Southwestern Bell. I would get on the blower and find out what they thought. I dont care what other reps feel about it. I dont rep them. If I rep all the flyers in dist 8 I will try my best to call all of them and get some input. That is how I would do it and I hope that is how all the reps do it.

One final thing concerning the FM ad change. The originial PAMPA ad ran the last time in the Feb 2004 FM and then the amended ad that represents PAMPA as a general interest control organization started in the Mar 04 FM and continues to today. No vote was taken of the EC to make the change and no one on the EC was ever consulted. And for some reason no one will admit to being the author or originator. If the new amended FM ad is so great, why won't the author take credit?

Or if it was not authorized and a 2/3 majority of the EC votes to return to the wording of the original and authorized ad, why does John block this? Why does he even vote against returning to the original, authorized ad, when he wants everything by the book?

Why? I keep in my mind asking why?

Oh, he is "just plugging gaps", remember. He is not suggesting changing anything about PAMPA.

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! I am very much on my guard at this point.

No, that's my point. It was John who said it must be a regularly scheduled meeting. That would mean wait until July before the PAMPA meeting. He could send his proposals to them earlier and they could discuss them amongst themselves and their constituents if they wish, but he, himself, has stated that such a vote (as he ruled concerning the vote on the FM ad) must be before a regularly constituted meeting.

>But to be honest you are to vote the way you think your
>constituents would want you to vote. So the people you need
>to discuss this with is your district and not the other
>reps. The other reps should have no bearing on your vote
>what so ever. This is NOT a collective agreement amongst
>the reps. You would or should need to do some calling
>around in your dist and get a feel and go at it from there.
>That is how I would do it. I have unlimited Long Distance
>from Southwestern Bell. I would get on the blower and find
>out what they thought. I dont care what other reps feel
>about it. I dont rep them. If I rep all the flyers in dist
>8 I will try my best to call all of them and get some input.
> That is how I would do it and I hope that is how all the
>reps do it.

Here we have a slight difference of agreememt Doug. PAMPA is a representative government. And that is why amendments must also go to the constituents for ratification. The EC cannot unilaterally change the By-Laws, but they can unilaterally block frivolous or harmful or meaningless amendments (add other adjectives at your liking). The whole purpose and intent is that a proposed amendment should go to the voters (members) for possible ratification only if it perceived as being necessary or for the good of the organization.

Being a representative government, the members of the Executive Council do, indeed, represent their District. But they must also vote their conscience. Just as it is impossible (as John might be suggesting) to send a vote out to the entire membership on every issue, so it is impossible for each representative of his District to send out a vote to all of the members within his District. Let's face it, if the proposed amendments were placed in the hands of the majority of our members for a vote, most would not understand them or their implications. They may not understand why things were done the original way nor what change the new wording would impact upon the organization.

If you were to send a vote to the members to make Stunt News into a monthly magazine while at the same time cutting our membership dues in half, the majority would vote in favor of the proposal without questioning where the needed funds would come from. Things on the surface often look wonderful until you actually examine the underlining cause and effect that these changes would make upon us all and upon our organization. Carrying this one step further, if you were to put a vote to the membership to add $100 to the Nats entry fee for each individual entrant in order to pay for the above, the majority would probably vote in the affirmative as well. Why not? They aren't going to the Nats. Let someone else pay for it.

What we need to look at is not what is best for us as individuals, or even for our our individual members, but what is best for the organization. This is where the "pork barrel" politics of the House and Senate have fallen into place. If a rider were attached to the amendment to move the national flying site to Texas, do you think the majority of the members in your district would want to vote against it?

Each representative must look at what is best for PAMPA as a whole, and vote his conscience. But if you see something here that I am not aware of, I want to know about it. Otherwise I could vote in favor of something that would be highly destructive and not know about it. Or something contrary to AMA rules (as already has been proposed in several of John's original "amendments").

That is where a face-to-face meeting of all of the officers is essential here where each individual amendment can be addressed on its own merits. And that is where I would want (even demand) to know what each other member of the council feels about each amendment before I would want to cast my vote. If it were a simple amendment on one item, it wouldn't be hard to examine it quickly. I fear that the scope and breadth of these changes is such that the majority of the implications will be swept under the rug until it is too late.

And placing these amendments into the hands of all of the members who don't even know (and many don't even care) what the implications would be could lead to chaos and disaster. That's why the council needs to hash them through carefully before ever allowing any of them to be passed on for a vote--and then only when they know that such an amendment is for the betterment of PAMPA according to its chartered principles as a SIG of the AMA.

That makes so much sense...

Thanks

No, the by laws do NOT say this - even in "a round about way."

The EC can meet whenever they want to do so, just as any group in this country may meet (right of assembly). They can thus, at their discretion, decide how they want to handle proposed legislation, information, etc. Their meetings, like those of any other EC I've ever encountered, are for their own business and are not "open". The only question is whether they can actually legislate at these meetings. Without directives voted on by the organization, they cannot do so, since open debate on proposals is desirable. However their power to decide what proposed legislation reaches a vote of the organization remains. THEN, as stated in the bylaws (see below), "All proposed amendments and action taken thereon shall be reported to the membership in the next issue of the newsletter following receipt of the proposal." Obviously, no such action can be taken in these time constraints without the ability of the EC to "meet" (probably electronically).

SO, if the trustees could not "meet" at their discression, the business of dealing with member submitted proposals could not even be done in the way stipulated in the bylaws!

Something NOT covered in the bylaws is just WHAT constitutes a "meeting" and HOW meetings are called. The President is no more empowered to call or cancel an EC meeting than any other officer. The problem is that there is no mechanism in place for calling EC meetings at all. This problem was addressed by my group (Cleveland Philharmonic) by incorporating in our bylaws the frequency of meetings and right of any officer to call an Executive Board meeting (we have more Board members than officers). The full Board also voted to give our (CPO) executives the power to transact business between full Board meetings, when time constraints required action. This would cover issues like the current FM Ad controversy.

What is obvious from reading the easily accessed PAMPA bylaws...

http://www.control-line.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=29

...is that the President is NOT empowered to deny anyone the right - the RESPONSIBILITY - to meet.

Now, about the FM advertisement. Since the EC did not OK a change, it has the right and responsibility to countermand that change.

Finally, please note that this post has expressed no stand on the substance of any proposed by-laws changes.

Thanks.

That is what I want to know. Everyone keeps saying that the Presisdent answers to the EC. Well it looks to me like they answer to him on that one. What gives?

Why didnt they have the meeting anyway?

Tom,

Slow it down. Now you are insulting Tom B..

Do you know for a FACT that he is accusing Shareen?

Where has he accused her of anything or questioned her ability to do her job?

Apparently you are only able to read that in his posts. Your very defensive tone in most of your posts shines through every time. It is very hard for anyone including me to stay objective when they are on the defense. In fact it is impossible. It is impaired judgment.

You keep saying that people should only make accusations based on facts. You should follow your own advice. Tom B. has never accused her of anything and you, based on your own advice, cannot and should not say anything to that matter since you have no actual proof that he accused her of anything. He has repeated himself many times to the fact that an organization of our size need not present a "Perceived" Conflict of Interest. Ted has even come on here and said that to the casual member it can look like a conflict.

Besides the way I see it this is all about the FUTURE of PAMPA. This isnt about Shareen. From my point of view it has NEVER been about Shareen. Maybe to some, including you it is, but not me. There will be a day when Shareen isnt going to do this anymore. There needs to steps taken for us to be ready for this to happen. What if the new person is someone you dont know and you "Perceive" a conflict? I guess you wont say a thing about it, right?

Since you see most things as attacks can you explain something to me? Why is it when there is talk of change, anything that it may be, it is taken as a backward attack on the person who is currently doing the job? There are good ideas out there but if they come to light there is always a group of people who cant see it as an idea and talk it over. There is always a group saying it is an attack INSTEAD of debating the subject.

For instance, I have yet to read a negative to the AMA counting the votes. There are positives. Removes the "perceived" conflict of interest. It takes a load of work off of the Sec/Tres position.

Now you tell me why that is a BAD idea. I would like to know why that is a BAD idea. It has yet to be determined that this is a BAD idea.

And this is in no way an attack on Shareen so DONT you come on here and say it is. If I am going to attack someone you will ***** know it!

>
>>You may misunderstand the concept of Conflict of Interest.
>>No facts are required, not even innuendo. If the mere
>>appearance of a conflict exists, then there is one.
>>Conflicts of Interest are defined by relationships - not
>>character, service, or trust.
>>
>>Conflict of Interest policies were put in place for
>>corporations, organizations, and the Government to serve the
>>"invested" stockholders, members, and taxpayers,
>>respectively. The policies promote trust among those who
>>can never personally experience that assurance.
>>
>>In my humble opinion, these discussions appear to be growing
>>pains for PAMPA. Things work well when everyone knows
>>everyone else - personally. As an organization expands,
>>that may not be sufficient anymore.
>>
>>My comments are also not an attack against you or anyone
>>else. Please accept my apology if you view them
>>differently.

Tom B.,

I read you loud and clear and you are making a very logical argument. Good post.

There are no negatives to the AMA counting the votes.

But Tom B. did insult Shareen by suggesting that her duties as assigned by the PAMPA Bylaws be reassigned to someone or something else. It is inarguable that Shareen is required to count the ballots and certify the results. This is how it must be until the Bylaws are amended legitimately. By accusing Shareen of having a "Conflict of Interest" when her actions provide no proof is inflammatory and wrong. Until anyone can prove she cannot perform her required duties factually, any suggestion that they be taken from her are without merit and specious.

Doug, you need to understand that the Bylaws are what you must follow too. If you can't, then you have no business representing your district and you should step aside and let someone else who will uphold the PAMPA Bylaws assume those duties. My question to you is, "Will you faithfully uphold the PAMPA Bylaws as they exist today?" If you do not agree with them, change them legitimately, but uphold them until they are changed. If you can't do that, resign.

Step aside from WHAT? Last time I looked, STEVE Moon was
elected in that district.

Non-sequitor...

I stand corrected, thank you. The message still does not lack relevance.

Have you read the bylaws? There is no Bylaw that says THE SECRETARY (not Shareen directly) should count the votes. The wording does not say that at all.

In fact, Brett stated what the real case is, that the EC determined that THE SECRETARY should count the votes based on past practice, not the bylaws. That being the case, the decision stood on its merits, but it is not a Bylaw dictated decision. I think this would be a good Bylaw to update to the correct wording, whatever the method.

>Doug, you need to understand that the Bylaws are what you
>must follow too. If you can't, then you have no business
>representing your district and you should step aside and let
>someone else who will uphold the PAMPA Bylaws assume those
>duties. My question to you is, "Will you faithfully uphold
>the PAMPA Bylaws as they exist today?" If you do not agree
>with them, change them legitimately, but uphold them until
>they are changed. If you can't do that, resign.

Did someonme take an oath here? I think it the EC member's responsibility to listen to his/her district membership, and enforce the member's ideas. In that way the EC is made up of people who represent the members on a national basis. One district may have a completely different view of the situation than another, and the rep is bound to stand up for that.

Seems there is a lot of this "do this or resign" stuff going around.

No offense, but I have to object to anymore quotes that contain the libelous accusation made above. I never did anything of the sort, and the thread will confirm it to anybody.

This has nothing to do with your post 'zilla, please excuse the digression. I was going to let it alone, but I can't do that if it gets inadvertently repeated and multiplies.

As Brad stated please consult your By-Laws then enlighten us all to where it says that Sec/Tres counts the votes. I am sure I will be waiting along time for you to find it, SINCE IT ISNT IN THERE!

AS IT IS NOW THE EC CAN ELECT TO HAVE 3RD PARTY COUNTING AS THEY SEE FIT. JUST AS THEY HAVE ELECTED SHAREEN TO COUNT THEM NOW.

By
>accusing Shareen of having a "Conflict of Interest" when
>her actions provide no proof is inflammatory and wrong.

One last freaking time he never accused her of having a conflict. He simply said it can "APPEAR" or be "PERCEIVED" that there is one to the average member. TED HAS EVEN AGREED! Where have you been?

>Until anyone can prove she cannot perform her required
>duties factually, any suggestion that they be taken from her
>are without merit and specious.

So you are saying that it is an insult to propose or talk about a possible change in format or process by which something is done. If so than I guess we can NEVER change anything until we prove someone is doing something wrong. With that mentality we will never get anything done. If there is a possible better way then it need be explored. Howcome you cant see that? Maybe you dont think there is a better way. That is fine too. But discussions about a different way are not always an attack on Shareen. For some reason you CANT or WONT see it that way.

This next part is where you talk out of the other side of your mouth. You do this often. You tell everyone who you think is attacking someone to stick to the facts then you attack them back with NO FACTS OF YOUR OWN! You are really good at this. Your practice is paying off, you are a real pro. Dont worry I see through it everytime. You nail Tom B for what you took as accusations and insults without fact and then you insinuate that I cant do my job. WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS. REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID. DONT ACCUSE UNTIL YOU HAVE THE FACTS. HOWCOME YOU CANT FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? HERE IS A FACT FOR YOU, I DONT HAVE THAT JOB. You might want to get that straightened out before you accuse someone or insinuate they cant do their job. You look foolish slamming someone who has no EC position. If you are going to go head to head with an EC member and question their abilities and open up that can of worms dont you think you should know who you are talking with?

You thought I was the district 8 rep.. And you had no problem insinuating WITHOUT ANY FACTS WHAT SO EVER that I couldnt do my job and questioned me on it. You have some nerve. You ought to think about what you write. According to you it is always the WRONG thing to do to discuss anything Shareen does as an EC member. Yet it is perfectly in YOUR right, Tom McClain, to question or attack or insinuate, that I cant do my job as an elected official. WHO DIED AND MADE YOU GOD? You got some nerve Tom. I guess it is OK for you though. You can question anyone. Who do you think you are?

>
>Doug, you need to understand that the Bylaws are what you
>must follow too. If you can't, then you have no business
>representing your district and you should step aside and let
>someone else who will uphold the PAMPA Bylaws assume those
>duties. My question to you is, "Will you faithfully uphold
>the PAMPA Bylaws as they exist today?" If you do not agree
>with them, change them legitimately, but uphold them until
>they are changed. If you can't do that, resign.

You see that tone in your post, A POST THAT HAS NO MERIT, insinuates that I cant do my job, A JOB I DONT HAVE BY THE WAY! If someone wrote that very thing in a post to Shareen I think your keyboard would overheat you would be attacking them so fast.

This is such a lame trick in polotics and I am not biting on it. You do this everytime you cant answer a question. You turn it around by attacking back. You should work on your game. You wanted to turn the issue onto me and away from the small issue we are talking about. You thought an attack on me would trun the tide. Classic move.

Back to the issue.

Tom B did not attack Shareen. He was simply weighing in on an issue. He thinks it would be a good idea to have the votes counted by a third party. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE THINKS SHAREEN HASNT DONE A GOOD JOB! WHY CANT YOU GET THAT?

YOU NEVER DID EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT WOULD BE BAD TO HAVE AMA COUNT THE VOTES. I AM WAITING!!! I AM SURE I WILL BE WAITING FOR A LONG TIME ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

I AM WAITING!

OH YEAH, LAME ATTACKS ON ME FOR A JOB I DONT HAVE WILL BE NOTED.

But discussions about a
>different way are not always an attack on Shareen.

According
>to you it is always the WRONG thing to do to discuss
>anything Shareen does as an EC member.

>This is such a lame trick in politics and I am not biting on
>it. You do this everytime you cant answer a question. You
>turn it around by attacking back.

I cut these sentences because they appear to describe the SOP.

City Smasher, apparently you feel free to quote, and yet correct spelling, or maybe change the text entirely? I'm going to go immediately to Dictionary.com, and check the definition of "polotics" (sic). You should not claim to quote or "cut and paste", then edit. Not in your job description.

FWIW, I would have no problem with the AMA counting the votes, simply to 1)take some work load off of Shareen (whom I've never met, but appreciate & respect tremendously) 2) silence those (like you) who appear to be trying to divert heat from John Brodak, who is obviously trying to hijack PAMPA and make it what it was never intended to be. The EC has not considered vote counting to be an issue yet. Maybe next year, the EC will decide otherwise. Let's wait and see. Steve

Lighten up...

Hoot!!! Hoot!!! Hoot!!!

That's a hoot.

Thanks for brightening my morning colonel.

New guy Sam:

I can't vote on anything, because I don't know anything! If I did, in fact know something then I could vote on it. If the vote is to include taking away <ANY> of the EC's powers and giving them to John, then I vote a GREAT BIG NO!

Do you really think any EC member is going to tell John it is OK and advice that he put out an Amendment to the membership for vote that would remove himself from power? Would you do that? You cant vote on something that doesnt make it to you. If there are any EC members out there that vote themselves out of power they are really not reading very well what John is submitting to them.

I still dont think ANY of the EC will pass ANY amendement that removes themselves from power.

Who would do that?

I do not think the EC has anything to do with PAMPA advertising. I believe that is the advertising guy, Rich Peabody (I think).

Let's get something straight, John did not cancel any EC meeting. He asked for input from the EC members at the Nats meeting, asked if their were any issues left to discuss, everyone said "no". So, he said there was no need for an additional meeting, and did not think much of it.

The Prez cannot cancel any meetings, since he does not call them. I believe this "cancelling" of the EC meeting was not an issue until several weeks after the Nats, when it was deemed that some innapropriate behavior could be levied against John. No one protested at the Nats.

As Brett Pointed out, apparently several EC members attended a seperate private EC meeting that was called by those individual members (no quorum required). The members of the EC can call and attend the meetings they want.

This "get back at 'em for past crimes" is stupid! He is doing EXACTLY what some folks accuse past administrations of doing. Same crime, just change the underlying agenda. That is certainly intellectually honest, now isn't it (said with all due sarcasm)???!!

Several posters edited their own posts by deleting the contents. I do not know what the contents were, but since the contents were already gone, I followed up by deleting the place holder as well.

I have not deleted anybody's post that was there.

I just meant that, due to their appearance above some that had come earlier, they might have been "lost in traffic."

OK, I never even checked to see which posts you were referring to. I just wanted to note that several posters apparently changed their minds or whatever and simply deleted out their own comments. I then took the empty box out of the thread to avoid confusion (which I have not added to.)

Not really. You want it to die, but you respond to it and it comes back to the top. If you really want it to die, then leave it alone.