PAMPA, Shareen, voting and making a difference.

I'm afraid those other threads are getting out of control. Plus the one is too darn long. In an attempt to get a more constructive form of conversation going I've put together the following pretty lengthy message. It touches, hopefully, not on the divisivness of name calling but more on doing the business of a small business doing business spread over a large mass called planet Earth...just for starters.

Guys,

Let's step back just a little on some of this. Right now I'm a little sorry I brought up Shareen in the thread on the President's message. My only real reason for doing so was to say thanks to those who were supporting her and in hopes that doing so would settle things a bit. Clearly, this didn't happen.

I again thank those who supported Shareen. We both appreciate it. But, as I stated, Shareen's a big girl and recognizes that she can't participate as long and hard in an organization as she has without having a few brickbats come her way. Nobody likes it, but anyone who has actually worked in such a milieu is familiar with it.

My reason for starting a new thread with these comments is to make the point that it would be much more productive if those who dislike our current voting procedures would take the step of making a more or less formal presentation to the Trustees about those desires. Properly done, this is how changes in policy are made, not by hazing one another in internet forums.

A suggestion (known as a "resolution" in other groups I've worked in) is a printed suggestion for a change of policy or other activity that a member of a group desires to see implemented. It is a formal and official request for consideration of its subject.

The suggestion takes the form of expressing the need for the change ("whereas this and whereas that...") followed by the suggested resolution to the problem, (generally stated as "Therefore be it resolved..." that something be done about the "whereas" problems.) The resulting document is, of course, the "maker's" suggestion for consideration by the policy making body, in our case, the PAMPA Trustees.

More about resolutions in a bit.

Lacking such appropriate consideration of a member's concerns, Shareen and all the Trustees are obligated to do the duties specifically assigned to them by the bylaws as well as those clearly “implied” and “established” by past precedent.

In the instant case, concerns about balloting, it is accurate that the bylaws do *not* specifically use the words "...shall count the ballots". They do, however, specifically state that "Ballots shall be returned to the Secretary/Treasurer postmarked...etc". The implication is reasonably obvious. What purpose is served by returning them to the Secretary if not to count them?

In addition, past practice -- a well defined concept called “precedent” in legal terms -- clearly exists in that for all of PAMPA's existence the Secretary has done precisely what Shareen has done in the almost eight years she has fulfilled the responsibilities of the office. She has counted the ballots accurately and efficiently in every election held by PAMPA in the years of her service. That includes elections where she was a candidate for office three different times. (the ultimate case of conflict of interest, I guess!)

I think we all can recognize that *implication and precedent* are clear in this case and that Shareen was clearly fulfilling her resonsibilities.

None of which means that all future elections must be tabulated in that fashion.

We can change that practice if that is what the membership wants...

Which takes us back to the discussion of resolutions.

It is extremely important that we don't simply do what was done by the President in the last election and unilaterally direct the secretary to send the ballots somewhere. Such a directed solution isn't as simple as it sounds.

Not the least of the problems with that directive was that the vast majority of PAMPA's resources would have gone to AMA along with the ballots! i.e. Most ballots are returned in the same envelope as the member's renewal. If the reason for the off site tabulation was to prevent the perception of tampering by the Secretary, all mail sent to her would have to be forwarded to AMA to prevent the opportunity for such tampering.

The conduct of PAMPA's business would have been on hold until the balloting was complete. A classic case of "unintended consequences"!

A decision to have an outside agency count the ballots would require thoughtful resolution of that problem, plus the following issues, some of which Shareen mentioned to the President in her response to his directive.

1. A concern of many members is the need for anonymity of the member's choice for office. Although I don't personally consider this a defining issue, it clearly is important to many. I respect that concern even if I don’t share it.

2. A problem that recurs in every election is the presence of "illegal" ballots for a variety of reasons. Late postmarks and non-members and multiple votes, for instance.

3. Another issue is the need to insure that the votes that are received are from legitimate PAMPA members. Lacking a means of identifying the source and propriety of a vote there is currently no means of preventing individuals from simply Xeroxing ballots and voting early and often.

Our protection against that sort of activity has been the requirement for names and signatures on the ballot. As noted, many have a problem with that aspect.

Here is one solution that might be considered. It involves the use of a multiple envelope balloting procedure.

The first envelope would require the name, address, PAMPA district and signature of the member in the return address location. Before this envelope would be opened the "selected representative (AMA, for instance) would verify that the signatory was, in fact, a member in good standing and that the ballot was legal.

The actual ballot itself would be enclosed in an un-identified envelope which would be sealed within the first envelope. Once the sender has been authorized the envelope containing the ballot would be removed and placed unopened in a collection area of some sort (a big box for instance; perhaps in eleven boxes to simplify later counting by districts).

All verified ballots would remain sealed until a time at which it is determined that all ballots posted in a timely fashion would logically have been received. They are then opened, counted and the results made public.

This is a reasonably simple procedure of a type I've been involved with numerous times with nationwide elections for the Air Line Pilot's Association. It works extremely well, insures accuracy, and anonymity and certifies all ballots as "legal" before they are tallied. It is a good system.

It is also VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE!

The simple mailing of ballots as is done today costs PAMPA right around $1500.00 a year. This includes postage, printing and supplies (paper and envelopes) To reduce expenses we mail the membership renewal apps in the same envelope. If we were to adopt a multiple envelope system for balloting it would almost certainly be necessary to do it as a separate mailing. Thus the basic cost would be nearly doubled just to do them separately.

A big concern would be the increased postage cost for essentially mailing three envelopes plus the ballot and cover letter in each member's ballot mailing. It would almost certainly drive the postage for each beyond the one oz, I believe to $.60+/- vice the $.37 for the current combined ballot/renewal mailing.

There would be increased costs associated with the additional envelopes and specialized printing for the ballot associated envelopes. This cost is probably not prohibitive.

To be sure, the added expense would be an issue and must be included in any discussion of a restructuring of our method of balloting. Combined with the administrative problems I’ve discussed before it is easy to see that such a restructuring isn’t something to enter into casually…especially for the people that do the work as opposed to those who simply direct that procedures be changed.

Ultimately, a decision would have to be made as to the cost/benefit ratio of such a change. Only the membership could make this decision and they should only be allowed the opportunity to do so after the directors have seriously looked at that equation and determined exactly how the restructuring would be accomplished and that the costs were acceptable in light of the benefits received.

My personal opinion – worth no more than any other member’s – is that, unless and until we have evidence of malfeasance by those we’ve elected, such a complication in the way we do business and the costs associated with it don’t support doing so. The “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” paradigm.

If, however, a member does feel that we should do so he/she is well within their rights to submit a suggestion (“resolution”) to the trustees for action. The trustees are legally required to respond to such a resolution (PAMPA is a not-for –profit corporation and we are legally bound by the rules for same). Such action (as opposed to internet rhetoric) will ultimately result in a decision as to the merits of the suggestion. If the members agree, the President will be directed to implement their decision. If the members disagree, the maker will be so advised and thanked for his participation nonetheless.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

A person in a conflict of interest situation may deal with it in a fair and upright manner. Been there, done that, no T-shirt. That Shreen had delt with conflict of interest situations in an exeplary manner is to her great credit. I don't know the wording of the EC direction to the secretary about counting the votes, but I doubt that the secretary was told in detail how to do it. In any case, the EC wanted to recieve a fair and accurate account of the votes. They should not have been directive about how the secretary achieved this. I understand Shareen asked Brett Buck to assist with counting the votes. I applaud this, votes should always be counted by more than one person to cut down on honest error.

>My personal opinion – worth no more than any other member’s
>– is that, unless and until we have evidence of malfeasance
>by those we’ve elected, such a complication in the way we do
>business and the costs associated with it don’t support
>doing so. The “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” paradigm.

You have my support Ted. More importantly, so does Shareen. I am surprised that she hasn't said "to he** with this" and gone on to do something more enjoyable. Such dedication is often overlooked.

Not by me. Thank you, Shareen, for the years of selfless and often thankless hours of work you put into PAMPA. I will probably never have the chance to meet you and Ted in person, but I appreciate what both of you have done and continue to do for PAMPA. So do a lot of others. Don't let the nay-sayers taint and sour the good of what you do.

Were PAMPA an organization with motives of profit, then I would agree with John Brodak and do ballot counting along the lines of established procedures we have for public elections, etc. It isn't, and perhaps that is where John Brodak is missing the point. From what I can see, there is nothing to gain financially or otherwise, so I have no reason to doubt the word of those like Shareen and others who count ballots. I think the last PAMPA election for President was proof of that. If I recall, Shareen was involved in the counting and John Brodak was elected. Did I miss something?

We are losing the bubble. I for one am happy and satified with the way things were run before last year, and frankly don't want to see PAMPA changed into something else. PAMPA is what it is, it follows its charter, and it serves that function well. To tranform it into something else dilutes what PAMPA does best and is chartered to do.

After watching this for almost a year, I would suggest to John Brodak that he form an AMA Special Interest Group called CLFA (Control Line Flyer's Association) or something similar. It can embrace all disciplines of CL. I would probably support it. But I won't support changing PAMPA from its charter. And, I won't support changing procedures that are run efficiently and prudently because there is the "risk" of impropriety or conflict of interest. PAMPA is a small AMA SIG, not a "For Profit" organization. We are forgetting that.

Two more points. Firstly, I am for the most part a sport flyer. I enjoy being a PAMPA member and have learned much from the competitors who freely share information and wisdom. That doesn't mean that I want to change the focus of the organization and make it something different. Secondly, I very much appreciate what John Brodak has done for CL, and hope to make it to his meet some day. I will continue to support him by buying his products. I just don't want to see PAMPA changed. Some things don't need fixing.

V/r

>You have my support Ted. More importantly, so does Shareen.
> I am surprised that she hasn't said "to he** with this" and
>gone on to do something more enjoyable. Such dedication is
>often overlooked.
>

Oh, boy! Don't think that hasn't been a topic of conversation around the old Fancher Campfire a time or two the last year or so. We've got our first grandson (just under three months old by our daughter Kim and son-in-law Tim and a second on the way for Christmas by son Jeff and his Marcia)so she has plenty of really, really happy things to spend her time on. She could do nicely without the nasties.

Thus far though, every time she gets fed up enough to can it she gets a call or an email from one of the 99% of PAMPA guys or gals who appreciate her hard work and want to thank her for it. So far, the good guy's thank yous are offsetting the less pleasant comments. But I sure do get an earfull from time to time!

Thanks, Bob.

Fly Stunt

Ted

I won't debate the need or lack of same for an outside agent to count our ballots but I will suggest that there is a much simpler and cost effective method than what you propose.

1. Send out the ballot/renewal packages as has been the past practice. No additional cost here.

2. All ballots and membership renawals will be sent in the same envelope as has been the past practice but to the AMA person or persons responsible for counting of the ballots. No additional cost here unless the AMA is going to charge us for this service.

3. PAMPA provides an alphabetical list of active members to the AMA count team. They simply take each ballot from the envelope, verify the postmark date, verify current mmembership and tally the ballot and place a small check mark beside the name. Can't vote twice or you get two check marks. Pretty simple, again I see no additional costs associated with it.

4. AMA tally team is kind enough to toss the renewal forms in a pile and then send them to the PAMPA secretary for processing. Fed ex package costs maybe $30.00 tops.

The comment "The conduct of PAMPA's business would have been on hold until the balloting was complete. A classic case of "unintended consequences"!" maybe be true to some extent. My sense is that there isn't an plethora of PAMPA business transactions that couldn't wait thirty days. If the vote tally is finallized by the end of Nov. that should provide enough leadtime. Seems to me that most changes are geared around a Jan 1 following year date. If more time is needed, then move up the initial mailing date by a few weeks.

Am I missing anything?

>I won't debate the need or lack of same for an outside agent
>to count our ballots but I will suggest that there is a much
>simpler and cost effective method than what you propose.

Your method is what I would have thought would be proposed. The AMA would simply follow the same procedure as the current Secretary. The votes would be validated using a current PAMPA membership list.

Ted, I appreciate your post, and I feel that this represents the type of action that is representative of your position as VP. Resolve the situation, and move on. Good job.

I for one see no reason for a change. Besides I have seen and been part of the AMA screwups.DOC

LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-04 AT 12:35 PM (CST)
 
>The comment "The conduct of PAMPA's business would have been
>on hold until the balloting was complete. A classic case of
>"unintended consequences"!" maybe be true to some extent. My
>sense is that there isn't an plethora of PAMPA business
>transactions that couldn't wait thirty days. If the vote
>tally is finallized by the end of Nov. that should provide
>enough leadtime. Seems to me that most changes are geared
>around a Jan 1 following year date. If more time is needed,
>then move up the initial mailing date by a few weeks.
>
>Am I missing anything?

Oh, boy, Jim. Yes you are.

One of the things about PAMPA that the average flyer doesn't recognize is how much work is involved in making it what it is and keeping it running from week to week.

I do because I live the the gal that does the work that makes it possible for the membership to receive the great magazine that Tom, Will and Ken provide for us. Jim, the Secretary's job at PAMPA is the equivilant of a busy part time job. From the date that she starts the renewal/balloting process in late August or so it becomes a full time, sometimes more than that, job.

A couple of thousand doesn't sound like a lot in a society where we bandy about words like millions and billions -- and we're only talking basketball players salaries -- but when you are the point man for every hitch and giggle that each of the 2000 has with their membership 2000 gets real big, real fast.

Not a day (seven days a week) goes by without at least one and usually several calls for membership issues, late magazines, requests for mailing labels, call that should have gone to PAMPA Products getting redirect, calls about STUNT NEWS policy and deadlines and on and on.

This is the normal day, not the day from the time the renewals go out. I won't even discuss the part about printing, picking up, folding, stapling and mutilating 2000+ domestic and foreign memberships. Suffice to say it's several full time days for several people --- strawbossed by Shareen.

From the date they go out Shareen's life is no longer her own; and, believe it or not, she's got other priorities including grandkids, holidays and all the other stuff that regular PAMPA members enjoy without the pressure of volunteer full time work at that time of year.

Every day starting a week or so after mailing them out, Shareen's mail comes "bundled" by the mailman. Dozens of envelopes a day including, for the most part, both ballots and renewals.

Each envelope requires a minimum of a number of minutes of precious time to process. The information is entered into a data base of a couple of dozen categories. The date of arrival and check numbers are noted and any credit card processing is done. The ballots are separated and put in folders by District for later counting (which also requires time).

The hard copies of renewals are punched and eventually posted in binders to cross reference the database. All of this data and hard copies for all the years she has been secretary are in electronic or physical storage and will, of course, be forwarded to the next Secretary for continuity. It is worth nothing that before Shareen took over the task, to the best of my knowledge, nothing approaching that level of record keeping was ever accomplished. Doing so takes somebody's time.

I could go on, Jim, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Pretty much only the handful of PAMPA members who visit our home regularly (plus her family) have any clue about the depth and extent of Shareen's job. To suggest that doing so is a casual undertaking that could stand a week of suspension is simply not accurate. Thus, this response.

Fly Stunt,
Ted Fancher

Thanks Ted for your reply. It was me, Dick Fowler, who posted that comment.

This last response raises an additional question my mind. You just spent a fair amount of time and words describing how busy Shareen is during ballot time. I absolutely don't question how hard she works, her integrity or character, etc. I'm very appreciative of all that she does for us. However,given how overloaded she is during this period, why wouldn't she welcome an outside source handling the ballot tally duties? This would free her up to work on the renewal portion of the returns. The whole process would be speeded up, Shareen wouldn't be as overworked and the "conflict of interest group" would go away. Sounds like a "win win" to me.

With regards to "The conduct of PAMPA's business would have been
on hold until the balloting was complete. A classic case of"unintended consequences"!" It's obvious to me that the conduct of PAMPA business is exactly what is occuring at that time period.It is indeed "the business at hand" and is being dealt with. So what other business is being held up? I asked my District Rep. about what sorts of communications and important business that has been forwarded to him during this busy season. Answer "If any proposals were presented to EC I haven't received any copies or notices thereof!"

I've offered a simple method for accomplishing the goal. I've not received any comments from you or any other PAMPA Trustee suggesting that my proposal is flawed and/or unworkable.

Ted, so far I've read two responses from you regarding the issue of outside ballot counting and the problems as you see them. I do not see it as being nearly as complicated as you are representing to us. There are simple solutions to the problems. I had hoped for clear thinking, creative ideas, and open mindedness when I voted for you. Please don't disappoint.

>Thanks Ted for your reply. It was me, Dick Fowler, who
>posted that comment.
>
Dick,

Of course it was. My apologies. I was replying to several threads and got a name in my mind and stuck with it. Sorry.

Re your comments. Like another who sent my a private email I think you've misinterpreted the intent of my response. Understand, I'm not one who shares the opinion that PAMPA is so divided and at odds that we need to take our affairs outside the organization. Having said that I understand full well that there are those who disagree.

I'm unlikely to do there work for them, however -- thanks anyhow.

I'm going to copy my response to the other PAMPA member because you both, I think, misintrepted the reasons for my remarks in the same way. Hope you don't mind.

Ted Fancher

********************************************************************

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point of the post.

I'm perfectly aware that problems can be resolved. That's almost universally true. The fact that the problems I presented could or couldn't be solved wasn't important to the substance of the post.

The entire reason for that thread was not to deal specifically with the voting issue. I only used it as a current topic of some "dispute" that could be (and could have been for the several years of its contentious existence) resolved by action properly directed; the concept of presenting issues to the Trustees for consideration and action.

I simply used the voting issue as a means to describe the process, and also to illustrate the fact that issues are generally more complicated than they seem to the casual observer. That was the only reason for raising the cost/benefit issue. These are the sorts of "oh, I hadn't thought of that when I submitted the resolution" issues that the Trustees need to think of and resolve when presented with requests for direction or policy by the membership. This is precisely the reason that regular Trustee involvement in PAMPA affairs is not only "nice" to do but positively necessary.

If, in this case, had a member proffered a resolution saying only: "therefore be it resolved that the ballots be shipped to AMA for counting" none of the problems with doing so would have been addressed. The Trustees could (easily in the era of internet com) massaged the proposal and -- assuming the underlying concept was felt to be sound and desireable -- amended it if necessary to resolve the problems. They would then ask the maker if the resulting resolution met with his approval and then proceed to vote on it.

****, that sort of concentrated attention to the details of policy making is the precise reason for an Executive Board (Trustees); a brain trust of elected representatives who confer and reach consensus on the propriety of policy or direction for the organization. A single individual simply can't see the entire spectrum of potential concern and the entire membership is too unwieldy a working group. We've run this country pretty well with a representative democracy for a couple hundred years. Seems like a good system.

Thanks for the note. Do you mind if the exchange is posted on the thread?

To Dick Fowler:

>4. AMA tally team is kind enough to toss the renewal forms
>in a pile and then send them to the PAMPA secretary for
>processing. Fed ex package costs maybe $30.00 tops.

Dick, if renewals come in at a rate of a couple dozen per day, as Ted has seen, and AMA accumulates them for a few days, presumably to save on FedEx, when the package finally arrives on Shareen's door she could have well over a hundred memberships to process. I assume this lady would like some life beyond PAMPA, even at renewal time.

Also, I'm not wild about the idea of my dues passing through any other orgaization, even AMA, before it gets to our Treasurer.

Those issues aside, what was the reason, again, for proposing this change?

Randi Gifford

LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-04 AT 05:05 PM (CST)
 
>To Dick Fowler:
SNIP

>Those issues aside, what was the reason, again, for
>proposing this change?
>
>Randi Gifford

Randi, read the first sentence of my first post. Ted's post went into great detail as to how complex and costly having an outside agency count ballots. My post didn't address the merits of the action only proposed that there are simpler ways to accomplish the task.

I have no hidden agenda, I'll tell you up front what I'm thinking and I did. If you ask be prepared for the answer.

By the way, I've made no bones about being in favor of an outside agency for vote counting. It's good business and rules out any hints of impropriety. A preemptive action if you will. Not a reflection on current participants. Sad part is that some other petty crap will replace it.

Edited Part:

"Also, I'm not wild about the idea of my dues passing through any other orgaization, even AMA, before it gets to our Treasurer. "

There is a $.37 solution for this problem.

>To Dick Fowler:
>
>>4. AMA tally team is kind enough to toss the renewal forms
>>in a pile and then send them to the PAMPA secretary for
>>processing. Fed ex package costs maybe $30.00 tops.
>
>Dick, if renewals come in at a rate of a couple dozen per
>day, as Ted has seen, and AMA accumulates them for a few
>days, presumably to save on FedEx, when the package finally
>arrives on Shareen's door she could have well over a hundred
>memberships to process. I assume this lady would like some
>life beyond PAMPA, even at renewal time.
>
>Also, I'm not wild about the idea of my dues passing through
>any other orgaization, even AMA, before it gets to our
>Treasurer.
>
>Those issues aside, what was the reason, again, for
>proposing this change?
>
>Randi Gifford

Hi Randi!

How's the leg? Hope you're getting around better.

Thanks for your input. Just wanted to take the opportunity to say thanks for your hard work judging the nats. We all appreciated it. Well, that's not exactly accurate. I *would* have enjoyed flying for you if my toy wasn't all busticated.

>Hi Randi!
>
>How's the leg? Hope you're getting around better.

The leg's getting better every day, Ted. I'm vertical and that's what matters. Thanks for asking.

>Thanks for your input. Just wanted to take the opportunity
>to say thanks for your hard work judging the nats. We all
>appreciated it.

It never ceases to amaze me when a flyer thanks me for judging. I consider judging contests to be a privilege. Where else can I spend a day in the sun being entertained by the best?

>Well, that's not exactly accurate. I
>*would* have enjoyed flying for you if my toy wasn't all
>busticated.
>
>Ted

Your toy airplane was a lot more busticated than my leg. I really missed watching you fly this year. Looking forward to 2005 with great anticipation.

"Am I missing anything?"

Well, have you submitted the resolution with the requisite details? If so, you aren't missing that.

You may be missing the point that if a handful of people lose interest in devoting their unpaid labor to PAMPA, it will go away. The folks who founded and maintain PAMPA would probably replace it, but they might not.

"The suggestion takes the form of expressing the need for the change ("whereas this and whereas that...") followed by the suggested resolution to the problem, (generally stated as "Therefore be it resolved..." that something be done about the "whereas" problems.) The resulting document is, of course, the "maker's" suggestion for consideration by the policy making body, in our case, the PAMPA Trustees."

I hate to nit pick but I don't think this is a true statement, or am I wrong?

My understanding is that proposals for policy changes are to be reviewd by the EC. If the EC deems the proposal worthy of consideration then its' put into the form of a resolution and presented to the membership for vote. So I see it that the members are the policy makers and the EC is to follow said policies.

Also my interpretation of the bylaws is that the EC is to inform the membership of propsals submitted to them and the action that they took regarding these proposals. SN is to be the means of informing the membership. I don't recall reading anything like this in SN in the recent past.

Again, if I'm wrong please point out my errors.

>course, the "maker's" suggestion for consideration by the
>policy making body, in our case, the PAMPA Trustees."
>
>I hate to nit pick but I don't think this is a true
>statement, or am I wrong?

The by-laws are pretty straight-forward on the subject. I think the discussion centered around proposals submitted to the Trustees.

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

The President shall preside al all meetings and shall execute the policies established by the Trustees. He shall appoint committee members and chairmen as he deems appropriate.

The Vice President shall perform the duties of the President in his absence. The Vice President shall assist the President in executing the policies established by the Trustees.

The Secretary/Treasurer shall keep a correct and accurate record of the proceedings of all meetings of the Trustees as well as the membership. Copies of all such minutes shall be available to any member at reasonable times, and photocopy expenses may be charged therefore. The Secretary/Treasurer shall keep an accurate and updated membership roll. The same shall be provided to the editor of Stunt News. The Secretary/Treasurer shall receive, disburse and account for all funds of the corporation and be responsible for all tax filings, and may hire accountants to assist in this work with the advice of the President. A financial statement shall be published annually and a statement of receipts and disbursements shall be published at least twice annually in the newsletter.

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

The District Directors shall be responsible to provide counsel to the President, advise as to the opinions of constituent members, and carry out such responsibilities as may be assigned to them by the President.

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

LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-04 AT 07:15 AM (CST)
 
I arrived at my conclusion by reading the article before it.

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.

My thinking may be flawed to consider policy changes to be offical business as described here which is subject to membership vote.

Not sure... some ambiguity in the bylaws.

Does a policy manual exist? Usually one of the first documents generated after Articles of Incorporation and bylaws. Are copies available to the membership?

Still wonder about individual's proposal results being published in SN. Would someone be kind enough to give me issue and page number in SN for these. Election results excepted. Edited part - and the annual meeting.

Hi Ted,

OK, I have on my insulated fire suit.

How about this. You set up balloting on the PAMPA web site? Steve sets up a log in for members only (with secure password and authetication based on membership list). You click to the ballot (and probably have to give your password again). The ballot contains all areas that are up for you to vote on. Proposals, district directors, president, vp, whatever. If, say, your district director is not up for election but others are, you would not have anything on your ballot for district director. Once you vote (once, thank you) you are locked out of the balloting. This would prevent voting early and often. Would be pretty easy to set up, I would think. A one time login to the balloting area. Once a time period expires, the total is spit out and announced.

Just a thought. I know that some don't have internet access and for those, I suppose you could still have a paper ballot or some other means, but I would think this could increase participation. I have sometimes missed a vote because I don't get my membership (and ballot) back before the cut off.

>Hi Ted,
>
>OK, I have on my insulated fire suit.
>
>How about this. You set up balloting on the PAMPA web site?
>Steve sets up a log in for members only (with secure
>password and authetication based on membership list). You
>click to the ballot (and probably have to give your password
>again). The ballot contains all areas that are up for you to
>vote on. Proposals, district directors, president, vp,
>whatever. If, say, your district director is not up for
>election but others are, you would not have anything on your
>ballot for district director. Once you vote (once, thank
>you) you are locked out of the balloting. This would prevent
>voting early and often. Would be pretty easy to set up, I
>would think. A one time login to the balloting area. Once a
>time period expires, the total is spit out and announced.
>
>Just a thought. I know that some don't have internet access
>and for those, I suppose you could still have a paper ballot
>or some other means, but I would think this could increase
>participation. I have sometimes missed a vote because I
>don't get my membership (and ballot) back before the cut
>off.

Hi Randy,

See my response to Dick above somewhere on the same subject. My whole discussion was intended only as an illustration of the resolution process. I am not and will not make a proposal (resolution) on this subject because I don't support the underlying need. I only used the subject because it is current and attention grabbing. Plus, I'm tired of complaining and no action over a period of several years by those who do favor the idea.

Ted,

I don't really see any reason to change it either. It was just a passing thought.

Plus, I'm
>tired of complaining and no action over a period of several
>years by those who do favor the idea.
>
>Ted

You had to know starting thread with this in it would cause a boost in the complaining. You had to know that...

I understand your point completely it was just an example as to how things are changed.

Everyone knows things are NOT changed on the internet. I havent met anyone yet who thinks things are changed on the Internet. I have met many who love reading this stuff and talking about it though.

I think Dick Fowler and Ted made some real good points.

Here is another angle. When Shareen does toss in the towel if her job is so time consuming, as Ted says it is, then it will be very hard to find a replacement. If the load is lightened some then maybe it wont be such a burden and the job will be more attractive. I think this is a real issue and should be examined. Besides if PAMPA grows more, it could happen, then it would be a great service to let up on some of the load. I dont understand why Shareen wouldnt welcome less load. Please explain.

Randy,

You got it right on with Website Balloting. You could even make a specific website just for voting. Put a HUGE button on the PAMPA site and it goes to a very simple black and white page with voting procedures. People say they cant get on-line. Every public Library in the country has FREE internet service. You sit down and start typing. You go in the library SN in hand and ask for assistance getting to the Website and enter in your name and it assigns you a random password. Then you login and vote once you logout the password is no longer active and your name is no longer able to get a password. There are 100s of simple ways to do it.

And if you dont want to do it online you dont have to but I bet most would.

>Here is another angle. When Shareen does toss in the towel
>if her job is so time consuming, as Ted says it is, then it
>will be very hard to find a replacement. If the load is
>lightened some then maybe it wont be such a burden and the
>job will be more attractive. I think this is a real issue
>and should be examined. Besides if PAMPA grows more, it
>could happen, then it would be a great service to let up on
>some of the load. I dont understand why Shareen wouldnt
>welcome less load. Please explain.

Several people have responded with this question. The discussion of a post Shareen PAMPA needing to lighten the load to make the job more managable. No one has responded.

If we can't trust our elected people, who can we trust? Anyone who gives their time to an organization is doing more than most of us.

I think we should assume that our people are doing their job and forget seeking outside help for vote counting. My goodness, this is a hobby/sport, not national politics.

The sun will rise again tomorrow no matter how ballots tally.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This is merely one person's opinion and I intend no malice nor disrespect to anyone.

Thank you Shareen, Ted, and all the other volunteers of PAMPA.

George,
How dare you interject some common sense into a good argument?
I'm with you 100%.
Mike Gretz

PS There must be a lot of people out there who never get a chance to use their debating "skills" during their regular job. They ought to take up model building to relieve the stress.

"Build a bridge and get over it."

Thank you George and Mike for your excellent comments.

We just got off vacation (Hawaii - hope you're all jealous), so I missed reading a lot of postings. This one immediately caught my eye.

I suggest to those conspiracy theorists among us, to volunteer their services (clubs, schools, churches, etc.) before making any accusations about those folks in PAMPA who devote much of their free time helping this organization function.

To all our PAMPA officers and volunteers ...... THANK YOU!

Fred