Terry Bond Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 At the recent AACA Board of Directors meeting at the Cedar Rapids Iowa meet, the motion to change the AACA election procedure was approved. This proposed change reduces the "Vote for 7" requirement to a "Vote for a minimum of five, maximum of seven" in order to qualify a ballot as valid. <P>In order to implement this revision, one more step is necessary - a change to the AACA constitution itself will be required. The proposed constitutional change must be approved by a 2/3 majority of the Board of Directors. The Election Process Committee will make proper notification of the proposed constituional change so that a final vote can be accomplished at the upcoming October meeting in Hershey PA. The revised process would then be effective in 2003. <P>If this change is approved it is recommended that it be implemented for a three year evaluation period to determine if it successfully stimulates greater voter participation as we hope.<P>I want to thank the committee itself for carefully evaluating the issue. I also applaud our membership for all of the information and wonderful discussion. Your interest in the future of AACA is exciting and greatly appreciated. <P>Terry Bond, National Director<BR>Chairman, Election Review Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Terry, thanks for the update. I'm very glad to see this issue hadn't died and the board took a serious approach to it.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Terry<BR>What is the best way for members to let the Directors who will be voting on this issue in October know our feelings and how we would like them to vote?<BR>If I understand correctly, it will take a 2/3's majority to change the Constitution. Again, if I am correct, this would be 14 out of 21. <BR>Should each member send all 21 Directors a post card stating how they want them to vote?<BR>Would a E-mail do just as well? I'm not so sure about that in that a E-mail can be deleted without being read.<BR>I know there are some of the Directors who read the Forum daily but will not make a post. Actually, I have heard more than one say so.<BR>I am going on record here and now to let all of them know that Buddy & myself would like to see the issue pass when voted on.<BR>Patt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Will the members in Florida be using the same ballots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Just wanted to bring this back to the top since so many of you had so much to say about the "Max 7/Min 5" before the Hysterical Hot Rod issue got going. Now that Terry explained clearly how the situation stands, let's hear from some of you who were so enthusiastic about this last year but have yet to say anything since the Cedar Rapids Board meeting.<BR>Patt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 I'm so happy, I could kreme my krispys!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest snkchevcol Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 I for one am glad to hear that this is close to becoming a done deal. It will be nice to know that we can finally vote for the ones we know are capable of their elected jobs and not be forced into to voting for someone based on a couple paragraphs beside their picture. While everyone running is probably capable for the job, it isn't fair to force the entire membership to pick someone based on what that person has in his/her background write up with out actually knowing the person. <P>Rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbarn Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 OK, I'll admit that the "old" procedure worked good enough to let me get elected for five terms, but as a member now I endorse the change. <P>However, I am concerned about one comment made by Terry. He stated that if approved the new procedure would be on a three year trial basis to determine if the voting numbers increase. I think that the value of the new procedure should be judged on how many voters do take advantage of the opportunity not to have to vote for seven. I do not think that just using an expected increase in number of voters is appropriate for determing the fate of the proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 A very good point Father Ron.<P>But what is of greater concern to me, and should be to all of us concerned with ballot reform, is will it pass when brought up for a vote at the next Board Meeting?<P>It will require a 2/3 majority to pass and if all Directors are in attendance, that means 14 yea votes must be cast. And quite honestly, I have every reason to believe that there are not 14 yea votes there as of this time.<P>So don't get your hearts set on this reform passing, because there are a number of current Board Members opposed to this idea for whatever reasons they may have. <P>hvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Father Ron, that is an excellent point.<P>Howard, maybe they don't understand that seven directors will still be elected. I haven't heard a good reason yet why it shouldn't be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rcirilli Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 I'm sorry I can't even print what I'm thinking !!!!!!!!!<P>........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 Ahhhh ~ More secrecy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter J.Heizmann Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 Unregisterd User Observer:<P>As far as secrecy is concerned, look into a mirror, take a good look, and, then ask the question... Your unregistered status is 'lo-and-behold" secrecy.<P>To me, your posts are no different from tele-marketers. (No Name, No Manners, No Class)<P>Hopefully, you will look into the mirror and finally realize "this is just a hobby, not, life threatening situations". <P>Take it easy. <P>Regards, Peter J.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 Alan, maybe it isn't the fact 7 directors will still be elected as much as who those 7 will be. Some incumbents fear losing, and a forced vote for 7 benefits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 U.U. voter, I realize that, but that's still not a good reason to vote it down. If they fear losing that way, then they must not be doing their job and, in my opinion, they need voted off the board. I understand some times you step on some toes and tick some people off, but that's only the ones that are doing something. Nobody likes to lose and sometimes the good guy/gal does, but in the long haul justice prevails. <P>We're not a bunch of jackasses out here, we can see which ones are pulling their weight.<P>By the way, observer, it's easy shooting bullets when you're hiding behind a wall, isn't it? I think you may need to visit a brothel to relive some of that tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 rcirilli....I fail to understand what you are trying to say. Could you be more clear, please? Your answer confuses me.<BR>Patt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SalG (Sal Grenci) Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Ballot info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 IT WAS DEFEATED BY THE BOARD AT THE HERSHEY BOARD MEETING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2002 Share Posted October 17, 2002 Maybe when Terry Bond gets a chance he can fill us in on the procedings. Hopefully, Terry will read this and respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Bond Posted October 19, 2002 Author Share Posted October 19, 2002 Thanks for letting me get the mud scraped off and all the fleas unpacked. Our VP of Public Relations, Joe Gagliano will be posting an official announcement soon, but you are correct that we did not have the required number of votes to make the change to our by-laws.Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordee9r (Ron Springstead) Posted October 19, 2002 Share Posted October 19, 2002 Hey Terry,It's too bad that this proposal got voted down. I filled out my ballot last week and sent it off to Hershey. It's kind of funny that, after reading the list of candidates, I found 5 that I voted for because I knew something about them. In order to have a legal ballot, I had to flip a coin to pick 2 more. With each candidate writing his or her own biographical description, we could end up voting for someone who is a great writer but a poor representative. On the flip side, we can have a candidate who is a poor writer but could be a great member of the board. Who gets the votes? Like I said... Flip a coin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Like Ron I could find only 5 people I wanted to vote for, so I threw my ballot in the trash. Several other members I eat lunch with are doing the same thing.We just don't care anymore after being brushed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now