AACA Board Of Directors decision on election process

[Guest]

Dear AACA Members<P>Reference: A petition requesting the Board of Directors to consider changing voting requirements for Directors from exactly seven candidates to up-to-seven candidates.<P>The Board of Directors received the list of 680 members who signed the petition, requesting a change in our AACA Constitution. The request was for a change of voting for exactly seven candidates to any number of candidates, up to seven candidates. We appreciate the effort that went into collecting these names, and the Board knows that each of you who signed the petition felt that it was an appropriate change for the Board to consider.<P>It is important to communicate, to each of you who signed the petition, the findings of the committee that evaluated the recommended change. The Board deliberated on the topic for quite some time before voting on two different motions that came to the floor. The first motion was to vote for up to seven candidates. After discussion, this motion was defeated. A second motion, introduced by the committee studying our election process, recommended a change that would have required that at least five votes be cast but no more than seven votes be cast for Directors. After lengthy discussion, this motion was also defeated.<P>The following is an overview of the information that was evaluated by the Board at its meeting on February 8, 2001. After the meeting, I shared this information with many of the petitioners, and most of the persons supported the Board?s decision. Some of course did not support the decision, and I am convinced that there will always be a difference of opinion on this topic.<P>Here is the information that was evaluated:<P>1) The AACA with a membership of 63,000 members worldwide, it is logical that in a national or international organization like ours that it is almost impossible to have any one member personally knows every candidate that is on the slate. Therefore the Bio?s provided in the AACA magazine on each candidate is the important element to making a decision. Yes it is important that each member takes the time to evaluate each candidate and vote. The AACA different from a lot of organizations offers a slate of 9 to 11 candidates to choose 7. Many organizations offer 7 names and tell you to vote for 7 names. We are sure not every member likes every candidate on the slate but does have a choice to vote for candidates of their choice.<BR> <BR>2) In an International / National organization such as ours where very few people know all of the candidates it is expected that the Board will provide a good cross representation of membership as candidates, we all know that every candidate will not appeal to each member so the ability to not vote for some of them is there. It is further felt that since this is a volunteer board that every standing board member expects that the candidates if elected will pull his or her own load, so it is prudent that the slate of candidates offered meets the board needs.<BR> <BR>3) The important information that is pertinent to the decision is that the current voting process has resulted in very close voting margins between the highest vote getter and the lowest vote getter. In fact it is only 100?s of votes between the candidates that get the 6 or 7th voting position and the 8th and 9th position, which clearly tells us that not only are the candidates well matched up, each members vote counts.<BR> <BR>4) Changing the vote process to no less then 5 - no more then 7, or voting for 7 or less will hurt the members vote value from the central or the western division, since larger clubs (often in the East) could cause major swings in voting. One has to remember that it is very conceivable that any one club or a series of clubs that choose to vote for just one candidate or the lower minimum number of candidates will greatly influence voting. The board treats the value of having any member on the slate equally able to be elected and felt changing the vote process to less then 7 allows the larger clubs the ability of influencing a candidates opportunities. <P>We the board have reviewed the proposals and with the best of our ability and the experience of many dedicated hours, weeks, months, and years of being a volunteer on the board, believes that to change the process that has provided AACA continued strength and growth is risky at this time, initiating change that is not fully understood and could impact the candidates from the central and western divisions. We trust that the majority of those members that signed the petition will understand that the decision not to change was done for the good of the overall club. Further, many changes are occurring within AACA in the area of stronger representation across the country with the 20 new Division Chairman positions, lets see how that rolls out. I personally do not have a problem with revisiting this topic at a later date.<P><BR>Sincerely<P><BR>Douglas Drake<BR>President AACA<P><BR>

[Guest]

Thanks for the information Doug. <P>Great to have the AACA President drop in. Don't be a stranger! <P>Peter<P>------------------<BR>Peter Gariepy<BR>AACA Webmaster<BR> peterg@aaca.org <A HREF="http://www.aaca.org" TARGET=_blank>www.aaca.org</A> <p>[This message has been edited by peterg (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Guest]

Thank you Doug for coming on here and explaining to the membership the result of the vote on the ballot petition, and the reasons for the decision made by the Board.<P>Your openness and willingness to keep us informed in a timely manner is a much appreciated breath of fresh air. <P>In all fairness, I must say that many people approached me in Philadelphia after the decision of the Board was known, and asked if I was going to pursue an effort to get the alternate plan [minimum of 5 - maximum of 7] to the Board at some time in the future. I still think it is a good compromise and if there is sufficient interest expressed in such a change, then it will most likely be pursued. If nobody expresses support for that idea, then it will die a natural death.<P>Howard Scotland<p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Ccar]

Howard,<P>I still support the alternate plan, at least 5 - maximum 7, and feel it should be pursued further. I would think the committee that did the research to propose that plan should continue to investigate its merits over the present system. <P>Not sure I agree that a region or area could "swing" an election with the proposed plan any more than they can now with the current vote for 7. As Doug indicated, not many votes separate the candidates. So a strong region could band together under the present system and "swing" the vote to a particular candidate. I think an area in the country could do the same. <P>Doug, thanks for the response on this issue. It is nice to have the President report to the DF!! I hope more officers of the Club do the same regarding their particular assignments. Look at what Earl is doing!!!<P>Chuck Carisch

[Dynaflash8]

Nice job Doug. It takes all the guessing out of the game and lets people know the score. <p>[This message has been edited by Dynaflash8 (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

Doug, Let's face it, in a club of 63,000 you will have a lot of different ideas, but I would guess that the number of members belonging to regions and chapters is far less then the total membership. I remember hearing that 8,000 to 9,000 vote, that is some were in the 12% to 15% area, would it not be a good idea to make changes for the active people who are involved and not worry about those who do not take the effort to vote. I am a life member, member of 3 regions, holder of 5 different local board positions over the years, shouldn't my views be taken with more weight then someone who is a paper member for insurance reasons. SalG<p>[This message has been edited by SalG (edited 02-17-2001).]

[jac]

Doug,<BR> I too want to thank you for coming forth and explaining what happened to the petition.<BR>I felt that at the General Meeting in Philly an inadequate response was given to the petition results. After all approximately 10% of the AACA voting public voted in favor of that petition, and many were in the audience. While I disagree with some of their reasoning, I respect their decision.<BR>later-jac

[jac]

HVS,<BR> I will support any effort to acheive min 5/ max 7 votes for directors.<BR>later-jac

[Guest BruceW]

Mr. Drake,<P>I too want to thank you for taking the time to provide a concise response. It is not often in any large organization that the highest level of administration will take the time to respond in such a detailed and straightforward way. I myself have not formed an opinion on the matter yet so I speak this compliment as an unbiased spectator.<P>jac<BR>Perhaps one of the factors that provided an incomplete answer at the Business Meeting in Philly was the way the subject was brought up. I do not know who brought the disccusion up as they were in the back of the room where I could not see. From the very instant they asked the question, they did so in a hostile manner. And as Mr. Myer was responding to the question, the same person tried to overshout him with loud, sarcastic questions. This was not very tactful and probably led to the brief coverage and quick dismissal of the matter.<P>As it was happening my wife and I both looked at each other surprised as we had never seen such behavior at one of the meetings before. such actions did not show very good on the DF or petitioners. No disprespect to anyone, but I feel that a more complete discussion may have occurred if the person had only handled the situation in a more tactful, and civil manner. <BR>

[ronbarn]

Doug, thank you for coming on the DF with the explanation. You can see from the comments that our DFers are not necessarily hostile, but they are a demanding bunch when there is a critical question. That is good!!<P>Bruce, am certain that the subject will be brought up at some of the Roundtables. You said you have never been to one, however, you are participating in what may be described as an "etable". This DF serves much the same function and reaches out to those who otherwise might not be able to attend a Roundtable at one of the meets or tours. The purpose of both is to provide a dialogue between the AACA members and the National Directors.

[Guest]

Bruce ~ I disagree with your position on the General Membership Meeting. I believe it is absolutely the proper place for members to raise questions. The AACA President chairs the meeting and all of the National Directors are present. What better place to address an issue of club wide interest.<P>First, I grant again that the questioner's timing was wrong and his approach was hostile. But that is no reason to push the entire question aside and move on. The proper procedure would have been to refer it to new business and then have the Chairman of the ballot study committee address the question at that time. The Chairman was right there among the group on the dias.<P>The General Meeting may have become a dull and routine recitation of the past year, but that is not its true purpose. It is the "GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING" AND EVERY MEMBER HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THAT TIME.<P>Roundtables are a nice exercise in PR but they are often inadequately led and with only a small portion of the National Directors present. What goes on there gets referred back to someone, but at the General Membership Meeting every "someone" is there to hear the issues firsthand.<P>That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. ~ hvs<P>By the way. The Chairman of the ballot study committee was Doug Drake. Had he been allowed to, he could have addressed the entire issue in the manner in which he instituted this thread. In just a few minutes, that simple explanation would have answered everybody's questions on the subject. There was no reason to debate the issue, the vote had been taken and all that the members wanted to know was the result, and in a few words possibly why it went as it did.<P>It's just unfortunate that Doug was not permitted to explain to the 500 members in the room what he explained so clearly to us here on the Forum. ~ HV<P><p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Guest BruceW]

Mr. Scotyard,<P>I appreciate and understand your thoughts. My comments were not a position, but more just a thought and a question.<P>You , as well as many others,have been in the organization a lot longer than I and I am sure you understand how things work or are suppose to work better than I. I am always open to differing opinions and the wisdom of experience.<P>Mr. Barnett,<BR>In ref to your comments to me, I guess I just never thought of it as being the same. I guess I have a lot to learn before being able to undertake the discussion we had via email after Philly. <p>[This message has been edited by BruceW (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Terry Bond]

The DF has again proven it's value in bring the issue to the Board. I can attest that a lot of very intelligent and in-depth discussion took place before any votes were taken. A simple explanation for the "7" rule is that we elect one third of the board each year (thats 7 people whether they are incumbents or not). By voting for seven it ensures there is a vote for every vacancy. Ive had a lot of people ask me how we came up with 7 and thats the basic reason for it. As for the meeting, I lean w/HVS - we'd all like it to go smoothly but it is an opportunity for new/old business to be brought up. The printed agenda is a wonderful idea and would be a simple addition to the annual report that is usually distributed there. Another great DF idea!!!<BR>Terry

[Guest]

Bruce ~ I'm Howard Scotland, formerly from Lutherville, MD and a long time member of the Chesapeake Region.<P>The moniker HVScotyard came about because AOL would not let me have Scotland Yard as my e-mail address. That is what the locals named the property on which I have my antique car storage and shop facility.<P>Also, I'm Howard. Mr. Scotland was my now deceased father. ~ hvs

[jac]

BruceW, I am with you. I do not think the subject was brought up at the proper time of the meeting, but not all of us are parliamentarians (Peter where is spell check). As president of our local club we some what, but not all ways, follow Roberts Rules of Order and I have had subjects come up that were way out order, and I have told the individual that his/her idea/comment is a great subject and we should discuss it. Will you please bring it up at old business or new business which ever is proper.<BR> I would also agree that tact, charm, humor and whatever else is better than a hostile approach.<BR>later-jac

[Guest]

I agree that the timing of the question at the general meeting was inappropriate. However, since there is no agenda given to the members as they enter the meeting, not everyone realizes that there is a time for New Business just prior to adjournment. I feel somewhat certain that the individual who asked the question no doubt felt that he had to jump in where ever he could. Hopefully next year there will be a simple agenda passed out as we enter the room. I think President Doug will be on top of things like that.<P>I agree that the questioner made a terrible presentation. But the response from the chair was inadequate. The chair should have made an effort to defuse the questioner by asking him to please be seated and then giving an explanation to the entire group.<BR>There were a lot of people in the audience who wanted an answer to the same question.<P>I felt the response from the chair was inadequate and somewhat patronizing. We, the membership, deserved better. ~ hvs<P>jac ~ Your response came in while I was composing mine. We seem to agree that an agenda for the General Meeting would be a good idea. I believe Prez. Doug does too.<P><p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 02-17-2001).]

[Guest BruceW]

The General Meeting held on Friday seems to be more of a summary of the year, and because of the limited time, such a discussion probably would not work as it could take time to debate the topic. <P>Wouldn't the Membership Roundtable be a more beneficial place to bring up such topics? Is that not the purpose of the Roundtable meetings? It seems like this would be more appropriate as other people besides the DFers and petitioners could hear the discusion and there would be time to debate the matter.<BR>I admit that I have not yet attended a Membership Roundtable so please correct me if I am wrong.<P>

[Guest]

Terry ~ I must respectfully disagree with the arguement that being required to vote for 7 assures that there will be votes for ALL seven open Directorships. Yes it is statistically possible that if a person only has to cast 5 votes and there are 10 names on the ballot, that 5 people could receive NO votes.<P>However in the real world this just isn't going to happen. This is saying that 5 of the 10 candidates would not vote for themselves. NOT LIKELY! Maybe their spouses might not not vote for them, but to allow ones name to be placed on the ballot and then not think that you are worthy of voting for yourself is most unlikely. Statistically, you could get a situation where 6 thru 10 get one vote each, but does anyone really think that could happen.<P>Therefore I do not view that as a valid arguement against the "Vote for at least 5 but not more than 7 concept.<P>Howard<P>

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

All quiet today!

[Terry Bond]

Sal -quiet? still tired from Philly? Howard, I didn't intend that my info on 7 would be an argument against the proposal, only offered it for info as Ive been asked how it originated. I still have an open mind on the subject. And, thanks for the tip on how spouses vote - not sure if Susan voted for me or not, and if she did I wonder if it was just because she'd always know where I was and what I was doin~! great to see you in Philly, enjoyed it!<BR>Terry

[JanK]

I find this discussion fascinating, for a variety of reasons. <P>First, my husband and I look forward to doing our "civic" duty each year, and we pour over the bios of all the candidates when they arrive. We have had the privilege of meeting some of the candidates, so decisions on those players often come quickly. Others aren't known to us and we have to use our critical thinking skills to figure out how to come up to the "magic 7" that is required. I'm often uncomfortable with doing that, but it gets done anyway! (And rarely do our ballots match - I always peek before I seal the envelope.)<P>Secondly, I'm always astounded at how many people admit that they have chosen NOT to vote. The common complaint I hear is that they don't know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision. (Probably the same people who don't vote in other elections.) However, if we allowed a fewer than 7 option, would some of these people feel more comfortable casting their votes? (And would we want them to vote under those circumstances? Hmmm....)<P>Third, I'm intrigued by the idea that a region or division could swing the voting on a candidate. (Is that how Russ Fisher got in initially, and how he got re-elected?) If so, then aren't the "masses" endorsing someone they feel can and should do the job? I, for one, am proud to claim Russ as one of ours, and if a block of Wisconsin voters did it, fine and dandy!<P>Jan K.

[Guest]

BruceW <BR>I think it was appropriate to bring up the requirment of voting for seven at the annual business meeting in Philadelphia. However, you made a very good point and I agree with you - this is something that should be brought up at Roundtables. The AACA President is normally in attendance along with several directors. When an issue keeps surfacing in the Roundtables, it becomes increasingly more difficult for the national directors to ignore. <BR>JanetR

[ronbarn]

I agree with what jmrr says re roundtable discussion, but going back to my earlier post, this should read roundtable and DF. These are both good places for the voice of the membership to be heard.<P>As for hvs's comments, I agree that some of the time the roundtables tend to degenerate into a PR function, but we have done one heck of a lot of things in the past few years based on these meetings, and now we are doing them based on this DF.<P>And finally, BruceW, like hvs Mr. Barnett was my deceased father. You keep calling me Mr. and someone out there will think there is someone who gives me more respect than I deserve

[Guest]

And how about if another petition drive were to get underway along with continued discussions at the roundtables. A petition drive that would last all year!<P>In just two months at the end of 2000, 680 AACA members expressed a desire for a change on the voting rules. These were probably people who vote too, since they were interested enough to put their names and membership numbers on petition forms.<P>I strongly feel that we the membership have every right to again petition the Board for a change in voting requirements. This time it will be for, "Vote for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7." The forms are already printed and waiting for people interested in supporting the concept to volunteer to solicit signatures. <P>You may request to participate in this effort by e-mailing me at HVScotyard@aol.com.<BR>Blank petitions WILL arrive at your house by mail shortly thereafter. <P>However, I will be at the Punta Gorda Meet, armed with a supply of blank petitions. <P>Howard Scotland

[Guest]

No Father Ron, they will just think we are really OLD. ~ hvs

[jac]

The roundtable is a good idea and it should be used in addition to hear the petition, but...how many directors and how many members attended the roundtable. Come on people help me out, maybe three directors were in attendance and perhaps thirty members? At the General Business Meeting most of the Directors and upwards to 500 members were present. So, which is the better forum? Answer, use the e-table, the Business Meetings, the roundtable, and what other means needed to be heard. <BR>later-jac

[Dynaflash8]

First, let me say I've met Bruce W...at Philadelphia. He's 39, he's interested in this Club, and I like that. <BR> Howard,you and I were 28 and 32 in 1966 when you egged me into getting up at the Annual Meeting and asking for the second year in a row when they would let newer cars into AACA. If you recall, it was 1935 forever at that time (except for some Classics). I wasn't winning friends and influencing people at the time for sure.<BR> If only I had thought of a National petition at the time, it sure would have saved a lot of trouble on my part, perhaps.<BR> As a Director I support being at any Roundtable where I am in attendance at a Meet or Tour. And, I do so. Ron is so completely right with his comment on the tremendous positive impact the Roundtables have been for our club over these past 10 years or so. And, lest we forget, more questions from the audience is what makes a good Roundtable tick.<BR> Jan, if a large group (I'll call them a PAC) can vote somebody in, they can vote somebody out. That is the flip side of the coin. Something to think about.<BR> I have been here, ridden the good times and bad times for 39 years. It's always been 7 or nothing. That doesn't make it right, true. I have never known but one politician that I voted for or against, but I've voted in every election since I was 21. I just can't see that argument. I can see an argument where one might know 6 out of 11 that they didn't want to vote for, and therefore vote for 5 they don't know. In the 1960's and 1970's I always voted for the persons with the newest car. Thank goodness I was able to get past that.<BR> It is not my purpose here to argue with anyone. AACA has been a paramount part of my life and I only want what is best for the club, especially on this subject. If the system is broken, we need to fix it. But remember, we know where we are, and where we've been, and I believe we must be pretty certain of where we'll go with such a significant change. So, let me hear the benefits of the 5 out of 7. Is it a nice thing to do, or are there real benefits? <BR> <P>

[John N. Packard]

Could someone explain why voting for less than seven is desireable? I've never had any difficulty selecting candidates on the basis of their biography and a desire to see all regions of the country represented.<P>jnp

[Guest]

Maintaining the status quo is the last refuge of the unimaginative. <P>John ~ You are a better man than I am. I suppose I know the candidates too well based upon years of association and observation. Every candidate writes his own bio. Do you think they will say they held 4 Vice Presidencies and did a mediocre job in all of them. The bio's are just a self pat on the back. I KNOW. I was a Director for 14 years. I know who the goof offs are and it burns my butt to be forced to vote for them.<BR>That is what is wrong with the present system.<P>I had one H*** of a time voting this last ballot. I nearly choked voting for #7. Finally my wife an I decided to vote for different #7s in the vain hope we would cancel out each other's votes. You see we still wanted to vote but were not happy with the current requirement of voting for 7.<BR>Had we had the 5/7 option, we would have voted for 6.<P>I will stop now before I air any more "dirty laundry".

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

Perhaps what we need is a larger group of people nominated for the board. Several months ago I asked the question, how does a person get nominated? Maybe Ron, Howard, and Janet as former presidents can give some details. SalG

[JanK]

Sal, be careful what you ask. You might find yourself nominated! <BR>Jan K.<p>[This message has been edited by JanK (edited 02-19-2001).]

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

Well, maybe the national board needs to split up into geographic groups, but this would focus power in whatever area central Pa. is put into. Travel cost would be cut, and the West coast would get more people involved on the national level. This will take power away from those who have it now and will never fly. While I am kicking things out, how about moving the annual meeting around. Have it in the mid west one year, Florida another. (No one post that it is in the by-laws to have it in Philly, they can always be changed.)SalG

[ronbarn]

There is really nothing magic about how members are nominated for the AACA ballot. Let's take incumbents first - if an incumbent has done a reasonable job and has not embarrassed AACA or the Board, it is likely, but not necessarily imperative that he/she will be renominated.<P>All Directors are constantly in the mode of what might be called a "talent search". This happens at meets, tours, and any other activity where they can observe the interest, enthusiasm, skill and willingness to assume the duties, responsibilities and costs that being a National Director demands. Sometimes this comes from just observations and sometimes a closer look is made when an individual expresses an interest. <P>These names are collected and reviewed by the nomination committee. A great deal of effort is then expended to select individuals who are best qualified. This is neither a simple or arbitrary task.

[Al Smeraldo]

Hi Doug I'glad to see that you are president and doubly glad that you took the time to come on the forum. Al

[Guest rcirilli]

SALG, I think the challenge of finding nominees for the ballet is that the nominating committee is looking for capable, willing members that have enough time to give and are young enough to learn the various Vice-Presidencies so they will be able to be President some day. That sounds easy but younger members generally have jobs. Those jobs get pretty overwheming sometimes and interfer with our hobby. I know from being on several committees that the directors put in far more time than the general membership thinks. Certainly far more than they get paid for. (Ha Ha, if anyone doesn't know AACA directors don't get paid.) <P>If that weren't enough, resent trends make every director feel that they have to be at most meets. Given jobs and the cost of traveling most members won't take on the challenge. <P>When I started in AACA I was told it would cost $150.00 per judging chip, now I bet it's closer to $500.00 per chip.

[John N. Packard]

Howard,<BR> What you are saying is that in the most recent election four of the ten nominees were not qualified to serve on the board. This seems to be an indictment of the nomination process. Would eleven nominees help? That however would open the possibility of four incumbents losing rather than three. I personally, if disatisfied with the performance of an incumbent board member, would vote for an unproven new candidate. I liken this issue to term limits for the US Congress. It won't be easy for the incumbent board members to change a process that affects them directly.<P>jnp

[IndianaCarGuy]

That's rather harsh,..I don't see where Howard said that, it looks ot me like he is just concerned that a lot of people are forced to vote for people even though the voters feel unqualified, and uninformed on some of the people they are voting for (and in some cases,...feel overqualified to be forced to vote for them). It does seem odd that a person in Fargo, North Dakota needs to vote for someone in Pensacola, Florida. (Any odder than some other elections in Florida, it is not) <BR>Practicality forces this,..but it is a valid concern. Why should anyone be forced to vote for anyone, or anything that they feel unqualified, or uncompelled to do. I understand the reasoning for it,... numerically, butI also know it is basically against the herd to compel anyone to vote for people without due understanding and knowledge. Bios, etc. are helpful,..and it is no worse than what we sometimes have to do in electing our own government officials,..but this is not a government, it is a car club. I am afraid I understand the concerns, that it is getting out of hand and overlarge,...cumbersome to vote just because it numerically makes sense. I do agree, also, that it might be better to get more names in the process, Sal,... if only to allow further options of dissent. Personally,... where I am now, I feel extremely powerless without a local organization. I can neither participate, nor feel good about being a part of a regional organization. The nearest organization is 4 hours away from me, and I cannot attend either meetings, or know anyone involved.<P><BR>What do I know,.... There are two concerns, having enough people on board to do the work, and having the concerned (voting membership) feel they are making both a valid, and informed vote. Maybe too much is being sacrificed in the name of practicality.<P>robert<P><p>[This message has been edited by IndianaCarGuy (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Guest]

No John, I am NOT saying that any of the 21 Directors are UNFIT! I am saying that in my humble opinion some among the 21 are unsuitable for the position of AACA Director.<P>What do you think of the suitability of a Director who participates on an AACA National tour and partakes of meals or activities for which he has not paid.<P>What do you think of the suitability of a Director who habitually shows up at National Meets for which he has NOT bothered to register and expects a full pass to all activities? <P>What do you think of the suitability of a Director who arrives at a National event and announces that he is a National Director and is entitled to special privileges.<P>What do you think of the suitability of a Director who habitually is either late with his tasks or fails to complete them at all.<P>What do you think of the suitability of a Director who is given an assignment, fails to carry it out and then denies that he was ever given that assignment.<P>When this description fits 5 different people, do you understand why I have trouble voting for 7. Do not construe this to mean that all 5 of those people are on any single ballot. <P>And they all write their own bios. <P>And they will all benefit from those last 2 required votes.<P>Now as they say out here, "Never miss an opportunity to shut up," so I will<P>Howard

[Dynaflash8]

IndianaGuy, where are you? I assume you are in Indiana. As the new VP - Regions you peak my interest. Are you interested in doing some organizing? When I moved here, to this rural area, there were 5 AACA members in this several hundred square mile area, and I was one of them. My wife and I got into our car and rode for weeks looking for old cars, their owners and the acquaintances of their owners who also had old cars. We started a club with 27 members, 23 of whom were new to AACA. You can do it too. And what's more, you need to do it. It will increase your enjoyment of your car and AACA tenfold. If you want some help, write me, and I'll get you a list of current AACA members in your area. Earl Beauchamp - AACA VP Regions (new job).<BR>P.S. I still say that virtually every individual I ever voted for or against for any post was somebody I didn't know from Adam. That's part of the exercise. And one more thing, AACA is as much a corporation as it is a club. Howard is right about one thing for sure. Anybody who doesn't pull his/her load sure makes it harder on everybody else. And, Directors are like wives, you don't know them until you live with them. But think of this: There's been some Duesies's since 1935, and I knew some of them too, but still this club has climbed head and shoulders above all others. I don't know if this ballot change idea is good or bad, but I'm listening to the opinions. One thing I do know is that the overall desire of the membership is the way to go, even if I disagree. I work for the members.

[John N. Packard]

Howard,<BR> The behavior that you describe is clearly unbecoming of a national director. Does the code of ethics address these issues? There should be an alternate way to deal with a director who abuses the responsibilities of office. The voting system as currently constructed does favor incumbency and probably for the legitimate reason of providing continuity to the organization. However even with five directors abusing the office; doesn't the current system allow three replacements each year with sufficient votes? It may be unlikely to occur; but it is still possible!<BR>I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue openly. Please keep on responding!<P>jnp