.......and some more IMPBA gray matter

[Don Ferrette]

"A very crafty way of attempting to skew the results in favor of this BS proposal by splitting the opposition. "

Don I think your getting paranoid. I voted for ammendment B I think it more fair to both the smaller districts and still gives some pwoer to the larger districts.

A straight membership vote could actually give total control to any issues they wanted to contorl. That is why an electorial type vote is done. Remeber we actually have that now except the numeber is 200 members.

No "paranoia" at all rather a simple dose of reality. Entertain this possible scenario for a moment if amendment A passes-

Something comes up for a vote & the voting goes something like this-

district 2 has a total of say 35 people vote for - they get 6 votes by their director

district 4 has 20 people vote for- they get 4 votes

district 5 has 20 people vote for- they get 4 votes

district 1,3,6,7,12,13 & 14 have a 50% voter turn out against a proposal. That's basically 150 people. You have a 2 to 1 margin by popular vote against & they still lose because they will only have a total of 11 votes. Is this likely? Who's to say. Is it possible? You're **** right it is & it's just not fair if it happens. I simply cannot go along with potentially putting the control of the ENTIRE organization in the hands of just 3 districts or potentially even just 3 people. :blink:

I truly wish we had a better turn out when we vote but we don't. The problem here is this makes it worse, not better. Not to mention that it is entirely possible that the directors of 2,4 & 5 could vote the way they THINK it should be regardless of what the members voted. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they would, but they could, and there is nothing in place to prevent this. And don't think for one minute that a director has never voted his way because he felt he knew better because it has happened in the past.

I want things to be fair for ALL members regardless of which district they reside in & this is NOT the way to do it. <_<

I will also vote for amendment B & STRONGLY urge everyone who does not like amendment A to do exactly the same. I agree with Bill on one vote per hundred is the best choice for now since we have to choose.

 

[ACLazer]

Don, I am sorry to see you can only bring out any negatives in the proposal and not bring about any of the positives involved if this passes. The one member, one vote, type of thing sounds great on the surface but the problem is that many members do not always vote. You could easily have one district have more returned votes than the next and it will get complete say in all that happens within the IMPBA organization. All the proposal does is allow smaller districts a larger voice in what goes on within the origination and more evenly space out the Voting power of all the Districts. This is one step closer to one member one vote in my opinion. A few smaller Districts can easily cancel out any of the larger Districts Voting with it's new voting power. The IMPBA has MAJOR Issues with members NOT voting. The returned votes are ridiculous and if I told everyone the numbers returned you would never believe it. Please contact your District Director and ask him or her if it would be ok if you Voted via Email if you support it or not. I also think that we need some type of Scale that will help encourage and represent the amount of Votes returned in a District. I am planning another Proposal next year to better help the IMPBA get more returned Votes and it will also have a built in scale that will affect that Districts voting power based on returned votes and participating members of that District. The IMPBA is as only good as its Members make it. If your not happy with something within the Organization get in contact with your District Director and ask what "you" can do to help make it better, get involved and ask questions, don't just complain about it. I am also hoping with the passing of this proposal that there may be a possibility of gaining Florida back into IMPBA organization. Florida wanted more representation for their 300 members and at that time the IMPBA BOD did a compromise and allowed the 200 member rule to go into affect and Florida board members did not think that was enough representation for the number of their members and talked the majority of their members into switching to the NAMBA organization. I am sure the Proposal I presented won't make everyone happy but I still think its a step in the right direction for the IMPBA and its Members. It will give the smaller Districts much more power as well as the bigger districts. I think its as close to a single member vote as we can get. This is not written in stone and if someone else has a better idea you can present it just like I did. I have no hidden agenda with the passing of the Proposal, I am just trying to help make the IMPBA and it's members better. Times change and so do Rules and the current Rules are so old and out dated it's time for a change.

Here is a graph that Tony Jacuzzi prepared a few months back that I hope will help you better understand the numbers and Voting Power that will transpire if the Proposal passes.

Voting Graph

Please VOTE

Thank You

Dom Mauro

IMPBA # 18608 S CD

 

[piper_chuck]

To make things easy for those wanting to vote on this proposal, here's what I sent:

TO: [email protected]

Subject line: IMPBA 2005 Ballot #05-013: Constitution Change

Text: My vote is ________ full name IMBPA #nnnnn

 

[Don Ferrette]

To make things easy for those wanting to reject this proposal, here's what I sent:

TO: [email protected]

Subject line: IMPBA 2005 Ballot #05-013: Constitution Change

Text: My vote is NO Leave as is! full name IMBPA #nnnnn

PC you will split the vote this way. I agree there needs change but not the proposal that has been put forth. For now one per hundred is THE better option.

And Dom nice try but anyone in the smaller districts that may gain a vote or two WILL LOSE VOTING STENGTH based on the HUGE gains of 3 districts. Sorry that just doesn't add up fairly and THAT is just plain simple math !! So it's time to put away the smoke & mirrors................ <_<

We are allowing e-mail voting on this??? :blink:

 

[piper_chuck]

It will give the smaller Districts much more power as well as the bigger districts. I think its as close to a single member vote as we can get.

How can you give more power to both the smaller and larger districts at the same time? The smaller districts have equal power with the large ones right now. Either of these proposals will clearly give MORE power to the larger districts, and LESS power to the smaller ones. But anyway, why does IMPBA need this district voting system?

The closest thing we can get to a "single member vote", is a single member single vote proposal. Let's get rid of the middlemen (for voting purposes) and go to a straight voting system! Accomplishing this means rejecting the two current proposals and submiting a one member one vote proposal.

I'd be interested in reading your ideas about how to improve voting participation. Can you post them here, or email them to me ([email protected])?

Don, wanna co-author something? I'd be glad to write it up and send to you.

 

[Don Ferrette]

"Don, wanna co-author something? I'd be glad to write it up and send to you."

Sure but first I think we need everyone not in favor of amendment A to be on the same page & that includes you. I see no harm in giving the districts with more members an increase in voting strength & one vote per hundered is more than fair as it still allows some degree of checks & balance.

 

[piper_chuck]

To make things easy for those wanting to reject this proposal, here's what I sent:

TO: [email protected]

Subject line: IMPBA 2005 Ballot #05-013: Constitution Change

Text: My vote is NO Leave as is! full name IMBPA #nnnnn

PC you will split the vote this way. I agree there needs change but not the proposal that has been put forth. For now one per hundred is THE better option.

And Dom nice try but anyone in the smaller districts that may gain a vote or two WILL LOSE OVERALL VOTING STENGTH based on the HUGE gains of 3 districts. Sorry that just doesn't add up fairly and THAT is just plain simple math !! So it's time to put away the smoke & mirrors................ <_<

We are allowing e-mail voting on this??? :blink:

Don, if it's not the right proposal, let's reject it. If either of the proposals is approved there will be very strong resistance against changing it a second time, at least any time in the near future. The argument will be, we just changed the rules, let's give them a try before we change them again.

Yes, email voting is allowed, and it's going to John Equi, not the district directors.

 

[talonxracer]

What can be more fair than 1 man=1vote!

Doug

 

[piper_chuck]

"Don, wanna co-author something? I'd be glad to write it up and send to you."

Sure but first I think we need everyone not in favor of amendment A to be on the same page & that includes you. I see no harm in giving the districts with more members an increase in voting strength & one vote per hundered is more than fair as it still allows some degree of checks & balance.

The proposal I would write would be to eliminate the district voting concept and implement one member, one vote.

 

[bzubee]

Just remember and your in a small member number district that larger district could control the whole organization by allowing that. At least under this situation the smaller district will have some say as how issues go.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Just remember and your in a small member number district that larger district could control the whole organization by allowing that. At least under this situation the smaller district will have some say as how issues go.

Bill is correct, a simple one voice one vote rule can be potentially just as dangerous. There needs to be checks & balances in place with a one voice one vote rule & I have already expressed a rough idea of how it could be done. This will not happen overnight as it will require substantial & valuable input from the board members. I have no problem with moving forward on this idea but I simply will not blindly rush into it purely as a countermeasure. Again, FOR NOW, the one vote per hundred is the best compromise between the current rule & giving the larger districts a little more say in things without the potential for abuse of power that the proposed amendment A brings to the table.

 

[bzubee]

Don if there are more than 2 amendments guess what the the majority may not be 51% and in this case if you really look at the issues amendmant A and B are the issues that may divide the votes Item C "NO" to the whole issue is really on it's own. Either you want a change Items A or B or you do not Item C. Tell me another way of voting on 3 amendments to a proposal? When you figure out a fair way let me know you know my e-mail I'm through discussing it here in order tohelp you run up your post number.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don if there are more than 2 amendments guess what the the majority may not be 51% and in this case if you really look at the issues amendmant A and B are the issues that may divide the votes Item C "NO" to the whole issue is really on it's own. Either you want a change Items A or B or you do not Item C. Tell me another way of voting on 3 amendments to a proposal? When you figure out a fair way let me know you know my e-mail I'm through discussing it here in order to help you run up your post number.

I'm agreeing with you on voting on amendment B, showing how that yes less than 51% can be a majority in a 3 way proposal (which it is already obvious some thought 51% would be needed). Some confusion so P/M me a good time to PHONE you this weekend instead.

 

[John Knight]

Don if there are more than 2 amendments guess what the the majority may not be 51% and in this case if you really look at the issues amendmant A and B are the issues that may divide the votes Item C "NO" to the whole issue is really on it's own. Either you want a change Items A or B or you do not Item C. Tell me another way of voting on 3 amendments to a proposal? When you figure out a fair way let me know you know my e-mail I'm through discussing it here in order tohelp you run up your post number.

BIll,

I have kept quiet until now but I am going to jump in. I have know Don for quite a while and have raced with him while I was still located in D12. He is a passionate person that does not have a selfish bone in his body. He has recognized a flaw with the proposal and has felt a duty to bring it to the attention of the membership.

In the span of a few hours, you have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other with respect to what is considered to be a majority. You stated that there are 3 options, .... And now you come back with another angle of how you see it, and most definitely after some have voted. You have vascilated back and forth so that no one can figure out where you stand and what is best. Whether that is intentional or not that is the result.

All Don has been asking for is absolute clarity for all of us and the leadership continues to sling mud. Your comment to Don about his running up post count is full of crap. It is arrogant and condescending. So I am going to challenge you, the IMPBA President, OUR elected national rep, to either:

1. Give absolute clarity so the voting can be done properly, or

2. Pull the proposal until # 1 above can be accomplished.

I for one believe that # 2 is the only responsible action that the IMPBA leadership should do. We all await your decision.

John Knight

IMPBA member for 16 years, # 14779S CD

President, Charleston Model Boaters

 

[Don Ferrette]

John-

PLEASE do not beat up on Bill, he is not the only player here & just p/m'd me appologizing for the fact he missed a page of comments leading him to miss alot of what I said. I will therefore step back after posting this & tone down my last post. Bill & I are clear on things now, we will be talking later by phone & I firmly believe that he is absolutely correct in his choice for amendment B. Yes there does need to be an increased level of representation for larger districts but nowhere to the extreme of Dom's proposal A. I do not think it's really fair that a district of 150-200 people can be cancelled out by a district of say 30 but at the same time I flat out refuse to allow an organization that I care so much about have it's powers be so heavily skewed to only 3 districts.

 

[piper_chuck]

I'm agreeing with you on voting on amendment B, showing how that yes less than 51% can be a majority in a 3 way proposal (which it is already obvious some thought 51% would be needed)

One last try. The definition of MAJORITY in every source of parlamentary procedure is along the lines of "more than half". Majority is not defined as 51%, what happens in a 49.5/50.5 vote? It's not half plus one, if 17 votes are cast, 1/2 of the votes is 8.5, meaning 9 in favor would not meet the half plus 1 criteria. It's also not merely the most in a case of a vote with 3 or more choices. The exposure of a 3 way vote is that you may end up with none of them receiving a majority (more than half).

If you choose to run a 3 way vote and give the decision to a vote that has received the most votes, but not a majority, you have just awarded victory to the MINORITY. The example you gave (36% vote for amendment A, 31% vote for no change, 33% vote for amendment B ) is a perfect example. The decision in such a case cannot be given to ammendment A because 64% of the people voted AGAINST it.

I'm with John, pull this vote and start from scratch. It CAN be worded in a way that will ensure a majority decision (unless one of the voters messes things up by abstaining). I've sent one way to accomplish this to both you and Bill.

 

[Tony Jacuzzi]

To all:

- An IMPBA constitutional amendment properly submitted and with the appropriate signatures can not be pulled, and that's a good thing. Constitutional amendments should not be treated lightly and should not be censored.

- I believe a majority involves only the votes cast, not the totals of the IMPBA or District. If that was our definition then we better scratch every rules change in the last 10 years because we do not get any where near 50% of the membership voting, more like 10%, so all of the votes that have occurred would be void.

- Take a close look at the recent Sport20 strut voting. If I remember correctly the clean majority of the District Directors representing their membership voted in favor of the amendment , however the votes of BOD members that do not have a direct constituency made it much closer. To my point my vote which represents 200 plus members could be nullified by a Gas Director or a Fast Electric Director - or a Past President etc. etc.

- From the Ben Franklin Guide to US Politics"

"In the House, representation is based on the number of people living in each state. There are a total of 435 representatives in the House. Each member represents an area of the state, known as a congressional district. The number of representatives is based on the number of districts in a state. Therefore, states with larger populations have more representation than states with smaller populations. Each state has at least one congressional district and therefore one representative in the House"

- Examine the data here http://www3.sympatico.ca/jacuzzi/proposal.htm for the actual percentage impact on the Districts, then VOTE , A B or C but just vote !!!!

 

[Buckshot]

Don, Think of an election if there are 3 candates it would be the same. Why would you add the votes of 2 different ammendments to a proposal? Majority of the amemndments wins. If you want something to turn out a certain way start campaigning and try to get the members to vote.

Exactly what I expected to hear. A very crafty way of attempting to skew the results in favor of this BS proposal by splitting the opposition. <_<

I certainly hope there are enough IMPBA members who can see past this smoke & mirrors play, will vote wisely & shut this down. h34r:

Don, I understand your distress about this situation. It is reasons exactly like this that I and a few others in my home district (7) bailed on the whole IMPBA drama party. It seems that the Leaders in IMPBA have a very skewed look on things and it has been this way for many years. NO FUN.

I don't hold a grudge against the IMPBA and I'm not trying to promote any other organization. Just injecting my two pennies.

BTW: I still run in a few IMPBA races with the Hydro Invitational in Slidell being my favorite event to attend PERIOD.



-Buck-

 

[bzubee]

Thanks Tony for your help in explaining how the voteing willbe counted. You are correct we have never ever had a majority votes on any item or election.

 

[Buckshot]

Thanks Tony for your help in explaining how the voteing willbe counted. You are correct we have never ever had a majority votes on any item or election.

No > Just a bunch of bitching and moaning.

That is from much of your orginization Mr. Zuber

If you disagree.......... Read some of the past and present posts.

It is sad to point out but ..............

Everyone complaining seems to be a member of the IMPBA.

I haven't seen much out of the NAMBA folks. Why you might ask.......

There is not as much B@llS&%T!

Seems to me that we have a pretty good time, and I don't care what kind of rules and regs. an orginization has ............IT IS ALL ABOUT HAVING FUN!!!!!!

PUNK



-BUCK-