Options
ANA board candidates must be "approved" before they can run
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
According to a letter in Numismatic News the ANA is planning on this rule change.
Who does the "approving" and what are the criteria? It is not too hard to figure out where this is coming
from, the powers that be at the ANA must have heard rumblings of people running for the board that want
to change the way the ANA does things so in order to get them disqualified they now want to have them
"approved" before they can run.
The letter writer likens this to communism where only an approved list of candidates can run for office.
Is this Cuba or the US?
Who does the "approving" and what are the criteria? It is not too hard to figure out where this is coming
from, the powers that be at the ANA must have heard rumblings of people running for the board that want
to change the way the ANA does things so in order to get them disqualified they now want to have them
"approved" before they can run.
The letter writer likens this to communism where only an approved list of candidates can run for office.
Is this Cuba or the US?
0
Comments
It's the US, there are no good cigars here
<< <i><<< Is this Cuba or the US? >>>
It's the US, there are no good cigars here
It would be better for our health if there were none at all.
<< <i>According to a letter in Numismatic News the ANA is planning on this rule change.
>>
Do you have a link to the letter or can you post it's contents?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Vote the bums out. >>
See, that's the problem. If this proposed rule change takes place, you may not be able to, at least not with the candidates of your choice.
One of the best reasons given for not quitting ANA membership was to stick around vote for change. If this proposal gets approved, even that's pretty much out the window and it will be time for "exit, stage left."
The ANA may be headed toward the system that runs the American Numismatic Society (ANS). There the average members have no vote, and the organization is run by a board that is elected by a small number of members. The main difference is that the ANS is exclusively a research and collectors group. It does not sponsor conventions, and it does not get involved in dealer politics and favoritism the way the ANA does.
Yea, the ANA is getting pretty uppity, and the "good old boy network" that now runs it is alienating more and more members all the time.
ANA
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
What would you say in a Coin World ad on this subject?
You do not give them enough credit.
Joe.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The hobby has not been much fun this morning ....
<< <i>
<< <i>Vote the bums out. >>
See, that's the problem. If this proposed rule change takes place, you may not be able to, at least not with the candidates of your choice.
One of the best reasons given for not quitting ANA membership was to stick around vote for change. If this proposal gets approved, even that's pretty much out the window and it will be time for "exit, stage left." >>
My guess is what they want to do is have all board candidates agree in writing to abide by the
ANA "secrecy" clause before you are declared "approved" to run for a board seat.
This way they can weed out any potential troublemakers who might not want to toe the line on
policies and procedures.
<< <i>Well, now, let's see. The ANA will justify this position by claiming it only wants to prevent unqualified people from running for office. How does this work for elections in the U. S.? If I want to run for elective office in my municipality or state, I am required to get a certain number of citizens' signatures on a nominating petition. For the ANA, it should be no different, someone running for Governor of the ANA should have to get a certain number of signatures of ANA members. In this way it would be left up to ANA members as to who is qualified or unqualified for office. Sure sounds like an easy solution to me; I guess that's why the ANA has come up with such an idiotic, counterintuitive, and power-grabbing proposal.
If this is the case will the current unqualified board members resign??
<< <i> If I want to run for elective office in my municipality or state, I am required to get a certain number of citizens' signatures on a nominating petition. For the ANA, it should be no different, someone running for Governor of the ANA should have to get a certain number of signatures of ANA members. In this way it would be left up to ANA members as to who is qualified or unqualified for office. Sure sounds like an easy solution to me; I guess that's why the ANA has come up with such an idiotic, counterintuitive, and power-grabbing proposal.
Actually, the current ANA bylaws have that kind of setup:
[Article V, Section 1] The President, in the November issue of Numismatist immediately preceding each election year (that is, for example, 1991 and each odd-numbered year thereafter), shall issue a call for nominations of officers to be elected during said year. Nominations shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Director by any member entitled to vote, not earlier than December 1 immediately preceding said election year and not later than March 31 of said election year.
Club nominations must bear the signatures of at least two officers of the nominating club. A nominee must be a member who is entitled to hold office under Article I, Section 2 hereof and must have been a member in good standing for not less than three (3) consecutive years immediately prior to nomination. In order to be a candidate for office, a member must receive at least five (5) nominations from member clubs in good standing and at least five (5) nominations from individual members in good standing. No member may nominate himself/herself or nominate a number of candidates for any office in excess of the number to be elected therefor.
The Executive Director shall promptly write to each nominee by certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying the nominee of his/her nomination and requesting a written acceptance or refusal thereof. No nominee may accept a nomination for more than one elective office in any one election. In order to be eligible as a candidate for election, a nominee must transmit his/her written acceptance to the Executive Director in sufficient time to be received by him/her on or before April 7 of said election year.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>IMHO this action will NOT pass. The board is NOT that stupid to attempt this kind of action with the key election coming up in just six/seven months >>
Why not? If you get to select who gets to run in that election, why would the fact that an election is coming up both you? Someone want to run who might oppose what you want, you simply disapprove of his running and he is out of the picture. Someone wants to run against you for your seat? Disapproved. Someone wants to run on a platform of reform? Disapproved. Somebody in your "old boy network" wants to run, Approved. And so on As the letter writer said it is a lot like the communist set up. You can vote for anyone on the ballot. Here is your ballot with just the one name for each office that the party has selected, go put it in the ballot box over there.
<< <i>For the ANA, it should be no different, someone running for Governor of the ANA should have to get a certain number of signatures of ANA members. In this way it would be left up to ANA members as to who is qualified or unqualified for office. Sure sounds like an easy solution to me; >>
As Kranky has pointed out that is what the current system is. Under the new system the Board would get to decide who gets to run. A perfect way for the people who are in power to make sure that they stay in power. And even when someone does decide to retire his cronies get to select who will replace him. Someone who is politically reliable. Just like the Politburo.
<< <i>Very Similar to the Third Reich ! >>
Papieren, bitte!
Edited to delete picture of Soldbuch
<< <i>According to a letter in Numismatic News the ANA is planning on this rule change.
Who does the "approving" and what are the criteria? It is not too hard to figure out where this is coming
from, the powers that be at the ANA must have heard rumblings of people running for the board that want
to change the way the ANA does things so in order to get them disqualified they now want to have them
"approved" before they can run.
The letter writer likens this to communism where only an approved list of candidates can run for office.
Is this Cuba or the US? >>
Is this lame-brained idea one of those from His Royal "Lowliness", "King" Cipoletti?
I think at the rate things are going on Colorado Springs, the ANA will be snuffed out over too much elitism. I think the time is right to organize a new national coin club which will not be runned by the elitist scumbags who are screwing it up! What does everyone think?
<< <i>
<< <i>IMHO this action will NOT pass. The board is NOT that stupid to attempt this kind of action with the key election coming up in just six/seven months >>
Why not? If you get to select who gets to run in that election, why would the fact that an election is coming up both you? Someone want to run who might oppose what you want, you simply disapprove of his running and he is out of the picture. Someone wants to run against you for your seat? Disapproved. Someone wants to run on a platform of reform? Disapproved. Somebody in your "old boy network" wants to run, Approved. And so on As the letter writer said it is a lot like the communist set up. You can vote for anyone on the ballot. Here is your ballot with just the one name for each office that the party has selected, go put it in the ballot box over there.
<< <i>For the ANA, it should be no different, someone running for Governor of the ANA should have to get a certain number of signatures of ANA members. In this way it would be left up to ANA members as to who is qualified or unqualified for office. Sure sounds like an easy solution to me; >>
As Kranky has pointed out that is what the current system is. Under the new system the Board would get to decide who gets to run. A perfect way for the people who are in power to make sure that they stay in power. And even when someone does decide to retire his cronies get to select who will replace him. Someone who is politically reliable. Just like the Politburo.
Condor - I have to agree with you on this.
Here is the bottom line - here are the really stupid things the ANA board (and Cipoletti) has done in the last few years: BACK ROOM DEALINGS, CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS, MAKING EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS SIGN CONFIDENTIALTY AGREEMENTS (AKA LOYALTY OATHS), REMOVAL OF WALT OSTROMECKI OVER UNCOVERING A PLAN TO NOT NAME THE MONEY MUSEUM AFTER ED ROCHETTE (WHO HAS BENT OVER BACKWARDS MANY TIMES FOR THE ANA AND THE HOBBY), AND MANY MORE!!!!!
The current ANA board is scared stupid of the fact that they could really get canned in the next election. In fact, I have a "bone to pick" with one of those governors, who I will not name for legal reasons, but this governor was at the board meeting of the Illinois Numismatic Association (in this person's capacity of a high ranking official of a regional organization) and started belittling me and another officer BIG TIME!!!! It seems that there are certain ANA governors who are ARROGANT and think they're above everyone. That kind of attitude is not needed in our hobby.
Bottom line - if this stupid proposal goes through, then a lawsuit should be filed on the ANA for discrimination - period!
<< <i>REMOVAL OF WALT OSTROMECKI OVER UNCOVERING A PLAN TO NOT NAME THE MONEY MUSEUM AFTER ED ROCHETTE >>
It has been supposed that if Walt were to run again for his board seat he would be a certain winner and then the board would have to deal with him again. This by-law change would solve that problem for them. If Walt were to try to run again, the board simply doesn't approve of him and he is out of the race before it even begins.
Jerry
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
<< <i>So, where's halfsense (sp)? I'd love to hear Don weigh in on this. >>
I think he used to be a governor years ago. Until last month, he wrote on the last page of the Numismatist, but alas, no more. What would Donn think of this?
<< <i>
<< <i>REMOVAL OF WALT OSTROMECKI OVER UNCOVERING A PLAN TO NOT NAME THE MONEY MUSEUM AFTER ED ROCHETTE >>
It has been supposed that if Walt were to run again for his board seat he would be a certain winner and then the board would have to deal with him again. This by-law change would solve that problem for them. If Walt were to try to run again, the board simply doesn't approve of him and he is out of the race before it even begins. >>
If they did that, then I think the ANA should be stripped of their charter by Congress and be declared a for-profit organization (which they would have to pay taxes (and the IRS will most certainly have a field day with them.))
<< <i>
<< <i>REMOVAL OF WALT OSTROMECKI OVER UNCOVERING A PLAN TO NOT NAME THE MONEY MUSEUM AFTER ED ROCHETTE >>
It has been supposed that if Walt were to run again for his board seat he would be a certain winner and then the board would have to deal with him again. This by-law change would solve that problem for them. If Walt were to try to run again, the board simply doesn't approve of him and he is out of the race before it even begins. >>
I smell a big fat lawsuit coming - and the ANA's in-house lawyer (Cipoletti) will try to defuse it......and fail!
I would vote for Walt in a second......and all this craziness is giving me thoughts of running for the board as well. Time to vote the bums out!
<< <i>If they did that, then I think the ANA should be stripped of their charter by Congress and be declared a for-profit organization (which they would have to pay taxes (and the IRS will most certainly have a field day with them.)) >>
Actually another approach would be to request that the IRS review whether the ANA would still pass the test for a 501)c)(3) and I suspect that the ANA may fail that test if there is an unreasonable impediment to becoming a director.
If enough members complain to the IRS that there is an unreasonable impediment to becoming a director then the ANA could have a serious problem with the IRS.
I also believe that such a change may have to be voted on by the membership at large as this does not sound like a rule change that can be voted merely by the current board of directors. Indeed, the board of directors can pass such a rule change but then be required to submit such proposed rule change to the membershiop at large for ratification or rejection. Just my own honest opinion.
I am still investigating whether the executive director could be in violation of any ethics rules under the state Bar as an attorney. I happen to personally like the executive director but I want to see things done right for the organization and do not like anyone holding dual offices within the organization. It creates inherent conflicts of interests.
<< <i>It has been supposed that if Walt were to run again for his board seat he would be a certain winner and then the board would have to deal with him again. This by-law change would solve that problem for them. >>
In a democracy, you have to accept the good with the bad. Eroding the democratic process in order to eliminate a single person or group is wrong.
Cheers,
Bob
<< <i>Actually another approach would be to request that the IRS review whether the ANA would still pass the test for a 501)c)(3) and I suspect that the ANA may fail that test if there is an unreasonable impediment to becoming a director. >>
I love it when you talk "accountant"...
<< <i>Here is the current rogues gallery:
ANA >>
Who ARE these people?
Do any of them contribute to the boards?
Do they have anything helpful to say?
And look at that picture of Kagin, it must be at least 20 yr old!
Did you ever see his web site? Ever try to navigate around there???
Just joking
Your point begs the question; Is the ANA any longer a useful organization? Or is it a means to the ends of a chosen few? Or is it simply a safe harbor for an egotistical, but useless, few?
I personally don't give a rat's tuckus about the ANA. They are a useless body whose endorsement is for sale to the highest bidder. They are not a part of my life and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone. The numismatic world would still grow and thrive without this body of self-important egomaniacs.
Cheers,
Bob
<< <i>Conder.
Your point begs the question; Is the ANA any longer a useful organization? Or is it a means to the ends of a chosen few? Or is it simply a safe harbor for an egotistical, but useless, few?
I personally don't give a rat's tuckus about the ANA. They are a useless body whose endorsement is for sale to the highest bidder. They are not a part of my life and I wouldn't miss them if they were gone. The numismatic world would still grow and thrive without this body of self-important egomaniacs.
Cheers,
Bob >>
If the ANA were gone it would not be the end of coin collecting. The hobby is well covered by other publications beside the Numismatist and some other organization or individual would take up the slack for the ANA
conventions. The library and the museum coins would probably be sold and that would be more of a loss.
I doubt that the ANA is in any real trouble however.
To whom it may concern,
I have heard that there is a possible rules change in the works under which ANA board candidates must be "approved" before they can run for election. However, I have not been able to find any particulars on this matter and prefer not to jump to unfounded conclusions.
At the very least, this appears to be yet another example of poor communication on the part of the current board. Beyond that and more disturbingly, it also makes me wonder about the current motives and actions of the board, one which in the opinion of many, has NOT been acting in the best interests of the ANA membership.
Here is a link to a discussion taking place on the Collector's Universe U.S. Coin Forum: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=544097&STARTPAGE=1
Perhaps you can address these concerns, questions and complaints by providing a response containing specific information and explanations. You have an opportunity, here, to reach a large number of collectors and dealers, many of whom are ANA members. I would be more than happy to relay in quotations any comments you wish to make.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mark Feld
<< <i>
<< <i>It has been supposed that if Walt were to run again for his board seat he would be a certain winner and then the board would have to deal with him again. This by-law change would solve that problem for them. >>
In a democracy, you have to accept the good with the bad. Eroding the democratic process in order to eliminate a single person or group is wrong.
Cheers,
Bob >>
<< <i>I sent the message below through the "ANA Member Feedback Area", where members can write and supposedly have their comments "go to the entire ANA Board and the ANA Executive Office." Here is a link, in case other ANA members wish to do the same. here
To whom it may concern,
I have heard that there is a possible rules change in the works under which ANA board candidates must be "approved" before they can run for election. However, I have not been able to find any particulars on this matter and prefer not to jump to unfounded conclusions.
At the very least, this appears to be yet another example of poor communication on the part of the current board. Beyond that and more disturbingly, it also makes me wonder about the current motives and actions of the board, one which in the opinion of many, has NOT been acting in the best interests of the ANA membership.
Here is a link to a discussion taking place on the Collector's Universe U.S. Coin Forum: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=544097&STARTPAGE=1
Perhaps you can address these concerns, questions and complaints by providing a response containing specific information and explanations. You have an opportunity, here, to reach a large number of collectors and dealers, many of whom are ANA members. I would be more than happy to relay in quotations any comments you wish to make.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mark Feld >>
Mark, you know they won't answer that because they have to get permission from the 'Godfather" (aka "Don" Cipoletti).
<< <i>Conder.
Your point begs the question; Is the ANA any longer a useful organization? Or is it a means to the ends of a chosen few? Or is it simply a safe harbor for an egotistical, but useless, few? >>
Is it still useful? Yes if you chose to use those function which are of benifit to the members, most specificly the Library. And like the politboro there is always the chance that when things become bad enough revolt will eventually come from within the board itself and restore the organization to the control of the membership. And when that happens there will still be an organization to restore. An IRS attack would most likely destroy everything that IS still good in the ANA and there would probably not be the chance to ever rebuild what currently exists. So as bad as the leadership of the ANA is today. tearing the whole thing to pieces that can never be reassembled is not the answer.