The CAF Vote

[ME108 Taifun]

So I am curious (based on a story posted this morning http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=50790), just how is it that an "impartial" vote has leaked what I would think was privileged information to the CAF's Chief of Staff? I would certainly hope that the accounting firm that is tallying the votes has the integrity to keep all results (including the number of ballots returned) to themselves BEFORE the vote is finally tallied. Especially since it appears that the CAF Chief of Staff is using this information to campaign for his side of the vote.

The last thing the CAF needs is a vote that is meaningless and full of questions on its integrity.

Just sayin'

[Rajay]

The bylaws currently state:

Article III – Table of Organization CURRENTLY READS:
1. International Headquarters of the Commemorative Air Force shall be at
Midland International Airport, Midland, Texas, or a suitable location which best supports and promotes the aims and purposes of the Commemorative Air Force, the education of the public, the heritage of military aviation, and the preservation of the aircraft and artifacts entrusted to its care.
Such location to be considered shall be a site approved by nine (9) of eleven (11) members of the General Staff (or by an equivalent percentage thereof) and as approved by three-fourths (3/4) of the General Membership who vote in a referendum called by the General Staff for that purpose, voting to be as prescribed in ARTICLE IV of these Bylaws.

A Yes Vote would change the bylaws to read:

Article III – Table of Organization
1. During the period between October 1, 2013, and October
1, 2014, the Headquarters of the Commemorative Air Force shall be determined and designated by a vote of the General Staff requiring the approval by nine (9) of its eleven (11) members (or by an equivalent percentage thereof). Such location shall be a city which best supports and promotes the aims and purposes of the Commemorative Air Force, the education of the public, the heritage of military aviation, and the preservation of the aircraft and artifacts entrusted to its care.
Any future Headquarters site selection subsequent to that described in the preceding paragraph shall be determined by a vote of:
(a) nine (9) of eleven (11) members of the General Staff (or by an equivalent percentage thereof); and
(b) three-fourths (3/4) of the General Membership who vote in a referendum called by the General Staff for that purpose, voting to be as prescribed in ARTICLE IV of these Bylaws.

Simply put:

A yes vote would allow the CAF General staff to make the decision on whether or not to relocate the headquarters of the CAF.

A No vote, would leave that decision to the membership.

First of all, I'm not a member of the CAF. AFAIK, the only active squadron anywhere near me has an AT-19 down at the Southern Pines airport in Moore Co, NC.

Be that as it may, maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but I don't think that your "simply put" correctly characterizes the proposd changes and that's NOT how I would interpret the by-law changes as stated above.

It looks to me as though the only difference between the by-laws before and after the proposed changes is that a "Yes" vote allows the General Staff to determine a temporary change of HQ without additional ratification by the general membership only for the period of time between Oct. 1, 2013 and Oct. 1, 2014.

Other than that, under either version of the by-laws, any permanent change of location for the HQ would have to be ratified by a 3/4 (75%) majority of the membership.

That difference seems quite small to me and not worth so much fuss. IMHO.

[RareBear]

I'm sorry, Rajay, but I must disagree with you. I don't see the word "temporary" anywhere in the first paragraph. It appears to me that the site for the HQ to be selected during the period October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, will be approved by the General Staff only, and that any future site relocation will have the site selection approved by the General Staff and the membership. It does not say that this site selected during the designated time period will be a temporary location.

Walt

[Brad]

Walt is right. This is about giving the General Staff a one year period of time to pick a new home for the CAF. The only input the membership has is to vote on giving them that ability or not. If the general staff wanted to have this same power outside of the time frame specified then it has to go to the membership for another vote.

Also, I don't believe the number of absentee ballots sent out, or received is privileged information. Of course the contents of the ballot would be and I don't believe anybody has any reason to say the ballots are being treated otherwise.

For the record, my wife and I are both members and we voted.

[Obergrafeter]

Of course the contents of the ballot would be and I don't believe anybody has any reason to say the ballots are being treated otherwise.

I have heard otherwise, but it is second hand. I am researching wither or not any truth to the story. I hope it is a tainted story as we have had enough legal issues to last a lifetime.

[old iron]

That there has been only 25 votes (and those evenly split) since October 1st suggests that few people care.

[flyingsailor]

That there has been only 25 votes (and those evenly split) since October 1st suggests that few people care.

Kevin
I can tell you within the CAF alot of people care very strongly about this issue. I have heard where friends who have been friends for a long time have had serious words on this issue!

I for one will be very happy when the whole thing is over and hopefully we can move on; one way or the other!

[Brad]

http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/?p ... ventID=218

And the membership passed the bylaw change. The move will happen now.

[Obergrafeter]

Get ready McKinney here they come.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Get ready McKinney here they come.

You got it!

http://www.townsquarebuzz.com/mckinney- ... rt-assets/

[bdk]

I think they should move to Chino. That would be most convenient for me anyhow...

Hopefully the CAF will get a good deal and the new site will be more convenient to visit.

[ME108 Taifun]

Get ready McKinney here they come.

I truly believe this has been the "plan" all along Obergrafeter.

I find that it is a sad day for the CAF. While I've been vocal about opposing the bylaw change, there was no doubt in my mind that the move would occur despite efforts to stop current management.

I find it very difficult to accept that the vote was so very close. Almost wants a body to beg for a recount by another accounting firm. It would have been better if it was truly a more decisive vote. The margin was just "too close."

Congratulations Mr. Brown. I can honestly say that I hear Lloyd Nolan rolling over in his grave. He would have NEVER wanted to see his CAF in such a polarized situation as this. You're to be congratulated for destroying any "esprit de corps" of the original CAF. Since that was your motive it must feel awfully good to have accomplished this.

My heart goes out to the residents of Midland/Odessa who put their money and faith into the Commemorative Air Force. If there had been any reason to have supported voting against the move, it would have been to reassure these residents and taxpayers that the CAF lived up to its promises. This effort by the current General staff and its CEO just ratifies that the organization has lost all credibility in "keeping its word."

I am waiting to see the wrath of retribution to those for being so vocal "against" the move. Unfortunately that is what happens to folks that have stood up to Mr. Brown. As I felt at airshow, he even has forced the employees under his reign to either comply with his stance or "else."

It speaks of tyranny - in an organization that has a history of standing up against tyranny.

I am just a "member" of the CAF. What I've witnessed with this vote is that the member's wishes mean nothing to the organization. For the record, at Airshow and the hundreds of folks I've talked or chatted with there wasn't a true single vote "for" this bylaw change. So it makes it even more interesting that 3/4 of the voting membership actually approved this measure. I'd like to see the actual numbers. I want to know how many people actually voted in this referendum. And how many "for" and how many "against."

I'd also like to see actual, factual numbers on what was spent by the CEO and the General Staff to promote this bylaw change. Just how much did this cost us?

Well, although I'm a life member - it has become a time for me to fade into the sunset. I will have to think long and hard about continuing to donate the THOUSANDS of dollars I that have to the CAF. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling this right now either.

I will continue to support the airplane that my family has so very lovingly put above everything else. I may not be as committed to the CAF as I once was - but I remain committed to the airplane.

Personally, I think that the Confederacy of the original Confederate Air Force should rise again. Oh, that's right Mr. Brown actually forced a member out of a historic CAF jumpsuit at airsho because it said "Confederate."

At least when we were "Confederate" the "Confederation" had a voice.

This vote was a sham. And yes, I'm a sore loser.

[Taylor Stevenson]

I think it is important to keep the mission and goals of the CAF in the forefront of our minds. No location or leadership dictates why I support the CAF, so I hope this decision doesn't cause others' support to wane. These aircraft tell an important and heroic story of sacrifice.

Semper Mint Julep,
T

[ME108 Taifun]

Interesting to see that 42 ballots regarding the referendum were disqualified during the process of the vote. See: http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/ed ... 202013.pdf

In a vote so close, these disqualified ballots sure seem to negate its outcome.

[Kyleb]

Interesting to see that 42 ballots regarding the referendum were disqualified during the process of the vote. See: http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/ed ... 202013.pdf

In a vote so close, these disqualified ballots sure seem to negate its outcome.

I'm completely neutral on this, but I think you're really stretching.