Ten of the AMC members are elected by regions. I suppose this means the RVCs “represent” the interests of their areas. But I have to wonder, what differing needs are there that are purely geographically based? What would happen if AMC Members-at-Large were elected nationally, each putting forth their platform:
• I support involvement in MIL.
• I think we should switch from a National Office to two guys in a spare bedroom.
• I’m young and hip.
• I’m old and wise.
• I want more money for LGs and fewer national-level services.
• I believe we should pay professions to do more stuff so we can relax and enjoy the fun.
And so on….
Would that make the AMC more representative of the membership?
2 comments:
The problem with the current regime of regional representation is that RVCs do not represent members, they represent local groups. That is their job: "The RVC also serves as a liaison between AML and the
Local Groups ... " That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. It should be made explicitly clear that RVCs represent the members in their respective regions. At the same time, all members living in a given region should be able to vote for that region;s RVC, which is not currently the case.
Possibly, in many ways, but it also might eliminate most of the face to face interactions that some value so highly. Is it worth it? Is it better? I don't know.
And good luck having a discussion about it based on logic, not emotion.
Post a Comment