I have been trying to remain neutral in this election. Having said that, this is a post I made on RCU that may provide some talking points.
Who is Dave Mathewson
As, with all but one, of the members of the EC, I have had the opportunity to communicate with Dave Mathewson on several occasions. These are my recollections of Dave Matheson, if the substance or dates are wrong, I will stand corrected, and they are most certainly not his entire record. Some is a matter of EC Minute record, and some are my impressions.
First, Dave is an avid supporter of model aviation, and the AMA. His record in the EC is a matter of record. He is committed to open communication with the membership, and has been helpful, even when I asked questions or held positions that he was opposed to.
In his very first EC meeting in Nov of 2000, he put an item on the agenda, ultimately carried, to re-instate combat. In Feb 2001 he, along with most of the Council, supported a setback for pylon, potentially saving it from extinction, and at the same time granting the VP's the right to waive pylon requirements in certain circumstances. In April 2001 he made a motion, again, supported unanimously, to bring district frequency co-coordinators to the same level of recognition as other district officers. In July 2001, he voted with the minority, against a motion that changed the safety code imposing rules a night flying.
In Feb 2002, he led a discussion in the EC about Term Limits for officers. Since it would probably take a by-law change, this idea has languished, although it has some support on the EC.
During the period where a dues increase was being considered, I found Dave to be like almost everyone else. He was not happy with the idea, but, realized that it was a necessity. He also was of the opinion that a larger increase than absolutely necessary was a better concept than having to raise the dues each year. The events of 9/11 were still fresh, insurance rates were increasing, and it was obvious the trend would continue into the future.
He has long seen the potential of embracing park flyers. He is convinced that drawing young people to the AMA is the future, and sees the enthusiasm of youth for "foamies" as extremely positive. He has made proposals for less expensive memberships for park flyers, which fell due to budget restraints. He was a major proponent of the Trial Membership, designed and aimed at the park flyers. His work on the park flyer committee has set the guidelines to define and recruit park flyers.
He was for the concept of rule #9. When it became apparent that a rule, that had been aimed at large aircraft had other, unintended consequences, he took a position against the rule. From the reports of others, I understand he led the debate in the successful discussion preceding the vote to remove the wording from the safety code; an agenda item proposed by Sandy Frank.
He has been the liaison with the JPO in the successful effort to update the safety code, and rules pertinent to turbines.
He has expressed exasperation with the length and breadth of the Safety Code. He has expressed his realization that the code can not micro manage every aspect of the hobby, but also recognizes that the Safety Code has a legitimate place in promoting saftey.
His efforts on the Frequency Committee have kept a spotlight on the potential help the radio manufactures might give by way of a reduction in the distance necessary for separation between clubs and/or flyers.
He is on the Publications Committee and he supports the concept of VP's column's covering district events, as opposed to national issues. He firmly believes it is the charge of the President to represent the AMA to the membership and supports some sort of an "Ask the President" format in MA or on the net.
I have found him to be very pro-safety, but, not at the expense of trying to micro manage clubs.
I have found him to be very supportive of the AMA president, the EC and the EC members. At the same time he is very obviously willing to take a position on his personal views when they differ with the leadership. The district 2 forum is, to my knowledge, the only district that is not moderated. He has consistently answered questions openly and honestly in both public and private communications. In his first run for office, a large plank in his campaign was open communications. I have challenged him and he has shown he meant it.
I have no doubt that Dave Mathewson will run a positive campaign, along with the other candidates.