Annex Proposal

[Emory Schroeter]

Hey Ron,

Do you have any email address for these board members? I'd love to write
them a little note and let them know how I feel about their decisions. I
would like to know why the annex is fine for IMAC, but not for us. Are they
somehow better able to decide their sequences? I would imagine few, if any
of these board members fly pattern (I know Dave Brown once flew pattern).
So, what is their problem?

Emory Schroeter.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at nuc.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Annex Proposal


>
> I sent the following two messages to the NSRCA board yesterday for
> comment.  After you've read the messages, you will see why 'time is of
> the essence'.  Since the board members have already had the information
> for more than a day, I thought it was time to make subscribers of the
> NSRCA Discussion List aware of what was happening regarding the annex
> proposal so that there's some time for appropriate comment and action.
>
> The first - 12/6/02, 9:51 A.M.
>
> "I just got a call from Steve Kaluf (AMA's Competition Director).  Steve
> told me that the annex proposal had been reviewed by the AMA Executive
> Council and they were taking a vote about whether to reject it out of
> hand, without sending it to the contest board.  The deadline for the
> vote is next Monday, but the voting is strongly for rejecting the
> proposal.  He offered me a compromise - if I withdraw the proposal, we
> would be given the opportunity for submitting multiple sets of maneuver
> schedules, like FAI has for F3A schedules.  I offered him a compromise -
> insert a contest board veto in the process before maneuver schedule
> publication.  I am going to call Dave Brown and discuss this with him. I
> wanted you to know what was going on because, even though I am the
> proposer, I did it for NSRCA, based on the rules survey results."
>
> The second - 12/6/02, 2:42 P.M.
>
> "I had a long talk with Dave Brown.  As written, the annex proposal is
> dead.  We talked about possible compromises.  The only one I was able to
> support is to rewrite the proposal to include Contest Board approval of
> whatever changes to the maneuver descriptions or maneuver schedules we
> come up with.  The board approval would extend the time required for the
> change process to be accomplished.  We would have to give AMA at least
> 60 days to approve what we would want to publish.  This means we'd have
> to get the changes to the board by about the Nats time frame to make an
> October 1st publication date.
>
> "One big point he made was that the annex proposal should be withdrawn
> before the final AMA Executive Council vote was accepted on whether to
> reject the proposal.  That date is next Monday.  He said that it would
> be more difficult to submit an urgent rule change annex proposal if the
> vote deadline to reject it had passed.  As the proposer, I would really
> like to have the Council go on record as rejecting the annex proposal.
> As an NSRCA member who would like the annex proposal to pass, that would
> probably not be the best option.
>
> "Comments?"
>
> Roin Van Putte
>
>
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#