Annex Proposal

[Ron Van Putte]

Dan Curtis wrote:

> Before I could make any comments I think I would need to know if the
> person/persons that you spoke with had any logical reason for this proposal
> being dead so fast...what is going on??
> 
> Just looking for the facts I guess.  Easy to say know to something but
> sometimes hard to have a good reason.


The person I talked with is Dave Brown, the AMA president.  He sent a 
recommendation to the AMA Executive Council that they reject the annex 
proposal and not send it to the R/C Aerobatics Contest Board. 
Apparently the votes in so far are going along with his recommendation.

Ron Van Putte

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at nuc.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 12:46 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.
> #
> 


=====================================
# 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.
#