Annex Proposal

[Terry Terrenoire]

SCREW the Council! Let's tell them that if they don't approve, EVERY CD
will state in their sanction that he will be flying the NSRCA sequence.
It is the CD's right to make changes, if advance notice is given. Then we
quit submiting sequence changes to AMA, and let them swing in the wind!

Terry T.

On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:18:24 -0600 Ron Van Putte <vanputte at nuc.net>
writes:
> 
> 
> Emory Schroeter wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> The Executive Council members' email addresses are in header of 
> their 
> Model Aviation columns.
> 
> The 'sticking point' appears to be their loss of control of the 
> maneuvers and sequences.  I agree that IMAC already has the freedom 
> we 
> want and the Council does not want to relinquish any more control.
> 
> Ron Van Putte
> 
> > 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.
> > #
> > 
> 
> 
> =====================================
> # 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.
#