Annex Proposal

[Adam Glatt]

Now _that_ is democracy =>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Terrenoire" <amad2terry at juno.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: December 7, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Annex Proposal


> 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.
> #
> 
> 

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