Annex rules proposals

[Ron Van Putte]

There is no time line on a revised submission.  I was told that, unless 
I withdrew the proposal, the issue will be dead until the next cycle.  I 
consider it a threat so that the AMA Executive Council will not have to 
go on record as rejecting the proposal.  I have already asked an 
Executive Council member (a friend) to respond to me in private about 
what is going on.  I asked him about what gave the council the authority 
to interfere in the rule change process.  I will make appropriate parts 
of his response public if he agrees.

I submitted the proposal as an individual, because that's how ALL 
proposals are submitted, regardless of their origin.  The AMA deleted 
our SIG status in the rule change process and now all proposals must go 
through all votes by the contest board.

Ron Van Putte


Buddy Brammer wrote:

> What is the time line on the revised submission and who will handle the 
> details?
> 
> Will we be allowed time by AMA to accomplish this?
> 
> I thought that all of the approved rules change survey items were to be 
> submitted by NSRCA  not as individual personal change request's why was 
> this not done?
> 
> Buddy Brammer
> 
> AMA-3889    NSRCA-1810 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  >From: "Henderson,Eric"
>  >Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>  >To: "Henderson,Eric" , "'discussion at nsrca.org'"
>  >Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals
>  >Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:18:22 -0500
>  >
>  >
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: Henderson,Eric
>  >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:11 PM
>  >To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
>  >Subject: Annex rules proposals
>  >
>  >
>  >Before you all "go off!" on could ask you all to take a moment to read 
> the
>  >following
>  >
>  >I spoke with the AMA on this subject.
>  >
>  >Please bear in mind that this was submitted as a private proposal and 
> not an
>  >NSRCA proposal. The NSRCA survey asked the questions to help Ron with 
> this
>  >proposal but the AMA needs a lot more in the actual proposal to 
> persuade it
>  >to .change.
>  >
>  >The primary reason for the rejection of Ron's proposal was that the 
> proposal
>  >was incomplete. In particular it did not appear to address the 
> following:-
>  >
>  >- Schedule design process (we need a system like the exercise that 
> Troy did
>  >for example)
>  >
>  >- Selection of schedule - (K-factor Ballot for example)
>  >
>  >- Approval process - ( A big issue - who should have this power?)
>  >
>  >- Cycle of change that would be applied (Needs to be very clear)
>  >
>  >- Which classes would be targeted ( 401-403 stability versus Masters need
>  >for refreshing of interest)
>  >
>  >- Role of AMA Contest board - (This is a big deal for all of us to
>  >consider)
>  >
>  >- Annex document printing and management. (Who does this, who 
> maintains it,
>  >and on what cycle and at what cost?)
>  >
>  >The proposal also needs to have compelling logic to persuade and achieve
>  >change. For IMAC they had the need to mirror IAC scale model emulation.
>  >
>  >My advice is that we should not focus on how hard it may or may not have
>  >been to get the AMA to change. To put it in perspective we have done very
>  >well with our proposals in the last few years. We lost one in preliminary
>  >review and one maneuver.
>  >
>  >We really should focus on what we are trying to fix.To make a change 
> of this
>  >nature you need to have a reason that would repair a problem, cause a
>  >positive change in attendance at contests etc. Just the fact that we want
>  >to do this is not enough - never has been enough!
>  >
>  >Steve Kaluf took it to the AMA board because he was not comfortable 
> with it
>  >for the above reasons.
>  >
>  >I would suggest that it was not a good approach to get the discussion 
> list
>  >all stirred up with this item. It does not work well when you put ANY 
> person
>  >or organization in a corner. A better approach would be to rewrite the
>  >proposal with all of the above issues addressed. Put it out for an NSRCA
>  >(NSRCA members who are AMA members) full vote. Then we can go to the AMA
>  >with something that we have voted on, worked on as a group, and justified
>  >with a much better democratically and supported proposal.
>  >
>  >The AMA invitation BTW basically is to resubmit with all of the above
>  >questions addressed.
>  >
>  >Regards,
>  >
>  >Eric.
>  >
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The new MSN 8: <http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2018> smart spam protection and 
> 2 months FREE*


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