Annex rules proposals

[Tony Stillman]

Buddy:

There are no "NSRCA" proposals.  There is no place on the form to send it as such.  Each proposal has to be submitted by a PERSON, not organization with two co-signers.  

This was addressed in the survey, but was left for Ron to work out the details.  Apparently, AMA is using the lack of completeness issue to not allow it to be submitted.  

I don't really know anymore details, other than Ron did send it to the NSRCA board for input, and received none, at least that's what he told me.  So, perhaps we are all to blame as Ron said.  

The issue now is to decide which is the best way to proceed to get this resolved in our favor.  I am not on the NSRCA board until Jan 15, so the current leadership will have to step in and see what can be done.  Hopefully, and extension of time will be allowed, and some specific problem issues that AMA has can be addressed and resolved.  

Tony Stillman
Radio South, Inc.
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, Fl 32505
www.radiosouthrc.com
800-962-7802
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Buddy Brammer 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:39 AM
  Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals


  Eric

  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: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021209/0e8653ca/attachment.html