Annex rules proposals

[Thomas C. Weedon]

Perhaps, in the future,  we should all submit our own proposals to the AMA
individually and not bother going through the NSRCA. This seems to be the
preferred method.
Tom W.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of Tony Stillman
  Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:39 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Annex rules proposals


  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/20021209/5936f3e7/attachment.html