Annex

[Larry Ott]

Thanks Ron,

It would seem that the next step would be to modify the annex
proposal to include the "details", presumably as outlined by
Eric and yourself. Try to follow as closely as possible the one
that IMAC used. Most importantly, do not include any compromise
that allows oversight by the Contest Board. This will put the
ball back in the EC's court and force them  to say no on the
basis of wanting control. This will also set up the question
of why was IMAC allow this freedom and we are not.

Reading between the lines, the biggest issue is "why" does the
NSRCA want to do this? If we can't present a "good" reason,
i.e., the betterment of pattern etc, then Dave Brown and the
EC will not consider the proposal and it is over. If no reason
exists other than control, then we are barking up the wrong tree
anyway.

If after all this the EC says no, then other measures that have
been suggested can be discussed. Before we try to do it according
to the "rules" (Dave Brown's and the EC's) the retaliation ideas
only inflame and harden the hearts of everyone.

just my 0.02

Larry Ott - AMA 9872
          - NSRCA 3381

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Cc: Fuqua John D Contr AAC/YAA; Steve Kaluf
> Subject: Re: Annex
>
>
>
>
> Larry Ott wrote:
> > See below for questions.
> >
> >
> >>Subject: Re: Annex
> >>
> >>
> >>The AMA president said that the annex proposal had to be
> >>withdrawn prior to official completion of the AMA Executive
> >>Council vote or the proposal was 'dead' until the next rule
> >>change cycle.  The EC vote was completed at noon yesterday.
> >
> >
> > 1. What was the result of the vote?
>
> I don't know the result of the vote.  On Friday I was
> informed that, for
> the votes already received, it was unanimous for rejection
> of the proposal.
>
> > 2. Have you been informed by Steve Kaluf as to what authority the
> >    EC had to intervene?
>
> Steve Kaluf cited ARTICLE XII Competition Jurisdiction
> Section 6. "The
> Executive Council shall retain power over Contest Board actions and
> procedures which may create unforeseen legal or conflicting policy
> questions for the AMA."
>
> Hmmm.  It seems that IMAC and NSRCA have 'conflicting
> policy questions'.
>
> > 3. Also, under what authority does Dave Brown have to state that
> >    the proposal is "dead" until the next rules cycle?
>
> He didn't cite Dave Brown's authority to make that
> statement.  He did
> say, "You should also note the voting was completed at noon
> yesterday.
> Any further provisions for alternate proposals will have to be
> coordinated with Dave Brown as it seems he gave you a hard
> cut off with
> the end of the voting."
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron 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.
#