Improving the bureaucracy
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at nuc.net
Tue Dec 10 11:22:54 AKST 2002
You may not be aware, but until yesterday, John Fuqua, the board
chairman, was the only contest board member who knew about the annex
proposal and the AMA EC's vote to reject it. They have taken no action
in this process and, in fact, can't because the EC refused to allow them
to see and act on the proposal. John is one of the two co-signers of
the annex proposal. Tony Stillman is the other. I told John privately
that I thought he should be offended that the AMA EC didn't seem to
trust the board's ability to 'do the right thing' on the proposal.
Ron Van Putte
s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:
> Dear Contest Board Members,
>
> The recent discussion on the NSRCA discussion list is one sided and
> reflects continued support of Ron Van Putte's proposal. Ron's current
> proposal came as a result of a survey effort used within the NSRCA to
> determine the most valuable changes supported by the SIG. Future proposals
> may or may not come from Ron.
>
> It's clear to us that the members of the precision aerobatics SIG are
> interested in the advancement of pattern and are willing to manage and
> administer activities to that aim. Ron Van Putte's proposal to make
> several rules changes, most notably the separation of the class sequences
> into an annex that is written by the NSRCA, appears will be rejected partly
> because of a difference of opinion regarding the value of the AMA contest
> board in the process.
>
> It is reasonable that the AMA president (Dave B) would support the AMA
> contest board. The removal of this body's involvement represents a
> significant change that alters an established team...and there may be value
> here that is unrecognized by the rank and file. Regardless, much has been
> shared with those on the NSRCA list supporting this change. I've been an
> observer/participant in rules discussions for several years and remember
> most of the recent rules changes (urgent change of the intermediate
> sequence, Masters interim sequence, and the current rules cycle).
>
> I'm a believer in simplified buracracies, especially in volunteer
> organizations. Our SIG, the contest board, and the AMA all must add value
> in what they contribute. Some activities may add less value and could be
> eliminated, others should be reinforced. Continuous improvement, and
> introspection, will keep our organization efficient. This applies equally
> to all facets of the AMA organization.
>
> With regard to the sequences, I don't recall the contest board leading the
> proposal, review with the NSRCA, and refinement of the sequences in use.
> The proposal on the table is to move the control to the group that has the
> interest, motivation and ability to execute this process. Can you please
> provide the flip side of this coin?? NSRCA members need to understand what
> value the contest board brings to the process. What are the reasons this
> group should be part of the sequence approval process?
>
> If improvements to our process can be made, we will stand a better chance
> if all the decision makers work together. Hopefully you see that my intent
> is to find a solution. I am an AMA member and active in several SIGs. It
> is all one.
>
> --Lance Van Nostrand
> District 6 AVP
> ----- Forwarded by Lance VanNostrand/249603/US/EKC on 12/10/2002 12:55 PM
> -----
>
> Ron Van Putte
> <vanputte at nuc.net To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: Annex rules proposals
> discussion-reques
> t at nsrca.org
>
>
> 12/10/2002 11:26
> AM
> Please respond to
> discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The bottom line in all the comments about 'lack of detail' is that the
> AMA is unwilling to grant NSRCA the privilege of writing and publishing
> maneuver descriptions and maneuver schedules (that IMAC already has)
> without an approval process by the AMA R/C Aerobatics contest board
> (IMAC doesn't). We can submit a revised proposal with excrutiating
> detail, but it will not pass unless the contest board has approval
> authority. I am not willing to do that.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
> s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:
>
>>The energy on this topic is super valuable. Both James and Emory's
>>letters are well written and persuasive. But I'm afraid we have done a
>>super job of stating our intent without backing it up with the detail
>>that the AMA asked for. Eric H posted the reasons for Ron's proposal
>>rejection. The AMA clearly doesn't want a proposal of ideas, like put
>>the sequences in an annex. They want the idea backed up with a
>>procedure, like timelines for how new sequences are adopted, how
>>published, who runs the process, etc.
>>
>>I had sent my comments on this including my proposal for a controlled
>>process to Ron during his review cycle. He had said at the time he
>>would include these process details in the proposal, but they didn't
>>make it in. I understand the AMA's position. I participate in some of
>>my company's regulatory and operating procedures committees and I
>>understand how these bodies work. They don't want to be held
>>responsible for a process that falls apart and they don't want to be
>>left with the job of implementing someone else's idea.
>>
>>If we want control over this we need to rework our proposal. Ron and
>>Eric (still NSRCA officers for the next 21 days) have talked with AMA
>>officials and should be able to specifically define the AMA's "review
>>comments". We must make proposal updates and resubmit. Maybe even run
>>a draft by Dave Brown before we officially submit to make sure we hit on
>>all buttons. Since Ron and Eric have most of the feedback, then maybe
>>one of them could distribute the original proposal and a list of
>>specific changes that are needed. We could divide up the re-work or
>>have one editor make a new proposal. This is how it works in the real
>>world.
>>
>>--Lance
>
>
>
> =====================================
> # 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.
#
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list