Annex Fresh Idea

[Troy Newman]

Once again another speaks out that not all pattern flyers are NSRCA members!

Sounds like a recurring theme?



We all know the reasons.... they have been hashed many times....I think part of our problem is we believe that we(NSRCA) are the sole keeper of the flame....and to be honest....We are not. We were invited to the game. We did start it, and we won't be finishing it either.

Sure we can take our marbles and go home but that doesn't serve anyone's interest. We did that in 94 with the N-PAC event.


I'm curious why we as the NSRCA are so close minded to non-NSRCA members......?

Does our $30 a year give us the right make rules and exclude others from having input on the subject.....This is all done under the holy veil of membership.....This exclusion of non-members is what is driving us down...not because we don't have sexy website...or we don't have a perfect KF, or we don't have press recognition in the magazines, or because we are not quick enough in changing our sequences in order to compete with the other Aerobatics kid in town.


I think we are so concerned about new members...me included that we don't include people that are not members...The answer is "Well Join up and get the info."  

I've been guilty of this also...Maybe we need to open our doors and open our minds....If we invite the neighborhood in with the idea of a BBQ....and expect them to bring all the food how many will show?

We need to give them a reason to be here and not a reason to stay away!


Thanks for sticking with us Chuck!!!! We are glad to have you and your insight.


Troy

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Czarnik
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:00 AM
To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
Subject: RE: Annex Fresh Idea

I agree with Troy's thoughts below and elsewhere in proceeding slowly or not at all with the annex.   All of the issues that Eric et. al. have mentioned that were concerns of AMA with the Annex seem valid to me and it seems to be a tall order to figure all of it out and get written up for this rules cycle, assuming that AMA lets us revise in the first place before 2005.  I do have two thoughts on the AMA response that I haven't seen addressed.

First, the discussion has focused on a comparison between us and IMAC.  But the CB's and EC handle 13 other sets of competition regulations.  I haven't read them all, but I haven't found annexes referenced in any that I have checked other than IMAC.  And in the last rules change cycle, the initial vote showed IMAC being turned down in an attempt to move the Judging / Flying school to the Annex.  Given that IMAC has ties to both the IAC and AMA, and lack of annexes elsewhere, and has failed in at least one of their attempts, should we treat the IMAC annex as an anomaly and regard the AMA as generally unresponsive to the annex idea?

My second thought regards the responsibility of the AMA to its modelers that it represents.  It has been made very clear in this forum that the NSRCA is not interested in AMA input on its rules change proposals.  That point was demonstrated to me personally several months ago when I mistakenly offered to fill out an NSRCA survey and provide an AMA opinion before I joined the sig.  And it has been made clear again in our stance in not wanting any CB involvement in a proposed annex.  Creating an annex with no CB oversight removes input from the AMA and its members through the rules change process for everything that gets moved from the AMA rulebook.  And there appears to be no mechanism or current climate to solicit those opinions if there were an annex without CB involvement.  NSRCA Constitution Article III Section 2 item a. states that the purpose of the society is to "Act as a focal point for rules development and progression.  Gather intelligence from the AMA precision aerobatics community to provide the basis for AMA rules change proposals."  Isn't the RC Aerobatics CB and the AMA membership base that they represent the "AMA precision aerobatics community" that we are supposed to gather intelligence from?  I'm sure this isn't going to make me popular, but it looks to me like we either need to write an annex proposal that includes the input of this community through proposal and/or voting rights, or re-write our own constitution.

Apologies if this is a naive view.  I would like to take the approach of asking how the AMA can help us and how we can partner with them instead of trying to figure out how we can get them out of our way!  If the issue is a rules change cycle that is too long, or limited URP's, move relevant parts of the rulebook verbatim to an annex, add a change mechanism modeled from the AMA's that moves more quickly, and keep a CB vote in.  I just don't see why it is so critical that we get the CB out of our hair.  My $.02  ChuckGet more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021211/94d20833/attachment.html