Annex

[Thomas C. Weedon]

Del,
The survey did not ask if the members wanted all schedules to change every
three years. The 3 year cycle is what the AMA wanted. The members can live
with that. If any changes are to be made to the lower classes, it would be
no earlier than year years apart. Of course, Masters will change every three
years according to the survey.

Tom W.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Del Rykert
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 10:03 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Annex


Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought the survey results showed the
membership at large wanted to stay with the 3 year schedule change for all
classes? Why all this effort to circumvent the results of the survey? Did
the NSRCA leaders decide they didn't like the way the membership voted? What
happened to the concern of stability to encourage participation?

     Del K. Rykert
     AMA - 8928
     NSRCA - 473
     Kb2joi - General

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at nuc.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>; "Fuqua John D Contr AAC/YAA"
<john.fuqua at eglin.af.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:12 AM
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| The AMA president said that the annex proposal had to be withdrawn prior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.  Any further attempts to submit the annex proposal as
| an Urgent change proposal will have to go through Dave Brown, according
| to Steve Kaluf.  As the proposer, I am unwilling to support any activity
| which would result in a compromise proposal which included approval
| authority over the annex by the contest board.  Individuals are welcome
| to pursue a compromise annex proposal with my permission.
|
| Ron Van Putte
|
|
| Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
| > --On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:26 AM -0600 Ron Van Putte
| > <vanputte at nuc.net> wrote:
| >
| >> Jerry - The way I read AMAs response is that they want control of the
| >> maneuver descriptions and maneuver schedules.  Everything else is just
| >> window dressing.
| >
| >
| > What I heard is that the AMA wants to be sure that all
| > the procedures are in place and that NSRCA has a commitment
| > to the procedures in order to make them work for all
| > pattern competitors (NSRCA and non-NSRCA).
| >
| > This seems to me not to be a totally unreasonable request.
| >
| >> I won't agree to change the proposal to say that.  End
| >> of story.
| >
| >
| > OK.  You have the right to withdraw your proposal or to
| > let it lapse.
| >
| > The NSRCA has the right to make a new proposal addressing
| > the issues defined by dialogue with the EC.  Perhaps,
| > given the polling data, the NSRCA even has an obligation
| > to make a new proposal.
| >
| >                         Marty #2874
| > =====================================
| > # 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.
#

=====================================
# 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.
#