Weight is not the issue!

[Larry Diamond]

The NSRCA is no different than our local club (I suspect most clubs). 

Break down of activities:

1) We have 40 paid members.
2) 50% will fly one time per month or less
3) About 10 people fly more than twice per month
4) About 10 to 12 members attend our quarterly meetings
5) About 5 actually lead the activities.

In summary, 25% of the members decide the destiny of the club. The rest follow and only care to fly when they want.

Larry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Buddy Brammer 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:49 PM
  Subject: Re: Weight is not the issue!


  If the intrest is such that we only have 20% of those flying pattern who vote then how in the world are we going to get those outside of pattern to try it? As I said before it is up to those in pattern to use every means possible to maintain the intrest of those already flying pattern.

  An 80% vote on important issues would indicate to me that pattern is alive and well. First of all I believe that most of the people who did not vote failed to vote for reasons other than lack of intrest. What are they? Every one is trying to figure out why new people are not stepping up to try pattern when it looks to me we need to search out our internal problems and make an effort to solve them. If I dont care and you dont care then who does? 

  Just searching for answers. Is anyone even interested?

  Buddy      



  >From: WHIP23 at aol.com 
  >Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  >To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  >Subject: Re: Weight is not the issue! 
  >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:45:26 EST 
  > 
  >In a message dated 11/17/02 8:51:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
  >buddybrammer35 at hotmail.com writes: 
  > 
  > > 
  > > In relation to my and Tom's previous post, I am of the belief and am sure 
  > > that everyone would like to see a majority of our members express their 
  > > position on rules change issues. With that in mind I believe that NSRCA 
  > > should devise a plan that might improve voter response to the issues. This 
  > > could possibly be accomplished by having a district repersentative assigned 
  > > to get out the vote and having that repersentative assign local people to 
  > > try to get each member that is assigned to him to vote. everyone will 
  > > benefit if we could achieve a majority concensus from the entire 
  > > membership. we go to great length's to define the changes required which 
  > > should be considered but I think we could do more in the area of getting 
  > > more people to vote. 
  > > This will minimize the on going discussion of the so called dead horse 
  > > issues. Many people are not comfortable when 20% of the whole are making 
  > > the decissions, because no matter why the 80% did not vote it cannot be 
  > > deturmined what the and majority concinsus is. 
  > > NSRCA is for the members by the members and if the real reason that 80% 
  > > did not vote is that they were just not interested then this indicates to 
  > > me that our membership will continue to decline. I really don't think that 
  > > is the case, So what can we do to improve the situitation? 
  > > Buddy 
  > > 
  > > 
  > 
  >Boy this is going to get me flamed, but the vote was taken, all NSRCA members 
  >had a chance to vote, if some don't care enough to vote then why should we 
  >care about what they think of the results of the vote? We can't get enough 
  >"volunteer labor" to do what needs to be done, why waste time trying to get 
  >people to vote who are not interested enough to do so on their own. There 
  >are a few who make this thing (NSRCA) go, we don't need to waste their time 
  >holding the hands of those who CHOSE not to vote. If you don't vote, you 
  >agree, by default, to let those who do vote make the decisions for you, it's 
  >that simple. 
  > 
  >Flame on 
  > 
  >Bob 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021117/d21a08be/attachment.html