Rule Change cycle and bigger issues

[Ed Miller]

Eric writes:
"In my mind I see a major disconnect between AMA contest boards and the
value of SIG's/societies. Dave Brown and many contest board members continue
to state the validity of any ONE AMA member submitting a proposal. They also
state that any individual proposal has equal value to that of any NSRCA
proposal"

Seems to me the system is working as designed. We fly an AMA sanctioned
event, AMA is the keeper of the rules and the rules are supposed to serve
the AMA membership. The SIGs are composed of AMA members, so why should an
individual AMA members proposal not be considered with the same weight or
value as that of a SIG's ?? To me the AMA is beholding to it's membership,
not the SIG's. The minute the AMA reduces the weight or value of one of it's
members proposal, it affectively has spit on the hand that feeds it.
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henderson,Eric" <Eric.Henderson at gartner.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: Rule Change cycle and bigger issues


> Let's try this again...
>
>   FYI - from AMA site Comp. dept. (NSRCA process and issue at end of doc)
>
> 2002 Rules Change Cycle Information
>
> The rules change cycle is a three-year cycle.
>
> Year One:  During the first year proposals are accepted and reviewed by
the
> appropriate contest board.
>
> Year Two:  At  the beginning of the second year,  proposals are first
> published in the March issue of Model Aviation.  The contest boards then
do
> an initial vote on each proposal.  Proposals that do not pass the initial
> vote are no longer considered.  The initial vote is completed by a
postmark
> deadline of February 28.
>
> During March,  the initial votes are tabulated and the results distributed
> to all contest board members.  The final wording of all proposals is also
> finalized between the contest boards and the original submitter of each
> proposal. The July issue of Model Aviation contains all of the revised
> proposals and comments on the proposals are accepted from all open AMA
> members.
>
> During this time period cross proposals are also accepted.  Cross
proposals
> are alternate means of accomplishing the objective of a basic proposal
which
> has passed the initial ballot.  Although there is a broad latitude in
> allowing alternative proposals, the original objective of the first
proposal
> should be retained.  Cross proposals are accepted until July 15 of year
two.
> The November issue of Model Aviation (in members hands in late September)
> publishes all cross proposals.  On October 15 the interim vote is sent to
> all contest boards.  This vote is to determine which cross proposals will
be
> retained.  The ballots for the interim vote must be returned to AMA HQ by
> December 1 of year two.
>
> Year Three:  In January of year three, the ballots from the interim vote
are
> tabulated.  The final vote on all proposals and cross proposals that have
> passed the initial and interim votes are sent to the contest boards by
> February 28 of year three.  The ballots for the final vote must be
returned
> to AMA HQ by April 1 of year three.  The August issue of Model Aviation
> publishes the final rule revisions.  During the rest of the year AMA HQ
> generates the manuscript of the new Competition Regulations and sends it
to
> the Contest Boards for review.  In September through October the new
> Competition Regulations are laid out, proof read and sent to the printer.
> In November or December of years three the new version of the Competition
> Regulations are available for distribution to all AMA members that request
a
> copy.
>
> The current rules change cycle began  January 1, 1999.  At that time basic
> rules change proposals began to be accepted by AMA HQ.  Proposals were
> accepted until the postmark date of October 1, 1999.  It is very important
> that if, a proposal concerns you,  make comments to your appropriate
> district contest board member prior to him/her voting on the issue.  The
> contact information for all contest board members may be found monthly in
> Model Aviation or on this web site by clicking the button below.
>
>
> NSRCA Rule change pre-cycle process;-
>
> Now you have to add the NSRCA process and insert it in front of the above.
Our process is a little bit variable but basically we will try to do
something like the following, subject to available time.
>
> 1. Form a Survey committee to come up with all of the questions we want to
ask the membership.
>
> 2. Include the accumulated change questions from the NSRCA Judging
committee.
>
> 3. Design any new schedules etc.
>
> 4. Assemble and actual survey.
>
> 5. Run it by the NSRCA board for verification
>
> 6. Print it in K-factor
>
> 7. Collect all of the responses and tabulate them. (Last time it was
approx. 200 x 65 questions [13,000 and cost me multo-bribe money to son and
girlfriend - took four evenings])
>
> 8. Turn all of the items into written proposals in the AMA format and
documents. Match the change references to the current AMA book - triple sign
each proposal. (30 plus last time)
>
> 9. Go to top of this page.
>
> The NSRCA process can easily take two-plus years. It is well done,
democratically processed and has lots of checks and balances built in. Many
sub-votes take place to get content sorted out etc. rather than any one
person dictating the whole thing. We had around  16 x 4 schedules (4 =
401-404) at one time, that we narrowed down to 2 x 4 for the big maneuver
change survey. Huge amounts of time and huge amounts of work done by twenty
plus volunteers.
>
> The membership votes at around a 20% response - very strong in survey
terms. Then it goes off to the top of the page process and then nearly dies
half a dozen times. (A much longer story)
>
> In my mind I see a major disconnect between AMA contest boards and the
value of SIG's/societies. Dave Brown and many contest board members continue
to state the validity of any ONE AMA member submitting a proposal. They also
state that any individual proposal has equal value to that of any NSRCA
proposal. I would agree if the individual had done the work that the NSRCA
and its members had done.
>
> To be openly frank the system has a basic flaw when one individual can
hold a society's or SIG's work to ransom - it happens, happened, and will
happen again.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric.
>
> ==================# 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.
#