Bigger issues--Long as usual from me

[Tony Stillman]

Bill:

In this particular case, I don't think so.  Because of the fact that the AMA Executive Board was in on this process (which is very strange in itself!), they are aware of why we wanted this.  

It was worked out so that we have to pick maneuver schedules from a pre-approved listing (annex).  The Contest Board has already approved these maneuvers, if they are on the list.  Now, all that we do is have a new schedule created from the list, and have the CB approve it.  I have been assured that this will virtually be a "rubber stamp" approval, and should no longer than 6 weeks from start to finish.  This can be done at ANY TIME.  We don't have to do this on a 3-year schedule (however, the survey shows that a 3-year cycle for schedule changes is preferred).

No, this is not what we wanted originally, but it is what we could get passed THIS time.  It's kinda like an election where you don't really want either of the candidates, but you end up picking the best one for the circumstances.  

It is my hope that we will be able to wrench away most if not all of the rule making process from the AMA in the next few years.  AMA has made it clear, at least to me, that they don't want the headache, but at the same time, don't want to give any power away.  Things will have to change.  How quickly it happens, I can't tell.  

  
Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:12 AM
  Subject: Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual from me


  Tony:
  It seems to me if we "allow" the board to vote on the Annex, it will still be under their control.  Not a good thing.  It should be under the NSRCA control, or we will be back to square one.  If they vote to accept it, we will still be locked to the AMA for any changes we want to make, with all their procedural mumbo-jumbo, and dilatory delays.  (Been there, Seen that.)   Better that they reject it, and we adopt it.  It can be done.

  Bill Glaze

  Tony Stillman wrote:

    Jerry:

    Yes, I think that is where we are now headed.  AMA wants to start moving the NATS around again.  They only want it held at Muncie every other year, with the SIGS hosting the event in the "off" years.  Well, if this is going to happen, we are going to have to have a little more control on the Pattern rules and processes.  

    This next year will provide more answers.  I'm sure, based on the discussions I am seeing on this list, that we will be pushing the AMA to relinquish more and more control on our event.  There response will determine our future actions.


    Tony Stillman
    Radio South
    3702 N. Pace Blvd.
    Pensacola, FL 32505
    1-800-962-7802
    www.radiosouthrc.com
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:17 PM
      Subject: Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual from me


      In a message dated 11/19/2003 6:52:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbudd at QNET.COM writes:



        >Am I getting a signal from this mailing list that we need to remove 
        >ourselves from AMA and do everything ourselves?

        I think the signal (read message) is that the NSRCA 
        Officers/Leadership need to be willing to explore all reasonable 
        possibilities concerning what is best for the NSRCA membership (the 
        entire membership, not just the F3A community).  If that means 
        backing away from SIG status to achieve the results NSRCA needs then 
        that ought to be considered.  I suspect that it won't get that far 
        though - AMA may be slow and bureaucracy laden, but they're not 
        stupid (well... give me that one if only to make my point!).

        Thx, Jerry



      Jerry, et al

      Not sure how much financial support the AMA gives the various WC Teams; for the Pattern Team, Tony should have a pretty good idea.

      Besides the insurance deal the AMA provides to all and the support for the Team, what other benefit do they provide us? The main one I can think of is the 160,000 +/-voice lobby in Washington, in regard to flying sites for example. In my opinion, breaking totally away from the AMA may not be in our best interest in the long run. 

      Breaking away from the antiquated rules procedures is in our best interest and I would support such a move. 

      My thinking is this: if we were to make our own rules and enforce them as we saw best, it would require that we ignore only the AMA's Pattern related rules. Basically, it would make the AMA Pattern Contest Board totally moot for our purposes. Would that make a difference to AMA? I would guess that they wouldn't like it due to losing their control over Pattern, but what could they really do about it? 

      We would still need to abide by all safety related rules, but that's it. Obviously, without a flying site, the whole excersize becomes moot. The AMA's Washington voice may be feeble, but I'd like to believe that it has helped some of us keep some of these.

      Contest Directors would still apply for the AMA sanctions as they do now, but strictly for safety and insurance concerns. The rules we fly under would be totally our own. The events could still attract non-NSRCA members since they would still be advertised in the MA magazine.

      It seems to me that AMA  policy (lack of monthly reporting and coverage of large Pattern events are two very recent examples) has done quite a bit to alienate us from the fold. This isn't intended as a means to get even or anything silly like that. It seems to me that many of the members are simply fed-up with the ancient processes AMA requires, and they (we) want some things done better, easier, faster. After all, my car insurer isn't telling me how to drive my car. 

      Matt K

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20031120/3e55a3f2/attachment.html