rules proposals final result

[Atwood, Mark]

Whoops!  I missed the "Logical reasoning" category...LOL   I pick THAT one! :)

-Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Atwood, Mark 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 9:34 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: rules proposals final result


Ok...I was hesitant to open this up...but since I feel I don't fall into any of those categories...I should probably respond.

I'm new to the contest board so I can't speak to why the annex wasn't voted on...I certainly would have been for it (have been for years), but specifically which issues are being found to be so 'vindictive" and I'll see if I can shed light on at least the reasoning behind MY vote...I can't speak for the others, though I'm sure many monitor this list...

-Mark Atwood
AMA District III 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Ferrell [mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 9:23 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result


It would be very interesting to hear the reasoning behind the votes.
Is it:
 apathy?
 ignorance?
 some logical reasoning?
 an effort to restrict interest & growth?
 some personal vendetta?
 a perceived threat to AMA or some element thereof?
 jealousy?
 or maybe even a just a need to show who is really the boss....
 All of the above?

Considering how helpful and considerate some of the Muncie folks are, I know
the apparent hostility to the Pattern discipline is not unanimous.
Perhaps the intended message is that the NSRCA exists to serve the AMA
rather than the membership. The only viable relationship is for the NSRCA to
be positioned to serve both.

Perhaps the time has come for two sets of rules... Nats Rules(AMA) and NSRCA
Rules. The NSRCA rules would reflect the needs of the membership. The
management of the governing body (AMA) has abandoned the responsibility of
leadership.

We can allow the current rulings to weaken us or we can use the adversarial
position to strengthen us. If we allow the rulings to divide us, we are sure
to lose whatever clout we have now. If we hang together, we can make this a
battle they will regret winning.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Cc: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at gdsys.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result


>
> On May 6, 2004, at 9:26 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> > That was decided BEFORE this vote.  It was NOT on the ballot (Since
> > I'm new to the process I can't answer why...I just know I didn't get
> > to vote on it (I surely would have said just...I've wanted it for a
> > long time)
>
> I submitted the initial proposal, which included an annex of maneuver
> descriptions and maneuver schedules, controlled by the NSRCA.  Steve
> Kaluf sent it to the AMA Executive Council, recommending that they
> refuse to accept it, so they did.  I was so PO'd that I washed my hands
> of it.  John Fuqua and Tony Stillman took the proposal and rewrote it,
> giving the R/C Aerobatics contest board final approval of anything
> NSRCA came up with (we can't be trusted to write maneuver descriptions
> and schedules without parental supervision).  The vote on that proposal
> failed because some of the contest board members FAILED TO VOTE.
> That's why we are where we are.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>


=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

============# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

==================# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.