rules proposals final result

[patterndude at comcast.net]

John,
The interesting thing is that the RCA05-05 TO/L rule change was submitted by an NSRCA member that had full knowledge of the NSRCA survey results.  The NSRCA survey is designed to collect the opinions of the membership and we tend to view it as a democratic process. But given the hierarchical reporting of the SIG to the AMA, someone not falling in step with the survey results cna submit a proposal which gets the same consideration and visibility as change proposals submitted by this SIG as a result of the survey.
   If this doesn't change, then it is doubly important that there is an active communication channel from the NSRCA to the contest board members.  I applaud Don Atwood for thinking, reflecting, soliciting input and voting.  I wish I knew how the others prepared for their vote.  I fear that they may just assume that if the proposal came from an NSRCA member, then it reflects the will of the SIG.
--Lance

--
District 6 AVP
www.aeroslave.com
> 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.